Tomorrow Coloradoans will vote on Referenda C & D.  A defeat of the ballot initiatives will keep TABOR intact, while victory for the referenda would mean a tax increase and the dismantling of TABOR.

Here, NTU gives 30 good reasons to vote "No."

Here's a recent Cato paper on TABOR that describes Referendum C's budget "fix."

Referendum C puts government growth in overdrive. The referendum would in effect give Colorado state government a blank check for the next five years. It would also permanently change the way the TABOR cap is calculated and lock in for perpetuity more government spending.

In September the Landmark Legal Foundation initiated an investigation by the California Public Employmeny Relations Board in the California Teachers Association.  Landmark charges that the CTA was using "nonmember teachers’ fees to illegally finance a multimillion dollar effort to defeat ballot initiatives in the statewide November 5 special election".

One of the initiatives up for a vote is a paycheck protection measure, which would require public sector unions to have a member's permission before using their dues to fund political activity.

Now the CTA has announced that it will refund nonmembers their full fees.  "[The CTA] made the refund offer because they simply had no choice," Mark Levin, the president of LLF, said.  "Otherwise, it would have been a case of confiscation without representation."

Hopefully, the November 5 election will bring more good news.

The Heritage Foundation has released its Heritage Guide to the Constitution, a clause-by-clause look at the founding document.  Over 100 constitutional scholars contributed to this authoritative and readable volume.  You can buy it here.

Over the weekend, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Bill Steigerwald talked with former Attorney General  and chairman of the Guide's editorial board Ed Meese.

Q: Why is it so important to find out the Framers' original intent 200 years after the fact?

A: It's important to find out what the words were understood to mean by the people who adopted them - the original participants in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the various Congresses and state legislatures since that time that have adopted the amendments. It's important, just like any legal document, to see what the understood meaning of the document was when it was adopted by representatives of the people. If you are not faithful to the meaning of the words as they were understood then, in effect you have unelected judges making up what the meaning is.

On Friday, the President sent a $2.3 billion rescission package to Congress.  The savings would come from 55 programs.

The President also proposed to reallocate $17 billion in FEMA Emergency relief to be used for infrastructure repairs.  The  money would come from the $62 billion emergency appropriation, $20 billion of which has been spent.

Tonight children across the country will go from house to house in the Halloween rite of trick-or-treating.  While safety advocates each year encourage afternoon trick-or-treating, most children eschew their advice and go after dark.  In 2007, they'll have an extra hour of daylight.

That's because, thanks to the energy bill, daylight savings time will be extended by four weeks beginning in 2007.  Daylight savings will begin on the second Sunday of March and it will end on the first Sunday of November.  (Jim Lindgren from the Volokh Conspiracy thought it started this year.)

While the ostensible (and dubious) purpose of extending daylight savings was energy conservation, lawmakers were quick to add their own spin, even citing Halloween.  Massachussetts Democrat Edward Markey claimed that the extension would make people feel "sunnier," while Republican Fred Upton noted its effect on Halloween and said, ""Kids across the nation will soon rejoice."

While the change may be good for young trick-or-treaters, do Wiccans like the change?  Halloween, which they call Samhain, marks their new year and the extended daylight could affect their practice of "magick."  Wiccans, as some quick Internet research has shown, seem to oppose daylight savings in any form, but have little to say about the extension.  At the very least, they'll have to readjust their Spell-A-Day calendar.

A week (on the normal second Tuesday) after the Colorado vote on Referenda C & D, Washington voters will decide on a ballot initiative that would repeal a gas tax hike.  It's a "yes" vote to repeal the increase.

This inititiative campaign is important beyond the immediate implications for taxpayers--there's also a free speech battle brewing.  Two radio hosts made comments in support of the measure on the air, and a judge declared those comments in-kind political contributions.  A judge recently reaffirmed his decision, the Seattle Times reports.

The two radio hosts may now be prevented from speaking about the ballot initiative at all because Washington prohibits in-kind political donations in the three weeks prior to an election.

On November 1, Colorado taxpayers will vote on Referenda C & D, a vote that will decide the fate of Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  Referendum C would allow the governor and the legislature to ignore TABOR and spend approximately $3 billion more than it would have if TABOR were in place.  It's a tax increase all but in name.

Over the years, TABOR in Colorado has been undermined by increased education funding. In Colorado, Amendment 23 puts in the state constitution a mandate to increase funding for education in ways that conflict with TABOR.  That conflict has allowed supporters of Referenda C to cast TABOR supporters as "against kids," a sentiment that, though obviously false, scares some voters.

Education funding is increasingly undermining taxpayer protections and fiscal responsibility in states across the country.  Nevadans, however, have found a way to fund education in a way that won't undermine taxpayer protections.  In 2006, Nevadans will vote to enact the Education First Amendment.  This amendment will require legislatures to approve education funding before approving any other part of the state budget.  Too often, education funding is the last item approved, forcing lawmakers either to vote for massive spending increases or be cast as enemies of children.  Education First would end that practice.  Plus, there's an added bonus:  Often special interests band together to push for more education funding.  Funding education before other parts of the budget would end this coalition and maybe cause some fighting among the special interests--both good benefits.

Moreover, restraining education funding is the right thing to do.  It's not the kids (or education) who benefit, but the teachers' unions.  Hopefully, voters in Colorado will see that the upcoming referendum is not about education at all and choose to keep TABOR intact.

The Tax Foundation yesterday released its sixth installment of "Countdown to Tax Reform."  This installment deals with tax burdens in relation to cost of living expenses. 

The tax code, as Scott Hodge points out, does not take into account that a certain income does not guarantee the same standard of living throughout the country.

Let’s assume this Milwaukee couple is transferred to Orange County, California. In order to purchase the same standard of living they enjoyed in Milwaukee, this couple would need to earn more than $100,000 per year. However, that cost-of-living-adjusted pay raise is enough to put them among the top 10 percent of taxpayers. At this new income level, their tax bill grows to $14,506 and their effective tax rate jumps to 14.5 percent, yet their standard of living hasn’t changed.

For a more extreme example, take that same couple and transplant them to New York City. To maintain the same standard of living they had in Milwaukee and Orange County, they would need a joint income of nearly $163,000. This income thrusts them into the top 3 percent of taxpayers and boosts their tax liability to more than $31,000 per year and their effective rate to 19.1 percent.

Here's an obvious statement: U.S. taxpayers generously fund a number of unnecessary projects.  Recently, there was the salmon plane in Alaska, and everyone always likes to bring up the money dedicated to fighting teenage goth culture in a small Missouri town.  Fortunately, we have groups like Citizens Against Government Waste that keep watch over Congress and its pet projects.

The salmon plane and counter-goth initiative seem like valuable projects when compared to this waste of taxpayer money in the United Kingdom.

A Japanese artist has been paid £5,000 of taxpayers' money to drink 48 bottles of beer and then fall off a wooden beam.

The artist, Tomoko Takahashi aka Anti-Cool, drank for three hours and attempted "to see how far she could walk across the beam before she fell off."  A spokesman at the venue described this as "a powerful piece of art."

(via Armavirumque)

If you haven't yet discovered it, there's a new blog (it's been up about a month) that's worth reading.  It's the First Things blog, On the Square.  Recent posts of note are Richard John Neuhaus's musing on baseball and fame.

On baseball:

At Immaculate Conception down on First Avenue and 14th Street, where I say Mass regularly, I was this morning required to adjudicate a near-violent dispute between a young black man and an elderly Irish regular at daily Mass. Did or did not George Steinbrenner betray the Yankees by trading Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Jose Contreras, all of whom now loom large in the series between the Astros and White Sox? I was tempted to quote Our Lord, “Who made me a judge between you?” But they would not be satisfied with that.

On fame:

In an informal conversation after the lecture, one of the students asked Tillich what it felt like to be famous. “Famous?” he responded. “I’m not famous. My idea of being famous is that I get into a New York taxi and the driver turns around and says, ‘Aren’t you Professor Tillich?’ That has never happened to me.” Some years ago I got into a taxi and the driver asked, “Aren’t you Father Neuhaus?” Ah, I thought, this is it. Then the driver explained that his sister-in-law is a parishioner at Immaculate Conception, the church where I regularly say Mass, and she had complained to him about my too long homilies. Sic transit gloria.

Neuhaus, of course, always deals with the more pressing issues of our day.

The New York Sun opines this morning on the passage of the "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions" by UNESCO.  If ratified, the measure would allow countries "to put up trade barriers and give government subsidies to 'protect' their culture from the influence of foreign cultures," the Sun writes.  Only the US and Israel opposed the measure.

Last week, Heritage duo Jan Smith and Helle Dale explained the "Convention" in this WebMemo and foreshadowed the lopsidedness of the vote.

There's a lot of action on the spending front today.  This morning the DLC is holding a press conference on "The Democratic Alternative: Restoring Fiscal Responsibility."  Headlining the event is Iowa Governor and DLC Chairman Tom Vilsack, who wrote on "Cuts That Heal" in the October 13 WSJ.

At 12:30 the seven Republican senators of the Fiscal Watch Team will announce their plan for spending offsets.

Finally, it seems that Senator Coburn's stand against pork has motivated his colleague from Oklahoma to introduce a spending reduction plan of his own.  Senator Inhofe will introduce an amendment  to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill that states, "Beginning with Fiscal Year 2007 and thereafter, non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending shall not exceed the previous fiscal year's levels...without a 2/3 vote."  The non-defense discretionary budget authority is around $400 billion in 2005.

Inhofe, however, remains opposed to rescinding pork-barrel spending and argues that eliminating earmarks would not result in savings.

Proposition 75, a ballot initiative soon up for a vote in California, would require public sector unions to get the permission of union members before using their dues for political purposes.  It seems like a no-brainer.  Opponents of paycheck protection, however, often argue that union members already have the option to withhold their dues--they simply have to ask that their money not be used for political ends.  Of course, this is hardly a viable "option."  What person who values his job (and well-being) would tell a union boss how to use his money?

 The California Teachers Association is not above thuggery, as evidenced by their pursuit of criminal charges for an e-mail urging support of the measure.  As the Sacremento Bee reports,

Opponents of Proposition 75 charged Friday that their campaign rivals broke the law by sending an e-mail to 90,000 schoolteachers at work-site computers claiming that their union is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Supporters of the union dues measure denied any wrongdoing and countered that the California Teachers Association, which made the accusations Friday, is trying to divert attention from the substance of the Proposition 75 campaign....

"Our sending an e-mail under our free speech and First Amendment rights cost the taxpayers nothing," [Yes on 75 spokesman] McAndrews said. "I would be astonished if any district attorney spent any of their precious resources on this political cat fight."

Eric Beach, the spokesman for Yes on 75, said the opposing camp is "diverting attention."

"They don't want to allow their members to make a choice," Beach said.

Proposition 75 is about giving workers a choice, and the CTA will do anything to stop it.

The President's pick for Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was well-received on Wall Street.  The pick was not unexpected, but this comment stood out, especially considering an ongoing nomination controversy.

"The main reaction will be a sigh of relief that he is one of the mainstream, qualified candidates," [economist Richard] Hoey said.

With the President set to announce his replacement for Alan Greenspan this afternoon, Kevin Hassett takes a look at confirmation politics.  In his column today, he laments the arduous and dirty process that confirmation to a government post has become.  In describing the ideal candidate, he makes an unconventional choice.

In May of 1828, one of the great mysteries in German history began, when a scruffy teenager appeared in Nuremburg. During an interrogation, the feral child wrote his name on a piece of paper.

Kaspar Hauser reported that he had spent his life living in a small dark cell, and almost never came in contact with his caretaker. Hauser turned into a mystery for the ages when he was assassinated five years later. Speculation about his origins has been a major preoccupation of literate Germans ever since.

It is perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that Kaspar would be an ideal candidate for political appointment today. Having been locked in a cage his entire life, he would have no known views on anything, no record to attack, and no missteps to defend. These would be advantages because Washington has become such a corrosive place to work that many individuals with voluminous public records no longer feel any desire to serve in government.

I fear, however, that the numerous conspiracy theories concerning Hauser's parentage would have killed his nomination.

Remarks like these hardly give us the warm fuzzies:

Calling upon lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas said Saturday the federal government can do a better job of caring for its citizens.

Of course, the federal government can do a better job of caring for its citizens by simply getting out of the way.  But, not surprisingly, this is not what Pryor wants.

Consumers need protection from price gouging in times of gasoline shortages and supply delays and low-income families need help paying home-heating fuel bills, projected to rise by as much as 50 percent this winter, Pryor said in the weekly Democratic radio address.

Protection from price gouging usually means two things: implementing price controls and taxing windfall profits.  Price controls are the immediate "fix" and they lead to long lines and shortages at the pump.  A windfall profits tax is a way of punishing oil companies for making money.  When oil prices are high, oil companies reap a large profit, which allows them to fund exploration and other measures that increase supply. 

In today's Washington Times, Richard Rahn voices his skepticism regarding the result of the president's tax reform panel.  It is widely thought that the report will recommend few changes to the tax code.

Rahn outlines the essentials of meaningful tax reform, namely reforms that embrace a pro-growth philosophy.

The reform package should recommend specifics for eliminating the double tax of capital. Good economists have long known taxing capital is economically destructive, because capital is the "seed corn" of the modern economy. When capital is taxed, it diminishes economic growth and job creation.

To illustrate, corporate dividends and capital gains are taxed at least three times. The capital is taxed when the invested capital is first earned, is taxed by the corporate income tax and then the shareholder is taxed on dividends or capital gains. 

The commission should also call for reducing any tax rate above the long-run revenue and welfare maximizing rates -- which includes the present top personal income and corporate tax rates. Such rates only discourage work, saving and investment, and encourage tax evasion and tax avoidance. They reduce economic opportunity, employment, and the standard of living of almost everyone. 

The corporate income tax should be abolished or "integrated" with the personal income tax. The U.S. now has the world's second-highest corporate tax rate, which makes the U.S. noncompetitive and encourages American multinationals to incorporate elsewhere. It also discriminates against public companies (such as most manufacturing firms) because they need the corporate form of ownership, while enterprises such as law firms are normally partnerships or limited liability companies, which are taxed only once. 

The tax panel should insist on serious dynamic scoring (i.e., full accounting for all the behavioral changes by taxpayers) in making tax changes. The present static revenue system gives precisely wrong answers that always overestimate revenue gains from any tax rate increase and overestimate revenue losses from any rate cut (and ignores the fact some rate cuts, such as on the capital-gains tax, actually increase revenue). Current reports from panel members indicate they will give a "nod" to dynamic scoring rather than insist upon it. 

Without most of these necessary changes, the panel's report will have little effect; it will only rearrange the deck chairs.

In a WebMemo published today, Heritage's Dan Mitchell writes that the panel should outline the conditions necessary for a tax code that promotes growth, achieves simplicity, and achieves fairness.

President Bush’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform has an opportunity to produce a roadmap that leads to a better, fairer, and more competitive tax code. Members of the Panel should ask themselves whether the specific proposals they consider would bring the internal revenue code closer to a single-rate, consumption-base tax system. If a provision shifts the tax code closer to a system that taxes income only one time and imposes just one low rate, it will be a step towards all three of the President’s goals.

Reps. Doolittle and Neugebauer want to eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.  That's the box that you can check on your tax returns to allocate $3 dollars toward public financing of campaigns.  The congressmen have attached it to the budget bill and Neugebauer's website claims that cutting the program would save as much as $550 million over ten years.  Only 11 percent of taxpayers choose to support the program even though checking the box does not increase one's tax burden.

The PECF is misleading because there isn't a "fund" in which the $3 goes.  Basically, the money is paid out of the general Treasury to eligible candidates, so if the "fund" runs short, the general fund makes up the difference.  While eliminating the fund would not constitute a budget cut, it  would free up money that could be used for hurricane relief--that's what the congressmen want it to do.  It's a lot like how eliminating the "bridge-to-nowhere" earmark would not decrease the spending in the highway bill, but would redirect the money to a more useful purpose, such as building bridges destroyed by a natural disaster.

While many on the left expressed support for the pork-for-Katrina effort, threatening this "fund" has raised liberal hackles.  The New York Times today is shocked by "this startling plan to kill public financing in the presidential election system."  Indeed, the Times calls for the program to be strengthened and the funding increased.

The Times asks Congress to "focus on government waste."  That's what Neugebauer and Doolittle seem to be doing by calling for the elimination this "voluntary" earmark that funds the campaigns of political luminaries like Lyndon LaRouche and others.

Already delicious, salmon are now a hot political issue.  First, there's the federally funded salmon plane and now a judge has ordered the US government to intensify its effort to protect coho salmon in California and Oregon. As the Christian Science Monitor reports,

After what have been years of trying and failing, and more than $1 billion spent on recovery efforts, US District Judge James Redden gave federal agencies one year - not the two years they had asked for - to come up with a plan that actually works. And he raised the specter of tearing out mammoth hydroelectric dams in the Columbia-Snake River system - which could dramatically alter key parts of the region's economy, particularly the agriculture and shipping industries - if they don't succeed.

The decision angered the Pacific Legal Foundation's Robin Rivett.  "We think the court got it really wrong," he said.

Not even kin can persuade Gov. Jeb Bush to support his brother's suggestion of federalizing natural disaster response.  The President has suggested that the military lead disaster response and that the role of local authorities be diminished.

Today, CQ Daily (sub. req'd) reports that three governors have come out against the President, most notably Jeb Bush and Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano also echoed their dissent.  According to CQ,

President Bush has called on the Defense Department and Congress to examine the issue in the wake of criticism over the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Napolitano said moving disaster planning and response "to Washington would be a disaster."

The governors said the more appropriate role for the military is to assist local governments in disaster response by bringing in equipment and other assets not available at the local level.

Earlier this week Perry argued against federalizing disaster response at the Heritage Foundation.  Here's what the Austin American-Statesman had to say about his Heritage speech:

A federalized first response to disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would slow recovery efforts, invite widespread confusion and ultimately cost lives, Gov. Rick Perry said Tuesday.

State and local government remain more qualified and in a better position to lead the front-line response after catastrophic events, Perry said.

In a speech in Washington to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Perry criticized the government's response to Katrina but applauded his state's handling of Rita....

"If the federal government assumed control of first response to catastrophes," Perry said, "I believe it would add another layer of bureaucracy, create indecisiveness, lead to rampant miscommunications and cost lives."

Perry said federal officials should supply resources and personnel but not hold decision-making authority.

Perry joined the other two governors in their criticism when the trio spoke before the House Homeland Security Committee.

A recent e-mail from the Tax Foundation alerted me that "In addition to being married, the new analysis shows that Americans who pay most federal income taxes tend to be dual-income, live in high-cost urban areas, are older, college educated, and are engaged in business activities."  Indeed, it wasn't the "new analysis" that was "married," but the "Americans who pay the most federal income taxes"--so I was glad I read the paper.

It isn't only marriage that hits couples in their wallets or pocketbooks, but that married couples often earn two incomes. As Scott Hodge writes,

When two single workers marry, they can quickly move from the statistical middle into the so-called “rich.” For example, a young factory worker earning $18 per hour—or $36,700 per-year—clearly falls into the statistical middle. But if she marries a man earning the same amount, their combined income of $73,440 is enough to qualify them to be in the top 20 percent of Americans. Thus a family can have two “middle-class” jobs with two middle-income salaries, but still be considered statistically high-income according to IRS data.

These "rich" couples end up paying 44 percent of all income taxes.

The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals has been angering conservatives for years.  For example, the Court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional was busy threatening national security a half century ago.

Here's what L. Brent Bozell (the father of the MRC founder) wrote in the first issue of National Review in 1955:

[The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] has declared unconstitutional Coast Guard Port security regulations because they do not give persons whose loyalty or reliability is questioned the right to confront their accusers.  If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, the federal security program will be on its way out.  No longer, for example, would it be possible for a concealed agent of the FBI to put the finger on clandestine Communists--unless the government is prepared to reveal his identity.

Other highlights from the issue include a piece on "France's economic, social, political and moral weaknesses."

Contrary to whatever Richard Layard wants us to believe, advancing economic freedom is best way to improve improve lives and get individuals out of poverty.  That's what Richard Rahn writes this morning in the Washington Times.

The Economic Freedom of the World, 2005 Annual Report has just been published by Canada's Fraser Institute. This report has been authored for the last decade by Professors James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, with the cooperation of some 67 public policy organizations from around the world, including the Cato Institute in the U.S. (The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal also publish an excellent annual Index of Economic Freedom using a different methodology,though reaching similar conclusions.) This new report is important as it provides further empirical evidence of the importance of economic freedom to individual well-being and opportunity. 

The report's conclusions include the following: "Countries with more economic freedom have substantially higher per-capita incomes and higher growth rates." These findings show economic freedom is not just desirable from some philosophical viewpoint but is a necessary and absolute good. Countries that move from less economic freedom to more raise their citizens' well-being much faster than the more restrictive regimes.

Find the Economic Freedom Report here.

David Bernstein, who blogs on the Volokh Conspiracy, wrote on the Davis-Bacon Act in Human Events yesterday.  The act requires that workers on federally-funded projects be paid a "prevailing wage," a rate usually much higher than local wages.  President Bush suspended the act for areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, just as his father did after Hurricane Andrew.

The act, as Bernstein notes,  "adds billions of dollars to the cost of infrastructure projects" and, quite appallingly, has discriminatory origins.

In 1927, Rep. Robert Bacon (R.-N.Y.)--whose pet issue was protecting America’s racial "homogeneity"--introduced what became the Davis-Bacon Act after a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veteran's Bureau hospital in his district.  The "neighboring community," Bacon reported, was "very upset," as were local unions.

Bacon's bill was later co-sponsored by a fellow avowed racist, Sen. James Davis (R-Pa.), who sympathized with Bacon's complaints about the "outfit of Negro laborers" who worked on the hospital.  Davis-Bacon's legislative history is punctuated by repeated complaints from various congressmen about African-American construction workers stealing jobs from "white labor."

Congress ultimately chose to pursue the goal of excluding blacks for the benefit of unionized white workers by requiring federal contractors to follow union wage and work rules.

As Bernstein concludes, the act benefits unions and harms unskilled workers under the guise of "fairness."

Despite the arguments against the Davis-Bacon Act, the President's Executive Order to suspend it has been criticized on both sides of the aisle.  House Democrats have introduced the Fair Wages for Hurricane Victims Act, which would reinstate "prevailing wages."  All House Democrats (and Bernie Sanders) have signed onto the bill.

House Republicans have also joined the call to reinstate Davis-Bacon.  Thirty-seven Republicans have signed a letter to the President calling on him to "provide a date certain for the termination of the proclamation suspending Davis-Bacon of no later than November 8, 2005."

Now, it's possible that there will be a floor debate in the House on Davis-Bacon.  Rep. George Miller has introduced a resolution of inquiry that would require the President to present Davis-Bacon-related information to Congress.  The resolution is currently in Committee.  It will come to the floor if it is not disapproved.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization is meeting in Paris through October 21.  The conference began on October 3.  As one would expect, very little good can come from this.

In fact, what could emerge from this conference is very bad--namely, the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.  In yesterday's Washington Post, George Will summed up the point of the convention:

Nations can "protect" their "cultural expressions" against diversity arising from cultural imports that can be stigmatized as threats to social cohesion, and can use means that would be forbidden were the movement of cultural goods and services covered by the World Trade Organization's rules governing the movement of other goods and services. Meaning: Nations such as France and Canada can interfere with imports of U.S. films, television programming, music and publications.

Basically, countries could circumvent free trade rules by declaring items cultural goods or "expressions."  That could mean the special coffee you drink every morning or the truffles that complement your dinner each night.

The proposal is receiving widespread support, and, if not support, deference.  The United Kingdom, for instance, does not champion the convention, but does not see it as harmful.  The vote--two-thirds needed to pass--is on October 17.

Harold Pinter has won the Nobel Prize for Literature.  As the New Criterion's Roger Kimball points out, Pinter is up to the committee's standards in at least one area: ridiculous anti-Americanism.  Take a look at an acceptance speech he made when he received an honorary degree:

"If you are not with us you are against us," President Bush has said. He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror, chum. That's you.

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and is prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke....

People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. They strike back.

The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.

A literary dynamo, he's also put his thoughts into verse.

That's $11,924.92.

Of course, you'll have to write an essay first.  The Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales is sponsoring an essay contest on "Taxation and Justice."  Here are the rules:

Topic: The essay should address the notion(s) of fairness/equality, the taxation structures these notions imply, the consistency of current tax systems with what is discussed at the beginning.

Eligibility: Anyone born in 1970 or later may take part to the contest. Papers must be original, previously unpublished and individually authored. Joint authorship will not be accepted.

Style: no restriction is set on style. The author may use all tools judged appropriate. Statistics, graphs, and mathematical models are welcome but in no way constitute a prerequisite and will not necessarily give an edge to the paper.

Language: the essay may be written either in French or in English

Length: the essay should have between 7,000 and 10,000 words (between 10,000 and 15,000 words if written in French)

Format: the essay should be sent by electronic mail at contact@iref-europe.org and also in paper format to:

Professor Pierre Garello

Centre d’Analyse Economique - Université Paul-Cézanne Aix-Marseille 33, Avenue Robert Schuman - 13628 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 1 (France)

Deadline: the two versions (electronic + paper) should be sent before December 15, 2005

Jury: The essays will be judged by the members of the scientific committee of IREF (see the list of the committee on IREF’s website at www.iref-europe.org )

The University of Chicago denied assistant professor and blogger Daniel Drezner tenure, and the New York Sun wonders whether blogging played a role.

"I shouldn't be doing this. I'll be going up for tenure soon."

It was with those words of self admonishment that an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Daniel Drezner, inaugurated his Web log in September 2002.

As thousands of his online readers know, Mr. Drezner didn't heed his own advice. Instead, he rose to blogosphere prominence. His site is perhaps the most widely read blog focusing on the international political economy, turning scholarly research on issues like outsourcing, the politics of trade, and monetary policy into bite-size pieces of analysis for a wider audience.

On Friday, Mr. Drezner's first blog entry came back to haunt him: He was informed by his department that he was denied tenure and would have to look elsewhere for a job.

Under normal circumstances, a scholar who is denied tenure assumes that the decision was simply a reflection of a department's assessment of scholarship. In this case, Mr. Drezner and others are wondering whether the blog may have had an impact on his tenure status.

Drezner doesn't think that his blogging played a "major" role in the decision, but academic blogging remains a delicate matter for the untenured.  First, there's a question about the value of blogs--whether a professor would be better off doing research than opining on-line.  The Sun points out the Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker blogs as do other luminaries, but that non-tenured bloggers often use pseudonyms for the sake of their jobs. Then, there's the question of using blogs as a forum for one's political views, especially when one's opinions differ from the opinions of those who will be making the tenure decision.

That the cost of blogging is often one's job is a lesson that many have learned.  In its Spring issue, the always-insightful New Atlantis wrote on "Blog Gone Bad" and noted that "Perhaps as many as three dozen bloggers have lost their jobs because of things they posted online."  Many of these fired bloggers weren't of the academic stripe--the Washingtonienne is probably the best example.

But, the New Atlantis also suggests a toll that blogging can take on the bloggers, and points out the example of Glenn Reynolds, the popular Instapundit, who once told Wired that "he gets e-mails from people asking if he’s alright if he hasn’t posted in several hours."  There's also Andrew Sullivan, who in February said that he would take a break from blogging.  He's now back at it.

I'm not sure how likely this is, but Blackberry users have to be nervous.

A court decision Friday renewed the possibility that service to BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices might be cut off for most users in the United States.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington rejected a request by Research in Motion, the Canadian company that makes the BlackBerry, to rehear its appeal of a patent infringement case brought by NTP Inc., the patent holder. A three-judge panel of the court ruled in August that Research in Motion had violated seven of NTP's patents.

As part of that litigation, NTP, whose only assets are wireless e-mail related patents, had been granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders.

(via Overlawyered)

AEI's Veronique de Rugy and Reason's Nick Gillespie in the Washington Times:

While it remains unclear exactly what the budget for fiscal 2006 will look like, this much already is crystal-clear: If the president and his Congress do not immediately and radically cut the massive spending spree of the last four years, the GOP can no longer claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. 

Who could have predicted when he took office that Mr. Bush might end up looking much more like Lyndon Johnson than his own father? Mr. Bush fights an increasingly unpopular war, has added to Johnson's Great Society legacy by pushing through a new prescription drug program that is the single-largest expansion of Medicare since its inception, and spends like, well, a Texas-born millionaire. If Republicans don't follow through and cut spending, all that's left for the transformation to be complete is for Mr. Bush to pick his dog up by the ears.

The other day at the Political Animal blog, Kevin Drum pointed out this New Jersey eminent domain case.  Property owner Carol Segal wanted to sell his land, but the city disagreed with his choice of developer and took the land.

On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal's land through eminent domain and name its own developer.

"They want to steal my land," Segal said. "What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?"

The city wanted a local developer and complained that Centex, Segal's choice, was "not Union County people."

The New York Times delves into happiness studies and points to the tiny, landlocked nation of Bhutan as a country where happiness, and Jigme Singye Wangchuck, are king.  In Bhutan, the gross national happiness of the people comes before the gross national product.

An economic cynic may argue that a country with a gross national product as small as Bhutan's can well afford to worry about its gross national happiness, and that the best way to increase G.N.H. is by increasing G.N.P. But that is essentially an untested assertion, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it isn't necessarily true. Our sense of happiness is created by many things that are not easily measured in purely economic terms, including a sense of community and purpose, the amount and content of our leisure and even our sense of the environmental and ecological stability of the world around us.

It is a fair question to ask what King Wangchuck actually mean by "happiness," for Bhutan's human rights record is quite unhappy.  The 2004 State Department report on Bhutan's Human Rights Practices sheds some light on the Land of the Thunder Dragon.  In Bhutan, "police regularly conducted house-to-house searches for suspected dissidents without explanation or legal justification," and "The Government requires all citizens, including minorities, to wear the traditional dress of the ethnic majority in all public places."  Moreover, the government restricts speech and often discriminates against ethnic Nepalese.  Fortunately, "Unlike in previous years, there were no reports of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Bhutan was probably a poor choice on the Times part, and, as Johan Norberg argues in the latest Policy, growth is a good indicator of "gross national happiness."

One reason for this happiness is that a liberal and market-oriented society allows people freedom to choose. In the absence of authoritarian leaders...forcing us to live the way they think is best for us, we can choose the kind of identity and lifestyle that suits us. And if we get used to valuing and choosing, we will get increasingly better at choosing to live, work and socialise in ways we like. In traditional societies, on the other hand, the individual has to adapt to pre-fabricated roles and demands.

Of course not everything in modern society suits everybody, but freedom also means the freedom to say no. If you don’t think you get happier by hard work and mobility, just skip it. A survey showed that 48% of Americans had, in the last five years, reduced their working hours, declined promotion, lowered their material expectations or moved to a quieter place. Fast-food or slow-food, no logo or pro logo? In a liberal society, you decide.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wants a merit pay system for Bay State teachers, the New York Times reports.  The program Romney supports would give $5,000 bonuses to "[teachers] who teach Advanced Placement courses, those recruited to teach science and math, and the top one-third of teachers in each school district as measured by classroom improvement."

Opponents, such as state Democrats and teacher unions, charge that merit pay is "exclusionary" and want to focus on "building more classrooms, spending more for texts and raising salaries across the board."  Increasing spending is a common refrain for problems with public education.  While pumping more money into education coffers does not improve student outcomes, it does produce good outcomes for Democrats and unions: increased funding strengthens unions and increased funding can plunge the state into a fiscal crisis that, more often than not, will be remedied with a tax increase.

Romney, however, understands what he's up against.

"You know," he said, "I would just love it if you could just throw out all the special interests from education."

The pork-for-Katrina movement marches on, even as lawmakers tighten their grips on their projects.

Enter some innovative bloggers and an initiative they call Porkbusters. The effort encourages citizens to volunteer projects in their home districts for elimination to help offset storm reconstruction costs. Its Web site includes a database to track politicians' responses to requests for spending cuts.

Unfortunately, the list of positive responses is depressingly small. Among the Texas delegation, no member has committed to even a single cut.

It would be hard to believe nowhere in Texas is there funding for hiking and biking trails that might not be better allocated, at least temporarily, for rebuilding the infrastructure of the storm-ravaged region.

(via Instapundit)

As Hurricane Katrina relief got underway, OMB decided to allow federal employees to charge up $250,000 on their government credit cards.  That was up from the usual limit of $2500.  In the past government credit cards had been used at brothels, to pay for baseball games, and to fund cosmetic surgery.

Now, federal employees are out of luck after the OMB returned credit limits to pre-Katrina levels.

In November, Colorado voters will decide whether to relax the state's Taxpayers Bill of Rights.  Economist Paul Prentice has found that relaxing TABOR would cost Colorado taxpayers $31 billion over the next 25 years.

Colorado governor Bill Owens and his allies, who support the referenda, questioned the study and even managed to hurl an insult at Prentice and Independence Institute President Jon Caldara.

"[Prentice is] an agricultural economist. He's probably qualified to counsel Jon Caldara on manure production, which is what Jon Caldara specializes in," said Dan Hopkins, spokesman for GOP Gov. Bill Owens, who supports the budget fix.

Opponents of TABOR or TABOR-style tax expenditure limits are increasingly finding themselves in the minority of public opinion. Now, Georgia has joined the fray.

When a President is not making nominations to the Supreme Court, he can, if he chooses, use the power of the Executive Office to issue pardons.

Last week, the President handed out 14 pardons, bringing the total during his term to 60.  One pardon, in particular, stood out. 

Now, 35 years after his second arrest for making white lightning, [Rufus] Harris fulfilled his dream and is a man without a record, thanks to a pardon Wednesday from President Bush.

"He said his goal in life was to clear his name," said his wife, Frankie. "He started [trying to get a pardon] about 10 years ago. I had done give up on this. I figured it was not to be."

Harris had moonshined--often the sole means of making a living in the rural Georgia hills--to support his family, his son reports.  Harris and his family, however, were far more proud of his legitimate career--construction, chicken-raising, and van customization--than his time spent as a bootlegger.

"He was told to pick up something other than moonshining or they'd put him away again for good," his son said. Rufus Harris then built several local buildings, including a bank in Lavonia, operated eight chicken houses and ran a van customizing shop.

"He's done real good with his life." His son said. "I drive by the bank every day and think of him. I'm proud to say: 'My dad did that.' "