I've just returned from a fascinating week in Russia and Ukraine. I was in Moscow last week to deliver some lectures regarding my book on globalization, Against the Dead Hand, which was recently translated into Russian. From there I traveled down to Kiev to improve Cato's contacts with liberal (in the everywhere-but-America sense of that word) organizations there.
My overwhelming impression from the visit: what a difference an oil boom makes! Now in the fifteenth year since the collapse of the Soviet Union, neither Russia nor Ukraine has had much success in making the transition from communism to a viable market economy (according to the latest Economic Freedom of the World report, Ukraine ranks 103rd in the world, with Russia trailing just behind at 115th). Despite this and many other similarities, there is one critical difference between the two countries: Russia has oil and gas, and Ukraine doesn't.
Substantive due process cases make normally careful commentators sloppy. As many readers know, the D.C. Circuit ruled on Tuesday that "a terminally ill, mentally competent adult patient's informed access to potentially life-saving . . . new drugs . . . warrants protection under the Due Process Clause." Comes the Washington Post editorial board with a slapdash discussion of the case. The Post argues that the decision pulls a new constitutional right "out of thin air"—one that could "create a right to LSD or marijuana."
Golly. Is that right? Now, there's no denying the Court's substantive due process line of cases is controversial. But this decision didn't pop out of thin air and its not going to legalize marijuana. [Warning: lengthy legal discussion follows.]
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (AKA TomKat) had a baby last month, Suri Holmes. Apropos, this week the Medicare program's public trustees reported that even though only 7 percent of TomKat's federal income taxes now go toward Medicare, when Suri turns 15 years old, 25 percent of the federal income taxes levied on her modeling earnings will go straight to Medicare. By the time Suri turns 25 years old, 40 percent of the federal income taxes levied on her book deal will help finance Medicare benefits for her dear old dad, who will then be 68 years old.
As Tim Lynch and I detail in our new study Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush, the Bush administration has advanced an extraordinarily broad theory of presidential power during the war on terrorism. The claim that shows up again and again—in the torture memos, in the enemy combatant cases, in the wiretapping controversy—is that the president’s “inherent executive authority” and powers as commander in chief allow him to override validly enacted statutes that proscribe tactics he wants to pursue in the war on terror.
But surely there are limits to this theory, boundaries that even a wartime president cannot cross, right? Well, if there are, administration officials have been pretty cagey about identifying them. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stonewalled like a Supreme Court nominee when asked about limits to the president's power. To questions like "Can the president suspend the application of the Posse Comitatus Act legally?" he'd offer only, "Those are very, very difficult questions. And for me to answer those questions, sort of, off the cuff, I think would not be responsible."
In April, before the House Judiciary Committee, Gonzales suggested that the president has inherent authority to wiretap Americans' domestic communications--calls and emails where both parties are in the United States--without a warrant. That day, the Justice Department issued a "nonclarification clarification" of the AG's remarks: "The attorney general's comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the existence or nonexistence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis." Anyone looking for a straight answer on limits to "inherent executive authority" would be well-advised to look elsewhere.
In describing the contents of the Social Security Trustees’ latest annual report, most reporters have described the changes as “minor.” That impression rests, however, on a comparison of a large number with a gigantic number—the present value of Social Security’s financial shortfall over 75 years to the present value of total payrolls, also projected over the next 75 years.
Note that according to the report, an additional 2 percentage points must be added to payroll tax rates immediately and must be kept in place permanently. That’s unlikely, and precisely because we are describing the shortfall as "no big deal."
Problem is, the cost escalates the longer we wait. How long would we wait? When it becomes as large as four percentage points? Six? No, if it becomes that large, chances are taxpayers would revolt and the system would have to face benefit cuts.
Benefit cuts? At a time when beneficiaries are more numerous and politically powerful? Unlikely. Then what?
In the LA Times today, Max Boot identifies a real problem: oil revenue goes disproportionately to some pretty odious regimes. His solutions, such as "increase federal funding for research and rollout of fossil-fuel substitutes such as hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol (produced from grasses and agricultural waste) and plug-in electric engines," reflect a touching faith in the ability of the federal government to pick winners among all the potential alternatives to oil out there. He would be on stronger ground if we were to argue “tax the hell out of oil and let’s see what emerges.”
Unfortunately, the cost gap between conventional gasoline and the alternatives is quite steep. Look at Europe for instance. Even with gasoline taxes that put prices at between $5-8 per gallon, we don’t see non-oil transportation fuels penetrating the market in any significant way.
I call this the “wish upon a star” policy. Yes, it would be nice if we could render oil valueless through some sort of concerted government effort. But we have made a number of great and small stabs toward that end over the decades and have nothing to show for it save for bankrupt companies, synfuel stories that no one apparently pays any attention to anymore, and forgotten white elephants like California’s glorious attempt in the early 1990s to produce high performance golf carts to replace the automobile. But alas, hope springs eternal.
It is not offensive that Congress is planning to spend $70 billion to assist American soldiers in a hostile foreign nation. What's offensive is that Congress is using those soldiers as human shields to protect $70 billion it is wasting on less defensible priorities.
The spending bill that the Senate is expected to vote on today has been designated "emergency" spending. In effect, that means it doesn't count toward the spending caps that Congress supposedly imposes on itself.
It has become routine for Congress to meet those caps by packing the regular spending bills with junk and then to spend well beyond those caps by labeling predictable expenditures "emergency" needs. So every $1 billion of Iraq war spending they label as "emergency" allows them to spend another $1 billion on junk.
Talk about war profiteering.