Adjacent articles in the latest New Yorker deplore “consumerism” among the American revolutionaries and the modern Chinese. You wonder how a magazine so concerned about manifestations of consumer desire would support itself. Surely it struggles along on a shoestring, preaching the message of austerity and simplicity to sincere but poor readers. In fact, however, these laments about consumerism in societies vastly poorer than our own are sandwiched between lush full-page advertisements for Chanel watches, Samsung home entertainment centers, single malt Scotch, Grey Goose vodka, Cristal champagne, David Yurman jewelry, German automobiles, and Norwegian Cruise Lines. The articles themselves appear on pages lined with small, elegant ads for Jay-Z’s book-ebook-app, tours of Wales, monogram rings, Aeron chairs, European berets, cashmere caps, and a remarkable number of expensive psychiatric facilities, perhaps specializing in the treatment of cognitive dissonance.

Good news out of Congress this week (and by good news, I mean they didn’t screw things up any more than they already are): The infamous Akaka Bill, which would create a “Native Hawaiian” government for purposes of racial preferences and other unconstitutional goodies, will not be a part of the slimmed-down legislation that funds the government until Congress gets around to passing an actual budget. (For background, see my op-eds here — for which I was attacked by Hawaii’s Governor-Elect Neil Abercrombie — and here, and watch the Cato Capitol Hill Briefing. And for coverage of a related recent Supreme Court case, see these two blogposts and Cato’s amicus brief.)

Three weeks ago, there had been fears that the Akaka language would be inserted into the omnibus spending bill (see Roger Clegg and Hans von Spakovsky blogging at NRO’s The Corner). Had that been the case, it would’ve been an outrage for several reasons:

1. This is a new Akaka Bill. The text was only introduced in November and was apparently the result of a backroom deal cut between the Hawaii’s senators and lame-duck Governor Linda Lingle in July, but which did not become public until after the election.
2. There have never been any hearings on this language — not in the House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee, not in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and definitely not in Hawaii. No testimony has been heard about how this particular bill will divide Hawaii, on the constitutionality of the new provisions, how Hawaiians’ civil rights will be affected, or how the tax base of Hawaii will be diminished.
3. This is an abuse of the process. It is completely inappropriate to use a must-pass spending bill to avoid debate, amendment, and public scrutiny on an unrelated matter of such grave constitutional and practical importance.
4. Sen. Inouye (D‑HI) previously denied that he planned to use the appropriations process to avoid public scrutiny of the bill, so this would have been a 180-degree reversal.

Perhaps bowing to the above kinds of arguments, what actually appeared in the mega-bill was a “study” that the Secretary of the Interior had to conduct in conjunction with “those offices designated under the Hawaii State Constitution as representative of the Native Hawaiian community,” to make recommendations to Congress “on developing a mechanism for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian governing entity and recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as an Indian tribe.” In other words, this was getting the ball moving, establishing facts on the ground, etc.

Fortunately — for many reasons unrelated to race-based government — the omnibus went down in flames (the first tangible victory for the Tea Party, before their congressmen even assumed office?) and with it the aforementioned “study.” The new streamlined “continuing resolution,” which I’ve skimmed in its entirety — just 36 pages! — still includes various legislative gems but there is no mention of the Aloha State.

That’s a good thing: we seem to have escaped the spectre of race-based government yet again — but be aware that the Akaka Bill lurks in the background of every Congress, ready to ensnare those who think it’s just about “parochial” Hawaii issues that have nothing to do with the “real world.”

Today, AEI’s Rick Hess and Andrew Kelly have a piece at Inside Higher Ed highlighting serious evidence of dirty-dealing in a highly influential Government Accountability Office report on for-profit colleges. Hess and Kelly’s piece is well worth a read and I’m glad they’re on the case.

Unfortunately, theirs is about the only cry of alarm over apparent bias at the supposedly incorruptible GAO — potentially a huge story — I’ve seen since I wrote the following last week:

Now, though much needs to be determined about why the myriad changes to the report were made, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to learn that people at the GAO have actually been in on the crusade to demonize proprietary colleges. I also, unfortunately, won’t be surprised if no one pays attention to any of this, and the shameless, responsibility-dodging war on for-profits continues unabated.

Sadly, so far my fears have been realized. Other than Hess and Kelly no one, especially in the mainstream media, is giving this story any of the attention it deserves. Apparently, if someone who’s honest about trying to make a buck is being beaten in an alley, it’s easier just to look the other way.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Republican senators were turning their back on a massive spending bill stuffed full of their own earmarks. Those earmarks, the Post noted, included quite a few to benefit Mississippi, the home state of Senators Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran:

Wicker, along with Cochran, had by then already sponsored earmarks in the spending bill that would fund an airport expansion in Tunica ($1.75 million), new riverwalk lights in Columbus ($300,000), improvements to a hiking and biking trail in Hattiesburg ($700,000) and improvements to an assortment of bridges, highways, trails, railways and streets across Mississippi.

A burgeoning Tea Party revolt against earmarks caused the bill to be withdrawn. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held a press conference to defend earmarks as the constitutional duty of the people’s elected representatives. (And, as many of our friends have emailed to tell us, held up a copy of the Cato pocket Constitution — 10 for $10 this Christmas season! — to make his point. Ah, well.)

But the real problem here is not earmarks. The underlying issue is not whether members of Congress or unelected bureaucrats spend the money that Congress appropriates for highways and the like. The real question is, why are local roads and bridges and hiking trails and riverwalk lights being paid for by taxpayers across the country?

If the people of Columbus, Mississippi, want new lights on their riverwalk, why are they asking the families of New Hampshire and Indiana and Oregon to pay for them? Shouldn’t they pay for their own lights, and let the people of Hattiesburg pay for their own hiking trails, and let the people of Oregon pay for any roads, bridges, or hiking trails that they value?

The fundamental problem is not earmarks. It is that the federal government is paying for clearly local and state responsibilities. Opponents of excessive spending should not stop at an earmark ban. They should insist that the federal government pay for national needs and leave state and local projects to the states and towns that want them.

There’s a lot of attention being paid to yesterday’s landslide vote in the House to prevent a big tax increase next year. If you’re a glass-half-full optimist, you will be celebrating the good news for taxpayers. If you’re a glass-half-empty pessimist, you will be angry because the bill also contains provisions to increase the burden of government spending as well as some utterly corrupt tax loopholes added to the legislation so politicians could get campaign cash from special interest groups.

If you want some unambiguously good news, however, ignore the tax deal and celebrate the fact that Senator Harry Reid had to give up his attempt to enact a pork-filled, $1 trillion-plus spending bill. This “omnibus appropriation” not only had an enormous price tag, it also contained about 6,500 earmarks. As I explained in the New York Post yesterday, earmarks are “special provisions inserted on behalf of lobbyists to benefit special interests. The lobbyists get big fees, the interest groups get handouts and the politicians get rewarded with contributions from both. It’s a win-win-win for everyone — except the taxpayers who finance this carousel of corruption.”

This sleazy process traditionally has enjoyed bipartisan support, and many Republican senators initially were planning to support the legislation notwithstanding the voter revolt last month. But the insiders in Washington underestimated voter anger at bloated and wasteful government. Thanks to talk radio, the Internet (including sites like this one), and a handful of honest lawmakers, Reid’s corrupt legislation suddenly became toxic.

The resulting protests convinced GOPers — even the big spenders from the Appropriations Committee — that they could no longer play the old game of swapping earmarks for campaign cash. This is a remarkable development and a huge victory for the Tea Party movement.

Here’s part of the Washington Post report on this cheerful development:

Senate Democrats on Thursday abandoned their efforts to approve a comprehensive funding bill for the federal government after Republicans rebelled against its $1.2 trillion cost and the inclusion of nearly 7,000 line-item projects for individual lawmakers.

…Instead, a slimmed-down resolution that would fund the government mostly at current levels will come before the Senate, and Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‑Ky.) said it will pass by Saturday.

…The majority leader’s surrender on the spending bill marked a final rebuke for this Congress to the old-school system of funding the government, in which the barons of the Appropriations Committee decided which states would receive tens of millions of dollars each year.

…Almost every Senate Republican had some favor in the bill, but as voter angst about runaway deficits grew before the midterm elections, Republicans turned against the earmark practice.

This is a very positive development heading into next year, but it is not a permanent victory. Some Republicans are true believers in the cause of limited government, but there are still plenty of corrupt big spenders as well as some Bush-style “compassionate conservatives” who think buying votes with other people’s money somehow makes one a caring person.

In other words, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers have won an important battle, but this is just one skirmish in a long war. If we want to save America from becoming another Greece, we better make sure that we redouble our efforts next year. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

That’s the title of an upcoming FOX News Channel feature program with John Stossel, in which Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz and Director of Health Policy Studies Michael F. Cannon weigh in on some of the hidden, unforeseen, and unintended consequences of the attempts to deliver on promises our politicians make.

Politicians promised that:

1. Cash for Clunkers would save the auto industry.
2. Increasing the minimum wage would be good for the working poor.
3. Title IX would end gender-based discrimination in college sports.
4. Mega-construction projects like stadiums, arenas, and conference centers would create jobs.
5. Changing the tax code would save small farmers and the environment.
6. Credit card reform would save us from banking fees.
7. Reforming the health care system would give us more affordable and more comprehensive care.
8. Ethanol would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save the environment.
9. Home ownership for all would be good for America.

And the #1 promise politicians made that went awry?

Tune in to FOX News Channel this Friday, December 17, 2010 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern to find out. Use the #10Promises hashtag on Twitter during the program to follow the conversation.

Kindly note that while John Stossel’s programs normally air on the FOX Business Network, this feature program will appear on the FOX News Channel.

As Tim Lynch has already blogged — and as Cato is currently featuring on its front page, today is Bill of Rights Day. But of course, this is less of a big deal than Constitution Day (September 17, when we release the Cato Supreme Court Review at an annual conference) — because the Bill of Rights is essentially redundant of the Constitution’s original structural protections: Whenever the government exceeds its constitutionally granted powers, it violates rights of some sort.

Tim Sandefur explains over at the Pacific Legal Foundation’s blog:

Madison, along with his colleagues like James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, and others, expected the Constitution to give Congress only a limited set of powers—powers that were listed in the text of the document. If it wasn’t listed in the text, then Congress couldn’t do it. So the federal government could collect taxes or run a post office, but it couldn’t do other things—like run a national health care program, for instance. Since Congress’s powers were, in Madison’s words, “few and defined,” there was no need to add a bill of rights to declare that the federal government couldn’t do such-and-such, because they already couldn’t do such-and-such.

Indeed, the argument went, if you enumerate various rights, some will later claim that this is an exhaustive list — even though it’s impossible to list all of our rights at every conceivable level of specificity — with everything else subject to state regulation and control and perhaps implied powers too. That concern is why, even though Jefferson and others won the debate over whether to have a bill of rights, Madison and others ensured that the Ninth Amendment would be included as a safeguard against those who would “deny or disparage” other rights that are “retained by the people.” And why the Tenth Amendment reiterated that, conversely, the powers “not delegated to the United States” are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

We’re fortunate that both Jefferson and Madison got their way because, as we’ve seen over the last 70+ years, the Supreme Court read out of the Constitution the structural protections for liberty that are plainly there in the pre-amended Constitution. Not that the Court has done a very good job on the “rights” side of the coin, either — think eminent domain abuses (earlier this week it denied cert. in the Columbia University case, by the way), or the Second Amendment before Heller, or, perhaps most infamously, economic liberties since the rights bifurcation of 1937’s Carolene Products footnote 4 — but if it weren’t for these little bones that it has thrown our way, why the government would always be the sole judge of its own powers. (Which, of course, is what Obamacare proponents argue, that the check on Congress’s power is purely political.)

In any event, bully for the Bill of Rights, even if it’s not — as many people think — the most important part of the Constitution.