The American Spectator

Amnesty By Executive Fiat

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.30.10 @ 3:58PM

The Obama administration is considering it. The idea is to have the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) just start handing out green cards to illegals.

USCIS, a part of the Obama administration, outlines the ideas in a draft memo that includes the possibility of issuing green cards to tens of thousands who entered the country illegally. "In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," the memo advises.
Illegal immigration in Arizona

It was prepared by senior aides for CIS Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas and made public by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who last month asked President Obama for assurances that rumors of a reprieve for illegal immigrants were unfounded. "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back-door amnesty plan," Grassley told ProPublica, a non-profit investigative team.

The Obama administration cannot legalize the entire illegal immigrant population this way, much less put them on a path to citizenship. But it is a democratically unaccountable start.

34 Comments | Add a Comment

While We're Speaking Frankly

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.30.10 @ 1:34PM

One more thing: Barney Frank's Internet Gambling Regulation and Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act legalizes most online gambling at the federal level but allows states to ban betting within their borders. The Defense of Marriage Act witholds recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level but allows states to permit it within their borders. Why is the first piece of legislation essential and the second intolerable?

12 Comments | Add a Comment

Barney Frank's Selective Libertarianism

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.30.10 @ 1:24PM

Congressman Barney Frank's (D-MA) bill legalizing online gambling has advanced. Jacob Sullum has more over at Reason. Personally, I see this as the first piece of legislation in this Congress that advances rather than curtails personal freedom. But I'm more interested in Frank's reasoning here.

"Some adults will spend their money foolishly," Frank said, "but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it." But this is the same Barney Frank whose Wall Street financial reform bill that, among many other things, tells people what kind of credit they can and cannot have. Like his anti-gambling colleagues, Frank is all for individual liberty until those liberties might be exercised in activities he deems unwise.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Kagan: Abortive Ethics. Sessions: Steady Hero

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.30.10 @ 11:16AM

We at the Washington Times today explain why senators are derelict in their duty if they don't do more investigation into troubling questions about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's ethics.

Ms. Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, was directly responsible for altering a key medical report in a way that stacked the deck in favor of keeping the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion legal. She then gave testimony to the SenateJudiciary Committee that appeared to veer from the actual record.

The ethical questions are threefold. First, was it unethical for her to alter the original medical-report language? Second, was it unethical for her to fail to inform the courts when a series of judges relied explicitly on her altered language in reaching their decisions to keep partial-birth abortion legal for an entire extra decade? Third, did her testimony under oath before the SenateJudiciary Committee veer far enough from the actual record to constitute a major ethical breach?

These are far from the only reasons, of course, to oppose Ms. Kagan's nomination. She believes government "doles" out speech rights at its pleasure. She believes government may prohibit political pamphlets. She openly flouted the law to harm the military in a time of war. She is so hostile to gun rights that the NRA abandoned its usual silence on Supreme Court nominees and openly opposes her. She is a "transnationalist" who would at times subject American courts to foreign law. And she believes judges should overweigh the scales of justice in favor of the downtrodden, rather than being neutral arbiters.

This is bad stuff.

Let me take this opportunity, by the way, to lay a garland on the shoulders of Alabama's U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. He has done a superb, brave, dignified, firm, polite, respectful, but tough-minded job -- an often lonely job -- at bringing up many of these issues, at exposing Ms. Kagan's record, at explaining principled reasons for dissent without ever getting nasty or unfair or smearing Ms. Kagan's character. He has laid out a compelling case against her, day after day, week after week, without enough public credit from me or anybody else on the right. Look at his web sites (personal and committee) to see the wealth of information he has gathered and the huge amount of work he and his staff have done. Many kudos to the good senator.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

The Expansive View of Expansionary Fiscal Policy

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.30.10 @ 7:35AM

In a Wall Street Journal article earlier this week, Jon Hilsenrath quoted the Stanford economist Robert Hall as claiming that there hasn't been much stimulus spending because of state and local government fiscal contraction: 

Robert Hall, a Stanford University professor, says there hasn't actually been that much extra government spending overall, because the increased federal spending has been largely offset by a large contraction in state and local government outlays. By the third quarter of 2009, he notes, federal government spending added $66 billion to economic output, less than 0.5% of total output, offset by a $43.1 billion contraction in state and local government spending, he says. 

This passage gives a misleading impression of the size of the government's response to the crisis, because it omits much of Hall's analysis of the stimulus. In order to assess the impact of fiscal policy, Hall broke up all the government spending in response to the recession into the two parts that would have varying spending multipliers: direct purchases of goods and services (which in Hall's model have a higher multiplier), and increased benefits and tax cuts and rebates (which have a significantly lower multiplier).

Hilsenrath's description only accounts for spending on purchases. He leaves out the stimulus funds that flowed to benefits or tax rebates, which funds accounted for over half of the spending in the third quarter of 2009 (depending on how you count "spending." Tax rebates, for instance, would show up as lost revenue instead of increased expenditure). In his assessment, Hall includes all above-trend government spending, or fiscal expansion, as stimulus, and not just spending included in the 2009 stimulus bill. Hall's measurement of spending, which includes automatic stabilizers, is intended to give a better picture of overall fiscal stimulus.

Here, from a paper Hall sent to me, is a graph showing the the extra government purchases of goods and services, the portion of the stimulus spending that Hilsenrath refers to:

Clearly federal spending on purchases was elevated through the first quarter of 2010, while state and local spending on purchases steadily decreased. 

And here is the rest of the stimulus spending, composed of tax rebates and benefits. Continue reading…

2 Comments | Add a Comment

The Day Ahead: Friday, July 30, 2010

Posted by Max Brindle on 7.30.10 @ 7:10AM

Today on the Main Site:

Have the Republicans Learned Their Lesson? And do they deserve to win big this November? And if they do win, do they know what to do? Can they ever be trusted again? A pre-election symposium, from our Summer Issue. Contributors include Fred Barnes, David Boaz, Jim Geraghty, Jim DeMint, Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, and Michael Barone.

Sic Transit Tony Hayward: BP's Abused and Fumbling CEO by Andrew B. Wilson: But he committed far fewer gaffes than the august Obama administration.

Arizona Police and Tribal Police by James M. Thunder: Guess who our president prefers dealing with.

Leaving Sandpoint by Ben Stein: So long, small town America.

Lady Manningham-Buller Lets Down the Side by George H. Wittman: There was a time when security service chiefs retired and disappeared into the gentle night -- not anymore.

Contra Fabrizio: A Paean to My Book by Mark Goldblatt: ...and to the future of e-books.

Those '70s Show by Jay D. Homnick: A paternal guide to government at its most incapable.

What to Watch for:

BP's Hayward defends tenure, spill response (WSJ) 

July becomes deadliest month for U.S. forces in Afghanistan (AP) 

Rangel trial has Democrats nervous for November (NY)

SEC charges Texas billionaires with strong GOP ties to millions in security fraud (Wash Post) 

AZ governor files appeal to immigration law injunction (CNN) 

Clip of the Day:

Rangel Ethics hearing opening remarks

Add a Comment

Conservative Leaders Oppose Union Power Grab

7.29.10 @ 3:44PM

MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT

Congress Should Oppose Labor Union Power Grab Legislation

RE: The misleadingly named "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act" (originally H.R. 413; S. 1611, 3194). The bill would unconstitutionally abrogate all states' sovereignty, subject state and local public-safety workers to compulsory union "representation," eliminate local government control over the labor relations of their own workers, lead to a rise in labor strife, and further damage fragile state and local government economies by imposing unfunded federal mandates. The House approved the bill in 2007 with the support of 98 Republicans.

ACTION: Congress should reject the so-called "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act" because the bill unconstitutionally abrogates each state's existing right to determine the labor relations of its own and its local governments' employees. And Congress should do so whether it is considered as a stand alone bill or as an amendment to another piece of legislation.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Quick, Someone Tell Obama: They're locking up onshore oil, too!

Posted by Chris Horner on 7.29.10 @ 2:55PM

Today's Land Letter just arrived in my in box, with the following lead story:

1. OIL AND GAS: NPR-A could see new protections under pending Interior management plan

The Interior Department is preparing to develop its first comprehensive management plan for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), a move environmentalists say could permanently remove large sections of the massive reserve from future energy development. The "integrated activity plan" for NPR-A would take a comprehensive look at the 23.5-million-acre reserve with an eye toward identifying areas suitable for oil and natural gas drilling as well as those areas that should remain off-limits, said Pat Pourchot, special assistant to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for Alaska affairs.

So, we're only producing oil in deep water because we're running out of places to look onshore, are we Barry? As I've said...

4 Comments | Add a Comment

The Pain of the Danes, Coming Your Way

Posted by Chris Horner on 7.29.10 @ 2:41PM

After President Obama's repeated (eight times) assurance that Spain proved his "green" central planning was an economic boon was debunked (as was his contemporaneous citation of Germany's supposed success), the White House simply replaced "Spain" with "Denmark" in his stump speech.

That, too, was debunked. So now Obama no longer points to any country as a success. I wonder what that tells us.

Anyway, one (other) thing our apparently not overly worldly Obama White House apparently didn't  realize was that when a US political leader hails a small country it makes the newspapers there. And academics respond to such challenges, despite the flattery.

So it is again today, where we read "Profits of Doom" in, of all places, the Times Higher Education, including the following excerpt:

DENMARK'S WIND TURBINES: A DANGEROUS AMOUNT OF HOT AIR

Denmark is the wind capital of the world - that's one of the reasons why Copenhagen was chosen to host the great climate change conference last year. Between 1985 and 2005, more than 3GW of wind-turbine capacity was installed, of which about 15 per cent was sited offshore.

There are few areas on western Denmark's coast and in its flat or gently rolling countryside that are unaffected. Fortunately, the nation's agricultural community has learned to love the modern intruders - or at least the subsidies.

As the sector expanded, so did the size of the wind turbines. The latest idea is to build 20MW versions as tall as the Eiffel Tower. Each turbine requires an access road, massive concrete foundations and, of course, electricity pylons.

Wind turbines, despite being so very green themselves, are antipathetic to nature. On forested hillsides, they require the clear felling of woodland; on low-lying coastal sites, they necessitate the draining of wetland to facilitate the construction of access roads and enormous concrete foundations.

As independent energy consultant Vic Mason has pointed out, such side-effects could stimulate the oxidation of peat (releasing carbon dioxide) and damage many sensitive habitats essential for particular species of wildlife.

Until recently, the most important subsidy supporting the sector was that the Danish National Grid (and hence consumers) was obliged by law to buy all the electricity produced by wind-power projects - and to do so at prices determined by the government, not the market. That's why Danish householders must pay almost double the UK price for electricity.[NB: that's three times U.S. rates...you can mandate anything, and sometimes it can be done; but at great cost, despite the silly, free-ice-cream economics so fashionable among environmentalists and politicians]. Estimates of the costs of the subsidies differ - the Danish government says it is about DKr4 billion (£443 million) a year - but independent experts put it at about DKr10 billion a year. If the higher estimates are correct, it would mean that Denmark has been spending more on wind turbines each year than on education.

In spite of the cost, wind power generates only about 4 per cent of the electricity used in Denmark: the truth is that almost all of it is wasted.

Specialists believe that it is unrealistic to expect turbines to produce much more than 20 to 25 per cent of their potential annual output, and that has been the experience in Denmark. Sometimes there is too little wind, sometimes there is too much. Sometimes the machines are broken or being serviced and polished.

With wind turbines, a conventional power station must always provide back-up. For the Danes, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90 per cent of the installed wind-power capacity must be permanently online to guarantee supply at all times. (emphases added)

Just in time Washington is preparing to cram down its Power Grab anyway. But it's nice to see that the mythologizing does not go unchallenged.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

All In Favor of a Regluation Holiday Say "Aye."

Posted by Nicole Russell on 7.29.10 @ 2:20PM

If you needed further proof President Obama's economic stimulus package has been all but an utter failure with a few suggestions on to improve it (lest you leave the office sour) check out this piece in Forbes by a small business owner.  He's not impressed with the economic worldview of Mr. Keynes, and advocates investments be allocated to the people, not the government.

Brillant idea.

For all the talk about fiscal stimulus and jobs creation at the federal and state level, almost no one in government is doing anything about reducing the roadblocks to investment. For example, millions of people are newly unemployed, and in past recessions a large number of these folks have eschewed looking for a new corporate job and have started businesses of their own. Unfortunately, such prospective entrepreneurs will face a tangle of registration, regulatory and licensing hurdles, many of which have been backed by established businesses that want to avoid just this kind of new competition.

He then says this statement--which made me chuckle--because it's a necessity that would never happen. I'm sure he is entirely serious (and should be).

No one in government, that I have heard, has even suggested any sort of regulation holiday as a potential economic stimulus program. In fact, most of the legislative moves at the national level have made private investment less attractive.

If you need a review of Keynes' ideas check out the rap I wrote about (and take a listen, too).

1 Comment | Add a Comment

The Roe v. Wade of Immigration

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.29.10 @ 11:41AM

Jim Pinkerton wonders if yesterday's federal court ruling will trigger a firestorm like Roe v. Wade did. The people have a funny way of not liking their will trampled on.

15 Comments | Add a Comment

Holder Favors Felons Over Soldiers

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.29.10 @ 7:29AM

At the Washington Times today, we have this jaw-drop-inducing story:

"The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote.... The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges."

What the editorial doesn't describe is the content of those 2,314 words. It's amazing. The time and effort required to compile all the information, and the obvious priority the Obamites made it, really show the highly politicized cast of mind of this administration. The section includes a state-by-state list of where felons can call or write in order to try to get their voting privileges back. Yet, I repeat, this should be NO business of the Justice Department. It has no statutory or constitutional role to play in helping felons regain voting privileges. But it DOES have a statutory requirement to help DoD ensure voting rights for the military, yet it can't even be bothered, with an entire year to do it, to post even a simple link to the new law requiring that ballots be mailed to military personnel 45 days before an election.

Along with former DoJ official Eric Eversole, who first broke this story at the Washington Times, J. Christian Adams has been way out front on this military voting issue, with all sorts of interesting information that is damning of the Civil Rights Division at Justice and especially its new Obamite overseers. (His Election Law Center blog is a treasure trove of information about all sorts of voting-related legal issues.) And Adams also is the one who blew the whistle on DoJ for its weird compulsion to help armed robbers and drug pushers and other felons gain voting privileges. The good news is that U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is fighting back on behalf of military voters.

Felons tend to vote for Democrats, like Barack Obama. The military tends to vote for Republicans. And Eric Holder's Justice Department isn't interested in justice, but in serving as a political arm of the White House and the Democratic Party. Hence the greater interest in helping felons vote than in ensuring that soldiers and sailors risking their lives for our country get a chance to exercise their rights of citizenship.

35 Comments | Add a Comment

The Day Ahead: Thursday, July 29, 2010

Posted by Max Brindle on 7.29.10 @ 7:06AM

Today on the Main Site:

The Cure for Political Dejection by Quin Hillyer: The worst of times don't have to last.

Swift Tax Dodgers by Andrew Cline: John Kerry's not alone in dodging Massachusetts taxes.

Bring Back the Duel by Christopher Orlet: Because drive-by shootings ain't what they used to be.

Cameron's Flotilla Folly by Aaron Goldstein: The new British prime minister chooses Turkey and Hamas over Israel.

Amongst the Gibbering Journalists by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.: What's with the wretches and patheticos also known as Journolists?

How the New Beetle Got Old by Eric Peters: So long to the New Beetle and its miserable 12-year run.

A Prescription for Fiscal Discipline by Rep. Paul Broun, MD: It's one medicine Obamacare won't care to cover.

You Have Reached... by Reid Collins: Whenever storms knock power out, Pepco remains in the dark.

What to Watch for:

Judge's ruling on AZ law sets stage for legal fight (Wash Post) 

Obama on the View (ABC News) 

Insurers cheat dead soldiers' families (Bloomberg) 

Americans cut back on visits to doctor (WSJ) 

US Military scrutinizes leaks for risks to Afghans (NY Times) 

Clip of the Day:

Robert Gibbs tells media to "grow some skin thats a little thicker;" full briefing below talking about Obama's "beer picnic"

Add a Comment

Ron Paul and Liberal Republicans

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.28.10 @ 4:11PM

David Frum has a post talking about liberal Republican support for Ron Paul in a recent poll of New Hampshire GOP primary voters. Although Paul's conservative supporters would say the Good Doctor is self-evidently more right-wing than Newt Gingrich, that's pretty consistent with the exit poll results from the 2008 primary. I made note of the data in my review of Bill Kauffman's Ain't My America for Reason (skip to the third paragraph).

Of course, Ron Paul wasn't the top choice of liberal Republicans in New Hampshire. That honor went to the winner of the New Hampshire primary and the eventual 2008 GOP nominee: John McCain. (Incidentally, I think Mitt Romney's lead in the early New Hampshire polls probably reflects his roots as a New England governor and McCain's absence from the race more than it says anything about his perceived economic competence, though there could be some data that proves me wrong.)

101 Comments | Add a Comment

Federal Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona Immigration Law

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.28.10 @ 2:34PM

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction preventing several sections of Arizona's new immigration law from going into effect tomorrow as scheduled, at least pending the court's ability to hear the full case. According to the Arizona Republic the provisions that have been supsended include:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."

• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)

• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

The Obama administration has filed a federal lawsuit to have the Arizona statute overturned, at least partly on preemption grounds. They had hoped to win this injunction to keep it from being implemented first.

35 Comments | Add a Comment