Topic: Government and Politics

Divided Government May Help Restore the Republican Party

By
William A. Niskanen

For the moment, the Democrats are expected to win control of one or both houses of Congress in the congressional election this fall.  That may have two strongly beneficial effects on the Republican Party:

  1. More congressional Republicans will rediscover their commitment to fiscal responsibility when most of the proposals for increased spending originate in a house of Congress controlled by the Democrats.  For the past five years, in contrast, congressional Republicans approved almost all proposals for increased spending by the Republican president or their party colleagues. 
  2. More social conservatives will rediscover their commitment to federalism in order to protect the authority to address value issues by state governments when it becomes clear that there is no political opportunity for federal decisions on these issues.  With the first unified Republican federal government in 50 years, in contrast, social conservatives have been motivated to propose federal political decisions on these issues for which there is no national consensus.

The combination of a long unnecessary war, the fiscal excesses disguised as compassionate conservatism, and an intolerant social agenda has almost destroyed the traditional Republican political coalition, leaving many of us without any enthusiasm for the candidates and policies of either party.  The first step to restoring the Republican Party, ironically, may be a Democratic victory in the congressional election this fall.

Several years in the political wilderness may do much to clear the mind.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics

Welcome to the Blackout Period! NOT

By
John Samples

Today McCain-Feingold’s 60-day window on electioneering communications opens. Perhaps a better metaphor would be that the window slams shut.

An electioneering communication is a broadcast ad that mentions a candidate for federal office. Until election day you cannot sponsor an electioneering communication unless you meet certain conditions specified by federal election law.

Practically, this part of McCain-Feingold means business corporations, labor unions, many interest groups (which are incorporated), and groups that receive money from corporations or unions may not fund ads mentioning candidates for federal office. The same groups also may not sponsor ads urging citizens to contact their member of Congress about an issue if that member is running for re-election.

Defenders of McCain-Feingold (and a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court) have argued that the electioneering communication rules do not prohibit political speech. After all, these groups can simply form a political action committee or use other available alternatives to sponsor the advertising.

Maybe, maybe not. In 2000, a donor gave the NAACP a multi-million dollar gift that was used to fund ads criticizing a candidate for federal office, George W. Bush. Under McCain-Feingold, the NAACP would have had to raise that multi-million dollar donation under federal law including disclosure requirements and contribution limits. Raising money under those constraints is much harder than receiving a single gift from one donor. Given those difficulties, the NAACP might well have not raised as much money with a PAC as they did in 2000 from that one contributor. Of course, funds that are not raised cannot be spent on political speech.

Jim Bopp, Jr., a leading First Amendment lawyer, has recently noted other ways McCain-Feingold discourages speech:

 “As one who represents advocacy groups, I have seen first hand that the burdens and undesirability of each available alternative [for example, PACs]  is such that the vast majority of advocacy groups have abandoned issue advertising during the blackout periods… One of the key considerations is that to avail oneself of one of these alternatives requires (1) hiring expert legal assistance to design and implement such strategies and (2) exposing your organization to heightened scrutiny by the FEC, press, and offended public officials.  As a result, only the wealthiest, most sophisticated, and most insistent have assumed these burdens and risks.  The vast majority of advocacy groups have just dropped out – to the everlasting joy of incumbent politicians who face less scrutiny from the general public for what they do to us and for us in office.  A prohibition indeed!”

I am reminded of Frederic Bastiat’s essay on “The Seen and the Unseen.” Americans see the political world after McCain-Feingold. Electoral ads continue to run, and no one has been sentenced to a re-education camp. They conclude that nothing all that bad has happened to free speech.

Americans do not see the political speech that would have existed if McCain-Feingold had not been enacted. They thus discount the possibility that the speech that may not exist in the future may be their own and that blackout periods now may portend a longer night to come.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics, Law and Civil Liberties, Political Philosophy

Big Day

By
David Boaz

Today the U.S. government hands over control of the Iraqi army to the Iraqis and takes control of American political debate.

Incredibly, the McCain-Feingold ban on independent broadcast advertising that mentions candidates by name, beginning 60 days before the election, is apparently not mentioned in any major media. The blackout period for free speech has been noted in newspapers by such civil libertarians as Ryan Sager, Jacob Sullum, and the D.C. Examiner. But no news stories warning people to stop talking about candidates. No editorials from major papers deploring this restriction on political speech before an election. Nor even any editorials hailing the new restrictions, which might be more likely since most major papers endorsed the McCain-Feingold legislation.

What would McCain, Feingold, and the New York Times say if the U.S.-backed government in Iraq banned any criticism of itself for the next 60 days? Would they say “one giant step toward democracy”? I doubt it.

Anyway, if you want to criticize a member of Congress, or just ask your neighbors to call him about an issue, you’re free to do that – starting November 8.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics, Law and Civil Liberties

Gingrich’s Big Government Manifesto

By
Michael D. Tanner

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is reportedly planning to run for president in 2008, hoping to ride a wave of nostalgia for the Republican revolution of 1994 to the nomination.   Admittedly, the current Republican Congress is so bad on so many issues, that Gingrich’s tenure looks like the good old days.   But anyone who seriously believes that Gingrich is a small-government conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, should look at the new Contract with America-style manifesto that Newt has proposed as the basis for Republicans to campaign on this fall.

Much of the proposal is simple pandering to various base groups.  Confronted with the many serious problems facing this country, Newt proposes that Republicans base their campaign on such crucial issues as declaring English to be the national language, forbidding the courts from considering cases involving the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, and creating a national voter ID card.   Many other proposals would explicitly increase the size of government.  For example, Gingrich would expand No Child Left Behind to create national teacher competency standards.

Gingrich does call for Congress to cut spending.  Well, not exactly.  He does not actually call for any specific spending cuts.  What he proposes is budget legislation that would lead to a balanced budget in seven years.  Perhaps balancing the budget takes so long because he wants to spend so much more on a national energy policy.  Gingrich proposes an array of subsidies to every conceivable energy interest group and project from ethanol to hydrogen-powered cars.  Of course, there’s nothing in Gingrich’s manifesto about reforming entitlement programs.  That’s hardly surprising—Gingrich supported the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Gingrich does embrace a couple of good ideas, such as making permanent the repeal of the death tax and overturning the Kelo Supreme Court decision.  But, in general, Gingrich seems to be calling for the Republican Party to continue its march toward big government conservatism.  Goldwater and Reagan must be spinning in their graves.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics

What Washington Thinks of You

By
David Boaz

For a hint of what Washington bureaucrats think of the rest of the America, take a look at this letter to the Wall Street Journal:

You say the average federal civil worker makes more than the average private sector worker. That’s true, but this isn’t even an apples and oranges comparison – it’s more apples and filet mignon. The federal government doesn’t sell fast food or operate large-scale retail stores using minimum-wage employees. So yes, medical researchers at the National Institutes of Heath [sic] and the Centers for Disease control [sic] are paid more than entry-level workers at McDonald’s. Yes, intelligence analysts in the Department of Defense and State Department diplomats working under harsh conditions around the world are paid more than Wal-Mart greeters. And, yes, the thousands of dedicated doctors and nurses caring for our wounded and disabled veterans in the Department of Veterans Affairs are paid more than a new barrista [sic] at Starbucks.

Max Stier
President
Partnership for Public Service
Washington

Max Stier, a lobbyist on behalf of government, whose official biography boasts that he “has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government,” sees medical research and intelligence analysis when he thinks of the federal government. And when he thinks of the 124 million Americans who work in the private sector, he can only imagine McDonald’s clerks, Wal-Mart greeters, and Starbucks coffee servers. Stereotypes, anyone?

As I wrote a few years ago, some people in Washington look across the fruited plain and see only a vast and barren wasteland interrupted by federal bureaucracies.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in 1992, “The ballot box is the place where all change begins in America”–conveniently forgetting the market process that has brought us such changes as the train, the skyscraper, the automobile, the personal computer, and charitable or self-help endeavors from settlement houses to Alcoholics Anonymous to Comic Relief.

Entrepreneurs and businesses in America satisfy far more of our needs than coffee, Big Macs, and cheap clothes, as useful as those things are. Housing, for instance. Planes, trains, and automobiles. Software and computer networks. Entertainment. Medical research. (Yes, there’s some done at NIH. There’s more done by pharmaceutical companies.) Compound interest. In that earlier article, inspired by the latest proposals for some niggling regulations of banking services, I suggested:

Consider the presumptuousness of such a bill and the relative contributions of banks and senators to our lives. Civil society, hampered at every turn by petty political rules, takes thousands of years to develop the technology, the complex market mechanisms, and the levels of trust necessary for individuals to be able to get cash, at midnight, in an airport or a 7-Eleven thousands of miles from home, from a bank that they do no other business with–and members of Congress decide that the bank shouldn’t be able to charge a dollar for that service. Imagine what kind of banking services we’d have if we had to wait for Congress to develop the necessary institutions, and then imagine what we might have if Congress got entirely out of the business of controlling, hamstringing, and bullying banks.

Has Max Stier ever tried to do business with American Express and the Social Security Administration, Federal Express and the U.S. Postal Service, McDonald’s and the DMV? His demeaning of 124 million American workers in the attempt to defend the above-market wage rates of bureaucrats is laughable. But it’s also insulting, and utterly revealing of the Washington mindset.

Topics: 
General, Government and Politics

Homebuilder of the Century

By
David Boaz

From Walter Scott’s “Personality Parade” in Parade Magazine (to be posted here soon):

Q: How much time do former President Carter and wife Rosalyn devote to their Habitat for Humanity projects?

A: Since 1984, they have spent one week each year on Habitat projects, helping to construct 2,733 new homes.

Topics: 
Government and Politics

Dumb and Dumberer?

By
Andrew J. Coulson

Tonight, ABC will rerun its 20/20 special, “Stupid in America,” which exposes our monopoly school system for what it is: a remarkably dumb — and harmful — idea.

Central planning has been thoroughly discredited in every other field of human exchange over the past half-century. But, for some reason, we still cling to our public school politburos.

Tonight, you can see John Stossel summarizing some of the human and financial costs of our dumbitude.

Topics: 
Education and Child Policy, Government and Politics

Pages