News & Politics
Hence my incredulity when I read this today:
The risk to Republicans is that they overplay their hand, either by filibustering someone whom the public deems to be reasonable and qualified (which I think they will not do: they can read the polls as well as everyone else) or by basically looking like a bunch of jerks (more risk there: the Senate Republicans are not the most charismatic bunch, although those on the Judiciary Committee are savvier than most). Whatever doubts the public might have had about Clarence Thomas, for instance, the Democrats didn't do themselves any favors during the hearings, which may be one reason that they gained nothing in the Senate (and actually lost seats in the House) even while Bill Clinton was romping to a near-landslide in the electoral vote.First up, Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 was a function of a third party candidate siphoning 20% of the electorate into a windmill tilting contest. Ross Perot's campaign harmed the house democrats just as much as it harmed George H. W. Bush, because it injected reinvigorated limited government voters back into the process. In districts where it was between the sclerotic tax and spend democrat and some guy making head fakes to limited government, the Perot voters represented an element that logically made a difference in the race. Not the behavior of the Judiciary committee towards Clarence Thomas. But since Mr. Silver is ever-fond of data points, wouldn't the treatment of Robert Bork provide a comparable odiousness to the electorate? One would think yes.
The 100th Congress which spanned January of 1987 to December of 1988 was overwhelmingly Democratic. They held 55 seats in the Senate and 258 in the House. The 101st Congress was also overwhelmingly Democratic. The tally in the Senate remained unchanged. But in the House the Democrats gained three seats. The fallout from the Borking of Reagan's nominee was pretty much nil.
Silver's concern for the GOP is noted, but foolhardy. Blocking nominations is a means of rallying the base. The GOP has a base that they can neither control nor to which can they pander. Therefore blocking a nominee for any reason other than to prove common cause with the source of their most important ally is undeniably stupid. This is not to say the GOP will not be stupid. Since 1994 they have done more to prove they are stupid than any collection of nominally sentient beings on earth.
Second objection:
[I]f Obama nominates someone who has a vetting problem, an uncouth public statement that makes for a good soundbyte, or a some other skeleton in her (and it most likely will be her) closet. Of course, you'd think the White House would be doing everything in its power to avoid that, but history suggests that no amount of due diligence can completely eliminate these sorts of contingencies, and certainly not contingencies that occur during the hearings themselves.The White House failed to catch the vetting problems with Timothy Geitner and a host of other nominees. Even with Justice Sotomayor the White House ignored the damage her body of public addresses could do. This suggests either willful blindness or utter tone deafness. Perhaps both. A safer and likely more accurate sentence would use the definitive "when" in place of the condition "if" at its beginning. no comments
The Credit CARD Act of 2009 was passed to "To amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes." Objection the first, the weasley phrase "and for other purposes" allows for much mischief in the crafting of legislation. What other purposes? Well that requires the reading of the law, of course. After all, Congress must pass them so we the people can see what's in them.
But the mess passed by our duly elected representatives and signed by our duly elected President is all too often an easily misconstrued hodgepodge of shoulds, betters and or elses. As in you should do this, you better do that, or else. The requirements are spelled out, but how those requirements are properly met are left open to interpretation.
Of course watchdogs are not fond of such open-ended vagaries. The CT Watchdog lists several confusing provisions of the bill that are creating issues for credit card companies and more importantly consumers.
The dust has settled, now that the Credit CARD Act has been in effect for over one month. But consumers and issuers are both finding some hazy areas in the new provisions. In some cases, this confusion was brought about by Congress not spelling out how these provisions were to be implemented.
Section 301 under Title III of the Act specifically amends the US Code of Laws to prohibit the issuance of credit cards to underage consumers - effectively the law of the land teenagers and young adults can't get credit cards. Subsequent sections provide exemptions and exceptions that undermine the rule. So what's the purpose? Per the bill, to protect young consumers (read teenagers). Using the wisdom of Congress, the age of 21 is arbitrarily chosen for demarcation.
In other words, if you enlist at age 17 or 18, you will be required to demonstrate either the ability to pay by some proof of income, or alternately provide a guarantor for the application. So you can take a bullet for your country, but you cannot get a charge card without jumping through hoops.
The use of arbitrary ages of majority always troubles me. I full remember myself at age 21 and know with certainty that I was neither smart enough nor ready enough to undertake responsibility. I look at my bills every month before paying them and wonder even now at 34 how ready I am to undertake these responsibilities. How does Congress know who is ready to handle the responsibility of having a credit account?
They don't of course. But that won't stop them from regulating the things they don't understand. This brings us to the knowledge problem upon which Freidrich Hayek expounded in "The Use of Knowledge in Society" way back in 1945. Simply put, decisions reached by an individual or a small group of individuals lack the benefit of the collective wisdom of society and thus are bound to suffer from that ignorance. Hayek argued and individualists concur that the best warehouse of societal knowledge is in open, unfettered markets.
Statists will argue to the contrary that government headed by elites best stores such knowledge. And regulations like this and others, such as prohibitions on alcohol consumptions by those under the age of 21 or tobacco use by those under the age of 18 or various state enacted ages of consent to determine the legal age at which one may engage in sexual activity are foiled precisely by the failure of the state to know the limitations or abilities of the individuals such laws regulate. They are enacted for the greater good, deprive the capable of the freedom to act in their own interest, to shelter those who are not capable.
But why 21? Why not 18? Why not 26? What's in a number? More to the point, what's in that number that makes it the catch all for legislation impinging on the freedoms of young adults?
A lot if you're 20 years old and your birthday is 10 minutes away, as I was when I sauntered into a watering hole with friends, seeking the conviviality of communal celebration of that momentous occasion. The bouncer eyed my ID and then handed it back without making eye-contact with me. "It's a real shame you'll have to wait," he advised. And flabbergasted I realized, I wouldn't be served a beer that night not before the clock strikes midnight. What difference did those 600 seconds make? Not a whit to me, I matured not at all in that time. Nor did my capacity to consume mystically appear. But because an law - not even as old as I - mandated I wait, I waited.
Restrictions on trade logically hinder trade. In my personal anecdote, my transaction occurred the next day. In the case of young adults seeking to improve their credit worthiness, the market is shuttered unless you can provide some proof that you can pay the potential debts. In enacting a law that is unnecessarily both arbitrary and vague, Congress and the President diminish our personal liberty.
The freedom to engage in trade with others for mutual benefit is a cornerstone of a free society. As Congress infects more and more parts of our life with constrictive regulation the less free we are to be ourselves and live our lives as we see fit.
no commentsJonathan Chait of the New Republic criticizes J.D. Hayworth for taking umbrage at what he perceives is a death threat. The dust up begins with Arizona AG Grant Woods (who supports John McCain) suggesting that someone drive a stake through J.D. Hayworth's heart, which prompts the inevitable and obligatory "the other side wants me dead" faux-outrage portion of our political kabuki dinner theater. Chait thinks Hayworth is being silly.
I'm pretty sure that was a metaphor. You see, Mr. Hayworth, in the popular culture, there's this evil figure called "Dracula." He can only be killed by driving a stake through his heart. Generally speaking, driving a stake through the heart is not considered an efficient way of killing regular people.
But the question is not one of efficiency. Driving a stake through the heart, in that it destroys the heart makes it particularly effective. If we merely took umbrage at efficient means of being killed, then that would exclude some of the most horrific manners of being killed. For example, being boiled in oil, also inefficient. Very lethal. Barbaric, too.
The comment made by Arizona AG Grant Woods is hyperbolic, of course. It's pretty stupid, too. But above all it is a threat, though not a particularly credible one. If Hayworth takes offense, what's it to Chait? Chait wasn't the one suggesting the stake to the heart. Nor was he on the receiving end of the comment. Literally who cares if a candidate facing long odds tries to stir up controversy by banging the table that the other side is threatening him.
What's it to me? Oh that's easy: Jonathan Chait is saying that absurd death threats don't count. Remember that the next time someone huffs and puffs that calling for the tarring and feathering of our congressional representatives is escalating violence in political discourse.
no commentsA quick palate cleanser before resuming on the baseball previews. Cato's Ilya Shapiro is happy to let everyone know he'll take all comers in any debate on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
OK, look, I’ll make it easier: I hereby announce that I am willing to travel anywhere at anytime to debate the constitutionality of Obamacare. Whoever sets up the debate has to pay my travel expenses, but that’s it. Any takers?
Shapiro's offer followed news that debate organizers at the University of Washington were only able to find legal scholars who had no issues with the recently enacted legislation. It's far more likely debate organizers didn't trouble themselves to find one of them inconvenient opposing viewpoints.
With Washington's AG Rob McKenna suing to challenge the constitutionality of the law, such a forum ostensibly illustrating the speciousness of McKenna's actions smells more like laying the foundation to unseat him, rather than an actual public service a real debate would provide. Rancor surrounding the individual mandate, the takeover of the student loan program, and other regulations continues to follow the new law, dogging supporters and lowering the approval ratings of both President Obama and Congressional Democrats. The efforts to undermine opponents by laughing off their arguments is unsurprisingly ham-fisted. What's a little dismissive scorn after you've shoved a law down the throats of an increasingly restive populace.
Do the vocal proponents of the legislation realize they confirm our worst sense of the dangers of disconnected elites mandating behavior for the rabble's betterment? Do they care?
no commentsWith the passage of Health Care Reform by the Senate, House and the signature of President Obama, a raft of interesting, odd and unusual provisions are coming to light.
Tampons are now considered medical devices and subject to additional taxation to pay for Obamacare, quite literally being a woman is a pre-existing condition for the purposes of revenue enhancement.
The ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, which seems to be the hot-button topic among many folks I've talked to about this, does not extend to children with pre-existing conditions. This is what happens when our elected officials fail to read their own legislation before passing it.
Also, Amish and Muslims are expempt from the individual manadate, along with the staffers who wrote the bill.
Then there's this news, our premiums are still going up. And that deficit reduction? Not. Gonna. Happen.
Repeal and Replace begins in November. The individual mandate is tyrannical abuse of power and the rest is a costly measure to extend coverage to people who can't get it. Far better to reduce health care costs at the source by opening up the market for health insurance across state lines, allowing individuals to pick and choose the plan that suits them, rather than being pooled in with everyone else and removing the ever-present threat of frivolous and expensive malpractice lawsuits. Reducing costs using methods that enhance our individual choice allows us all to say my body, my choice when it comes to our health care decisions.
no comments
