It Hurts to Be Called Ugly by a Frog - Especially When the Frog is Right

European politicians are complaining that government spending in the United States is too high according to the EU Observer. Since government consumes a bigger share of economic output in almost every European nation than it does in America (see Table 25), they are throwing rocks in a glass house. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are right. Government is too big in the United States, and it wastes too much money. The EU’s Economy Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, also is right to brag about the performance of the European Central Bank. Compared to the Fed’s easy-money policy, the ECB is Friedman-esque rock of price stability:

The European Commission has pointed to unhealthy public spending in the US as the main cause of the current global market turbulences and urged Washington to cut expenditure and boost savings, while praising Europe’s own “solid and sound” economy and the positive effect of the common currency. …Mr Almunia suggested that US policy-makers should tackle the current crisis with measures that would secure “reducing the external deficit and the fiscal deficit, and increasing domestic saving in the US both in the public and the private sectors.” He maintained that Europe’s own previous reforms and pressure for cuts in public finances have paid off, leaving the fundamentals of the bloc’s economy - in contrast to the situation across the Atlantic - as “solid and sound”.

Hillary and the 22nd Amendment

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.

DoJ’s Public Lobbying - A Legal Violation?

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.

Privacy Advocacy Overreach

I originally started studying and writing about privacy policy because I thought the advocates in Washington, and Congress itself, didn’t have a full grasp of the issues. They were treating privacy as a political football, and grinding their political, ideological, and self-interest axes on “the privacy issue.”

Illustrating how that problem may persist, Declan McCullagh has a strong rip on the Electronic Privacy Information Center on his Iconoclast blog. It seems that EPIC and some of its allies recently filed a strongly worded complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about problems with AskEraser that no longer exist.

The AskEraser cookie originally had a time-stamp that could act like a unique identifier, so Ask.com changed it. Nonetheless, in went EPIC’s “Complaint and Request for Injunction, Request for Investigation and for Other Relief.”

The government’s undirected, surveillance-heavy overreaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks brought me together with lots of folks with whom I disagree on lesser issues like private-sector regulation and privacy practices. I often joke that people will know their privacy is pretty well protected when I’m back to fighting with EPIC and the ACLU. Well, I don’t intend to pick a fight now, because there’s still too much to be done, but a privacy advocacy group shouldn’t just be an FTC-complaint mill.

Declan speculates that EPIC files with the FTC rather than suing (there are some arguable causes of action) because courts would sanction them for frivolous filings. Prospectively calling EPIC’s future bluffs, he says: “The next time you see them complaining to the FTC about some alleged wrongdoing, remember these attorneys’ odd reluctance to litigate.”

Gimme that Ol’ Time Science…

Just had a nice chat with Brandon Weim, who’s writing a story on the evolution / creationism school wars for Wired magazine. It seems that eight Florida school districts (and in Florida, each district comprises an entire county) have passed resolutions calling for alternatives to evolutionary theory to be taught in biology classes. Brandon fears that:

If Florida opts for evolution-unfriendly textbooks and is followed by neighboring Texas – also undergoing its own curriculum revision – then other states, looking for less-expensive texts, may buy those same books. Much of an entire generation could be raised to think of evolution as a theory with no more grounding in reality than intelligent design.

The thing is… that’s already true. As a Gallup poll reported in 2004, only a third of Americans think that evolution is a theory well-supported by scientific evidence (Frank Newport, “Third of Americans Say Evidence has Supported Darwin’s Evolution Theory,” Gallup Poll News Service, 19 November, 2004).

And this is true, remember, generations after the scientific explanation of the origin of species became the only one legally permitted in public school biology classes around the country. As I’ve said before, we’ve already tried the “You evolved, Dammit!” approach for a protracted period of time, and it has failed.

Scientists pride themselves on being driven by the evidence rather than personal dogma. Well, here’s your chance, guys: Dump the failed government-mandated-curriculum approach and start campaigning for unfettered parental choice and a competitive education marketplace. Free schools to teach science properly if they so desire, and quit fooling yourselves into imagining that you can force the rest of the public to understand science by having government ram it down their throats. Make science humble, exciting, and welcoming again, in the vein of Carl Sagan and Jacob Bronowski, instead of calling our religious fellow citizens rubes or worse, and treating them like recalcitrant children.

And as for the fear that educational freedom would lead old time religion to eclipse science, consider that the Netherlands has had universal public and private school choice for a century, including religious schools, and has become one of the most secular nations in the world. Another datum for the science crowd to stick in their thinking caps….

Padilla Gets 17 Years

Jose Padilla received a 17-year prison sentence today.  Padilla’s criminal trial and sentence were fairly straightforward.  It was Padilla’s imprisonment in a military brig between 2002 and 2005 that raised profoundly important questions concerning the power of the presidency.  Can the president lock up any person in the world and then deny that person access to family, defense counsel, and civilian court review?  And what about the use of “harsh conditions” and “environmental stresses”?  Can such techniques be employed against anyone once the president gives an order?  Those legal questions remain unsettled even today.  By abruptly moving Padilla from the military brig and into the ordinary criminal justice system, the Bush administration was able to forestall Supreme Court review of the president’s military powers.

For additional background, go here, here, and here.

Freudian Slip by the WaPo?

A telling penultimate sentence in an article Friday in the Washington Post (online) about proposed changes (and none of them good) to U.S. sugar policy.

But the top Senate Republican in the negotiations, Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), represents a major Savannah refinery that could be hurt by the proposed agreement, sources said. (emphasis mine)

And here I was thinking that Sen. Chambliss represents the state of Georgia.