Topic: Government and Politics

Abortion Restrictions, Desperate Women, and Children Without Smiles

Moebius syndrome is a neurological disorder that causes facial paralysis, impaired speech, limb deformities such as club foot, difficulties eating, autism and an inability to smile. Moebius syndrome may have genetic roots but is also caused by misoprostol, a drug commonly used to induce abortions. In Brazil, where elective abortions are illegal, misoprostol is cheap and readily available. Moebius syndrome appears in 20% of children born after failed misoprostol abortions. Unfortunately, misoprostol abortions are also not very effective and 80% result in the pregnancy going to term. “Since the mid-1990s, dozens of cases of Moebius syndrome have been linked to misoprostol.” See the May 11, 2007 issue of Science [pdf].

More Special-Interest Favors for Fannie and Freddie

Created by politicians and bolstered by aggressive lobbying, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-private companies with special access to funds and special regulatory exemptions. With the playing field dramatically tilted in their direction, these morgage-industry behemoths are accumulating ever-larger portfolios. In a genuinely unfettered market, this would be just fine, but this is not the case. Because of their special access to the Treasury, Fannie and Freddie create a heads-they-win-tails-we-lose situation for taxpayers. If Fannie and Freddie prosper, it is the consequence of government favoritism that results in the economy’s capital being misallocated. If they fail, there almost surely would be a bailout reminiscent of the S&L fiasco. There has been an effort to slightly curtail the risks caused by the Fannie and Freddie subsidies, but the Wall Street Journal notes that the one decent provision of the bill was removed. Not surprisingly, there is widespread expectation that the White House will approve a bill that actually makes a bad situation even worse:

Their amendment to Mr. Frank’s bill, which passed by voice vote Thursday night, guts the one provision that made it worth the effort. What’s left is a regulator who would lack the authority to limit the risk that Fannie and Freddie’s $1.4 trillion mortgage-backed securities portfolios pose to the financial system, plus a $500 million a year boondoggle that goes by the euphemism “affordable housing fund.” …That leaves the White House and Treasury with some decisions. Administration officials were cautious about the Bean-Neugebauer amendment when first proposed, but Fannie and Freddie’s friends are betting the Administration wants a deal enough to accept even a bad one. However, a “reform” that does nothing to reduce the problem of putting so much housing risk into two companies, and which also includes an annual $500 million donation to “housing” activists such as Acorn is worse than the status quo.

Senator McCain’s Domestic Agenda

Sen. John McCain today laid out his domestic agenda in a speech before the Oklahoma State legislature.

The speech is noteworthy for two topics not mentioned by the Senator. First, he makes no promises about additional restrictions on campaign finance. Of course, he also does not promise any liberalizing reforms of government oversight of campaign spending, reforms that might appeal to Republican primary voters.

Senator McCain also omits any concrete proposals about cutting back the federal government. To be sure, he promises a government that is smaller and more efficient. He just does not say specifically what spending will be cut and which programs will be eliminated.  He does promise to spend more on the federal workforce. That does not seem likely to lead to a smaller federal government.

McCain praises business and suggests the federal government can become more like successful firms. He does not mention, however, how the burden of taxation might be eased on individuals and the businesses they create and manage.

“Reform” appears to be the theme of Sen. McCain’s domestic agenda. This brings to mind his hero, Teddy Roosevelt, hardly a exemplar of limited constitutional government. Perhaps we should be thankful that Sen. McCain has forsaken for now “reforms” like McCain-Feingold.

But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that McCain has given up on the idea of cutting back government in favor of individual liberty.  He wants instead a government run by people animated by “higher aspirations” and “dedication to the national interest.” In other words, Sen. McCain is a big government conservative without qualifications.

Ashcroft: Closet Civil Libertarian?

A piece in yesterday’s Post points out that, contrary to John Ashcroft’s reputation as a lockstep defender of the administration’s war-on-terror policies, as attorney general, Ashcroft “at times resisted what he saw as radical overreaching”:

In addition to rejecting to the most expansive version of the warrantless eavesdropping program, the officials said, Ashcroft also opposed holding detainees indefinitely at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without some form of due process. He fought to guarantee some rights for those to be tried by newly created military commissions. And he insisted that Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers, be prosecuted in a civilian court.

All true, but the article leaves out one of the most important occasions on which Ashcroft pushed back.  In 2002, the adminstration seriously contemplated extending the Jose Padilla treatment–that is, indefinite confinement at the will of the president, without charges or access to counsel–to all Americans suspected of terrorist activity.  As Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman reported in Newsweek three years ago, in addition to Padilla, “officials privately debated whether to name more Americans as enemy combatants—including a truck driver from Ohio and a group of men from Portland, Ore.,” as well as the Lackawanna Six

For Dick Cheney and his ally, Donald Rumsfeld, the answer was simple: the accused men should be locked up indefinitely as “enemy combatants,” and thrown into a military brig with no right to trial or even to see a lawyer. That’s what authorities had done with two other Americans, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. “They are the enemy, and they’re right here in the country,” Cheney argued, according to a participant. But others were hesitant to take the extraordinary step of stripping the men of their rights, especially because there was no evidence that they had actually carried out any terrorist acts. Instead, John Ashcroft insisted he could bring a tough criminal case against them for providing “material support” to Al Qaeda. 

Indeed, though Ashcroft seemed to have been on board with the transfer of Padilla out of civilian custody, he apparently helped prevent a much broader assault on the rule of law. 

Now I think calling John Ashcroft a civil libertarian for this would be setting the bar pretty low.  But after nearly six years of radical overreaching, it’s hard not to fall victim to the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” 

Washington—the Anti-Economic Center

“Two West Coast senators are leading an effort to increase the number of cross-country flights out of [convenient but overcrowded] Reagan National Airport, a move that could lead to more noise over neighborhoods and jam already filled parking lots,” reports the Washington Post. 

Sens. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have amended a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill to allow up to 20 additional takeoffs and landings a day.

“It’s about connecting West and East Coast economic centers,” said R.C. Hammond, spokesman for Smith, elaborating on the senator’s motivation for the amendment.

Actually, Washington isn’t really an economic center. It’s more like an anti-economic center. Washington doesn’t do business, it impedes business, and subsidizes business, and regulates business, and cripples business. New York, Baltimore, Atlanta – those are East Coast economic centers. Not Washington, the city of lobbyists and government contractors.

Just what is it that businesspeople from Seattle and Portland would come to Washington for? They’d go to New York and Atlanta to make business deals. But they’d come to Washington to lobby for subsidies, or for regulations on their competitors, or to try to get a piece of the $2.9 trillion federal budget. But not to do actual wealth-creating business in the marketplace.

Some people say that West Coast senators want direct flights from National Airport to their home towns to make travel more convenient for them. If so, they should say so. But don’t tell us that the country would benefit from more Lobby Express flights.

Fighting for Earmarks

“Republicans will seek a House vote next week admonishing a senior Democrat who they say threatened a GOP member’s spending projects in a noisy exchange in the House chamber, Minority Leader John Boehner said Friday,” according to the AP.

Their target is Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., a 35-year House veteran who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on military spending.

Murtha, 74, is known for his gruff manner and fondness for earmarks – carefully targeted spending items placed in appropriations bills to benefit a specific lawmaker or favorite constituent group.

During a series of House votes Thursday, Murtha walked to the chamber’s Republican side to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a 43-year-old former FBI agent. Earlier this month, Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a Murtha earmark from an intelligence spending bill. The item would restore $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Murtha’s Pennsylvania district that some Republicans say is unneeded.

According to Rogers’ account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because “you’re not going to get any, now or forever.”

“This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me,” Rogers said in an interview Friday. “He said it loud enough for other people to hear.”

Now it’s true that there’s a House rule that prohibits “lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member’s votes.” Wouldn’t want anybody to oppose your earmarks just because you opposed his.

But really – after they lost control of Congress partly because of their profligate spending and their multiplying earmarks – this is what Republicans choose to fight over? They’re going to draw a line in the sand on C-SPAN to defend Mike Rogers’s right to put special-interest earmarks in appropriations bills? That ought to bring the independent and libertarian and small-government voters streaming back.

Ad Hominem Absurdum

A little story popped up in the press today that offers what my wife and I, in the context of our responsibilities toward our 4 year-old son, often refer to as “a teaching moment.” That opportunity is afforded by an accusation out of Greenpeace this morning that Cato, along with 40 other policy organizations, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Exxon-Mobil and thus should not be trusted.

The contention that Exxon-Mobil funding colors Cato’s analysis (with contributions, by the way, that accounted for less than 1/10th of 1% of our budget in 2006) is compelling only if Greenpeace has some sort of “motive detection device” that can be produced for public inspection. For instance, I say I’m motivated by genuine skepticism that industrial greenhouse gas emissions will usher in the Book of Revelations. They say I’m motivated by greed. We can settle this argument to the satisfaction of some third-party observer … how exactly? Even administering me with liberal doses of sodium pentathol is unlikely to settle this little spat about the nature of my character.

The truth is that my colleagues at Cato and I are skeptical about the end-of-the-world scenarios bandied about by zealots like Greenpeace, we anchor that skepticism in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that skepticism naturally attracts funding from those parties who like what they hear. Arguing that causality actually works the other way is not only an unproved and unprovable assertion (let’s call it “faith-based argumentation”), it is impossible to square with all the work we’ve published arguing against many of the things the oil industry is known to support.

For instance, we have vigorously argued against President Bush’s national energy strategy and the resulting Energy Policy Act of 2005, called for the dismantlement of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, railed against federal oil and gas subsidies, argued for the elimination of the Clean Air Act rules that allow older refineries to escape tough anti-pollution standards, suggested giving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to the Greens to do with as they wish, argued against allowing cost-benefit analysis to dictate environmental standards, and defended the government’s right to renegotiate drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico that provided highly favorable contractual terms to some oil companies.

Regardless, Greenpeace’s assertions — even if true — are founded upon a classic logical fallacy. For those who never took a course in logic, it’s called ad hominem. Despite what the body politic might otherwise believe, the merit of an argument has nothing to do with the motives of the person making that argument.

For instance, if the Institute for Policy Studies argues that minimum wage laws have little net effect on unemployment and produce citations in the literature to back that up, the reply that “IPS is staffed by a bunch of socialists who simply want to bring down capitalism and should thus not be listened too” persuades only those people who are too intellectually lazy or mentally impaired to think straight. Similarly, if Cato argues that it’s very hard to justify tight greenhouse gas emissions controls using strict cost-benefit analysis — and provides academic citations to back that up — the charge that “Cato is paid by Exxon-Mobil to take that position and thus shouldn’t be listened too” is likewise a variation of the argument made famous by Joe McCarthy. “He’s evil — and thus a liar.”

And in that vein, notice the thinly veiled smear entailed in Greenpeace’s constant use of the phrase “climate denial” and its related cousins. In this context, it’s obviously meant to echo the ugly “climate denial is like Holocaust denial” charge rampant at some high-decibel quarters on the Left. Greenpeace’s strategy here is to leave no insult or character smear off the table in its drive to censor the policy debate.

That Greenpeace resorts to such a tactics does not surprise. Those with good arguments pound the arguments; those with poor arguments pound the table. God forbid Greenpeace grant that people of good will might actually disagree with them. And God forbid that we ask people to judge an argument by the facts rather than some schoolyard game of “you stink.”