Even now, Michigan AG Mike Cox cannot bring himself to fire the crazed, stalking bigot, assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell for "conduct unbecoming a state employee." Earlier reports said Shirvell had been fired. Not true. And Cox reserved his anger for governor Granholm, who said she would have fired Shirvell:
"I don't know why she's so freaking irresponsible. … She went to Harvard Law School," Cox said. "The civil service rules are a huge shield for free speech, and she knows that."
Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly offer an unconvincing defense of their article. Elbridge Colby doesn't think Pletka and Donnelly's approach to military spending can be considered conservative:
Of course there is no single "conservative" foreign and defense policy. But there are certain fundamentals of a conservative approach, fundamentals consistent with a conservative approach to domestic policy or the law or social life. Condensed, the conservative approach is animated by a deep sensibility for and humility in the face of the limits of what can be achieved by government and other organs of social rationality; by the central importance — but difficulty — of preserving and advancing liberty, order, prosperity, and good values in a complex and imperfect world; by an awareness of the often unpredictable dangers of excessive ambition; and by a profound sense that government is the servant of the people's interests, and thus should never risk its citizens' lives or resources lightly.
The Pletka and Donnelly article does not stem from these principles.
Which is why neoconservatism is now and long has been an oxymoron. And why it has failed so spectacularly. Most violent leftist utopianisms do.
A reader writes:
You asked, "Is this really a wise use of tax dollars?"
The problem with advanced research is that not every goal is necessarily important just because of the goal, but because what's created on the route to the goal.
For instance, it was an amazing foreign policy coup to go to the moon, but even without that incentive it still would have been worth it. Not because of the benefit of having some moon rocks, and not because of the joy of seeing two people bounce around in low gravity, but because the incredible technological feats that needed to be performed to get there. We went to space, and along the way we got Velcro and a hundred other inventions. We wanted to crack the Enigma code, and we got the modern computer. DARPA wanted information networks that could withstand a nuclear attack, and we got the internet.
Are we going to have flying cars? Probably not. But I bet you that some of that technology is going to make commercial flying cheaper or more economically efficient (the car will need to be very light and get a lot out of what little fuel it can carry). It might lead to new materials, or better auto-piloting software. Or we might get some random new gadget, purely by accident.
Another writes:
I can't imagine a more awesome use for tax dollars! Who the hell cares about roads, BECAUSE WE HAVE FLYING HUMVEES, BITCHES!
Yes he did! And a hell of a lot more. My take on the president's quite remarkable speech to Gen44 last night is here. This mid-term election is not over yet if he keeps this up.
And other saner, fiscally conservative Republicans (previous Dish Mitch gushes here here, and here):
Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana who I think is most likely to win the G.O.P. presidential nomination in 2012, is the spiritual leader. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is the rising star. Jeb Bush is the eminence. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rob Portman, a Senate candidate in Ohio, also fit the mold.
These are people who can happily spend hours in the budget weeds looking for efficiencies. They’re being assisted by budget experts from the Hoover Institution, the Manhattan Institute and freelancers like Bob Grady, who did budgeting in George H.W. Bush’s administration. Members of the caucus have a similar sense of the role history has assigned them. “This state had a party for 10 years and I’m the guy who got called in to clean up the mess,” Christie says.
Well, we can hope, can't we? But Daniels as most likely to win in 2012? And "spiritual"? My coffee just came out my nose. Still, we like Christie too. More Dish discussion of his record here.
The Obama administration and McDonald's are pushing back against this WSJ article, "McDonald's May Drop Health Plan." E.D.Kain does some math:
I went over to the Kaiser Family Foundation to take a look at what I might qualify for under the healthcare law if I were a single McDonald’s worker (using 2014 dollars). Generously assuming I’d make $10/hour (I believe shift managers make about $9.81/hour) I calculate my yearly salary at $20,800 – or about 181% of poverty.
Turns out I’ll be on the hook for a premium of about $1127 a year, or about $21 per week. That’s $11 less a week than I’d pay for McDonald’s mini-med benefits. But instead of yearly maximum benefit of $10,000 I’d have no maximum benefit at all since maximum benefits are no longer legal. And I’d only have a maximum out-of-pocket expense of $2,083. This plan – a ‘silver’ plan under the new law – is going to be quite a lot better than McDonald’s …
A reader writes:
The real problem with the pledge is not the requirement for citing specific constitutional authority. In fact, Congress already does this quite regularly. For instance, in Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress, beginning at page 317 and continuing through page 321, sets forth extensive reasons why the law is a necessary and proper exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce. The GOP wants people to believe that Congress passed health care reform without thinking about its constitutionality, when in fact, it did the exact opposite. This typical GOP disingenuousness is the real problem.
Another writes:
This is already the rule in the House of Representatives for all its committees. It has had neither the effects of its supporters or opponents. See the bottom left corner of page 26 in this PDF document.
Another:
The pledge to attach a Constitutional "seal of approval" on all proposed legislation may not be dangerous, but it will certainly bring legislation to a screeching halt.
You have to keep in mind that more than a few candidates who will be elected this year believe that certain Constitutional amendments are actually unconstitutional. Also remember that many of these people believe that the current President was elected unconstitutionally and therefore any legislation he signs or vetoes and any wartime actions are also unconstitutional (and even if the first were true, the latter still would be false).
So let's look at this for what it really is: an easy way for the GOP to do nothing in the next two years – thereby avoiding Obama's veto pen, hoping things continue to tank economically so they have a shot in 12, all under the cover of "protecting the Constitution."
Ben Smith has the scoop on two massive donations to the Republican party by News Corp, parent company of Fox News:
News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, contributed $1 million this summer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby that has been running an aggressive campaign in support of the Republican effort to retake Congress, a source close to the company told POLITICO. It was the second $1 million contribution the company has made this election cycle to a GOP-aligned group. In late June it gave that amount to the Republican Governors Association.
The Chamber is the second biggest funder of ads this political season, and in the past, media companies, including News Corp, have divided their donations to both parties.
(Full disclosure: I write a weekly column for News Corp's Sunday Times of London; and as an employee of the Atlantic, this needs to be disclosed as well. Neither the Times nor the Atlantic have ever pressured me to alter my opinions in any way whatsoever.)
This (pdf) sounds like a great idea:
An electorate unschooled in basic budget facts is a major obstacle to controlling the nation’s deficit, not to mention addressing a host of economic and social problems. We suggest that everyone who files a tax return receive a “taxpayer receipt.” This receipt would tell them to the penny what their taxes paid for based on the amount they paid in federal income taxes and FICA.
And why should the Tea Party object? Or any serious fiscal conservative?
(Hat tip: Ezra Klein)
The Dish 