- Adam Smith Institute Blog
- Allegheny Institute Blog
- Amy Ridenour's
National Center Blog
- Blogs NRTW
- Bluegrass Beacon
- Buckeye Institute Blog
- Capital Research Center
- Cafe Hayek
- Cato Unbound
- The Cauldron: By Caldara
- Club for Growth
- Committee for Justice Blog
- The Corner
- Daniel Pipes
- Daniel W. Drezner
- David Boaz
- Dynamist Blog
- Errors of Enchantment
- Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies Blog
- The Foundry
- FRC Blog
- Government Bytes
- John Goodman Health Blog
- Knowledge Problem
- Labor Pains
- La Russophobe
- LegiStorm’s Blog
- Libertarian Alliance BLOG
- Liberty Live
- The Locker Room
- Maine Freedom Forum
- Marginal Revolution
- Market Center Blog
- Maryland Public Policy Institute
- The MC
- Mises Economics Blog
- The National Interest
- The OSPRI Blog
- Out of Control
- Overcriminalized.com - Blog
- Pacific Research Institute
- Peter Gordon’s Blog
- Pioneer Institute Blog
- Reason Magazine - Hit & Run
- Show-Me Daily
- State Sunshine and Open Records
- Swine Line
- Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy Blog
- Tea Party—
The Sam Adams Alliance Blog
- The Technology Liberation Front
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Washington Policy Blog
- Write on Nevada
- Wisconsin Policy
Research Institute Blog
InsiderOnline Blog: March 2005
The Policy Weblogger is all over the Social Security Trustees' report, out today.
Amy Ridenour tells us how to debunk the liberal myths about Social Security.
Social Security Choice has the word on the Trustees' report from Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
The Independent Women's Forum blasts the Social Security system as a relic from an age "when women’s financial security was completely dependent upon men."
Paul Gessing and other NTU-ers are now blogging at the aptly named Government Bytes Blog. (Sometimes I'm sad that mine is the only blog without a play on words, but I push through. Sigh.)
Gessing wonders whether we should even be trying to save Social Security. As he says, the idea of totally dismantling the system is a political non-starter, but it's good for the free-market soul to be reminded that reforms need to move us as far from the social in Social Security as possible.
The Goldwater Institute released a report today, which finds that:
Arizona taxpayers could have received $4.5 billion in tax refunds since 1992 had Arizona enacted a budget stabilization reform modeled after Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
Such budget stabilization measures keep the growth of government in proportion to changes in population and inflation, and automatically refund all surplus revenue to taxpayers. Study author Dr. Michael New, assistant professor at the University of Alabama and Goldwater Institute senior fellow, notes, "an inspection of Arizona's budgetary history indicates the state's persistent budgetary shortfalls are due to high rates of expenditures." He adds, "Managing government growth through a Taxpayer Bill of Rights could effectively end state fiscal crises."
Two Heritage Foundation allies, in Georgia and Kentucky, sent links to recent townhalls and debates in their states on the subject of Social Security reform.
In Georgia, freshman Senator Johnny Isakson held a townhall. Video here.
I'm trying to find transcripts for these. If I find them, I'll update.
Heritage's own VP of Government Relations Mike Franc talks about ANWR:
What has free-market energy experts contemplating victory after two decades of trying is the likelihood that congressional leaders will attach the ANWR legislation to so-called "reconciliation" legislation. Reconciliation bills contain a mix of provisions designed to meet the spending and revenue targets set forth in the budget resolution. Reconciliation bills require only a simple majority and are not subject to unlimited debate.
And the upside of the budget:
Gregg convinced his colleagues to turn back, on a nail-biter of a 50-50 vote, an effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.) to restore a Senate budget rule that would make it all but impossible to extend President Bush's tax cuts. Gregg also held the line against efforts to add billions in new spending on veterans, health research, education, first responders and Amtrak.
Franc does a great job every week of making Congress's inside baseball understandable for outsiders.
I just read the transcript of the Kelo vs. New London argument in front of the Supreme Court, which was surprisingly entertaining. It's 57 pages long, but it's fast-paced and isn't very heavy on the legalese.
I've been really interested in Kelo because the decision could affect all of our property rights. If the government has the power to take your property by force and give it to another private party just because that party can produce more tax revenue, then we are all in danger. And where are freedom-loving people without property rights?
In the oral arguments were some really scary passages about property rights and the powers of government. Note this exchange between the Institute for Justice attorney and Justice Breyer who suggests that “virtually every taking is all right,” so why have limits? Yikes.
JUSTICE BREYER: Justice Douglas says there that as long as it's an objective within Congress and legislature's legitimate grant of power, they can do it, I mean, as long as there's a – so why does there have to be a limit within that broad limit?
MR. BULLOCK: Well, Your Honor, the limit is that there cannot be takings for private use.
JUSTICE BREYER: Of course, there can't, purely. But there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.
That's a fact of the world. And so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.
Later, the City of New London's attorney makes it very clear what his views on eminent domain are, thanks to Scalia’s and O’Connor’s questioning:
JUSTICE SCALIA: No. I just want to take property from people who are paying less taxes and give it to people who are paying more taxes. That would be a public use, wouldn't it?
JUSTICE O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
MR. HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay.
Whoa, watch out Motel 6! Check in with Institute for Justice for updates, here. They expect a ruling before June, and it will be an very important one for conservatives. And, one final excerpt in which Scalia hammers the problem home:
JUSTICE SCALIA: Let me qualify it. You can take from A to give to B if B pays more taxes?
MR. HORTON: If it's a significant amount.
Policy Weblogger is after the press again on Social Security reform. Things are not as bleak as the press would have us believe.
Amy Ridenour is back from a blog-hiatus. She and the family were fighting a bug but are thankfully feeling better now.
Check out the new Insider, highlighted at your right, and available in all its pdf glory in the issue archive. This issue's theme is "Shifting the Balance" of power from government to the American people.
This edition pulls from The Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership" with essays on limiting federal spending, reforming Social Security, and assuring economic liberty.
Also in this issue, Jane Shaw of the Property and Economic Research Center in Montana, offers a "Mandate for a New Environmentalism"-- a few, practical policy changes that could fix environmental problems without killing businesses.
Institute for Justice attorneys profile the homeowners in the Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London. The feature puts a human face on the problems caused by eminent domain abuse. Kelo and her neighbors had their property confiscated because the government decided a pharmaceutical company could make better use of it.
And, finally, Marsha Richards of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation offers tips for turning policy ideas into policy.
Hope y'all enjoy! Feel free to print and distribute as you wish.
From the NCPA Policy Digest:
Private Social Security accounts are already working in Texas and have been for the past 25 years, say observers.
In 1981, federal law allowed municipal government workers to opt-out of Social Security and replace it with private retirement accounts. Galveston County, Texas, decided overwhelmingly to pursue a locally controlled system of private accounts, called the "Alternate Plan."
Under the plan the county withholds about six percent of each employee's salary for retirement; that money, along with a partial match by the county, is invested in personal accounts for each participating employee. The remaining county match covers the cost of disability and life insurance policies for employees, which also pay benefits much higher than those offered by Social Security. It has had remarkable results:
- From 1982 through 1997, the rate of return on funds invested in the Galveston plan has averaged 8.6 percent, a return more than four times greater than Social Security.
- County workers earning slightly more than $17,000 a year can retire at age 65 with a monthly payment of $1,285 compared with $782 a month under Social Security.
- Workers earning $51,263 a year could retire at age 65 with a monthly benefit of $3,846 compared to $1,540 under Social Security.
Even under the relatively low "guaranteed rate of return" in the Galveston plan gives a yield of 4.24 percent, more than double the return for Social Security.
Along with Galveston County, nearby Brazoria and Matagorda Counties and Texas City also voted to quit Social Security in favor of private accounts. Amid growing enthusiasm for an alternative to Social Security, Congress voted in 1983 to end the provisions that give municipal workers the option to leave the federal system.
Rep. Mike Pence has introduced a bill that deals with 527s by getting rid of regulations instead of adding them. Some of its provisions:
- removes the aggregate contribution limits on contributions to federal committees and parties.
- removes the spending limits now imposed on national political parties.
- allows state and local parties to spend non-federal dollars for voter registration and sample ballots.
- repeals the Wellstone Amendment for electioneering communications by grassroots organizations.
- encourages contributions to federal PACs by repealing prior approval for PAC solicitations by trade associations.
Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog has a couple humdingers:
In India, tax defaulters have drum corps playing outside their houses until they come out and pay up.
And, a Florida legislator wants to tax toilet paper. Yeah, I'll pay a special tax on toilet paper when my W-2 comes in extra-soft, quilted 2-ply.
Byron York, over at NRO, culls some promising info from a somewhat discouraging Washington Post story, which is burdened with this depressing lead:
Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Thanks, Sunshine. But York goes a little deeper and finds this:
Yet inside the same Post poll, there is news that 56 percent of those surveyed say they would support "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market," which is the centerpiece of the president's still-to-be-unveiled Social Security proposal. Forty-one percent say they would oppose such a plan, while three percent have no opinion.
The 56-percent support figure — 60 percent and higher among respondents under 50 years of age — is the highest level of support on that question in the last six Post polls going back before the 2000 election. The 41-percent figure is the lowest level of opposition in the last six Post polls going back before the 2000 election.
York thinks the headline and lead may be the result of a certain amount of wishful thinking by the WaPo copy editors:
Thus, the poll indicates that solid majorities of those surveyed a) accept the president's underlying rationale for reform, and b) support his main proposal for that reform. Yet the Post's reporting of its results — and indeed the generally accepted wisdom on the Social Security debate — clearly suggests that the president is losing (the front-page headline on today's Post is "Skepticism of Bush's Social Security Plan is Growing"). What is going on?
h/t The Corner
I've gotten a few save the date cards in the mail, so I'll pass the dates along. First and foremost, block off some time for The Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank, April 28-29 in Miami.
Competitive Enterprise Institute is holding its Annual Dinner and Reception May 11, 2005. The theme is "Mardi Gras in May," and the speaker will be Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana.
SPN is holding its 13th Annual Meeting, September 29- October 1 in Charleston, SC. So, save the date and pack shorts because that's summertime in SC. Also, don't miss the SPN Leadership Development Breakfast, April 28 in Miami, right before the Resource Bank.
And, the Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options is holding its 2005 Conference, October 13-15 in Dallas, TX. The theme is "Seize the American Dream: Parents Leading the Movement."
Now, that's enough to make a gal feel pretty popular.
The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese, III will speak, along with the president of Defenders of Property Rights. There are two panels: "Is the Government Friend or Foe of Intellectual Property RIghts?" and "The High Cost of Intellectual Property Rights Theft."
The Heritage Foundation's own Tim Kane does the math on Social Security:
Before we begin talking about ways to reform Social Security, consider: If the system had never existed and was proposed as new legislation in its current form, would it pass?
No way. Liberals would oppose the program as patently unjust – and they would be right...
What has evolved is a system of retirement payments that is generous for the healthy by punishing the unhealthy, and unlucky. What if you die from cancer at age 53? Your family gets far less than if your retirement fund was a personal account, and possibly nothing. The fact that blacks die younger on average than whites means the current system is unabashedly biased against them. And the family of any person of any ethnicity who dies at 63 is likely to get stiffed by the trustees. Nothing personal. No, really: nothing personal.
Overweight refers to increased body weight in relation to height, when compared to some standard of acceptable or desirable weight (NRC p.114; Stunkard p.14). NOTE: Overweight may or may not be due to increases in body fat. It may also be due to an increase in lean muscle. For example, professional athletes may be very lean and muscular, with very little body fat, yet they may weigh more than others of the same height. While they may qualify as "overweight" due to their large muscle mass, they are not necessarily "over fat," regardless of BMI.
Unfortunately, the BMI is the only standard the government relies on, and it is the basis for false claims like 400,000 Americans die every year because of obesity. That's a serious problem. Public debates about obesity in America -- including the possibility of lawsuits against restaurants and food companies for making people fat -- are shaped by this unsporting BMI classification.
...Watching Rather Retire. Is that available in a bumper sticker yet? I don't think so, but if you're interested in watching the Dan man's last, somber broadcast with friends who will be anything but sad, there are several opportunities.
The Center of the American Experiment in Minnesota is holding a good riddance party for Dan-- The 61st Minute, featuring Power Line blogger John Hinderaker (part of that no-good, slobbering Internet rabble that brought him down, you know).
And, the Independence Institute in Colorado's invitation to their Dan Rather Retirement Party says it all about their feelings toward Dan (emphasis mine):
Join us for “Happy Hour” on Wednesday, March 9th at 5:00 PM at Jackson’s All American Sports Grill in LoDo as we say a tearful good bye to legendary anchorman Dan Rather. Following Rather’s final farewell, Jay Ambrose, former editor of the Rocky Mountain News, will address the liberal bias in the mainstream media.
RSVP to Rachael by calling 303-279-6536 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Florida Congressman Tom Feeney clearly knows a cause that rallies conservatives when he sees it. He's holding a fund-raiser at the Capitol Hill Club tonight to commemorate the occasion.
Also, check out the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables to reminisce about some of Dan's better moments. My favorite?
“Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy.”
— CBS Evening News, June 17, 1987.
But there are many to choose from. MRC has tons of other Rather-ammo on their home page today. And, Accuracy in Media has: "Myths, Memos and Dan Rather: A Nation Remembers," "How Dan Rather was Duped by the KGB," and "Dan Rather's Final Days: Bias Continues to the Bitter End."
Or, you can read me on Rather, in "Welcome to Jesusland Journalism School."
I know this is hard folks, but we can get through it together.
There's a new kid on the think tank block. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research debuted its Web site this week. TCPR is part of State Policy Network, and its president is Drew Johnson, a former policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union and American Enterprise Institute. TCPR's mission:
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research promotes personal freedom and limited government through policy solutions that:
- Generate economic growth through reduced tax and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses
- Create unmatched educational opportunity by empowering parents, students and teachers with choices and opportunities
- Advance healthcare solutions that restore dignity and encourage personal responsibility
- Identify opportunities to reduce cost and increase efficiency in all levels of government
- Reflect the Founding Fathers’ vision of a free society grounded in property rights and individual liberty based in personal responsibility
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the capacity of private enterprise, the ingenuity of individuals and the foresight of active communities to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.
TCPR will focus on education, health care, and budget and taxes, as opposed to social issues such as abortion and gambling. Check out TCPR's commentaries, keep an eye out for policy reports in the near future, or sign up for the e-bulletin for updates. The FAQ section gives you answers to all your funding and affiliation questions. Good luck, TCPR!
The Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank Meeting will be held April 28-29 in Miami this year at the Hyatt Regency Miami.
If you'd like to extend your stay in Miami, the Atlas Liberty Forum will be April 27-28, also at the Hyatt.
This year’s program will feature: management training sessions on Building and Sustaining an Effective Institute; a Focus on Latin America program co-hosted by the Manhattan Institute; sessions on Think Tanks and Security policy; the announcement of the winners of the 16th Annual Sir Antony Fisher Memorial Awards program, and recognition of the winners of the 2005 Templeton Freedom Awards program.
On the morning of April 28, State Policy Network will hold its Leadership Development Breakfast.
And, For even more public policy fun, the Philadelphia Society will be holding its annual National Meeting April 29- May 1, in Miami. This year's theme is, "What is an American?" and features panels on "Culture and Creed," "Immigration and America," and "What Should It Mean To Be an American Citizen?"
Just some warm thoughts for early March.