27 October 2009
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Crist and Cato [Cato at Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 05:29P.M.
Florida’s airwaves are alive with the sound of Governor Charlie Crist’s
radio advertisement trumpeting his grade of “A” on Cato’s “Fiscal Policy
Report Card on America’s Governors.”
I am pleased that Gov. Crist values Cato’s ratings because we work hard
to make them accurate and nonpartisan. But the radio ad is making
many fiscally conservative Floridians scratch their heads because of the
governor’s recent policy actions.
The governor earned his Cato grade in last year’s report mainly because
of his large property tax cuts and moderate spending approach. The
grade was based purely on quantitative data on revenues, general fund
spending, and tax rate changes.
However, since I wrote the report in mid-2008, the governor seems to
have fallen off the fiscal responsibility horse.
In particular, Crist approved a huge $2.2 billion tax increase for the fiscal
2010 budget, even though he had promised that $12 billion in federal
“stimulus” money showered on Florida over three years would obviate
the need for tax increases.
About $1 billion of the tax increases are on cigarette consumers, which
will particularly harm moderate-income families. The rest of the
increases are in the form of higher costs for often mandatory services,
such as automobile registration, which is really just a sneaky form of tax
increases.
These tax increases will be particularly painful to Floridians in the short-
term because of the recession. But Crist has also jeopardized the state’s
long-term finances with his expanded subsidies for hurricane insurance.
Hurricanes are a major challenge in Florida, but giving big subsidies to
coastal property owners, driving private insurers out of the state, and
guaranteeing a massive state bailout when the next hurricane hits strikes
me as the height of fiscally irresponsibility.
More on the Crist campaign here.
1
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Real Story Behind the
Chrysler Bankruptcy [Cato at
Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 03:24P.M.
If you worry about the abuse of executive power and declining respect
among elected officials for the rule of law, you should watch this
eloquent illumination of what really went down in the Chrysler
bankruptcy earlier this year. The speaker is Richard Mourdock,
Treasurer of the state of Indiana. The setting is a Cato Institute policy
forum on October 15 about the “sordid details of the Bush/Obama auto
industry intervention.”
As state treasurer, Mourdock is the person responsible for investment
decisions concerning Indiana’s state employee pension funds, some of
which owned a small share of Chrysler’s $6.9 billion in secured debt and
some of which opposed the administration’s offer of $.29 on the dollar
for that debt. Though these small secured holders were publicly
castigated by President Obama as “unpatriotic” and unwilling to sacrifice
for the greater good, Mourdock led the effort to stop the “sale” of
Chrysler all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mourdock’s presentation gives a flavor for the tactics employed by the
Obama administration to “encourage” senior, priority creditors to back
off their claims so that chosen parties could take priority—tactics that
included backroom reminders that some of those creditors had received
and might seek more TARP funding, threats of bringing the full weight
and measure of the White House press office to bear down on dissenters,
public condemnation, and other forms of arm-twisting most Americans
would find unseemly for a U.S. presidential administration.
At the Cato event, Mr. Mourdock was joined by University of
Pennsylvania Law School professor and corporate law expert David
Skeel, who demonstrated quite clearly that the “sale” of Chrysler, as
orchestrated by the Obama administration under cover of Chapter 11
bankruptcy reorganization, was indeed a sham sale. Skeel’s presentation
begins at 20:15 of this video.
If you want to have a better sense of what’s going on in Washington (or
to affirm your worries), I recommend you watch Mourdock here, listen to
Mourdock here, read the Indiana Pensioners’ petition for Writ of
Certiorari (appeal to the Supreme Court), and read the Cato Institute’s
amicus brief in support of the Indiana pensioners here.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 27 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS 1,000 Troops = $1 Billion/Year

ATR Energy Tax Hike Series [Cato at Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 01:18P.M.
Analysis of “Outer Continental
There is a useful math lesson buried near the end of Greg Jaffe and
Shelf Drilling” [Americans for Karen DeYoung’s widely discussed story on an Afghan war game that the
Obama administration is using to weigh the costs and risks of competing
Tax Reform“Outer Continental strategies.

Shelf Drilling”] One question being debated is whether more U.S. troops
OCT 26, 2009 02:52P.M. would improve the performance of the Afghan government by
providing an important check on corruption and the drug
Americans for Tax Reform’s updated Energy Tax Analysis looks at the trade, or would they stunt the growth of the Afghan
new taxes, fees, and regulations being proposed by the 111th Congress government as U.S. troops and civilians take on more tasks
and Obama Administration. In July 2008, Presi... that Afghans might better perform themselves. Another
factor is cost. The Pentagon has budgeted about $65 billion to
maintain a force of about 68,000 troops, meaning that each
additional 1,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan would
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS cost about $1 billion a year.

Monday’s Daily News [The Club
for Growth]
OCT 26, 2009 02:51P.M.
WSJ Editorial: The spending rolls on...
Looks like Harry Reid is going to fight for an “opt-out” public option.
Sally Pipes writes about the middle class tax heist of 2009.
Steve Forbes shares his thoughts on California, climate change, and
credit agencies.
Tom Coburn is telling the GOP to hold the pork.
A Democratic polling firm talks with the tea partiers.
Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on the top 10 issues, says
Rasmussen.
Duncan Currie takes a closer look at the uninsured.
NY-23: The NRCC will continue its attack on Doug Hoffman.
POLL: 56% think Obama is not making the economy better.
I haven’t seen this figure before, and it is based upon a back-of-the-
envelope calculation that might be undone by economies of scale. It is
not obvious, for example, that the first 1,000 troops would cost the same
as the last 1,000. Still, it is a reasonable estimate that is apparently being
used inside of the Obama administration.
Accepting the number as basically accurate, the question then turns to
“Is it worth it?” That can only be answered by weighing the opportunity
costs.
If the Obama administration goes along with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s
request for more troops, and therefore chooses to spend additional
money on this mission, the administration is saying, in effect, that an
expanded troop presence will do more to prevent a repeat of 9/11 than if
the money had been spent on countless other missions and programs
ostensibly directed to the same purpose.
Count me a skeptic. There is considerable evidence that a large-scale and
open-ended troop presence is counterproductive to fighting terrorism.
Meanwhile, there have been a number of highly effective
counterterrorism programs that cost far, far less than even $1 billion a
year. The proponents of a huge troop increase in Afghanistan obviously
disagree, and thus implicitly claim that $40 billion is money well spent
(for reference, the entire Dept. of Homeland Security budget for FY 2010
will total $42.8 billion).
Let the advocates for a larger troop presence attempt to make that case.
At least now we have a tangible measure for weighing competing options.
Thanks to Jaffe and DeYoung for shedding some light on a previously
under-reported statistic.

2
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 27 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Poll Data on the NY-23 Race
On Tonight’s Kudlow Report
[The Club for Growth]
[Larry Kudlow’s Money OCT 26, 2009 01:02P.M.

Politic$] Here’s more poll data (PDF) on the NY-23 race. Sorry for the PDF
OCT 26, 2009 01:15P.M. format. It’s still hot off the presses, and would have taken too long to
convert into HTML.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

CFG Poll: Hoffman Leading in

NY-23 [The Club for Growth]
OCT 26, 2009 12:13P.M.
This evening at 7pm ET:

GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE? Hoffman Surges Into Lead in

The latest on what could become the largest government takeover in U.S.
history. NY-23
New CFG Poll shows Hoffman 31.3%, Owens 27.0%,
NBC News Kelly O’Donnell reports. Scozzafava 19.7%

***We’ll also have an exclusive interview with Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz).

A LOOK AT THE BANKS & TOO BIG TOO FAIL
CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman reports.
WHY IS GOLDMAN SACHS STILL A BANK?
CNBC On-Air editor Charlie Gasparino will join us.
Washington - A poll released today by the Club for Growth
shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging
into the lead in the special election in New York’s 23rd
congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former
congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

THE DOLLAR, FED & THE MARKETS The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009,
shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill
Panel: Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and
22% undecided. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No
*CNBC’s Rick Santelli information was provided about any of the candidates prior
*Politico’s Eamon Javers to the ballot question.
*David Goldman
This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-
PICOWER: DEATH OF A MADOFF ASSOCIATE 23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate
CNBC’s Mary Thompson reports. to show an increase in his support levels in each successive
poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.
Please join us. The Kudlow Report. 7pm ET. CNBC.
“Hoffman now has a wide lead among both Republicans and
Independents, while Owens has a wide lead among
Democrats. Dede Scozzafava’s support continues to collapse,
making this essentially a two-candidate race between
Hoffman and Owens in the final week,” concluded Basswood
Research’s pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for
the Club.

3
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
German Masochists [Cato at
Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 12:08P.M.
A handful of guilt-ridden wealthy Germans are asking to pay more tax
according to a BBC report. They could just give their money to the state,
of course, but they want to impose their self-loathing policies on all
successful Germans. The amusing part of the story is that these
dilettantes were puzzled that so few people showed up to their protest.
Maybe next time they could do some real redistribution and announce
that they will be tossing real banknotes in the air:
A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the
government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes. The group say they
have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund
economic and social programmes…
Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they
want a change in the whole approach.
…The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin’s
Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a
fortune of more than 500,000 euros. If they all paid the tax for two
years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes,
education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a
brewery. Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was
supporting the proposal because he had inherited “a lot of money I do
not need”. He said the tax would be “a viable and socially acceptable way
out of the flagrant budget crisis”. The group held a demonstration in
Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake
banknotes into the air. Mr Vollmer said it was “really strange that so few
people came”.
But not all tormented rich people live in Germany. A few months ago, I
had a chance to debate an American version of this strange subspecies.
4
27 October 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The Political Power Of Public
Sector Unions [Americans for
Tax Reform]
OCT 26, 2009 11:49A.M.
Last week’s Weekly Standard investigated the growing political power of
public sector unions, and the disasterous effects this has on jobs & the
economy. They note that “Public sector unions ...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
State ‘Opt-Out’ Proposal: a Ruse
within a Ruse [Cato at
Liberty‘Opt-Out’ Proposal: a
Ruse within a Ruse]
OCT 26, 2009 10:35A.M.
President Obama and his congressional allies want to create yet another
government-run health insurance program (call it Fannie Med) to cover
yet another segment of the American public (the non-elderly non-poor).
The whole idea that Fannie Med would be an “option” is a ruse.
Like the three “public options” we’ve already got – Medicare, Medicaid,
and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – Fannie Med would
drag down the quality of care for publicly and privately insured patients
alike. Yet despite offering an inferior product, Fannie Med would still
drive private insurers out of business because it would exploit implicit
and explicit government subsidies. Pretty soon, Fannie Med will be the
only game in town – just ask its architect, Jacob Hacker.
Now the question before us is, “Should we allow states to opt out of
Fannie Med?” It seems a good idea: if Fannie Med turns out to be a
nightmare, states could avoid it.
But the state opt-out proposal is a ruse within a ruse.
Taxpayers in every state will have to subsidize Fannie Med, either
implicitly or explicitly. What state official will say, “I don’t care if my
constituents are subsidizing Fannie Med, I’m not going to let my
constituents get their money back”? State officials are obsessed with
maximizing their share of federal dollars. Voters will crucify officials who
opt out. Fannie Med supporters know that. They’re counting on it.
A state opt-out provision does not make Fannie Med any more moderate.
It is not a concession. It is merely the latest entreaty from the Spider to
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
the Fly.
(Cross-posted at National Journal’s Health Care Experts blog.)
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Fact-checking Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey [Cato at Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 10:32A.M.
I appeared on the CNN program Lou Dobbs Tonight last Thursday (Oct.
22) to discuss the medical marijuana issue and the drug war in general.
There were two other guests: Peter Moskos from John Jay College and
the organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and
Barry McCaffrey, retired General of the U.S. Army and former “Drug
Czar” under President Bill Clinton.
I was really astonished by the doubletalk coming from McCaffrey. Watch
the clip below and then I’ll explain two of the worst examples so you can
come to your own conclusions about this guy.
Doubletalk: Example One:
Tim Lynch: “Some states have changed their marijuana laws to allow
patients who are suffering from cancer and AIDS–people who want to
use marijuana for medical reasons–they’re exempt from the law. But
there’s a clash between the laws of the state governments and the federal
government. The federal government has come in and said, ‘We’re going
to threaten people with federal prosecution, bring them into federal
court.’ And what the [new memo from the Obama Justice Department]
does this week is change federal policy. Basically, Attorney General Eric
Holder is saying, ‘Look, for people, genuine patients–people suffering
from cancer, people suffering from AIDS–these people are now off limits
to federal prosecutors.’ It’s a very small step in the direction of reform.”
Now comes Barry McCaffrey: “There is zero truth to the fact that the
Drug Enforcement Administration or any other federal law enforcement
ever threatened care-givers or individual patients. That’s fantasy!”
Zero truth? Fantasy? This report from USA Today tells the story of
several patients who were harassed and threatened by federal agents.
Excerpt: ”In August 2002, federal agents seized six plants from [Diane]
Monson’s home and destroyed them.”
This report from the San Francisco Chronicle tells the story of Bryan
Epis and Ed Rosenthal. Both men, in separate incidents, were raided,
arrested, and prosecuted by federal officials. The feds called them “drug
dealers.” When the cases came to trial, both men were eager to inform
their juries about the actual circumstances surrounding their cases–but
they were not allowed to convey those circumstances to jurors.
Federal prosecutors insisted that information concerning the medical
aspect of marijuana was “irrelevant.” Both men were convicted and
5
27 October 2009
jailed.
This report from the New York Times tells readers about the death of
Peter McWilliams. The feds said he was a “drug dealer.” McWilliams also
wanted to tell his story to a jury, but pled guilty when the judge told him
he would not be allowed to inform the jury of his medical condition.
Excerpt: “At his death, Mr. McWilliams was waiting to be sentenced in
federal court after being convicted of having conspired to possess,
manufacture and sell marijuana…. They pleaded guilty to the charge last
year after United States District Judge George H. King ruled that they
could not use California’s medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215,
as a defense, or even tell the jury of the initiative’s existence and their
own medical conditions.” The late William F. Buckley wrote about
McWilliams’ case here.
Imagine what Diane Monson, Bryan Epis, Ed Rosenthal, and Peter
McWilliams (and others) would have thought had they seen a former top
official claim that federal officials never threatened patients or
caregivers?!
Doubletalk: Example Two:
Tim Lynch: “After California changed its laws to allow the medical use
of marijuana, [General Barry McCaffrey] was the Drug Czar at the time
and he came in taking a very hard line. The Clinton administration’s
position was that they were going to threaten doctors simply for
discussing the pros and cons of using marijuana with their patients. That
policy was fought over in the courts and [the Clinton/McCaffrey] policy
was later declared illegal and unconstitutional for violating the free
speech of doctors and for interfering with the doctor-patient
relationship. This was the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
a case called Conant – “C-O-N-A-N-T.”
Lou Dobbs: “The ruling stood in the Ninth Circuit?”
Tim Lynch: “Yes, it did.”
Now comes Barry McCaffrey: “That’s all nonsense!”
Nonsense? Really?
Go here to read the New York Times story about McCaffrey’s hard-line
policy.
The Conant ruling can be found here. The name of the case was initially
Conant v. McCaffrey, but as the months passed and the case worked its
way up to the appeals court, the case was renamed Conant v. Walters
because Bush entered the White House and he appointed his own drug
czar, John Walters, who maintained the hard line policy initiated by
Clinton and McCaffrey.
I should also mention that Conant was not an obscure case that
McCaffrey could have somehow ”missed.” Here’s a snippet from another
New York Times report: “The Supreme Court, in a silent rebuff on
Tuesday to federal policy on medical marijuana, let stand an appeals
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 27 October 2009

court ruling that doctors may not be investigated, threatened or
punished by federal regulators for recommending marijuana as a
medical treatment for their patients.” The point here is that the case was
covered by major media as it unfolded.
When our television segment concluded, Lou Dobbs asked me some
follow-up questions and asked me to supply additional info to one of his
producers, which I was happy to do.
want from their ISPs and let ISPs and content companies do unmediated
battle with one another to create and capture the greatest value from the
Internet ecosystem.
If the FCC were to reduce its power by freeing up more wireless
spectrum—either selling it as property or dedicating it to commons
treatment—competition to provide Internet service would strengthen
consumers’ hands.

Whatever one’s view happens to be on drug policy, the historical record

is there for any fair-minded person to see — and yet McCaffrey looked
right into the camera and denied past actions by himself and other FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
federal agents. And he didn’t say, “I think that’s wrong” or “I don’t
remember it that way.” He baldly asserted that my recounting of the facts How Cap and Tax will Hurt
was “nonsense.” Now I suppose some will say that falsehoods are spoken
on TV fairly often–maybe, I’m not sure–but it is distressing that this Wyoming [Americans for Tax
character held the posts that he did and that he continues to instruct
cadets at West Point! Reform]
OCT 26, 2009 09:38A.M.
My fellow panelist, Peter Moskos, has a related blog post here and he had
a good piece published in the Washington Post just yesterday. For more In our continuing, daily, state by state, look at the financial impact of the
Cato scholarship on drug policy, go here. Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Tax Bill, we will show you the projected
losses in Gross State Product, Personal Income, and N...
<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie”
value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Lycc6aMdiYc&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1″></param><param
name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param
name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></param><embed FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Lycc6aMdiYc&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1″
type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” Judging by the Spending “There
allowScriptAccess=”always” width=”425″
height=”344″></embed></object> is No Recession in Washington”
[Americans for Tax Reform]
OCT 26, 2009 09:26A.M.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
The following is cross-posted at www.fiscalaccountability.org: If you
‘Net Neutrality’ Regs: Corporate thought that after the bailouts and the “stimulus” package, lawmakers on
the Hill would excercise moderation when it c...
Interests Do Battle [‘Cato at
Liberty]
OCT 26, 2009 10:27A.M.

Some people have labored under the impression that “net neutrality”
regulation was about the government stepping in to ensure that large
corporations would not control the Internet. Now that the issue is truly
joined, it is clear (as exhibited in this Wall Street Journal story) that the
debate is about one set of corporate interests battling another set of
corporate interests about the Internet, each seeking to protect or
strengthen its business model. The FCC is surfing the debate pursuing a
greater role for itself, meaning more budget and power.

Tim Lee’s paper, The Durable Internet, dispels the idea that owners of
Internet infrastructure can actually control the Internet. The preferred
approach to “net neutrality” is to let Internet users decide what they

6
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 27 October 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS attracting a lot of attention in many of the key state races right now —
like the governor’s race in New Jersey, where unemployment is also
Hutchison Talks Healthcare hovering around 10 percent. The idea is also looming large in Virginia, as
well as in some of the early skirmishing in California.
Takeover [Larry Kudlow’s
If it’s happening in the states, when will Washington finally get the
Money Politic$] message?
OCT 26, 2009 08:18A.M.

Is the government’s insurance plan back from the dead?

Here’s my interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican

Senator and gubernatorial candidate, on the government’s attempt to
takeover the U.S. healthcare system.

The interview begins at the 3:04 mark.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Why Not Cut Taxes and

Spending? [Larry Kudlow’s
Money Politic$]
OCT 26, 2009 08:15A.M.

Here’s a question: If unemployment is the problem, then why aren’t

supply-side tax cuts, along with tougher government budgetary
restraints, a possible solution?

Top Obama economic advisor Christy Romer delivered a very gloomy

forecast to Congress late last week. She said that unemployment will
remain at a “severely elevated level” and that the U.S. jobs market will
stay painfully weak next year. She was just being honest. Romer even
said the Obama stimulus plan will not contribute much to economic
growth next year.

So the administration is searching for a jobs-recovery plan, just like the

rest of the country. Meanwhile, big-government spending and temporary
tax credits have not worked, by the administration’s own admission.
That’s basically what Ms. Romer was saying.

So why not try something different? Why not go for lower tax rates
across-the-board on individuals, businesses, and investors? Why not go
for permanent tax cuts that will create new growth incentives? To
paraphrase economist Art Laffer, if it pays more, after tax, to work,
produce, and invest, folks will work, produce, and invest more. It’s
worked in the past. And I believe it will work again.

Incidentally, this idea of cutting spending and cutting tax rates is