United Liberty

Some “progressives” are pushing President Barack Obama to pack the Supreme Court in the wake of the Citizens United decision:

The court’s recent controversial decision equating corporations with individuals turned an already overly money-influenced campaign system into a veritable free-for-all of propaganda for corporate and vested interests. It was met with criticism by most legal scholars, praised only by corporate mouthpieces.

Even Barack “Can’t We All Get Along?” Obama criticized the decision in his State of the Union speech. A lot of good that will do. The court has four hard-liners who are against what Obama strives for, and a so-called swing voter, Anthony Kennedy, who votes with them in the big cases.
[…]
Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.

It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.

If anything this serves as evidence that the left has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the Citizens United decision. Corporations are entities composed of individuals, who are entitled to speech protections, no different than labor unions. And God knows the left would never do anything to silence their precious labor unions.

Warren Buffett, certainly no friend to Republicans, is advising President Barack Obama and Democrats to start over on health care because the “reform” being pushed by Democrats doesn’t address the cost of care:

John Stossel explains why that politicians may be too optimistic about the economy:

Obama advisor Larry Summers told my former ABC colleagues that “everyone agrees the recession is over.”

It’s possible. But I doubt it.

Sure, the vast Bush/Obama spending blew some air back into the housing bubble. But politicians’ delusion that they can control the economy does more harm than good. Home prices that by now might have found a sound floor — a foundation for growth — instead float on a sea of subsidies.

The March 15 issue of Forbes summarizes the Fed’s house of cards:

The FHA has a $45 billion cushion to cover $757 billion in home-loan guarantees. This is just one part of the federal government’s investment in housing. Another is the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… a third is the Federal Reserve’s purchase of mortgage securities ($1.25 trillion).

How much will the FHA cost taxpayers? Officially, nothing. FHA officers have told Congress they don’t believe they’ll need a bailout. (Fannie and Freddie said the same.)

CEO Franklin Raines promised, “it is private capital that is at risk, not the taxpayer’s…. We do not receive a nickel of federal money.”

As you may know, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) has been holding up $10 billion in extended unemployment benefits. It’s a procedural tactic. Every time another Senator calls for unanimous consent, Bunning objects. Unfortunately, not many in his caucus are defending him.

Some in the media are calling it a filibuster. It’s not. And Bunning is not doing this because he philosophically opposes unemployment benefits. He plans on voting for them. Bunning is objecting because he wants the Democratic majority to abide by the PAY-GO rules. For those of you that don’t know, PAY-GO requires any new spending to be paid for by a tax increase or spending cuts. This different from paying for this extension through debt.

While I wish Bunning were doing this on philosophical and constitutional grounds, kudos to him for standing up for holding Democrats accountable.

I’ll admit that my vocabulary did not contain the word “trilemma” until a few weeks ago. It’s a natural extension of the commonplace “dilemma” where we have three options. Then, in a span of no more than days, I was exposed to two interesting trilemmas.

The first trilemma that I would like to introduce is the so-called “Impossible Trinity”. This hypothesis states that a national economy can only achieve two of the following three characteristics: a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, independent monetary policy. A nation with a fixed exchange rate is able to maintain a stable currency as it relates to the rest of the global economy. China, for example, maintains a fixed exchange rate by pegging its currency to the U.S. Dollar. Nations with free capital movement allow goods and services to be (relatively) freely traded by private citizens across borders without significant taxes or other restrictions. This is a common feature of globalization. Finally, independent monetary policy implies that a nation’s banking system (usually via the central bank) can set interest rates and manage the supply of money without outside interference.

Don’t forget, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in McDonald v. Chicago this morning at 10am. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to hear what was said until a transcript is available later in the day as the Court has refused to release audio of the arguments.You may remember that the Court released audio of the Heller case the day of the argument.

As mentioned yesterday, the Court will determine whether the Second Amendment should be incorporated to the states through the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s possible we’ll have an idea of how the court will rule in the case shortly after, though a decision won’t be released until summer. Some legal scholars, such as Ilya Shapiro, seem confident that the Second Amendment will be fully restored to the original intent of the Founding Fathers:

The Court is quite likely to extend the right to keep and bear arms to the states and thereby invalidate the Chicago handgun ban at issue, but the way in which it does so could revolutionize constitutional law.

If you’re up for listening to a discussion on states and the right to bear arms, which is the question before the Court, check out this discussion that took place at the Cato Institute yesterday.

The National Journal issued its annual vote rankings for Members of Congress last week. The rankings determine who are the most conservative and liberal members of both the House and Senate.

The ratings are odd for libertarians since we do not fit on the left/right, liberal/conservative polticial spectrum. If you wanted to simplify it for the great unwashed you could say we are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. However, that doesn’t fully explain libertarianism. So, take these rankings for what you want since there is no ranking on constitutional fidelity.

Some interesting things I found in the rankings is that Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is the 38th most liberal member of that chamber. Rep. Ron Paul is ranked at the 140th most conservative member in the House. The most liberal Republican in the Senate is Olympia Snowe. The most liberal Republican in the House is Mike Castle. The most conservative Democrat in the Senate is Evan Bayh, while Bobby Bright is the most conservative Democrat in the House.

Ten Most Liberal House Members

One clip that the media isn’t playing from the Health Care Summit is Rep. Paul Ryan’s comments on the fiscal issues facing the country in the long term, such as the trillions upon trillion of dollars in unfunded liabilities that face Medicare and Social Security.

It’s not that I agree with Ryan on Medicare, especially the “doc fix,” but he explains how the Obama Administration is hiding costs by double counting, which results in a much higher price tag for ObamaCare: