Free-Market Principles of Fiscal Policy

1.Above all: Keep taxes low. High taxes (relative to other countries and the states) have a profoundly negative effect on economic growth.


2.Don’t penalize earnings and investment. Taxes on earnings and investment income are particularly harmful to economic growth. Income taxes have a large negative effect on economic growth.

3.Avoid “sin” and excise taxes. Taxes on specific goods and services are often unfair, unreliable, and regressive.

4.Create a transparent and accountable budget. The sole purpose of collecting taxes is to finance the core functions of state government. But few states have budget processes in place that enable legislators to identify those functions and measure the performance of state agencies.

5.Privatize public services. Privatization is a proven way to reduce government spending while preserving or improving the quality of core public services.

6.Avoid corporate subsidies. Subsidies to corporations and selective tax abatement are questionable politics and bad economics. Such assistance is unnecessary if general taxes are kept uniform.

7.Cap taxes and expenditures. A tax and expenditure limit (TEL) protects elected officials from public pressure to spend surplus tax revenues during good times. During bad economic times, the beneficiaries of new programs oppose in cuts. It is a recipe for inefficient government growth, fiscal crises, and tax increases.

8.Fund students, not schools. Free and universal K-12 education is generally agreed to be one of the core functions of state government, but international and historical standards, public schools int the U.S. are costly and yield poor results. Cities and states that are experimenting with school choice have seen achievement gains.

9.Reform Medicaid programs. Next to education, Medicaid is the largest single expense in most state budgets. Costs are rising at double-digit rates in many states, while fraud and abuse take an alarming share of every dollar spent.

10.Protect state employees from politics. Workers should be free to choose or decline union membership, and state and local governments should be prohibited from deducting funds used for political purposes from the paychecks of public workers.

No Nomination Games Being Played

I agree that something needs to be done about the obstruction of judicial nominees, but what can be done so that we do not change to operation of the Senate? The “nuclear option? is no option at all becasue it will destroy the Senate.

Sen. Graham is blocking Mr. Haynes on principle becasue of his role in the torture scandal. No game here. Mr. Haynes wrote and endorsed the memos.

You bet that there would be cries of foul play if his election were moved up to tomorrow becasue it is not supposed to be until 2008. He is not supportive of nominees colling their heels fro years, but the one in question is problematic and there was some given up by the compromise.

The abuses have existed for a long time, but that does not mean we need a radical solution that makes irreversable changes.

I support the reforms because it would give all nominees of all presidents a fair vote, however, the Senators should have a right to block if there are substantial concerns, such as there are with Mr. Haynes.

I do not have a problem with knowing who is doing the blocking, however, a rules change should be done without the “nuclear option? and the Specter approach is a good start.

Response to “Lord on Judicial Nominations? on ConfirmThem.

Friend of Graham and Good Policy

Paul at PowerLine is as disappointed in Sen. Graham’s lack of a response to the issue of weather he is blocking the Haynes nomination as he is in the senator's recent letter to conservative groups. The partisanship of the retired military officer does not matter as long as his concerns are valid. I am sure that Paul would be signing a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just because he disagrees with a policy. If Mr. Haynes could not break from his ’superiors’ as General Counsel of DoD than it is right to question his independence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceding years.

Sen. Graham is relying on the testimony of former officers that either worked with Haynes or in the environment that Haynes created when he sold out his DoD position to go along with the Justice Department position. It is unfair to say that Sen. Graham is ignoring pro-Haynes viewpoints of the officer cited. If Maj. Gen. Michael Marchand would go in and talk to him or write a letter to him than He would consider his viewpoint as well.

He is talking about the JAG memos, which took him a year and one-half to get and they were classified for some unknown reason. He refers to these memos because they represented DoD policy and the concerns about the effect on the service men and women were valid. If the advice was followed than why couldn’t the Senator have them sooner? If they weren’t doing aything wrong why classify the opinion of the JAGs when the memos between Bybee, Haynes, Gonzales, and the other civilian lawyers were made public? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld later have to decertify some of the methods and why are we still dealing with this if he listened to their advice and the document addressed their concerns?

The argument that Sen. Graham did not consider the views of Maj. Gen. Roning or supporters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that positively assessed Haynes is telling about his willingness to consider views contrary to his own and the critics.

The letter does not directly address the issue of his role in stopping the Haynes nomination, but conservatives have drawn the conclusion from the wording that he is the impediment. This is no surprise to me because he has said that there was one nominee that he would vote against and I think Haynes is that nominee. If the Haynes nomination goes through committee and to the floor there will be a filibuster and I would rather see Sen. Graham do everything in his power to preserve the civility and working order of the Senate.

No Haynes and No Flag Amendment

According to ConfirmThem via the American Spectator Blog the conservative groups are demanding a vote on the Judges, particularly Haynes rather than consideration of a flag amendment. I believe that they only care about Jim Haynes because it appears that a Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is holding him up and they think he should get a vote.

I don’t think that any senator thinks these issues are the equivalent of “boob bait and switch.? They all know the importance of the court and wish to confirm fit and qualified judges. This is their duty.

I am not sure what Mr. Keene complains of we have confirmed 7 of the original 11 stalled nominees, as well as a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. This seems like most of what they wanted. One nominee withdrew and another faces ethics questions. Mr. Haynes is stalled because of his role in the torture memos. The most likely to have the stall lifted is William Myers because his questions are ones of ideology rather than ethics or job performance.

Jan LaRue is correct that it is the Senate’s duty to advise and consent, however, that does not mean to just approve every nominee that comes from the White House. It is part of that duty to thoroughly examine a nominee for any problems that they may pose. There is other pressing business beside the judges. Mr. Haynes is being blocked because of his role while DoD General Counsel in the torture scandal.

William Greene is incorrect because the duty is for the Judiciary Committee to first thoroughly examine the nominee and take care of any objections, when possible, before the nominee is voted out to the floor. Once on the floor they are supposed to get an up or down vote. Sure Sen. Graham will answer to his constituents, but he is doing the right thing by blocking Mr. Haynes.

The issue with Judge Boyle’s rate of cases overturned may not be as much the number or percentage as what issues and questions he has been overturned on by the higher courts.

I agree that reforms need to be passed regarding timetable for consideration of nominees, however, we also need to allow Senators to use their prerogative to block unacceptable nominees, even if they must tell us they are doing it.

I agree with all the sentiments expressed about judges being confirmed in a timely manner being the faithful dispatch of the Constitution, but this must also apply when a Democrat president sends nominees to the Senate.

Sen. Graham Doesn't Disappoint Me

Response to Mike Reino at SC6.

I started out volunteering for the Presidential campaign of John Edwards two years ago. I went to Iowa and Milwaukee as a volunteer. I cam home from one of these trips and I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN 2 when I happened across a speech by Lindsey Graham, who was the Jr senator from South Carolina at the time. The speech was about trade. I remembering who would dare present the unorthodox position that he did.

I have followed his Senate career for the last two years and have defended him every chance I get because I do plan to pattern myself after him. I like his style of hammering out compromises and tackling current and controversial issues head on without fear.

In spite of the high praise I do sometimes wonder what he is thinking, but it is just a disagreement to me and not a disappointment. There is much wrong with the Senate version of the immigration bill, however, I think his heart is in the right place. There is another problem with this issue besides the agency not being able to handle the influx and that is the executive department’s lax enforcement. Sen. Graham is only trying to assist in fixing a problem that the President could have fixed quickly with an executive order that demanded stepped up enforcement of existing law. The solution is not perfect, but that is why we have a conference committee.

I understand the perils of the immigration issues because I live in Chicago and have a difficult time finding employment because I don’t speak Spanish. I also understand that until we enforce the fines on employers for hiring illegals than we will have the problem.

I do think that Lindsey is caught up in the spirit of compromise as he tends to be because he wants the Senate to work together. It is unfortunate that John McCain and the rest you name are so derided. I do not think that Lindsey should be beat based on the Group of 14 because we still got our judges. Did we really want to destroy to Senate and change forever the way it works? I don’t. I like judicial compromise because it has given good judges positions. Some still won’t make it, but that is the process.

I do not think that the second is as plausible as the first. Lindsey made some of the most passionate and compassionate speeches I saw from anyone on this issue. I am sure he received some contributions from business interests, but so did all the senators. This is not as much the problem as his bleeding heart may be on the issue.

I am and always will be more like Lindsey Graham than Jim DeMint. I am still not a Fair Tax supporter and will remain a compromiser for the overall good.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just people Asking Pertinent Questions

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry steering committee, than why mention this because it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the President in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with this but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedicated civil servant with the ability to serve on the court, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance for us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Lindsey Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing so for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block because I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will receive justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination because of the torture issue. Lindsey is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us that the president is not going to completely get his way and that is correct.

Hayne's Critics Aren't Incoherent

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.