18 July 2009
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Why (Some) Docs Support the
House Bill (So Far) [Cato at
Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 07:54P.M.
The news was unwelcome. But the timing couldn’t have been better.
Physician lobbies like the American Medical Association and the
American College of Surgeons (ACS) announced their support for the
House Democrats’ health care reform plan at the very moment that
Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf explained why
they are supporting it.
Yesterday, Elmendorf had the following exchange with Senate Budget
Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND):
Elmendorf: …In the legislation that has been reported, we
do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be
necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending
by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation
significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care
costs.
Conrad: So the cost curve in your judgement is being bent,
but it is being bent the wrong way. Is that correct?
Elmendorf: The way I would put it is that the curve is being
raised…
That’s right. The docs are supporting the Democrats’ health care plans
because the Democrats are buying them off.
The American College of Surgeons boasts that its executive committee
voted unanimously to support the House Democrats’ bill because it
would increase Medicare’s price controls so that over the next 10 years,
Medicare would pay physicians $284 billion more than under current
law. Reminds me of something New Democrat David Kendall wrote in
1994:
Not surprisingly, some specialists welcome price controls —
which would lock in their high income — and fear
competition, which might depress it. For example, the
American College of Surgeons has endorsed the single-payer
approach, which would control prices at the current level and
1
preserve surgeons’ relative value among physicians.
Of course, to pay off the docs, the Democrats will have to rob even more
people than they otherwise would.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Is an Independent Fed Better?
[Cato at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 05:05P.M.
Rep. Ron Paul now has a majority of the House of Representatives
supporting his bill for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve
system. He presented his case at a Cato Policy Forum recently, with
vigorous responses from Bert Ely and Gilbert Schwartz.
Now more than 200 economists have signed a petition calling on
Congress to “defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as
a foundation of U.S. economic stability.” The petition seems implicitly a
rebuttal to Paul’s bill.
Allan Meltzer, a leading monetary scholar and frequent participant in
Cato’s annual monetary conferences, declined to sign the petition and
explained why: “I wrote them back and said, ‘the Fed has rarely been
independent and it strikes me that being independent is very unlikely’”
in the current environment.
Cato senior fellow Gerald O’Driscoll adds:
it is not the critics of the Fed who threaten its independence,
but the Fed’s own actions. Its intervention in the economy is
unprecedented in size and scope. It is inevitable that those
actions would lead to calls for further Congressional oversight
and control.
One of the lessons here is that once you create powerful government
agencies, from tax-funded schools to central banks, there are no perfect
libertarian rules for how they should be run. The way to protect freedom
is to let people make their own decisions in civil society. Schools have to
decide what to teach, offending the values of some parents and
taxpayers. The Fed can be independent and unaccountable and
undemocratic, or it can be subject to the political whims of elected
officials; neither is a very attractive prospect.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Spend Less by Spending More
[Cato at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 05:00P.M.
From CongressDailyPM:
Reacting to a statement by former GAO Comptroller General
David Walker that “you can’t reduce costs by expanding
coverage,” [White House National Economic Council Director
Lawrence] Summers said President Obama rejects that view.
“We won’t make progress in costs without addressing access,”
Summers said.
In other news, up is down, slavery is freedom, and if she says it’s night
convince her that it’s day.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
How’d That Get in Here? [Cato
at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 04:59P.M.
Understandably, the public is a little preoccupied right now with efforts
in Washington to “reform” health care by making it much, much worse.
Fortunately, people are starting to notice that a congressional bum rush
is heading right toward them — maybe they’ll be able stop it in time.
Unfortunately, that is giving Washington a chance to sneak some other
stuff by us.
In particular, I’m thinking of the just-introduced Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act. It’s been largely ignored so far, save a little chatter
about the community college stuff it incorporates. In a simpler time, it
would have generated a fair bit of copy. After all, it will:
• end federally backed student loans that come through private
companies and make Uncle Sam the universal lender;
• greatly increase Pell Grants and peg their growth to the rate of
inflation plus 1 point;
• balloon the federal Perkins loan program;
• authorize $5 billion over two years for elementary and secondary
school facility projects, with a focus on “green” efforts;
• authorize $10 billion over ten years for Early Learning Challenge
Grants; and
2
18 July 2009
• FEL. But those savings almost certainly won’t be the $87 billion
over ten years supporters claim, a number that is no doubt
overstated as a result of budget chicanery and how quickly
government grows. And don’t expect taxpayers to benefit from
whatever savings are ultimately generated. According to the proud
declaration of SAFRA sponsor George Miller (D-CA), only $10
billion of the projected $87 billion savings is slated for deficit
reduction. The rest – breathtaking deficit be damned! – is going to
standard, feel-good government spending, including school
“modernization” projects and “early learning” grants.
• Which brings me to the community college components, which
have, unlike the rest of the bill, been getting some media play. I
wrote about them earlier this week, noting especially that they
make little sense in light of Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers
showing that positions requiring on-the-job training will grow in
much greater numbers than jobs requiring at least an associate’s
degree. What I didn’t mention was the dismal performance of
community college students, who take remedial courses in droves
and complete their programs at very low rates.
• Ah, but we’re told that this new legislation, backed wholeheartedly
by the Obama administration, is going to reform community
colleges. As David Brooks celebrates in his column today:
• The Obama initiative is designed to go right at these
deeper problems. It sets up a significant innovation
fund, which, if administered properly, could set in
motion a spiral of change. It has specific provisions for
remedial education, outcome tracking and online
education. It links public sector training with specific
private sector employers.
• Now, I thought Brooks was supposed to be a seasoned political
observer, but he seems to have swallowed the reform-y rhetoric
hook, line, and sinker. He’s seasoned enough, though, to give
himself an out with the qualifier, “if administered properly.”
• He’s gonna’ need that out, though the reform failure probably
won’t be primarily administrative; the legislation itself offers
gaping holes through which schools can escape real reform. To get
“innovation” grants, schools would simply have to agree to do such
nebulous, input-centric things as provide “student support
services” and implement “other innovative programs.” In other
words, they’d need do nothing meaningful at all.
• Unfortunately, this bill will probably become law. Few politicians
or interest groups are standing firmly against it, and with health
care storming the public’s front door few people will notice SAFRA
tiptoeing through the back. Combine that with the few people who
are writing about the bill giving it little critical thought, and its
passage seems assured.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 July 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Media Matters Still Missing the “Employee Free Choice Act”

Facts About “Card Checked” Still Bad News [“Cato at
[Americans for Tax Reform] Liberty” Still Bad News]
JUL 17, 2009 03:49P.M. JUL 17, 2009 12:13P.M.

In “rapid response” mode, the very same Media Matters blogger that One piece of good news out of Washington yesterday was the decision
attacked ATR’s interactive look at the effects of Card Check legislation among supporters of the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act to
has posted a new response. Unfortunately, ... dump a provision that would have virtually eliminated the secret ballot
in union-organizing elections.

The bill is the number-one legislative priority of major U.S. labor unions.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS It is packed with provisions aimed at making it easier for unions to
organize workplaces and halt the relentless 40-year slide in private-
American Spectator Newsmaker sector union membership.

Lunch with Senator Jim DeMint The jettisoned provision would have allowed unions to organize a
workplace simply by “persuading” a majority of workers to sign cards
[Americans for Tax Reform] saying they want a union. Of course, such a system would leave
JUL 17, 2009 02:11P.M. individual workers wide open to intimidation, as I explained in a recent
op-ed. Business-funded ads against the measure struck a cord with
Yesterday the American Spectator held a Newsmaker Lunch with voters who are understandably fond of the secret ballot, and the
Senator Jim DeMint here at the offices of Americans for Tax Reform. provision became a step too far for moderate Democrats.
Here’s the complete video footage of the event. ...
What remains of the bill is still bad news. It would reduce the typical
union-organizing election from two months to as short as five days. This
is a provision that could only be favored by the side that wants workers
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS to be deprived of the information and the time they need to make an
informed decision. And it would force employers to accept the decision
Quote of the Day [The Club for of a government arbitration panel even if the resulting union contract
would threaten the company’s survival.
Growth]
JUL 17, 2009 02:00P.M. University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein explained cogently
in a recent cover story for Cato’s Regulation magazine why the the bill is
Vice President Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving. Excerpt from fundamentally at odds with our basic constitutional rights.
Fox News:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation. People, when I say

that, look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from
going bankrupt?’” he said. “The answer is yes.” Gates Lays Down the Gauntlet
on the F-22 [Cato at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 12:10P.M.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates isn’t known for his stirring oratory, and
his speech to the Economic Club of Chicago is representative of his
understated style. But when it comes to the F-22, the SecDef’s ire shows
through.

The overarching theme of the speech was the future of the U.S. military,
a rather obvious topic. I don’t agree with all that Gates has done, and is

3
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
preparing to do. I question his fixation on population-centric
counterinsurgency and post-conflict reconstruction. I think he could
have done more to cut unnecessary weapons systems, although he
deserves credit for tackling the low-hanging fruit.
By the same token, much of the criticism leveled against Gates is unfair,
and some of it is absurd. Gates demolishes the charge that he has slashed
defense spending, by pointing out that the FY2010 budget is $534
billion, $19 billion more than in FY09. “Only in the parallel universe that
is Washington, D.C.,” Gates noted, “would that be considered ‘gutting’
defense.”
But he hasn’t shied from making some cuts, and he has taken on some
politically popular programs. And the F-22 is at the top of this list. Gates
devoted nearly a third of the speech to the F-22, and the bottom line is
this:
[I]f we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but
straightforward decision [to terminate the program at 187
aircraft] — reflecting the judgment of two very different
presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen
of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary
and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now,
when? If we can’t get this right — what on earth can we get
right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as
usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line is
a veto. And it is real.
No one reading this speech should have any doubts that Gates and
President Obama are serious. We’ll know perhaps as soon as Monday —
the Senate is supposed to vote on the McCain-Levin amendment to strip
funding for the F-22 from the Defense Authorization bill — whether
Congress is paying attention.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Penn Jillette on Health Care
Reform [Cato at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 12:06P.M.
Appearing on the “Glenn Beck Program” with ABC’s John Stossel, Cato
H.L. Mencken research fellow Penn Jillete discusses his views on health
care reform, the nanny state, Canada and more.
4
18 July 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
America Suffers When
Washington Wins [Cato at
Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 12:06P.M.
The Washington Post has a “feel-good” story about how the huge
expansion in the federal government has created a relatively strong job
market in the D.C. area.
The story mentions that the federal workforce will expand by another
200,000 during the Obama years. Yet at no point does the author bother
to mention (or perhaps even understand) that all these new bureaucrats
are financed by draining resources from the productive sector of the
economy.
A sample:
They came in droves wearing dark suits and carrying résumés
yesterday — some lined up for a block in the hot sun waiting
for the doors to open — to the only employer in this dismal
economy hiring by the thousands: the federal government.
More than 6,000 people jammed into the National Building
Museum in Washington to apply for openings at 75 agencies,
including the departments of Treasury, Homeland Security,
Justice, Veterans Affairs and Energy.
[I]n the government, added [an applicant from] Silver Spring,
“you get stability, you get great benefits and [an opportunity]
to move up and progress in your job.” The federal
government represents about one-third of the Washington
region’s $401 billion economy. Some analysts said they think
the ramp-up in federal hiring and spending will help the area
emerge from the recession before most other metropolitan
regions. From May 2008 to May 2009, the region lost 55,000
jobs. But during that same period, nearly 20,000 jobs were
created, mainly in the federal government and federal
contracting sector.
…The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that
sponsored the job fair and is surveying federal agencies to
determine their staffing needs, estimates that the government
will hire about 600,000 people over the next four years, as
many as 120,000 of whom would work in the Washington
region. The federal workforce, currently at 1.9 million, is
expected to grow to about 2.1 million during the Obama
administration, according to the Partnership for Public
Service. That is comparable to the staffing level during the
Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the
1960s.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Regulation Cures Cancer [Cato
at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 11:51A.M.
That’s the implicit message of an advocacy campaign the American
Cancer Society’s “Cancer Action Network” is running in the Washington,
D.C. Metro’s Capitol South station.
Large placards showing pictures of people people who are “NOW” health
but will “LATER” be stricken with cancer give Capitol Hill staffers
commuting in to work a clear message: Do something — anything. It’s
part of the otherworldly bubble that lobbyists and advocacy groups press
around staff and members of Congress.
The message they need — perhaps a little too complex for the subway —
is that Congress has Münchausen syndrome by proxy with respect to the
health care system.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Key Vote Alert - Trade with
China [The Club for Growth]
JUL 17, 2009 11:46A.M.
KEY VOTE ALERT
SPONSORSHIP OF BILLS CONCERNING TRADE WITH
CHINA
The Club for Growth plans to subtract points in our annual
congressional economic scorecard for the sponsorship, or co-
sponsorship of all bills introduced in the House and Senate
that impose, or threaten to impose, protectionist policies
towards China. This will be heavily weighted on our 2009
Congressional scorecard.
There are several economic concerns that U.S. lawmakers
have with China, but none of them can be resolved by
imposing a tax upon ourselves, which is exactly what a tariff
is, or otherwise restricting trade with one of the fastest
growing economies in the world. Protectionist policies would
stifle economic growth, increase prices, and cause higher
unemployment and generally lower the American standard of
living. This is especially damaging in a recession.
The bills we plan to score include, but are not limited
5
18 July 2009
to, S. 1027, sponsored by Sens. Debbie Stabenow and
Jim Bunning, and HR 2378, sponsored by Reps. Tim
Ryan and Tim Murphy.
The protectionist rhetoric has only worsened since the
economy fell into a recession. Instead of walling off
commerce, now is the time to expand commerce around the
globe, allowing American businesses to export to new
markets and providing American consumers with cheaper
imports.
Our Congressional Scorecard for the 111th Congress provides
a comprehensive rating of how well or how poorly each
member of Congress supports pro-growth, free-market
policies and will be distributed to our members and to the
public.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Friday’s Daily News [The Club
for Growth]
JUL 17, 2009 11:30A.M.
THE DAILY NEWS A Reckless Congress - Wall Street Journal
Editorial Bleeding the Economy Back to Health - Louis Woodhill, Real
Clear Markets Rank-and-File House Dems Resist Health Care Plan - P.
O’Connor, Politico Health-Reform Malpractice - Michael Tanner, Cato
Institute Understanding CBO Health Cost Estimates - Donald Marron,
Heritage Democrats Drop Key Part of ‘Card Check’ Bill - Steven
Greenhouse, NYT Bay State Rationing - IBD Editorial Pelosi Paying a
Price for Climate Bill - Soraghan and Allen, The Hill Nevada Sees an
Opening in California’s Troubles - Steve Friess, NYT What Went Wrong
With Economics - The Economist Cubs 6, Nats 2 - Associated Press
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Health Care — Very Nice [Cato
at Liberty— Very Nice]
JUL 17, 2009 11:27A.M.
The Democrats’ determination to drive us all into a single, government-
run health plan reminded me of this classic ad from the 1980s:
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 July 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Defense Pork [The Club for
219 House Members Named
Growth]
JUL 17, 2009 10:49A.M. Comrade [The Club for Growth]
JUL 17, 2009 10:15A.M.
Here’s a list of the earmarks in the House Defense appropriations bill.

Red Army: 219 House

Members Named Comrade of
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
the Month
“Card Check” Provision
Dropped from “Employee Free Washington – Recently, 219 House members voted
to pass the destructive, anti-growth cap and trade

Choice Act” [Americans for Tax bill. The 1,500-page wonder, also known as
Waxman-Markey, managed the feat of being one of

Reform] the costliest bills in American history while doing

almost nothing to meet its stated goal of reducing
JUL 17, 2009 10:27A.M. carbon emissions. Our members voted to recognize
the 8 Republicans and 211 Democrats who supported
Today marks a small victory for American workers in the battle against the bill with the Club for Growth’s Comrade of the
“Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA) – but the fight isn’t over yet. The Month award.
“Card Check&rdqu...
“Waxman-Markey is the most offensive bill to
taxpayers that has passed the House this year,” said
Club President Chris Chocola. “The federal deficit
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS has tripled in just one year. We bailed out Wall

Dems Take Another Hit on Street; we own General Motors; we passed a $780
billion stimulus only to see unemployment keep

Health Care [The Club for climbing; and now Congress wants to soak taxpayers
with higher energy costs. When does it end?”

Growth] The engineers behind Waxman-Markey want to

JUL 17, 2009 10:27A.M.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Congress’s chief budget scorekeeper cast a new cloud over
Democratic efforts to overhaul the nation’s health-care
system, telling lawmakers Thursday that the main proposals
being considered would fail to contain costs — one of the
primary goals — and could actually worsen the problem of
rapidly escalating medical spending.
drive up energy costs so that people use less of it. To
that end, the bill imposes massive new taxes, tariffs,
and regulations, and it redistributes billions of
dollars to finance corporate welfare and special
interest projects.
“Cap and trade will only result in more economic
pain and higher unemployment. The 219 members
who supported this plan truly earned the
designation of comrade,” added Chocola.

“We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be
necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending
by a significant amount,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the
Congressional Budget Office, told the Senate Budget
Committee. “On the contrary, the legislation significantly
expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs,” he
added.
The Club’s Comrade of the Month Award is given to
the politician or public figure who best embodies
big-government policies and restrictions on
economic growth. Previous winners can be viewed
here.

6
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 July 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS From the president:

Czarist Amerika [The Club for To parents, we can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail
to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel,
Growth] we must accept our own responsibilities. That means putting
JUL 17, 2009 09:50A.M. away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable
hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences,
Here’s a great video from Rep. Jack Kingston’s office: reading to our kids, and helping them with their homework. .
.

It also means pushing our kids to set their sights higher. They
might think they’ve got a pretty good jump shot or a pretty
good flow, but our kids can’t all aspire to be the next LeBron
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and
engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers.
Blue Dog: Health Care Bill I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court Justice. I want
them aspiring to be President of the United States.
Won’t Pass [The Club for
A good education would help children fulfill such aspirations.
Growth] Unfortunately, the president recently killed the D.C. school voucher
JUL 17, 2009 09:37A.M. program, an education reform empirically proven to work. Too bad those
students can’t be like President Obama’s own daughters, who attend one
Even though he’s a liberal, he’s making a lot of sense. From the Politico: of the most expensive private schools in the country.

Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a key negotiator on health care for
moderate Blue Dog Democrats, has warned that “there’s no
way they can pass the current bill on the House floor. Not
even close.”
Ross doesn’t believe the bill unveiled Tuesday comes close to
curtailing the ever-escalating costs of health care spending,
particularly for Medicare.
The conservative Arkansas Democrat also objects to the
surtaxes included in the bill, saying, “I don’t like the idea of
raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War
II.”
Make no mistake, President Obama knows exactly what he’s doing and
what his action and inaction means:
So, I know what can happen to a child who doesn’t have that
chance. But I also know what can happen to a child who does.
I was raised by a single mother. I don’t come from a lot of
wealth. I got into my share of trouble as a kid. My life could
easily have taken a turn for the worse. But that mother of
mine gave me love; she pushed me, and cared about my
education; she took no lip and taught me right from wrong.
Because of her, I had a chance to make the most of my
abilities. I had the chance to make the most of my
opportunities. I had the chance to make the most of life.

This kind of common sense eludes the majority of Democrats in the Yes, Mr. President, and you received a scholarship to attend that
House, especially the party’s leadership. wonderful school. That scholarship helped you to become president. It
would be nice if you supported funding the same kinds of opportunities
for other children in need.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Obama’s Audacious NAACP

Speech [Cato at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 09:10A.M.

President Obama’s audacious — some might say condescending

— speech to the NAACP yesterday leaves me cold. What’s most chilling is
the speech comes from a person who opposes helping poor parents
assume the most important responsibility of all, choosing the best school
for their child.

7
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
PASS ID and National ID -
Rejoinder to Schwartz [Cato at
Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 08:40A.M.
Ari Schwartz responded in characteristic even tones to my critique of his
testimony in favor of the PASS ID Act, which would revive the moribund
REAL ID law. It’s worth a rejoinder, and I’ll offer him the same again
here if he wishes.
Ari clouds matters slightly by suggesting that my “strong biases” obscure
certain facts. I readily admit having a strong bias in favor of liberty — it’s
why I do what I do. Ari admits several biases, including one in favor of
consensus-building, which was what I accused him of prioritizing over
principle. Let’s put aside the question of bias.
It’s good to see Ari state that CDT does not support a national ID system.
It would be better to see him state that CDT opposes having a national
ID system. (I imagine this is just a matter of word choice, but it would be
good to have clarity.)
Next, Ari says his testimony “makes it clear that we believe that PASS ID
prevents the creation of a National ID system.” I don’t believe this is
clear from his testimony. More importantly, this is not a sound
assessment of what a national ID is or what PASS ID does.
We need some defined terms, so let’s tease out what he means by
“national ID.” (He has told me that there is some distinction between a
“national ID,” a “national ID system,” and perhaps a “national ID card,”
but the distinction is lost on me. I believe a national ID card is part of a
national ID system, both of which are commonly referred to in
shorthand as a “national ID.”)
Twice in his testimony, he correctly calls REAL ID a national ID system.
The factors that make it so appear to be “the very real possibility that
individuals would not be able to function in American society without a
REAL ID card” and “giving unfettered discretion to DHS to expand the
‘official purposes’ for which REAL ID cards could be required.”
In my recent post on the subject, I defined a national ID as being a card:
1) nationally uniform in its key elements; 2) the possession of which is
either practically or legally required; and 3) that is used for
identification.
I think 1) and 3) are both given. Ari’s take on 2) - inability to function
without it — and my formulation — practically required — are
equivalent, so Ari and I agree on that much.
But is DHS discretion to expand “official purposes” an essential element
of a national ID card? I don’t think so.
8
18 July 2009
Let’s say Congress passes a law requiring employers to check a certain
card before they hire new workers. What if Congress requires credit
issuers to check the card? States require presentation of the card at the
voting booth? What if Congress requires pharmacists to check it before
selling people cold medicine?
Is this card system saved from being a “national ID system” because
someone other than DHS came up with these ideas? Of course not. DHS
discretion to expand usage is not what makes an ID system a “national
ID system.”
The better definition is what we agree on: A national ID is national,
identifying, and practically or legally required, meaning the lack of it
disables people from functioning in society.
Do REAL ID and PASS ID differ in ways that make the one a national ID
and the other not a national ID? No, and Ari doesn’t say so. He merely
says PASS ID would slow national ID mission creep by some margin
because it denies DHS some discretion. (PASS ID “[r]emoves from
DHS’s authority the ability to unilaterally determine new official
purposes for which a PASS ID-compliant card can be required . . . .”)
This is not central to “national ID-ness,” and PASS ID doesn’t actually
deny DHS that authority — it simply removes the specific grant of
authority in REAL ID. Removing a grant of authority in one law does not
deny an agency authority it has elsewhere. (It’s like the difference
between “not supporting” and “opposing” something.) DHS and other
agencies almost certainly have power under other law to require the IDs
they choose for functions that are plausibly related to security or fraud
prevention.
I was wrong to assume that it was lack of principle driving CDT and Ari
to endorse the PASS ID Act, which revives the our moribund national ID
law. Other explanations are no more palatable, though, and no other
group that I am aware of missed the true import of PASS ID.
Here’s a memorable Bruce Schneier quote to emphasize the importance
of opposing a national ID, which so many civil liberties groups are doing:
History will record what we, here in the early decades of the
information age, did to foster freedom, liberty and
democracy. Did we build information technologies that
protected people’s freedoms even during times when society
tried to subvert them? Or did we build technologies that
could easily be modified to watch and control? It’s bad civic
hygiene to build an infrastructure that can be used to
facilitate a police state.
No civil liberties group supports PASS ID. CDT can’t claim that mantle
while it does.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 18 July 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

What Fed Independence? [Cato

at Liberty]
JUL 17, 2009 08:37A.M.

More than 250 economists have signed an “Open Letter to Congress and
the Executive Branch” calling upon them to “defend the independence of
the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability.”

Allan Meltzer is not a signatory to the petition and he has explained why
not. The Fed has frequently not shown independence in the past, and
there is no reason to expect it to do so reliably in the future. Professor
Meltzer has just completed a multi-volume history of the Fed and knows
all-too-well of the Fed’s willingness to accommodate the policies of
administrations from FDRs to Lyndon Johnson’s.

I would add that the Fed’s behavior under Chairman Bernanke breaks
new ground in aligning the central bank’s policy with Treasury’s. Much
of what the Fed has done, first under Bush/Paulson, and now under
Obama/Geithner, involves credit allocation. Since that ultimately
involves the provision of public money for private purpose, it is pre-
eminently fiscal policy. Central bank independence is a fuzzy concept. If
it means anything, however, it is that monetary policy is conducted
independently of Treasury’s fiscal policy.

In short, it is not the critics of the Fed who threaten its independence,
but the Fed’s own actions. Its intervention in the economy is
unprecedented in size and scope. It is inevitable that those actions would
lead to calls for further Congressional oversight and control. The Fed is a
creature of Congress and ultimately answerable to that body.

The petition raises legitimate concerns about whether the Fed will be
able to tighten monetary policy when the time comes, and exit from its
interventions in credit markets. But it is precisely the Fed’s own recent
actions that raise those problems. Critics of recent Fed policy actions
have for some time complained that the Fed has no exit strategy.
Apparently the critics are now going to be blamed for the Fed’s inability
to extricate itself from its interventions.

Cross-posted at ThinkMarkets