According to the chart in this Washington Post article, the top 10 PACs in 2006, in order, were the left‐feminist Emily’s List, the left‐wing MoveOn.org, the left‐wing union SEIU, the left‐Democratic ActBlue, three more unions, the NRA, and two Democratic PACs. So how did the accompanying story read? (Note that the PAC graphic goes with the third item in this column; that’s clear in the print paper but not so clear online.)
The item was headlined: Why Gun Control is a Long Shot
And the text began:
If you want to know why major new federal restrictions on firearms will be a hard sell despite the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech last week, here’s a leading reason: The National Rifle Association is one of the nation’s richest and most influential pressure groups.
Well, one of them, yes. But the other 9 of the top 10 are all liberal‐to‐left Democratic funders. The top two lefty PACs together raised almost six times as much in 2006 as the NRA. So did the top four unions. And two Democratic PACs that you probably haven’t heard of — America Coming Together and Forward Together — each raised just as much as the NRA.
From today’s New York Times:
Eli Broad and Bill Gates, two of the most important philanthropists in American public education, have pumped more than $2 billion into improving schools. But now, dissatisfied with the pace of change, they are joining forces for a $60 million foray into politics in an effort to vault education high onto the agenda of the 2008 presidential race.
The project will not endorse candidates — indeed, it is illegal to do so as a charitable group — but will instead focus on three main areas: a call for stronger, more consistent curriculum standards nationwide; lengthening the school day and year; and improving teacher quality through merit pay and other measures.
No big surprise here, but man, it’s disappointing to see very intelligent, well‐meaning people spending their money on ideas that have been tried and failed. The federal government has failed to improve education for very obvious reasons, and pushing failed state‐level reforms to the federal level will end in even more expensive failure.
The government‐run education system is the root of our problems in education, and the only mechanism for systemic reform and improvement is educational freedom (preferably through broad‐coverage education tax credits).
The Center for Educational Freedom is ready and waiting to help Gates and Broad spend their education dollars more effectively.
Even if Gates and Broad don’t want to do what’s necessary to change the education system, they would do much more good by simply devoting this money to an endowed scholarship fund for low‐income kids.
At the new Encyclopedia Britannica blog I ask whether Brian Doherty, in his Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, can have it both ways:
Doherty makes two claims about libertarianism that may seem to be in tension: First, as the title proclaims:“The most significant thing about libertarianism, the element that distinguishes its unique place in modern American thought, is that it is radical. It takes insights about justice and order and the fight between liberty and power farther and deeper than most standard American liberals, patriots, or Jeffersonians.”
But he also says:
“Libertarians can believe, with some justification, that we are in some sense already living in their world.…We are not living in Karl Marx’s world.…We live in a world energized and shaped by the beliefs of Marx’s political‐economic rivals and enemies–the classical liberals, the thinkers who believed a harmony of interests is manifest in unrestricted markets, that free trade can prevent war and make us all richer, that decentralized private property ownership helps create a spontaneous order of rich variety.”
I think he can. And while you’re at the Britannica site, check out my entry on libertarianism.
The Senate Agriculture Committee continues their hearings today with a focus on Title I — that’s the part of the farm bill that deals with farm subsidies. In the list of witnesses (available here), you will see significant representation from the main commodity groups (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and a few others) and farmer groups (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union). From what I can see, only two witnesses (out of the list of sixteen due to appear) could be expected to give a different take on farm programs: the North American Millers Association, as a user of commodities, might speak up about the damage commodity programs do to markets, and Bread for the World are rightly concerned about the effect of American farm subsidies on poor people around the world.
To be sure, farmers are affected by these programs and deserve a seat at the witness table. But where are the taxpayer groups? The food producer associations? Is the Committee even interested in the effects these programs have on the rest of us who pay for farm welfare? I guess that’s a rhetorical question.
More than any other man, Boris Yeltsin moved the Russian people from tyranny to a rough approximation of freedom. For that he is one of the authentic heroes of the 20th century.
In a way he personalizes Mikhail Gorbachev's accidental liberation of the Russian and Soviet people. Gorbachev intended to reform and reinvigorate communism. He brought Yeltsin from the rural region of Sverdlovsk in 1985 to shake up the stagnant party as the Moscow party boss. But Gorbachev set in motion forces that he couldn't contain. Once people were allowed to criticize the communist system and glimpse an alternative, things moved rapidly--partly because of Yeltsin's unexpectedly radical leadership.
Two years later Gorbachev and the party hierarchy pushed him out of the Politburo. But he turned around and ran for the Congress of People's Deputies, won, and then was elected to the Supreme Soviet. He created Russia's first parliamentary opposition (in the Supreme Soviet) and then won election to the new Russian parliament. Against the continuing opposition of Gorbachev, he was elected to the chairmanship of that body, thus becoming president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. He stunned politicos by resigning from the Communist Party.
And then in 1991, less than four years after being pushed out of politics by Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin became the first elected leader in a thousand years of Russian history, winning a popular election for president. Six weeks later he hit his high point. When hard-line communists tried to stage a coup, Yeltsin courageously raced to parliament to rally opposition. He jumped on a tank to address the crowd, creating one of the iconic images of the collapse of communism.
(This post is scheduled to be published in the summer 2007 volume of the Journal of Clinical Ethics as part of its regular column "Legal Trends in Bioethics.")
On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the combined cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. The Court overturned two Circuit court decisions and found the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 constitutional. The federal Act in question is now the law of the land. No state can allow partial-birth abortions unless to save the life of the woman having the procedure.
The Federal Act. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is very specific regarding what type of abortion procedure is prohibited. Not all D&Es are prohibited, only "intact D&Es", also known as "intact dilation and extraction," "D&X" or "intact D&X." The Act is also very specific about the criteria for violations to exist.