Politics – Page 124 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Why Iowa Really Shouldn’t Matter

Jim Geraghty is on a roll this morning looking at the truth behind the Iowa caucus numbers and why they should be no more relevant than any other small state. I can understand the sentiment because I know many gun owners never felt like they had a say in the GOP nominating process in 2008 once some contenders dropped out after fairly early primary runs. With the ups and downs of various candidates in the last few weeks, it’s a shame Tim Pawlenty called it quits after a freakin’ straw poll.

Putting aside the quirkiness of Iowa, caucuses are an awful method for picking candidates for a variety of reasons — suddenly the secret ballot doesn’t matter anymore? — and high among them is low participation. The turnout at the 2008 Iowa GOP caucus: 119,000. Turnout at the 2000 caucus: 87,000. Turnout in 1996: About 96,000. Turnout in 1988: About 109,000.

Turnout has never surpassed 23 percent of all eligible Republicans, and even that low threshold was last met back in 1988. The GOP frontrunner is determined by a group roughly the size of the crowd at a University of Michigan football game. If the Iowa caucus turnout matches its 2008 level (though it could be higher), it will equal 16 percent of the average population of one congressional district.

At least in primaries, many more Republicans (and in open primaries, independents) get to weigh in. In 2008, 234,000 Republicans and independents voted in New Hampshire, and 445,000 Republicans and independents voted in South Carolina.

In his morning newsletter, he also notes that a certain segment of the few caucus-goers will make up their mind based on these last minute polls released showing candidates they like not doing so well or candidates they hate doing too well. This is particularly relevant as some may be responding to the perceived swell of Ron Paul support and flocking to Romney out of fear of a Paul win. That’s the same kind of motivation that drove some states to vote for Huckabee in 2008 – he was the only alternative to McCain at a certain point in the game. It didn’t mean those states actually like Huckabee, they just didn’t want to vote for McCain.

UPDATE: Someone questioned what an ideal map would look like for Geraghty, and he responds with a plan that sounds quite feasible. My only issue is that he left Oklahoma off the calendar.

Signs, Signs, Everywhere There’s Signs

The mayor of bankrupt Harrisburg, PA has unveiled a brand new gun crime fighting tool – signs. But not just any signs, signs with a phone number. It was announced with a press conference bragging about how these signs would convince people to turn in guns used in crimes.

The signs list a phone number people who want to turn guns in can call or anonymous tipsters can call to report illegal guns on the street and other related crimes to police, Mayor Linda Thompson said this afternoon during a weekly crime prevention press conference.

Of course, this program has the standard promise that police won’t ask questions when guns are turned in through her pet project.

I’m sure that will solve all of the crime in Harrisburg if we just put up more signs. Perhaps Philly can just put up lots of signs and solve their city problems.

Politicians are the Same Everywhere

In the wake of random tragedy, is to suggest there’s probably some new law that wouldn’t have prevented a damned thing, but will nonetheless sound goodÂ to those weak souls who demand that the government do something. We have plenty of these worms here in America, but I think the only difference is we’re a bit, and sadly only a bit, more willing to say publicly, for all to see, they are worms, and should be ignored. But maybe only a bit is enough to at least slow the advance of the lowest common denominator.

The H1B: Our Modern World’s Indentured Servitude

I’ve always thought, when it comes to the highly skilled, our immigration laws poorly serve the country. If someone has in demand skills, we should be doling green cards out to them like candy. Instead, what we have is a modern day equivalent of the indentured servant, known as the H1B Visa program.

For those of you not in the tech industry, H1B is basically where a company sponsors an immigrant to be in the country for a specific job. If that person loses that job, they are out of the country, essentially. They have to find another company willing to “sponsor” them if they want to stay, and within a fairly short amount of time, or face deportation.

This is essentially a license for the sponsoring company to mistreat employees, knowing the only other place they can turn is other companies willing to sponsor an H1B. It is a modern day indentured servitude, and we should be appalled as a country our immigration laws are allowing this. If someone has skills that could contribute to the economy, they should be a given a green card and thrown into the labor pool to compete along with the rest of us. If they choose to go back to their own country because they can’t cut it, that’s their business. But if they can succeed in America, we should welcome and embrace that.

So why does the H1B program persist? Because a lot of large corporations like crony capitalism. They like being able to bring skilled labor in from other countries, mistreat them, pay them poorly, and know they don’t have too may other options. Personally, I’d rather compete against these folks on a level playing ground. There are many brilliant H1B workers who deserve to find a permanent place in this country, and we’re doing them a horrible disservice by continuing this program.

Not Feeling it for Newt

Newt Gingrich is not a fan of judicial review, and thus takes up one of most insidious conservative crusades I just find utterly lamentable. If anything, I believe the courts don’t do enough to reign in the other two elected branches of government. Keep in mind the courts have no power to make law, only to interpret it, which includes the Supreme Law, known as The Constitution. Unfortunately, over the course of the post-New Deal period, the Court has done much to undermine its own legitimacy. Professor Glenn Reynolds notes:

On the other hand, who can seriously argue that the constitutional law that comes from the Supreme Court is in fact very closely related to the text of the Constitution itself? I mean, if the Court were doing such a great job, would we seeÂ strange bedfellows arguing for a constitutional reset?Â Indeed, I was talking to a fellow lawprof the other day, and one whoâ€™s certainly no right-winger, who said heâ€™d hate to have to teach Constitutional Law because of the hash the Supreme Court has made of things over the past 50 years or so. I was surprised to hear that, but it suggests a certain shakiness to current foundations.

I also agree with his conclusions of Gingrich as a candidate. He’s just the latest anti-Mitt. That doesn’t mean he’s got winner written all over him. Glenn Reynolds also notes:

FDR could get away with this because he was much more popular than the Supreme Court. No politician or official today is more popular than the Supreme Court. I doubt a President Gingrich will be either.

This is certainly true, and I consider that a good thing. There’s been several pundits who have called for a “House of Repeal” who’s sole job it is to repeal laws that just don’t make sense, or who are overreaching. I hate to say, it but that’s suppose to be the job of the courts. Since the new deal, they have largely abrogated their responsibility in this realm.

Incandescent Bulb Ban Overturned

Tam reports that the Incandescent Bulb Ban that Congress passed a while back has been quietly repealed, joining an unfortunately short list of times when Congress has actually repealed a law that limited people’s freedoms. By this point, we’ve replaced most of our bulbs with CFLs, and for the same reason Tam has. I find the quality of light put out by modern CFLs acceptable for most purposes. My only real pet peeve left with them is warmup time. Nonetheless, the cost savings of running 15 watts versus 60 watts for the same amount of light, and not having to replace bulbs as often, makes the deal for me.

That said, I don’t want the government mandating that I use them, and nothing else. I have fixtures that won’t take acceptable CFLs, and they absolutely suck for outdoor lighting in the winter because of the warm-up time, unless you leave them on all the time. Much better to use halogens on a motion sensor.

We can also rest easy that the old EZ Bake oven you might want to pass onto your kids will still find an ample supply of light bulbs, even though the new ones apparently don’t require it. At least we can rest easy until the CPSC figures out that ovens are hot, and could burn children, and that it’s powered with electricity, and kids might try to take a bath with their favorite toy.

Something You Don’t See Everyday

A Democratic Congressman asks his constituents to seriously question the authenticity of Second Amendment support of a Republican candidate he’s not even running against. The Congressman? Leonard Boswell. The candidate? Mitt Romney.

Speculate as to the motivation behind this piece to your heart’s desire.

Defining a School “Gun Threat”

One reason I react so strongly to the lack of common sense in school administrators is because I had a personal experience with an expulsion threat over the issue when I was in high school. Yes, the “Goody Two-Shoes” honor student was called in to the principal’s office and threatened with expulsion over an issue regarding guns. It didn’t happen because I knew enough to know that I wasn’t breaking any rules; the situation that sparked the “report” to the administrator was a clear case of protected speech. The fear of a lawsuit and enough bad PR to cost the new principal his job was enough to convince him that he really didn’t want to go down that path.

What was my crime? It was having a discussion about a fairly new (only a couple of years old at the time) concealed carry law enacted in Oklahoma after I was asked to give a speech in class on the topic of gun control. In other words, I was having a reasonable, non-threatening discussion with peers in the library (our “class” for those of us in the academic competition programs) on a timely political topic relevant to assigned school work. (For the record, I read my first Dave Kopel article in preparation for that speech.) Yeah, try throwing me out of school for that.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he came to his senses. Regardless, I still get pissy over the incident because shouldn’t he have come to his senses when the “report” was made? Common sense would tell a person to ask some probing questions about the incident, especially since the report was coming from a student with some issues getting along with others against one of the top students who had literally never been punished in her entire time at the school.

It bothers me because if the principal had threatened any of the other people at the table in my discussion group, some of them may not have known to fight back. They would not have known that such speech did not give them the right to kick you out of a public school. I don’t believe he would have expelled them, but I do think he would have tried to hold the threat over their heads and left them believing that he was doing them a favor. That bothers me, especially in a public school we were required to attend. It shouldn’t be up to students to stand up to administrative bullying.

Hunters Improving the Economy

You have to love seeing this story in the Wall Street Journal.

Roughly 7,000 hunters turned out [for NJ’s bear hunt] this year, killing 469 bears. Last year, when the state also had a six-day hunt, 592 were shot.

The furry haul has unleashed a bull market for mounted bears, turning New Jersey’s taxidermists into unlikely job creators.

Mr. Clark brought on two extra seasonal workers to help process the trophies and is looking to hire a full-time taxidermist immediately. One of the workers, when not skinning mammals, makes a living as a cookie deliveryman. Bill and Ken’s Taxidermy in Morganville, N.J., also hired more help.

Apparently, the most important question a taxidermist will ask is whether the mouth should be left open or closed. I wouldn’t even know how to decide; there are just way too many cute mounts for black bears. I knew a guy who had three different bear mounts that all looked so different. And then there’s the choice of a rug.

Ultimately, the hunt is important for maintaining healthy population numbers. However, any help to the economy is surely appreciated, too.

Republicans Sell Out the Free Market – Again

Just because the GOP is calling it a liquor privatization bill doesn’t actually mean that they are doing away with a government monopoly, cutting costs, or leading the fight for a remotely smaller government.

No, in fact, the leader of the new “amended” bill here in Pennsylvania that would end the complete control of all wine & liquor sales by the government is bragging about how he made certain to cut the private markets out of the picture by pricing the licenses to compete out of the range they were willing to accept. That’s right, the GOP lawmakers are bragging about trying to shut out the free market.

The current proposal will allow places that currently sell beer to sell wine, but only after they pay $50,000, plus an additional $15,000 every year after that. Oh, and if it’s a grocery store, we have to keep the same inconvenient current model of going to buy groceries from one part of the store, checking out, buying alcohol (beer only, for now) from another part of the store, and checking out yet again. Explain to me how this is an improvement.

Effectively, the state will still control prices and selection. While there is a wholesaler license available, GOP Rep. John Taylor from Philly purposefully priced it out of what he believes the market will pay at $100 million:

Taylor said he arrived at that figure by asking several groups what they would pay for a license to sell wine to retailers and then adding a few million. (emphasis added)

So, what we get is the perfect example crony capitalism. The prices are set based on private conversations that a lawmaker won’t reveal to potentially favor or disfavor anyone he chooses.

I also see this as potential burden for taxpayers. Sebastian and I sketched out this possible scenario last night while talking about the unbelievably stupid bill:

Continue reading “Republicans Sell Out the Free Market – Again”