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