In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s defining decision, the case of Ricci v DeStefano, in which she ruled that it was OK for the city of New Haven, Connecticut to refuse to use the results of tests for promotion of fire fighters after no blacks passed the tests.

Sotomayor’s ruling was, in my opinion, obviously wrong. In fact, the 5-4 decision somewhat masks the fact that all or nearly all of the Justices disagreed with her handling of the case even if they upheld her decision. As the editors of National Review note, “The only consensus the nine justices found was that the handling of case by Sotomayor’s three-judge appeals-court panel was shoddy. Even the four dissenting justices agreed that the Second Circuit applied the wrong legal standard.” And as the WSJ points out, “In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that while she disagreed with the decision to reverse the lower court ruling, there were questions about how it was decided. Based on the lower court’s mistaken focus on intent, she wrote, ‘ordinarily a remand for fresh consideration would be in order.’”

So I don’t know what troubles me more, the fact that Sotomayor ruled the way she did or the fact that 4 Supreme Court justices agreed with her.

Here’s a quote from the WSJ’s take on the case which bears repeating:

Ginsburg opens her opinion by observing that “the white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” To which Alito replies:

“Sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law–of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.

Of course, Alito hits the nail on the head when it comes to the major question surrounding Sotomayor. She’s said specifically that she does not believe impartial application of the law is possible – and seems to question whether it’s even desirable. Don’t forget that Sotomayor’s decision was obviously racist: whether you want to say it was against whites or for non-whites, it was made on the basis of race. So much for Obama’s claim to represent post-racialism.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision, on the last day of their term, will be great ammunition for believers in the Constitution who want to challenge Sotomayor’s nomination (or for Republicans who just want to challenge her for partisan political purposes.) That said, I don’t think it substantially diminishes her chances of being approved which I believe remain very high if no other smoking gun is found to show her to be unqualified – which she surely is.

Justice Ginsburg’s arguments were remarkably weak, something you’d expect from a partisan leftist law student, for example arguing that Sotomayor’s decision was OK because the white fire fighters had no guarantee of a promotion and because nobody else had been given a promotion. She must have twisted her cerebral cells into knots trying to find a way to claim that invalidating the results of THE test that was to decide promotions simply because not enough minorities passed is somenow not racist.

According to AP’s article about the decision, “Ginsburg said the court should have assessed ‘the starkly disparate results’ of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city’s 21 fire captains was African-American.”

Her rhetoric assumes that “diversity” trumps equal protection, that diversity is a paramount goal in itself, and that diversity would for some reason make the fire department a better place (or at least not worse), which for a place as results-oriented as a fire department is very hard to believe.

Again, it is simply remarkable that 4 Justices could find that Sotomayor’s obvious racist and improper decision was OK. At least she lost, but the closeness of the vote says a tremendous amount about how political our Supreme Court has become – a great tragedy for our nation.

In the long run, unless one of the “conservative” Justices leaves, I expect the Court to be somewhat more aggressive in challenges to “civil rights” legislation as people who fall victim to the tendency of such legislation to penalize whites will argue that society has generally moved past the need or acceptability of such provisions. And they will be right.

In the meantime, the poster child for affirmative action will be elevated to one of the most prestigious and important jobs on Earth, simply because the man who has the right to nominate her was elevated to the most important job on earth for no real reason other than his color.

For those of you who are jarred by that suggestion, ask yourself this: Would a white junior senator from the Midwest with less experience (in government, the private sector, or anything else really) than any other candidate ever get even close to either party’s nomination? Of course not. Really, go through the list of US Senators and ask yourself honestly if any of the 10 or 20 most junior members of the Senate (at least those who have never been a governor) would stand a chance? Again, of course not. Yes, that’s right: Barack Obama is president primarily because he’s black…and that would be fine if he had a clue about the Constitution – but he doesn’t. And now he want’s to poison the most important court in the world by appointing someone with as little understanding of our nation and as much contempt for the vision of the Founders (including, not least, the rule of law rather than feelings or whims) as he has.

So many people will be writing about the House of Representatives passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill on Friday afternoon that I will for now keep my comments relatively brief.

First of all, this may not be a bad thing because it’s a tremendous weapon to use against many Democrats and the 8 Republicans who voted for the bill. (More on that in a minute.)

I think it’s 50/50 whether the bill will even get a vote in the Senate. There’s no chance they’ll get 60 votes for it which means that the Democrats might try using the “reconciliation” process, normally reserved for budget items, which can with 50 votes get a bill passed without the possibility of a filibuster. However, that would be an extremely risky tactic politically and I think they’re not better than even money to be able to round up those 50 votes.

Instead of fulminate about how disastrous this legislation would be were it to come into effect, let me simply say that 219 people just voted for what would be the biggest tax hike in history during our worst recession in many years, and with essentially zero expected improvement in “global warming", the primary stated goal of this monstrosity.

Over the next couple of weeks, I plan to read much or most of the bill and offer you several-times-weekly tidbits of just what the House approved. For example, did you know that the bill has a provision about getting real estate appraisers to boost the appraised value of homes that meet some sort of “green” standard? Nice understanding of a free market, eh? Not really a surprise for the party of Fannie Mae and expensive homes for people with bad (or no) credit.

The main point I want to make today is that the Republicans who voted for the measure must be punished. I urge everyone who lives in the district of any of these traitors to let them and others know (by contacting their offices, by calling into radio shows and writing to newspapers, and by talking to your friends and colleagues) what you think of their votes. Furthermore, I urge everyone, regardless of where you live, to support any truly pro-liberty primary challenger to these spineless turncoats.

Here is the wall of shame:
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the graphic)

Mary Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Mike Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Mark Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Leonard Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
Frank LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
John McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Dave Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

I note in particular that Mark Kirk, whom I’m embarrassed to say I supported in his very first campaign based on a Club for Growth recommendation, is said to be considering a run for the Senate. I DO NOT CARE IF HE IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION THAN SOME OTHER REPUBLICAN. Any Republican who would vote for this bill deserves our everlasting enmity, much in the way that George W. Bush does for “abandoning free market principles to save the free market” and giving the Obama Administration the moral high ground in continuing bailouts which Bush unforgivably began.

These traitors are trying to thread the needle, to be “moderate” during a time when “moderation” means caving in to the destruction of our nation. As Dante said, the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of great moral crises maintain their neutrality. If I believed in Hell, I’d be certain that these 8 Congressmen have just made their reservations. And while I don’t know where they eventually will go, I hope everyone who cares about the economic future of our children and grandchildren will do whatever they can to make sure those people do not return to Congress.

Although this note may seem similar in content and intent to my note yesterday about Barack Obama’s outrageous news conference, Robert Reich’s Wednesday WSJ plea for government-run health care deserves an equal smack-down.

Reich’s entire article is filled with misleading statements – not quite lies, but with the same effect. Let’s go through his opinion in some detail:

Reich starts off by saying that the public wants health-care reforms and that nearly 3/4 of respondents in a WSJ/NBC poll say they want a “public option” for health insurance. However, Reich ignores another result from the very same poll: “But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.” And that’s before the public learns about the plan’s likely costs.

An ABC/Washington Post poll shows that strong support for “a universal health insurance program” drops dramatically if it means any limitations on choice of doctors or rationing of medical care, both of which would undoubtedly happen under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, “Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who’ve experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.”

So, Reich is simply selecting the poll numbers which make it appear that the public agrees with him whereas the truth is quite different.

Next, Reich says that CBO estimates for a public plan likely overstate the plan’s costs. It’s a very important point – and Reich is very wrong for two main reasons. First, every government health care program (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP) has busted every budget estimate ever made for them. People like Reich like to argue that Medicare’s administrative costs are lower than those of private insurers. But those statistics are also incredibly misleading for several reasons:

* Medicare is rife with fraud at a scale which would never be tolerated, or even possible, under private plans

* Private companies’ profits are counted as administrative costs

* Some of Medicare’s operating costs, such as raising money, are borne by other parts of government (i.e. the Treasury department). It’s still a cost to taxpayers, of course, but is misleadingly left out of calculations of Medicare’s cost of operations.

After these and a couple other reasonable adjustments, Medicare’s cost advantage disappears.

Reich also makes the incredible statement that companies in the health care industry “have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.” I had to read it twice to make sure he really said that. First of all, to the extent that there is competition among health insurers, they obviously have
that incentive. Second, to the degree that Reich thinks that the health care industry isn’t competitive, why does he not suggest the most obvious fix to what ails it: Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, as we can with car insurance.

Reich states that “no one has to choose” the public option, so it doesn’t represent a “government takeover of all of health insurance.” But that’s simply ridiculous. Studies show massive “crowd out” of private insurance for governments’ SCHIP programs, as people leave their private insurance for their free lunch. Another example of crowd-out, outside of health care but just as an example of what happens when government gets involved, is in Texas’ coastal property insurance market, as described in THIS comment to my blog note of yesterday.

Reich says that the government will negotiate better prices than private companies will. But where in history has that ever been demonstrated to be true? And in Medicare Part D, it is the truly private competition within the plan that has kept its costs down – and it was that competition which led many Democrats to oppose it.

Reich makes a strange comparison between non-profit health plans and for-profit health plans, missing the important points that non-profit plans still must operate efficiently and that just because a company is “non-profit” does not mean it does not earn a profit! For example, the non-profit Kaiser Permanente had a net profit of $794 million in 2008, or about $92 per “member". Comparing to two of the biggest for-profit health insurers, this is a higher per-member profit than WellPoint, at around $71/member, and just barely below the $102 per insuree profit of United HealthCare.

Reich tries to argue that the public plan won’t be subsidized by the government. Does anybody actually believe that? Isn’t that what Barney Frank said about Fannie Mae shortly before handing it tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money (which it is now burning through.) Of course the plan will be subsidized by the government, either directly or indirectly. It may (and will likely be) so inefficient that it will require direct cash infusions. But it will be indirectly subsidized by, as I mentioned before, handing off parts of its operations to other branches of government to hide the apparent cost.

Essentially every argument Reich makes for the public plan is a misleading use of often-erroneous data or simply his naive hope that government will manage a national health care system differently than it manages anything else, including existing government health care systems.

There’s one thing I’m tempted to agree with Reich about. Obama probably should “come out swinging for the public option” because that increases the chances that no health care legislation will be passed. And passing nothing is certainly better than passing any of the current Democratic plans and probably better than most of the Republican ones.

[I would also suggest that anyone who thinks the Democrats are not out to destroy private health insurance watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4]

In a news conference yesterday, Barack Obama demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of and antipathy for free markets and free enterprise when speaking about the possibility of a “public option” as part of “health care reform.”

It’s not easy for Obama to surprise me but the vacuousness of his statements combined with their casual disregard for the power of government when “competing” with private companies was truly shocking.

According to an AP article about the news conference, Obama said that “A government-run health insurance option is needed ‘to discipline insurance companies.’” Let’s get this straight: 1300 insurance companies aren’t enough to have competition? We need 1301 to suddenly make it all OK?

Obama complains that insurance companies care about profits…implying that a government-run program won’t. And that raises at least two huge problems: First, if the government plan won’t care about operating efficiently, then Obama’s clearly lying when he says that private health insurance companies “should be able to compete.” And second, if the government plan won’t care about a profit, that means it will run at a loss and become a permanent leech, sucking taxpayer dollars year after year, adding to the collection of such leeches on a body politic that President Obama believes is a never-ending supply for his essentially fascist economic plans (though to be clear, his vision for health care is more socialist than fascist.).

The following paragraph from the AP article emphasizes Obama’s economic idiocy:

“Why would it drive private insurance out of business?” he said of the proposed public option. If private insurers “tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.”

Does President Obama really think that a government-run plan will in any sense be on an equal footing with private plans? Does he not think that people will rationally switch from private plans to a “free lunch” even if it’s not the tastiest lunch, just as is already happening in states’ SCHIP (children’s health insurance) programs where somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of new enrollees drop private coverage to get on the government plan? (There is a higher level of “crowd out”, i.e. people dropping private coverage, as states increase the income levels of families which are eligible for the programs.) And does he really think that the fact that government “can’t run anything” will keep government from putting private companies out of business?

I’ve always thought that Obama didn’t understand economics very well. But I underestimated how ignorant he is. Indeed, he’s closer to delusional than ignorant based on his words yesterday.

As is typical for a liberal, he thinks people are stupid as he downplayed the fact that “up to 80 percent of people ‘are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have.’”

The solution to rising health care costs is much simpler than a massive government take-over of our medical system. It is to allow competition into the system, to let people buy policies across state lines and let states compete in terms of the mandates which they’ll require for policies sold by insurers in their states. So someone from California could buy a policy in Idaho at half the cost because it doesn’t have mandatory coverage for in vitro fertilization and hair plugs. Also, allowing people to get together in groups for purposes of buying insurance would be a good step.

While I oppose Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, there is nevertheless an important lesson in that program’s relative success. In an excellent article, Mort Kondracke notes that the private competition created in Part D has the program coming in dramatically under cost estimates, where no other part of Medicare is doing anything but busting every budget estimate ever made. Even a government program can, if allowed to, prove that competition works.

But Obama’s conception is, despite all his flowery rhetoric, NOT about real competition. It’s about putting private health insurers out of business and turning our health care system into something like England’s or Canada’s, where people can’t get state of the art medicine or treatments, where surgery has waiting lists of months or years, and where anyone who can afford to comes here for any life-and-death procedure, or any quality of life procedure which can be done here in weeks rather than waiting months or years at home.

It would also help costs if legislation to curtail frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments were passed, but the Democrats are so in debt to the trial lawyers that they won’t engage in any serious tort reform. Indeed, Barack Obama said that to the AMA just last week.

Finally, a point I’ve made before and will keep making: The game here is not just about a socialist vision of taking over health care. It’s about relieving unions of much or all of their financial responsibility for their members’ and retirees’ health care. After all, if the UAW were suddenly not to need to spend the $20 billion they’re getting from GM on health care, imagine how many Democrats they could get elected with that money suddenly turning into the world’s largest political slush fund.

Some months ago, I reviewed “Doorknob Five-Two” by Fredric Arnold. It remains, as I said then, a remarkable book by a remarkable man, who happens to be the father of a friend of ours. So it was a most enjoyable coincidence when another friend, John Newkirk, whom I know from the Leadership Program of the Rockies, told me about a book he’s just had published based largely on his father’s youth during the days leading into World War II.

But the book, “The Old Man and the Harley”, is much more than that. It’s a coming of age tale (actually several) combined with a love story, a history, and an insight into the bonding between a father and a son, with a hint of political allegory and social commentary and more than a hint of description of the joy and heartbreak of owning one’s very own Harley-Davidson motorcycle.

The first section of the book describes young John B. “Jack” Newkirk, and his cousin, also Jack Newkirk (but called “Scarsdale” by his friends and family to avoid confusion) during their youth in the 1930’s. The focus is on Jack and a ride he took on a temperamental Harley in 1939 from the New York World’s Fair to the San Francisco World’s Fair. The story of his journey is truly a tale of Americana gone by, not necessarily one which makes you long for the past but which instead gives you a remarkable appreciation for our nation, its development, and the true heart of its people. There is no way to avoid some comparison between then and now, with the obvious differences in the innocence of our youth, the helpfulness of strangers to each other, and the sense of wonder in the future, rather than the blasé jadedness that is all to common today.

There are stories of listening to Glenn Miller, of camping out in pouring rain, of learning how to fix a motorcycle, often without the proper tools. And it’s all punctuated by letters which young Jack wrote to his parents and friends – letters which were kept, for no obvious reason but sentimentality – until this very day.

Well, when I left him I headed north toward Toledo & arrived there O.K. Then I did something I never thought I was capable of. I got on route 20 all right but I went in the wrong direction. I was twisted up for 60 odd miles before I realized my mistake. That ate up a good 3 hrs & some 3 gals gas. Don’t tell anybody will you. That happened today & I’m still kicking myself for such a fop ah. It’s getting too dark to write so I close with love.
Jack

Of course, Newkirk’s wonder in the future was soon shattered, or at least interrupted, by Hitler’s invasion of Poland, followed soon after by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the US’s entrance into World War II.

The second section of the book describes the wartime experiences of both Jack and Scarsdale Newkirk, both of whom volunteered to serve in our armed forces, and the latter of whom was one of the most famous pilots of the war as part of the Flying Tigers squadron which defended China against the barbaric Japanese.

Jack Newkirk was sent to the Admiralty Islands in the South Pacific. This scene came after the US had mostly cleared the island of Manus of Japanese soldiers. The first paragraph in this quote describes the thoughts of a Japanese soldier still hiding in the jungle:

For a moment he was back in Nagoya during cherry blossom season, and the fragrant air drifted into his nostrils like a woman’s perfume. But then he heard the screaming of the men he’d killed at the Tol Plantation, and in his last moments of consciousness he was struck by the horrific awareness that the world may have been slightly better off had he never been born.
He was dead before he hit the ground.
Bounding through the jungle, swinging his sword like a machete through the undergrowth, Newkirk was the first to reach the body. From a distance, it was difficult to hear what he was screaming – but it sounded as if years of rage were being vented in this single, terrible moment.

And section three of the book is what makes the book so special – not just to the readers but to the author, Jack Newkirk’s son, John. John bought a classic Harley and retraced most of the route his father took nearly 70 years earlier, including having his father ride with him part of the way.

As the son of a father, and the father of a son, it’s hard to describe how well John brings you into the thoughts, fears, hopes, prayers, and idiosyncrasies of a man as he thinks about his relationship with his father, how that relationship has changed over the decades, and how much a boy always wants his dad to be proud of him.

John’s cross-country journey finds at least as many interesting – but very different – experiences from those his father had. The comparisons are not stated directly but nevertheless striking.

Moscow, Idaho, was one of the more important towns on the Old Man’s 1939 route. It was his safety net should he ever get stranded out west. It was also where finances forced him to sell the Raspberry [the Harley’s pet name], and where – a year later – Horace angrily reposed her after a deadbeat stiffed his little brother out of fifty bucks.
A Saturday farmers’ market was underway at downtown Moscow’s Friendship Square, where the stands overflowed with fresh produce, meat, flowers, nursery plants, handmade crafts and homemade baked goods…
From out of nowhere, the incongruous sound of an a capella soprano began to drift through the air from a nearby alleyway. I went to investigate and found a slender brunette belting out an Italian aria beside a trash dumpster. On the pavement next to her were a black cat, a black dog, and a beat-up red box with a smattering of bills and coins.
She introduced herself as Poeina from Seattle. We spoke for several minutes about music and I offhandedly joked that she should try out for American Idol.
“I did,” she said, “I didn’t even get to the second round”….
She began to sing Nel cor più non mi sento from the Italian opera La Molinara. For a moment, I was Henry Higgins. Poeina was my Eliza. And we were proudly standing before the queen at the Ambassador’s Ball…

This month, John Newkirk will start a promotional tour for his book, including once again riding across the country on a restored vintage Harley. A striking figure as many bikers are in their bike leathers, boots, and several days of beard, Newkirk is proudly an ambassador (to an unusual audience) for the principles and ideals which he believes are innate in America but have been buried under a post-modern blanket of distractions, dalliances, and ignorance of our history.

His book, “The Old Man and the Harley” is a wonderful read with a wonderful message.

[You can buy “The Old Man and the Harley” at Amazon.com, using THIS link.]

Many people, particularly on the right, are calling for Barack Obama to make a forceful statement in support of the Iranian protesters and against the ruling regime. They complain that his statements so far have been too passive and weak and not offering enough support to the brave people who are truly risking their lives in search of something approaching democracy, or at least a real election vote count, in one of the most repressive, autocratic nations on earth. It is neither an accident nor an exaggeration for Iran to have been named as a, or maybe the, key member of the “axis of evil.”

As much as I don’t enjoy saying it, I think Obama’s current stance is the right one. The last thing the Iranian public needs is for Obama to give Khameni and the Guardian Council a way to divert the attention away from themselves and towards American “meddling” or “imperialism.”

Yes, the regime will probably blame us for meddling anyway, but it will be a hard argument to make if Obama essentially limits his statements to support for basic human and political rights. (I don’t think resolutions of Congress have nearly the weight of a public statement by our president.)

The other potential problem with Obama making more forceful statements in support of the would-be revolutionaries is that the US has absolutely no leverage in the situation and no real way to help them. It’s one thing if we could credibly promise to arm the street protesters or otherwise pose a threat to the mullahs. But we can’t. We have no way to deliver anything significant into Iran and no way to have troops on the ground there even if such a thing were desirable (which it obviously isn’t.) So any chest-thumping talk will make us look like even more of a paper tiger than the Muslim world already believes the US to be (particularly under a president so eager to embrace America-hating murderous dictators.)

This Second Iranian Revolution, if it happens, must be ONLY about Iran and the freedom of its people. Foreigners should do everything they can to help, but nothing that makes the issue be about anything other than what it’s about. Part of what’s happening here, even if the ruling regime isn’t soon toppled, is the destruction of its legitimacy. Having a foreign foil is an extremely powerful tool with which to control a domestic population. Obama is right not to provide that foil.

[Update: As if to prove my point, see this CNN story discussing Iran’s trying to blame Britain for its troubles, and the British Foreign Secretary saying that the Iranian regime “was trying to turn an internal dispute into a battle between Iran and other countries.” (That’s a quote from the article, but maybe not a word-for-word quote from the Foreign Secretary himself.)]

As far as how the domestic politics plays, while I’m generally happy about anything that damages Barack Obama’s popularity – which his soft stance on Iran probably does because so much of the public wants John Wayne or Dirty Harry as president from time to time – I appreciate that he’s making the wiser decision for Iran even though he knows it’s probably hurting his poll ratings marginally.

In the future, what will be particularly interesting is whether the Obama Administration keeps trying a strategy of “engagement” with Iran if those he’d be engaging with are still part of the Khameni/Ahmadinejad regime. He’s painted himself into a no-win situation. If he does try to continue the strategy, he will be rightly pilloried for working with what many people (most relevantly many people in Iran) see as a fanatical, thuggish regime who stole an election to keep as much power as possible. (Not that such behavior is new in Iran.) If he stops engaging with them, he’ll hear the “I told you so” from many corners, where people (again rightly) told him that his “they just need not to feel misunderstood” strategy was naive and dangerous. I’m sure Obama’s spin room is furiously thinking about the rhetoric to deal with any outcome in Iran.

If the regime of the mullahs falls, which is unlikely in the short term but not absolutely impossible, we’ll see the left saying that it was Obama’s Cairo speech which inspired the protesters. I doubt the American public will buy it, but I guarantee we’ll hear it on every major network news channel except Fox News. And if the regime falls, it will be interesting to see just what replaces it. Iran has been non-democratic for so long that its institutions really aren’t ready to suddenly handle being a free country. Still, if it were possible for the country to be something like free sooner rather than later, that’s obviously better than what they have now.

Finally, in the unlikely event that Moussavi becomes the new President of Iran, it will be interesting to see if he’s still the evil murderous bastard he was when he worked for Khomeni, or whether he’s had some sort of epiphany. Don’t forget, this guy was a candidate approved by the mullahs which means he’s not our friend, not Israel’s friend, and most likely not a friend of the Iranian people – although in comparison to President Iminajihad, he probably looks very appealing (both figuratively and literally.) That said, what’s happening in Iran is not about Moussavi. It’s about an election the people believe was stolen and about a very young population (reportedly 60% or more under the age of 30) which has no vested interest in living in a repressive Islamic state. Moussavi could have been almost anybody – he’s a symbol of change, even if a very flawed one. And don’t we know something in the US about electing extremely flawed symbols of hope and change? Let’s hope it works out better for Iran than it is for us so far.

For today’s reading, may I offer you my article for Human Events describing the tremendous power of Twitter in encouraging and organizing this nascent second Iranian Revolution.

Please see “Iran’s Twitter Revolution“, Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 6/18/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32350

(My agreement with Human Events does not permit me to post the text of the article here.)

Observers of Colorado Senator Michael Bennet have been wondering aloud how he could in 25 minutes make a decision to support Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor but still be unable after a few months of opportunity to consider the issue to take a position on “card check”, the Democratic plan to eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot to unionize a company and to force binding arbitration of contracts between companies and their unionized employees. As reports of a potential “compromise” come out, the positions of on-the-fence Democrats becomes increasingly important. And Michael Bennet is the poster child for “on the fence.”

The choice about whether to support card check, given the Orwellian title of the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”) by its devious union-owned creators, pits two essentially simple positions against each other: Do you support a bill designed to enrich unions, and therefore Democratic politicians, at the expense of fundamental rights and the US economy and your (or your constituents) ability to get a job?

A new report by the Workforce Fairness Institute estimates that card check “could result in at least $1.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) in additional political spending by labor unions over a 10-year period.” Anyone want to guess what percentage of that money would go to Democrats? The report takes SEIU boss Andy Stern at his word when he estimated that unions would increase their membership by 1.5 million members over the next decade or so. Assuming a dues amount of $425, “enactment of EFCA would increase union receipts by $637,500,000 per year.” You get the picture: Democrats pass legislation which enriches the unions, then unions contribute money to Democratic candidates for office in a never-ending cycle of parasitism on the US economy, taxpayers, and voters.

Of course, almost every Democratic plan puts a legislator facing essentially this same question: Big government and unions versus a competitive economy with reasonable taxes. And the Democrats are finally getting some push-back, including from the corporations that one might have viewed to be most “liberal”. For example, last week Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that if Obama’s plans to tax the foreign-earned profits of US corporations at higher rates passes, Microsoft will move jobs offshore.

But card check should be an easier decision for Bennet and others. Not only does it enrich unions at the expense of competitiveness (a concept which most Democrats seem not to understand and the ones who do seem not to care), but it also eliminates the secret ballot currently required to unionize. It’s almost embarrassing to see card check supporters twisting and spinning, trying to explain why a secret ballot is important everywhere (even in Mexican labor organizing) except to unionize an American company. Card check will mean that union bosses can and will ask employees to sign cards – and will ask in front of those employees’ friends, putting tremendous pressure on them to go along. It also bears noting that if an employee signs a card indicating that he supports an election to decide the question of unionization, that card can be used toward a card check majority, i.e. to unionize without an election! It is interesting to see how such an undemocratic idea is somehow so Democratic.

The other extremely objectionable provision of the law would force binding arbitration, presumably by a government or government-like board, of employment contracts when a union and a company don’t agree on terms. Imagine this scenario: The prevailing wage for a particular industry is $30/hour. The company offers $25. The newly unionized company would, under normal circumstances, counter at $32 or $35 or $38 and then sit down to negotiate. Under card check, the union will probably come back at $45 and then refuse to enter into meaningful negotiations. Then the arbitrator could easily say “Well, let’s split the difference” and force a contract of $35/hour on to the company, leaving the company unable to compete – and therefore likely to end up firing the workers anyway.

You may say that unions are smarter than that, but I disagree for two reasons. First, the union bosses will have collected at least some dues from the company’s workers, dues which they wouldn’t have otherwise collected without card check because unionization wouldn’t have happened without the pressure the bill allows unions to bring on workers. Second, history shows that unions don’t understand, at least not until it’s too late, such as with GM. And I suppose one might add that recent events might give unions the sense that government will just bail them out anyway if they’ve demanded so much that their employer is now not competitive. In other words, the scenario of binding arbitration is likely to cause many cases of companies not being able to compete – and companies never being created because the potential entrepreneurs won’t want to live through this nightmare scenario.

So, I repeat, the question of card check is very simple: Do you care more about enriching unions or more about the entire American economy and basic “small-d” democratic principles? And I repeat, why is this question so difficult for Michael Bennet?

In a sense, it’s a rhetorical question because we basically know the answer: He’s a Democrat and that’s the party that does almost nothing without union approval or the best interest of union bosses in mind. But at some point – and that point is now – a Senator must consider more than just whether the SEIU will contribute to his next election. I know that most politicians care primarily about winning their next election, but any decent human being (and most politicians are human beings) has to be able to sleep at night. No decent human being could support card check and sleep at night.

So it was interesting to see the Denver Post article about Michael Bennet saying that a group of Latino business owners who oppose card check were publicly pleased with a meeting they had with Bennet only to be followed by Bennet’s staff trying to repeat Bennet’s lack of position on the issue, trying to calm unions for whom card check is the top priority.

According to the Post, “Bennet said he’s waiting to see a compromise on the unionization bill that Democrats are trying to hammer out before deciding his position.” Hmmm. Is that like waiting to see Hitler’s compromise position on the Jews before deciding whether to vote for him?

Although Senator Bennet is one of the most high profile wafflers on card check, he’s not alone. California Senator Diane Feinstein was reported to be “firmly and completely opposed” to EFCA by someone who attended a meeting in which she spoke on the subject. Her office then put out a clarification saying she’s “working to find common ground.” Again, what common ground can there be between an evil stew of tyranny and economic destruction versus the sanctity of a secret ballot and the ability for companies and workers to negotiate contracts without government imposing them?

One can almost hear Michael Bennet’s fear and inexperience when he says “I feel like I’m having the opportunity for people to share their concerns on both sides of the issue.” As if he doesn’t know people’s “concerns”. The unions are “concerned” about how they can get as much money as possible and everyone else is concerned about the ability to get a job or start a business. Come on, Senator Bennet, is this really that hard a question? And if it is, don’t we certainly have the wrong guy representing us on Capitol Hill?

On Saturday, June 20th, the Independence Institute will throw their 7th Annual "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" Party (of which I've been to two.)  It's a great event, shooting sporting clays at the Kiowa Creek club, enjoying fine cigars (of which I do not partake), having a beer or two (but only after shooting), eating lunch (nothing fancy) and having great conversation with people who care deeply about the anti-liberty direction our nation is taking.

I encourage anyone who's interested in participating to sign up and join in the fun.  You can certainly borrow a shotgun if you don't have your own. (Maybe even one of mine.)

This year's guest speaker is Sam Wurlzelbacher AKA "Joe the Plumber".  Should be interesting and entertaining.

You can get more info about the event, including pricing and RSVP information here:
http://www.i2i.org/main/event.php?event_id=59

And on Friday, June 19th, the day before the ATF Party, the Independence Institute is hosting a pre-Party Panel on the subject of the Nanny State with some very interesting speakers.

The event will be at the Warwick Hotel in Denver (1776 Grant Street). Registration starts at 11 AM and the event will go through the evening, with lunch and dinner.

Some of the speakers will be Andrew Breitbart, Radley Balko, and David Harsanyi.  It should be a great day for anyone who can make the time to attend.

The link for information and RSVP for the Panel is:
http://www.i2i.org/main/event.php?event_id=70

Two new polls from Rasmussen Reports show trouble for the Democrats – trouble that was entirely predictable as the passage of time and the dominance of Democrats at all levels of our federal government give them “ownership” of the current situation, for better or worse. Despite the Obama Administration’s repeated claims of economic problems they “inherited” from President Bush (and despite there having been some initial truth to that claim), the public will soon stop letting Obama and Congressional Democrats get away with blaming the situation on others.

The first poll is about the “Importance of Issues”, in which the latest survey of 1,000 likely voters puts the economy as the most important issue with government ethics and corruption as a fairly close second with 76%. The next closest issue, Social Security, is far behind at 59%, followed by national security (58%), taxes (54%), education (52%), and health care (49%). Bringing up the rear are the war in Iraq (48%), immigration (42%), and abortion (39%)

Rasmussen notes that “This is the first time since August 2007 that the majority of voters do not see the issue (of health care) as very important.”

The “importance of issues” provides some important context for the second series, the one which I think spells some serious trouble for the Democrats, and that is “Trust on Issues”.

According to Rasmussen, “Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more. This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue.”

A 6-point lead for the GOP on the most important issue to voters is, in my view, extremely important. But it’s far from the only bad news for Democrats in this poll.

The issues on which Democrats still hold a trust advantage are health care (10% edge), education (7% edge), and Social Security (6% edge), in other words issues which are at least temporarily receding in the public consciousness while economic events and government ethics seem so large and important.

The issues on which the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats are the economy (6% advantage), Taxes (5%), Iraq (8%), national security (an astonishing 15%), government ethics (6%!), and immigration (14%). The parties are, for the second month in a row, tied in public trust on the issue of abortion.

A look at the trends on the issues should cause great concern to the Democrats. Here is the monthly change from early May to early June, issue by issue, in terms of which party gained voter trust:

Health Care: GOP +8 (still Dem advantage)
Education: GOP +6 (still Dem advantage)
Soc. Security: GOP +3 (still Dem advantage)
Economy: GOP +7 (switched to GOP advantage)
Abortion: No change
Iraq: GOP +6 (still GOP advantage)
Nat’l Security: GOP +8 (I repeat, to an astonishing 15% advantage)
Taxes: Dem +1 (still GOP advantage)
Gov’t Ethics: GOP + 17 (!!!)
Immigration: GOP +13 (big jump, though not major issue now)

The average change is a GOP gain of nearly 7%. In the 10 categories, only one (taxes) had a Democratic gain and that was only 1 point. On other issues, including the critical issues of the economy and government ethics and corruption, the GOP seems finally to be regaining some esteem among the public, though it’s certainly more due to the bad behavior of Democrats than anything the Republicans are doing particularly well. The air is clearing of the Bush Administration fog, leaving voters to see more clearly what the Democrats are and what they are doing.

Also, Americans tend to prefer divided government and may be suffering a bit of buyer’s remorse from giving the Democrats such complete control of government. This recognition that 2010 will likely see net GOP gains in Congressional elections is undoubtedly why President Obama is pushing Congress to pass the pillars of his truly fascist agenda: “Cap and trade” (i.e. effective government control over almost every aspect of the economy, combined with the world’s biggest-ever tax increase) and health care “reform” (i.e. attacking the world’s best, though far from perfect, health care system in a bid to buy the votes of those who want government to provide, as one sign during the Democratic National Convention here in Denver pleaded for, “Everything for Everyone.”)

Republicans have, according to this new survey, taken the lead in public trust on the two most important issues to the public. It’s time to start actually earning that trust as well as putting it to some use, namely getting in front of the media (whenever the openly pro-Obama media will allow) to explain the failing “intergenerational theft” of the stimulus, the economic fascism that the TARP has turned into as it goes from a temporary bank bailout to a permanent UAW slush fund, and the true intent and likely impact of “cap and trade” and health care legislation.

We’re at a tipping point here: Even though the Democrats have a sizeable majority in both houses of Congress, there are enough conservative Democrats and enough Democrats who could face difficult elections (particularly in the Senate) to potentially block some of the most anti-capitalist, pro-big-government legislation that this nation has seen in generations. Republicans must educate the public enough that those Democrats feel tremendous pressure – enough pressure to go against their own Speaker of the House and President Obama. Obama’s primary motivation is ideological rather than electoral. But even if it weren’t he knows it won’t get any easier for the Democrats. Therefore, he will push hard for these leftist policies regardless of the implications for congressional Democrats in the 2010 elections.

We all know it’s well within the ability of the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and if they do it again then again they will deserve the results again. But this is about far more than party politics. This is the first time in years that the difference between the parties has been so large, the first time in years that the Democratic Party’s explicit agenda (many would argue it’s always been their unstated agenda) is so radical that the GOP can make a stand on economic principle and have the public notice.

Republicans can also take some at-least-temporary solace in the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of the “Generic Congressional Ballot” in which the two parties are tied at 40%, but very importantly “voters not affiliated with either party now favor Republicans by a 38% to 21% margin.” Our elections are decided by independent voters with great frequency and these are the people that the GOP needs to attract – but on the basis on principle, not by trying to be all things to all people.

If the Republican Party leadership has any desire to regain power – and I do believe they, like most politicians, care about that more than anything else – they must realize that being “Democrat lite” is not the path to success. While Ronald Reagan may be nearly ancient history in political terms, the principles which made him a success are fundamental and permanent. We have the Democrats to thank for the public finally, after years of economic stupor and passivity, waking up to that reality.