Endorsing Barack Obama, Al Gore proclaims:

After eight years in which our constitution has been dishonored and disrespected, we need change.

He has a point. But he should have said sixteen years.

I was in Lithuania for a conference last week, but some of my attention was focused on the Emerald Isle. The Irish referendum on the EU Constitution/​Lisbon Treaty took place on Thursday, and the Friday papers — which I perused online before boarding my flight back to Washington — indicated that the referendum was thought to have received a majority. Indeed, one Irish newspaper even had a story that bookies already were paying people who bet it would be approved. So you can imagine my happiness when I landed and saw about 10 emails from people saying the referendum was defeated. This represents a huge victory for sovereignty and decentralization over the statist bureaucrats and political elites in Brussels. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:

The European Union’s politicians and institutionalized bureaucracy were stunned and affronted at the audacity of the Irish people, who…unexpectedly bucked their own political establishment by voting against the EU reform treaty. …An impressive multimedia campaign opposing the pact was orchestrated by technology entrepreneur Declan Ganley. It emphasized the dictatorial powers the deal would give the Brussels bureaucracy, the threat to the low business taxation in Ireland that attracts investment, the supremacy of Euro law over Irish law, and a provision that lets changes be made without member-country approval. …the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty should be seen as more than just a sign of the troubles ahead for the peoples of Europe as they become victims of a self-inflicted dictatorship of the bureaucrats. The very notion of a United Europe was always fundamentally misguided. …Many centuries ago, Irish monks saved Europe from itself by preserving the moral and intellectual foundations of civilization. Unfortunately, the continental powers are unlikely to let the Irish save Europe from itself a second time.

You may be wondering about the last sentence in the excerpt. If the Irish voters rejected the Constitution/​Treaty, how can the bureaucrats prevail? The answer is simple and indicative of how the political elite have little use for democracy. As this EU Observer report indicates, the Eurocrats — for all intents and purposes — intend to ignore the Irish vote and press forward on the referendum:

The European Commission has called for ratification of the Lisbon treaty to continue, despite the No result in Ireland’s referendum. “This vote should not be seen as a vote against the EU… [It] has not solved the problems which the Lisbon Treaty is designed to solve,” commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said in Brussels on Friday. …Mr Barroso said he believed “the treaty is alive” and “we should go on and try to find a solution.” It is “important now that the EU does not fall again in depression and does not forget there are other issues to deal with,” he added. In a joint statement later on, France and Germany also called for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty to continue. “The ratification procedure has already been achieved in 18 countries. Therefore we hope that the other member states will continue the process,” the Franco-German declaration reads. 

This arrogance is typical of European elitists. Libertas, the group that led the campaign to defend Irish sovereignty, has an excellent webpage detailing some of more absurd statements made by the continent’s out-of-touch politicians. Perhaps even more distressing, though, is the fact that some Irish politicians are siding with the Brussels bureaucracy and conspiring on ways to impose the Constitution/​Treaty, even though the Irish people rejected the referendum. The EU Observer explains:

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen has said that his country’s referendum on the Lisbon Treaty result must be respected, but was unclear on whether to rule out a second referendum on the document. …In a resounding defeat for the treaty, only ten out of 43 Irish constituencies voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. A majority of Irish people — 53.4 percent — voted against the EU’s Lisbon treaty in Thursday’s referendum, while 46.6 percent voted in favour… shortly after, in an interview on Irish public television station RTE, asked by the presenter what he felt about comments from other European leaders saying that ratification should continue, he said: “It’s a matter for those governments to proceed as they wish. Pressed whether he could rule out a “Lisbon Mark II”, the Irish leader replied: “I’m not prepared to surmise on that. …Other Irish politicians were scornful of the idea of continued ratification. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso earlier in the afternoon had said the remaining ratifications “should continue to take their course.” Patricia McKenna, a former Irish Green MEP and leading No side campaigner reacted angrily to the suggestion: “It is completely unacceptable that anyone in Europe should continue with ratification. “It shows complete contempt for the voice of the people. They simply fail to understand why people are voting No.” “It’s time for the EU bureaucrats and senior politicians to come to grips with the fact that they cannot forge ahead without the consent of the people.” …Mary Lou McDonald, a Sinn Fein MEP and the face of her party’s No campaign, objected to French European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet’s mid-afternoon suggestion that ratification continue and that some “legal arrangement” could be cobbled together. …Declan Ganley, the millionaire businessman and founder of Libertas, the centre-right anti-Treaty group campaigning around tax harmonisation issues and against European ‘red tape’, called the vote: “A great day for the Irish people and a great day for Irish democracy.” …Mr Ganley also warned against moves to push forward with the same text. “[European Union leaders] need to listen to the voices of the people. The people of France and Holland have already spoken and now the Irish are making their voice heard.”

If you’re free Friday morning, you might want to hop on over to the Russell Senate Office Building to learn about the amazing, inexplicable, short-sighted market bias against straw-bale buildings and the need for the feds to do something about it. The Environmental & Energy Study Institute, the sponsor of this event,

Invites you to learn how the ‘new but old’ method of straw-bale construction can help address some of our most serious national policy challenges, such as record energy prices and unemployment, inadequate supply of affordable housing, the threat of climate change, and pressing needs in transportation and infrastructure funding. The modern building industry places heavy demands on the energy and transportation sectors. Straw is a locally-sourced, widely available, and renewable resource that builders, architects, engineers, and home owners are turning into affordable, safe, durable, and energy-efficient buildings in many climates. The following presenters will discuss the benefits of using this American invention, the regulatory barriers and institutional biases against straw-bale construction, and the role of the federal government in resolving these issues.

And that parable about the three little pigs? A PR smear spun by “Big Brick” no doubt.

A WSJ editorial recently observed that “the $7,500 [DC school] voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child.…”

Um, no. As I reported back in April, it is costing taxpayers $24,600 to warehouse a child in DC public schools this year. The WSJ’s reference to $13,000 is a fantasy no doubt attributable to the use of dated Census Bureau figures that exclude capital expenditures, and that capture neither the spending increases nor the rapid enrollment losses of the past few years (let alone inflation).

If an economically savvy paper like the Journal can fall into this trap.… Oy!

InBev, a giant Belgian beer conglomerate, has made a bid to purchase Anheuser-Busch, the brewer of popular beers like Budweiser, Bud Light, and Michelob — not to mention lesser-known, though equally-delicious beverages such as Bud Dry, Busch Ice, Hurricane High Gravity, and King Cobra.

Anheuser-Busch is of course, headquartered in St. Louis. So it should come as no surprise that Missouri politicians have sprung into action to block the deal.

Senator Claire McCaskill is “nervous” and “upset” and plans on contacting the board of director’s at Anheuser-Busch to urge them to stop the deal. Governor Matt Blunt finds the deal “deeply troubling” and is frantically searching for a state law that would allow him to intervene.

Senator Kit Bond has honed in on a specific set of laws that he believes should be used to block the deal. In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Mukasey and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Kovacic he claims:

The proposed foreign acquisition of Anheuser-Busch is troubling to me because it potentially raises antitrust issues under existing law by putting a significant market share of the U.S. in the hands of fewer competitors. I urge you to scrutinize closely InBev’s proposed acquisition of Anheuser-Busch to protect the interests of American consumers and the
U.S. economy.

This is yet another case of government officials trying to meddle in the free market to protect parochial interests. Thankfully, early indications suggest that despite the pleadings of Missouri’s elected officials, the federal government will not intervene in the possible deal. 

The political uproar should serve as a reminder of why Congress should repeal antitrust laws altogether. As the Cato Handbook on Policy explains:

More than two centuries ago, in the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith observed that ‘‘people of the same trade seldom meet together … but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.’’ Coming from the father of laissez faire, that warning has been cited ad nauseam by antitrust proponents to justify all manner of interventionist mischief. Those same proponents, whether carelessly or deviously, rarely mention Smith’s next sentence: ‘‘It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.’’

Antitrust is bad law, bad economics, and bad public policy. It deserves an ignominious burial—sooner rather than later.

Cheers to that.

Candidate Obama has introduced an array of tax proposals, which he discusses in various places on his campaign website. There are four overlapping themes in the Obama tax proposals the way I see it:

1. Social engineering.
2. Discrimination.
3. Economic micromanagement.
4. Empty populism.

Under social engineering, I would put Obama’s plan to greatly increase the dependent care tax credit. That would further encourage parents to find institutional day care for their children, rather than providing care themselves.

Under discrimination, I would put Obama’s proposed special tax break for the elderly. The federal fiscal system is already heavily tilted in favor of the elderly, thus it is unclear why Obama would want to further discriminate against the young. 

Obama’s “American Opportunity Tax Credit” also creates unfair discrimination. This new tax break for college essentially increases subsidizes for future lawyers, accountants, and other professionals. Why subsidize these folks who will likely have much higher earnings than factory workers, retail clerks, and others who don’t go to college?

Under economic micromanagement, I would put Obama’s Patriot Employer Act, which provides tax breaks to certain businesses that jump through hoops related to hiring, wages, and other items. Obama wants to cut capital gains taxes on certain investments and increase capital gains taxes on others, and he is proposing various narrow energy tax breaks. 

Under empty populism, I would put Obama’s railings against “tax haven abuse” and “corporate loopholes.” If Mr. Obama really wanted to reduce corporate tax avoidance–rather than just using it as a campaign prop–he would join with John McCain and call for an across-the-board corporate rate cut.

A final category might be “innocuous tax cuts that do nothing for economic growth.” Here I would put Obama’s $500 payroll tax credit called “making work pay.” If Obama had wanted to spur employment, he should have proposed a cut in the payroll tax rate, which would change the marginal incentive to work, unlike the proposed credit.

In sum, Obama’s tax proposals are pretty awful. It is true that many Republicans and Democrats have proposed similarly bad tax ideas over the years. But Obama can be contrasted with candidate McCain, who thus far has avoided narrow favoritism in his tax proposals, and favors broad-based tax reductions designed to spur economic growth. 

How is it that a government bureaucracy like Medicare can keep it’s administrative costs so much lower* than private health insurance? 

Today’s Washington Post may have the answer: “Medicare Pays Most Claims Without Review.” That was the sub-head of an article on today’s front page. The headline was, “Medical Fraud a Growing Problem.”

So, what kind of fraud are we talking about here?

All it took to bilk the federal government out of $105 million was a laptop computer.

From her Mediterranean-style townhouse, a high school dropout named Rita Campos Ramirez orchestrated what prosecutors call the largest health-care fraud by one person. Over nearly four years, she electronically submitted more than 140,000 Medicare claims for unnecessary equipment and services. She used the proceeds to finance big-ticket purchases, including two condominiums and a Mercedes-Benz…

Law enforcement authorities estimate that health-care fraud costs taxpayers more than $60 billion each year.

Woah! That’s a lotta coin! How can it be so easy to bilk Medicare??

Health-care experts say the simplicity of Campos Ramirez’s scheme underscores the scope of the growing fraud problem and the need to devote more resources to theft prevention…

What’s that you say? Not enough administrative resources dedicated to preventing fraud?

A critical aspect of the problem is that Medicare, the health program for the elderly and the disabled, automatically pays the vast majority of the bills it receives from companies that possess federally issued supplier numbers.

So Medicare’s approach to paying claims is not unlike, say, shoveling money out the door?

Officials who oversee the Medicare program say they are vigilant despite time pressure and limited resources. Employees review fewer than 5 percent of the nearly 1 billion claims filed each year…This year, CMS is working to finalize a rule that would prevent convicted felons from obtaining Medicare billing numbers.

But the important thing here is that Medicare is keeping administrative costs down, and passing the savings on to you, the taxpayer.

*Claim not valid in your state. Or any state.