ScaifeNet because we can't let Soros have all the fun...

This past Friday the Associated Press reported:

Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

Faced with this reality, Media Matters fellow Duncan Black blogged:

Aside from the fact that I’m not happy with certain outcomes, if you do liberalism badly then people get it in their heads that maybe liberalism is pretty sucky. The economy sucks and HAMP was a complete failure, whether deliberately or not, and that’s what people know.

Black is right: the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program has been a complete failure. But the failure is not due to Obama administration incompetence. It is due to the fact that liberal policies simply do not work in practice. As we predicted at the time:

The prospect that a shrunken mortgage lending system could expeditiously accommodate the 7-9 million borrowers expected by the Obama plan is wishful thinking. The result will be long waits for refinancing that will come too late for some borrowers, and may also crowd out efforts by unsubsidized borrowers to refinance due to the generous financial incentives offered to servicers participating in the new federal program.

It is far past time for the federal government to stop mucking up the housing market. The government should end the interventions it has made since 2008, starting with abolition of the TARP program. It should then abolish Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and repeal all U.S. government regulatory measures that interfere with mortgage markets.

This Institute for Justice video reveals one public school in action: Would you want a choice of schools if you were that child's parent?...

The State Department has posted a speech by Ann K. Ganzer, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Threat Reduction, Export Controls, and Negotiations. Delivered on August 4 at the South American Conference on Interdiction and Regional Security of Small Arms & Light Weapons, Ganzer’s speech sheds valuable light on the Administration’s intentions on several treaties, including the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty, and reveals serious contradictions and flaws in the Administration’s position.

What is striking about Ganzer’s speech is the contrast between the U.S. policies that she describes. Ganzer praised the U.S.’s Export and Control and Border Security program (EXBS), through which the U.S. works with countries around the world to improve their export control systems, with a particular focus on WMD proliferation.

EXBS has provided legal assistance, equipment, and training to countries as diverse as Malta, Pakistan, and Mexico. Its funds are appropriated by Congress, and it operates bilaterally: the U.S. is not obligated to cooperate with anyone it does not believe is acting in good faith. That is the kind of cooperation that makes sense.

The rest of Ganzer’s speech, however, backed exactly the opposite kind of measure: large, multilateral treaties which were  made between some countries that are of good faith and many others that are not; which cover a vast range of items and activities; and which as a result are likely to be both ineffective and dangerous. Ganzer offered praise for the Organization of American States’ CIFTA Convention; the “Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials”; and reiterated President Obama’s commitment to seek its “prompt ratification.”

She also claimed that the U.S. is already “in compliance with the Convention implementing many of its commitments.” This claim is an exaggeration, but it’s also contradictory: if the U.S. is already largely in compliance with CIFTA, there would seem to be no urgency for the Senate to ratify it. The magical thinking behind the Administration’s support for CIFTA is the belief that other countries, which have signed the treaty but are not living up to their obligations, will suddenly start behaving if only the Senate acts. Ganzer’s statement also confirms a broader concern: the Senate has not ratified CIFTA, but successive Administrations have nonetheless used President Clinton’s signature of it to move the U.S. into a measure of compliance with the Convention. This is a flaw in the U.S. treaty-ratification mechanism that the Senate should address.

On the Arms Trade Treaty, Ganzer announced that the Administration supports a very broad treaty: “the ATT must cover all conventional weapons, from military small arms and light weapons up to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.”  Ganzer did not state whether the Administration believes that ammunition or dual-use items and industrial processes should be covered by the treaty, but ammunition—at least—is likely to be included. Yet the Administration itself does not actually want a treaty that covers “all” conventional weapons: in July, it argued forcefully for the exclusion of hunting weapons.

The contradictions in Ganzer’s remarks reveal a U.S. policy process that is divided and confused, with too many advocates of large, ineffective, symbolic treaties. Nowhere was that clearer than in Ganzer’s remarks on that process. Ganzer, using the royal “we,” praised Secretary of State Clinton for taking “an important first step towards a significant and meaningful international [arms trade] treaty.” But Secretary Clinton is Ganzer’s boss. The Secretary’s statement was not a “first step”: it was a statement—albeit a misguided one —of U.S. policy, not a casual comment that her subordinates should publicly imply is only the start of the process.  No wonder U.S. policy toward these treaties is muddled.

The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements.

Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006.

On a related issue, the majority of voters said ballots should be printed only in English. The Justice Department, by contrast, has threatened to sue Cuyahoga County, Ohio, unless it prints ballots in Spanish.

And 56 percent of voters oppose the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law. In fact, 54 percent think Eric Holder should be spending his time suing sanctuary cities, something the Justice Department has specifically said it will not do.

A majority (59 percent) also hope that their own states will pass a law similar to Arizona’s, which helps explain why CNS is reporting that 22 states “are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration.”

Forcing the Justice Department to wage litigation battles in 22 states would be a good tactic both legally and politically. There is no doubt that it would lead to numerous losses by Justice in court decisions completely contrary to the legally dubious decision issued by the Arizona judge. Politically, it would help illustrate the complete bankruptcy of the Obama administration’s enforcement policy to citizens in every state.

Cross-posted at The Corner.

?

“The Heritage Foundation Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland” conference begins today with a focus on maritime security. This morning’s panel will be looking into two very important topics: the very broad topic of government policy for defending domestic waters, and the more specific topic of the very serious material condition of the Coast Guard today.

Did you know that of the 12 major cutters assigned to Haiti relief operations, 10 of the cutters (87 percent) suffered mission-altering breakdowns? Were you aware that in the early hours following the explosion on Deepwater Horizon that 3 Coast Guard aircraft were unable to respond due to maintenance problems? When someone talks about climate change, are you armed with the intellectual firepower to debate this topic with facts as it relates to United States Arctic policy? Did you know that as of today, August 23, 2010, the United States government has zero operational heavy icebreakers even though Alaska has more than 1000 miles of coastline on the Arctic Ocean? Did you know that the average age of the Coast Guard cutter fleet is 41 years old? Did you know that 30 percent of the cocaine smuggled into the United States from Columbia in 2009 was done with simi-submersibles by sea? Are you aware that drug cartels are building full-blown submarines in the deep inland swamp areas of South America to use off the American coast? Want to know more?

This is a small sample of the many challenges in providing domestic maritime security and protecting our maritime boundaries discussed on my blog Information Dissemination, where I also intend to provide additional updates regarding the recommendations of the panelists during today’s Heritage Foundation event “Homeland Security 2020: The Future of Defending the Homeland.”

Raymond Pritchett is the founder and author of Information Dissemination.

The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Last Thursday, a who’s who of the progressive movement met for a conference call organized by Families USA and hosted by the advocacy group for government-run health care, The Herndon Alliance. The Alliance’s partners include AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, MoveOn and La Raza, among many others. Democratic pollsters John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg were the call’s main event, and they were there to deliver some bad news. Politico reports: “Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. … The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.”

Health care is not the only issue where the left is retreating in the face of strong disapproval from the American people. Versionista, a Portland, Oregon-based company that tracks changes to the White House website, reported last week that the Obama administration had made “whole-cloth” changes to its “Energy & Environment” issues page. Out are any references to a cap on carbon emissions and a campaign pledge to spend $150 billion on clean energy technologies. In its place the new White House site includes a three-minute Earth Day-themed video from President Barack Obama. And across the country, leftist Senate candidates in Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana have all come out against President Obama’s impending trillion dollar tax hike, due in January.

As satisfying as it is to see Obamacare’s supporters come to terms with the failure of their grand plan, it is not enough for conservatives to just say “no.” Conservatives must have real plans for reform if the American people choose to empower them. The Heritage Foundation’s Solutions for America chapter on Getting Health Care Reform Right recommends:

Repeal Obamacare: There is a precedent for repealing highly unpopular and misguided laws: the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Recently, over 70% of Missouri residents rejected a key provision of Obamacare­—the requirement that individuals purchase a health insurance plan designed and approved by government bureaucrats. The House of Representatives even voted recently to repeal one provision of Obamacare that will impose draconian paperwork requirements on millions of small businesses. The easiest way to address all these grievances: repeal Obamacare.

Promote Personal Control Through Tax Equity: Today, workers who purchase coverage through their employer receive an unlimited tax break on the value of their health care benefits. However, those who purchase coverage on their own receive no comparable tax break. Ideally, the current tax exclusion should be replaced (or at the very least capped) with a system of universal tax credits for taxpayers. Medicaid and SCHIP spending should also be redirected to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance

Fix Current Government Health Programs: Medicare should be reformed into a defined-contribution system in which the government provides a contribution for benefits and seniors are able to apply their contribution to the health plan that suits them best.

Promote Federal–State Partnerships: A one-size-fits-all federal solution cannot accommodate the unique and diverse health care challenges facing the states. The federal government should promote interstate commerce in health insurance, extend certain protections for those who maintain continuous coverage, and provide states with technical assistance and relief from federal rules that inhibit innovation.

Provide Portability: Individuals—not the government—should be able to choose the health coverage that best suits their needs. To accomplish this, private health insurance must be portable—that is, owned by Americans so they can take their package from job to job.

There is no better symbol for the overreach of the progressive movement into the daily lives of all Americans than Obamacare. Repealing this intolerable act and replacing it with the foundations for a truly market-based health care system is one of the best ways conservatives can capitalize on liberalism’s retreat.

Quick Hits:

• Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.
• The government is investigating at least 20 car dealerships it claims violated the rules of last year’s cash-for-clunkers program.
• Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Sunday that President Obama’s political advisers are out of touch with average Americans and need to “spend some time outside Washington.”
• Iran opened its first nuclear power plant at a ceremony on Saturday that was attended by senior officials from Iran and Russia.
• Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela suffered more civilian deaths in 2009 than both Baghdad and Mexico.

It’s good to know who your friends are. In the case of “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout, it looks like Thailand knows. It also looks like the Obama Administration’s careful treading during Thailand’s ongoing political crisis has yielded some benefit.

On Friday, a Thai appeals court ordered Viktor Bout, the notorious international arms dealer responsible for fueling wars from Africa to Afghanistan, extradited to the U.S. to face terrorism charges. Bout’s arrest was made possible by a joint Thai-U.S. sting operation in 2008 that caught him agreeing to a massive a sale of weapons to agents posing as FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia) rebels. Following this celebrated law enforcement collaboration with our long-time Thai allies, last year, a lower Thai court ruled against a U.S. request for his extradition.

After two years of struggle between the U.S. and the Russians, who have long opposed Bout’s extradition, all has been made right with the Thais.

Now, we all hope the courts would have decided this case purely on its merits—even without U.S. pressure. But it’s not for nothing that American national security and state department officials at all levels were discussing this matter with their counterparts on the Thai side. You’d better bet the Russians were making their case—and it’s doubtful it was in the cause of “a fair and transparent legal proceeding.”

One cannot but wonder had the Administration interfered in the Thai political crisis this May when the government moved in to restore order to Bangkok, would our Thai government friends have taken our calls?

The “red shirt” protesters the Thai government swept off the streets were no suburban tea party activists. What may have one time been seen by Thais as a genuine call for justice, by the time of the crackdown, had devolved into an armed mob, spurred by a billionaire former Prime Minister turned refugee openly calling for “revolution” in his homeland. On retreat, they showed their true colors through wanton destruction of private property.

No government in the world would permit an armed mob to occupy its downtown for weeks on end. The Administration deserves credit for keeping this in perspective and for keeping lines of communication with the Thai government open. Viktor Bout is a big fish, but he’s not the only fish we have to fry in Thailand. The U.S. has interests there across the board. And we have a democratic government to work with—one that is struggling to deepen its democracy, but remains democratic nevertheless.

The other person deserving of credit for the turn of events in Bout’s extradition is Congressman Ed Royce (R–CA). Congressman Royce led an often lonely battle to see Bout extradited to the U.S. He kept his colleagues, and the public eye, focused on this issue. His persistence paid off. As he says in his latest blog post, the “Good Guys Win.”

A new messaging strategy, based on public polling results from top Democratic pollsters, suggests that congressional lawmakers should wave the white flag when discussing Obamacare in their election campaigns. The PowerPoint presentation, released in a conference call organized by Families USA, encouraged officials to “keep claims small and credible: don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers.”

In other words, abandon ship on claims that lawmakers made for months during the health reform debate—that the legislation would in any way reduce the nation’s deficit or lower health care costs (in fact, this was a recommendation in the presentation’s “not-to-do” list).

But wait, weren’t those the main reasons why President Barack Obama in July 2009 pressed for a fast-track passage of a massive overhaul to our health care system? At a prime-time press conference during a contentious summer when many Americans expressed uncertainty, here’s how the President justified the urgency:

“If we do not control these [health care] costs, we will not be able to control our deficit,” Obama said. “If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket.”

Well, the Obama Administration got its “reform,” and the public was left with revised projections of higher deficits. Plus, workers can expect smaller paychecks next year as many businesses plan to pass higher health care costs onto their employees.

The new findings highlight what many pollsters have been reporting for months following the passage of the new health law:

• Many don’t believe this health reform will help the economy.
• Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and believe costs will continue to rise.
• Women in particular are concerned that health law will mean less provider availability—scarcity an issue.

But that’s okay, because Obamacare proponents can use “transition” or “bridge” language to let the public know that “the health care law is not perfect,” Still, since it supposedly does “good things and helps many people,” all the liberals have to do is “improve it.”

Heritage’s newly released “Solutions for America” counters that the nation doesn’t need any more liberal “improvements.” Instead, we need to get our country back on track with a full repeal of ObamaCare along with free-market policies that promote tax equity in health insurance, fix our broken government health programs and encourage states to take the lead.

General Motors is making moves to sell some of its government-owned stock back to the private sector in what would be one of the largest initial public offerings (IPOs) in U.S. history. While this is certainly a positive sign, it should not be used as an example and an excuse for more government-sponsored bailouts. The truth is that restructuring an inefficient business model is turning around a company.

While the economic downturn and the credit crunch exacerbated GM’s problems, the automaker has been hampered by long-term problems such as high labor costs, legacy costs, and inefficient dealer networks. Restructuring these inefficient business operations was the critical part of GM’s turnaround.

Last year GM reduced its global labor force by over 10,000 and reduced domestic employers by 3,400—a 12 percent cut. By the end of this year, GM will cut its workforce by 21,000 hourly workers and reduce the number of production facilities from 47 to 34. Another agreement made in the government-financed bankruptcy was that GM would terminate its franchise contracts with hundreds of dealerships throughout the country.

Furthermore, in an effort to focus on more profitable brands, the automaker sold Saab to a Dutch sports car maker and Hummer to China’s Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery company. GM terminated the Saturn and Pontiac brands and will focus solely on Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC lines.

Working with the United Auto Workers (UAW) to curtail lavish benefits packages was, and still is, a difficult but essential process for GM. The company moved toward consumer-driven health care plans for both its salaried employees and retirees, which will help reduce some of the costs of a generous health care package. Part of the restructuring also changed the benefits available to laid-off workers. As part of the agreement for government support and to move toward bankruptcy, the UAW overwhelmingly (74 percent) approved other cost-saving concessions, including reductions in cost-of-living raises, bonuses, tuition assistance, and the amount of prescription drugs covered.

Discussing the GM IPO, The Washington Post’s Peter Whoriskey writes, “Now, whether the government can recoup its investment will be a test for some to see if the bailout was justified.”

But regardless of whether the taxpayers recover the handout or not, bailouts can set a disturbing precedent, resulting in even more private companies clamoring for government sponsorships. A number of companies today could make the case that their respective industry is vital for the economy and begin requesting billions of dollars in bailout subsidies. George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux further explains the trouble with bailouts:

The chief economic case against the bailout was not that huge infusions of taxpayer funds and special exemptions from bankruptcy rules could not make G.M. and Chrysler profitable. Of course they could. Instead, the heart of the case against the bailout is that it saps the life-blood of entrepreneurial capitalism. The bailout reinforces the debilitating precedent of protecting firms deemed “too big to fail.” Capital and other resources are thus kept glued by politics to familiar lines of production, thus impeding entrepreneurial initiative that would have otherwise redeployed these resources into newer, more-dynamic, and more productive industries.

The “success” of the bailout is all too easy to engineer and to see. The cost of the bailout—the industries, the jobs, and the outputs that are never created—is impossible to see, but nevertheless real.

From John Bolton to Jeffrey Goldberg, commentators, journalists and policy movers have been trying to read the tea leaves on Iran’s next nuclear move, Israel’s potential response, and what it means for the rest of the world. Heritage analyst Peter Brookes lays out the facts of the case and a reasoned discussion of the looming fulfillment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Listen to Heritage in Focus: Peter Brookes on a Nuclear Iran here. To get regular updates on Heritage’s weekly podcast, subscribe to our RSS feed or visit us on iTunes.

You can read Heritage’s Iran research here.

It was supposed to be done by now. Like cap and trade and Guantanamo before it, President Barack Obama’s New START with Russia was expected to be approved by the U.S. Senate of the 111th Congress. But just as the Obama administration has admitted defeat and is now scrubbing the White House webiste clean of cap and trade references, the administration is retreating on New START as well.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) had scheduled a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on the treaty before the August recess but had to pull the item for lack of votes. Former Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker explains why:

From the outset, proponents of New START have framed the issue as one on which senators must vote either yes or no. And those not in favor of “yes” are acting, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry said of former governor Mitt Romney, on the basis of “narrow, uninformed political objections.”

This narrative grossly oversimplifies the way complex treaties typically are addressed in the Senate. In addition to voting yes or no, senators ordinarily are afforded the option of voting “yes, provided . . . ” — with that “provided” consisting of declarations and conditions in the Senate resolution of approval that are designed to remedy concerns about particular aspects of a treaty.

Overzealous supporters of treaties sometimes try to deny senators this third option, calculating that they have enough votes to ram a treaty through irrespective of some lawmakers’ reservations. This strategy can work brilliantly to streamline the approval process — but it can also fail spectacularly, as with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999.
…
Working with the critics to address their concerns could pave the way for a strong bipartisan vote in favor of New START, as happened with the Chemical Weapons Convention. This would, however, require a level of patience and respect for dissenting views that has not been in evidence.

Instead, the process more closely resembles the one that surrounded the test-ban treaty. If current trends continue, the likely outcome will be a near party-line vote in the committee next month, probably foreclosing prospects for Senate approval this year.

As Rademacher notes: “All but two Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee formally asked the administration to share with them the negotiating record of the treaty. They were told no, even though there is precedent for accommodating such requests.” The administration would be wise to follow this request.

This November, along with a host of anxious politicians, California’s own greenhouse gas law, AB 32, will be on the ballot. Those worried about the law’s potential economic consequences are pushing Proposition 23 that calls for freezing provisions of AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. Serious questions about apocalyptic global warming aside, one would expect California’s horrendous unemployment rate of 12.3% and the state’s near bankrupt status, to deter the golden – or rather green – state’s aggressive emissions regulatory agenda but such is not the case.

Last Tuesday, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) released a report outlining preliminary emissions reduction targets for four major metropolitan areas – San Diego, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. The report calls for a 13-16% reduction of carbon dioxide by 2035. What is surreal even by California’s standards is that, at the same time CARB is preparing to ratchet down on greenhouse gas emissions, the agency is pushing California dry cleaners to adopt machines that actually emit greenhouse gases.

Most dry cleaners use a compound known as perc, but perc has found itself in CARB’s regulatory cross-hairs. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has designated perc as a “potential occupational carcinogen” and, similarly, the National Toxicology Program has designated perc as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Consequently, it is not a surprise that perc is on CARB’s list.  Even so, OSHA (The Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – an entity that rarely finds a risk too small to regulate ­– states that, “The possibility of these health hazards can be minimized by reducing worker exposures to perc vapor and by avoiding skin contact with perc.” Nonetheless, CARB is compelling dry cleaners to jettison machines that use the cleaning solvent.

Since 2005, California dry cleaners using perc machines have had to pay a tax of $4 per gallon of perc. The collected tax has provided funding for CARB’s Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program. Under the program, CARB provides dry cleaners with $10,000 grants that subsidize their transition from perc machines to other cleaning technologies such as — have you guessed it — carbon dioxide.

Any dry cleaner that chooses to adopt the CO2 machines may need every penny of CARB’s subsidies as the San Francisco Examiner reports that a CO2 machine can cost as much as $143,000 and almost $50,000 more to install. In addition to this hefty price tag and additional quarterly fines that can be as high as $2,500 for continued use of perc, dry cleaners are also likely on the hook for thousands more to remove and dispose of their old perc machines and any traces thereof from their shops. According to Marti Russell, the past president of the California Dry Cleaners Association, air quality officials have opined that as many as 15 to 20 percent of dry cleaners in the Bay area could close their doors. With dry cleaning revenue already down by 25-30 percent by some estimates, the prediction may not be far off.

The switch may cause dry cleaners’ customers problems as well. According to CARB’s own estimates, dry cleaning businesses will have to charge 41 to 51 cents more per garment to pay the cost of a new dry cleaning machine within five years. Even with such an investment, according to one of CARB’s own reports, CO2 cleaning technology may be less effective than perc at cleaning many stains. CARB used a measurement unit known as the Kauri Butanol (Kb) to rank the degreasing ability of various solvents. A higher number indicates a cleaning solvent more efficient at removing hydrocarbon (petroleum-based) stains like grease or lipstick. Out of eight cleaning technologies, perc scored the highest at 92, while carbon dioxide was the lowest at <10. While advocates of CO2 based dry cleaning and other alternative technologies are working to refine and improve their methods and point at other studies, the reality is that dry cleaners have, at least in part, relied on perc because it works.

Where it gets really weird is in CARB’s description of the carbon dioxide used for dry cleaning. CARB states it is “a non-toxic, naturally-occurring gas,” that poses no risks to human health (excepting of course the end of mankind from global warming) and goes on to explain that CO2 is as harmless as the beverage-grade chemical used to carbonate a can of soda pop and is used in packaging for many foods such as salads, potato chips, and cookies. While this is all quite true, it seems like something that would come from an ostracized “global warming denier.” (Are the people pushing these “alternative” dry cleaning technologies the same ones that are telling us “alternative” energy – solar and wind – will do just fine?)

Attempting to explain itself, CARB states that it has not determined how much carbon dioxide is emitted from CO2 cleaning, and that the CO2 dry cleaning process does not contribute to “the greenhouse gas inventory” because “the carbon dioxide used… is a by-product from industrial operations.” This maybe so but it does not change the fact that an agency preparing to strangle some businesses and citizens with CO2 restrictions is busy subsidizing CO2 emissions by its other regulatory victims. Hard to believe the state of California is broke.

Co-authored by Shannon Hale. Hale was a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

On August 13 El Nacional, a Venezuelan daily, published a disturbing photograph of corpses piled up in a Caracas morgue. The photograph drove home an indisputable fact: Caracas has become one of the most dangerous places in the Americas.

Reports the latest Economist:

Venezuela’s national murder rate is 75 per 100,000 people, up from 49 just four years ago, twice the rate in neighboring Colombia where guerrillas continue to wage war and an astonishing 220 per 100,000 people in Caracas, higher even than in Mexico’s drug-ridden Ciudad Juárez.

The Chávez regime immediately lashed out at El Nacional and the free press. It issued a gag order to forbid publication of crime photos for 30 days, the time remaining until the September 26 legislative elections. El Nacional fired back with a center space labeled “censored” reminding readers what censorship really means.

Rather than declaring war on crime and lawlessness, Chávez is taking aim at the messenger. Noted opposition daily Tal Cual, what Chávez fears most is that the Venezuelan people are starting to attribute responsibility for unchecked criminal activity to his 10-plus years in power.

Similarly, Chávez cannot hide from his current collision course with the Obama Administration.The standoff over the new Ambassador has intensified. The nominee—veteran diplomat Larry Palmer—is being rejected because he refused to lie to the U.S. Senate

The indictment of Guillermo Zuloaga, owner of Globovision, on spurious charges and a Venezuelan demand for his extradition from the U.S. will cause fresh friction.

As Chávez pushes ahead with providing refined gasoline to Iran, new conflict over Venezuela’s sanctions-busting activities will widen. And while Chávez has opened talks and restored diplomatic relations with Colombia, there has been no independent verification that the camps and narco-terrorists are gone. Drug trafficking through Venezuela is still on the rise and Chávez’s ties to terrorism are worrisome.

Like his mentor Fidel Castro, Chávez requires enemies, domestic and foreign, to help accelerate the jump to dictatorship. Either the opposition press or the U.S. works equally well.

Yet, the real enemy Venezuela confronts is Chávez and his increasing inability or unwillingness to tackle basic domestic security challenges.       Hiding an ugly reality with prior press censorship does little good, especially when fewer Venezuelans are buying the party line.

The fact is that New Jersey lied and got caught, but taxpayers everywhere may benefit.

Yesterday, the State of New Jersey settled with the SEC on charges that the state committed securities fraud by failing to disclose the true state of its state employees pension funds. This admission is an important step toward ending accounting policies that allow states to claim that the state teachers and employees’ pension funds are fully funded, when they really have billions of dollars of deficits.

By using accounting tricks, New Jersey claimed to have made millions of dollars of contributions into its pension funds, when it really made no cash contributions at all. The false statements in the documents backing 79 issues of municipal bonds totaling $26 billion between 2001 and 2007 gave the impression that the state was in much better financial shape that it actually was (and is), thus misleading purchasers of the bonds into thinking that the risk of default was lower.

Unfortunately, New Jersey is only one of many states and cities with underfunded public employees pension plans. As was formerly the case with many private traditional pension plans, perfectly legal accounting policies mask the true condition of these plans, a situation that was largely changed by pension reform legislation in 2006. Unfortunately, some states and local governments have carried this even further by using tricks for which companies in the private sector would have been indicted, while others have no idea what they owe in the long run.

That is where yesterday’s SEC action comes into play. While it is right to be suspicious of regulators’ actions, the SEC this time is on the side of taxpayers. By attacking fraudulent pension funding numbers in securities filings, the agency is moving to one set of uniform accounting standards that taxpayers can use to see what promises their local and state governments have made. This is especially important since it is taxpayers who will be on the hook to actually pay for those promises.

This common accounting standard, assuming that it is rigorously enforced, will enable taxpayers to get accurate answers to the questions, “What pension promises have my state or local governments made?” “What do those promises cost?” “How responsibly have those funding requirements been handled?” That, in turn, will enable taxpayers to figure out how to reduce the cost of those promises

Because the state constitution prevents cutting pensions, it is too late for the taxpayers of New Jersey to change the pension promises they will have to pay. However, residents in other states and cities may still have the opportunity to act before it is too late. The SEC now needs to require other states and local governments to tell the truth about their pension plans.

The Senate floor may be empty, but debate over the New START Treaty continues. Dismissing calls for debate as petty partisanship, many on the left urge a quick vote on the treaty. The treaty’s proponents fail to appreciate the Senate’s constitutional role in the treaty-making process.

In Article II, Section 2, the Constitution grants the President the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” James Wilson explains, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.” In Federalist 64, John Jay praises the treaty-making process that relies on both the President and the Senate: “We have reason to be persuaded that the treaties they make will be as advantageous as, all circumstances considered, could be made.” Thus, both the executive and legislature are essential to making treaties “law of the land.” But what does “Advice and Consent” mean in practice?

One of America’s earliest treaties, the Jay Treaty (negotiated by Jay himself), provides a great model for Senators today. In 1794, a war raged between Great Britain and France, and the British violated American neutrality by capturing U.S. commercial ships. The hotly debated Jay Treaty of 1794 averted a potential war with Great Britain and encouraged commercial relations between the two countries.

Upon receiving the Jay Treaty, Washington duly presented it to the Senate for advice and consent. He did not assume senators would simply rubber-stamp the measure. The Senate, in turn, did not shirk its constitutional responsibility—after much deliberation, the treaty barely passed with a vote of 20 to 10. Interestingly, Washington provided the Senate with the entire negotiating record—but he later denied the same request from House of Representatives. After all, the House lacks a constitutional role in the treaty process.

As Marion Smith highlights in his paper “Remember the Jay Treaty: START Behaving Like Senators,” the Senate has a serious role in the treaty-making process. Throughout history, treaties have been made, considered, ratified, and yes—some have been rejected. Today’s Senate should take a cue from the Jay Treaty. New START contains a number of ambiguities and clauses that could potentially compromise our missile defense system and therefore our national security. As such, senators must not hastily rubber-stamp the document. Rather, they should deliberate upon the treaty and refuse consent until they can be wholeheartedly confident of its worthiness to become “supreme law of the land.”

Theresa Smart is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

The amount of money U.S. taxpayers are forking over to the United Nations reached an all-time high in 2009, reports Brett Schaefer: According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009.

"Between 1993 and 2007, the number of full-time administrators per 100 students at America's leading universities grew by 39 percent, while the number of employees engaged in teaching, research or service only grew by 18 percent," reports Jay P. Greene:...

So far, 21 states have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.  As they move forward, it’s worth pondering what would happen to the health care overhaul if they succeed. Could one lawsuit be the proton torpedo that blows up the Obamacare Death Star?

Typically, courts can deem a legislative provision unconstitutional without it spelling doom for the entire piece of legislation.  But Obamacare isn’t typical legislation.

Ben Domenech explains: “Most laws of large size and scope have something called a “severability clause” attached to them. Essentially, this means that if one part of a piece of large legislation is ruled unconstitutional by a court, that unconstitutional portion is “severed” from the rest of the bill — the ruling doesn’t stop the rest of the law from being enforced.”

Obamacare doesn’t have a severability clause, most likely due to the hurried manner it which it was rammed through Congress.  And that omission constitutes a thermal exhaust port which may allow Jedi—aka, those challenging Obamacare in the courts—to annihilate the Empire’s mothership with just one deftly targeted legal torpedo.

That’s not a given, of course. For example, the Supreme Court could opt to vacate only the individual mandate and directly related provisions, leaving in place the bulk of the law.  That would still stick us with a bill that expands Medicaid to cover 16 million more Americans, cuts Medicare spending across-the-board, imposes a slew of new taxes on Americans from every income bracket, and adds billions to the federal deficit.

It’s a scenario only an Emperor could love.  Removing only the individual mandate would be disastrous.  “The mandate is the only thing which made other anti-market regulatory demands (such as guaranteed issue and community rating) workable for the [insurance] industry,” Domenech notes.  “Removing it and leaving other requirements intact would bring the entire insurance industry to the point of collapse.”

In the best case scenario, the absence of a severability clause would bring the entire Obamacare scheme crashing to the ground.  That’s not likely.  And if the courts remove the individual mandate while leaving all the legislation’s other provisions in place, if could spell doom—not for the Death Star, but for the health insurance industry.

So what’s the best answer?  Congress could repeal the whole thing.  And they wouldn’t need The Force to do it.

Earlier this month, 40 billionaires pledged to give at least half their fortunes to charitable causes. The givers include Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, and Herb and Marion Sandler. Even though liberal or leftwing priorities are predominant...

The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs-Oklahoma's free market think tank-has scored a big speaker for its annual Liberty Gala on September 15: former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The event takes place in Tulsa (location to be determined) starting at 6...