29 September 2009
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
On What Larger Theory Is
Neoconservatism Based? [Cato
at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 05:57P.M.
There have been some interesting writings coming out of AEI’s new
Center for Defense Studies recently. On Friday, Daniel Blumenthal
offered some thoughts on China. In the course of making the case that
Chinese leaders should realize that we are not trying to contain China, he
wrote the following:
If countries acted in accordance with rational actor theories
of political science, the Chinese would be pretty well assured
that we are not going to contain it. We have made clear across
administrations that we welcome China’s rise as a great
power and urge it to act as a responsible one.
But countries do not act in accordance with political science
theories.
Later in the piece, he wrote the following:
China is not the only country that is rising. So is India. But we
do not worry about India’s rise. That is because India is a
democracy. Almost everything it does is transparent to us.
We share liberal values with India, including the desire to
strengthen the post-World War II liberal international order
of open trade and investment and the general desire among
1
democracies to settle internal and external disputes
peacefully and democratically. The fact that China is not a
democracy matters greatly as it rises. It makes its rise more
disruptive as countries have to divine its intentions and
observe the gap between its rhetorical policy of a “Peaceful
Rise” and some of its actions that are inconsistent with a
peaceful rise.
He closed thusly:
Wouldn’t it be nice if China got on board with all the post-
modern, feel-good notions about international politics put
forth by the Obama Administration? In the 21st century, says
the Obama team, all countries have common interests in
confronting transnational issues like climate change and
proliferation. Sorry guys, those who lead China think 21st
century international politics will look more or less like it did
in the past. They favor good old fashioned power politics.
Unfortunately for Obama, that forces us to do the same.
There’s an awful lot of interesting stuff going on here. First, Blumenthal’s
claim that “countries do not act in accordance with political science
theories” is strangely incoherent. As his second and third quotes above
make clear, Blumenthal has a political science theory–two actually.
With respect to India, the theory he is expounding is called “liberalism”
in IR jargon. This theory places the causes of war at the so-called “second
image” level: wars occur because some states are bad and their badness
causes them to do bad things. India being a good (democratic) state
means we should be friends with it. (There is another variant of
liberalism that centers on international institutions, which is mostly but
sometimes not bound up with the democracy-focused version.)
In the latter paragraph about China, Blumenthal looks like he’s dropped
liberalism and glommed onto traditional balance-of-power realism: that
is, as a state’s power grows it wants more influence at the international
level; positions in the balance of power change in a zero-sum fashion; as
China grows richer it will seek a larger security role and we will not want
to afford it such a role. “Good old fashioned power politics,” as
Blumenthal calls it.
What’s most curious is Blumenthal’s seeming desire to dismiss the very
idea of political science theories. My colleague Ben Friedman has dealt
with this concept before, noting
efforts to weigh the costs of war inevitably involve theories of
how the world works. As my Professor Steve Van Evera likes
to point out, foreign policy makers can use good or bad
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
theories to guide their actions, but if they attempt the
slightest foresight, they cannot have none. In other words,
there is no such thing as foreign policy without foreign policy
theory.
That is, without a theory about how the world works, we would be simply
paralyzed by the prospect of issuing advice on foreign policy.
Today, Gary Schmitt at AEI wrote the following in criticizing Andrew
Bacevich:
the real, underlying point of not only this particular piece but
his views more generally is one connected to his own
particular brand of conservative Catholicism. For Bacevich,
the U.S. is too secular, too trade happy, too materialist. (”The
exploitation of women” referred in his article is not, as
presumably the Post editors thought, about “equal pay for
equal work” but more likely about the sexual objectification
of women.) You see, America is really a nation of imperfect
men, marked by original sin, who have no right to take the
lead globally. Our real concern should be with our own
failings-not American preeminence.
Taking his lead from Reinhold Niebuhr, Bacevich believes we
are on an utopian mission to remake the world–or, in this
instance, the Muslim world; it is a program that is immoral
both because it is impossible (and hence counterproductive)
given human nature and because, in pursuing it, we adopt
policies that chip away at our own morality. (The ends begin
to justify the means, etc, etc.) The more limited our ambitions
in Bacevich’s view, the less damage we do to ourselves and
others.
All of which contains a kernel of truth–but only a kernel.
Whatever problems we face domestically, it is just an
historical fact that a broader American vision abroad has
typically made us a better people at home. Nor is there any
evidence that a less expansive (and hence less expensive)
foreign and defense policy would free up monies that
2
29 September 2009
miraculously would solve a problem like poverty or second-
rate schools. To the contrary, more government funds could
well confound finding the policies that would actually help
alleviate those problems. However, the larger point is that
Bacevich and other conservative critics, like George Will, are
standing on unsound ground when they argue that the
transformative goal of the Long War is utopian. It might be
long and it might be difficult but, if anything, the evidence so
far suggests that the establishment of decent democratic
regimes is possible in all kinds of regions and in countries
with diverse cultural histories. That hardly means that failure
in the Long War isn’t possible; but to hear Bacevich and
others tell it, is inevitable. (emphasis mine)
The italicized portion above is just bizarre. In Schmitt’s reading,
spending tax dollars on welfare or education “could well confound
finding the policies that would actually help alleviate those problems.”
This is a fairly straightforward conservative argument. What’s strange is
that Schmitt makes the argument that while the U.S. government likely
could not figure out how to improve education or the general welfare in
the United States, it can parachute into faraway countries and improve
the governance over there. Or it at least ought to try, since “a broader
American vision abroad has typically made us a better people at home.”
This is, to my mind, utterly, profoundly incoherent. I think the most
important point is that we ought not to send our military overseas to kill
and die so that we can be “a better people at home.” But I wonder how
Schmitt’s view fits into the argument made by Brian Schmidt and
Michael Williams in this article. For Schmidt and Williams,
neoconservative views on foreign policy are merely an extension of their
domestic policy. To wit:
A social order based purely on narrowly egoistic interests,
neoconservatives argue, is unlikely to survive–and the closer
one comes to it, the less liveable and sustainable society will
become. Unable to generate a compelling vision of the
collective public interest, such a society would be incapable of
maintaining itself internally or defending itself externally. As
a consequence, neoconservatism regards the ideas at the core
of many forms of modern political and economic
rationalism–that such a vision of interest can be the
foundation for social order–as both wrong and dangerous. It
is wrong because all functioning polities require some sense
of shared values and common vision of the public interest in
order to maintain themselves. It is dangerous because a
purely egoistic conception of interest may actually contribute
to the erosion of this sense of the public interest, and the
individual habits of social virtue and commitment to common
values that sustain it.
I am reminded of Irving Kristol’s statement that “A nation whose politics
turn on the cost of false teeth is a nation whose politics are squalid.” It’s
something of a parlor game in IR to debate whether neoconservatism is
its own IR theory; whether it’s a theory at all, of anything; whether it’s
really just liberalism; et cetera, but what would be really good to have is a
clear statement that could be scrutinized on its own merit. Until then one
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
is left guessing or, at best, turning up weird conspiracy theories about
Leo Strauss and the University of Chicago on the internet.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Das Supply Siders [The Club for
Growth]
SEP 28, 2009 05:51P.M.
Brian Wesbury’s new commentary (pdf) talks about the nice pro-growth
results in yesterday’s German elections. Excerpt:
Angela Merkel, the current premier of Germany won
reelection this weekend. Back in 2005, Merkel’s party, the
Christian Democratic Union (CDU - a “center-slightly right”
group), had gained power by forming a coalition with the
“liberal” Social Democrats (SDP). This time, the SDP saw
their worst election returns in 60 years. This means that
Merkel will form a coalition with the Free Democrat Party
(FDP - a “somewhat free-market” group). The FDP was
nearly extinct just ten years ago, but won 14.6% of the vote
this time around, a record for their party.
The Free Democrats ran on a platform that included a
significant across-the-board cut in marginal income tax rates
– the German equivalent of the Kennedy or Reagan tax cuts.
At present, income tax rates range from 14% to 45%. The Free
Democrats want three brackets – 10%, 25% and 35%.
Lower tax rates would not only accelerate the recovery from
the recent economic turmoil but also encourage the work,
saving, and investment that Germany needs to raise its
longterm growth potential and address its massive Baby
Boom-related fiscal imbalance.
3
29 September 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Bill Frist Supports An
Individual Mandate [The Club
for Growth]
SEP 28, 2009 04:56P.M.
While claiming that he supports limited government and individual
responsibility, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader says we
need to require people to buy health insurance through an individual
mandate. He says we need to do it based, in part, on “fairness.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
“How American Health Care
Killed My Father” [“Cato at
Liberty”]
SEP 28, 2009 04:17P.M.
Not my father. David Goldhill’s father.
David Goldhill is a Democrat. He is the president and CEO of the Game
Show Network. And he’ll be speaking on health care at a Cato Institute
event on Capitol Hill this Thursday.
Why would you want to hear the president of the Game Show Network
discuss about health care reform?
Because after Goldhill’s father succumbed to a hospital-acquired
infection, Goldhill spent two years studying America’s health care sector.
The product of those efforts is “How American Health Care Killed My
Father,” an article in this month’s issue of The Atlantic that bloggers
have acclaimed as a “stemwinder” and “a fascinating read.”
Goldhill analyzes why America’s health care sector is so dysfunctional
and concludes that “this generation of ‘comprehensive’ reform will not
address the underlying issues, any more than previous efforts did.
Instead it will put yet more patches on the walls of an edifice that is
fundamentally unsound—and then build that edifice higher.”
The event will take place in room B-340 of the Rayburn House Office
Building at noon on Thursday, October 1. Click here to register.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Another “Victory” in the War on
Drugs [Cato at Liberty“Victory”
in the War on Drugs]
SEP 28, 2009 03:40P.M.
A grandmother in Indiana has been arrested for purchasing cold
medicine. We can all sleep more safely now that this hardened criminal
has been taught a lesson. The Terre Haute News reports:
When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back
in March, she never dreamed that four months later she
would end up in handcuffs.
Now, Harpold is trying to clear her name of criminal charges,
and she is speaking out in hopes that a law will change so
others won’t endure the same embarrassment she still is
facing.
…Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of
Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville
pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of
Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton
pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of
pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.
Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-
48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0
grams within any seven-day period.
When the police came knocking at the door of Harpold’s
Parke County residence on July 30, she was arrested on a
Vermillion County warrant for a class-C misdemeanor, which
carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500
fine.
4
29 September 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
PATRIOT Act Provision Used
for Drug Cases [Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 03:35P.M.
The PATRIOT Act contained a number of tools that expanded the power
of federal law enforcement officials. One of these, the “sneak and peak”
warrant, allows investigators to break into the home or business of the
warrant’s target and delay notification of the intrusion until 30 days after
the warrant’s expiration. This capability was sold to the American people
as a necessary tool to fight terrorism.
In Fiscal Year 2008, federal courts issued 763 “sneak and peak”
warrants. Only three were for terrorism cases. Sixty-five percent were
drug cases. The report is available here.
Ryan Grim has more on this, including video of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-
WI) grilling Assistant Attorney General David Kris.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Debt Aggravates Spending
Disease [Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 03:34P.M.
USA Today’s Dennis Cauchon reports that ”state governments are
rushing to borrow money to take advantage of cheap and plentiful credit
at a time when tax collections are tumbling.” That will allow them to
“avoid some painful spending cuts,” Cauchon notes, but it will sadly
impose more pain on taxpayers down the road.
When politicians have the chance to act irresponsibly, they will act
irresponsibly. Give them low interest rates and they go on a borrowing
binge. The result is that they are in over their heads with massive piles of
bond debt on top of the huge unfunded obligations they have built up for
state pension and health care plans.
The chart shows that total state and local government debt soared 93
percent this decade. It jumped from $1.2 trillion in 2000 to $2.3 trillion
by the second quarter of 2009, according to Federal Reserve data (Table
D.3).
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
Government debt has soared during good times and bad. During
recessions, politicians say that they need to borrow to avoid spending
cuts. But during boomtimes, such as from 2003 to 2008, they say that
borrowing makes sense because an expanding economy can handle
a higher debt load. I’ve argued that there is little reason for allowing state
and local government politicians to issue bond debt at all.
Unfortunately, the political urge to spend has resulted in the states
shoving a massive pile of debt onto future taxpayers at the same time
that they have built up huge unfunded obligations for worker retirement
plans.
We’ve seen how uncontrolled debt issuance has encouraged spending
sprees at the federal level. Sadly, it appears that the same debt-fueled
spending disease has spread to the states and the cities.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Limited Options in Dealing with
Iran [Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 03:19P.M.
The revelation last week of a second secret Iranian nuclear facility, and
5
29 September 2009
Iran’s test firings over the weekend of its short and medium range
missiles, bring a new sense of urgency to the long-scheduled talks
between Iran and the P-5 + 1 beginning on Thursday in Geneva. Many in
Washington hope that a new round of tough sanctions, supported by all
of the major powers including Russia and China, might finally convince
the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program.
Such hopes are naive.
Even multilateral sanctions have an uneven track record, at best. It is
difficult to convince a regime to reverse itself when a very high-profile
initiative hangs in the balance, and Iran’s nuclear program clearly
qualifies. It is particularly unrealistic given that the many years of
economic and diplomatic pressure exerted on Tehran by the U.S.
government have only in emboldened the regime and marginalized
reformers and democracy advocates, who are cast by the regime as
lackeys of the United States and the West.
But whereas sanctions are likely to fail, war with Iran would be even
worse. As Secretary Gates admitted on Sunday, air strikes against
Iranian nuclear facilities would merely degrade and perhaps delay, not
eliminate, Iran’s program. Such attacks would inevitably result in civilian
casualties, allowing Ahmadinejad to rally public support for his weak
regime. What’s more, the likelihood of escalation following a military
attack — which could take the form of asymmetric attacks in the Persian
Gulf region, and terrorism worldwide — is not a risk worth taking.
The Iranian government must be convinced that it does not need nuclear
weapons to deter attacks against the regime. It is likely to push for an
indigenous nuclear-enrichment program for matters of national pride, as
well as national interest.
The Obama administration should therefore offer to end Washington’s
diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran, and should end all efforts to
overthrow the government in Tehran, in exchange for Iran’s pledge to
forswear a nuclear weapons program, and to allow free and unfettered
access to international inspectors to ensure that its peaceful nuclear
program is not diverted for military purposes.
While such an offer might ultimately be rejected by the Iranians,
revealing their intentions, it is a realistic option, superior to both feckless
economic pressure and stalemate, or war, with all of its horrible
ramifications.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Washington Post On Net
Neutrality: Unnecessary,
Stifling, Micromanagement
[Americans for Tax Reform]
SEP 28, 2009 01:47P.M.
Today’s Washington Post Editorial asks the most pertinent question of
all regarding proposed government regulation of the internet: Is this
intervention necessary? In examining how ‘net neutrali...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
CFG PAC Endorses Hoffman
[The Club for Growth]
SEP 28, 2009 01:45P.M.
Club for Growth PAC
Endorses Hoffman in New
York Special
Washington - Club for Growth PAC today endorsed
Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special
election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District.
Hoffman, a Republican, decided to run after local GOP
leaders hand-picked liberal Assemblywoman Dede
Scozzafava as their nominee.
“After months of runaway spending, bailouts, and record
deficits, the last thing we need in Congress is another rubber
stamp for Nancy Pelosi and the liberal Democrats,” said Club
President Chris Chocola. “Doug Hoffman is the only
candidate in this race who will stand up for taxpayers and
fight to protect our freedoms in Washington.”
Hoffman, a certified public accountant and managing partner
at a Lake Placid accounting firm, has sworn-off Congressional
earmarks and pledged to oppose all tax increases if elected –
a clear distinction among the candidates in this three-way
contest. In fact, Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens both
favor higher taxes, bigger government, and more spending,
including President Obama’s failed “stimulus” package and
6
29 September 2009
big labor’s odious “Card Check” bill.
A recent poll released by Club for Growth shows a statistical
three-way tie between Hoffman, Scozzafava, and Owens.
When asked, “Would you prefer your next member of
Congress be a liberal Democrat, a liberal Republican, or a
Conservative party candidate who would align himself with
Republicans in Congress,” respondents selected the
Conservative by 36%, compared to 31% for the Democrat and
18% for the Republican.
“Doug Hoffman has an excellent chance of winning this race,”
concluded Chocola. “He offers New Yorkers a clear choice
between electing a typical Albany politician, another liberal
Democrat, or a principled leader who will fight for policies
that help to grow our economy and put our nation back on
the right track.”
PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT
AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S
COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Honduras’ Interim Government
Falls Into Zelaya’s Trap [Cato at
Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 01:23P.M.
Once again, and as a response to the return of deposed president Manuel
Zelaya to Tegucigalpa, the interim government of Honduras has
overreacted by decreeing a 45-day suspension of constitutional
guarantees such as the freedom to move around the country and the
right to assemble. The government is even imposing some restrictions on
freedom of the press. More disturbingly, today the army shut down a
radio station and a TV station supportive of Zelaya.
As I’ve written before, these measures are unnecessary,
counterproductive and unjustified. While Zelaya’s supporters are known
for repeatedly relying on violence, their actions have been so far
contained by the police and the army. Zelaya himself is secluded at the
Brazilian Embassy, and while he is using it as a command center to make
constant calls for insurrection, the authorities have so far been in control
of the situation.
One of the most troubling aspects of the suspension of constitutional
guarantees is that they effectively obstruct the development of a clean,
free, and transparent election process. Let’s remember that Honduras is
holding a presidential election on November 29th, and many regard this
electoral process as the best way to solve the country’s political impasse,
particularly at an international level.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 29 September 2009

There can’t be a free and transparent presidential election while basic FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
constitutional rights have been suspended. By adopting these self-
defeating measures, the interim government of Honduras is lending a Tonight on The Kudlow Report
hand to Zelaya and his international allies in their effort to disrupt the
country’s election process.
[Larry Kudlow’s Money
Politic$]
SEP 28, 2009 12:36P.M.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Keeping Your Doctor Will Be as

Easy as 1, 2, 3…1,788, 1789,
1,790 [Cato at Liberty…1,788,
1789, 1,790]
SEP 28, 2009 01:20P.M.
This evening at 7pm ET:

This simple little chart shows the steps needed to keep your doctor if the
ONE-ON-ONE WITH WORLD BANK PRESIDENT ROBERT
health care plan put forth by Senator Baucus becomes law. For a closer
ZOELLICK
look, click this link.

-Treasury as uber-regulator?
-King Dollar
-World economic health
-Merkel’s German election victory

Robert Zoellick, World Bank President will join us for an exclusive

interview.

REACTION TO ZOELLICK:
Was this straight from the supply-side?

*Jimmy Pethokoukis, Money & Politics Columnist with Reuters

*Robert Reich, Fmr. Labor Secretary; Author, “Supercapitalism”; CNBC
Contributor; Univ. of CA., Berkeley, Prof. of Public Policy

HEALING SIGNS?
An eye on markets and the economy.

*Robert Froehlich, Chairman of the Investment Committee for the

University of Dayton”, a $500 Million endowment; “A Bull For All
Seasons” Author
*Jason Trennert, Strategas Research Partners, Chief Investment
Strategist & Managing Partner
*Joe Battipaglia, Stifel Nicolaus Market Strategist

Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.

7
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Video on All the Tax Hikes
Considered for Obamacare
[Americans for Tax Reform]
SEP 28, 2009 12:26P.M.
...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Curbing Free Trade to Save It
[Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 12:05P.M.
In the latest example of “We had to burn the village to save it” logic, Sen.
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argues in a letter in the Washington Post this
morning that the way to “support more trade” in the future is to raise
barriers to trade today.
Brown criticizes Post columnist George Will for criticizing President
Obama for imposing new tariffs on imported tires from China. Like
President Obama himself, Brown claims that by invoking the Section 421
safeguard, the president was merely “enforcing” the trade laws that
China agreed to but has failed to follow. He scolds advocates of trade for
talking about the “rule of law” but failing to enforce it when it comes to
trade agreements. Brown concludes, “If America is ever to support more
trade, its people need to know that the rules will be enforced. And Mr.
Obama did exactly that.”
Nothing in U.S. trade law required President Obama to impose tariffs on
imported Chinese tires. As my colleague Dan Ikenson explained in a
recent Free Trade Bulletin, Section 421 allows private parties to petition
the U.S. government for protection if rising imports from China have
caused or just threaten to cause “market disruption” to domestic
producers. If the U.S. International Trade Commission recommends
tariff relief, the president can decide to impose tariffs, or not.
The law allows the president to refrain from imposing tariffs if he finds
they are “not in the national economic interest of the United States or …
would cause serious harm to the national security of the United States.”
As I argue at length in my new Cato book Mad about Trade, trade
barriers invariably damage our national economic interests and weaken
our national security, and the tire tariffs are no exception. If the
president had followed the letter and spirit of the law, he would have
rejected the tariff.
And since when is causing “market disruption” something to be
punished by law? Isn’t that what capitalism and market competition are
8
29 September 2009
all about? New competitors and new products are constantly disrupting
markets, to the discomfort of entrenched producers but to the great
benefit of the general public and the economy as a whole.
Human beings once widely practiced an economic system that
minimized market disruption. It was called feudalism.
C/P Mad About Trade
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Monday’s Daily News [The Club
for Growth]
SEP 28, 2009 11:59A.M.
THE DAILY NEWS Poor Children Learn, Teachers Unions Not
Pleased - Wshington Post Editorial Max’s Mad Mandate - Wall Street
Journal Editorial You Mislead! Fact-Checking Obama - M. Cannon & R.
Ponnuru, NRO If Air Travel Worked Like Health Care - Jonathan Rauch,
National Journal Public Option Divide Democrats on Healthcare -
Jeffrey Young, The Hill A Ripe Time For Florida’s Marco Rubio - George
Will, Washington Post Wall Street Money Rains on Chuck Schumer -
McGrane & Lerer, Politico Union Chief Pushes Tough Line on Trade -
Peter Whoriskey, WaPo Trade Liberalization Continues, But Risks
Abound - Markheim & Miller, Heritage Nanny State Doesn’t Like
Competition - David Boaz, Cato Institute Cubs 1, Giants 5 - Associated
Press
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Land Is There, the Cubans
Are There, but the Incentives
Are Not [Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 11:57A.M.
The Washington Post has an interesting story today on the program of
the Cuban government to transfer idle state-owned land to private
farmers so they can resurrect the dilapidated agricultural sector on the
communist island. As Ian Vásquez and I wrote in the chapter on U.S.
policy toward Cuba in Cato Handbook for Policymakers, before this
reform, the agricultural productivity of Cuba’s tiny non-state sector
(comprising cooperatives and small private farmers) was already 25
percent higher than that of the state sector.
At stake is an issue of incentives. Collective land doesn’t give farmers an
incentive to work hard and be productive, since the benefits of their
labor go to the government who distributes them (in theory) evenly
among everyone, regardless of who worked hard or not. While with
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 29 September 2009

private property, “The harder you work, the better you do,” as a Cuban FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
farmer said in the Post story.
A Federal Ban on Texting While
The country’s ruler, Raúl Castro, recently declared that “The land is
there, and here are the Cubans! Let’s see if we can get to work or not, if Driving? [Cato at Liberty]
we produce or not… The land is there waiting for our sweat.” However, SEP 28, 2009 10:56A.M.
it’s not a matter of just having land and lots of people. It’s also a matter
of incentives to produce. Failing to see this, as in the case of Cuba’s failed
communist model, is a recipe for failure.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

You Could Go to Jail Under

ObamaCare [The Club for
Growth]
SEP 28, 2009 11:27A.M.

Failure to buy mandated health insurance under ObamaCare could result

in a fine of $25,000 and up to a year in jail. HT: Steve Bartin In response to claims that texting-while-driving (TWD) causes traffic
accidents, Congress is considering “a federal bill that would force states
to ban texting while driving if they want to keep receiving federal
highway money.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
This approach to forcing a particular policy on the states mimics the
Pres. Obama: “Let Them Eat 1984 Federal Uniform Driving Age Act, which threatened to withhold
federal highway funds unless states adopted a 21-year-old minimum
Cake. Wait, Make that Rice legal drinking age. The justification for that law was reducing traffic
fatalities among 18-20 year olds.
Crackers. And Take Away the
A federal ban on TWD is not compelling:
Soda, Too.” [Americans for Tax
1. Federal imposition of the 21-year old minimum drinking age did not
Reform“Let Them Eat Cake. save lives.

Wait, Make that Rice Crackers.
And Take Away the Soda, Too.”]
SEP 28, 2009 11:12A.M.
While public attention focuses in on the tax increases in the Baucus
healthcare overhaul bill, the threat a tax increase on sugar sweetened
beverages got a new lease on life with a recent interview ...
2. A ban on texting might increase other distractions: adjusting the
radio, putting on makeup, eating a sandwich, reading a map, and so on.
Relatedly, the evidence that TWD causes accidents is far from
convincing. Traffic fatalities per vehicle mile travelled have declined
substantially over the past 15 years, despite the explosion in text
messaging.
3. TWD has benefits, not just costs. Truckers, for example, claim that

Crisscrossing the country, hundreds of thousands of long-

haul truckers use computers in their cabs to get directions
and stay in close contact with dispatchers, saving precious
minutes that might otherwise be spent at the side of the road.

4. If the benefits of banning TWD become clear, most states will ban on
their own.

9
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 29 September 2009

Thus laws that penalize TWD might make sense. But this is an issue for FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
states, not the federal government.
How Cap and Tax Will Hurt
C/P Libertarianism, from A to Z.
New Mexico [Americans for Tax
Reform]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS SEP 28, 2009 09:51A.M.

Youth Unemployment at 52.2% In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the
Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected
Post “Stimulus” [Americans for losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and N...

Tax Reform]
SEP 28, 2009 10:22A.M.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The New York Post yesterday ran with this staggering story on newly
released figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “The unemployment Who’s Blogging about Cato
rate for young Americans has exploded to 52.2 percent ...
[Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 09:40A.M.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS Here’s a round-up of bloggers writing about Cato research and analysis:

Is This Intervention Necessary?
[Cato at Liberty]
SEP 28, 2009 10:17A.M.
So asks the Washington Post in a cogent editorial about FCC Chairman
Jules Genachowski’s speech proposing to regulate the terms on which
broadband service is provided. (More from TLJ, Julian Sanchez, and
me.) The WaPo piece nicely dismantles the few incidents and arguments
that underlie Genachowski’s call for regulation.
As the debate about “‘net neutrality” regulation continues, I imagine it
will move from principled arguments, such as whether the government
should control communications infrastructure, to practical ones: Will
limitations on ISPs’ ability to manage their networks cause Internet
brown-outs and failures? (This is what Comcast was trying to avoid when
it ham-handedly degraded the use of the BitTorrent protocol on its
network.) Will regulation bar ISPs from shifting costs to heavy users,
cause individual consumers to pay more, and hasten a move from all-
you-can-eat to metered Internet service? We’ll have much to discuss.
• Blogging from Korea, Joseph Steinberg writes about Cato’s foreign
policy views on East Asia.
• Chris Estes defends Obama’s decision to slap a tariff on Chinese
tire imports, and cites Dan Ikenson’s research on the subject.
• A blog that just started up this summer, Political Policy takes a look
at Cato’s analysis of Obama’s health care address to Congress.
• Wes Messamore rounds up libertarian responses to the 9/12
demonstration in Washington DC.
• Y-Intercept takes a look at Jim Harper’s analysis of government
transparency.
• Bloggers at The Liberty Pen cite Michael Cannon’s research on the
“public option” provision that has been debated for inclusion in the
final health care reform bill.

10
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 29 September 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Exclusive: Zoellick on Kudlow

Report [Larry Kudlow’s Money
Politic$]
SEP 28, 2009 08:07A.M.

We’ve got a big, exclusive interview with World Bank President Robert
Zoellick on this evening’s Kudlow Report.

Mr. Zoellick is making headlines today questioning the wisdom of

giving the Federal Reserve more power over the banks. He believes that
Treasury, which is more accountable to Congress, should be given this
authority. He’s also raising big red flags over the dollar’s reserve
currency status.

CNBC. KUDLOW REPORT. 7PM ET.

11