Over at the Guardian, I argue that no one who values duty, honor, and country would put Mike Huckabee a heartbeat from the presidency.
Over at the Guardian, I argue that no one who values duty, honor, and country would put Mike Huckabee a heartbeat from the presidency.
Details are murky, but Senator Dodd appears to want to spend many billions on a new federal agency to buy-up undefined “distressed” mortgages at less than their original value.
Suppose Mr. Jones has a $300,000 mortgage on a house now worth $250,000. The new agency would offer to pay off the loan for $250,000 and then let Jones stay in the house with a new $250,000 mortgage that would then be guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority (which ultimately means the U.S. taxpayer). FHA would debase its customary lending standards.
If banks and mortgage service companies are willing to write-off a large part of the value of some mortgages, why would we need to put U.S. taxpayers at risk? Why couldn’t each borrower simply negotiate a new contract, as hundreds of thousands have already done (though usually for a lower interest rate rather than forgiveness of principal).
If a home owner or speculator like Mr. Jones could get a smaller mortgage through a government agency by not making payments and threatening to default, that would create a huge moral hazard. His neighbors would resent his special treatment, and threaten to default on their loans too.
Since everyone would rather have a smaller mortgage than a larger mortgage, there would be rationing problem of deciding who is or is not worthy for such special treatment. Such priorities are likely to be based on political considerations rather than sensible economics or risk management.
Since Mr. Jones is already seriously delinquent on the current mortgage, he may well have a history of not paying other bills and therefore a poor (subprime) credit rating. There is no good reason to expect that he will not also default on the new FHA mortgage. Risky loans still remain risky, but because of the FHA guarantee that risk would be shifted to taxpayers.
This scheme would convert a localized mortgage problem into a national mortgage scandal.
The New Republic runs an article on the New York Times’ decision to hire Bill Kristol, and provides the short list of candidates for the spot:
[L]ast fall, [Times publisher Arthur] Sulzberger and Times editorial-page editor Andrew Rosenthal prepared a list of some 25 conservative writers. According to a person with knowledge of the search, the names included Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, The Atlantic’s Ross Douthat, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations Max Boot and three Weekly Standard staffers: senior editor Christopher Caldwell, associate editor Matthew Continetti, and the magazine’s editor and founder, Bill Kristol. On December 30, Sulzberger selected Kristol, who gave up his column at Time magazine for the Times appointment.
This is really pretty striking. Every author mentioned is an ardent supporter of the welfare-warfare state, with admittedly varying emphases. Douthat’s focus, for example, has been on attempting to craft a European Christian Democrat-style conservatism that fuses political sops to social conservatives to economic populism (read: “expanding the welfare state”) in an attempt to buy middle class votes. Max Boot and Charles Krauthammer, by contrast, have focused more on urging the United States into pointless and massively destructive foreign wars, the first of which has already killed more Americans than 9/11 and sucked half a trillion dollars from taxpayers’ pockets.
I’m loath to predict political outcomes. Maybe as a political matter this sort of thing will sell. But abandoning conservative economic principles in the pursuit of political success and simultaneously indulging the worst jingoist excesses of neoconservatism is a positively revolting platform. Looking at the slate of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, maybe this new welfare-warfare fusionism has legs. But it certainly doesn’t offer very much to libertarians.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has campaigned strongly on the theme that she is the most experienced candidate for president, “ready on day one” to handle the challenges of the world’s toughest job. As the New York Times says, “She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her ‘eight years with a front-row seat on history.’” I think she has a point. I’ve said for months that she can credibly claim to be the best-prepared presidential candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940: she spent eight years in the White House, seeing the way politics and policies work from the eye of the storm. I accept that, more than any other First Lady, she was heavily involved in both policy and politics.
But then that raises a problem: If she does have eight years’ experience in the White House, and if we are once again going to get two presidents for the price of one, doesn’t that violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? After the FDR experience, Americans decided that we never again wanted one person to serve as president for that long. Indeed, it’s surprising just how fast they came to that conclusion. Roosevelt, we’re told, was a beloved president, the man who ended the Great Depression and won the war, who died before his final victory was complete. Yet within two years of his death Congress had passed the 22nd Amendment, and within another four years three-fourths of the states had ratified it. That’s how strongly people felt that we should never again let a president, no matter how great or how admired, serve more than eight years in the most powerful position in the world.
Today the Clintons campaign side by side, hailing the success of their eight years in the White House and promising to “get America back to the solutions business,” back to “the best economy that our country has seen in a generation.” There’s talk of “another co-presidency.” Just note how many news stories these days refer to “the Clintons” and their campaign and their policy agenda. There are no such references to “the Obamas” or “the McCains.”
Legally, of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton has not previously served as president. She is no less eligible for election to the presidency than was George W. Bush, the son of a president. But the intent of the 22nd Amendment, the spirit of a presidential term limit, is to ensure that no one person holds that vast power for so long. When the federal government and the presidency were vastly less powerful than today, George Washington thought that a republic should not be led by one man for more than eight years. His example set a standard for the American republic until that republic encountered the powerlust of Franklin D. Roosevelt, after which we made George Washington’s example a legal rule.
In weighing the candidates this year, we should consider whether “co-presidents” should be entitled to four terms in the Oval Office rather than the prescribed two.
NOTE: Click here for some reflections on governing teams Bill and Hillary Clinton, George and Lurleen Wallace, and Ma and Pa Ferguson.
Here’s the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1913 (“Lobbying with appropriated moneys”):
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to any such Member or official, at his request, or to Congress or such official, through the proper official channels, requests for any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business, or from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352 (a) of title 31.
Now here is some language from a Department of Justice Web site called lifeandliberty.gov:
FISA 101: Why FISA Modernization Amendments Must Be Made Permanent
FISA Amendments In The Protect America Act Of 2007 Remain Necessary To Keep Our Nation Safe
The Protect America Act modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide our intelligence community essential tools to acquire important information about terrorists who want to harm America. The Act, which passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2007, restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of persons in the United States, while not acting as an obstacle to gathering foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. By enabling our intelligence community to close a critical intelligence gap that existed before the Act became law, the Protect America Act has already made our Nation safer.
The tools provided by the Protect America Act are scheduled to expire in early February 2008 – it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation permanent. Congress must also pass legislation to provide meaningful liability protection to those alleged to have assisted our Nation following the 9/11 attacks.
A public DoJ Web site that says “it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation permanent” seems designed to influence Members of Congress. It was probably created and is maintained through the expenditure of appropriated funds. Did Congress expressly authorize this? Is a public Web site “proper official channels”? Did the Attorney General find that failing to advocate for this law would interfere with national security?
It looks like this Web site violates the law, but it’s hard bein’ a country lawyer here in the big city.
Readers may have noticed that the fringes of the blogosphere have been aflame with attacks on the Cato Institute and several of our staff members—and former staff members, and former Board members, and occasional writers, and friends, and people we once met at a cocktail party—all because of our attempt to separate the grand old cause of classical liberalism from racism and bigotry.
Readers may also have noticed that we haven’t responded to any of these attacks. I published one statement setting forth my view that people who write racist newsletters “are not our comrades, not part of our movement.” And that’s been the extent of our response. (Though of course a few of my colleagues who maintain private blogs have written about the current controversy there.)
Indeed, you might note that this blog has never mentioned the name of the proprietor of the website where many of the vicious attacks have appeared, who is also widely reported to be the author of those reprehensible passages that have so embarrassed his political patron. Some people tell us they deplore “libertarian infighting.” Well, I’d make two responses to that: We’re not fighting. And people who defend racist writings (though almost never by actually quoting them, I note) are not what I’d call libertarians.
Let it not be thought that by ignoring these critics we tacitly concede their wild accusations and innuendos. Many of the things that have been written about us are false, or intentionally misleading, or wildly conspiratorial, or frankly nuts. (Of course, a few of the charges are true. I do in fact live near the Orange Line of the Washington Metro, and Reason magazine’s Washington office is on the Red Line, and red is next to orange in the color spectrum.) The reason we’ve refrained from answering these libels stems from a bit of folk wisdom I learned growing up in the South: Never wrestle with a pig; in the first place, you get dirty; and in the second place, the pig likes it.
Besides, we’d rather take on bigger game. My colleagues and I will continue to spend our time arguing with big-government liberals and big-government conservatives, criticizing the Iraq war and the federal tax code, publishing the ideas of Bastiat, Mises, and Hayek in languages around the world, and skewering wasteful and unconstitutional government programs.
But I’ll take just a moment to repeat what I said a few days ago:
Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them.
Thank God we have Congress to run our lives:
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur [(D-Ohio)] came to a House committee hearing on Thursday prepared to ask U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson tough questions about his involvement in the subprime mortgage crisis.
Unfortunately, she was questioning the chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The Ohio Democrat, at a House of Representatives Budget Committee hearing, said she wanted to know what Wall Street firms were responsible for the securitization of subprime mortgages.
She then asked: “Seeing as how you were the former CEO of Goldman Sachs…” But the only person testifying at the hearing interrupted.
“No, no, no, you’re confusing me with the Treasury Secretary,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
“I’ve got the wrong firm? Paulson, Oh, OK. Where were you sir?” Kaptur said.
Bernanke noted that he was head of the Princeton University economics department.
I guess her staff didn’t brief her very well. But really, if she can’t tell the difference between the secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, should she be overseeing the budget of the United States government?
And you know how critics of term limits say that we don’t want to lose all the expertise of the experienced members of Congress? Representative Kaptur has been in Congress for 25 years. I guess that expertise will be kicking in real soon.
Hat tip: Jon Henke.
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.