Where Senator Chafee has Gone "Off the Reservation"

In addition to being the only Republican Senator to vote against the confirmation of now-Justice Alito, Senator Chafee has opposed President Bush and--more often--conservative ideals on the following substantive matters. (All links are to data provided by ProjectVoteSmart. An index of Sen. Chafee's complete voting record is here).

Presidential Appointments:

Voted against nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen.
Voted against nomination of Judge William Pryor.

Domestic Issues:

Voted against cloture on debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004, thus upholding a filibuster.
Voted against the provision that allowed for opening up ANWR to oil exploration and drilling.
Voted against the Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill that limited civil liabilities against gun makers--twice.
Voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 that would have made it a criminal offense if a "fetus" is injured or killed while carrying out a violent crime on a pregnant woman.
Voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (thus supporting the President).

Foreign Policy:

Voted against the use of military force against Iraq.
Voted for an attempt to make members of the US Military subject to the International Criminal Court.
Voted against an amendment that prohibits any employee of the Federal government from holding a security clearance for access to classified information if they disclose such information to unauthorized persons (say, to the NY Times).

Finally, of course, he voted against the President in the 2004 election.

To be fair, there are many important issues in which Sen. Chafee has been in line with many conservatives or the President. For instance, there can be little doubt that he's a free-trader. However, as can be seen, on substantive issues he is just as likely to bolt the President as he is to join him.

Fun Reading at the NRSC

Back in December, the National Republican Senatorial Committee--in support of Sen. Chafee--decided to try to undermine Steve Laffey's conservativism by claiming he was really a tax-and-spender. Well, by reading the comments (select "View all comments" at the aforementioned page), you'll find that a few people have tried to set them straight. Interestingly, the thread is still growing given the recent Alito vote--possibly because the NSRC has decided to put Sen. Chafee "In the Spotlight" this week. Oops--good timing guys. If nothing else, reading the comments calling for the NRSC to "wake up" can be a cathartic experience.

Meanwhile, the NRSC is making much of the fact that Michigan Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow is supported by the radical, left-wing Emily's List and are claiming that she voted for the attempted filibuster of Alito because she is beholden to this pro-abortion organization. Apparently, NARAL isn't considered as left-wing by the NSRC. Maybe because they're the second-highest single contributor to Sen. Chafee's re-election campaign? (Here's another way to look at this data--look for yellow).

Olympia Snowe Votes FOR Alito

Contrast Maine "RINO" Sen. Olympia Snowe's reasoning for supporting the nomination of Judge Alito to that put forth by Senator Chafee for opposing Judge Alito (via Bench Memos).

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) today announced that she will vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Snowe released the following statement:

"This nomination presented me with a close and difficult decision. It was only after a careful, full, and fair review of Judge Alito’s judicial record, as well as the role of the Senate and the founding fathers’ intent for the confirmation process, that I have concluded I will vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court.

“While I have several concerns with this nomination, history has consistently demonstrated that predicting how a justice will rule on a particular case is inherently unreliable. Therefore, I believe the most appropriate standard of review should include a comprehensive evaluation that measures intellectual ability, diversity of professional experience, and reputation for integrity and fairness. A nominee must also demonstrate a commitment to judging individual cases on their own merits and with an open mind, a mainstream judicial methodology and philosophy, and a respect for court precedents.

"Based on the totality of his qualifications, Judge Alito appears to meet these standards, as evidenced by the American Bar Association’s highest rating of “well-qualified,” as well as his judicial record and Senate testimony. The unprecedented statements of support from well-respected Circuit Court judges who have served with him — judges who were appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents – also proved compelling.

“What we do here today will have a profound impact on preserving the integrity of the confirmation process – and I think each of us individually and collectively should take this responsibility seriously to achieve this goal.” {emphasis added}

[Full disclosure: While in the House of Representatives, then-Congresswoman Snowe nominated me to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, which I accepted.)

Jack Reed’s Reservations about the Free Exercise of Religion and His Vote Against Samuel Alito

Senator Jack Reed has announced his opposition to confirming Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and voted to filibuster the nominee. According to a statement by Senator Reed, first amendment concerns play a prominent role in his opposition…

The first amendment protects Americans' religious liberties through two clauses that work in tandem: the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. I worry that if confirmed, Judge Alito would upset the careful balance the Founders sought in constructing the first amendment. In fact, Judge Alito seems to interpret the establishment clause as a rarely applicable part of the first amendment. He applies the free exercise clause on a much broader basis, often interpreting establishment clause cases as free exercise cases. He seems to see a plaintiff's complaint of establishment clause violations as attempts to block the free exercise of religion.

In other words, Senator Reed opposes Judge Alito because he believes that Judge Alito believes too strongly in the free exercise of religion. An example of what this means comes from the Senator’s criticism of Judge Alito’s opinion in Child Evangelism Fellowship v. Stafford Township (2004).

CEF had requested permission to distribute materials in the Stafford schools, in the same way that other groups, including the Cub Scouts, the Ocean County Girl Scouts, the Long Beach Island Foundation of the Arts and Sciences, the Ocean County Library, Stafford Township Volunteer Fire Company #1, the Stafford Basketball Club, Pop Warner football, and the PTA, were allowed to distribute materials. However, the school administration denied CEF‘s request (and denied CEF’s request to participate in a back-to-school night) arguing that religious organizations do not have the same rights of free speech and public access enjoyed by non-religious organizations.

Judge Alito -- and the panel of third circuit Judges who heard the case -- disagreed. Alito wrote an opinion stating that Stafford could not treat CEF differently from other organizations simply because CEF was a religious organization.

Senator Reed stands by the position of the school district; strict government regulation of religious organizations, to the point of banning religious organizations from public access granted to non-religious organizations, is permissible in the public sphere. Reed, apparently, thinks that treating religious organizations as the equals of non-religious organizations would upset his "careful balance".

Is the contrary view -- that religious organizations should enjoy the same freedom of speech enjoyed by non-religious orginazations -- really a radical position that justifies a filibuster? Is Senator Reed really representing Rhode Island when he embraces discrimination based on religious beliefs?

That's Our Chafee

To be honest, I've been a little surprised at the intense interest in Senator Chafee's vote on Alito. From conservatives' standpoint, the only intriguing turn of events would have been a "yes" vote on the nomination and the questions that it would have raised about whether Chafee might make further efforts to court us.

What Chafee actually stated in today's announcement — and it isn't but so surprising — is that, no, he isn't particularly interested in solidifying support among Rhode Island's divided Republicans. One can find a measure of sad humor musing that this attitude is precisely what the national GOP likes about Chafee for the next election cycle, but otherwise, the episode is just another instance of our own Linc Chafee doing what he does best: disappointing constituents to his political right.

So, as much as I'd like to reward Kathryn Lopez for directing NRO Corner readers to Anchor Rising for "RI backlash," I'm not sure that there's much lashing to go back to. Whether related to the war in Iraq or the Senator's wishy-washy partisanship or some other matter, there probably weren't that many on the Rhode Island right who had yet to have their "I'd rather vote for Patrick Kennedy" moments. Apart from a few resurgent squawks, the only backlash that remains to be seen will come in the form of our own "no" votes.

Filibuster Rejected, Full Senate Vote on Alito to be Held Tommorrow

According to the Washington Post's Campaign for the Supreme Court blog, the attempt to filibuster the Alito nomination has been officially rejected by the Senate by a vote of 72-25. As to what follows...

A vote by simple majority to confirm in the full Senate is expected about 11 a.m. tomorrow, with a swearing-in to follow shortly, possibly allowing Alito to attend the State of the Union Address as Justice Alito.

Can Republicans be Confident in Chafee?

So asks NROs Ramesh Ponnuru:

I haven't thought this race held as much potential for conservatives as the Specter vs. Toomey race did in 2004. I thought Toomey had a greater chance of winning a general election than I think Laffey does now. But as Chafee's Alito vote shows, the downside of backing the conservative insurgent is lower, too. What would Chafee do if the Republican majority in the Senate depended on his vote? How much confidence can anyone have that he would stay a Republican under those circumstances?

I hadn't really seriously considered the prospect, but it strikes me as no small leap to ask if he'd pull a Jefford's if his "conscience" so dictated? I know he's said he wouldn't in the past, but can Republican Chafee supporters really be so sure? (Incidentally, the link to Sen. Chafee's statement--made shortly after he voted for President George H.W. Bush--is no longer anywhere to be found on the Senator's web site).

Here's Senator Chafee's official statement on Alito (PDF) and here is Mayor Laffey's official response.

Laffey's Quick Take on Chafee's Alito "NO"

On WPRO, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey just said that he was "disappointed but not surprised" at Sen. Chafee's decision. He said that Sen. Chafee had made himself irrelevant to the process again and that RI won't be well-served by either Chafee's decision on this particular issue nor on Sen. Chafee's consistent inablilty to make a firm decision. When told that Sen. Chafee stated he opposed Alito because of his stance on abortion, the separation of church and state, and wiretapping, Mayor Laffey said that the Senator shouldn't make litmus tests part of his decision-making process. Laffey said, "that's wrong" and explained (I'm paraphrasing), "how would you like to get in front of a judge knowing he already has staked a position on an issue?" To Laffey, this "extremist" insistence on litmus tests is what is wrong with the process.

UPDATE:: The ProJo has more extensive coverage, here are the highlights:

Chafee said at a press conference this morning at his Providence office that he was "greatly concerned" about some of Alito's philosophies. In explaining his decision against the judge, the senator described himself as a "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican."

Chafee noted that while Alito had "outstanding legal credentials," his philosophy on certain issues, including the commerce clause, executive power and women's reproductive rights, influenced his decision.

Chafee said that Alito's position on the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion seems different than the position taken by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whom Chafee voted to confirm last year.

He said Roberts was willing to call Roe vs. Wade "settled law" during his nomination hearing, but Alito "refused to make a similar statement."

The senator had said during his 2000 campaign that he would not vote for a nominee who did not pledge to affirm Roe v. Wade.

"I'm very concerned about the slow eroding of women's reproductive freedom," Chafee said. . .

Chafee today also expressed concern that Alito's apparent position on the Constitution's commerce clause, allowing Congress to regulate commerce among states, could weaken environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act.

And he questioned Alito's stance on executive power as it relates to warrantless wiretaps and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Chafee stated, "Judge Alito was also asked, '...Is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the president could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statute?' Judge Alito responded that this was possible noting a 'possibility that might be justified.' "

Chafee said, "As Justice O'Connor wrote in a recent case, 'A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens.' "

Chafee said he did not make his final decision until Friday. He said he needed to take his time with a thorough analysis because it's a decision that the country will likely live with for many years since Alito is a young man.

In analyzing Alito's positions, Chafee said he was more concerned with the appeals court judge's decisions from the bench than what he wrote as a lawyer for "his client," the Reagan administration.

Still, he acknowledged, "It's so hard to predict" how a nominee will vote on the court.

Chafee, a former Warwick mayor and son of a former GOP U.S. senator and Rhode Island governor, has gained a reputation in the Senate as a maverick willing to buck the party leadership. Still, he said he wanted to support the president's nominee.

"Believe me, having been an executive in government, I want to support President Bush's choice to the Supreme Court," Chafee said. "The president did win the election. He has made his promises and I have made mine."

Chafee to Vote No on Alito

From Jack Perry on the Projo's 9-to-5 blog...

U.S. Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee announced this morning that he will vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

Chafee Vote Against Alito

As reported by WPRO's Lori Johnson, Sen. Lincoln Chafee will vote against Judge Alito. He cited concerns about Judge Alito's stance on wiretapping and executive power and secondarily about Judge Alito's stance on abortion. More to come...

UPDATE: My quick take is that, while Sen. Chafee seems to have indeed voted his conscience, there can be no doubt that a general election political calculation has also been made. That's fine. I disagree with his reasoning and also wonder why he didn't have such fits of conscience when it came to voting for Justice Roberts. Perhaps justifying this vote with some purported belief that Judge Alito would give the Executive too much power is his "out." Nonetheless, I wonder how the President feels about his support for Sen. Chafee, now?

Chafee Decision on Alito to be Announced at 10AM

From Jack Perry of the Projo's 9-to-5 blog...

U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee has scheduled a press conference this morning to announce how he will vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the United States Supreme Court.

The Republican senator plans to announce his decision at 10 a.m. in his office on Westminster Street.

"Energy is bad"

Tongue firmly in cheek, Mac Johnson observes:

High energy costs are a mystery. It seems like no matter how much we prohibit domestic energy production, energy prices just keep going up -- and we just keep getting more dependent on foreign sources. There is no law of economics that can explain it, no hypothetical relationship between supply and demand that could predict price. Bill O’Reilly must be right. High prices must be the result of a secret plot by big oil, or perhaps the freemasons.

Indeed, whoda thunk? Johnson continues in this vein, listing all of the potential sources of energy we have at our disposal and the roadblocks that have been put up by US that keep US from availing ourselves of them. Why do we put up such restrictions?

...energy prices are high because Americans object to every possible source of energy known to mankind. Energy, it seems, is icky. Not so icky that we want to use less of it, mind you. But icky enough that we don’t want to make it ourselves. Instead, we fantasize about utopian energy sources of “the future,” and pay through the nose today for limited supplies of foreign energy that originate in the most backward, unstable, and faraway places imaginable.

Johnson lists various energy sources and explains (humorously) why we Americans can't approve of them. Of New England, he explains:

Natural gas is a good alternative. It burns cleanly, but nobody wants it transported through their neighborhood. New England still relies upon noxious home heating oil, in part, because none of the states whining about pollution and price want terminals to be built for liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. They’re scary. Not as scary as Iran building a nuclear bomb with oil money, but scary. So LNG is obstructed at every turn. In one case, Reps. Barney Frank and James McGovern of Massachusetts took a break from bloviating about heating oil costs to propose that a decrepit condemned bridge across the Fall River be preserved as a bicycle path, solely because the bridge is too low to allow LNG tankers to pass on their way to an approved new terminal site, thus killing the terminal. Think of it as Massachusetts’ bridge to the 19th Century. Home heating oil forever! (Or at least as long as Hugo Chavez says it’s OK.)

In summary, Johnson explains that to we Americans:

Energy is bad. Instead we will continue to live in a fantasy world in which we do not develop our own oil, coal, gas, hydropower, wind power or nuclear and instead dream about hydrogen and ethanol and solar because we know they are too far off to require us to make real decisions anytime soon. We will continue to restrict supply and then complain about price. We will prohibit domestic energy sources and whine about having to import energy from overseas. And we will continue to stifle our economy and instead fuel the economies of our enemies.

Many critics contend that America does not have an energy policy. But that is wrong. Our policy is clear and has been unchanged for thirty years or more: produce little, use lots, and wonder why things never get better.

Here are some of the items that we Americans just can't seem to stomach, with the reason why, as explained by Johnson:

there is oil off the coast of California, but we will not drill for it for fear of disrupting Barbra Streisand’s Feng Shui...

There is oil off the coast of Florida, but we will not drill for it for fear the occasional tar ball might wash up in the front yard of some environmentalist’s million dollar fantasy home, built atop the eroding sands of a once grassy shore...

There is oil in the farthest frozen north of Alaska, but we will not drill for it for fear of offending caribou or Kennedys...

...America has enough coal to last for centuries. Except we can’t mine it lest we make a hole. And we can’t burn it because it really is unpleasant to be around...

But we can live without domestic fossil fuels because we are willing to produce practical alternative fuels, right?

Hydropower is emission-free and practical, but it stops up rivers and impedes travel by fish -so no more of that.

Wind power is a great idea -practical in select sites, renewable, and pollution free. But the windmills are ugly...

Solar? Expensive and impractical in most places, so it’s currently a favorite...

I know: Ethanol! Energy from maize (you call it “corn”) grown in the heartland. Clean burning and good for the family farm...Except that modern farming is so dependent upon fossil fuel...that it takes more than a gallon’s worth of oil to make one gallon of ethanol...Ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuel is thus a perpetual motion machine, but one with a good lobby in Washington.

But even ethanol isn’t as impractical for the foreseeable future as hydrogen power, which is the President’s favorite idea for “the future”. Hydrogen makes only water when burned. Unfortunately, hydrogen can only be made from fossil fuels (see “perpetual motion machine” above) or the electrolysis of water, which would require an abundant supply of cheap non-polluting electricity, and if we had that, why would we need the hydrogen...?

...nuclear... is the one that everybody hates most. Nuclear energy could even fuel a fabled “hydrogen economy” with non-polluting and cheap electricity. But it is scary. The mainstream media has seen to that. It will make you glow in the dark and it could somehow explode for no reason at all...

A coal-fueled power plant emits more radiation than a nuclear power plant (due to uranium ore in the coal), but such facts do not matter in a society that draws its knowledge of nuclear physics from “The China Syndrome” and “The Incredible Hulk...”

Grass-Roots Nature of Conservatism

Phyllis Schlafly--writing in opposition to the President's proposed guest worker program--explains that such an idea is antithetical to the ideals held by the grassroots of the conservative movement. As she explains, conservatives don't like taking "marching orders":

The conservative movement that elected Ronald Reagan twice, George Bush I once, and George Bush II twice, is essentially a movement of grass-rooters who don’t like to take orders from the top and who revolt when they believe they are betrayed or bossed by those they elected. That’s why the grass roots abandoned the first George Bush when he reneged on his “no new taxes, read my lips” promise.

The tough political tactics used by union bosses and Democratic machine bosses simply don’t sit well with conservative Republicans.

Resentment against the Bush Administration is still festering about the combination of threats and bribes that pushed through close votes in Congress to pass the costly Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 and CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in 2004.

Maybe the intra-party divisions between fiscal vs. Big Government conservatives that lay behind the former battle, and between pro vs. anti-free-traders in the latter battle, were evenly balanced enough that the Bush Administration alienated only a handful of Republicans. But in demanding guest worker amnesty, the Bush Administration is taking the unpopular side of a party division that is at least 80-20.

Setting the specific "intra-party divisions" aside, I think Schlafly's larger point that grassroots conservatives don't like being told what to do by party "bosses" is being proven out here in the Ocean State.

Chafee Misquotes Alito to Justify his “No” Vote

In his statement explaining his vote against confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Senator Lincoln Chafee misquotes an answer given by Judge Alito on the subject of executive power. Here is Senator Chafee’s version…

Judge Alito was also asked “…is it possible under your construct that an inherent Constitutional power of the President could, under some analysis or some case, override what people believe to be a Constitutional criminal statue?” Judge Alito responded that this was possible noting a “possibility that that might be justified”.

The selective quotes presented by the Senator leave the impression that Judge Alito has already decided that the Constitutional power of the President can override a Constitutional statute.

That is not what Judge Alito said. Here is the full exchange, involving Judge Alito and Senator Russell Feingold, as transcripted in the Washington Post…

FEINGOLD: But it is possible under your construct that an inherent constitutional power of the president could, under some analysis or in some case, override what people believe to be a constitutional criminal statute?

ALITO: I want to be very precise on this. What I have said -- and I don't think I can go further than to say this -- is that that situation seems to be exactly what is -- to fall exactly within that category that Justice Jackson outlined, where the president is claiming the authority to do something, and the thing that he is claiming the authority to do has been explicitly disapproved by Congress.

So his own taxonomy contemplates the possibility that -- says that there is this category, and cases can fall in this category. And he seems to contemplate the possibility that that might be justified.

What Senator Chafee attributes as Alito explaining his own position is really Alito explaining the view of Justice Robert Jackson in the case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952). When Judge Alito (very cautiously) presents his own view, he explains that he does not necessarily concur with Justice Jackson on this issue…

ALITO: But I don't want to even say that there could be such a case. I don't know. I would have to be presented with the facts of the particular case and consider it in the way I would consider any legal question. I don't think I can go beyond that.

If this issue is as important to Senator Chafee as he claims that it is, then the Senator should have made a better effort to understand -- and present -- what Judge Alito actually said.

This is a perfect example of the source of the widespread disaffection with Senator Chafee. It’s not just the liberal positions that he takes (though that is undeniably part of it) but also the sloppy reasoning, like the above, used to justify those positions. Deference to liberal groupthink is not equivalent to taking a principled stand.

No Filibuster: Alito Vote to be Held on Tuesday

From the Associated Press, via Breitbart.com...

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito enjoys sufficient bipartisan support to surmount any Senate filibuster attempt by minority Democrats, Senate leaders said Friday.

A final vote making the New Jersey jurist the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush gives his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation....

"Everyone knows there are not enough votes to support a filibuster," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Friday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the same thing on Thursday. "A bipartisan majority will vote to confirm Judge Alito as Justice Alito," Frist said.

Alito's supporters already have those commitments, with 53 of the Republicans' 55-member majority and three Democrats; Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, already publicly supporting his confirmation as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also announced Friday he is "leaning in favor of voting for" the conservative judge. "It is clear to me that a majority of the American people and the people I represent support his confirmation," he said after meeting with Alito in his office.

As of the time of this posting, there is still no official word from Senator Lincoln Chafee as to how he will vote on this matter. Senator Jack Reed has already declared that he will vote against Alito.

Laffey Endorses Shadegg in House Leadership Race

OK, I was wrong. Rhode Island Republicans do have a voice in the upcoming Republican leadership election in the House of Representatives. In today's National Review Online, Republican Senatorial Candidate Steve Laffey has endorsed Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona in the race for House Majority Leader ...

All three contestants have issued numerous promises to fight the special interests, but promises are not enough. John Shadegg has the clearest record of standing up to the corrupt practices and the outrageous pork spending that has become so prevalent in recent years. For example, Representative Shadegg cosponsored a bill to reform the earmark process last spring, long before it became the "in" thing to do, and he was one of only eight Representatives to vote against the pork-heavy Transportation bill.

Laffey then plugs his own campaign, and offers some criticism of his challenger...

John Shadegg and I have something in common: We are both appalled by the spending gluttony in Washington, and we have dedicated our careers to saving taxpayers’ money. That is why I am running for the United States Senate in Rhode Island. The incumbent Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee, has not demonstrated the desire or the ability to stand up to the Washington political bosses and fight for the Republican values of fiscal responsibility and restraint. His career has been marked by timidity and an affinity for the status quo, and that is not good enough.

Chafee and Alito: Which Way to go?

From Chris Cillizza's Washington Post Politics Blog (via John J. Miller at NRO):

[Sen. Lincoln] Chafee remains the most high-profile undecided senator on Alito, and regardless of which side he eventually chooses, he can expect to be bashed for it.

Chafee faces a primary challenge from Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (R). Should he get through that race, he will face off against either former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse (D) or Secretary of State Matt Brown (D) in a state that went for the Democratic presidential candidate by 20 points in 2004.

A Chafee vote for Alito will make for considerable fodder for either Brown or Whitehouse. But a vote against Alito could give Laffey the GOP nomination.

Asked about the seeming conundrum, Chafee campaign manager Ian Lang said that "from a purely political standpoint this is a lose-lose situation." Lang said Chafee will put aside political interests, however, and make a decision that is in the "best interests of the country and the best interests of Rhode Island."

Laffey, who is running as a populist outsider and to Chafee's ideological right, has already sought to make the senator's indecision on Alito an issue in the campaign. "As long as we have known Senator Chafee he has shied away from taking a firm stance on the critical issues of the day," Laffey said in a recent news release. The release also noted that Chafee didn't vote for President George W. Bush in 2004, recalling Chafee's decision to cast a symbolic vote for former President George H.W. Bush instead.

A source close to Laffey said "voting against Alito, and doing so in the indecisive manner in which [Chafee] is conducting himself, underscores exactly what Rhode Island Republicans most dislike about Chafee -- he sides with the liberals on all the big issues, and he's weak and can't make up his mind."

Chafee, perhaps the most moderate Republican in the Senate, must be cognizant of the Republican base as he weighs how to respond to Laffey's primary challenge. . .

So in order to win the GOP primary, Chafee must not only convince a cavalcade of independents to support him but also take a chunk of traditional Republican votes. With that calculation in mind, one source close to the Chafee campaign said the the senator "can survive a 'yes' [on Alito] vote a lot easier in the general election than he can survive a 'no' vote in the primary election."

I wonder: what does Sen. Chafee consider "the best interests of the country and the best interests of Rhode Island"? I hope he elaborates when he announces his decision.

True Tax-Lien Reform: Ending the Government's Claim that it Owns Your Home

Rhode Island’s current tax-lien sale system is based on the idea that the government owns all property and that individuals can never move beyond renting from the government. What Rhode Island calls “property taxes” are really rents paid to a government landlord. How else is it possible to interpret a system that holds, no matter how much money you have invested in the purchase of home, even if you have fully paid off your mortgage, you can still be evicted without compensation if you stop paying your rent?

Like anyone else, the government should have to pay fair market value when it wants to take control of a home. Here’s what this should mean for a tax-lien sale. Suppose a house is valued at $100,000 and that the owner has fully paid off the mortgage but is delinquent on $500 worth of taxes. If the government really needs that $500, it should be required to buy out the owner for $99,500 ($100,000 value of the home, minus the $500 in back taxes). It can then flip the home for the full $100,000, netting the $500 owed.

In addition to being more fair, ending the assumption of universal government ownership creates the proper economic incentives. The incentives of the current system are perverse. The most attractive targets of tax-lien predators are those who owe the smallest amounts. A real deadbeat, on the other hand, someone who owes tens-of-thousands of dollars of back taxes is not an attractive target because the return on the lien-purchaser's investment is significantly reduced by the large up-front amount needed to pay off the lien.

When there is true citizen ownership of property, the incentives are reversed. Delinquent owners owing the most taxes become the top priority in tax-lien machinations. For example, if someone owes $80,000 in back taxes on a $100,000 home, then the government would only have to cough up $20,000 to buy out the owner and get its $80,000. This, obviously, would be a higher priority to the government (one would hope) than spending $99,500 to get $500.

I’m not yet sure what Governor Carcieri’s full package of tax-lien reforms will look like, but whatever it is, it should include a strong rejection of the idea that the government owns your home and you just live there.

College Republicans Splinter for Laffey

What's this? An upstart group of college students is joining the efforts of a non-mainstream candidate to bring change to Rhode Island. The students are young, hip, and passionate about effecting change in Rhode Island and supporting the candidate who most closely characterizes Republican ideals. The baccalaureate degree candidates call themselves Students for Laffey, and they are going door-to-door as well as hitting the phones in support of U.S. Senate candidate Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.

While the mayor has always styled himself as grassroots — and must love the shout-out to Students for Laffey in the Projo — why don't the students just focus their efforts through College Republicans of Rhode Island where they'd have dollars backing the zeal? Well:

Until the Republican Primary is over, and the candidate representing the Republican Party in the General Election has been decided, College Republican chapters throughout Rhode Island are left unable to endorse and therefore throw any volunteer efforts towards either candidate in an official capacity. Students for Laffey is an independent, umbrella organization that allows individual College Republican students still wishing to volunteer for the Laffey U.S. Senate campaign to do so.

According to Executive Director Ryan Bilodeau, there are no college Republicans who support Chafee. Doubting that's wholly correct, I tested the theory by Googling "students for Chafee" and found a Brown College Republican who had indeed started a similarly titled organization supporting Lincoln Chafee's bid for reelection. Unfortunately, it either does not have a Web site, or my search skills are wanting, because I was unable to locate one.

In any event, Bilodeau says 40 students, and more daily, plan to work tirelessly for Laffey's primary bid against Chafee. Who said young Republicans were nonexistent in Rhode Island? No, they are alive, organized, and exuberant over the prospect of supporting a U.S. Senate candidate who has the opportunity to bring more than just the party label to the halls of the Senate.

State of the State: Did you Know This?

Rhode Island soldiers were the first to enter the New Orleans Convention Center after Katrina, with about 100 soldiers for a mission that called for 500. They were "huge heroes from a small state".

State of the State: Reform Proposals

Governor Carcieri proposes reform in four areas...

1. Reform eminent domain!
2. Reform medical malpractice insurance!
3. Pass voter initiative!
4. Reform predatory tax-lien sales!

And amending the state constitution to serve the interests of an out-of-state casino corporation would be a "travesty". (Note: big applause here.)

State of the State: Energy Policy Proposals

Governor Carcieri outlines a five-point energy program...

1. Promote conservation.
2. Increase LNG capacity without building facilities in populated areas.
3. Assistance to vulnerable households.
4. Reform the pricing system for electricity.
5. Vigorously pursue alternative energy. Goal of using wind-power to produce 15% of RI energy

State of the State: Tax-relief proposals

Governor Carcieri outlines the state of and his proposals for tax-relief...

Lincoln Park and Newport Grand revenues will pay for complete phase-out of the car tax.

Must reduce the growth rate of government spending. Pension reform will save $250,000,000 over 5 years. "Big audit" fiscal fitness will save $140,000,000.

Proposes the following long-term, structural spending reforms...
1. State personnel system will be reformed, fewer middle-managers.
2. Reform the human service entitlement programs, promoting healthier choices and putting more people to work faster.
3. Constitutional amendment to tie spending increases to rate of inflation.
4. Lower allowed rate of municipal property tax increases.

State of the State: Combine Urban School Districts

Governor Carcieri proposes a single metropolitan school district to include Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls.

State of the State: Education and Innovation

Governor Carcieri outlines his proposals for improving innovation and education in Rhode Island...

1. Increase the research capacity of RI universities and increase their ability to attract top scientists.
2. Uprecedented investments in research at URI.
3. Create a science and technology tax-credit.
4. Implement statewide wireless, border to border.
5. Better coordination between primary, secondary, and higher education.
6. Attract more people to teach math and science.
7. Improve teacher training in math and science.
8. Provide more rigorous programs of study to RI students

State of the State: "Vibrant and Dynamic as Ever"

Governor Carcieri says his adminstration will focus on 4 areas...

1. Innovation based on science and technology.
2. Improved education of young people in math and science.
3. Reducing the tax burden of government, by controlling spending.
4. Maintaining the quality of life that makes people want to live in RI.

Dole (Briefly) Opines on RI Senate '06

According to Hotline, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, chairwoman of the National Republican Senate Committee, offered this bit about the RI '06 Senate race today:

In RI, where the NRSC has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars slamming incumbent Linc Chafee's primary opponent, Dole dismissed the idea that Chafee's challenger could win. Dole: "I will not even entertain the idea that Steve Laffey will win the primary."

Local Channel 6 charactized this as Sen. Dole offering "a positive view of Chafee's chances against his conservative challenger." There's your red meat for the day.

Williamson's Casino Amendment Undermines Separation of Powers

Ed Achorn expounds on how Rep. Williamson's proposed Casino Amendment will undermine Separation of Powers:

Representative Williamson seeks to amend the Rhode Island Constitution by writing in a specific tax rate for Harrah's -- the first time that a special deal crafted for a corporation would be part of the state's constitution.

In other states where their constitutions give special tax breaks to private interests -- such as West Virginia (coal) or Alabama (cotton and timber) -- citizens have found it virtually impossible to get rid of them, notes Philip West, executive director of Common Cause's Rhode Island affiliate. Those industries have used their influence to control state government, supplanting the public interest with their special interests.

But that's only part of the plan for Rhode Island.

The Harrah's-backed proposal seeks an exception from the state constitution's guarantee of separation of powers, so that those who write the gambling laws (legislators) would also implement and enforce them. The scheme would create a new "gaming commission" with vast powers over the new casino. Four of the seven members would be appointed by the House speaker and Senate president -- giving the legislature effective control of a board that would clearly serve an executive function.

As Achorn continues, "It's as if separation of powers had never happened." Indeed, as Achorn points out:

. . . in fact, the legislature. . . has not yet passed laws making changes in most boards and commissions to comply with the state's constitution. Only 26 of 78 public or quasi-public boards have been changed. . .

Achorn does qualify that a "go slow" approach is probably a good idea, but still, to continue "go slow" on the Separation of Powers front whilst putting the Casino Amendment on the fast track certainly indicates the priorities of the State Legislature, doesn't it?

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Endorses Sen. Chafee

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--which represents 3 million businesses nationwide--has endorsed Senator Chafee for his '06 Senate run according to an article in today's ProJo. This despite having differences with the Senator over various environmental , tax and labor policies. According to the story, the endorsement means the USCC will provide both money and "people on the ground" for Sen. Chafee.

Chafee said the endorsement is important "to show that not only can I win the endorsement of the environmental groups, but also the business groups. There is no more powerful business group than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

. . . Chafee said he was not surprised to win the chamber's endorsement, because of his ability to work across the partisan divide. "The value that they appreciate is working from the middle on some of these contentious issues and trying to get good bipartisan support," he said.

Mayor Laffey accused Sen. Chafee of recycling an endorsement he had received last November and his campaign characterized it as support from a special-interest group. Comparing this endorsement to that given Laffey by the Club for Growth, Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report noted that, "The one difference is that the club doesn't have much of a membership that lives and votes in Rhode Island -- the chamber does."

According to Chamber vice president and political director Bill Miller, Sen. Chafee voted the chamber's position 82 percent of the time in 2004.

"From class action [reform] to bankruptcy to medical malpractice, transportation, trade, the CAFTA bill that was hugely important to the business community -- the senator has been supportive on all of those," Miller said. "The bottom line is we have someone who is sympathetic to the business community, and more often than not votes with us."

However, the Journal also reports

But Chafee has opposed the chamber on a number of issues, such as the Endangered Species Act, which Chafee supports and which the chamber has criticized; a proposed federal minimum wage hike, which Chafee backs; oil drilling in the ANWAR, which he opposes; and others.

Duffy explains that because the Chamber has a position "on so many issues, few politicians will match up perfectly." Brown's Darrell West has his own theory as to why Chafee garnered this endorsement.

Overlooking differences with Chafee is simple political arithmetic, West said. The chamber would rather have a Republican they like 80 percent of the time than a Democrat who may oppose them more often, West said. "Chafee has a demonstrated record of electability" as a moderate Republican in a state dominated by Democrats.

Senator Montalbano Shouldn't be Offended Because People are Paying Attention to the Legislature

According to a Mark Arsenault article in today’s Projo, Senate President Joseph Montalbano is looking out for your best interests when he protects the government’s authority to seize your home in a tax-lien sale…

Senate President Joseph A. Montalbano says he would support a proposed overhaul of the way liens are sold for delinquent property taxes if he could be sure the legislation would not hurt the tax collection rates of Rhode Island municipalities….

Some supporters of the legislation have grumbled about a similar bill that was filed last year, blaming the Senate for taking out a provision to allow Rhode Island Housing to buy liens in bulk. Montalbano, a lawyer who has conducted tax sales for several cities and towns, said he takes offense at the suggestion that the Senate "watered down" last year's bill.

I am not sure what exactly Senate President Montalbano finds offensive. There is no doubt that last year’s tax-lien reform bill was “watered down”. Provisions giving the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation the right of first refusal in tax-lien sales, tightening up procedures relating to the notification of delinquent owners, and involving the Department of Elderly Affairs in cases involving elderly citizens were all present in the tax-lien reform package introduced in the legislature last year. All had vanished by the time the final bill was voted on. Is Senator Montalbano offended because he wants us to know that it was the House, and not the Senate, that initiated their removal? (Incidentally, all three provisions have already been reintroduced to the legislature this year.)

Attention may be focusing on the Senate, in part, because of campaign contributions made from people actively involved in tax-lien sales to Senator Montalbano. John E. Shekarchi, a direct participant in the purchase of Madeline Walker’s house out from under her because of an unpaid sewer bill, gave $200 to Montalbano last year. Patrick T. Conley, described by the Projo's Katherine Gregg as one of the most prolific tax-lien purchasers in Rhode Island,

Conley has also figured -- and is likely to figure again this year -- in State House efforts to rewrite the state's ever-controversial tax-sale laws.

One of the busiest players in this field, Conley recently estimated having bought titles to 8,000 pieces of tax-delinquent property in Providence since 1979. About 5,700 were redeemed by their owners.

By his own estimates, he took ownership of the remaining 2,300 when the owners didn't pay their debt,

...gave $1,000 to Montalbano.

Both Mr. Shekarchi and Mr. Conley gave their contributions in March 2005, after the tax-lien bill was introduced to the Rhode Island Senate (February 2005), but before it was voted on by the full Senate (June 2005).

The Fundamentals of Casino Economics

Earlier this week, Marc asked why Rhode Island's casino proponents are taking such a convoluted route towards changing the state constitution to legalize gambling...

Instead of writing a clean, concise line or two saying something like, oh, I don't know...."gambling does not have to be state-operated", we have this:

"Approval of this amendment to the state Constitution will authorize a casino gaming facility in the town of West Warwick, to be privately owned and operated in association with the Narragansett Indian Tribe, with tax proceeds from the casino being dedicated to property-tax relief for Rhode Island citizens, and will permit future privately owned and operated casino gaming facilities in this state only upon further vote of the people."

Where's the part that says only Del's Lemonade and Saugy's weiners can be served at the establishment?

For an expert opinion on this matter, I refer you to Richard Posner, currently a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a faculty member at the University of Chicago, and author of books with titles like Economic Analysis of Law and the Economics of Justice. Judge Posner recently posted to the Becker-Posner Blog (which he hosts along with Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker) on The Economics of Indian Casinos.

Posner begins by describing the essential nature of a casino, arguing, in an economic sense, that there is no difference between a casino and any other entertainment business...

A casino is just a retail entertainment establishment, like a restaurant, bar, nightclub, supermarket, or game room. The investment involved in a casino is modest, consisting of little more than a building plus gambling tables, roulette wheels, and one-armed bandits.

So if a casino is just a business, then why are casinos so much more profitable than movie theaters or restaurants? Or, to put the question in local context, why is it believed that a casino in West Warwick will have an economic impact on the entire state of Rhode Island that a multiplex movie theatre will not? Posner answers...

The answer is that gambling is a regulated industry. More particularly, entry is limited by government. This is not just a matter of requiring a license available to anyone able to pay a modest fee and perhaps meet some minimum legal and financial qualifications. In many states entry requires as a practical matter the entrant to prove that it is a bona fide Indian tribe, or, if it is not Indian, to convince a state legislature to permit non-Indians to compete.

The huge profits of gambling and the resulting temptations to corruption, both the quasi-corruption of large campaign contributions and the outright corruption of bribes, could be eliminated at a stroke by abolishing the limitations of entry into gambling. Then entry into the gambling business would proceed until the price of gambling fell to the cost of operating a gambling business.

The high-profitability of casinos is created by an artificially low casino "supply" created by strict government regulation.

So this is my question to Rhode Island's gambling proponents. Government, we agree (at least in public) should not be in the business of protecting artificially high profits of non-essential business sectors. You cannot get any more non-essential than a casino. What, then, is the justification for government being so intimately intertwined with the casino business and carving out monopolies for a group of preferred casino operators and a particular town? If there really is strong public support to bring gambling to Rhode Island, then why not just legalize gambling in general?

Peggy Noonan: The decline of the liberal media monopoly and the future of the GOP

Peggy Noonan’s latest editorial Not a Bad Time to Take Stock: Thoughts on the decline of the liberal media monopoly and the future of the GOP notes:

I don't think Democrats understand that the Alito hearings were, for them, not a defeat but an actual disaster. The snarly tone the senators took with a man most Americans could look at and think, "He's like me," and the charges they made--You oppose women and minorities, you only like corporations and not the little guy--went nowhere. Once those charges would have taken flight, would have launched, found their target and knocked down any incoming Republican. Not any more. It's over.

Eleven years ago the Democrats lost control of Congress. Then they lost the presidency. But just as important, maybe more enduringly important, they lost their monopoly on the means of information in America. They lost control of the pipeline. Or rather there are now many pipelines, and many ways to use the information they carry...

Could Democratic senators today torture Clarence Thomas with tales of Coke cans and porn films? Not likely. Could Ted Kennedy have gotten away with his "Robert Bork's America" speech unanswered? No.

And the end of the monopoly of course isn't only in the news, it's in all media…"You don't like it, change the channel," network executives used to say. But that, as they knew, meant nothing: There were only three channels. Now there are 500. And more coming.

You know who else experienced, up close and personal, the end of the information monopoly this week? Walter Cronkite. Once, he said America should leave Vietnam and the president of the United States said if we've lost him we've lost middle America. Now, Walter calls for withdrawal from Iraq and it occasions only one thing: stories about how once such a thing mattered…

We are in a time when the very diminution of the importance of network news leaves some old news hands to drop their guard and announce what they are: liberal Democrats. Nothing wrong with that, but they might have told us when they were in power. The very existence of conservative media--of Rush Limbaugh, of Fox, of the Internet sites--has become an excuse by previously "I call 'em as I see 'em/I try to be impartial" journalists to advance their biases. Actually, it's more Fox than anything. The existence of a respected cable network that is nonliberal and non-Democratic (or that is conservative, or Republican, or neoconservative -- people on the right have polite disagreements about this) is more and more freeing news outlets, encouraging them actually, as a potential business model, to be more and more what they are. Is this good? Well, it's clearer…

But where does this leave us? With our mass media busy with reluctant reformation...with the old network monopoly over and done...with something new, we know not what, about to take its place...with the Democratic Party adjusting to the loss of its megaphone...Where does that leave us? I think it leaves us knowing that, more than ever, the Republican Party--the party ultimately helped by the end of the old monopoly and the reformation of news media--must be a good party, a decent one, and help our country.

That it regain a sense of its historic mission. That it stop seeming the friend of the wired and return to being the great friend of Main Street, for Main Street still, in its own way, exists. That it return to basic principles on spending, regulation and state authority. That it question a foreign policy that often seems at once dreamy and aggressive, and question, too, an overreaching on immigration policy that seems composed in equal parts of naiveté and cynicism. That its representatives admit that lunching with lobbyists is not the problem; failing to oppose the growth of government--so huge that no one, really no one, knows what is in its budget--is. That they reduce the size and power of government. That they help our country…

Republicans in Washington struggle with scandal and speak of reform, and reformation. They would better think of words like regain, refresh, rebuild. If they don't, if Republicans don't choose to lead well, and seriously, and with principle, they should ask themselves: Who will? Seriously: Who will?

This is why the outcome of the House Majority Leader race is so important (see here, here, here, and here).

More on that race, and why Congressman John Shadegg is the best candidate, can be found here, here, here, here and here.

Celebrating Reaganomics, 25 years later

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal carried an editorial entitled Still Morning in America: Reaganomics, 25 years later:

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States promising less intrusive government, lower tax rates and victory over communism…If the story of history is one long and arduous march toward freedom, this was a momentous day well worth commemorating.

All the more so because over this 25-year period prosperity has been the rule, not the exception, for America--in stark contrast to the stagflationary 1970s. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the success of Reaganomics is that, over the course of the past 276 months, the U.S. economy has been in recession for only 15. That is to say, 94% of the time the U.S. economy has been creating jobs (43 million in all) and wealth ($30 trillion). More wealth has been created in the U.S. in the last quarter-century than in the previous 200 years. The policy lessons of this supply-side prosperity need to be constantly relearned, lest we return to the errors that produced the 1970s.

The heart and soul of Reagan's economic agenda were sound money (making the dollar "as good as gold," as Reagan used to put it) and lower tax rates. On monetary policy, Reagan has won a resounding victory. Today, nearly all economists agree with Reagan's then-controversial belief that the sole purpose of monetary policy should be to keep prices stable…

On tax policy, Reaganomics has also carried the day, if somewhat less completely. Tax rates in the U.S. are on average half as high now as they were in the 1970s, and almost every nation has followed the Reagan model of lower tax rates…

Nonetheless, tax cuts still stand in disrepute among most of the media, academics and Democrats in Congress, albeit for shifting reasons. When Reagan proposed his 30% across-the-board tax-rate cut, his critics howled that this would cause demand to rise and lead to hyper-inflation. In fact, supply rose faster than demand, and inflation fell to 4% from 13% and has fallen even lower since…the moment the final leg of the tax cut took effect, in January of 1983, the economy roared to life with an expansion that lasted more than seven years.

When the budget deficit rose in the mid-1980s, the liberals warned that if Reagan would not raise taxes interest rates would skyrocket. He didn't and rates didn't…

The Gipper's critics have written an economic history of the 1990s that they portray as a repudiation of Reaganomics. In this telling--known as Rubinomics--the Clinton tax hikes of 1993 ended the budget deficit, which caused interest rates to fall, which produced the boom of the mid- to late-1990s. In fact, the budget deficit hardly fell at all in the immediate aftermath of the tax hike, and while long-term interest rates fell in 1993, they shot back up again in 1994 almost precisely through Election Day…

On that day, voters…gave Republicans control of Capitol Hill to govern on the Reaganite agenda of lowering taxes and shrinking runaway government. Both the stock and bond markets turned upward precisely on Election Day in 1994, beginning a whirlwind six-year rally. By 1998, growth and fiscal restraint delivered a budget surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. In 1997 President Clinton signed a further reduction in the capital gains tax, which propelled investment and the stock market to even greater heights.

The latest chapter of this story is the 2003 income and investment tax cuts enacted by the current President Bush…in the two and a half years since those tax cuts passed, the economy and tax revenues have both surged.

Where Republicans have most strayed from the Reagan vision has been on controlling federal spending…They should all recall the Gipper's words in his inauguration speech 25 years ago: "It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government."

For more economic/taxation history, check out the posting entitled Economics 101: Never Underestimate the Incentive Power of Marginal Tax Cuts.

Gambling Leads to Political Corruption

As West Warwick Rep. Tim Williamson continues to flog the twice-shot casino horse here in Rhode Island, an editorial by Thomas Grey--national field director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling--in today's ProJo points out that the recent Abramoff scandal occurred because of influence peddling done by Indian casinos. Thus, the unsurprising conclusion is that--in addition to financial and social costs--gambling leads to political corruption.

Both political parties have been equal-opportunity pigs at the feeding trough of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Behind the recent confessions of mail fraud, tax evasion, and influence peddling is the enormous impact of gambling dollars on politics. Gambling lobbyists are involved in misused charities, campaign contributions, overseas golfing excursions, and stipends to the wives of lawmakers. Trace the money to its source and you find enormous gambling profits.

The majority of senators are returning tainted gambling contributions, including Conrad Burns (R.-Mont.), Byron Dorgan (D.-N.D.), Mitch McConnell (R.-Kty.), Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D.-N.Y.), Sam Brownback (R.-Kans.), and Max Baucus, (D.-Mont.) Prominent House members on the list of recipients include former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Texas), Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), Earl Pomeroy (D.-N.D.), Bob Ney (R.-Ohio), and Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.).

Elected officials of both parties are now giving back millions of gambling dollars with the same ease with which they accepted them.

Current headlines eclipse the savings-and-loan scandals of a generation ago. Congress tried to bail out the financial losses of savings-and-loan associations, but who pays for the victims of our national gambling binge, the losses resulting from increased addictions, bankruptcies, theft, embezzlements, suicides, marital problems, and broken homes?

Certainly not the gambling promoters and their hirelings.

It's a link I wish I'd made myself within the context of the latest stab at a RI casino. I've said before that it is the RI government that is most addicted to gambling because of the revenue generated, but Grey sums it up nicely:

The tragedy of gambling is the lure of great wealth, painlessly acquired through luck. When individuals become addicted to this dream of easy money, their greed often leads to fraud, bankruptcy, and personal tragedy.

This same pattern is emerging in modern government. Here, too, gamblers offer easy wealth: a painless revenue stream to cover government deficits. With the lubrication of political contributions, lawmakers view gambling as the solution to financing government obligations. Thus, Government slowly becomes addicted to more and more gambling schemes.

The results are tragically predictable: financial shortfalls, personal tragedies, and the political corruption that we are now experiencing. No state can gamble itself rich.

Last year, Nevada passed the largest tax increase in its history. Like other gambling-addicted states, Nevada had to get out of the hole that gambling had dug for it. The time has come for politicians to sever their ties with gambling predators.

Is this the sort of financial "security" we are seeking? I support the idea that RIers should have the right to vote on whether or not they want a casino. But I'll also continue to argue against the false promise of painless revenue that the casino-pushers proffer. Such a scheme just doesn't square with my old-fashioned Yankee sensibility.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm...

From Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy...

In response to a question from an audience of Northwestern law students and faculty, [Senator Richard] Durbin disclosed that the Senate leaders were counting votes, not only on Alito's nomination, but on the possibility of a filibuster: "At this point, I wouldn’t want to project whether we will have a filibuster.”

On the nomination more generally, Durbin said that one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, had publicly indicated that he would vote for Alito, and one undisclosed Republican Senator had privately indicated that he or she would probably vote against Alito.

Five-Year Retirement Bill Introduced in Rhode Island Legislature

State Representatives Joseph Faria (D-Central Falls) and David Laroche (D-Woonsocket) have introduced a bill in the Rhode Island House that will, according to its official description, “reduce the number of years needed to vest in the state retirement system from ten to five” (House bill 6860).

The bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee. Given that the state is facing a budget shortfall (now estimated at $77,000,000), does the Finance Committee intend to produce an estimate of how much additional taxation and/or how much in spending cuts will be required to pay for this bill?

Walter Williams: Attacking Lobbyists is Wrong Battle

Walter Williams, once again, cuts through all the political posturing about the rationale for lobbying reforms in his latest editorial:

...Whatever actions Congress might take in the matter of lobbying are going to be just as disappointing in ending influence-peddling as their Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold bill. Before we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by our political leaders, we might do our own analysis to determine whether the problem is money in politics or something more fundamental.

Let's start this analysis with a question. Why do corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over millions of dollars to the campaign coffers of politicians? Is it because these groups are extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep interest in congressmen doing their jobs of upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution?...Anyone answering in the affirmative...probably also believes that storks deliver babies and there really is an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

A much better explanation for the millions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians lies in the awesome growth of government control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors. The greater their power to grant favors, the greater the value of being able to influence Congress, and there's no better influence than money.

The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans. A variant of this privilege is to get Congress to do something that would be criminal if done privately.

Here's just one among possibly thousands of examples. If Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) used goons and violence to stop people from buying sugar from Caribbean producers so that sugar prices would rise, making it easier for ADM to sell more of its corn syrup sweetener, they'd wind up in jail. If they line the coffers of congressmen, they can buy the same result without risking imprisonment. Congress simply does the dirty work for them by enacting sugar import quotas and tariffs...

...A tweak here and a tweak there in the tax code can mean millions of dollars.

...Campaign finance and lobby reform will only change the method of influence-peddling. If Congress did only what's specifically enumerated in our Constitution, influence-peddling would be a non-issue simply because the Constitution contains no authority for Congress to grant favors and special privileges. Nearly two decades ago, during dinner with the late Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, I asked him if he had the power to write one law that would get government out of our lives, what would that law be? Professor Hayek replied he'd write a law that read: Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. He elaborated: If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs should also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling.

Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans: A simple, but powerful, policy spoken by one of the greatest economists. Now ponder how that would change Washington's game of pork.

How not to Write a Casino Amendment

First things first: I'm not a big proponent of state-sponsored gambling. I understand it can be fun for the participant, but I think that the revenue generated by gambling proceeds give a false sense of security to our politicians. Have a potential revenue shortfall? Let's not cut spending, let's increase gambling! We can argue over whether or not gambling is addictive to individuals: what is certain is that it is most addictive to government.

With that being said, I don't mind the idea of letting the people vote on whether or not they want a casino. But first, a privately operated casino (instead of state-run) needs to be deemed constitutional. The State Supreme Court has said it isn't--twice. Thus, we now have a push for a Constitutional Amendment. But instead of writing a clean, concise line or two saying something like, oh, I don't know...."gambling does not have to be state-operated", we have this:

"Approval of this amendment to the state Constitution will authorize a casino gaming facility in the town of West Warwick, to be privately owned and operated in association with the Narragansett Indian Tribe, with tax proceeds from the casino being dedicated to property-tax relief for Rhode Island citizens, and will permit future privately owned and operated casino gaming facilities in this state only upon further vote of the people."

Where's the part that says only Del's Lemonade and Saugy's weiners can be served at the establishment? Such specificity is not the way to write a Constitutional Amendment. I'm not the only one who thinks so:

Joseph Larisa, the lawyer who successfully challenged earlier versions of the casino proposal in court, had this response: "Constitutional catastrophe."

"It is unprecedented in Rhode Island constitutional history, dating back to 1842, to put in the Constitution a special deal for any individual business," let alone "a tax rate for an individual business," Larisa said.

And he was not alone. House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox said he also has reservations.

Fox, D-Providence, said he does not object, in principle, to having a public referendum on changing the Constitution to remove what has emerged as a legal barrier to the proposed casino. But he had said he has concerns about the convoluted question Williamson proposes.

"When you keep adding verbiage like that, it looks like it is protectionism or that it is favoring one corporation over another," Fox said.

"I think the general public is going to raise concerns," he said. . .

H. Philip West, executive director of the citizens' advocacy group Common Cause said there is "huge danger" in adding "specific tax figures to the Constitution . . . especially if they are unreasonably low, as I think many will argue these are."

The thinking behind his concern: "In ten years, to change these numbers and go to higher numbers, it would take a constitutional amendment and I can bet you that Harrah's will raise and spend enormous amounts of money to prevent any higher tax rate."

He and Larisa said the proposal would also "gut" the current ban, in the state Constitution, on lawmakers serving on state boards and commission.

Said Larisa: "Before the ink is even dry on the Separation of Powers Amendment, which was a decade-long battle to introduce good government into our three-branch system, this constitutional amendment is proposing to gut it."

. . . But the sharpest words came predictably from Republican Carcieri who has no power, under law, to veto proposed changes to the Constitution.

Carcieri, who presided over a massive expansion of video-slot gambling, said he continues to believe "a Harrah's casino would undercut state revenues from Lincoln Park and Newport Grand, would hurt local businesses, and would increase the potential for crime and public corruption."

Through a spokesman, he also said, he is "particularly disturbed" by the effort to amend the state Constitution and called it "unfortunate that casino proponents continue to try to obscure the fact that Harrah's Entertainment will actually own the casino, and will reap the majority of the profits."

"Why do the casino proponents keep trying to conceal the facts about the Harrah's casino deal, and what else are they hiding?" he mused.

The Race for Republican Majority Leader

There is an important, upcoming political decision where Rhode Islanders will have no voice. It is the election of a new Majority Leader in the House of Representatives. The outcome of the this election will significantly impact Republican prospects for maintaining their national governing majority. If the new leader cannot convince the public that Republicans are serious about bringing spending under control, Republicans may lose control of Congress to the Democrats within the next two or three election cycles.

Two of the three leading contenders for the Majority Leader position published op-eds on the OpininonJournal.com website this week. Both sounded at least one common theme – the Republican party must reduce pork spending if it is to stay true to its principles and maintain the credibility it needs to govern effectively. (By the way, is anyone still arguing that reducing pork-spending is not a viable political issue?)

Congressman John Boehner of Ohio, considered one of the two frontrunners for Majority Leader, devoted an extensive part of his op-ed to discussing specific pork-spending reforms…

To rebuild trust in the [House of Representatives] and our commitment to governing, we need to recognize that most of the current ethical problems arise from one basic fact: Government is too big and controls too much money. If you want to dismantle the culture that produced an Abramoff or a Scanlon, you need to reform how Congress exerts power.

We must start by addressing the growing practice of unauthorized earmarks--language in spending bills that directs federal dollars to private entities for projects that are not tied to an existing federal program or purpose. The public knows the practice better by a different name--pork-barreling. Unauthorized earmarks squander taxpayer dollars and lack transparency. They feed public cynicism. They've been a driving force in the ongoing growth of our already gargantuan federal government, and a major factor in government's increasing detachment from the priorities of individual Americans….

Many pork-barrel provisions are inserted into legislation at the last minute to ensure passage, and relatively few members get a chance to see them before actually voting. My Republican colleague, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has bold ideas to solve this problem. He proposes that the earmarking process be transparent: All earmarks should be included in the actual text of legislation, so members can see them before they vote….

We need to establish some clear standards by which worthy projects can be distinguished from worthless pork, so that pork projects can be halted in their tracks as soon as they are identified. For example, earmarks should meet the specific purpose of the authorizing statute. They should not give a private entity a competitive edge unless it is in the immediate national security interest of the country. They should not be a substitute for state and local fiscal responsibility. They should be used sparingly, and ideally, they should be a one-time appropriation for a specific national need.

Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona, considered a dark-horse candidate, approves of Boehner’s proposals. As proof of his committment, he points out that he has already sponsored legislation that would have implemented them…

Yesterday John Boehner wrote on this page about a proposal to reform the earmark process offered by Rep. Jeff Flake. While Mr. Boehner is suddenly talking about this idea, I was one of the first co-sponsors when it was introduced last spring.

We need sunshine in the earmark process, and an end to secret, backroom deals. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the total number of earmarks in 2005 was nearly 14,000--compared with only 1,439 in 1995. Earmarked money is often spent without the oversight and consideration in the regular appropriations process, so waste, abuse or even fraud is more likely. Congress should base decisions on what is good for America, not what is good for the lobbyist friends of a few.

Every year Congress adopts a budget, and every year we exceed it. Cheats and dodges--supplemental spending without offsets, "off budget" spending--hide this expenditure, but it is added to our national debt, a legacy of irresponsibility to burden future generations. We are still using a budget process that dates from 1974, when Democrats ruled the House and the government was a fraction of its current size. We need reforms in our budget rules to force Congress to stay within the budget it adopts.

The third candidate, Congressman Roy Blunt of Missouri, has not, as far as I know, taken a definitive stand on pork-reform.

Alas, as Rhode Island has no Republican Representatives in Congress, Rhode Island will have no vote in this matter. However, the mood for reform does provide a more-interesting-than-usual opening for Republican candidates interested in running in Rhode Island’s 2006 Congressional elections. There is an opportunity for an up-and-coming Republican politician to discuss his-or-her party’s principled stand on a popular and relevant issue and attach him-or-herself to the national party in a positive way. Anybody in the party interested in keeping our incumbent Representatives honest and building some statewide name recognition, all while doing the right thing?

UPDATE: (January 19, 2006)

As Marc points out in the comments, Congressman Roy Blunt of Missouri, the current Majority Whip and the other frontrunner in the election, makes his case for becomming Majority Leader at OpinionJournal.com today. It includes a section on pork-reform...

We must also reform the earmark and federal grant-making processes. Specifically, earmarks should be identified with the member who is requesting them, and accompanied by a justification for how the expenditure serves a public purpose. Grants made by federal agencies should be open to more scrutiny with the creation of a public database of all those receiving grants, along with a justification for how the grant serves the public interest.

Spreading Falsehoods in our Children's Education about Martin Luther King, Jr. and the American Founding

Joseph Farah has written an editorial entitled I have a dream, too about how the life of a great American - Martin Luther King, Jr. - is being taught to our children:

I have a dream that America will return to its heritage of freedom.

But before that dream is realized, we've got to stop miseducating kids at every turn. What do I mean? Take what your kids are learning today about Martin Luther King and the principles of American freedom.

They learn that "civil rights are the freedoms and rights that a person has as a member of a community, state or nation." That's what Scholastic magazine, distributed through schools all over the country, published six years ago. "In the U.S., these rights are guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution and acts of Congress."

That is not true. Civil rights, America's founders taught us so well, are God-given, unalienable rights. They don't descend from government. They are not given out through acts of Congress. They cannot be invented by man. They are inherent, universal, permanent.

This is such a foundational point of understanding American civic life, history and government...This is deliberate brainwashing – an example of the dumbing-down process...What these institutions produce are not educated students so much as spare parts for a giant statist-corporate matrix called America.

As if to underline the point, the Scholastic article writer added: "Since the 1960s, many laws have been passed to guarantee civil rights to all Americans. But the struggle continues. Today, not only blacks, but many other groups – including women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, people with disabilities, homosexuals, the homeless and other minorities – are waging civil-rights campaigns."

If Scholastic is correct about rights simply being extended by legislative decree, then rights can be taken away as easily as they are bestowed. Those are not rights, folks. Those are privileges.

Notice the subtle way the struggle by blacks is equated with agitation by "the homeless" and homosexuals. This is Marxist Indoctrination 101...now it is thoroughly permeating not just academia, but elementary schools and private educational companies that must sell their products to the government educational monopoly...

...Who cares what people think about rights? It doesn't matter. Once again, rights – true rights – descend from God and cannot be given to man by anyone else nor taken away.

We also learn from Scholastic materials that King got his ideas for peaceful resistance from two sources – Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau...I don't deny that those folks were influences on King, but to ignore King's inspiration from the Bible is ludicrous...

Ah, but then, of course, you have the old sticky wicket of religion in the classroom. Better to simply ignore reality – the truth that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister. I have a feeling that not many kids in government school will hear this part of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech:

I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, 'My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.'

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom. That was the King message. Martin Luther King talked a lot more about freedom than he did rights. He was clear on where true freedom and rights came from. That distinction has been obliterated in today's teaching about him.

Why? Because freedom cannot be controlled by government. Government would prefer to define the limits of your freedom by arbitrarily creating new "rights" and disabusing us of the notion that rights are God's unalienable gifts to all humanity.

It is startling how misinformed Americans are about the principles underlying the American Founding. And we are raising children who either are ahistorical or know only politically correct falsehoods about America, a point argued by Yale's David Gelernter in We Are Paying Quite a Price for Our Historical Ignorance:

...Our schools teach history ideologically. They teach the message, not the truth...They are propaganda machines. Ignorance of history destroys our judgment...

To forget your own history is (literally) to forget your identity. By teaching ideology instead of facts, our schools are erasing the nation's collective memory...

There is an ongoing culture war between Americans who are ashamed of this nation's history and those who acknowledge with sorrow its many sins and are fiercely proud of it anyway. Proud of the 17th century settlers who threw their entire lives overboard and set sail for religious freedom in their rickety little ships. Proud of the new nation that taught democracy to the world. Proud of its ferocious fight to free the slaves, save the Union and drag (lug, shove, sweat, bleed) America a few inches closer to its own sublime ideals. Proud of its victories in two world wars and the Cold War, proud of the fight it is waging this very day for freedom in Iraq and the whole Middle East.

If you are proud of this country and don't want its identity to vanish, you must teach U.S. history to your children. They won't learn it in school. This nation's memory will go blank unless you act.

In an effort to correct those falsehoods, three quotes below elaborate further on the American Founding.

In an earlier posting, Honoring The Land We Love, Roger Pilon discusses the Declaration of Independence and Constitution:

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration's seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." Grounded in reason, "self-evident" truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a "higher law" of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system. But if reason is the foundation of the Founders' vision – the method by which we justify our political order – liberty is its aim. Thus, cardinal moral truths are these:

…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government – indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from "the Consent of the Governed." And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish – to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights – provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract – its principles rooted in "right reason" – the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

A speech entitled "Limited Government to Protect Equal Rights" by Mac Owens, published on this blog site, elaborates further on the uniqueness of the American Experiment:

Before the American founding, all regimes were based on the principle of interest - the interest of the stronger. That principle was articulated by the Greek historian Thucydides: "Questions of justice arise only between equals. As for the rest, the strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must."...

The United States was founded on different principles - justice and equality...It took the founding of the United States on the principle of equality to undermine the principle of inequality...Thanks to the Founders, the United States was founded on a principle of justice, not the interest of the stronger. And because of Lincoln's uncompromising commitment to equality as America's "central idea," the Union was not only saved, but saved so "as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of saving..."

"Every nation," said Lincoln, "has a central idea from which all its minor thoughts radiate." For Lincoln, this central idea was the Declaration of Independence and its notion of equality as the basis for republican government - the simple idea that no one has the right by nature to rule over another without the latter's consent...

Indeed, it is the idea of equality in the Declaration, not race and blood, that establishes American nationhood, constituting what Abraham Lincoln called "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land..."

The United States is a fundamentally decent regime based on the universal principle that all human beings are equal in terms of their natural rights...

...the only purpose of government is to protect the equal natural rights of individual citizens. These rights inhere in individuals, not groups, and are antecedent to the creation of government...

An earlier posting entitled Our Declaration of Independence contains excerpts from a speech by President Calvin Coolidge:

There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity. It was not because it proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history...

...Three very definite propositions were set out in [the Declaration's] preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed...

While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination...

...when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live...

In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignity, the rights of man - these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in religious convictions...Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish...

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776..that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final...If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people...

In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people...The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guarantees, which even the government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government -- the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction...The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty...

...If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it...We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed...

ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON KING:

Andrew Busch, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, offers these thoughts on King.

Charter School Legislation Introduced to the Rhode Island House

Representative Paul Crowley (D-Newport) has introduced legislation lifting Rhode Island's moratorium on the establishment of new charter schools (House bill 6850). If the moratorium is not lifted, no new charter school can open in Rhode Island until the 2008-2009 school year.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away

George Will has written an editorial entitled For the House GOP, A Belated Evolution in which he makes the following comments:

...And now among House Republicans there are Darwinian stirrings, prompted by concerns about survival.

In Washington, such concerns often are confused with and substitute for moral epiphanies...

The national pastime is no longer baseball, it is rent-seeking -- bending public power for private advantage. There are two reasons why rent-seeking has become so lurid, but those reasons for today's dystopian politics are reasons why most suggested cures seem utopian.

The first reason is big government -- the regulatory state. This year Washington will disperse $2.6 trillion, which is a small portion of Washington's economic consequences, considering the costs and benefits distributed by incessant fiddling with the tax code, and by government's regulatory fidgets.

Second, House Republicans, after 40 years in the minority, have, since 1994, wallowed in the pleasures of power. They have practiced DeLayism, or "K Street conservatism." This involves exuberantly serving rent-seekers, who hire K Street lobbyists as helpers. For House Republicans the aim of the game is to build political support. But Republicans shed their conservatism in the process of securing their seats in the service, they say, of conservatism.

Liberals practice "K Street liberalism" with an easy conscience because they believe government should do as much as possible for as many interests as possible. But "K Street conservatism" compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy. Until the Bush administration, with its incontinent spending, unleashed an especially conscienceless Republican control of both political branches, conservatives pretended to believe in limited government. The past five years, during which the number of registered lobbyists more than doubled, have proved that, for some Republicans, conservative virtue was merely the absence of opportunity for vice.

The way to reduce rent-seeking is to reduce the government's role in the allocation of wealth and opportunity. People serious about reducing the role of money in politics should be serious about reducing the role of politics in distributing money. But those most eager to do the former -- liberals, generally -- are the least eager to do the latter.

A surgical reform would be congressional term limits, which would end careerism, thereby changing the incentives for entering politics and for becoming, when in office, an enabler of rent-seekers in exchange for their help in retaining office forever. The movement for limits -- a Madisonian reform to alter the dynamic of interestedness that inevitably animates politics -- was surging until four months after Republicans took control of the House. In May 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that congressional terms could not be limited by states' statutes. Hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. Hence Congress must initiate limits on itself. That will never happen.

...a few institutional reforms milder than term limits might be useful. But none will be more than marginally important, absent the philosophical renewal of conservatism...

Roy Blunt of Missouri, the man who was selected, not elected, to replace DeLay, is a champion of earmarks as a form of constituent service...A salient fact: In 15 years in the House, Boehner has never put an earmark in an appropriations or transportation bill.

Since Will wrote his editorial, Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona has announced his candidacy for the Majority Leader role in the House. Here are some excerpts from his Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Spirit of 1994: Republicans need to look again to the examples of Goldwater and Reagan:

Ten years ago, the American people put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than 40 years. It was a historic achievement, made possible because we stood for the principles the American people believed in: smaller government, returning power to the states, lower taxes, greater individual freedom and--above all--reform.

Some Republican leaders in the House seem to have lost sight of those principles, though the American people still believe in them...

Republicans promised the American people two things in 1994. First, we promised to rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Second, we promised to clean up Washington. In recent years, we have fallen short on both counts. Total federal spending has grown by 33% since 1995, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Worse, we have permitted some of the same backroom practices that flourished in the old Democrat-controlled House...The recent scandals involving Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have highlighted the problem, but this is not just a case of a few bad apples. The system itself needs structural reforms.

This has been clear for some time. I did not discover reform as an issue--like Saul on the road to Damascus--when I entered the majority leader race. It has been an integral part of my record, not at one time a decade ago, but constantly, year in and year out since 1994. Yesterday John Boehner wrote on this page about a proposal to reform the earmark process offered by Rep. Jeff Flake. While Mr. Boehner is suddenly talking about this idea, I was one of the first co-sponsors when it was introduced last spring.

We need sunshine in the earmark process, and an end to secret, backroom deals. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the total number of earmarks in 2005 was nearly 14,000--compared with only 1,439 in 1995. Earmarked money is often spent without the oversight and consideration in the regular appropriations process, so waste, abuse or even fraud is more likely...

Every year Congress adopts a budget, and every year we exceed it. Cheats and dodges--supplemental spending without offsets, "off budget" spending--hide this expenditure, but it is added to our national debt, a legacy of irresponsibility to burden future generations. We are still using a budget process that dates from 1974, when Democrats ruled the House and the government was a fraction of its current size. We need reforms in our budget rules to force Congress to stay within the budget it adopts...

I grew up watching the example of Barry Goldwater, who worked closely with my father. He taught me that "a government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." That philosophy guided me when I ran for Congress in 1994. I was thrilled to be part of the Revolutionary Class of '94, and the sense of hope and mission of the early days after the American people elected a Republican majority in the House is still with me...

...The party of Ronald Reagan exists not to expand government, but to protect the American people from government's excesses. President Reagan once said, "If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."...

While a well-intentioned man of principle and the best person for the Majority Leader job, Congressman Shadegg's reform ideas don't deal vigorously enough with the core structural problem raised by George Will. The structural problem is influenced by how money flows into politics in the first place (see here) and why there are no incentives for politicians and bureaucrats to make any changes to that status quo (see here).

Why does all of this matter? Because, as is noted in a posting highlighted below:

...Big government means there are plenty of spoils to divide among the many powerful pigs at the public trough.

The next time your Senator or Congressman tries to impress you with the spoils he or she is bringing home to your district, take a step back and remember that the true price you are paying for any suggested benefit must also include the pro-rata cost of feeding every other pig across America who eats from the public trough.

Most importantly, what is often forgotten is that the spoils they are so eager to divide up represent a meaningful portion of the incomes of American working families and retirees - who are usually unrepresented at the table when these spoils are given away.

We must never forget that all families pay quite a price for these giveaways: It means less of their own hard-earned incomes is available to be spent on their own tangible needs, on things such as food, clothing, medical care, education, etc.

And that is why big government means less freedom for American working families and retirees.

Here are some earlier postings on Anchor Rising about pork, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and the lack of conservative principles behind many actions these days in Washington, D. C.:

Misguided Incentives Drive Public Sector Taxation
Pigs at the Public Trough
Big Government Corrupts, Regardless of Party
More on the Misguided Incentives in the Public Sector
Pigs at the Public Trough, Revisited
Corporate Welfare Queens: Destructive Parasites Which Deserve to Die
Favors for Everyone Except the Taxpaying Masses
Tapscott: Has the GOP Lost Its Soul?
Rancid Pork Leaves a Bad Taste in Your Mouth, which links to numerous other postings on the highway bill, energy bill, etc.
Has the GOP Lost Its Soul? Part II
Drinking the Kool Aid
Senator Chafee: Is This How You Define Fiscal Conservatism?
Cutting the Fat: The New Porkbuster Site

Andrew has also done some extensive writing about pork, including:

Is Rhode Island ready to step up for New Orleans?
Rhode Island's Initial Pork-Reduction Goal should be at least $50,000,000
Federal Pork's Dubious Return per Dollar Spent
Defeating the Logic of Pork
Pork Comparison of the Day
More on the Injustice of Pork
Steve Laffey's Prescience on Pork

Goldwater: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away

George Will has written an editorial entitled For the House GOP, A Belated Evolution in which he makes the following comments:

…And now among House Republicans there are Darwinian stirrings, prompted by concerns about survival.

In Washington, such concerns often are confused with and substitute for moral epiphanies…

The national pastime is no longer baseball, it is rent-seeking -- bending public power for private advantage. There are two reasons why rent-seeking has become so lurid, but those reasons for today's dystopian politics are reasons why most suggested cures seem utopian.

The first reason is big government -- the regulatory state. This year Washington will disperse $2.6 trillion, which is a small portion of Washington's economic consequences, considering the costs and benefits distributed by incessant fiddling with the tax code, and by government's regulatory fidgets.

Second, House Republicans, after 40 years in the minority, have, since 1994, wallowed in the pleasures of power. They have practiced DeLayism, or "K Street conservatism." This involves exuberantly serving rent-seekers, who hire K Street lobbyists as helpers. For House Republicans the aim of the game is to build political support. But Republicans shed their conservatism in the process of securing their seats in the service, they say, of conservatism.

Liberals practice "K Street liberalism" with an easy conscience because they believe government should do as much as possible for as many interests as possible. But "K Street conservatism" compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy. Until the Bush administration, with its incontinent spending, unleashed an especially conscienceless Republican control of both political branches, conservatives pretended to believe in limited government. The past five years, during which the number of registered lobbyists more than doubled, have proved that, for some Republicans, conservative virtue was merely the absence of opportunity for vice.

The way to reduce rent-seeking is to reduce the government's role in the allocation of wealth and opportunity. People serious about reducing the role of money in politics should be serious about reducing the role of politics in distributing money. But those most eager to do the former -- liberals, generally -- are the least eager to do the latter.

A surgical reform would be congressional term limits, which would end careerism, thereby changing the incentives for entering politics and for becoming, when in office, an enabler of rent-seekers in exchange for their help in retaining office forever. The movement for limits -- a Madisonian reform to alter the dynamic of interestedness that inevitably animates politics -- was surging until four months after Republicans took control of the House. In May 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that congressional terms could not be limited by states' statutes. Hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. Hence Congress must initiate limits on itself. That will never happen.

…a few institutional reforms milder than term limits might be useful. But none will be more than marginally important, absent the philosophical renewal of conservatism…

Roy Blunt of Missouri, the man who was selected, not elected, to replace DeLay, is a champion of earmarks as a form of constituent service…A salient fact: In 15 years in the House, Boehner has never put an earmark in an appropriations or transportation bill.

Since Will wrote his editorial, Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona has announced his candidacy for the Majority Leader role in the House. Here are some excerpts from his Wall Street Journal editorial entitled The Spirit of 1994: Republicans need to look again to the examples of Goldwater and Reagan:

Ten years ago, the American people put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than 40 years. It was a historic achievement, made possible because we stood for the principles the American people believed in: smaller government, returning power to the states, lower taxes, greater individual freedom and--above all--reform.

Some Republican leaders in the House seem to have lost sight of those principles, though the American people still believe in them...

Republicans promised the American people two things in 1994. First, we promised to rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Second, we promised to clean up Washington. In recent years, we have fallen short on both counts. Total federal spending has grown by 33% since 1995, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Worse, we have permitted some of the same backroom practices that flourished in the old Democrat-controlled House...The recent scandals involving Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have highlighted the problem, but this is not just a case of a few bad apples. The system itself needs structural reforms.

This has been clear for some time. I did not discover reform as an issue--like Saul on the road to Damascus--when I entered the majority leader race. It has been an integral part of my record, not at one time a decade ago, but constantly, year in and year out since 1994. Yesterday John Boehner wrote on this page about a proposal to reform the earmark process offered by Rep. Jeff Flake. While Mr. Boehner is suddenly talking about this idea, I was one of the first co-sponsors when it was introduced last spring.

We need sunshine in the earmark process, and an end to secret, backroom deals. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the total number of earmarks in 2005 was nearly 14,000--compared with only 1,439 in 1995. Earmarked money is often spent without the oversight and consideration in the regular appropriations process, so waste, abuse or even fraud is more likely...

Every year Congress adopts a budget, and every year we exceed it. Cheats and dodges--supplemental spending without offsets, "off budget" spending--hide this expenditure, but it is added to our national debt, a legacy of irresponsibility to burden future generations. We are still using a budget process that dates from 1974, when Democrats ruled the House and the government was a fraction of its current size. We need reforms in our budget rules to force Congress to stay within the budget it adopts...

I grew up watching the example of Barry Goldwater, who worked closely with my father. He taught me that "a government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." That philosophy guided me when I ran for Congress in 1994. I was thrilled to be part of the Revolutionary Class of '94, and the sense of hope and mission of the early days after the American people elected a Republican majority in the House is still with me...

...The party of Ronald Reagan exists not to expand government, but to protect the American people from government's excesses. President Reagan once said, "If you're afraid of the future, then get out of the way, stand aside. The people of this country are ready to move again."...

While a well-intentioned man of principle and the best person for the Majority Leader job, Congressman Shadegg's reform ideas don't deal vigorously enough with the core structural problem raised by George Will. The structural problem is influenced by how money flows into politics in the first place (see here) and why there are no incentives for politicians and bureaucrats to make any changes to that status quo (see here).

Why does all of this matter? Because, as is noted in a posting highlighted below:

...Big government means there are plenty of spoils to divide among the many powerful pigs at the public trough.

The next time your Senator or Congressman tries to impress you with the spoils he or she is bringing home to your district, take a step back and remember that the true price you are paying for any suggested benefit must also include the pro-rata cost of feeding every other pig across America who eats from the public trough.

Most importantly, what is often forgotten is that the spoils they are so eager to divide up represent a meaningful portion of the incomes of American working families and retirees - who are usually unrepresented at the table when these spoils are given away.

We must never forget that all families pay quite a price for these giveaways: It means less of their own hard-earned incomes is available to be spent on their own tangible needs, on things such as food, clothing, medical care, education, etc.

And that is why big government means less freedom for American working families and retirees.

Here are some earlier postings on Anchor Rising about pork, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and the lack of conservative principles behind many actions these days in Washington, D. C.:

Misguided Incentives Drive Public Sector Taxation
Pigs at the Public Trough
Big Government Corrupts, Regardless of Party
More on the Misguided Incentives in the Public Sector
Pigs at the Public Trough, Revisited
Corporate Welfare Queens: Destructive Parasites Which Deserve to Die
Favors for Everyone Except the Taxpaying Masses
Tapscott: Has the GOP Lost Its Soul?
Rancid Pork Leaves a Bad Taste in Your Mouth, which links to numerous other postings on the highway bill, energy bill, etc.
Has the GOP Lost Its Soul? Part II
Drinking the Kool Aid
Senator Chafee: Is This How You Define Fiscal Conservatism?
Cutting the Fat: The New Porkbuster Site

Andrew has also done some extensive writing about pork, including:

Is Rhode Island ready to step up for New Orleans?
Rhode Island's Initial Pork-Reduction Goal should be at least $50,000,000
Federal Pork's Dubious Return per Dollar Spent
Defeating the Logic of Pork
Pork Comparison of the Day
More on the Injustice of Pork
Steve Laffey’s Prescience on Pork

Projo Editorial Board: "Confirm Samuel Alito"

The Projo's editorial board has officially come out in favor of confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court...

There is little in his record that suggests extremism. On the contrary, Mr. Alito seems a thoughtful and rather self-effacing jurist, who has attempted to perform his duties within the constraints of precedent and legitimate judicial power.

Nothing in the Senate's recently concluded nomination hearings cast doubt on his character or qualifications. Indeed, his modest demeanor and informed answers made him look much better than many of his pontificating questioners, from both sides of the aisle....

Given his judicial temperament and impressive résumé, and the absence of anything in the vetting process strong enough to disqualify him, the Senate should confirm Mr. Alito.

Let's give credit to the board for basing their decision on Judge Alito's testimony at the confirmation hearings, and not on their pre-conceived notions about Judge Alito.

Notes on the Breakfast Table, Page 3

Representative Bruce Long's discomfort when the U.S. Senate primary race came up during his East Bay GOP Breakfast introduction of Mayor Steve Laffey spoke volumes. It might go too far to speculate about an underlying fear that a primary will alert Rhode Islanders to the fact that they have erroneously elected a Republican. Whatever the case, the idea that somebody within the party would challenge a Republican incumbent apparently requires explanation of the appropriate response.

The Laffey campaign seems to have recognized that need and has — wisely — left expression of the magnitude of its rebellion to the pages of the Wall Street Journal, for example. From the candidate, himself, the message is that "it's just a race," as he put it during his breakfast speech. Laffey appears, also, to have made a conscious effort to use the more-inclusive and better-sounding "we" (as in "we had a message") — although the effort at times seemed so conscious as to be humorous ("a combination of me... and us!").

But this is all strategic analysis. The bottom line is that Laffey is undeniably compelling on personal and rhetorical levels — eliciting, for inconsequential example, smiles across the tables when he patted his daughter's head with a "hey beautiful" as she strode nonchalantly between him and his audience. It was even endearing in a regular-guy way when he cited Animal House mistakenly in place of Animal Farm (an error sure to attract the attention of Jonah Goldberg conservatives everywhere).

Ultimately, though, the reminder of these qualities finally helped me to give form to my doubts about Laffey's campaign for U.S. Senate. The tremendous integrity that he rightly trumpets in his political biography — dropping everything and running for mayor to save his hometown from corruption and poor government — is the stuff of primetime dramas. It does not, however, translate immediately into compelling motivation to become a Senator. The need to make that translation is obviously on Laffey's mind, but to my mind he does not manage the accomplishment.

"I see the American Dream dying across America" explains neither the vantage point from which he made the observation nor the reason that he individually can do more to remedy the problem from Congress rather than (at least at first) within the local and state government. I'd suggest that the people of Mississippi and California would be better able to save their own American Dreams than would a Rhode Islander reaching out to those states through the federal legislature.

The more pragmatic argument that Laffey makes on this count is that the RI GOP needs a "strong leader at the top of the ticket," to cause not only votes, but participation and recruitment, as well, to trickle down. During his speech, Laffey pulled out a few pages of a table tracking registered voter trends by town and, probably correctly, took credit for Republican advances in his city of Cranston. It isn't at all clear, however, that a Washington politician would have that effect; indeed, if strengthening the party locally is among Laffey's goals, staying local for a while would seem more likely to achieve it. (I hope the mayor would agree that people change their political affiliation not on the sheepish basis of admiration for the guy at the top of the list, but because they have seen his policies put into action in their own towns.)

Bill Harsch is correct that Rhode Island must begin electing state and local officials who will redefine their positions to be useful, rather than honorary and beholden to established powers. I believe that Steve Laffey had unimpeachable motives to improve the town that raised him. I believe that he's brazen and compelling enough to force similar improvements on the state surrounding that town.

Perhaps the most astute observation that Laffey made during his speech was that opponents of the policies that he espouses "view the world as a static thing." From the economy to energy usage to cultural changes, the world is not static, but ever shifting. The same is true of public offices and their places in the government dynamic. If Laffey were to play a prominent role in redefining the Rhode Island system as an irrefutably representative one — a prosperous and irrefutably representative one — his motivation for further advancement would require no translation, and the in-party discomfort would belong to those who are afraid less of the disruption that comes with disagreement than of the success of the other side.

Charles Kesler: Practical Atheists

Charles Kesler has written an editorial entitled Practical Atheists in the Winter 2005 edition of the Claremont Review of Books:

...Only in latter-day America could a benevolent "Merry Christmas" be twisted into a politically incorrect affront to polite norms, a sinister and unconstitutional threat to establish religion, or both.

As a question of etiquette, the issue invites thought. To wish someone the joy of the holiday is not automatically to presume that he shares it. For example, it's not impolite to say "Happy St. Patrick's Day" to someone who isn't Irish...The important thing is that, in saying it, you wish him well; imagining yourself in his shoes is a gracious part of such friendliness.

But today's controversies have little to do with such delicate questions. They turn not on individual character and circumstances, nor on the mutual respect and civility possible between great religions, but on identity rights and a growing hostility to religion as such.

This season's dustup over "Happy Holidays" is thus a mild case of a more serious disorder. The cutting edge of aggressive secularism reveals itself in efforts to banish Biblical religion altogether from public life...In effect, the secularists demand that the tone of public life must be made to conform to atheistic standards. Everyone must be taught to behave as "practical atheists," in John Paul II's wonderful phrase. Even believers—especially believers—must learn to speak and act, outside the sanctuary of their churches and synagogues, as though God doesn't exist. Anything else would amount to persecution of non-believers.

In all these efforts, the Supreme Court by its egregious misinterpretations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has either fervently promoted religion's expulsion from the public square...The Court's present course was set in 1947, when it ruled, for the first time, that government may not "support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." Before that, an "establishment of religion" had been understood narrowly, as the legislative designation of an official state church (or churches), with tax money dedicated to the support of its ministers, property, or both. The older understanding allowed for many kinds of government support of religion short of establishing it, and for a public square enriched by religion's free exercise.

There were disagreements over where to draw the lines. But then, unlike now, the disputes were over how, and to what extent, to accommodate religion and public life—not over whether to do so...

Why did the founders by and large support religion's prominent but mostly informal public role? In the first place, the free exercise of religion (or the rights of conscience) was a vital part of man's natural rights. With its roots in the Bible, religion had also an integral connection with morality. Self-government presumed a self-controlled or moral people, and religion helped to shape those mores. Moreover, religion and religious freedom helped to shape politics by supporting limited government. There was something divine in man, and an authority in heaven superior to human will, which put permanent limits on government's power.

Finally, religion dignified civil society by making it the home of man's highest purpose, to know and worship God. Yet civil society was also the site of man's lower but urgent purpose, economic exchange and moneymaking. The two were connected, so G. K. Chesterton observed, by such merry occasions as holy days...

This issue comes back directly to the issue of what moral legacies we will impart to our children, as was discussed in the posting Teaching Our Children Well: Rediscovering Moral Principles & History. Another posting, Religious Without Being Morally Serious Vs. Morally Serious Without Being Religious, shares James Taranto's views - as a self-described non-Christian and non-believer - on the pluralistic strength of the so-called Religious Right. An additional posting entitled Countering the Intolerance of Left-Wing Secular Fundamentalists provides additional thoughts from a Hugh Hewitt posting as well as a summary of many previous postings at Anchor Rising on the same subject.

If USA Today Says Public Pension Programs are a Financial Time Bomb...

When USA Today, the McPaper of newspaper journalism, carries a lead article on page 1 entitled Public workers' pensions swelling, you know the looming financial implosion of public sector pensions is slowly - but firmly - seeping into public consciousness:

Public employee pensions have become increasingly generous since 2000, promising a more comfortable retirement for civil servants but a serious financial challenge for future taxpayers...

Many corporations have replaced traditional pension plans, which pay monthly benefits for life, with plans that cost employers less and pay workers a lump sum when they retire...

Governments have been moving in the opposite direction: increasing monthly benefits, making it easier to retire at 55 and spending more on retiree health benefits. State and local governments, which cover 21 million workers and retirees, have been adding benefits the fastest:

•A December study of 85 big public pensions in all 50 states — covering three-fourths of public employees nationwide — found that governments continued to enhance benefit formulas, ease early retirement and improve other benefits from 2000 through 2004 despite states' financial problems. The increases were enacted on top of even larger benefit changes approved from 1996 to 2000. The study, conducted by the Wisconsin Legislature, is one of the most comprehensive on the issue...

•Average annual benefits for retired state and local workers grew 37% to $19,875 from 2000 to 2004, the most recent data available, according to the Census Bureau. The rising payments reflect the early retirement of baby boomers, who started to qualify for full benefits in 2001, at age 55, under most government pensions.

"These pensions are unaffordable," says Alaska state Rep. Bert Stedman, a Republican. "If we don't act now, we're going to have social conflict in the future between the haves and the have-nots — those with government pensions and those without."

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, which represents teachers, says legislators shouldn't respond to pension problems in the private sector by attacking government pensions. "Pensions are a national problem, but it's not in the interest of workers to diminish either type," he says.

The portion of the private workforce enrolled in plans that pay monthly benefits for life has fallen from 39% in 1980 to 18% in 2004, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. By comparison, more than 90% of government workers are covered by such plans, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says...

Federal, state and local governments have promised pension and retiree medical benefits that would require more than $5 trillion to be invested today to cover costs over the next 75 years, according to the financial statements of the retirement plans.

In another USA Today story entitled Pension funds fall short of guarantees:

...The public servants have been guaranteed retirement benefits that are far richer than private pensions, yet elected officials have failed to set aside enough money to cover the promised benefits...

The belief that government offers good benefits to make up for lower wages appears to be a myth. Government workers earn higher average wages and get better benefits than people in the private sector, according to bureau statistics. Even white-collar workers — managers and professionals — earn more on average than their counterparts in private industry.

Keith Brainard, research director of the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, says those numbers don't recognize the special nature of government jobs. "Two-thirds of government employees work in education, public safety, corrections or are judges," he says. "You don't want high turnover in those professions, so you need benefits that encourage long-term retention."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics details how superior government benefits are to those in the private sector. Private companies contributed an average of 90 cents to a worker's pension plans for every hour worked in 2005. By comparison, state and local governments contributed $2.48 for every hour an employee worked.

Those numbers don't include retiree health benefits, which make it possible for civil servants to retire before federal Medicare health coverage begins at age 65.

Starting this year, governments must report the cost of promised retiree medical benefits...

...The national total is likely to be hundreds of billions of dollars.

Most public pensions also have automatic cost-of-living increases. Private pensions usually do not. That means the difference between public and private pensions grows every year, even after retirement.

...Government employees don't have to worry about losing benefits. State constitutions and court precedents forbid cutting pension benefits to civil servants...

"These unfunded liabilities are not a big problem," says Frederick Nesbitt, executive director of the National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems, which lobbies for public employee pension rights. "We have 40 or 50 years to recoup the money through investments..."

Once again, reread the irresponsible comments by union officials in both of these articles. Spineless politicians and bureaucrats, outrageous demands by union officials, and no market mechanisms to correct a growing problem. It is a formula for disaster.

None of this is news at Anchor Rising, which has previously covered this issue in great depth.

Still Looking for New Conservative Leadership

In a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled Right and Ron: Republicans long for a new Reagan, Brendan Miniter offers this commentary on Republican Party leadership in the Congress and in the Oval Office:

...It's telling that now, five years into the second Bush presidency, conservatives are still looking for the next Ronald Reagan to champion their ideas in Washington...Reaganism is the party's philosophy, with its belief in small government, low taxes, forceful conservatism, a strong military and the view that this country is a shining example for all the world...

Both Messrs. Boehner and Shadegg are promising to bring Reagan back because over the past five years the party appears to have been seduced by the very forces it came to Washington to overturn--rampant spending with expansive new federal entitlements.

Of course, limited government wasn't original to Reagan, and many of his ideas are inherent in President Bush's governing philosophy, such as combating the nation's enemies by spreading freedom around the world. But it was Reagan who branded these ideas into the nation's consciousness by using them to remake one of the two dominant political parties. And it was Reagan who proved to be the change agent in Washington.

In part this was thanks to Reagan's personality. He won political debates, won over allies and won popular support through sheer appeal, even if his policies were not always popular...Yet very few people today have a "Bush story" outside of the policy realm...

But it's not all personality. One reason the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 did not prove to be the second wave of the Reagan revolution is that the dominant power in American government is the chief executive. And conservatives are still waiting for that second wave today because President Bush hasn't effectively and consistently used one of the most powerful tools of the modern presidency: the bully pulpit.

Reagan did it in his first inaugural address by proclaiming an end to the brand of liberalism that had largely reigned uninterrupted since the Depression: "In this present crisis government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Today government largely remains the problem. Even Osama bin Laden and his followers would be much less of a threat if this country could bring its own bureaucracies to heel...But competence has long been the exception at the [CIA], which failed to assess Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities accurately, failed to stop A.Q. Kahn (father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb) from spreading nuclear technology to rogue regimes in North Korea and Libya and failed to uncover the Sept. 11 plot before it was too late. The FBI isn't much better.

These days it's hard to find a well-functioning government bureaucracy, or the political will to solve the nation's problems. Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security all imperil the government's financial well-being. Yet reforming them is proving to be impossible. Likewise, education reform is proving to be too tough a nut for our elected officials to crack.

Will Mr. Boehner, Mr. Shadegg or anyone else for that matter in the House be able to lead a governing revolution that tackles these problems?... but to really change the political culture, pressure has to come from outside Washington, with a little help from inside the Oval Office.

RI Republicans: Don't Take the Confirmation of Samuel Alito for Granted

Despite the climate of optimism surrounding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Rhode Island Republican party is encouraging its members not to take anything for granted. In this month’s edition of the RI Republican Newsletter, editor Dave Talan encourages Rhode Island Republicans to “speak out on the Alito nomination” and make their position known to Senator Lincoln Chafee…

Very soon, the U.S. Senate will vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court. We need to continue lobbying Senator Chafee to vote the right way on this (i.e. to confirm Judge Alito; to insist on a vote by the full Senate; and to prevent a Democratic filibuster by any means necessary). Call Sen. Chafee's local office at 453-5294. Or you can send him an E-mail by going thru his web site chafee.senate.gov.

Also, the Rhode Island Republican Assembly (RIRA), Rhode Island’s largest conservative Republican organization, has sent a letter to Senator Chafee urging him to vote in favor of Judge Alito…

President George W. Bush has nominated a brilliant jurist and scholar with a proven fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. Judge Samuel Alito has an impeccable resume, bona fide professional credentials, and has demonstrated that he has a clear understanding of the role of the judiciary in American life.

The Constitution gives the United States Senate the power of “advice and consent”. We are confident that Judge Alito’s exceptional legal expertise and fair-minded temperament will not be found wanting. Hence, the Senate has an obligation to give Judge Alito a fair hearing and an up or down vote.

Judge Alito is an objective, brilliant and honorable individual. We request that you join fellow Senators in allowing for a fair up or down vote, which we are confident will lead to his confirmation. Additionally, we hope that you will not participate in any Democrat led filibuster, which is in direct opposition to the express language of the US Constitution, which requires only a simple majority vote by the Senate to confirm judges. Furthermore, we ask that you vote in the affirmative during his confirmation vote.

Donald Carcieri, Ronald Reagan, and Ian Donnis

In his early preview of the dynamics of Rhode Island’s upcoming governor’s race, Providence Phoenix News Editor Ian Donnis begins by describing the qualities that have allowed Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri to become a successful politician…

Carcieri’s superb communication skills bolster a Reaganesque affability that is the political equivalent of gold.

Towards the conclusion of the article, however, Donnis makes note of what is a fundamental difference between Carcieri and Reagan…

Carcieri has proven adept at using his knack for political communication to build a broad following while downplaying his affluence and conservatism.

Reagan, of course, used his communication and political skills in the service of, and not to work around, a philosophical conservatism.

These bookends to Donnis' analysis quite nicely summarize the problem -- and a potential solution -- facing Rhode Island‘s Republican party. Governor Carcieri enjoys a tremendous personal popularity in Rhode Island that the Republican party, as a legislative party, does not. Personal popularity is not something that can easily be shared between candidates. So how can the governor best help build the legislative GOP?

The answer is for Governor Carcieri to use his communication skills and affability to help promote a conservative message. The RI Republican message, which seems to begin and end with the promises of lower taxes and honest government, doesn’t suffice as a means for attracting voters or candidates. Everyone accepts that a certain level of taxation is inevitable, and everyone favors lowering taxes as much as possible. The real debate is about how low is too low. Contemporary liberals argue that the state must take enough from people to fund its massive bureaucracies, because only big bureaucracies can effectively manage a complex, modern society.

To be successful, Republicans must convince voters they want to cut back the bureaucratic state not just because they want to lower taxes and save money, but because they want to free individuals from rigid bureaucratic control in personal areas like healthcare and education. If they start to take this conservative idea seriously, Republicans will find that the communication skill and the affability possessed by a leader like Governor Carcieri can help persuade people to listen, for a little bit longer than usual, to some good ideas (school choice, charter schools, health-savings accounts, etc.) that might otherwise be too-quickly dismissed.

Notes on the Breakfast Table, Page 2

Although I smirked at the bit-too-genuine surprise that he expressed regarding the credibility with which Anchor Rising is treated, I left the East Bay GOP Breakfast impressed with Bill Harsch. In constructing his message as he campaigns to become Rhode Island's attorney general, Harsch has hit upon the core idea that Rhode Islanders need to — and can be led to — understand: "This office is being wasted."

He was speaking, of course, of the office that he would like to hold, but one could substitute just about any position in Rhode Island government without diminishing the potency of the complaint. Those who occupy local and state government are servants; their offices are tools for self-governing, not merely honorary positions of privilege, and returning them to usefulness would serve as an unlegislated reform. A failure to act in accordance with this basic idea plagues Rhode Island politics — from the Democratic majority, through the Republican establishment, even tainting the RI GOP anti-establishment.

We can debate the degree to which this state's public policies accurately reflect the views of its citizens, but it doesn't take long observation of local politics to conclude that Rhode Island's government is only nominally representative. Newcomers to the state are correct to lament "Rhode-apathy," but that syndrome is ultimately a defensive response to the situation in which Rhode Islanders find themselves. The concentration of power in the hands of a few and the fact that, in Harsch's words, "these people [i.e., insiders] don't embarrass," lead us to "feeling shut out."

It is here that the officials-as-tools message should resonate. The structure of representative democracy in general and a few specific offices (such as attorney general) exist for the purpose of propping open doors through which the average person hasn't the standing even to draw response when knocking. We don't have to disrupt our lives in rebellion; we merely have to elect candidates who will use their offices toward the ends that they legitimately serve (fighting, if necessary, to fortify their authority). Among the ends that Harsch would like to pursue, for example, is the scuttling of "cosy insider deals" and monopolies run by companies with no embedded interest in the state.

Few among those who live here would argue with Bill Harsch that Rhode Island "has enormous promise, and we're being held back." Looking at the lack of seriousness with which our representatives conduct themselves — whether they are writing in ex-presidents on their ballots, seeking creds with the common man by admitting to having never actually worked, or trawling comic books for inspirational public plaques — Rhode Islanders must acknowledge that none are more responsible for holding back our state than we, ourselves.

Steve Laffey’s Prescience on Pork

With his trademark specificity, Republican Senatorial candidate Steve Laffey has proposed two reforms for getting pork spending under control in his “Road to Fiscal Sanity” plan…

Step 1: Separate vote on each earmark (aka pork).

Step 2: 2/3 of the Senate must agree to attach an earmark (aka. pork) to any bill.

An “earmark” is funding appropriated by Congress for a specific project in a single state or Congressional district. Under current rules, an earmark need only be approved by only one house of Congress, as long as both houses agree on the total amount of all earmarks.

At the start of his campaign, Mayor Laffey’s choice to make an issue of pork-spending was criticized as naïve. The conventional wisdom was that to be effective in the Senate, you had to curry favor with the Senate’s senior membership and support their quest for pork -- show that you were willing to help them, and eventually they’d help you.

Now, it turns out that Mayor Laffey was ahead of the curve. His earmark reforms are consistent with spending reform proposals currently being discussed by the Republican leadership in Congress. National Journal’s Hotline reports on the beginnings of a movement for reforming Senate appropriation procedures…

Late last fall, [Republican Majority Leader] Sen. Bill Frist tapped Sen. Rick Santorum to conceive a package of lobbying reform legislation…

Ear marks added to spending bills would be subject to heightened scrutiny and lawmakers who add them would be forced to justify their existence to their colleagues.

The Laffey proposals certainly seem to fit under the rubric of “heightened scrutiny” for earmarks. In a separate article, Hotline reports on the beginnings of similar reforms in the House...

Those in favor of "lobbying reform" often really want procedural reform...

The two arenas certainly intersect; more scrutiny and disclosure by lobbyists would make it harder for lobbyists to convince members to add extraneous items to spending bills. Procedural reform -- say --requiring 72 hours to consider set-in-stone legislation before voting begins -- would reduce the number of last minute additions by lobbyists operating through members.

In Hotline’s parlance “lobbying reform” refers to strengthening rules governing lobbyist disclosure and lobbying activities, while “procedural reform” refers to reforming the rules that Senators and Congressmen have to follow when authorizing spending.

What has reduced Washington‘s appetite for easy pork, as most people know, is the scandal surrounding Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Republican leadership is properly afraid that voters will throw them out of office in 2006 unless they show real interest in reforming the process by which Congress spends money, and focus more on facilitating the public good, and less on satisfying the wants of lobbyists and the political needs of members of Congress.

But like all scandals, the Abramoff scandal will eventually fade, and the inertia of business-as-usual will reassert itself. The momentum for reform will only be sustained if the people are represented by Senators and Representatives who believe in spending reform not because it’s a headline issue, but because it’s the right thing to do. By speaking out on the issue of pork spending before it was popular, Steve Laffey has established his credentials in this important area.

Notes on the Breakfast Table, Page 1

Sometimes I think that writers on social or political matters have an obligation not to participate in the processes or events of which they write. It is much more difficult, for example, to speak ill of a player whom one likes personally, or through whom one wishes to gain advantage. And surely both analysis and literary force suffer when cogent details become advisably withheld or generalized so as to avoid causing personal offense. (Note that I offer no specific examples.)

On the other hand, I wonder whether a writer can accurately understand topics such as politics without having first-hand experience of the emotional as well as intellectual forces involved. I can't help but think, for example, that there are important lessons to be found in the relief that I felt upon discovering that the last two seats available at the East Bay GOP Breakfast were — although at a table being circumnavigated by Mayor Laffey as I sat — next to representatives of the Chafee campaign.

Lessons from that particular experience I'll leave for further rumination, turning instead to those deriving from the presentation of the event's host, Representative Bruce Long. As preface and intermissions to the speeches of the event's two special guests, the soft-spoken Rep. Long offered, most prominently, a running back-slapping list of the elected officials and candidates present in the room. Such are the necessities of political life, but in a gathering of approximately seventy people, it made gratuitously conspicuous the high percentage of insiders. (Indeed, Mayor Laffey's family alone contributed about 8% of the headcount.)

Perhaps by way of explanation for the copious recognition that he doled out, Rep. Long noted the lack of brave souls willing to enter Rhode Island politics on the side of the right (loosely speaking). With so many Republicans "afraid to be sacrificial lambs," in Long's words, a bit of ritualized encouragement of those who've stepped forward is certainly not too much to ask the rest of us to endure.

I would suggest, though, that obligatory clapping is less likely to encourage the lambs than would a clear enunciation of what, exactly, they are sacrificing for. Rep. Long may assert that Rhode Island's Republican Party is in its current state of perpetual minority "not because of the issues," but because of the aforementioned lack of people. Party chairwoman Patricia Morgan unintentionally contradicted him, however, when she stole five minutes at the end of the meeting to announce that the party is finally getting around to piecing together a platform.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the RI GOP's difficulties couldn't possibly be "because of the issues" when the group has yet to take any explicit stands on them. The hope and excitement fostered by the forceful speeches of attorney general candidate Bill Harsch and Mayor Laffey argue otherwise.

Rhode Island Alito Supporters Meet With Senator Chafee

After meeting with members of Rhode Islanders for Judge Alito and the Rhode Island Judicial Confirmation Network on Friday afternoon, Senator Lincoln Chafee stated that still he has not taken a public position on how he would vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but that he has 99% of the information he needs, and will announce his position before the vote is taken, possibly by the middle of next week. Senator Chafee believes that it is unlikely that the nomination will be held up by a filibuster.

Eugene Bernardo of Rhode Islanders for Judge Alito praised Senator Chafee for taking his responsibilties seriously, looking at the nomination with a fair and open mind, and conducting a dignified process.

Joseph White, also of Rhode Islanders for Judge Alito, described the meeting with Senator Chafee as a "brainstorming session" with particular emphasis on the areas of constitutional law of importance to the Senator; the 1st amendment (interpretation of the the establishment clause), the 14th amendement, the commerce clause (finding an appropriate balance between what is and what is not regulated), and Roe v. Wade.

When asked about the particulars of the Judiciary Committee's confirmation process, Senator Chafee responded that issues like the Concerned Alumni of Princeton "could have been dismissed more quickly" and more important issues, particularly constitutional issues, could have been discussed. (Senator Chafee produced a copy of the constitution from his jacket pocket at this point). Senator Chafee noted that some of his fellow Senators had done a good job, but a few had "gone off on filibusters, talking too much".

Mr. White added that it was obvious Samuel Alito was very similar to John Roberts, who was confirmed by the Senate to the Supreme Court earlier this year, and that President Bush had done a great service for the American people by finding two great Supreme Court nominees.

Yorke Interviews Sen. Chafee

Dan Yorke interviewed Senator Chafee for the first time in 4-5 years on his radio show yesterday afternoon. Yorke has not been easy on Sen. Chafee over the last few years--it was he who dubbed him "the Senator from Virginia"--and I thought it worth the time to listen and pass along a summary of the conversation. For those of you who don't want to read the extended summary, here are the major points I took away from the interview:

1) Senator Chafee doesn't regret voting for former President George H.W. Bush instead of his son, President George W. Bush, who was actually running for office in 2004. He also seemed to imply that he showed more party loyalty by doing this than did Zell Miller, who crossed the line to vote for a Republican. And isn't it neat that the current President is still supporting Senator Chafee? My quick take: Sen. Chafee held party loyalty higher than personal ideals during the 2004 election. He has been rewarded with support from the national GOP.

2) He's opposed to the policy in Iraq. WMD was a false premise. The WMD used by Saddam on the Kurds was WWI technology and wasn't "real" WMD. There's was no link between Al Queda and Saddam. (Though maybe there was...) Thinks we're in "another Vietnam" and that Iraq is a quagmire. My quick take: Sen. Chafee holds personal ideals higher than loyalty to a President of his own party on this point. Nonetheless, he still has the support from the National GOP.

3) Still unwilling to announce whether he is going to vote for Judge Alito's confirmation or not. My quick take: Finger is in the wind.

4) Thinks Mayor Laffey showed disrespect by not telling him personally that he was going to run against him for Senate. Hinted that the Mayor was also ungrateful given the help Sen. Chafee gave him when he first came to RI. Also still thinks that Mayor Laffey should have run for some other office to help the RI GOP. Finally, thinks that Mayor Laffey has shown a retributive character and gave the example of the Jackvony pixelization episode. My quick take: Senator Chafee thinks Mayor Laffey has shown no party loyalty by not following the advice of the RI GOP leadership and he has also not shown Sen. Chafee proper respect. Sen. Chafee won't be mean in the campaign except when he says that Mayor Laffey is mean.

Now, here's the extended summary--and please remember that this is a summary, not a transcript. (I've quoted some lines when confident I got it right). I've put the topical headings in bold. I'll leave the rest of the opining to the commenters:

Discussion of Yorke/Chafee "Relationship"

Yorke first broached the subject of how Senator Chafee felt about the sobriquet "Senator from Virgina" and tried to make clear that the reason behind it was that Senator Chafee had run for Senate in RI and shortly after winning moved his whole family to Virginia. Senator Chafee responded that while running for election in 2000 he had no plans to move to Virginia. It was something he and his wife talked about over Christmas that year and then they made the move. He reiterated that there was no plan.

Diverting to some inside baseball, they also talked about the Senator's absence from Yorke's show for 4-5 years and Senator Chafee thought he hadn't been invited. To this, Yorke answered that he stopped inviting him after he kept getting no reaction from Chafee's camp. In reply, Senator Chafee said he didn't recall being invited and went on to say that he calls into shows on different issues all the time. Yorke then asked if--after over 4 yrs of not being on the show--wouldn't you have asked the staff why? Chafee responded that he supposed that both he and Yorke both got on different tracks and their relationship just got a bit harsh. Yorke responded that he had no personal ax to grind and that no matter their difference on issues, Senator Chafee can always call and debate him. Senator Chafee responded the he was glad the bridge had been rebuilt. Finally, Yorke concluded that he realized that it's 2006 and an election was coming up [which may be the acute cause for Senator Chafee's visit], nonetheless, he hoped their newfound relationship could continue after
the election.

Voting against the President who now supports Sen. Chafee

After a break, Yorke asked Senator Chafee what was he thinking when he voted for George H.W. Bush instead of the current President Bush in 2004? Would he do it again or take it back? Sen. Chafee responded that no he wouldn't. He had thought about it a lot and is always honest with himself. The war was a big issue and he thinks we're in another Vietnam like era, Iraq is becoming a quagmire. The President led the country into Iraq under a false premise--WMD--and there were no WMD. The father had such a different outlook--one which Sen. Chafee agreed with. The cost of the war is staggering. In the end, at least he [Sen. Chafee] was not hypocritical by not voting for the current President.

Following up, Yorke asked if Sen. Chafee then thought we have a President who he didn't think should be there. To this, Sen. Chafee responded that, no, he won fair and square. When asked if he felt that the country was set back by the re-election of President Bush, Sen. Chafee responded that the main fact is to have respect. He then mentioned that they [the Bush Administration] were supporting him for re-election in both the primary and general election and he mentioned that Presidential Chief of Staff Andy Card had visited Rhode Island a few times on Chafee's behalf.

Yorke then asked Sen. Chafee to be honest: did the President and his people call Sen. Chafee in? Were there any repercussions? Sen. Chafee indicated that there weren't, they he was sure they were unhappy. He then offered that "this is Rhode Island" and it wasn't in flux: it wasn't a swing state in 2004. Further, he met both President Bush's and they smiled at each other. He concluded, "Victory wipes away pain."

Yorke then noted that now this same President is concerned about Sen. Chafee's re-election and that "politics makes strange bedfellows." Yorke also offered that if he were the President he wouldn't support Sen. Chafee. He then asked , "Why do they?" Sen. Chafee responded that he supposed it was because even though he voted for the father, he hadn't betrayed the Republican party. He contrasted this with the actions of Democrat Zell Miller, who was very public in his support for the Republican George W. Bush and crossed party lines. Thus, according to Senator Chafee, he thinks the White House respects that they have differences and that Sen. Chafee isn't a hypocrite.

The Iraq War

Yorke then brought the conversation back to the War in Iraq and asked if Sen. Chafee thought that "we screwed up." Sen. Chafee responded that the premise was that Saddam was a threat, but he didn't see the evidence for it. He looked at things himself and wasn't convinced. He visited various agenicies--he even examined the aluminum tubes--and thought that they looked like something he could buy that at Mancini's Hardware. He said that even the Kuwaitis were saying don't attack and that Europe said don't, too. Thus, if they didn't think he [Saddam] was a threat, why should we? If we're going to say democracy
is good for war on terror, let's have that debate, but we never did at that time.

Yorke reminded Sen. Chafee that President Bush had admitted problems with the intelligence. Yorke also recalled the President's UN speech where he gave Saddam a last warning. [Yorke also offered that our intelligence wasn't so good then, it is better now.] The UN resolution was a last demand to come clean. People seem to forget that Saddam was our worst enemy. Yorke opined that Secretary of State Powell's presentation was poor in hindsight, but Saddam was forwarned. Doesn't that matter?

Chafee responded that he "never understood the drumbeat for war in Iraq." He stated that there was no connection between Al Queda and Iraq. He also worried over where we [the United States] gets this appetite for war.

Yorke responded that "the appetite came with 9/11." He also clarified that there's never been a heavy line drawn between Al Queda and Iraq. That Saddam had a past of using WMD in iraq, a decade of him not
cooperating, and he was warned. What else was there to do? Continue offering a veiled threat without backing it up, which would lead to a credibility issue?

Sen. Chafee responded that he never understood why we got ourselves in that position with Iraq in the first place. Further, he asked what constitutes a WMD? The stuff used on the Kurds was World War I technology. Nuclear weapons are WMD. This guy [Saddam] was nowhere near a real threat.

Alito Confirmation

Yorke then shifted the conversation to the Alito hearings. Sen. Chafee explained that he watched what he could and that he had someone in Washington, D.C. watching every minute and reporting back to him. Sen. Chafee believed that it would be a partisan vote in favor of Judge Alito and that he'd win confirmation, "but its early."

Yorke asked if he was supporting the Alito nomination and Sen. Chafee responded that he hadn't decided. He wants the hearings to conclude as there are still more witnesses.

Yorke asked if he'd seen the part of the hearings when Mrs. Alito left in tears. Sen. Chafee said he hadn't, but that he did see the Kennedy/Spectre argument over the CAP papers.

Yorke believed that Judge Alito had offered concise and surprisingly specific answers, but Sen. Chafee thought he'd been very careful in his parsing because he didn't want to upset either half of committee which would automatically vote for or against him if he were to offer an overt statement on Roe v. Wade.

Yorke agreed that Roe v. Wade was "the lightening rod," but aside from that, he [Alito] has been good. He's been challenged on acute things and the Princeton stuff was ridiculous. Hasn't he been classy? Sen. Chafee responded, "yes," and that his answers on the Princeton things have been good. Additionally, Alito's other comments on such things as the Commerce Clause and the 14th ammendment have been good, but there still hasn't been enough such exposition.

Yorke responded, "So he hasn't given you anything yet." He queried Sen. Chafee if he wasn't leaning one way or another: how could he be neutral? Sen. Chafee responded that, since President Bush won election and he told us the type he'd nominate for Supreme Court [like Judge Scalia]...now that nominee is here.

Yorke offered the aside that Harriet Miers was a mistake, and asked if Sen. Chafee thought that the Democrats were going to hold up Alito to which the Senator said it didn't look like it. He also said that the Gang of 14 hadn't talked yet and that they were letting the hearings go on.

The 2006 Senate Race

Yorke then broached the topic of the Senate election. Yorke asked if Mayor Laffey did the classy thing and told Sen. Chafee personally that he was running against him in the Republican primary. Sen. Chafee said that he didn't. Yorke asked what he thought of that and Sen. Chafee pointed out that, while he didn't want to cast aspersions, he worked with Steve Laffey when he first came to Rhode Island and ran for Mayor in Cranston. Sen. Chafee also said that he worked closely with Mr. Jackvony on the Cranston Town council and that since then they [Laffey and Jackvony] have had a well-publicized falling out.

Yorke explained that Mayor Laffey and Senator Chafee represented two parts of the already small RI GOP and asked for Sen. Chafee's take on having that split in a small party. Sen. Chafee said that Mayor Laffey had every right to run, but that Republicans in RI have plenty of vacant seats statewide--as well as both congressional seats--that the RI GOP needs to find candidates for.

Yorke continues, summarizing that Mayor Laffey decides to run, he doesn't call you and the party is fractious. This is going to be a WWF pay-per-view event. One of the things Mayor Laffey did was challenge you to debates. Have you reacted to this? Sen. Chafee said that he said that there's a time and place and he won't duck debating Mayor Laffey. Yorke asked how many debates would be appropriate and Sen. Chafee stated he'd have to think about it, but recalled that he had 8 against Robert Weygand in 2000.

Yorke stated that "I had to laugh at his call for debates," and said there were two schools of thought on how an incumbent like Sen. Chafee should react. The first was that he rope-a-dope Mayor Laffey, the other was that he burn him out and people get sick of it. Had Sen. Chafee thought of how to handle it? Sen. Chafee said that he had and that there are sharp differences and debates at proper time would be to his advantage.

Yorke conveyed that he thought that Mayor Laffey "thinks he can eat your lunch." Yorke reasoned that this was because Sen. Chafee comes across as the nice guy, but Mayor Laffey is a pit bull. According to Yorke, Mayor Laffey is dying to get you and kick your ass. Yorke asked if Mayor Laffey was underestimating Sen. Chafee in this, to which the Senator responded that--"if that's his point of view--absolutely."

Yorked stated that he had heard the Senator was competitive and wanted some evidence. Sen. Chafee responded by reciting his political career, of running for office as a Republican in a Democrat dominated city [Warwick] and winning when people said he couldn't.

From this, Yorke observed that some say the legacy of Sen. John Chafee is a buoy to his son and that that may have worn off a bit. Sen. Chafee stated that he didn't think it helped him in Warwick, but it was a factor in his first senate run in 2000. It was probably unfair to Weygand to be caught in that, but this time Sen. Chafee is on his own.

Yorke asked if--other than political races--if there was anything else that showed his mettle. Sen. Chafee then talked about going and working at race tracks, working as a blacksmith and going to Alberta Canada on his own with no family support. He got to know people and made his own business.

Yorke then asked if Sen. Chafee visualized this race getting personal. Yorke couldn't see Sen. Chafee doing that, and asked if Mayor Laffey risks a boomerang if he does go down that road. Sen. Chafee offered that he thought that the whole pixel-picture story showed a different side of Mayor Laffey, "Why not just take picture off is obvious question?"

Yorke asked if this was some insight into Mayor Laffey's character and Sen. Chafee it shows that it shows a retributive character. Yorke then asked if he thought Mayor Laffey was "a good guy." Senator Chafee explained that he didn't think Mayor Laffey was a good guy for running against him since we're [the RI GOP] looking for candidates for office in other areas. "I don't think he's a good guy for doing that."

The Testimony of Samuel Alito's Colleagues, Part 2

After the American Bar Association Panel presented Samuel Alito's rating of well-qualified to the Senate Judiciary Committee, testimony was heard from the Judges who have served with Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit Court of appeals. Here are a few snippets…

From Judge Edward Becker (appointed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan)...

The Sam Alito that I have sat with for 15 years is not an ideologue. He's not a movement person. He's a real judge deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal views, whatever they may be.

He scrupulously adheres to precedent. I have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or litigants.

From Judge Anthony Scirica (appointed to the 3rd circuit in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan)...

Judge Alito approaches each case with an open mind and determines the proper application of the relevant law to the facts at hand. He has a deep respect for precedent. His reasoning is scrupulous and meticulous. He does not reach out to decide issues that are not presented in the case.

From Judge Maryanne Trump Barry (appointed to the 3rd circuit in 1999 by President Bill Clinton)...

Now, of course, in 1990 Judge Alito became Judge Alito. And you have heard the most glowing things said about Sam as a colleague on our court. I embrace every glowing statement.

Let me just conclude with this: Judge Alito is a man of remarkable intellectual gifts. He is a man with impeccable legal credentials.

He is a fair-minded man, a modest man, a humble man. And he reveres the rule of law.

From Judge Ruggero Aldisert (appointed to the 3rd circuit in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson)…

And as has been heard several times in this hearing, Justice O'Connor, in 1995, described her approach to judging. What she said then is even more important today. And I quote, "It cannot be too often stated that the greatest threats to our constitutional freedoms come in times of crisis. The only way for judges to mediate these conflicting impulses is to do what they should do anyway: Stay close to the record in each case that appears before them and make their judgments based on that alone."

And knowing Sam Alito as I do, I am struck by how accurately these words also describe the way in which he has performed his work as a United States circuit judge.

And that is why, with utmost enthusiasm, I recommend that he be confirmed as an associate justice on the Supreme Court.

From Judge Leonard Garth (appointed to the 3rd circuit in 1973 by President Richard Nixon)...

In my opinion, Sam is as well qualified as the most qualified justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court.

A word about Sam's demeanor is in order. Sam is and always has been reserved, soft spoken and thoughtful. He is also modest, and I would even say self-effacing. And these are the characteristics I think of when I think of Sam's personality. It is rare to find humility such as his in someone of such extraordinary ability.

The Testimony of Samuel Alito’s Colleagues, Part 1

After Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito completed his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several panels of witnesses presented testimony to the committee. Here’s a quick summary of the first two panels, as transcripted in the Washington Post.

First, a panel representing the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary testified about the “well-qualified” rating -- the highest rating awared by the ABA -- given to Judge Alito. In addition to describing their procedure for arriving at the rating, they commented on the Vanguard Case…

We also interviewed an incredibly broad array of judges -- virtually all of the members of the 3rd Circuit, virtually all of the district judges that were in New Jersey and were in Philadelphia. We interviewed a number of the other judges in the 3rd Circuit who were on the district court who had contact with Judge Alito.

And what we learned from them almost unanimously was that he is held in incredibly high regard with respect to the issues that this committee, the ABA's committee, looks at: his integrity, his judicial competence and his judicial temperament.

And on the issue of the recusals, everyone thought that he has the highest integrity and that these few cases that slipped through do not diminish his integrity.

…and on the Concerned Alumni of Princeton…

We were very concerned about that listing, knowing that membership in that organization would put him, perhaps, on an extreme that we would be uncomfortable with.

His answers to our committee were very similar, if not identical, to the answers to your committee. He did not recall when he became a member or even what he did. He didn't recall ever attending any meetings or reading any publications.

He did recall that he joined the organization because of the university's attempt to remove ROTC….

But I should say, in fairness, we were very concerned about the membership of that and what happened. And all of the people we spoke to on the courts, women and minorities, people who he had worked with, people who had sat on panels with him side by side in issuing judicial opinions, almost universally said that they saw no bigotry, no prejudice.

In others words, after a thorough investigation, the ABA determined that there was no merit to either of these issues.

"Laffey Denounces Shameful Senate Hearing, Says Alito Should Be Confirmed”

Republican Senatorial Candidate Steve Laffey has come out in support of the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court…

Today, Cranston Mayor and U.S. Senate candidate Stephen Laffey declared his support for the confirmation of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. While commending the qualifications of Judge Alito, Mayor Laffey also denounced the character assassination spectacle at the Senate Judiciary Committee, and urged Rhode Island’s U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee to support the nominee.

Mayor Laffey commented, “Over the course of three full days of extensive public hearings, we now clearly know two things. First, Judge Alito is a person with tremendous legal credentials, an open and independent mind, and an incredibly reasonable temperament. Second, the hearings demonstrate once more what is wrong with Washington today, where character assassination and tawdry treatment is all too common.”

Laffey continued, “Judge Alito has an inspiring personal story of rising up from humble roots to live the American Dream. I believe he will be a fair and good member of the Supreme Court. I would urge Rhode Island’s two Senators to vote for Judge Alito’s confirmation, and reject the tactics of the liberal extremist groups and the hyper-partisan environment of Washington, DC.”

The Alito Nomination & A Local Case of Bush Derangement Syndrome

Over at RI Future, they're relying partially on distortions, partially on just making stuff up to advocate against Samuel Alito. Here's the distortion...

RI FUTURE: Sen. [Richard] Durbin asked Judge Alito, “John Roberts stated unequivocally that Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land. Do you, Judge Alito, believe that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land?”

Unlike, John Roberts, Alito refused to say that Roe is the settled law of the land.

Here's Judge Alito's actual answer to Senator Durbin's question as transcripted in the Washington Post...

DURBIN: But let me just ask you this: John Roberts said that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. Do you believe it is the settled law of the land?

ALITO: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So it's been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday.

And it is my -- and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision; sometimes on the merits; sometimes -- in Casey -- based on stare decisis. And I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least two reasons.

First of all, the more often a decision is reaffirmed, the more people tend to rely on it. Secondly, I think stare decisis reflects the view that there is wisdom embedded in decisions that have been made by prior justices who take the same oath and are scholars and are conscientious.

And when they examine a question and they reach a conclusion, I think that's entitled to considerable respect. And, of course, the more times that happens, the more respect the decision is entitled to. And that's my view of that.

So it's a very important precedent...

DURBIN: Is it the settled law of the land?

ALITO: If "settled" means that it can't be reexamined, then that's one thing. If "settled" means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis and all of the factors that I've mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.

Judge for yourself if you think RI Future's portrayal is accurate.

Now, here's where RI Future just makes stuff up...

RI FUTURE: With Judge Alito on the Supreme Court, the count will be 5-4 to make abortion illegal.

We don't yet know how Justice Roberts will vote. In fact, by RI Future's logic, Justice Roberts is a vote in favor of keeping Roe because of precedent.

But forget that for a moment. And pretend that it's not Samuel Alito being nominated to the Supreme Court, but someone who has declared their intention to always vote pro-life, no matter what the facts of the case are. Now what's the hypothetical count in a Roe v. Wade case? Still at least 5 votes in favor of upholding the precedent -- John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. This majority reflects the fact that Justice Ginsburg, a vote in favor of upholding Roe, replaced Justice Byron White, who wrote one of the original dissents in Roe.

The errors in reading, errors in counting, and errors in logic show how unhinged the left has become in its attempts to defeat any Bush judicial nominee, no matter who it is.

If you are interested in the details of Samuel Alito's record of ruling according to the law -- and not according to personal feelings -- in abortion related cases, click here.

What is the Unitary Executive?

Here's how to understand the meaning of the term "unitary executive" being bandied about at Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing.

Suppose Congress decides that their campaign-finance laws aren't being enforced aggressively enough. To step up enforcement, they create a national police force to investigate campaign finance cases, granting it powers equivalent to those of the FBI. The chief of the Campaign Finance Police Force will be hired by and serve at the pleasure of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate also creates an office of special prosecutors, outside of the US Attorney system, to take cases investigated by the new Campaign Finance Police to court.

Does Congress have the power to create this special police force, or to create its own police force to patrol the US border with Mexico, or to create its own agency to close down schools not conforming to the No-Child-Left-Behind Act? The answer is no. The American system of government is based on the idea that powers to make, enforce, and interpret the law must be divided amongst different groups of people.

Article II, section I of the Constitution states that...

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The power to enforce the law is the integral component of executive power. The unitary executive means that Congress or the courts cannot grant themselves chunks of the executive's enforcement authority. They cannot act contrary to Article II's requirement that enforcement of the law be carried out through the branch of government headed by the President. This in no way implies that the President is above the law.

Lest you think that a unitary executive somehow automatically implies increasing the power of the government, please note that my argument from a year ago as to why WJAR-TV reporter Jim Taricani should not have been sentenced to home-confinement for refusing to disclose a source to a judge was, in part, a unitary executive argument. Taricani's case was prosecuted by a court-appointed special prosecutor. A special prosecutor beholden only to the judiciary, and not to any executive branch of government, should not have the power to enforce laws by threatening people with jail time.

Yes, Virginia, I Am an Editor

For those who might be wondering: "tramping" is le mot juste for the new category that I've begun with my previous post.

Getting to Work... by Postponing Work

It was one thing to do nothing more active than sit in my office, blog, and write columns when I actually managed to make time to write. Lately that hasn't been possible. So, with the thought that "getting to work" in a metaphorical, political, and Anchor-Rising-al sense may now require me to actually leave the house (so as not to slip into working), I've decided to take a morning off and attend this Saturday's East Bay GOP Breakfast.

Whether you're from one of the ten technically included towns or otherwise, I encourage you to attend. Perhaps we can argue about Mayor Laffey's candidacy in the presence of the man himself.

ADDENDUM:
So as to provide me somebody behind whom to hide should things get testy, Andrew will be attending the breakfast, as well.

Vaulting over the Same Old Same Old

Edward Achorn offers we sighted Rhode Islanders, today, our periodic fix of motivational disheartenment at the state of our state. None of it's surprising, including the feeling — at least in this overworked blogger — of desperation to do something to make Rhode Island a better place to live and a more fruitful participant in the United States of America.

The new thought that Achorn's piece brings to mind comes in the form of a question: Why is Steve Laffey, given his persona as a scrapper intent on righting difficult wrongs, campaigning to vault right over the tangled local brambles into the federal government? The way to begin improving Rhode Island's contribution as a member of the U.S.A. is by improving its actual health, the example that it sets, and the culture to which it contributes — not by shifting its column on a handful of Congressional vote tallies.

Tax Reform and the Minimum Wage III

Secretary of State candidate Guillaume de Ramel helps advance a point I began making at the end of last week (h/t RI Future)...

I write today to strongly support legislation (2006 H 6718) that will incrementally increase the minimum wage in Rhode Island from $6.75 to $7.40 by January 1, 2007.

Your committee members and House and Senate leaders showed real leadership when you passed legislation last year that would have increased the minimum wage, affording hardworking Rhode Islanders the opportunity to earn more critically-needed dollars in each paycheck. Unfortunately, as we are both aware, Governor Carcieri turned his back on Rhode Island's workers and vetoed that measure. Now he is offering the General Assembly and these same hardworking Rhode Islanders a half-hearted compromise of increasing the minimum wage to $7.10 an hour.

Governor Carcieri's hollow election year compromise is not enough. All working Rhode Islanders should be able to afford life's basic necessities without compromise -- especially in this time of extraordinary home heating and utility costs. A $7.40 minimum wage is critical to that goal.

I submit that this response was entirely predictable. Whenever any fiscally reasonable politician (like Governor Carcieri) discusses some aspect of fiscal and economic policy as a standalone issue, he loses, unless there is a major crisis looming. No matter how much is proposed, Dems argue that even more on the one issue -- be it more regulation, higher taxes, or greater redistribution of wealth -- is necessary to fix the problems that are there. Or, to paraphrase Mr. de Ramel, "You want to raise the minimum wage? Well, you should want to raise it more!"

The result, as this case illustrates, is that the Governor gets limited political benefit from something like a minimum wage increase presented in isolation from the rest of his economic policies. His opponents join together to say the increase was not enough, that it would have been more had they been in office, and who cares about what other effects it might have.

The way for the Governor to overcome this dynamic is to clearly link taxation and regulation in his policymaking. Had Governor Carcieri established the connection between business taxation and the minimum wage as soon as the proposed wage increase was announced, he would have had a response ready for his detractors...

We can raise the minimum wage as high as you want, as long as additional costs being imposed on small and medium size businesses can be offset with a set of appropriate tax-cuts. Aren't you willing to cut back the money that the state takes in to help give more money to the people -- in terms of both an increased minimum wage and a smaller tax burden?

Taking a Brief Sabbatical

As some of you may know, I've been pursuing an MA in History (at Providence College) over the past few years in my spare time. During the next few weeks I'll be both finalizing my Master's Thesis and prepping for the Oral Comprehensive exams that are scheduled for "some time in February" (gotta love laid back academia, huh?). I'll still be stopping by and may chime in from time to time, but priorities are on the aforementioned academic pursuits. After that, I hope to return to writing my always fascinating and insightful posts that you have all come to enjoy. ;0 So, until then, stay conservative!

Walter Williams: Attacking Lobbyists is Wrong Battle

Walter Williams, once again, cuts through all the political posturing about the rationale for lobbying reforms in his latest editorial:

...Whatever actions Congress might take in the matter of lobbying are going to be just as disappointing in ending influence-peddling as their Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold bill. Before we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by our political leaders, we might do our own analysis to determine whether the problem is money in politics or something more fundamental.

Let's start this analysis with a question. Why do corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over millions of dollars to the campaign coffers of politicians? Is it because these groups are extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep interest in congressmen doing their jobs of upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution?...Anyone answering in the affirmative...probably also believes that storks deliver babies and there really is an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

A much better explanation for the millions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians lies in the awesome growth of government control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors. The greater their power to grant favors, the greater the value of being able to influence Congress, and there's no better influence than money.

The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans. A variant of this privilege is to get Congress to do something that would be criminal if done privately.

Here's just one among possibly thousands of examples. If Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) used goons and violence to stop people from buying sugar from Caribbean producers so that sugar prices would rise, making it easier for ADM to sell more of its corn syrup sweetener, they'd wind up in jail. If they line the coffers of congressmen, they can buy the same result without risking imprisonment. Congress simply does the dirty work for them by enacting sugar import quotas and tariffs...

...A tweak here and a tweak there in the tax code can mean millions of dollars.

...Campaign finance and lobby reform will only change the method of influence-peddling. If Congress did only what's specifically enumerated in our Constitution, influence-peddling would be a non-issue simply because the Constitution contains no authority for Congress to grant favors and special privileges. Nearly two decades ago, during dinner with the late Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, I asked him if he had the power to write one law that would get government out of our lives, what would that law be? Professor Hayek replied he'd write a law that read: Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. He elaborated: If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs should also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling.

Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans: A simple, but powerful, policy spoken by one of the greatest economists. Now ponder how that would change Washington's game of pork.

Samuel Alito Opinions in Cases Involving Race

As an antidote to Senator Edward Kennedy's attempt to use Clintonian language parsing to distort the record of Samuel Alito, here are a few opinions written by Judge Alito in civil rights cases where he sided with plantiffs in civil proceedings and defendants in criminal ones. An unsigned editorial from the Washington Post provides an overview...

[Judge Alito] has sided with civil rights plaintiffs in cases involving race. He dissented from a decision barring a race bias lawsuit because of a statute of limitations -- not what you would expect from a judge unblinkingly keen to protect businesses from civil rights litigation. He has voted to overturn convictions because of racial manipulations of juries. And he declared unlawful the search of a car whose driver had been stopped because police were looking for two black men driving a black sports car following an armed robbery; such vague knowledge, he wrote, "could not justify arrest [of] any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black sports car."

The statute of limitations case was Zubi v. AT&T Corp (2000). Madhat Zubi sued AT&T, claiming that he had been fired because of race. The district court dismissed Zubi's suit on the grounds that he had waited too long to file suit. Alito disagreed with the dismissal on the grounds that the court had misinterpreted a recent change in the law extending the statute of limitations in race-discrimination cases from two to four years. The Supreme Court eventaully agreed with Alito's position. This was a clear-cut case of Judge Alito siding with a “little guy” versus the big, confusing Federal bureaucracy.

The jury case was Brinson v. Vaughn (2005). Curtis Brinson, an African-American, was convicted of murder by a jury after the prosecution used 13 out of 14 peremptory strikes to keep African-Americans off of the jury. The lower appeals court held that Brinson could not have been the victim of racial discrimination because "the victim, the perpetrator and witnesses [were] black". In his opinion, Alito declared this rationale “clearly wrong” and remanded the case to the trial court.

The unlawful search case was United States v. Kithcart (1998). Jesse Kithcart, an African-American, was stopped by the police about an hour after a series of robberies began and was eventually convicted of a firearms charge. The officier who made the stop testified that she stopped Kithcart because he was the first African-American male she had seen after hearing the reports of the robberies. Judge Alito held that evidence from the traffic stop was not admissible against Kithcart because being a black man driving a sports car an hour after a robbery occurs does not provide probable cause for a traffic stop...

The district court erred in concluding that there was probable cause to arrest and search Kithcart....The mere fact that Kithcart is black and the perpetrators had been described as two black males is plainly insufficient.

It is not a crime to drive-while-black in Samuel Alito’s America.

Samuel Alito & Vanguard

In a National Review Online article from about two months ago, Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center explained the details of the mutual fund case that has come to fascinate Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's detractors…

In Monga v. Ottenberg, a bankruptcy receiver sought to have a party's IRA assets (which included funds in a Vanguard account) made available to pay the bankrupt party's creditors. Vanguard was a party to the case because the bankrupt party sued it to prevent it from releasing his IRA funds to his creditors. In other words, Vanguard's only interest in the case was as a third party who held funds belonging to someone else — it was going to make them available either to the creditors or to the bankrupt party, but Vanguard had no interest in the funds. When the case went to the Third Circuit, Judge Alito, who owned some Vanguard mutual funds, joined two of his colleagues in unanimously dismissing the claims of the bankrupt party. In a desperate attempt to get one last bite at the apple, the bankrupt party claimed after the case had been decided that Judge Alito should have recused because he owned some Vanguard mutual funds….

As several legal ethics experts have stated, Alito had no obligation to recuse because Vanguard didn't stand to benefit financially (or be harmed financially) as a result of the case. Vanguard was going to release the funds to someone; it was just a question of who got them. So Alito had no conflict of interest that required him to recuse.

We can count the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary among the experts untroubled by this matter. The details of this case were well-known when the ABA -- who include “integrity“ as well as “professional competence” and “judicial temperament” in their rating criteria -- unanimously voted to give Judge Alito their highest rating of “well qualified”.

The Samuel Alito 1984 Wiretap Memo

The Projo’s John E. Mulligan refers to a Senator Lincoln Chafee concern about a position taken by Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito while he was working for the Justice Department…

Chafee said he therefore wants to know Alito's views on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which restricts government searches and seizures....

He cited a 1984 memo in which Alito said that when the attorney general acts to protect national security -- even with illegal wiretapping -- he should be immune from lawsuits. Alito was at the time a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration.

Alito’s expressed opposition to making the AG liable to lawsuits, however, was not an endorsement of an expansive view of executive wiretapping authority. As Senator John Cornyn explains in National Review Online…

Mitchell v. Forsyth had nothing to do with whether wiretapping was legal. The only question was whether the attorney general of the United States should be personally liable for money damages, or whether other remedies for wiretapping — such as injunctions, criminal liability, and the political process — were better options for checking the activities of government officials.

In other words, an attorney general would who abused his wiretap authority would face criminal penalties; he just couldn’t be sued for in civil court for monetary damages.

Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Conor and John Paul Stevens agreed with Alito’s position. Ed Whelan has more details here.

Eminent Domain Reform Introduced to the Rhode Island House

State Representative Matthew McHugh (D-Charlestown/New Shoreham/South Kingstown/Westerly) has introduced a strong version of eminent domain reform to the Rhode Island House (House Bill 6725)…

Notwithstanding any other provision of the general or public laws to the contrary, no city or town, nor any political subdivision thereof shall exercise their power of eminent domain to acquire private residential property and then transfer it to a private developer for the purpose of improving tax revenue, expanding the tax base or for the sole purpose of promoting economic development.

Rep. McHugh’s eminent domain reform proposal is much clearer than the eminent domain proposal introduced last session which carved out significant loopholes and left plenty of room for Kelo-style land seizures.

Representative McHugh’s bill is based on an ordinance passed on August 9, 2005 by the Charlestown Town Council. The Charlestown ordinance is, in turn, based on the eminent domain reform language created by Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey in response to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision.

Governor Carcieri and the Politics, Maybe, of Tax Reform

Possibilites for tax-reform in this session of the Rhode Island legislature appear strangely muddled. On the one hand, Speaker of the House William Murphy named tax-reform as one of the three highest priorities for the 2006 legislative session...

Let it be our New Year's resolution; let it be our sense of duty to every Rhode Islander struggling to make ends meet that puts Responsible Tax Reform, A Comprehensive Energy Strategy, and A Fair Minimum Wage and to protect identities of individuals and other things that come to the floor front. Let?s resolve to make those some of our legislative priorities this year (emphasis in original).

(Sidebar: Does anybody understand what the phrase "to protect identities of individuals" means in this context?)

Despite the fact that the Speaker of the House -- generally regarded as the most powerful individual in Rhode Island politics -- is amenable to tax-reform, Governor Donald Carcieri was recently quoted in an Andrea L. Stape article in the Projo as saying that he doesn't believe tax-reform is possible this year...

Consequently, he is considering a legislative proposal that would phase in a reduction of the historic-preservation tax credit and follow that with a phased-in income tax cut. Overall, he said that structural change would bring the state's tax burden more in line with neighboring New England states and make it more attractive to companies.

The governor said the proposal is interesting now, since it would work to reduce the state's tax burden in future years without significantly affecting the 2007 fiscal budget.

"This year is probably not the year to get tax [reform] done," he said.

I see two possibilities for the disconnect between Governor Carcieri and Speaker Murphy. The first is that the governor wants to proceed with extreme caution due to the budget shortfall. The most recent estimate says that Rhode Island needs to close a gap of about $77,000,000 for the current fiscal year. It could be that the Governor doesn't want to advocate tax-cuts while the budget still needs to be reconciled and program cuts may be necessary.

However, there may also be a political element at work here. The Governor's political strategists could be telling him that he and Republican legislative candidates would lose an issue to run on if a major tax-reform package were to pass this session. The idea that the Governor is thinking politics also explains why he has embraced the minimum-wage increase this (election) year that he vetoed last year.

Either way, I fear the Governor is being a tad shortsighted. Governor Carcieri needs to seize this opportunity to shape the debate about Rhode Island's economic and fiscal future. By talking about the minimum wage increase and tax-reform at the same time, explaining how employers and employees are all part of the same community, and how taxes and regulations are all part of the same system, the Governor could effectively counter the Democrat's message of class warfare in a way that cannot be done when fiscal and economic issues are discussed in an isolated, unconnected manner.

Direct Perspectives on Samuel Alito III

Anchor Rising continues its interview with Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's law school classmate Mark Dwyer and former law clerk Thomas Gentile. Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Gentile can be viewed on 10 News Conference, on WJAR-TV (Channel 10) this Sunday at 6:30 AM. To read Anchor Rising's earlier interview with former Alito law clerk Susan Sullivan, click here.

Anchor Rising: Give us legal laypeople a hint of what to look for in the confirmation hearings that will tell us about what kind of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito would be.

Mark Dwyer: You’ll see him be calm, collected and precise. I don’t know what the strategy is for when you say “I can’t answer that question because it may come before me someday” and when you say “look at my past opinions and here’s what I’ve said about that in the past”. I don’t know just where he’s going to draw that line. I guess Judge Roberts drew it in a pretty good place; he’s probably going to try to do about the same thing. But you will see him when he talks be precise in his answers. He will get clarification when the Senators, as they will, ask questions that don’t make much sense. He’s appeared in front of the Supreme Court and done a great job there. For him to appear in front of this group of Senators -- who are not as well versed in the subjects they’ll be asking about as are Supreme Court Justices when they talk to you -- is not going to be a big shock to his system. He is going to be fine. He going to perform, I predict, extremely well, show his intelligence and show what a nice guy he is.

Thomas Gentile: During the confirmation hearings, all of America will see Judge Alito’s facility for legal issues that have come before him in his 15 years on the court of appeals and are coming before the Supreme Court now. Judge Alito knows this stuff and he knows it cold. When I was a law clerk, there were times that Judge Alito would dictate opinions to his clerks off the top of his head -- complete with case cites and page cites. America will be impressed by the scope of his knowledge. America will also be impressed when it sees Judge Alito’s dedication to faithfully applying the law and to never having his personal opinions interfere with his legal decision making process.

AR: If you could tell people something you think will be lost in the fog of partisanship and the focus on judicial outcomes that we will certainly see in the next few weeks, what would it be?

MD: You’re going to hear a lot of Senators and certainly a lot of lobbyists involved in the process look at one opinion that Sam wrote and not pay attention to the reasoning about how he got to the ending. They’ll find one opinion in a particular area, be it abortion, the environment, or employee rights, one opinion they disagree with, and conclude from that one opinion that Sam is a danger to the country because he is anti-abortion, or anti-whatever. They will not be looking at the whole group of opinions he has written over 15 years. They won’t be looking at the group of opinions he has written in a particular area. They will look at the one they don’t like and try to make hay out of that by making this all a political process instead of an assessment of whether somebody is a restrained and fair judge. So watch for that. You’ll see people distort his record by focusing on the one case they don’t agree with and not explaining how the law made him get there.

TG: America has a choice here. It’s a choice about the role of the federal judiciary in our Constitutional democracy. If America wants the kind of Judge who decides cases, regardless of ideology, based on the law and the precedents and the facts of each case, then Sam Alito is the kind of judge they want sitting on the Supreme Court. If America wants judges who reach into their own policy preferences and create the outcome in cases they want to see happen, regardless of what the law requires, then Sam Alito is not the judge for them. I think when America watches the confirmation hearings, America will see that judge Alito respects the limited role of the judiciary in America’s constitutional democracy.

Direct Perspectives on Samuel Alito II

In modern politics, the loudest chatter heard about a Supreme Court nominee -- Samuel Alito included -- usually comes from those who know the nominee as little more than the sum of a paper trail. Anchor Rising was given one more opportunity (click here to read our earlier interview with former Alito law clerk Susan Sullivan) to supplement the paper trail by talking to people who know Judge Alito personally.

Mark Dwyer was Samuel Alito’s roommate at Yale law school. Mr. Dwyer is currently Chief of the New York County District Attorney’s Appeals Bureau. Thomas Gentile was a law clerk for Judge Alito in 1996-1997 on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He is currently a partner with the law firm of Lampf, Lipkind, Prupis, and Petigrow. Here’s what Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Gentile think about the man who will stand before the Senate Judiciary Committee starting next week…

Anchor Rising: Were you surprised when you heard that Samuel Alito had been nominated to the Supreme Court?

Mark Dwyer: Only in the sense that even the best person is a huge longshot to get that lone nomination that comes along. I’ve never known anybody who was better suited and who seemed pointed in that direction any more than Sam. He’s been fascinated by the court and by the appellate process and appellate law ever since college. And he obviously went through the steps that would make him a natural nominee. In that sense, it’s a perfect fruition of what he’s been doing his whole career. At the same time, you don’t expect lightning to strike the guy you know, because it's just against the odds.

Thomas Gentile: I agree completely. There is no question that Judge Alito is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. As soon as President Bush was elected back in 2000, you began to hear discussions of Judge Alito as possibly being a nominee to the Supreme Court when an opening came up. So in that sense, I wasn’t surprised. But on the same note, there was something very surreal about turning on my TV on the morning of October 31 and seeing my old boss standing up there with President Bush.

AR: To me, the toughest part of finding someone who will be a good Supreme Court Justice seems to be finding someone who’s got the ambition to want to sit on the highest court of the greatest nation on earth but also has the humility to respect legal precedent and decisions made by legislatures. Can you give us any insight into how you’ve seen Judge Alito combine these disparate impulses?

MD: You’re certainly right. It’s a hard thing to find. Sam plainly has them both, and it’s just a remarkable combination. In terms of his drive and ambition, ever since I knew him in college, and certainly when I was rooming with him in law school, he was the guy who was burning the midnight oil. He was studying, studying, studying. It wasn’t really labor to him because he loved the stuff. He loved learning what he was learning; it was so natural for him to enjoy all of that. He was really good at it. And all through his career, he put in that same kind of intense work/play in fooling around with the legal concepts in learning appellate law and being a great appellate judge. So he’s got that drive. Does he want to be on the Supreme Court, does he have that ambition? Sure. But even without that goal in mind, he was going to be doing that same stuff anyway, because it’s just so natural for him.

The humility part is so natural for him also. He is a shy, nice, pleasant guy. I know that from living with him for a couple of years, three years actually, it’s just inherent in his personality to be that kind of guy, to be respectful of everybody he’s dealing with including all the people he has to work with who aren’t as smart as he is and people who are as smart as he is. Everybody, whether a judge or in the clerks’ office gets the same nice treatment from Sam Alito.

TG: I’ve worked in two of the biggest law firms in America for ten years and Judge Alito is, by far, the most brilliant legal mind I have ever encountered -- including all of my law professors at Harvard. But he couples that intellectual capacity with a judicial temperament and a humility in his approach to the law that uniquely qualifies him for the Supreme Court. He draws praise from the Judges that he sits with whether they were appointed by Republican Presidents or Democratic Presidents. The other judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals are pretty much unanimous in saying wonderful things about their colleague Sam Alito who has been nominated to the Supreme Court. When the judges write back and forth in opinions, including dissents, they’re never bitter, never angry, never caustic when Judge Alito is involved. They are very respectful. You will see opinion after opinion where other judges say “I respect tremendously what Judge Alito has written and I disagree on these grounds”. He fosters that atmosphere of judicial collegiality that I think sometimes is missing from the Supreme Court right now. That’s another reason why he’ll be an outstanding Associate Justice.

To be continued...

Linking Tax-Reform and the Minimum Wage?

According to Scott Mayerowitz in the Projo, the first major issue to be taken up in this year's Rhode Island legislature appears to be raising the minimum wage...

House leaders yesterday introduced and planned to "fast track" legislation that would raise Rhode Island's minimum wage to $7.10 an hour as of March 1.

The bill by Rep. Charlene M. Lima, D-Cranston, is almost identical to legislation passed last year by the General Assembly but vetoed by Governor Carcieri.

Raising the minimum wage is, in fact, an item that Speaker of the House William Murphy said was amongst the three most important priorities in the current legislative session...

Let it be our New Year’s resolution; let it be our sense of duty to every Rhode Islander struggling to make ends meet that puts Responsible Tax Reform, A Comprehensive Energy Strategy, and A Fair Minimum Wage and to protect identities of individuals and other things that come to the floor front. Let’s resolve to make those some of our legislative priorities this year (emphasis in original).

There is both a political logic and an economic logic to linking minimum wage and tax reforms. In theory, the right set of tax cuts could help offset the money that employers would have to pay out in increased wages. State Senator Daniel DaPonte sees the connection...

Sen. Daniel DaPonte, D-East Providence, plans to introduce legislation in the Senate increasing the wage....

DaPonte said that while a raise in the wage in necessary there also needs to be "relief on the other side for employers." He said that relief needs to come in changes to the state's tax laws.

Before approving a minimum wage increase, legislators who believe there is a connection between tax-reform and the minimum wage should present the details of a tax-reform package to the public, so we can see that more than just cosmetic changes to the tax code are under consideration. The tedency of the government is always going to be to spend other people's money, while not (directly) touching its own revenue streams.

And, after all, this is Rhode Island. In the mind of the Speaker, "Tax Reform" could mean something like reducing the taxes paid by hypothetical casinos in West Warwick.

Tax-Lien Reform Reintroduced in the House

The bill making it more difficult for the government to sell a house out from under its owner without the owner knowing it was re-introduced to the RI House yesterday. Representatives Joseph Almeida (D-Providence), Grace Diaz (D-Providence) and Thomas Slater (D-Providence) introduced House Bill 6704 which, if passed, would make 3 major changes to the process of tax-lien sales.

1. The bill would give the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation the right of first refusal in tax-lien sales involving residential properties of up to 4 units and asks RIHMFC to develop regulations that give delinquent owners an opportunity to buy back their homes...

Where the property subject to tax sale is residential and contains four (4) or less units, the Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation shall have a right of first refusal to acquire the tax lien, and may assist the owner to discharge the lien or take title and acquire the property in its own name pursuant to regulations to be developed by the corporation, consistent with its purposes.

2. The bill would require at least two rounds of notification of the owner, one by registered mail and one by certified mail, before a tax lien sale...

Whether or not the person or general partnership to whom the estate is taxed as of December 31st prior to the tax sale is a resident of this state, the collector shall, in addition to the foregoing, notify the taxpayer of the time and place of sale first by registered mail not less than sixty (60) days before the date of sale or any adjournment of the sale, and again by certified mail not less than forty (40) days before the date of sale or any adjournment of the sale...

3. The bill would require notification of the Department of Elderly Affairs in cases involving owners who had received tax abatements due to their age. Failure to notify Elderly Affairs in these cases would nullify a tax-sale...

In the event the person to whom the estate is taxed is listed in the records of the assessor and/or collector as having applied for and been granted a property tax abatement based wholly or partially on the age of the taxpayer, then the collector shall also notify the department of elderly affairs by registered and certified mail as described herein. Failure to notify the department of elderly affairs shall nullify any tax sale.

The bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee. All of these provisions were included in a similar version of the bill last year, but were removed sometime in the committee process. We'll see if they survive this year's session.

Do RI GOP Members Want a "Bottom Up" or "Top Down" Party?

Craig Shirley is president of Shirley & Banister Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., and an author (Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started it All). He thinks the National Republican Party may be facing an identity crisis similar to that it faced after Watergate. I think that such a contention is a bit hyperbolic, but I also recognize that he raises some valid concerns. As such, his observations can help prompt corrective action before things get too far astray.

As Shirley points out, historically, the "GOP, at the leadership level from the time of William Howard Taft up until Ford’s presidency, was a Tory-like party in which power flowed downward and the status quo was always defended. . ." Then Ronald Reagan and his more populist, bottom-up conservative movement took over, "And Reagan’s sunny optimism, was not just about being a nice guy, it reflected his outlook for the future of America. It was a crucial part of his ideology."

Shirley also quotes Jeff Bell, who wrote, "“Reagan invariably gravitated toward the aspects of American conservatism that were optimistic not cynical, populist not elitist, egalitarian, not hierarchical, moral not relativistic—in short, what is distinctly American in American conservatism.”

Then Shirley gets to the meat of his complaint, with a local angle:

At the close of 2005, the GOP is fast becoming the party of big government, tax cuts and corruption. It is evolving back into a Tory party. . .

. . . the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee recently ran ads attacking the conservative mayor of Cranston, RI because he has the temerity to consider a primary challenge to incumbent liberal Senator Lincoln Chaffee. Their actions may be unprecedented. The first rule of the bureaucracy…any bureaucracy ... is to protect itself ... and everybody understands that the party committees give money and support to incumbents. This is one thing. But it is quite another thing when those same committees engage in ad homonym attacks on a member of their own party. . .

Shirley also points to the growth of government and cites a memo by the National Republican Congressional Committee in which members were told to play up the pork they brought home. Not a very conservative message which "awakened the grassroots of the conservative movement. . . to rise up in righteous indignation, demanding cuts in spending." That would include Anchor Rising, I might add!

Shirley also points to the growing influence of "non-believers" that is an unfortunate characteristic of being the majority party. As exemplified by the Abramoff scandal, "the excesses of money and greed have led some in the party to abandon their core beliefs. Or worse, attempt to remake conservativism into something it is not."

All is not lost, though. The President still enjoys conservative support on "tax cuts, or the war on terror or nominating John Bolton to the United Nations, or reforming Social Security," but "when Bush chose Harriet Miers, it cut deeply with his biggest supporters because they know he is 'one of us' ... and that he is deeply distrustful of the real elites who dominate Washington and much of American culture."

Finally:

Bush is not alone in facing a revolt among his own people. Reagan sometimes acted in a pragmatic fashion too, and conservatives let him know of their displeasure. In this, though, Bush can take some solace. Conservatives angst is not personal. They desperately want Bush, the conservative, to succeed.

In many ways, the GOP has become a victim of its own successes, attracting new people who are interested in the party, not for reasons of ideology, but for reasons of money, access, power and fame. These statists are ironically taking the party back into the past. Exactly where Reagan never wanted it to go. Reagan’s banner of “bold unmistakable colors” is being struck and the party is running up a white bed sheet of surrender.

These insiders, few of which have ever read “Free to Choose” or “Conscience of a Conservative” are taking Reagan’s revolutionary party of the future, created within the framework of freedom, down the road to minority status once again.

For years, the mantra of the Democratic Party has been, “given us power so we can do good things for you,” an emotional appeal. The Republicans rejoined was, “give us power, so we can give you more freedom,” requiring an intellectual discipline. Clearly, this message of Reagan’s is becoming too difficult for some in today’s Republican Party.

American Bar Association Gives Samuel Alito its Highest Rating

From the Associated Press via Breitbart.com…

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.

The rating came after a vote of an ABA committee and will be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday. Alito will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

The ABA rating -- the highest -- is the same that Alito received back in when President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, nominated him to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Projo Editorial Board to Most of America: We Are Better than You Are

The Projo welcomes Rhode Islanders back to the first work-day of the new year with a bit of regional jingoism that is equal parts inaccurate and ugly. The gist of a Tuesday unsigned editorial is that New England and the Pacific Northwest are so superior to the rest of the country, they need not care what the rest of the country thinks...

If you think of the United States as the upper half of a human body, New England and the Pacific Northwest are its shoulders. And in an economic sense, they are....

Politicians in the South and the heartland often forget this. They sometimes denigrate the northern East and West coasts as cul-de-sacs: picturesque places of little import. They are so wrong.

America's two shoulders need not worry about what others think of them. New England and the Pacific Northwest have the best social indicators [and] the country's upper corners are where much of the money is made.

Now, if you're going to insult most of the country that you live in, you should have a few facts to back up the points you make, but this editorial doesn't present the supporting facts -- because they don't exist.

The unsigned editorial asserts that...

[New England and the Pacific Northwest] both maintain socially liberal traditions of helping the less-well-off, while staying out of people's bedrooms,

but there is no credible consensus that New England is a special place when it comes to helping the "less-well-off". The Boston Foundation recently conducted a study of state-by-state charitable giving adjusted for local cost-of-living and tax burdens. (In large measure, the study is a response to the Generosity Index, published by the Catalogue for Philanthropy, which consistently ranks New England states near the bottom in charitable giving). Though the Boston Foundation resists the concept of "ranking" states, a few state-level and regional-level conclusions are obvious.

Connecticut is the only New England state to make the Boston Foundation's top group of charitable givers in the most recent data (from 2002). Massachusetts also does well in the study, but not quite as well as the Southern states of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Vermont and New Hampshire rate near the bottom of the study. It's pretty clear that a superior New England tradition of "helping the less well off" with charitable giving does not exist.

The Boston Foundation's charitable giving metric places Rhode Island in the middle of the pack. States most similar to Rhode Island are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arizona and Montana. When it comes to charity, RI has a lot more in common with the Deep South than it does with the rest of southern New England.

The editorial makes a second important assertion of questionable basis in reality...

The Northeast and the Northwest are both economic powerhouses, burdened with paying for much of the country's spending.

Again, there are basic facts available which counter this assertion. According to statistics compiled by the Tax Foundation, 3 of the 6 New England states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire -- are "donor" states that pay out more in Federal income taxes than they receive. The other 3 -- Maine, Vermont, and, yes, Rhode Island -- are "beneficiary" states that receive more in Federal taxes than they pay. There is no pattern of New England superiority in matters of fiscal responsibility, and Rhode Islanders, in particular, are not paying for Sun Belt spending. Rhode Island gets all of its Federal taxes back, and then some.

Having twice taken a sloppy approach towards the facts, the editorial then delves into the realm of sloppy philosophizing...

[T]ax cuts engineered by the Sunbelt politicians will, ironically, leave more money up north for local use. After all, the country's upper corners are where much of the money is made.

There is nothing "ironic" about the fact that Federal tax cuts allow people to keep their money closer to home. The core of the argument for reducing both the Federal tax burden and Federal spending is that money is spent most effectively when it is spent by the people closest to problems and not by remote bureaucrats. Now that the liberal bloc of Projo editorial writers bloc has come to realize this, will they be consistent and advocate that Federal spending be cut so that more money can stay closer to home?

What Do These Things Have to do with Education?

According to the Wall Street Journal:

If we told you that an organization gave away more than $65 million last year to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups, you'd probably assume we were describing a liberal philanthropy. In fact, those expenditures have all turned up on the financial disclosure report of the National Education Association, the country's largest teachers union.

Under new federal rules pushed through by Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, large unions must now disclose in much more detail how they spend members' dues money. Big Labor fought hard (if unsuccessfully) against the new accountability standards, and even a cursory glance at the NEA's recent filings--the first under the new rules--helps explain why. They expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students. . .

When George Soros does this sort of thing, at least he's spending his own money. The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.

Indeed. Thankfully, the average union member can also find out where some of his hard earned dues money is being spent, too. So, if you're curious, go here and check it out.

David Letterman and Samuel Alito

Last month, Colleen Nestler asked an Arizona court for a restraining order to protect her from talk-show host David Letterman. Here is the basis of the request, according to USA Today…

[Nestler] wrote that she began sending Letterman "thoughts of love" after his show began in 1993, and that he responded in code words and gestures, asking her to come East.

Nestler said Letterman asked her to be his wife during a televised "teaser" for his show by saying, "Marry me, Oprah." Her letter said Oprah was the first of many code names for her and that the coded vocabulary increased and changed with time.

Judge Daniel Sanchez, who heard the case, shocked the world by granting a temporary restraining order against Letterman, but later quashed the order after a full hearing.

Now, suppose at a future time, Judge Sanchez is appointed to the Supreme Court. Would you consider this to be a fair representation of Judge Sanchez’s record...

Judge Daniel Sanchez ruled to make it more difficult for the mentally ill to be protected by restraining orders.

This is exactly the kind of "logic" -- logic that ignores the specific facts of a case -- that is being deployed against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Here is part of the text of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary’s advertisement against Judge Alito, via the Annenberg School’s Factcheck.org website…

As a judge, Alito ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate.

The case referred to is Bray vs. Marriott, decided in 1997. After hearing the evidence, Judge Alito decided that plaintiff Beryl Bray had not proven that Marriott had discriminated against her. Bray only presented evidence of Marriott's failure to follow its internal notification procedures, not evidence of racial discrimination. Furthermore the employee promoted over Bray, according to evidence presented by Marriott, had stronger qualifications -- more training, experience at a larger hotel and experience supervising higher-ranking employees.

Judge Alito made it “easier for corporations to discriminate” only in the sense that he required that evidence of racial discrimination be provided before allowing courts to act upon claims of racial discrimination.