Topic: General

Where’s Fidel?

Reading major newspapers and listening to NPR this morning, I don’t hear anyone asking what seem to me to be the obvious questions about Castro’s condition: Is Castro alive? Is he incapacitated? Did he compose or approve the statement read in his name? In a secretive dictatorship, you can’t believe everything the regime says. Raul Castro and his colleagues may be trying to create the impression of a gradual transition. On the other hand, it could well be the case that Fidel is himself trying to prepare Cubans for a transition that will happen eventually. I’m just surprised that no one seems to be asking whether Fidel directed this cession of power himself – except in the streets of Miami.

The Federal Government Is Remarkably Efficient (at Throwing People in Prison)

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports some disturbing statistics on conviction rates at the federal level:

About 95 percent of federal criminal defendants plead guilty. Of the remaining few who fight in court, nearly nine of 10 are convicted, according to national statistics.

[…]

“The odds are pretty stacked against defendants once an indictment is issued; that pretty much seals their fate,” said Mark Allenbaugh, a Huntington Beach, Calif., lawyer and nationally recognized expert on the federal court system. “Once the indictment is issued, conviction is almost guaranteed.”

Between 2000 and 2005, 99 percent of the 435,000 federal criminal defendants prosecuted nationwide were convicted.

I suppose it’s possible that just about everyone ever indicted at the federal level is guilty, but I doubt it. U.S. Attorneys’ offices tend to be better staffed and better funded than local prosecutors’ offices, and certainly have more resources than the average defendant. Couple this with the accompanying trends of the federalization of crime, the criminalization of everthing under the sun, and mandatory minimums, and you get a rather stark explanation for America’s exploding federal prison population.

The article also delves into the troubling role plea bargaining plays in all of this, including what amounts to the de facto punishment defendants often get for insisting on their right to a jury trial:

Former U.S. Attorney Frederick Thieman said defendants shouldn’t face tougher sentences just because they went to trial.

“There’s a ridiculous cost to exercising your constitutional right to go to trial,” Thieman said. “The stakes are too high.”

[U.S. Attorney Mary Beth] Buchanan said defendants always have the right to go to trial.

“If a defendant believes they did not commit the crime as charged, or if they believe the government cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, then a defendant absolutely has the right to a jury trial,” Buchanan said.

Those who lose shouldn’t expect leniency after the fact, Buchanan said.

“They can’t have it both ways,” she said.

As //cbs4.com/video/?id=19693 [at] wfor.dayport.com" target="_blank">t//cbs4.com/video/?id=19693 [at] wfor.dayport.com" target="_blank">his heartbreaking report illustrates, it’s often quite a bit more complicated than that. The linked report is admittedly a state prosecution, not a federal one. But it rather aptly illustrates the absurdies arising from from ill-considered “tough on crime” legislation, drug laws, mandatory minimums, and overzealous prosecutors.

On What Planet?

Peter Beinart writes in the New Republic:

The struggle that initially roiled the Clinton administration–between deficit hawks and deficit spenders–is basically over; today, even the most liberal Democrats are fiscal conservatives.

Stephen Slivinski’s new book does demonstrate that today’s Republicans are bigger spenders than LBJ. But as the National Taxpayers Union notes in its latest rating of congressional voting, the average Democrat still votes for far more spending than the average Republican. Democrats offer no plan to avert the impending insolvency of the Social Security system. They have denounced the Republicans’ trillion-dollar expansion of Medicare on the grounds that it isn’t generous enough.

Even the relatively conservative Democrats at the Democratic Leadership Council recently released a plan to spend hundreds of billions more taxpayer dollars on everything from college tuition to housing to socialized health care for children to McGovern-style “demogrants” for every baby, with no plausible offsetting spending cuts.

Ready to Pay More for Longer Lines at the DMV?

The Decatur (Alabama) Daily News reports that a server shut-down froze driver licensing operations on Friday.

Lines that tend to be long on the best days meandered double-file through hallways at the Morgan County Courthouse after a computer server in Montgomery shut down at about 12:45 p.m. The faulty server, which came back online at 3, is owned and maintained by Oregon-based Digimarc Co., a state contractor, according to [the Alabama Department of Public Safety].

Digimarc is one of several companies that are in the business of licensing and regulating driving. Another cited in the story is AAMVA, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which operates a variety of driver surveillance programs under the AAMVAnet brand.

AAMVAnet is the conduit most states use to access various databases involved in driver license applications and renewals. Alabama uses the service for commercial driver license information, problem-driver point systems and Social Security number verification.

AAMVA is particularly interesting because it styles itself as a neutral interlocutor on motor vehicle administration, police traffic services and highway safety. But according to its non-profit disclosure form, its $30 million in 2003 revenue was comprised of $11 million in government grants and more than $14 million from “contracts/user fees” - most of it likely from operation of the Commercial Driver License Information System.

Anyone who understands the role of self-interest in guiding organizations - even ‘non-profits’ like AAMVA - must recognize that this is an advocate for increased driver regulation and surveillance, most recently through the REAL ID Act’s national identification card. If REAL ID is implemented, AAMVA stands to increase its revenue ten times over.

Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Martha Earnhardt told the Decatur Daily News, “As more and more states go through AAMVAnet, it hasn’t been able to handle the volume.” But AAMVA intends to move you into the national ID program - long lines or not - using your state and federal tax dollars.

More on AAMVA and the REAL ID Act can be found in my book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misuderstood.

Political Entrepreneurship

From the Washington Post:

[Kevin] Schieffer is trying to persuade the Federal Railroad Administration to give him a $2.5 billion loan for the project [to build a 1000-mile rail line from Wyoming to Minnesota], among the largest in history.

If it succeeds, it could be a boon to farmers – and Schieffer.

The project would cut transportation costs for coal, corn and ethanol, and would make Schieffer what Fortune magazine calls “America’s first self-made railroad baron since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.”…

“He’s talking about using eminent domain out here and just wiping out 110 or 120 farms and ranches out here,” [rancher Paul] Jensen said.

Schieffer received help from an old friend, someone he admired as a South Dakota basketball legend years ago: Sen. John Thune (R), who defeated Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D) in 2004.

Despite opposition from the White House, Thune helped persuade Congress last year to increase the amount of the program from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. Thune, who received campaign contributions from Schieffer and who earned $220,000 as DM&E’s chief lobbyist in the 18 months before joining the Senate, is promoting the project to lure jobs. The law would allow Schieffer to put down no collateral and to make no payments for up to six years. [Sen. Mark] Dayton and other critics fear that taxpayers would be on the hook if the project were to fail.

He’s no James J. Hill.

A Telling Analogy

From the Washington Post:

“At this point, it seems like the war on drugs in America,” added Spec. David Fulcher, 22, a medic from Lynchburg, Va., who sat [in a barracks in Baghdad]. “It’s like this never-ending battle, like, we find one IED, if we do find it before it hits us, so what? You know it’s just like if the cops make a big bust, next week the next higher-up puts more back out there.”

Hey, GOP: Combat Anti-worker Image by Being Pro-worker!

Any real concern House Republicans may have for low-wage workers is apparently evaporating in the heat of the midterm elections.

Here’s the GOP political calculus, as reported by the New York Times:

Republican moderates used a closed party meeting on Thursday to make their case for a vote, saying it was crucial for helping to dispel the party’s antiworker image. The moderates ran into opposition from conservatives who said the wage proposal could turn off campaign contributors with the elections looming and drive away the party’s business base. But some lawmakers said opponents also recognized the political necessity of giving moderates some political cover, a prospect more appealing than potentially losing their majority in the House.

Perhaps there was a “compassionate conservative” somewhere in the room who thought to mention that a national minimum wage hike is likely to harm low-wage workers, especially young urban workers trying to gain some experience and start on a path to economic independence. But, as far as I can tell, the conclusion was that it is better to be actually anti-worker than to have a false “antiworker image.”

If House Republicans wish to get out from behind false perception and stand up for the real interests of workers, they should take a look at this good overview of recent empirical work on the minimum wage by James Sherk at Heritage. And here is Cato adjunct scholar and George Mason economics chair Don Boudreaux on why we should expect government-mandated price floors to harm workers. If the vaunted rightwing messaging machine is so amazing, why can’t it do more to explain why reducing opportunities for low-wage workers is not pro-worker?