The Daily Brief

Today is the last day to get your comments into the FEC. If you think it’s not important, just see what the united reform front is saying:

Finally, we do not believe anyone described as a “blogger” is by definition entitled to the benefit of the press exemption. An individual writing material for distribution on the Internet may or may not be a press entity. While some bloggers may provide a function very similar to more classic media activities, and thus could reasonably be said to fall within the exemption, others surely do not . The test here should be the same test that the Commission has applied in other contexts – is the entity a “press entity” and is it acting in its “legitimate press function”?

Surely, Benjamin Franklin was fulfilling a “legitimate press function” when publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette. But was he when publishing Poor Richard’s Almanac? This is a question that just shouldn’t be left to Washington bureaucrats, and not one I would like to see bloggers subjected to. The First Amendment is quite clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of “NO law” don’t they understand?

Hat Tip: InstaPundit

The New Republic has joined the growing chorus of those on the left unhappy with Howard Dean:

But it’s hardly the DNC chair’s place to be making predictions about what a judge and a jury might decide–especially since DeLay hasn’t actually been indicted!

I personally think that Dean is entirely wrong for the post of Party Chairman. Because, like Bill Clinton, he is incapable of fading into the background, and leaving the grandstand to the active politicians. The principle job of Party Chair is fundraising. On that count as well, Dean has been seriously deficient:

It goes without saying that 100 days is an arbitrary and premature point at which to assess whether Dean is saving or screwing the party. Right-wing pundits have already started celebrating what they see as Dean’s speedy march towards failure. Although Dean is hitting “record levels,” according to DNC spokesperson Laura Gross, with a million-dollar-a-week fundraising pace, conservatives are gloating over RNC chair Ken Mehlman’s $34.2 million-twice the amount Dean has raised so far.

The Dems would have us believe that the filibuster has been with us from the birth of the republic. But Brookings has this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution from a year ago:

Right to extended debate

The Constitution allows the Senate to establish supermajority requirements. Article 1, section 5, provides that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Such requirements may be troublesome for the Republican majority, but the Senate clearly has the constitutional authority to create and enforce supermajority rules.

Still, this does not mean no reform is permissible. The right to extended debate was not created until 1806, when the Senate cleaned up its rulebook and dispensed—probably by mistake—with the rule that allowed a majority to limit the debate. Filibusters did not begin in earnest until the newly formed Democratic and Whig parties formed several decades later.

Filibusters against nominees are constitutional. Some Republican senators have claimed that filibusters of nominees are unconstitutional because they prevent the Senate from fulfilling its obligations to advise and consent. In fact, and quite remarkably, the Constitution does not specify that a majority of any sort is required for confirmation, or even for passing laws. The Framers most likely had such a requirement in mind, but the Constitution does not address it. No reading of the Constitution can support the idea that filibusters are unconstitutional.

There is precedent for banning the filibuster. Periodically, the Senate has chosen to impose debate limits on important bills. “Fast track” for trade bills ban the filibuster and a wide range of laws (from arms export control laws to marine sanctuary protections) limit debate. In proposing a ban on filibustering judicial nominees, Frist may simply have found another special purpose for limiting debate.

Further, while he Jackasses are baying loud and long about how a change in the cloture rule is unprecedented, that is far from true as well:

Cloture has not always been like this. When rule twenty-two was adopted in 1917, it took 2/3 of the Senate who was present to vote for cloture providing there was a quorum. In 1949, rule 22 was amended to state that 2/3 of the entire senate, or 67 members were required to vote to end debate. In 1959, rule 22 was amended again lowering the required number of senators to 2/3 of those who were present and voting. In 1975, cloture was lowered to 3/5 of membership or 60 members to vote for it. Since the drop in the number of members needed to invoke cloture, cloture votes were twice as successful then in the period from 1959.

The other major reform that took place in cloture was the time allotted to debate after cloture was invoked. Originally rule 22 never specified the amount of time that was permitted for debate after cloture was invoked, senators began to exploit the rule in the late 1970s. They started what became known as the post-cloture filibuster, where after debate had been supposedly ended, they would continue to tie up the floor with more debate, amendments, and points of order. For example, Senator X would have control over the floor and ask for every amendment to be read, despite relevance or necessity. This post-cloture filibuster would eat up a large amount of time.

Thus, in 1979, the Senate amended rule 22 to state that post-cloture debate would be limited to one hundred hours or one hour per Senator. The only problem with this reform was that the one hundred hours did not include points of order or readings of amendments, so the post-cloture filibuster still worked in delaying the passage of a bill. Again in 1986, the senate voted to amend rule 22 to limit post-cloture debate to 30 hours including all points of order. This recent amendment has pretty much eliminated the post-cloture filibuster.

Another somewhat less looked at cloture reform is that of dealing with procedural motions and rules. In 1948, the chair decided that cloture cannot be applied to procedural motions applying to pending legislation. One year later, the senate voted to overturn that decision, saying that cloture could be applied to procedural motions except those motions to change the standing rules of the senate. One decade later in 1959, the senate again changed rule 22 to say that cloture may be invoked in motions considering changes in senate rules. In 1975, along with the lowering of cloture votes to 3/5, the senate mandated that 2/3 of senators present and voting must vote cloture on senate rules. This is the ruling that remains today.

So why is rule 22 cloture reform so important to the passing of legislation? It is pretty simple. It is almost impossible for a majority in the senate to have 3/5 or 60 votes. So in order to pass a partisan bill, one party must get a number of votes from their opponents in order to shut off the minorities ability to filibuster. There have been talks about lowering the amount of votes needed to invoke cloture but due to the fact that you need a 2/3 vote to change senate rules, it is unlikely that the minority will want to give up their ability to block unfavorable legislation.

Finally, I find it almost laughable that, after all the vitriol and hyperbole over Owen for the past four years, when it finally came down to a vote to end debate, it passed by an overwhelming 81-18.

Hat Tip: Todd Zywicki at Volokh

RedState.org reminds us that the deadline for comments to the FEC on proposed regulation of blogs is June 3rd. They have lots of handy links.

Hat Tip: InstaPundit

It seems the “Republican Talking Points” memo on Terri Schiavo is quite likely a fake:

The memo has three possible origins. The first possibility is that it was created by a low-level Republican staffer. This seems possible, but highly unlikely. Only a very dim-witted staffer would 1) copy word for word from the Traditional Values site, 2) get the Senate bill number wrong, 3) make a number of silly errors, including misspelling Mrs. Schiavo’s name as “Teri,” and 4) mix comments about political advantage into a “talking points” memo. Moreover, the Post and ABC have tried to create the impression that the memo is an official, high-level Republican strategy document. It clearly is not that.

The second possibility is that the memo was created by a lobbying group, presumably the Traditional Values Coalition, since most of the content of the memo comes word for word from their web site. But the controversial political observations–“the pro-life base will be excited,” etc.–are inappropriate for an organization like the Coalition. They sound as if they are written from the internal perspective of the Republican party (“this is a tough issue for Democrats”).

The third possibility is that the memo is a Democratic dirty trick. At the moment, that looks most likely. It is easy to picture how the document could have been constructed. A Democratic staffer wants to put in some language that will sound authentic for a Republican memo. What does he do? He steals four paragraphs from the Coalition’s web site. Then he adds the explosive political observations which are the whole point of the exercise–weirdly out of place in a “talking points” memo, but good politics for the Democrats.

Further, this could explain why the scanned version of the document is different from the one that ABC News originally obtained. The document was apparently corrected in three respects between the time it was given to ABC and when it was leaked to a left-wing web site. Who cleaned up the memo? Presumably the person or persons who created it. The site that put up the jpeg of the memo said that “a source on Capitol Hill…leaked” it to them. The source was presumably a Democratic staffer. If the document was a genuine Republican memo, would the Democrat who leaked it onto the web take the trouble to re-create it, correcting typos? No. The leaker would only correct errors if he himself was the source of the memo.

And finally: as the New York Times has reported, the only people who have actually been seen passing out the memo are Democratic aides.

The evidence we have so far is not conclusive, but it points in the direction of a dirty trick by the Democrats. The onus is certainly on Mike Allen of the Post and ABC News, if they actually have evidence that the memo is genuine, to tell us what that evidence is. In any event, however, the suggestion that this is some kind of high-level Republican strategy memo is ludicrous.

Hat Tip: InstaPundit

Virginia Postrel has a couple of interesting posts about choice, and Social Security privatization, here and here. The gist of it is that, given too many choices, consumers are inclined to become overwhelmed. And surely, the number of choices in the market for investments, something which might only increase greatly with massive new injections of capital from SS privatization, is enough to be somewhat daunting to all but the most sophisticated investors.

On FNC’s Cavuto this morning, the subject came of a Democratic “plot” to kill SS privatization, because the Jackass Party is simply afraid of the electorate learning that it had power in being responsible for it’s own wealth. I reject this, just as I reject all the kooky conspiracy theories to come from the left. But I am confident many liberals believe a large portion of the population is simply to stupid to be trusted to invest wisely for the future. This Thalerist theory of Behavioral Economics serves to reinforce that viewpoint.

I see this all as a great canard. When SS privatization finally comes, I have little doubt that it will be much more than an expansion of the federal Thrift Savings Plan, albeit with a broader selection of investments. Plenty of restrictions will be put in to avoid speculative investing.

But I also reject the mantra preached by Democrats, that the current SS system is “guaranteed” benefit system. It is a massive gamble – a gamble on the whims of every government in power until the day you retire – and even afterwards.

But every time one of these things goes through, it becomes less about transportation, and more about pork:

Despite passage, some lawmakers remain dissatisfied with the formula for allocating highway grants. States that turn over more in gas tax receipts than they get back in highway aid have clamored for more money.

Under the new bill, California would receive $19 billion over six years, Texas, $16.6 billion, Pennsylvania, $10 billion and Florida $9.9 billion.

Others lawmakers have chafed at the 3,300 mandatory spending requirements, which include pet projects with thin if any link to transportation — like museum renovation in Ohio and the restoration of a historic home in Virginia.

Add that to the massive amount of money spent on public transit programs, which serve only a tiny percentage of commuters, and do nothing to relieve congestion, and it’s time to yell WHOA!

I tried to write about this, but I just don’t care.

This from the Washington Times:

Some House Democrats favor Social Security reform but are afraid of retribution by party leaders, a Republican legislator said.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, was asked at a Cato Institute conference in Washington Wednesday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles, Allan H. Ryskind reports at www.humaneventsonline.com.

Under Mr. Ryan’s legislation, no new taxes would be needed to pay for “transition costs,” participation in the new system would be voluntary and workers would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.

A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said Mr. Ryan’s plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the lawmaker from Wisconsin had secured any Democratic sponsors. Mr. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the “other side of the aisle” who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.

“We were in planning stages” with friendly Democrats, Mr. Ryan said. But each essentially told him: “I like what you’re doing. I like this bill. I think it’s the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can’t do it.”

Mr. Ryan said he thinks the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America’s grass roots.