Topic: Government and Politics

The Romney Brothers Go to War … for the White House

The Washington Post reports on Five Brothers, the blog written by the sons of Mitt Romney, with heartwarming stories about just how wholesome and wonderful Dad is. Indeed, the whole family’s just so … wholesome: five brothers image

The Post notes that the blog allows visitors to post comments and questions, “though answers are not guaranteed.” Thus,

A query such as, “Being a Mormon, does Romney campaign on Sunday?” gets a reply — yes, Romney tries to make it — while something like, “Have any of the five Romney brothers, all healthy heterosexuals well under 42, considered volunteering for military service in the Global War on Terror?” is ignored.

The Sullivan Brothers they’re not.

 

Hurray for a Bigger Welfare State!

The Bush administration is deeply infused with a pro-spending, welfare state mentality. It may contain a few conservative officials scattered here and there, but the vast machinery of the Republican executive branch churns out spending proposals, regulations, and big government propaganda just as prior Democratic ones did.

Consider this June 5 press release from the USDA , wherein higher spending and more recipients of government welfare is always a good thing.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns says proudly: “We have increased our nutrition assistance budget by 70 percent since 2001 and we proposed that the 2007 Farm Bill do even more to increase access and participation in USDA programs to help those in need.”

Here’s one particularly silly statement: ”Today’s report highlights the recent growth in the Food Stamp Program — the largest Federal nutrition assistance program, and the nation’s first line of defense against hunger.”

Of course, free markets are the real “first line of defense against hunger.” Has no one in the administration read Adam Smith? It is the self-interest of the butcher, brewer, and baker that we can thank for providing our dinner.

Dynastic Politics in the Cowboy State?

We Americans know that the head of state in a monarchy is an inherited position. But we rebelled against that system and created a republic, in which men (and later women) would be chosen to lead the republic on the basis of their own accomplishments, not their family ties.

Sure, we had the Adamses, and we may well be fortunate that neither George Washington nor Thomas Jefferson had a son. And there are other dynasties, often connected to one state, like the Longs of Louisiana and the Breckinridges of Kentucky. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen is the sixth member of his family to represent New Jersey in Congress, dating back to the 18th century. One of his ancestors inspired the classic campaign song, “Hurrah, hurrah, the country’s risin’/For Henry Clay and Frelinghuysen!”

And today, of course, we face the prospect of replacing the son of a former president in the White House with the wife of a former president. We may have 24 or more years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

One leading Republican strategist has recommended that Florida governor Jeb Bush run for president this year, on the grounds that — in this of all years — he won’t lose points for being a dynastic candidate. What is the opposing party going to say, “Don’t vote for the president’s brother, vote for the other president’s wife instead”?

But it goes beyond Bushes and Clintons these days. In a country formed in rebellion against dynastic government, some 18 members of the U. S. Senate gained office at least in part through family ties, along with dozens of House members.

And now … Wyoming? The Cowboy State, the Equality State, the home of wide-open spaces, rugged individualists, and yeoman ranchers — Wyoming is about to choose a senator to replace the late Sen. Craig Thomas. And according to the Washington Post, the most likely choices are

Lynne Cheney, whose husband served as a congressman from Wyoming before becoming vice president; state House Majority Floor Leader Colin Simpson, the son of former senator Alan K. Simpson; and two of Thomas’s three sons, Greg and Patrick.

Say it ain’t so, Wyoming. Show the Washington elite that celebrity and connections don’t cut as much ice in the Cowboy State as they do in the imperial capital. This is a republic, not an empire. If we can’t demonstrate that in Wyoming, what hope is there for the rest of us?

The End for McCain?

John McCain’s share price at the Iowa Electronic Market lost 40 percent of its value yesterday. It opened at 17 cents and closed at 11:59pm at 10 cents.

Since May 17th, McCain’s share price has lost almost two-thirds of its value.

If no one is buying futures on McCain’s nomination, we might suspect that relatively few people will be giving him campaign contributions. Without funding, of course, the McCain effort is doomed.

So go to the Iowa Market and invest a dime. You might get a dollar in a year’s time. You’ll find plenty of people there willing to sell you a futures share on McCain.

The GOP Debates Health Care

The Democratic candidates for president have been all too anxious to debate health care reform so far, but Republicans have generally avoided the issue. Still, last night’s debate in New Hampshire gave us an idea about where at least a few of the candidates stand.

Rudy Giuliani attacked the Democrats for supporting “socialized medicine.” He’s right, and it’s good to hear someone call them out on it, rather than meekly promise that they too support “universal coverage.” More importantly, showed that he actually understands free market health care reform, calling for expansion of Health savings Accounts and replacing the current tax exclusion for employer-provided health care with a standard deduction for health insurance.

Mitt Romney defended his health care plan without actually telling anyone what it is. That’s probably smart because no matter how many times he repeats the words “private insurance” and “personal responsibility,” the plan is still little more than warmed-over HillaryCare.

Duncan Hunter gets points for attacking Mitt Romney’s plan as the “first steps to socialized medicine.” He gets even bigger points for endorsing Rep. Shadegg’s proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. In fact, he not only endorsed the proposal he showed he understands it, even pointing out how regulations push up the cost of insurance in states like New Jersey. The public probably had no idea what he was talking about, but all over America, health policy wonks stood and cheered.

Tommy Thompson showed why he’s no Fred. This Thompson wants the government to somehow make us eat better and exercise more. It’s also going to become involved in “managing” chronic illnesses like diabetes. And he jumped on the electronic medical record bandwagon. As I’ve noted before, electronic medical records would undoubtedly be a good thing and would reduce both costs and medical errors. The private sector is already moving rapidly in that direction. But the federal government has not yet figured out how to get the FBI’s computers to talk to each other. What makes anyone think that a single federally-imposed medical IT system will be more efficient?

Perhaps during the coming debates we could take time out from pressing issues like the candidates’ views on evolution to hear a bit more about this.

The Show was a Hoax, but the Organ Shortage Is Real!

It is disappointing that it takes the sensationalism of a hoax reality show to focus attention on a very real tragedy.

On Friday June 1st, as part of the Dutch “Big Donor Show,” it was revealed that the woman willing to donate a kidney to one of three lucky contestants in need of an organ was an actress. The whole show was a publicity stunt to motivate the Dutch government to reform its organ donation laws which currently only allow organ donation between family and friends.

In the U.S. organ donation is not just limited to family and friends, but the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 forbids anyone from receiving “valuable consideration” for a human organ. This provision is interpreted as prohibiting the donor from receiving any compensation beyond the good feeling of having done an altruistic deed. Medical expenses directly related to the transplant and recovery are usually paid by the transplant unit or the recipient’s insurance, but any payment of expenses beyond these initial transplant related costs are legally questionable. Both state and federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to allow organ donors to recover other more distantly related costs such as lost wages, travel expenses and future medical expenses potentially related to the donation.

Given the very real tragedy of an average of seven people dying daily in the U.S. while waiting for an organ that never comes, why not allow “valuable consideration” in order to save lives? Maybe a reality show competition isn’t the most tasteful way to proceed, but giving someone life-long medical coverage, life-insurance, or whatever other arrangement competent adults are willing to make, seems a logical way to proceed.

The common argument that receiving “valuable consideration” for human organs must be prohibited because it offends human dignity is paternalism at its worst. Only the donors themselves are in a position to judge what is or is not an affront to their dignity. It is hard to imagine how saving a life, whether someone is compensated for doing so or not, could ever be an affront to human dignity.

Sigrid Fry-Revere interview on Fox News before show was revealed as a hoax:
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/fry-revere-on-fox-news-05-31-07.html

CBS News report that “Big Donor Show” was a hoax:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/01/health/printable2876573.shtml

Insight and Insult from National Journal

This week’s National Journal has a story (not available online) that is at once insightful and insulting. In “The Coming Storm,” Shane Harris reviews the difficulties that are anctipated when the Department of Homeland Security transitions to new leadership under a new administration. There are lots of “politicals” at DHS and not a very deep bench of talent.

Here’s the insightful: “Al Qaeda has launched attacks on the West during moments of governmental weakness: at elections and during transitions to new administrations.

The evidence for this is pretty good (if not rock solid), and it jibes with the strategy of terrorism, which is to goad a stronger opponent into self-injurious missteps. Attacking at a time of vulnerability for the political administration is more likely to induce overreaction and error.

Here’s the insulting: “A mass exodus of Homeland Security officials in late 2008 and early 2009 could leave the country vulnerable.”

This must play like the sweetest lullaby to bureaucrats in Washington — “you’re important; you’re really, really important” — but it is a bald insult to the ordinary citizens, police, firefighters, and investigators who would actually detect and prevent any attack or suffer its brunt and deal with the consequences.

The bureaucrats in Washington have very, very little to do with actual protection of the country from terrorist attack or with response to it. They are the mouthpieces who will rush to the cameras and microphones to foment hysteria. They are the FEMA directors who will bungle the response and the officials who will actively undermine restoration of services. They are not our protection, and their departure does not make us vulnerable.

In fact, their presence adds to our vulnerability. The terrorism strategy succeeds by knocking the political regime off balance. Having a large, prominent, federal protective agency gives terrorists a ripe target. If there were no prominent federal apparatus attached closely to the president — no homeland security secretary to embarass, challenge, and frighten — the strategy of terrorism would be less attractive and harder to execute.