Blair 'Knew Iraq Had No WMD'

Of course, Blair -- and Bush -- knew they were making a phony case. And one is hard pressed to find a war that was not similarly contrived.

QUANDOQUE BONUS DORMITAT HOMERUS! YOU BET

If you are not keeping up with the continued writings of James Jackson Kilpatrick, you are missing out on a real treat. Jackson, of course, is the author of The Sovereign States, Notes of a Citizen of Virginia, a classic of your editor's youth.

Jim Bradley, knowledgeable on the Austrian theory of Business Cycles, predicts Inflation Now, Deflation Later

I don't think he means deflation in any literal sense, just a credit contraction. Check out the prudentbear.com website.

To Your Health--Tax-free Health Savings Accounts

John Goodman finds a silver lining in the Medicare legislative debacle. I will look into this further and get back.

The Story Behind the All Night Medicare Vote

Stephen Moore's first-hand account of the Bush Administration's duplicity in the medicare debacle concludes:

"I really believe that if we could have won this vote against the most powerfulwhip operation in the history of House and a popular Republican president, it would have been a shot across the bow at the Republican establishment that conservatives are sick of the spending splurge that is going on inside Washington these last few years. The budget has grown by 27% in two years a faster rate of growth in the budget than at anytime since LBJ’s presidency. Republican leaders in the White House and the Congress seem entirely unconcerned about the orgy of spending and debt. They are in denial. A deserved defeat of this bill would have dropped an ice cold bucket of water on their heads and helped them snap out of it. So close!

"I’m convinced this is a phyric victory for the Republican party bosses. The bill could blow up in the Republicans’ laps when seniors see the details of the carved up turkey they’ve just been served. Worse, the bill threatens to further demoralize fiscal conservative voters who are infuriated by the GOP’s massive expansion of government. I know I’m demoralized. As Mike Pence told me last week, “We Republicans seem to have forgotten who we are and why voters sent us here.”

We now have two big government parties in Washington. And we only have 25 Republicans in the House and 4 in the Senate who are trying to pull the Republicans in an anti-big government direction."

That sounds like things are about as bad for (small government) Republicans as the year 1935 as the fascist New Deal steamroller went full bore. And Bush's domestic policy reeks of the me-tooism of an Alf Landon, the original progressive, compassionate conservative.

Expert Warned That Mad Cow Was Imminent

The New York Times story (free registration) starts out as a slam on the USDA for failing to take the mad cow disease sufficiently serious (actually the re-write guy trys to lay it on the administration rather than the careerists, but we know who runs things). Thereafter, the story gives some interesting facts. Conclusion: Eat veal and avoid processed ground beef products.

No limits for House appropriators who pile on pork

Novak reports on business as usual in Washington DC, as our public servants rob the country in order to drive us all into the poor house. Where even the most junior back-bencher learns the first rule of the Potomac: One must go along to get along.

Court Backs IRS Political Disclosure Law

Tax exempt="tax subsidy." To not be taxed is to be subsidized. If you want to assert your 1st Amendment rights, you may be required to give up your "subsidy." Clear enough?

A federal appeals court has upheld a law requiring some nonprofit political groups to report contributions and expenditures to the IRS, saying the Constitution does not guarantee what amounts to a tax subsidy.

"Congress has enacted no barrier to the exercise of the (political groups') constitutional rights," the court wrote. "Rather, Congress has established certain requirements that must be followed in order to claim the benefit of a public tax subsidy."

Billionaire Soros, Independent Groups Target Bush

These are the target groups whose 1st amendment rights are going to go through the wringer.

Court Blocks Changes to Clean Air Act:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued they would harm the environment and public health.
The rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of routine maintenance without installing additional pollution controls. And people wonder why the US has blackouts. As companies defer maintenance, the actual consequence of the delay -- or denial of the rulemaking -- will lead to dirtier air.

The George W. Bush - Libertymeter

With the passage of the Drug Benefit boondoggle, wrapping up the complete socialization of health care for those over 64 -- or rather the socialization of benefits, the profits remain, temporarily, private, the Liberty Meter drops 2 more points to the Left.

FEC Leader: Political Groups Face Limits (washingtonpost.com)

AP wire story, quoting the incoming Republican chairman, suggests that the Federal Election Commission may assert its jurisdiction over any organization or group which attempts to influence a federal election. And under the O'Connor ruling there is no longer a "bright line" between explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and mere commenting on current issues -- the mere comment can be construed as attempting to influence the election.

Thus, any such group would be automatically characterized as a PAC (political action committee) and would be subject to the rules, contributuion limits ($5000), reporting requirements, and regulations of the FEC.

What hath O'Connor wrought?

The Supreme Court's Double Standard

Nat Hentoff sums up the Supreme Court's anti-Free Speech decision of the so-called Bipartisan Election Reform Act. That's twice in a month or so that Sandra Day O'Connor has joined with the predictable left-statists to change the course of political history by a 5-4 margin. The other case, involving the Court's approval of racial preferences, is probably the more far-reaching in a negative way as it promises to promote animosity and back-lash reactions among those who perceive they are being wronged by these policies.

The Bush Betrayal

According to David Boaz of Cato, "Federal spending has increased 23.7 percent since Bush took office. Education has been further federalized in the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush pulled out all the stops to get Republicans in Congress to create the biggest new entitlement program -- prescription drug coverage under Medicare -- in 40 years.

"He pushed an energy bill that my colleague Jerry Taylor described as "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics . . . a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington."

"It's a far cry from the less-government, "leave us alone" conservatism of Ronald Reagan."

In Court v. Congress, Justices Concede One (washingtonpost.com) (This link probably requires free registration.)

"Legal realist" Cass Sunstein gets it all wrong about the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" and the Supreme Court. In the first place, both Congress and President Bush were on public record as being (at best) indifferent as to the act's constitutionality, so the idea of giving any "deference" to their so-called judgment in passing and signing the legislation is completely misplaced.

Randy E. Barnett on Raich v. Aschroft on National Review Online The 9th Circuit has ruled that the Commerce Clause does not extend to medical merijuana grown privately and not intended to be sold. A modest victory for the principle of federalism.

Steve Chapman, an acquaintance dating back to 1978, on the difference between Ronald Reagan and Bush the Younger

The curious issue is what has happened to the early Cheney, who, in my recollection, was a smart and reasonable person.

GOP pulled no punches in struggle for Medicare bill Novak reports on the corrupt Medicare bill passed by a browbeat House of Representatives.

Fed chief nixes targets on his watch

Make of this what you can. Novak remains the premier reporter of our time.

The nomination of Janice Brown, a female black California Supreme Court Justice, is analyzed here by Clint Bolick in Reason Online

Richard Rahn: A think tank oxymoron? - Commentary

Interesting and insightful analysis from the former chief economist at the national Chamber of Commerce. Richard wears an eye-patch to gives his views a specific product differentation -- at least that is what I used to tell him.

Patrick J. Buchanan: The end of the imperial project

Dissection of an expensive episode in "nation-building.

Bush & Co. Use the Orwell Sales Strategy
Column by James Pinkerton, former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and an old acquaintance of mine.

Jack Kemp: A Wirtschaftswunder for California
Hey Governor Riley, this would work in Alabama as well!

James Jackson Kilpatrick -- Ex-Drunks and the Current Law

Here is the 9th Circuit in high form.

The Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times: Opinion: Let the neo-cons bellow, just bring the troops home

THE BIG LIE

John Pilger has the goods on the WMD pretext for a very expensive and foolish war.

That Alabama Tax Vote

This from Christopher Westley' who teaches economics at Jacksonville State University:

Last Week, voters in Alabama resoundingly rejected Gov. Bob Riley's tax plan by a margin of more than 2 to 1. The plan would have resulted in the largest tax increase in state history. "[The referendum's results were] pretty resounding. There's no mistaking the voters' message," David Lanoue, chairman of the political science departChristopher Westley, Ph.D., teaches economics at Jacksonville State Universityment at the University of Alabama, told the Birmingham News. "I think the top reason is voters simply don't trust their politicians in Alabama."

And voters elsewhere owe voters in the Heart of Dixie a debt of gratitude. Said Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: "[E]very Republican governor who thinks of raising taxes next year will walk past Traitor's Gate and see Bob Riley's head on a pike. The voters in Alabama have saved taxpayers from California to Maine billions of dollars."

So you have to hand it to Alabama's electorate. When given the chance, it makes its opinion known loud and clear, even in the face of a massive and global campaign by elite opinion. On the question of new taxes, Alabama voters respond no differently than voters anywhere else in the world when given the chance. Their answer is now (and has always been): No. This is why political elites try to keep tax increases off ballots.

The results of the vote should not have surprised anyone. In fact, In fact, they reflect a growing anti-tax movement that public officials and the mainstream press are trying hard to ignore. Last November, voters in Massachusetts almost passed a referendum that would have eliminated that state's income tax. In 2001, anti-tax protests at the state capitol in Tennessee grew violent, causing shaken state legislators to reconsider new tax proposals. Given these sentiments, even the most Herculean efforts to increase the government's claim on private wealth were doomed to fail.

As a result, Riley sacrificed much political capital. Alabama voters are simply not going to support such an expansion of state taxing authority during a recession, not when the Feds are already taking 30 percent of their income. Not with the legislature's Mike Tyson-like reputation for fiscal responsibility. And certainly not on the basis of the University of Alabama law professor Susan Pace Hamill's agenda-tinged scholarship supporting the belief that low taxes are sinful.

Not now. And in the Heart of Dixie, probably not ever.

Charley Reese--Comment on Bush's Extreme Folly

Don't Even Think About Raising Taxes (washingtonpost.com)

My friend, Grover Norquist, writes in the Washington Post on the national political implications of Billion Dollar Bob's foray into the tax increase tar baby.

Does Rep. Ford have a better idea?

Probably not. But Novak writes that Ford just might be a player in the Social Security "reform" debate. Worth a flyer and look-see.

LATEST SCAM COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON:


REQUIRED URJENT ASSISTANCE


DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.


I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING-OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST,THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS CURRENT VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 87 BILLION DOLLARS ($87,000,000,000, BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT. WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY,WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER. I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL. I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION,PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER. I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL.

PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH

(Courtesy R. Emmett McAuliffe)

Jesus Christ, Tax Collector

Enough said. Let's vote.

The U.N. and Iraq - The Washington Times: Commentary

Paul Craig Roberts nails the neocons, who have set us on a course of bankruptcy.

Richard A. Epstein: "Classical, Liberal, Rational" writes in the Wall Street Journal

Please note that Richard lumps zoning in with minimum wages and "progressive" taxation as one of the evils of the modern "welfare" state. He does not go into it, but actually zoning and land-use planning in general (ruled over by soviet-style committees of busybodies quite reminiscent of the neighborhood soviet goon-squads depicted in Dr. Zhivago which aroze to divvy up the spoils in post revolution Russia) is one of the more corrupting institutions in modern day America, pitting land owner against land owner in a race to use the political means of coercion and violence to trump the marketplace.

Proponents of tax plan raise more than opponents:

What big companies what to raise taxes in Alabama?: "Big contributions to the Alabama Partnership for Progress included: $800,000 from the Business Council of Alabama lobbying organization; $250,000 from Anheuser Busch; $250,000 from the Drummond Co.; $200,000 from EBSCO Industries; $150,000 from BellSouth; $100,000 from Protective Life Insurance Co.; and $100,000 from Birmingham businessman Phillip McWane."

State Allows Growing Trend of Eating At Home

WASHINGTON, DC - After much heated debate on the house floor, legislation was passed today to allow a growing number of families to cook meals for their families in their homes. The children must have annual physical examinations to assure proper growth and weight gain. Attempts to require weekly meal plans and monthly kitchen inspections were voted down.

A spokesperson from the National Association of Nutritionists (NANs) condemns this decision. "These children are being denied the rich socialization and diversity that is an essential part of the eating process. Without the proper nutritional background, it is impossible for the average person to feed their own children. We, as child advocates, see this as a step backwards and speak out for the sake of the children who cannot speak for themselves."

NEW "SERVICE FEE" TAX

There is a lot of discussion and question about what will and what will not be taxed under the new tax proposed by Governor Riley on 'services and repairs.' It is so unclear that a provision was added in the legislation directing the department of revenue to issue regulations on or before October 1, 2003 providing guidance for the services tax - after the vote. Most of what you hear is about automobile repairs. No one has been able to clearly define what will be subject to the new tax but generally here is my best guess.

A tax on services, repairs, and installation will be due on any tangible property where you paid sales tax on the purchase of the property. That means that if you paid sales tax on the purchase you will pay sales tax for any subsequent service, repair, or installation costs for/to that purchased item. This will include but not be limited to:

Vehicle repairs of every kind - tune ups, air conditioners, transmissions, oil changes, radiator flushes, wheel balancing and rotation, brakes, or just about any kind of service or repair to an automobile;

Motorcycles - similar repairs and services to automobiles;

Farmers; repairs to farm implements used in the farming business - (this is a gray area and might be at a lower rate and could mean that on some of the larger equipment where the repair bill can be tremendous, the farmer will probably attempt to make the repairs in-house instead of taking to the regular repair provider);

Household equipment - lawnmowers, riding mowers, chain saws, trimmers, brush cutters, pressure washers, etc.

Appliances - cook stoves, ovens, window air conditioners, bathroom and kitchen plumbing fixtures - maybe?; washing machines, dryers;

Electronic Equipment - TVs, Video players and recorders, computers and all related computer equipment, stereos, telephones, etc.;

...and the list can go on and on.

The state portion of the tax will be 4%. There will be a windfall to cities and counties because they will be authorized to collect this new tax at the local level. In many cities a total of 8% to 10% will be charged. Local governments will also see a windfall in property taxes. So not all of the new taxes will go to state government. Could this be why you see elected officials endorsing the plan? And - that money will go unearmarked to city and county budgets to be spent as the local politicians want!

In addition, there will be an increase in state tax on the purchase of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mobile homes...

There will be an increase in the state tax when you purchase your tag each year...

There will be an increase on all tobacco products...

There will be a new tax on all lubricating oils...

And have you noticed that many of the business organizations supporting this measure are the same ones who were proponents of constitutional reform? When is the last time you heard anything about constitutional reform? It appears that it just turned into "tax" reform in the form of tax increases. These are the same people who talk about the negatives of the "regressive" sales tax, and now an additional "regressive" tax is being proposed in the form of this "services" tax? Whatever ones view is on constitutional reform, and I for one like the fact that the present constitution at least forces a vote on many tax increases, well

...either way be sure to vote NO on this tax increase - AND REMEMBER EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT!

Thou shalt pay more taxes
Doug Bandow




WASHINGTON - It has long been said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Today, religion plays that role. At least it does for Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, who is pushing a massive tax hike in the name of God.

'Too Damn Stupid'
Alabamians seem to be a lot smarter than their governor.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal gives his analysis of Billion Dollar Bob's tax increase proposal.

Here is some help from South Alabamians for Real Real Reform

Help For Understanding
The Newspaper and TV articles and advertisements.

August 10

I have found that doublespeak is being used in the newspaper and TV articles and advertisements and I have decide to give you a way to be able to know what these doublespeak words mean so you may understand what is being said.

Example #1
Friday August 3rd Mobile Register under Governor’s Tax Plan the following statement are made in their schedule of coverage:
“Tuesday: Sales Tax changes” Changes = tax increase
“Wednesday: Cigarette Tax…would boost” Boost = tax increase
“Today: Bank Tax … would be overhauled” Overhauled = tax increase
“Saturday: Utility taxes …would be altered” Altered = tax increase
“Sunday: Insurance premium tax-changes would be” Changes = tax increase
“Monday: Individual Income Tax…is the overhaul of…” Overhaul = tax increase
“Wednesday: Business property tax…revamped” Revamped = tax increase
“Thursday: Timberland/Farmland…several changes” Changes = tax increase
“Aug. 15th: Vehicle property tax …would be revised” Revised = tax increase
“Aug. 16th: Residential property tax…would alter” Alter = tax increase
“Aug. 17th: Utility property tax…would be overhauled” Overhauled= tax decrease
Note: Overhaul(ed) when used for individuals means a tax increase, but when used for Utilities it means a tax decrease since they cut a deal to raise the sales tax on utilities 43.75% on consumers and lower the utilities property tax from 30% to 22% over the next several years.

Example #2
Saturday August 9, Mobile Register front page under the article in the lower left hand corner entitled;
“Some customers would see their utilities bills rise”. Some = all get a tax increase
Note the 4% utility tax is increased to 5.75% or a 43.75% increase in the utility tax

Example # 3
Saturday Night on the WALA channel 5 news 10PM an advertisement by the Governors Tax Promotion Pac said: “The big timber companies have spent 1.8 MM to defeat the…Governors middle class tax reduction plan…” tax reduction = tax increase
Note: families making less than $20,000 get an income tax cut, but everything else they buy goes up! Electricity, property, sales, cigarette, insurance, and vehicles tax. In addition the price of lumber, banking services, and every business will raise their prices due to higher property tax and corporate income tax. The poor will be poorer, not better off!

You can see it is very difficult to understand when you do not use simple words to explain the tax plan. This is done to hide the truth about the so-called tax reform plan.
This is the reason there is one constitutional amendment to vote on Sept 9th and it is titled: “The Alabama Excellence Initiative Fund”=The Largest Tax Increase in History!
Vote No Sept. 9th

LETTER WORTH REPRINTING HERE

I believe this letter to the editor is worth reprinting:

Richard A. Vining
Letter to the Editor
of Mobile's Register


Letter to the Editor May 18, 2003
P. O. Box 2488 Re: Comments On The Proposed Budget
Mobile, AL 36652-2488


The Proposed Budget by the State and Education Dept. is an example of unparalleled greed. After the best year of tax collecting in Alabama's History it is brave to try to pull off what the Governor, Executive Dept. and the Education Dept. is attempting.


Here are some examples: Year 2002/2003 Year 2003/2000 Increase
Examiner of Public Accounts 12,337,741 6,000,000 30%
Ag &Cons Development Comm. 2,429,970 4,361,646 79%
Dept of Corrections 233,983,663 348,688,820 49%
Criminal Justice Info Center 2,551,475 3,294,488 77%
Alabama Developmental Office 4,400,252 5,767,321 31%
Environmental Management 5,780,494 16,235,159 280%
Dept of Forensic Sciences, Dept of 7,645,575 15,412,666 202%
Health, Dept of Public 56,261,629 79,409,627 34%
Human Resources, Dept. of 72,899,443 93,118,627 28%
Mental Health, Dept of 96,832,631 114,848,820 17%
Military Department 4,767,839 6,220,331 31%
Pardon and Parole, Board of 13,887,497 19,689,425 42%
Senior Service, Dept of 10,044,976 17,939,976 79%


Total For the State 1,264,918,386 1,635,260,029 29%


State Dept of Education
Archives and History 504,930 1,340,000 265%
Children's Affairs, Dept of 680,805 7,441,905 1093%
K-12 Foundation Program 2,541,287,878 2,625,131,368 15%
Additional Teacher Units 0 16,000,000 new budget item
Transportation 194,389,291 226,454,381 16%
Total Increase K-12 2,790,010,911 2,921.790.853 16.6%


This is an increase of $ 131,787,762 in K-12 Cost


State Board two year College system Added New Budget Items
Skilled Workforce Initiative 20,000,000
Common Administrative System 200,000
Deferred Maintenance 4,870,000 (+58,070,000 )
Priority Schools 3,000,000
Social Promotion Initiative 8,000,000
Special Education 22,000,000


Adult Basic Education 5,778,447 8,780,000 52%
Math, Science & Tech. Initiative 237,600 2,237,600 941%
Education Television Commission 8,975,500 10,577,334 12%
Examiners of Public Accounts 2,960,725 4,625,020 56%
Student Assistance Program 1,326,933 5,986,460 51%
Medical Scholarships 395,694 2,800,000 708%
Supercomputer Authority 2,567,272 6,500,000 253%
Veteran Affairs (Education Benefits) 6,378,400 10,000,000 56%
Total U of Ala. System 379,395,997 436,240,102 15%
Total Ala A & M 31,848,863 39,650,917 20%
Total Auburn University 206,337,817 224,104,213 9%
Total Colleges and Schools 851,372,052 973,616,528 14%
Total Education Trust Fund 4,153,145,594 4,519,707,757 9%
Total Increase in Education Cost $ 366,562,163 9%
Total cost of the Increase In the State Budget $ 370,341,643 29%


All foregoing examples are from the proposed state budgets. You may visit this site via the Internet at:
www.budget.state.al.us/stgovfin.html


With such a large increase in nearly every department's budget it is easy to see why there is a deficit in the state budget !!
Very few asked for the same or little more this year!
They knew they had a Governor who will try and increase taxes so they made very large budget requests for their departments.
It is true that some state agencies have been shorted in recent years. Everyone who pays attention knows that the Dept of Correction, the Dept of Public Safety, Judicial and the Medicaid Program need additional funding.


I will not accept any new taxes without a sunset provision of 5 years, and the promise and plan to reduce the size of state government 5% per year for the next 5 to 10 years. This should include reduction in all state and all the education depts. with the exception of Judicial, Medicaid, Corrections and the Department of Public Safety which has not been properly funded in the last 4 years.


The state of Alabama is 13th in the nation in the number of state employees. (Source Ala Family Institute by Gary Palmer) Therefore cutting state employees will not affect services. Only 50% of state education money goes to education today compared to 90% in 1960. In the last 6 years there have been 6150 new teachers hired while students decreased by 9,000.
State funding has increasing 5 billion dollars from 1997 to 2003. .
This is a 40.38% increase in spending in 6 years!
According to the US Census data the average Alabamian pays 24.5% of their personal income to state and local government. This is higher than the Southeastern and National average. It is immoral and unethical to ask for more taxes.
The Tax and Spend Hogs in Montgomery will never get enough
Governor Bob Riley is giving the Democrats what they want, and will be a one-term governor. He has forgotten he only won by 3000 votes!!


Sincerely, Richard A. Vining, Coden, P. O. Box 346, AL 36523

CORRECTION

Well it did not take me long to make a mistake trying to decipher the language of the proposed amendment. Actually the language cited below appears to change an earlier amendment (adopted in 1956) which liberalized the permitted uses of the income from Section 16 lands back to its original language. Seems this is mostly an issue of political correctness.

LITTLE-NOTICED CHANGE TO THE ALABAMA CONSTITUTION PROPOSED

A change to the Alabama Constitution is part of Billion Dollar Bob's tax increase proposal that, to my knowledge, has not received any attention at all. In various places in the current constitution the State is required to spend money or create a fund which, for example, "shall be applied to the support and furtherance of education" and "it shall be the duty of the legislature to increase the education fund from time to time as the necessity therefore and the condition of the treasury and the resources of the state may justify" [this is concerning the state property tax].

In both cases, the voters are asked on September 9 to approve changes to this language from the word "education" to the phrase "public school." Thus the "education fund" becomes the "public school fund." "Furtherance of education" becomes "maintenance of the public schools." [Act No. 2003-78, p. 5]

Someone on the pro-tax team was smart enough to sneak in a CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON VOUCHERS as part of the tax-increase package -- and then not tell anyone about it.

Please spread the word about this.

COMMENTARY ON THE TAX INCREASE REFERENDUM

Several friends and readers have asked me to post my analysis of the Alabama constitutional amendment which is to be voted on September 9. There are so many issues and so much to cover, from so many different levels and types of analysis, that one scarcely knows where to start. However, I have been collecting material on the subject since the matter first arose, and I believe I have a perspective which may add to the general debate. Between now and September 9, I will be putting downs some thoughts which I hope to be of value.

Perhaps, the shear political crudeness and cynical approach of Billion Dollar Bob in structuring his proposal is the best place to begin. The proposal which the voter will see on the ballot reads as follows:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, establishing the Alabama Excellence Initiative Fund which may be used to fund programs including, but not limited to, the furtherance of excellence in public education, college scholarships, health care benefits for senior citizens and job training programs to attract new high paying jobs and otherwise provide for distributing state tax revenues; to adjust income and property taxes; to establish the General Fund Rainy Day Account; to provide for the replenishment of the General Fund Rainy Day Account and the Education Trust Fund Rainy Day Account."

There is not even a mention what parts or sections of the constitution are to be amended or what the document says today and what it will say if the measure is adopted. No matter that most of the issues being discussed in the media about the governor’s plan are not part of the constitutional amendment being voted on. For example, the proposed amendment would raise the maximum income tax rate from 5% to 6% and would change the dedication of new proceeds from the educational trust fund to the general fund (by a complex formula which was approved by the teachers’ union). But it gives no tax relief for the poor. This is in companion legislation which is subject to change at the whim of the legislature (and is vastly over-stated in any event).

Much of the recent media discussion (and the ads from the proponents) concerns a supposed “tax reform” and even a “middle-class tax cut,” but these concern proposed changes in the tax code which the legislature was and is perfectly free to do on its own without changing the constitution.

In any event the proponents first over-estimate the percentage of incomes the “poor” are currently paying in state taxes and focus on how awful this is; then they point to the fact that under the proposal these taxes will be lifted by raising the threshold of exemptions. But nowhere do they quantify the plain fact that these tax-cuts are trivial compared to the increases which are to be borne by everybody else.

Free Martha!

My friend Sheldon Richmond deconstructs the outrageous indictment of Martha Stewart. The Justice Department's case is that by proclaiming her own innocence of insider trading, Stewart "defrauded" the shareholders of her company. But she actually was innocent (not even being an insider), and the indictment doesn't even charge her with that non-crime.

Bruce Bartlett on the Bush Tax Cut


Bartlett agrees with me that Cong. Thomas bailed out the Administration with his brillant "compromise" with the idiots in the Senate. The reduction of the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent is just what the doctor ordered. Also note that dividend paying companies like The Southern Company are up strongly today (SO up 5%); their stream of income being now more valuable.

Robert Novak: 40 years of columns

Novak summarizes his life work. His column continues to be a must read.

Price Gives His Side of the Story

Notice his misuse of the pronoun "myself." This is real Yankee talk to use "myself" instead of "I."

Adminstration Would Be Well Advised to Listen to Thomas

President George W. Bush seems determined to stick to his plan to eliminate individual taxes on corporate dividends -- even if it means he passes on a broader, simpler tax cut that could do more for the economy. It is unclear whether this position is simple stubbornness or an inability to grasp the big picture, but the White House is misplaying its hand.

House Republicans are gathering around a plan to cut the tax on both dividends (currently taxed at individual tax rates as high as 38 percent as ordinary income) and capital gains (currently with a top rate of 20 percent) at a new, lower 15 percent rate. Lower-income taxpayers who now pay 10 percent cap gains taxes would see that halved to 5 percent.

Cutting the capital gains tax should give a jolt to all businesses, not just those who pay out dividends. And unlike plans to phase in the president's dividend cut, a simple cut in the marginal rate is much easier to implement and comply with, requiring no army of accountants to figure out.

In all, a cut in the capital gains rate would appear to be easier play for the White House, so much so that current opposition to it may just be so much posturing.

Robert Novak: Saved by Bill Thomas

Novak writes that Ways and Means Chairman, Bill Thomas, is using his tax-cut bill, which includes capital gains tax cuts, to bail out the administration's moribund tax cut plan. I suspect that some sort of dividend tax relief will find its way back in the House plan as finally adopted. Then the administration will dare the Senate Democrats to kill it and hurt their elderly constituents. These guys will take the dare.

Let My Teenager Drink (washingtonpost.com)

T.R. Reid laments the prohibitionism which pervades the issue of teen-age drinking and parental authority. Most of the world would be absoulutely astounded to learn that it is a crime in this country for a father to go into a restaurant with his 19 or 20 year old son (or daughter) and buy him glass of beer. These are people who are considered adults by state law but who are denied the legal rights of adults concerning the use of alcohol.

Patriot Raid

Can you believe this?

Treasury chief has to sell tax cuts

Novak reports that John Snow put in a call to him to say the Wall Street Journal had it wrong about the administration's willingness to cave on the tax bill. He concludes as follows:

Back in Washington this week, Snow must convince everybody that he is not about to cut back on a rate reduction essential to business. He must also deal with prickly House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, who so far has not told House Republican leaders what he plans to do with the president's proposal. Finally, nobody has yet calculated how to reach the needed 51 Senate votes.

And then there is the daunting prospect of Alan Greenspan testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday. The president announced last week he will turn the other cheek to Greenspan's previous thrashing of the Bush tax bill and name him to a fifth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Nobody could sell the tax cut better than Greenspan, but he also could inflict far greater damage on tax cuts than ''distortion'' of Snow's quotes.

Economic Principals: What Have We Learned?

Here David Warsh presents a summary of what mainstream economists have to say about Nation Building. Iraq must look forward to a good dose of experimentation in that regard. It turns out that microfoundations are what are important and, once again, macroeconomics is too aggregative to capture anything of value.

The laws of capital taxation -- The Washington Times

OK, let us see if there is any life left in the President's tax proposal. Bush has some political capital at this point; let him use it to do some good for the productive element in the country.

War brings out the Purple People

Good historical analysis of those who instinctively whoop it up for war.

Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates

How is it that 42 percent of the American people believe Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for 9/11?

Wilson, Bush, and History

Joe Sobran on the lessons to be drawn from the wars of the 20th Century.

He concludes: Like Wilson, Bush is a moralistic Protestant who feels he has a divine mission to change the world. Bush too is a product of the Ivy League, though unlike Wilson, a minister’s son who presided over Princeton University, he isn’t exactly a student of history. Wilson wrote more books than Bush has read, but that didn’t make him wise. Neither man should ever have been let near a Bible.

In fact Bush may be about to do for the twenty-first century what Wilson did for the twentieth. The two men seem pretty evenly matched in hubris. Bush has evidently exchanged the intoxication of liquor for the intoxication of power.

SportingNews.com - Baseball : TBS shakes up Braves' broadcast team

Next thing you know the Bulldogs will force the retirement of Larry Munson.

The Philosopher of Islamic Terror

From the New York Times:
In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, many people anticipated a quick and satisfying American victory over Al Qaeda. The terrorist army was thought to be no bigger than a pirate ship, and the newly vigilant police forces of the entire world were going to sink the ship with swift arrests and dark maneuvers. Al Qaeda was driven from its bases in Afghanistan. Arrests and maneuvers duly occurred and are still occurring. Just this month, one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants was nabbed in Pakistan. Police agents, as I write, seem to be hot on the trail of bin Laden himself, or so reports suggest.

Yet Al Qaeda has seemed unfazed. Its popularity, which was hard to imagine at first, has turned out to be large and genuine in more than a few countries. Al Qaeda upholds a paranoid and apocalyptic worldview, according to which ''Crusaders and Zionists'' have been conspiring for centuries to destroy Islam. And this worldview turns out to be widely accepted in many places -- a worldview that allowed many millions of people to regard the Sept. 11 attacks as an Israeli conspiracy, or perhaps a C.I.A. conspiracy, to undo Islam. Bin Laden's soulful, bearded face peers out from T-shirts and posters in a number of countries, quite as if he were the new Che Guevara, the mythic righter of cosmic wrongs.

Toronto Sun Columnist: Eric Margolis Whatever happens we have got


the Maxim gun and they have not.

The Post Saddam Quagmire

Turkey, Iran set sights on Northern Iraq

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention

My friend, Sheldon Richman, wrote this essay in 1999 for the Cato Institute. Nothing seems to change but the political party in charge of the hubris.

Here is a piece of it:

The importance of the de facto alliance between the United States and Iraq, which continued until shortly before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, cannot be overstated. By siding with Iraq against Iran, the United States granted legitimacy to Saddam Hussein as the world's guardian against Muslim fanaticism. His use of chemical weapons against Iran brought the mildest criticism because of who his victims were.(211) Moreover, the various forms of aid had a direct effect on Iraq's ability to hold out against Iran's long onslaught. At the end of the war, Saddam had a huge military establishment and believed that he was the savior of the Arab world. When Kuwait refused to forgive the large debt Saddam owed, he concluded that the Kuwaitis were ungrateful free riders who had taken him for granted. That conclusion explains, in part, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.(212)

It is sobering to realize that some foreign policy experts urged Washington to support Saddam Hussein during the war against Iran on the grounds that an Iraqi victory was preferable to an Iranian one. Daniel Pipes and Laurie Mylroie, for example, wrote that "the fall of the existing regime in Iraq would enormously enhance Iranian influence, endanger the supply of oil, threaten pro-American regimes throughout the area, and upset the Arab-Israeli balance." They favored "other economic steps" to help Iraq in addition to the commodity and Ex-Im Bank credits. "Such measures," they wrote, "would assert U.S. confidence in Iraq's political viability and its ability to repay its debts after the war's end, and would encourage other countries--especially Iraq's Arab allies and European creditors--to continue financing Iraqi war efforts."(213)

Pipes and Mylroie anticipated the argument that a triumphant Saddam Hussein would be bad for American interests and responded:

But the Iranian revolution and seven years of bloody and inconclusive warfare have changed Iraq's view of its Arab neighbors, the United States, and even Israel. . . . Its leaders no longer consider the Palestinian issue their problem. [Its] allies have forced a degree of moderation on Iraq. . . . Iraq is now the de facto protector of the regional status quo.(214)

The consequences that Pipes and Mylroie feared from an Iranian victory have come as a result of Washington's backing Iraq. That typical backfire is not simply a hazard of foreign policymaking. It is inherent in the nature of war and lesser state conflict, in which the law of unintended consequences rules. Sheer hubris alone permits so-called experts to make pronouncements about how distant peoples' affairs should be managed and with exactly how much force.(215)

Unfortunately, the fresh example of the Iran-Iraq War has not deterred either the policymakers or their expert allies in the private sector. As if their support for Iraq had been a resounding success, they embraced Syria's Hafez Assad and Iran in the conflict with Iraq, blind to what effects that may have in coming years.

The New Gulf War

Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, underscored more than one irony of prior U.S. policy. U.S. aid to Saddam during his eight-year war with Iran is only one of those ironies.(216) Another is that although President Bush emphatically rejected Saddam's attempt to link the invasion to the plight of the Palestinians, Bush may yet face enormous Arab pressure to address that problem.

Bush offered several reasons for his response to Saddam's actions, a response that included the cobbling of an international coalition of nations. The initial military deployment was to deter an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia. Then, ostensibly to drive Iraq from Kuwait, Bush went to the United Nations to have an economic blockade, an act of war, imposed, although American ships were already in place. Vowing to usher in a "new world order," Bush declared that, in the first test of the post-cold-war world, unprovoked aggression and the toppling of a "legitimate" government (read: quasi-feudal monarchy) by a tyrant comparable to Hitler could not be tolerated. The Munich analogy was rolled out more than once. Although American intervention was lightly shrouded in the mantle of the United Nations and collective security, Bush made it clear that no country but the United States could have spearheaded the effort. Bush and other public officials, including Secretary Baker and Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole, raised the less lofty issue of oil and the purported danger to the U.S. economy ("our way of life"), although that argument had been discredited early in the crisis.(217) When the specter of Iraq's controlling 40 percent of the proven oil reserves did not spook the American public, President Bush insisted that the intervention was not about oil but about aggression. He also defended his policy in terms of protecting the Americans held hostage by Saddam Hussein, although they were not taken hostage until after the policy was launched, and of the economic damage being inflicted on the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe, although the rise in oil prices resulted from Bush's own embargo.

Two days after the November election, the president announced a doubling of the military deployment to provide an "offensive option." Faith in the blockade was abandoned. On Thanksgiving Day 1990 Bush added a new justification of the possible need for war: Saddam's apparent effort to develop nuclear weapons, which, Bush implied, would endanger the American people. The speech followed by days the publication of a New York Times opinion poll in which a majority of respondents had said that a nuclear threat was the one reason they would be willing to support military action against Iraq. Thus, in faithful Orwellian 1984 fashion, the official U.S. attitude toward a recent ally turned 180 degrees.

The hollowness of the Bush administration's reasons, particularly the highly selective stand against aggression, indicates that the president sees the Middle East as his predecessors saw it, as a U.S. sphere of influence in which rival interests may not compete. Saddam's offense did not lie in occupying a neighbor (partners Turkey, Syria, China, and the Soviet Union, as well as Israel, had done that), or in murdering "his own people" (China's leaders and Syria's Hafez Assad had done that), or in having nuclear weapons (several unsavory states have them and more are in the process of acquiring arsenals). Rather, his offense lay in upsetting the status quo in an area where the United States had vowed repeatedly to go to war, if necessary, to prevent adverse change. Bush's policy was a reaffirmation of U.S. claims in the Middle East, in case anyone thought that the end of the cold war made them obsolete. As he put it, the lesson of the war against Iraq is that "what we say goes."(218) Related reasons for the policy include the need for a new mission for a defense establishment threatened by the public's demands for a peace dividend; the desire to test new weapons; and the need to distract the public from troubling domestic issues, such as the exploding budget deficit and higher taxes.

One outcome of U.S. intervention has been immense Arab pressure on the United States to settle the Palestinian question, something that worries Israel. Bush's Arab coalition partners have a strong case when they argue that the United States cannot justify its double standard for Iraq and Israel. Unfortunately, few in the region will argue that Bush should disengage and let the parties solve the problem themselves. At best, Arab pressure may prompt him to change the nuances of U.S. intervention, but it is doubtful Bush will be willing or able to try to change the Shamir government's position on the occupied territories. Israel, for one thing, managed to rehabilitate its public image in the United States by its decision to stay out of the war.

The war against Iraq, though executed quickly and with light American casualties (let's not forget the death and destruction inflicted on Iraq), will have continuing unfortunate consequences, besides the massacre of Kurds and Shi'ites at Saddam's hands. It was a grotesquely logical denouement to 45 years of U.S. policy in the Middle East.(219)

Bush's real goal in Iraq

Pax Americana -- we ain't leaving Iraq.

One Last Time: The Case Against a War With Iraq

Is Bush Nuts? War as Religion

Conservative columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, no neoconservative her, raises the ultimate question: Has GWB gone off the deep end? I suspect there is also a bad case of Foggy Bottom Hubris to explain the unfathomable attitude of the administration.

Euro touches fresh four-year highs

Dollar continues to fall.

Playing Texas poker, Bush bets all on Iraq
Bob Novak

WorldNetDaily: Why the French behave as they do Pat Buchanan writes on the French experience.

Why War with Iraq? Follow the Money

The Dollar vs. the Euro? Here is an interesting angle: Iraq in recent months decided to contract for future delivery of its oil in euros, not dolllars. The fiat American dollar greenback serves as the world's reserve currency, essentially since Bretton Woods and more particularly since 1971, and its acceptance gives the U.S. a free ride in a variety of ways. The euro is the creature of Germany's conservative central bank and the european common market (sans the United Kingdom) and -- in theory at least -- contends to serve the same purpose as the dollar as a reserve currency. The last time the Arab world rejected the dollar as the standard for the pricing of oil was about 1974 when it noticed that the dollar had depreciated violently against gold. The result was not pretty and probably cost Gerald Ford the 1976 election.

"The Emperors of Ice Cream" -- Donald Luskin on FTC & Ice Cream on NRO Financial

When the FTC's annoucement hit the news I had a similar reaction to Don. As the old antitrust regulation saying goes: "You let me define the market and I can find a level of concentration which needs a remedy or at least 'strict scrutiny'." Here we have a market defined as the market for "superpremium ice cream"? Where is the dissenting opinion tearing this decision apart?

Billionaire Soros blasts Bush, calls on President to honor world opinion

Soros gets one call right, although I have not noticed Soros supporting small "r" republicanism much lately.

The Costs and Madness of Empire

Comments on the "managerial state" as it applies to the reconstruction of post-Saddam Iraq.

Gods, Generals, and Tariffs

Tom DiLorenzo shows how it was the fear that a free-trading South would undermine the protectionist interests of the Northern manufacturers -- who bankrolled the Republican Party -- which led to Lincoln's decision to wage war on the southern states.

'Eenie, meenie, minie, moe

Pick a seat, we gotta go.

Five Books That Explain It All

Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute suggests five books which, taken together, explain the state of today's world. Excellent suggestions all. They are all in my library should anyone in the local area care to borrow them.

Statement by Jule R. Herbert Jr., President of the National Taxpayers Legal Fund (in 1984, that is)

Found on the internet: 1984 testimony of yours truly before a Senate Finance subcommittee on a "taxpayer bill of rights" proposal -- which passed in some form, as I recall. But the important point was concerning the tax system itself:

"Of course, changing a few procedural rules about the tax collection process is just a beginning. For example, it is no longer possible to deny that the problems of the U.S. economy over the last several decades were caused in substantial part by the tax system. The fact that this system has a pervasive institutional bias against saving, capital formation, work incentives, and relative price coordination seems to be generally recognized. Certainly the positive reforms which were passed in 1981 (especially tax rate indexing and the reduction of the marginal rates) could not have passed in the intellectual climate of just a few years earlier. That more was not done in 1981 was not because the advantages of easing the constraints imposed by the tax system on the market economy were not seen by many, but because there has been little progress in linking tax reform to necessary reforms of government spending.

I would argue that the cost of runaway government spending is much greater than the amount of resources which are thus taxed, borrowed, or taken from the American people through the insidious process of inflation. Its growing drain on the ability of government to conduct itself in a rational manner not only presents an almost insurmountable obstacle to needed tax reform, but in addition entails negative "nonfiscal" effects on the social structure, damaging thereby the market economy and, indeed, the very prospects for a stable political order.

The whole ethos which provides the justification for work, saving, voluntary exchange, and property rights is undermined as government spending expands without apparent constraint. If groups can simply "vote" themselves increasingly larger shares of the community's wealth, then the effectiveness of free-market institutions for the production of wealth becomes problematical."

This is great stuff, back when I was profound and very nuanced.

The Trouble with Deficit Finance

Roger Garrison, Professor of Economics at Auburn, takes a look at the run-away deficit:

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the White House budget director, is reported as claiming that the current deficit, "representing 2.7 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, was not large enough in percentage terms to cause trouble or to raise interest rates...."

Didn't Everett Dirksen used to say that the main purpose of GDP (GNP in his day) was to make everything else look small by comparison?

Even at that, Mr. Daniels made the deficit look a little smaller than it actually is. His 2.7 percent suggests a GDP of about $11,300 billion. The readily available Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) provided by the St. Louis Fed shows that current GDP is closer to $10,300 billion, making the $304 billion deficit equal to 2.95 percent.

More to the point, GDP makes for a politically attractive but economically irrelevant denominator. How much is government borrowing relative to the funds available for borrowing? The relevant denominator is total saving and not total output. FRED shows the current annual rate of gross saving to be $1,574 billion. And the government is borrowing just under 20 percent of it. Does Mr. Daniels believe that this percentage is not large enough to cause trouble or to raise interest rates? And if so, just what percentage would be large enough?

Jurors in pot case decry their own verdict

Federal prosecutors and court keep evidence away from the jury in a medical marijuana prosecution in California. Defendant was actually working for the City of Oakland. Malum prohibitum prosecutions enforcing sumptuary laws should not have the same standing to bar the truth from the jury as a malum in se prosecution. And the appeal courts know that.

REVOLUTIONARIES By TOM WOLFE

Tom Wolfe celebrates the 25th anniverary of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research--where Bill Hammett landed after he left the Center for Libertarian Studies.

Brief of 16 Law Professors

Here is the brief that the Bush Administration should have submitted in the University of Michigan case on race reverse-discrimation.

Buchanan: Is George W. Bush an imperialist?

The War Party wins over Bush by its early early finesse and speech-writing posts--taking advantage of the aftermath of 9/11.

NTU prices out the Bush spending proposals

Here are the numbers.

State of the Union Address (washingtonpost.com)

Link to the President's State of the Union Address. Who wrote the first half? Awful Keynesian message. And what about the constitution? Where is the federal government delegated the authority to cure diseases in Africa? Subsidize hydrogen-driven cars?

The Fed official who cried 'bubble' long before it burst


Jerry Jordan got it right.

LAST summer, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan claimed "it was very difficult to definitively identify" the late-1990s stock bubble until it was too late to do anything about it.

Perhaps it was, for Alan. But one of his colleagues in the sanctum sanctorum of U.S. monetary policy saw the bubble early, saw it for what it was and urged Greenspan and the other money shamans to attack it.

"Apparently I am not as convinced as others that the problems to which we ultimately will have to react will be consumer prices," Jerry L. Jordan admonished his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee on Nov. 11, 1997.

"The problem may ... be ... in asset [stock] markets, as suggested by historical episodes in this country, notably in the 1920s, and in Japan in the late 1980s."

We know what Jordan said because the Fed's hermetic deliberations are taped and delivered up as transcripts five years after the fact. The 1997 texts surfaced Thursday, and they show that, at least in the middle stages of stock mania, Jordan repeatedly warned of a coming bubble, to no effect.

Desert Caution (washingtonpost.com)

Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf takes a cautionary attitude about the winds of war.

Telecom undone—a cautionary tale

Peter Huber explains how the federal government destroyed the telecom industry in America. Those who lost their shirt with Worldom, please note what really happened.

Reagan's Son

The New York Times profiles President Bush. Curious analysis. Relies a good deal on the insights of Grover Norquist, with whom I used to work at the National Taxpayers Union during my stint in Washington D.C.

Congress and Abortion




The thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade leads law professor Glen Reynolds to raise the issue of whether Congress has any power to legislate on the subject. This opinion piece actually refers to the enumerated powers of Congress as set out in Article 1, Section 8, to argue that Congress, in its constitutional role, must leave the issue alone.

The actual issue of Roe v. Wade, however, is whether the Supreme Court was correct in ruling that the 14th amendment to the constitution extends to persons a recognition of a right which includes the right to an abortion in the face of state legislation to the contrary. The rights of sui juris persons were certainly given federal recognition in the language of the 14th amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Further, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." So clearly the issue is back before Congress, by way of the back-door of the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment. The amendment seems to freeze for all time, as a constitutional matter, the rights and immunities of free (sui juris) persons as they existed (or should have been recognized as existing) as of the time of enactment of the amendment (1868). Whatever the law on abortion was at that time becomes then a vital consideration, because whatever rights a citizen had relevant to abortion at that time was a right (either a privilege or an immunity) which, thereafter, a State could not abridge.

No wonder the Supreme Court does not want to touch the privilege and immunities clause.

Charley Reese

Buy your son a book on Robert E. Lee. Lee's birthday: January 19.

Lucky Duckies

Here is the free WSJ link to the editorial referenced below.

Demand-side Tax Cuts

The Wall Street Journal todays laments that millions of wage earners no longer pay any direct federal taxes and, consequently, supposedly have no stake in national tax and spending policy. Interesting take.

More importantly the current notion that we need a "fiscal stimulus" ignores the real reason for the recent boom-bust cycle: it certainly was not a lack of aggregate demand that led to the collapse in stock prices: The link points out: "Our problem is a trade cycle, not recurring slumps due to insufficient spending. The key problem that we face is in coordinating the supply of goods with the demand for them through time. Mises and Hayek correctly identified interest rates as being central to this problem. Of course, when government policies force wages up, unemployment ensues. The key point is that demand is irrelevant to unemployment and the trade cycle.

"Of course, heavy taxes can slow economic development. So, there are reasons to link taxes to economic performance, but there is a more important point that is being left out of this debate. Taxes are supposed to fund necessary functions of the government. By arguing over how to stimulate the economy, many overlook the fact that government spending consists largely of overt transfers that benefit narrow interests. This issue got more play during the time when campaign finance reform was in the news. By recognizing the irrelevance of Demand Side economics, we can refocus our attention to real issues."

Protecting Mickey Mouse at Art's Expense

Lawrence Lessig in the New York Times (you must register at no cost to use the site) gives a legislative solution to the most recent Congressional/Supreme Court folly. The Ginsburg opinion is indefensible, arguing that the judiciary is incapable of concluding that the constitution's use of the term "limited time" means anything less than perpetuity in the face of congressional abuse.

Focused, large benefits; diffused costs: You get the picture. Walter Williams explains why the sugar lobby gets its way.

Update on the Feds Attempt to Smash the Medical Use of Marijuana in CA

Here is a link to the latest news.

Senseless Death

The 22-year old son of a good friend of mine was murdered last week, supposedly while he was attempting to purchase some marijuana on the black market in an unsavory neighborhood on the western shore of Mobile Bay. The young man was engaged in no rights-violating activity of any sort. The supposed prohibition he was participating in was a crime unknown at common law and not an activity subject to the enumerated powers of Congress nor the traditional police powers of the state of Alabama (where this murder took place). The nasty and immoral business known as the War on Drugs has again taken its toll.

This little cartoon, called A Drug War Carol, gives some of the history of how the centralizing influence of the federal government forces the Drug War on us and corrupts our country.

Bretton Woods and 2003

This link is to a summary of US monetary policy post 1971 and Nixon's closing the gold window. Conclusion: Expect monetary inflation.

"Deemed Dividend Reinvestment Plans"

The Bush Tax Plan contains a capital gains provision worth looking at. It is called DDRP, and it would allow people selling stock to reduce their recognized capital gain by a factor determined by the amount of taxed retained earnings the firm had accumulated during their holding period. More work for CPAs!

U. S. Stretches the Truth About Iraq. Op-ed in the L.A. Times

The Bush Tax Plan

Here you can read a summary of President Bush's Tax Plan. Naturally the Administration got the dividend tax issue backwards. It would be much better to allow corporations to expense dividends paid than to allow individuals to deduct their dividend receipts. After all many dividends go to IRA and pension funds accounts where they are already sheltered. And the whole point is to put dividends on the same plane as interest payments which, of course, are deductible to the payor and taxable to the payee. What a world!

Lifted from Overlawyered.com

January 7-8 -- Trial lawyer's purchase of Alabama governor's house said to be "arm's-length". "Wray Pearce, the Birmingham accountant who bought Gov. Don Siegelman's Montgomery home for twice its appraised value, was acting as an intermediary for trial lawyer Lanny Vines, who subsequently bought the house from Pearce, according to court records filed last month in a lawsuit involving the two men. ... The governor and his representatives have described the house sale as an arm's-length transaction, with the governor and his wife placing the property on the market, and a buyer coming along and paying the asking price. ... None of the records in the court file specifically state why Vines used his longtime accountant as an apparent straw buyer for the home. Nor do they explain why Vines was willing to pay a sum that a county appraisal and a Register review showed was about twice the home's value." Vines is considered one of the most politically influential plaintiff's lawyers in Alabama. (Eddie Curran, "Papers show trial lawyer paid accountant for Siegelman house", Mobile Register, Nov. 11).

You have got to read this advance chapter from Walter Olsen's new book, The Rule of Lawyers. More info on the book.

I just ran into the website of an old acquaintance, Tom G. Palmer, whom I met in the late 1970s. Tom has several papers posted or linked on this site well worth reading.