Today, in 1960, To Kill a Mockingbird was published. By an awesome coincidence, Bull Conner was celebrating his 63rd birthday. He probably didn’t realize his world had ended.

Despite Elena Kagan’s impressive “evasiveness,” observers have noted a loose and shifting commitment to the principle of free speech. But her position, and that of liberal legal academics, is really quite simple: She favors free speech for the right people but not for the wrong people, for the right interests but not for the wrong interests.

The whole project of modern liberalism has been to distribute “rights” in ways that liberals deem socially valuable. This rejects the founders’ view that God and/or Nature endowed individuals with rights, which governments are instituted to protect. Twentieth century progressives and liberals believed instead the governments distribute rights according to elites’ sense of social good.

The founders had a holistic, “seamless garment” view of rights. The made no distinction between property rights and free speech rights. Rather, land, capital, money or other tangible economic rights were simply one facet of “property,” which included anything, tangible or intangible, to which one could claim ownership. This is the meaning of the Latin root of the word, proprius, a possessive pronoun meaning “mine.” When John Locke used the term “property,” he meant this—everything to which one had a right. When he spoke of land, capital, chattels, or money, he used the term “estates.”

James Madison echoed this in a 1792 essay. “It embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage…. A man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

(more…)

LeBron James has decided to move to Florida and play for the Miami Heat rather than bear another season with the Cavaliers.

Everybody is piling on: How could a dude with a tattoo of the word loyalty on his chest abandon “the mistake on the lake?”

But LeBron is only doing what more than half of Cleveland’s population has done over the in the last 60 years: Getting the hell out of the place.

He didn’t leave because of money, though some analyses show that he can take home more in pay in Florida despite a lower salary. Ohio used to be one of the lowest-tax states in the country. Now it’s one of the highest.

That’s what Clevelanders should be outraged about. Their economy has enough to deal with already without being put in a full court press by high taxes.

Cleveland needs to get rid of its savior complex. LeBron James could never have saved Cleveland–no single sports star or entrepreneur or bailout can–but there are definite, proven steps that any city can take to improve
life for its citizens.

Reason.tv highlighted a whole host of possible steps in our series “Reason Saves Cleveland” available at www.reason.tv.

(more…)

Liberals, progressives, socialists, statists, communists — all enemies of civilization argue all issues on the basis of moral relativism, one odious derivation of which is multiculturalism.  There are many arguments for why such principles are wrong.  But perhaps the most obvious problem with moral relativism and its counterparts is that from which moral relativism springs: the idea that there is no objective truth.

If there is no objective truth as the Sophists argue, then how can the statement that there is no objective truth be true?  If nothing is true, then how can the assumption be made that it is true that there is no such thing that is truly inherently good or inherently bad, or that it is true that there is no culture that is truly better than any other culture?  To argue in favor of moral relativism or multiculturalism requires a belief that there is objective truth; this is a conundrum that Leftists cannot argue away.

(more…)

There are many who argue that President Obama has (repeatedly) broken his promise to bring transparency and openness to the White House.  In literal terms, however, Obama may not have actually broken that specific promise (as opposed to all the others he has broken), it’s just that people may not have understood what Obama meant by transparency and openness.

For example, President Obama’s ”openness and transparency” is really open and transparent if you break it down into three categories:

Category One: Everything’s in the open, you’re just looking in all the wrong places

An example of this would be the current flap over White House staffers meeting with lobbyists.  Obama’s staffers are meeting with lobbyists in the open, it just happens to be away from the White House—at Starbucks. You see, it’s not the President’s fault the press corp doesn’t follow White House staff to get a cup of coffee.  Why wouldn’t the press think his staff would meet with lobbyists in the open over cups of iced mocha frappuccinos?

Category Two:  The I-openly-don’t-give-a-d**n openness

Two recent examples of Obama’s I-openly-don’t-give-a-d**n openness came just this week when the administration openly (but without explanation) released 10 Russians who had been spying on the U.S. for years and only hours after pleading guilty in U.S. Court, as well as Attorney General Eric Holder’s running of a racist “color blind” Justice Department.

Category Three:  The by-the-time-you-connect-the-dots-it-will-be-too-late openness and transparency

(more…)

For the last few decades sports teams across the country have nosed up to the public trough and demanded that states and cities chip in millions for the construction of new sports stadiums. To justify the public expense the claim has been made that these monstrous construction projects bring a wealth of jobs and spending on entertainment and are a boon to any city that will fund them. But are they? Do these multi-million dollar projects bring such lucrative benefits to the cities and states that pay through the nose for them?

For many years the “economic boom” idea of building stadiums seemed to make sense and city after state pumped billions of taxpayer’s dollars into such projects. But starting in the early 2000s, economists began to have enough data to show that the claims of beneficial end result of building stadiums was not as advertised.

In fact, these days economists that disagree amongst each other about so much have developed a wide consensus based on the belief that sports teams in and of themselves are not great economic engines for a city and that building giant new stadium complexes are not the automatic boon to the area such as they were sold.

The reason that these stadiums are not as great an investment as previously thought is threefold according to Andrew Zimbalist, the Robert A. Woods professor of economics for Smith College and renowned sports economist. Zimbalist spoke in early 2009 to Freakanomics author, Stephen J. Dubner in the pages of The New York Times.

For one thing, Zimbalist says, the money that will be spent on the events held at the new sports arena or stadium is money spent by local residents. This is not new money but money that would simply have been spent on other entertainment in the metropolitan area if the stadium didn’t exist. Secondly, the big money that goes to players, owners and investors does not stay in the area but is invested elsewhere. Third, the city or state is often chipping in up to a third of the continuing costs and this is tax money wasted, not revenue made.

(more…)

Click to Play

This week we are joined by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and Ricochet legal gurus John Yoo and Richard Epstein on Kagan. We also discuss the large, ever growing, Fed (hence the title), and what we must do to stop it.

We also cover discuss human behavior and parking lot of Target, the psychology of motorcades, and offer some predictions on taxes (guess!). All this and more, free of charge.

Here’s your patented Ricochet Podcast Rundown™:

00:00 – 29:13 Opening Chat
29:15 – 49:55 Tim Pawlenty
51:37 -  1:20:50  Richard Epstein and John Yoo
1:21:00 – End   Closing chat

Today, in 1778, King Louis XVI of France declared war on Great Britain. It was one of the decisive blows of the American Revolution.

(Happy Birthday Libby!)

A complaint filed July 7, 2010 indicates ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera (seen here in the ACORN San Diego investigation) is suing James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles in federal court for at least $75,000.  Vera alleges Giles and O’Keefe violated the Invasion of Privacy Act when they videotaped him giving advice regarding underage prostitution to the fake pimp and prostitute in 2009.

You can view the whole complaint here at Last Blog on Earth.

Vera worked at the National City ACORN branch, which was also the site of the document dump scandal (chronicled here) where ACORN employees discarded thousands of documents containing social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, immigration records, tax returns, etc. in a public dumpster ahead of Jerry Brown’s investigation of the community organizing group. (more…)

On this week’s Health Care News podcast, Avik Roy, one of the most insightful writers about health care policy today, took the time to discuss with me the White House’s decision to bypass the nomination process of the U.S. Senate to recess appoint Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Listen to it here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

People have asked me this week why this recess appointment is such a bad thing. Well, this video clip shows why, in an honest expression of the anti-market views Berwick holds from the man himself. Here’s what he says:

“Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I do not agree. I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, consumer choice among an array of products with competitors’ fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.”

These two paths run in opposite directions: the path toward market based solutions, where people direct their own care with their doctors, making decisions for themselves, and the path toward bureaucracy based solutions, where unelected experts — “leaders with plans” — determine people’s care, making decisions for them. Berwick is clear about which path he believes America must follow.
(more…)

…if you match up what James’ salary would be for the first five years in Cleveland and the five years in Miami, you find that the Cavaliers are only offering him $4 million more. That advantage gets erased — and actually gives the Heat the monetary edge over — when you consider the income tax difference. …Playing in Cleveland, LeBron would face a state income tax of 5.925 percent, plus a Cleveland city tax of two percent. Over the first five years of a new contract with Cleveland, James would give back $3,953,060 combined to the state and city for the 41 games each season he’d play at home. But James would have to pay none of that for home games in Miami since Florida doesn’t have an income tax. Athletes have to pay income taxes to states that they play in on the road, so the games he’ll play away from home — whether he played for Cleveland or Miami — are essentially a wash. But there are, on average, 11 away games per season where James would have to pay Ohio and Cleveland taxes. Why? Because he has to pay when he plays in the six areas – Florida, Texas, Washington D.C., Illinois, Toronto and Tennessee – that have no jock taxes. That’s another $1,061,128 he’ll have to pay in taxes that he wouldn’t have to pay in Miami.

This marks the 150th episode of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca. It’s been our pleasure to grow from a few hundred to a few thousand listeners over the past two years, and we’d like to thank our sponsors, Stephen Clouse Associates and Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. Today we’re talking about Obama’s “Recovery Summer,” China, Tyranny Day, and why Leaders with Plans are smarter than you.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

TNL: On the Recess Appointment of Donald Berwick
The Hill: Economy Not Cooperating With “Recovery Summer” Storyline
Politico: On the White House Anti-Business Agenda
WSJ: Where’d You Get The Idea They’re Anti-Business?
Goldberg: See You Next Tyranny Day!
TNL: The Coming Credit Takeover

“You know we don’t carry batons…. PSYCHE! Heh heh heh… I’m just playin’” – Malik Zulu Shabazz, Preident of The New Black Panther Party.

The Justice Department has seen fit to drop voter intimidation charges against Malik Shabazz’ New Black Panther Party’s involvement in the now infamous events at a polling place in Philadelphia on November 4, 2008. In light of the recent testimony by former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the story is gaining further attention and scrutiny.

Now, Breitbart.tv is featuring a newly discovered video showing Shabazz boasting about his organizations intentions that day in Philadelphia.

“There were strong intelligence indicators that there was going to be some trouble at the polls and we wanted to make sure the police were not harassing our people so we wanted to go out and do what we could. It’s just that sometimes the New Black Panther Party, sometimes, whatever we do we just tend to do it kinda strong.”

Finally, Shabazz instructs his disciples that as soon as a “Black man” took over the Justice Department the charges were thrown out.

(more…)

The Hill revealed yesterday that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and three other Chicago Democrats have written a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, asking him to release $70 million in federal TARP funds to bail out ShoreBank. ShoreBank’s political patrons have made Geithner their number one target, ever since the Treasury balked on supporting one of the most brazenly corrupt bailouts of the past several years.

Photo credit: Associated Press

The media continue to report dismal economic news, raising the specter that our teetering economy may fall back into a “double-dip recession.” Continuing high unemployment is the biggest worry for most Americans. The percentage of working-age people in the labor force last month fell to 64.7 percent—the lowest figure in a quarter century.

You would think that the administration’s top priority, then, would be to foster a pro-investment, pro-hiring business atmosphere. You’d certainly not expect them to pursue policies that could push any impending recovery, fragile at best, over the “tipping point” and down into another economic chasm.

That, however, appears to be just what they’re doing.

The administration’s entire agenda—from “stimulus” spending, to government-run healthcare, to takeovers of financial institutions, to higher taxes—has spread paralyzing uncertainty throughout the investment community. But that hasn’t caused them even to slow down, let alone change course.

Consider three job-killing measures imposed by this administration in a single area: environmental regulation.

(more…)

Foul! National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health study the bias of soccer referees in calling fouls

Millions of the federal dollars misspent on cars, boats and travel by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Social Security Administration overpaid millions of dollars in Supplemental Security Income payments; Thirty percent of agency’s payments miscalculated

DOJ crime prevention programs uses poetry and rap to fight crimes involving guns and gangs

Investigation into whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration made good use of $900 million stopped because the agency’s records are “incomplete”

(more…)

In August of 2005, Houston investment banker Matt Simmons predicted in a New York Times feature article that the price of oil, then $65/barrel, would soar.

Simmons, who had written a book arguing that the world is running out of oil, was predicting oil prices “in the high triple digits.”

After reading Simmons’ prediction, John Tierney, a libertarian, who was then an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, telephoned Simmons and called him on it.  He asked him if he’d be willing to put money on his prediction.

The two made a $10,000 bet.  If the average oil price five years hence in 2010, adjusted for inflation, exceeded $200, Simmons would win. If not, Tierney would pocket the ten grand.

We’re now into the second half of 2010, and the average oil price, in 2005 dollars, is $70.  Unless there is a remarkable explosion in the oil price for the remainder of 2010, driving it well above $300, Matt Simmons loses this bet.  It was not even close.

The point here is to try and learn something from this that is relevant to what is going on today.

Simmons is an energy specialist.  The company he founded advertises itself as “the only investment bank specializing in the entire spectrum of energy.”

It’s reasonable to assume that he knows a zillion times more about exploring for and producing oil than John Tierney.   But Tierney didn’t make the bet because he felt he knew more about drilling for oil.  He made the bet because he knows something about markets and change.

(more…)

Last week’s national unemployment numbers demonstrated that the economic recovery President Obama promised us is still a ways away.  In Pennsylvania the unemployment rate increased last month hovering just above 9%.

Given these numbers, the last thing Washington politicians should be doing is supporting legislation that would cost thousands more jobs. But that is exactly what my very liberal opponent, Congressman Joe Sestak, is doing.

Not only did Congressman Sestak sponsor and vote for a cap-and-trade energy tax, he argued that the tax did not go far enough!

A cap-and-trade energy tax would impose an onerous indirect tax on the production and consumption of carbon-based energy. It would cap the amount of carbon dioxide businesses could emit, impose a penalty when the cap is exceeded, and would require that carbon emissions be cut by 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.

Independent studies have found that this would cost the country millions of jobs, but in an industrial state like Pennsylvania, the cap-and-trade tax would be even more harmful than elsewhere. Our state’s coal, natural gas and manufacturing industries would be especially hard hit.

(more…)

We landed on the moon over two generations ago, and ever since NASA has been used as intellectual support for those who think we can solve any problem with a wave of the legislative or regulatory wand.   “If government can put a man on the moon,” goes statist conventional wisdom, “it can do anything.” If you’ve ever been in a debate with a true believer in the magic of big government, you’ve probably heard some variation of this generic argument.

Despite the significant flaws in this logic, it was always difficult to convince the general public just why it was wrong.  Now, with the ridiculous admission of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that the so-called space agency’s priority is to boost Muslim self-esteem, this last fig leaf of big government has finally been removed.  Believers in grand government solutions to all social problems are left naked for all to see.

The comment itself isn’t really the big story.  Yes, it’s outrageous.  It represents everything that is wrong with the PC-obsessed, America-bashing, leftist administration currently occupying the White House.  But it’s merely the latest  in a lengthy list of NASA disappointments.  The real story is the slow, drawn-out transformation of NASA from a symbol of American exceptionalism into a national embarrassment.

Given the dramatic and iconic bang with which NASA introduced itself to the public, it’s easy to overlook that it’s a government bureaucracy just like any other.  It suffers from all the typical failings of government institutions.  Without market pressures, NASA has grown increasingly wasteful.  A recent GOA report found that 9 out of 10 assessed projects experienced cost overruns and delays.  That’s almost a perfect score in inefficiency.

(more…)