Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3396
"Why is the governmental use of force less offensive than bad manners?"
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Patriot Act all over again
Have you heard about the ban on lead in children's products?
I'll have more to say about it in a week or two. Briefly, every producer of anything marketed for children will have to go through rigorous third-party testing to ensure each component of the product is lead-free. The testing of each component will run to hundreds of dollars; of the entire product, perhaps many thousands (depending on the number of components). And no distinction is made between products with some history of lead and those with none; all must be tested.
It will bankrupt almost every small business and hobbyist who makes toys or children's clothes. Here's an example.
It is the ultimate war on small business. Even though it was a big business, Mattel, which was the source of the lead-recall hysteria of 1-2 years ago.
It reminds me of the Patriot Act:
It will no longer do to say, "They had good intentions, but the bill had unintended consequences." If they were so lazy and so full of themselves to vote for this bill, they can't get credit even for good intentions. Each one who voted for it is presumably guilty of wanting to destroy small business, weaken competition, raise prices on the poor, and deepen the recession.
I'll have more to say about it in a week or two. Briefly, every producer of anything marketed for children will have to go through rigorous third-party testing to ensure each component of the product is lead-free. The testing of each component will run to hundreds of dollars; of the entire product, perhaps many thousands (depending on the number of components). And no distinction is made between products with some history of lead and those with none; all must be tested.
It will bankrupt almost every small business and hobbyist who makes toys or children's clothes. Here's an example.
It is the ultimate war on small business. Even though it was a big business, Mattel, which was the source of the lead-recall hysteria of 1-2 years ago.
It reminds me of the Patriot Act:
- This "Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act" sailed through Congress with votes of 422-1 (guess who?). With the Patriot Act, just 66 voted against it in the House and 1 in the Senate.
- Congress's reaction was one of grandstanding. Despite Sept 11, terrorism never was a threat to the United States and the authorities know it. This is demonstrated by the very fact that no government would be able to stop car bombers and mass shooters. There hasn't been anything like that before or since 9-11 in America. Likewise, a few minutes searching the Centers for Disease Control website would reveal that lead poisoning is no longer a serious public health threat, and when it is, paint in older houses is the culprit, not toys. But almost nobody in Congress could be bothered to do even this much homework.
- Americans are being punished for the sins of non-Americans. The Patriot Act, with its unprecedented invasions of privacy, didn't apply only to foreign visitors (as were those who pulled off 9-11), but to American citizens as well. Similarly, the lead scare could be traced to sub-contractors in China, yet American businesses will have to go to the expense of proving they're innocent of contaminating their products with lead.
It will no longer do to say, "They had good intentions, but the bill had unintended consequences." If they were so lazy and so full of themselves to vote for this bill, they can't get credit even for good intentions. Each one who voted for it is presumably guilty of wanting to destroy small business, weaken competition, raise prices on the poor, and deepen the recession.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Pleading the Tenth
Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don't know, but I'd love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:
"Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to ask the question or hold this hearing on my alleged steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, and refuse to answer it.
"But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. I will assume this includes the selling of drugs across state lines. I do not believe any drug should be regulated by any government, but I respect the legitimacy of such legislation under the Constitution. I will thereofre affirm that I do not know how steroids, or any other illegal performance enhancer, is produced or distributed. I have no knowledge of drug trafficking or drug smuggling at all, and even if I knew someone who dealt drugs, I never saw him or her transport drugs across state lines. To the extent a Congressional hearing on steroids is Constitutionally legitimate, I do not have any information to help you. To the extent this hearing is illegitimate, I refuse to cooperate.
"My non-cooperation does not mean that I endorse performance-enhancing drugs in baseball or anywhere else. Major League Baseball is a private organization, and has the right to ban steroids among its players, and suspend or fine those who are caught. I see the merit in this, because young men shouldn't be caught having to choose between a huge paycheck today and poor health tomorrow. Steroids could also disrupt the competitive balance of the game, if it becomes dominated by steroid-induced strikeout pitchers and power hitters who are intentionally-walked all the time. Much of the excitement of baseball as we know it today - base-running and chasing balls in the field, would disappear.
"So I agree that Baseball should ban steroids, and Baseball has banned steroids, and is taking measures to upgrade its enforcement. It does not need the help of this committee. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, yet you insist on holding a hearing on a problem that the private sector is taking care of by itself.
"The Constitution you have sworn your allegiance to gives the Congress few and specific powers. Prohibiting individual drug use is not one of them. This is clearly left to the states and to "the people," as the Tenth Amendment says. If steroid possession or use should be illegal, the states should have laws and enforce them. But better yet, if drugs are so bad, the private sector could provide drugs tests, and indeed much of the private sector, including baseball, already does. But we do not need a federal police force and federal prisons warehousing thousands of non-violent drug dealers and drug users. The whole War on Drugs, of which the War on Steroids is a part, is a Constitutional travesty. I will not defend steroid-dealers or any other kind of drug-dealer, but if they are bad, you members of this Committee are much worse. For they are out to make a buck from willing customers, whereas you people are out to take away the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, without their consent.
"Most of this committee is Democrat, and I bet most of you Democrats and maybe a couple of Republicans here are [use hand gesture to signify quotation marks] "pro-choice." If it is a Constitutional right for a woman to pay a doctor to kill a human life inside a woman's womb, why do individuals not also have a Constitutional right to take any substance they please, including steroids or some mind-altering drug?
"The federal republic was formed to provide an internal free-trade zone and a common foreign policy for the states. In few cases, like counterfeiting or treason, does the federal government have the authority to arrest and try individuals. Steroid use may be dangerous. Steroid use may be morally wrong. But steroid use is none of your business.
"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this committee hearing. I will now leave."
"Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to ask the question or hold this hearing on my alleged steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, and refuse to answer it.
"But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. I will assume this includes the selling of drugs across state lines. I do not believe any drug should be regulated by any government, but I respect the legitimacy of such legislation under the Constitution. I will thereofre affirm that I do not know how steroids, or any other illegal performance enhancer, is produced or distributed. I have no knowledge of drug trafficking or drug smuggling at all, and even if I knew someone who dealt drugs, I never saw him or her transport drugs across state lines. To the extent a Congressional hearing on steroids is Constitutionally legitimate, I do not have any information to help you. To the extent this hearing is illegitimate, I refuse to cooperate.
"My non-cooperation does not mean that I endorse performance-enhancing drugs in baseball or anywhere else. Major League Baseball is a private organization, and has the right to ban steroids among its players, and suspend or fine those who are caught. I see the merit in this, because young men shouldn't be caught having to choose between a huge paycheck today and poor health tomorrow. Steroids could also disrupt the competitive balance of the game, if it becomes dominated by steroid-induced strikeout pitchers and power hitters who are intentionally-walked all the time. Much of the excitement of baseball as we know it today - base-running and chasing balls in the field, would disappear.
"So I agree that Baseball should ban steroids, and Baseball has banned steroids, and is taking measures to upgrade its enforcement. It does not need the help of this committee. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, yet you insist on holding a hearing on a problem that the private sector is taking care of by itself.
"The Constitution you have sworn your allegiance to gives the Congress few and specific powers. Prohibiting individual drug use is not one of them. This is clearly left to the states and to "the people," as the Tenth Amendment says. If steroid possession or use should be illegal, the states should have laws and enforce them. But better yet, if drugs are so bad, the private sector could provide drugs tests, and indeed much of the private sector, including baseball, already does. But we do not need a federal police force and federal prisons warehousing thousands of non-violent drug dealers and drug users. The whole War on Drugs, of which the War on Steroids is a part, is a Constitutional travesty. I will not defend steroid-dealers or any other kind of drug-dealer, but if they are bad, you members of this Committee are much worse. For they are out to make a buck from willing customers, whereas you people are out to take away the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, without their consent.
"Most of this committee is Democrat, and I bet most of you Democrats and maybe a couple of Republicans here are [use hand gesture to signify quotation marks] "pro-choice." If it is a Constitutional right for a woman to pay a doctor to kill a human life inside a woman's womb, why do individuals not also have a Constitutional right to take any substance they please, including steroids or some mind-altering drug?
"The federal republic was formed to provide an internal free-trade zone and a common foreign policy for the states. In few cases, like counterfeiting or treason, does the federal government have the authority to arrest and try individuals. Steroid use may be dangerous. Steroid use may be morally wrong. But steroid use is none of your business.
"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this committee hearing. I will now leave."
Labels:
baseball,
Congress,
Roger Clemens,
steroids,
War on Drugs
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
More Resolution Nonsense
[UPDATE 10-17: It looks like support for the Armenian genocide resolution is waning. And I saw on the news this morning that Speaker Pelosi pulled the plug. Hooray!]
In one of Congress's millions of "waste of paper" actions, last week it congratulated Brett Favre for setting the record for most touchdown passes in NFL history.
But now, Favre has also broken the career interception record.
I'm assuming Congress will now pass a resolution condemning Favre for his frequent boneheaded plays and recklessness.
Speaking of resolutions, the House is now one step closer to declaring the 1915-17 Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire a genocide. The government of Turkey, however, doesn't believe it was a genocide, so this resolution will damage relations with an important ally. Moreover, it is patently offensive for Congress to presume to be the arbiters of another country's history.
So here's what I suggest Turkey should do. Its legislative body should pass a resolution calling Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal a form of "economic fascism." It should call for awareness-raising about this lamentable period of American history, and for remembering its victims.
How would Americans react to that?
Would it even matter if the resolution was correct, that the New Deal was indeed economic fascism?
Wouldn't Americans still believe the resolution to be insulting, and a deliberate attempt to antagonize the U.S.?
As I've said before (1, 2), non-binding Congressional resolutions are either useless, like the Brett Favre resolution, or worse than useless, as is the Armenian genocide resolution.
Instead of passing non-binding resolutions - and each chamber of Congress passes hundreds of them every year - members of Congress should spend more time reading and debating real bills that impact our lives, liberty, and property.
In one of Congress's millions of "waste of paper" actions, last week it congratulated Brett Favre for setting the record for most touchdown passes in NFL history.
But now, Favre has also broken the career interception record.
I'm assuming Congress will now pass a resolution condemning Favre for his frequent boneheaded plays and recklessness.
Speaking of resolutions, the House is now one step closer to declaring the 1915-17 Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire a genocide. The government of Turkey, however, doesn't believe it was a genocide, so this resolution will damage relations with an important ally. Moreover, it is patently offensive for Congress to presume to be the arbiters of another country's history.
So here's what I suggest Turkey should do. Its legislative body should pass a resolution calling Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal a form of "economic fascism." It should call for awareness-raising about this lamentable period of American history, and for remembering its victims.
How would Americans react to that?
Would it even matter if the resolution was correct, that the New Deal was indeed economic fascism?
Wouldn't Americans still believe the resolution to be insulting, and a deliberate attempt to antagonize the U.S.?
As I've said before (1, 2), non-binding Congressional resolutions are either useless, like the Brett Favre resolution, or worse than useless, as is the Armenian genocide resolution.
Instead of passing non-binding resolutions - and each chamber of Congress passes hundreds of them every year - members of Congress should spend more time reading and debating real bills that impact our lives, liberty, and property.
Labels:
Brett Favre,
Congress,
New Deal,
Read the Bills Act,
Turkey
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Abe Foxman is Right
Every week while Congress is in session I review the bills passed the previous week. During my scan, I also notice the non-binding resolutions that passed. Most of the resolutions are useless, such as congratulating the Detroit Tigers for winning the American League last year (waiting until July to make this empty gesture).
But many resolutions are worse than useless, and seemed purposely designed to damage our foreign relations. They lecture other countries on how to manage their own affairs, and urge them to apologize for actions taken by previous governments a long time ago. Imagine Venezuela passing a resolution asking America to apologize for Jim Crow. Or Sweden telling the United States to abolish the death penalty. Or China expressing "concern" about America's border patrols. Americans would rightfully say, "Shut up! It's none of your business!" Such resolutions would unnecessarily provoke tension between the two countries. Yet it is commonplace for Congress to insult other countries this way.
What has this to do with Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Paul Gottfried tells us "he has worked to block congressional action to condemn the mass murder of one million Armenians in 1915 by Turkish military divisions." Why would he do that? " Because of "concern about the feelings of the Turkish government, which has good relations with the Israeli state."
To the extent I think of Foxman at all, I don't think well of him, because making a living by making false or exaggerated charges of bigotry isn't something I respect. And I'm not sure of Foxman's purpose here, because I don't know how, exactly, a Congressional resolution would damage Turkish-Israeli relations, or what this has anything to do with the Jewish community Foxman supposedly represents.
But regardless of his motives or alleged hypocrisy, Foxman is quite correct that "the Jewish community should not be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Congress shouldn't have passed this resolution because a) it is pointless, and b) because, to borrow from above, "of concern for the feelings of the Turkish government, which has good relations with the" United States.
We may have a personal distaste for Turkey's refusal to call it a genocide, but there are far more important issues that the United States and Turkey have to deal with right now. Why create a wholly avoidable diplomatic headache for ourselves?
But many resolutions are worse than useless, and seemed purposely designed to damage our foreign relations. They lecture other countries on how to manage their own affairs, and urge them to apologize for actions taken by previous governments a long time ago. Imagine Venezuela passing a resolution asking America to apologize for Jim Crow. Or Sweden telling the United States to abolish the death penalty. Or China expressing "concern" about America's border patrols. Americans would rightfully say, "Shut up! It's none of your business!" Such resolutions would unnecessarily provoke tension between the two countries. Yet it is commonplace for Congress to insult other countries this way.
What has this to do with Abe Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Paul Gottfried tells us "he has worked to block congressional action to condemn the mass murder of one million Armenians in 1915 by Turkish military divisions." Why would he do that? " Because of "concern about the feelings of the Turkish government, which has good relations with the Israeli state."
To the extent I think of Foxman at all, I don't think well of him, because making a living by making false or exaggerated charges of bigotry isn't something I respect. And I'm not sure of Foxman's purpose here, because I don't know how, exactly, a Congressional resolution would damage Turkish-Israeli relations, or what this has anything to do with the Jewish community Foxman supposedly represents.
But regardless of his motives or alleged hypocrisy, Foxman is quite correct that "the Jewish community should not be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Congress shouldn't have passed this resolution because a) it is pointless, and b) because, to borrow from above, "of concern for the feelings of the Turkish government, which has good relations with the" United States.
We may have a personal distaste for Turkey's refusal to call it a genocide, but there are far more important issues that the United States and Turkey have to deal with right now. Why create a wholly avoidable diplomatic headache for ourselves?
Labels:
Congress,
foreign policy
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Congressional Responses to the Read the Bills Act
From the latest Downsizer-Dispatch I wrote:
[B]y not reading and understanding bills in their entirety, they may end up with the opposite of what they intend. Consider a situation in Arkansas. The legislature tried to increase the marriage age to 18 with an exception for younger pregnant girls if they have parental consent. But the bill read "not pregnant" instead, allowing anyone under 18 - even infants - to get married with parental consent. A special session of the Arkansas Legislature may be called to fix the bill. Source: Yahoo.
Is this efficiency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
