Given a choice between:
a. Cutting spending
b. Raising taxes
It seems that most people choose “c. Magic more money into existence.” Presto: you have California. Also, our federal government.
I don’t want to ruin it by quoting it in part. Read it yourself.
In a comment in a thread over at McArdle’s blog on the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision on political spending by corporations and political advocacy groups, themightypuck discusses the demise of original intent:
themightypuck: And, while I agree that the decision is probably the correct one, it is a bit of a high wire act for an originalist to come to said conclusion.
Alsadius: How so? “Congress shall make no law…” seems pretty much what the original intent was, given that that’s how it’s written.
themightypuck: The entire text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’m quite happy that centuries of jurisprudence have defined speech to mean more than speech and I only mention it here as evidence of what I see as the failure of originalism.
The issue with this statement is that the founders clearly meant speech to include the printed word, and you can argue that television advertising is the modern equivalent of the printed word. Not being a student of the law, I can’t tell you how the original intent doctrine deals with technological development.
The outrage is that this decision, which overrules a law put into place by the people’s elected representatives as well as two past Supreme Court precedents, was handed down by a group of justices (and celebrated by a group of activists) who all claim to be against judicial activism.
Hello Republican House in 2010:
Award winning columnist Joe Klein writes the following:
As Karen notes below, Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma–who, with James Inhofe, constitute the most extreme Senate delegation from any state–prayed for the incapacitation or death of a Democratic Senator so that health care would be blocked.
Sounds absolutely terrible, doesn’t it? This Coburn
guy must be a really terrible fellow… Except, of course, that’s not what Coburn said. Here are his actual words:
What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight.
Now you can certainly interpret those words as Klein did, but when you’re a respected journalist you don’t get to simply assume the worst about people and move on. You’re supposed to provide as accurate and balanced reading of events as possible — even if you’re just blogging.
Klein, of course, is a huge fan of health care “reform.” One of his favorite provisions is the individual mandate, which he argues will force young, healthy people to buy insurance they wouldn’t otherwise purchase, lowering costs for everyone else. What he doesn’t mention is a less popular, but economically equivalent way of achieving the same outcome: instead of forcing young people to purchase something they don’t want, we could just have an “under 30 tax” and distribute the proceeds to the rest of the population. That way people who are early in their careers and suffering under a mound of student debt could be saddled with yet another financial obligation, for the benefit of those with much higher salaries. I know the AARP thinks it’s a great idea.
The law says I can walk away from my house, even if I can afford to make payments. Is is ethical to do so? I say no:
So no, I don’t see jerks who speculate on houses and then walk away from their mortgages because they’d rather spend the money on cruises as heroes of the working class, striking a well-deserved blow against the banks for the rest of us. I see them as the folks who are doing their best to ruin a very good thing for the rest of us.
We shouldn’t do this, but we should get our elected representatives to say so, not unelected judges. And it should be our elected representatives, not judges, who decide how much people should be compensated in cases like this. Unfortunately, by choosing to lobby the judiciary the New York Times is taking pressure off of where it needs to be — Congress.
The FDA has decided to ban flavored cigarettes. The question many are asking is does the ban cover flavored cigars too? Here’s how the FDA handled that question:
The distinction between cigarettes and cigars has long revolved around the wrapping. Cigarettes are made of tobacco wrapped in paper, and cigars are made of tobacco wrapped in tobacco or paper constituted from tobacco. The tobacco inside the products also generally differs.
…
Dr. Deyton was asked several times if Tuesday’s ban applied to any little cigars or cigarillos. “According to the law, if something is wrapped in a tobacco leaf, that would not be considered,” he said and then stopped and added: “Hold on just a second.”
After a delay, Catherine Lorraine, a lawyer in the agency’s tobacco center, got on the call and said that if consumers believe a product is a cigarette, then the law defines it as a cigarette no matter how it is wrapped or labeled.
“We will be looking at products on an individual basis to determine if it meets that aspect of the legislation,” Ms. Lorraine said.
That’s right folks: the FDA lawyers are saying that subjective consumer impressions — and not the objective characteristics of the product — determine whether sale is legal.
It really is whiplash inducing to go from reading the Wall Street Journal as my daily paper to occasionally picking up the New York Times at the BART station.
From a Times story on Acorn:
WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to deny federal money to the community-organizing group Acorn after a video emerged in which employees of the gro
up gave advice to two conservative activists posing as a prostitute and a pimp who said they wanted buy a house in Baltimore and start a brothel.
…
Bolstered by conservative media outlets, Republicans have been on a crusade against the organization for months, accusing it of improperly influencing elections and being protected by Democrats who were the beneficiaries of the group’s political activities. Matters came to a head in the past week after the Acorn workers were videotaped.
Of course, the article contains no mention of the fact that the Baltimore Acorn office continued to provide advice even after it became clear that the “pimp” was looking to house child prostitutes.
From an article on a new Marine recruiting ad:
[The ad] also makes no effort to show the emotional or mental challenges involved in being a Marine, like coping with combat stress or death.
I guess you just couldn’t resist, could you?
The piece is unnecessarily sympathetic to the Administration’s case, but it’s still encouraging to see the Times come out against their union buddies.