Cities like New York and Washington are undergoing something of a baby boom as families increasingly settle in urban areas instead of the suburbs. This demographic development is causing new sorts of problems—like the relative unfriendliness of some city services to children—and conservatives need to be ready with real policy solutions for these young families.
Mother Jones‘ May issue includes a truly astounding series of articles on population and sustainability that argues, explicitly, that Malthus was right after all. One article, not online, even goes so far as to suggest the government deliberately engineer a zero-GDP-growth economy, a scheme even the author admits suffers from more than a few conceptual and practical flaws.
Heather Mac Donald swats down the New York Times‘s sloppy accusations of NYPD racism: “The actual crime rates reveal that blacks are being significantly understopped, compared with their representation in the city’s criminal population, another reason for omitting them from the paper’s reporting.”
Charles Kesler has an important article in the May 17 issue of National Review (republished online over at Claremont Conservative) on the importance of constitutionalism. The penultimate paragraph highlights the importance of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place:
In the current crisis, conservative efforts to restore the separation of powers may even be more important than a campaign to shore up federalism. TARP, for example, was an unprecedented delegation of legislative power to the Treasury secretary, of all people. It was a desperate, essentially lawless grant resembling the ancient Roman dictatorship, except that the Romans wisely confined their dictators to six-month terms. Obamacare is a 2,000-page monstrosity that will need thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of pages of additional regulations before it can operate. These will be issued by more than a hundred new bureaucracies, each a source of unaccountable power wielded over individual Americans. These multiplying centers of petty tyranny will accelerate our transformation from a republic of laws to a corrupt regime of muddled and ever more arbitrary power.
The Library of Congress’ online catalog includes several great old pictures of Dupont Circle, including this one of the circle before the fountain was installed:
Sean Fieler and Jeffrey bell ask whether we should revisit the gold standard as one way to rein in runaway government.
Rep. Paul Ryan has an important article in the New York Timesmaking the case not only for repealing Obamacare but for replacing it. “It is not sufficient,” he argues, “for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform.” To build a system that puts patients first, not bureaucrats, he favors “attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job” and enabling state-based reforms like risk pools to manage pre-existing conditions.
The government seems determined to enforce Matthew 26:11. A new poverty metric would count as poor not those living in real destitution but those living in relative destitution.
In the Washington Post, Brian Frosh and Jamie Raskin argue that if progressives want to undo the effects of Citizens United—a bad idea, to be sure—they ought to turn to the states, which retain broad regulatory powers. (Full disclosure: Brian is a cousin.)
And last but not least, an amusing video of President George W. Bush wiping his hand on his predecessor:
Steven Spruiell offers a three-step guide to socializing an industry: 1) the government subsidizes private firms; 2) the government creates a “public option” to “compete” with the private firms that have grown fat on subsidies; 3) the government federalizes the whole industry on the grounds that the “public option” is cheaper and doesn’t funnel money to private firms. Solution: don’t subsidize industries in the first place.
Apropos of nationalizing firms, Rep. Barney Frank worries that investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might not be terribly sound. Good thing the federal government “invested” so much money on behalf of taxpayers over the past year!
While we’re on the subject of bad ideas, FEMA’s director has proposed federal disaster insurance as an alternative to federal bailouts for those who suffer a catastrophe. Of course, like federal flood insurance, such a policy effectively rewards those who choose to live in high-risk areas. Furthermore, disaster relief isn’t necessarily a federal responsibility at all, as President Calvin Coolidge argued after the 1927 Mississippi floods.
Kevin Gentry of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation was kind enough to include my take on the role of online fundraising in his “Fundraising Tip of the Week” e-mail:
Direct mail and new media are complementary and reinforce one another. Even with the best online fundraising campaign, you’d still be leaving money on the table without an offline component, just as with the best direct mail campaign you’d be forgoing funds without an online effort.
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, argue in today’s New York Times that the World Trade Center “redevelopment process was always intended to be a public-private collaboration.” They urge the Port Authority, the public agency that owns the site, to further assist with the project’s finances. Another government agency, the joint city-state Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, is also involved in the redevelopment.
Aside from mere symbolism, however, why should taxpayer money be spent to plan and construct a private office building that fairly clearly nobody wants to build? After all, if there were really demand for a 100-story skyscraper, then private financing would be forthcoming.
Not only is the winning design for the new U.S. embassy in London embassy horribly ugly, but so are all the runners-up. Why do so many architects think their buildings have to eschew traditional design conventions to be any good?
Simon Heffer offers some unkind words about the man who could be Britain’s next prime minister (maybe). “Cameron shifts easily on such issues because he has very few principles, other than his belief in himself as prime minister. If it is feasible one day to reward marriage through the tax system, he will do so. If it is not, he won’t really care less. Such is the mindset of the former public relations man, whose elastic intellect can be placed on whatever side of whatever argument.”
And last but not least, Wired’s article about Google’s algorithm provides not only a fascinating look at search technology but an interesting case study of an organization that consistently innovates.
Secretary of Defense Gates criticizes European governments for failing to provide adequately for their own defense. But it’s little wonder that they don’t manage these things themselves when the United States has for so long offered a security guarantee.
There’s a major flaw in carbon-trading schemes, Jeremy Warner argues: no wealth is actually being created by these trades. “Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one.”
The Obama administration has devised a new way to save money: stop subsidizing banks that offer student loans. Fair enough. The New York Times reports, however, that the government intends to continue funneling taxpayer money to schools and students and spend the “savings” from the subsidies elsewhere: “the savings would be used to aid early-childhood education, community colleges and needy college students.” Another way to save taxpayers money would be to, you know, not spend it.
An Ohio clergyman suggests that lawmakers shouldn’t live in housing affiliated with religious organizations. Why? The Washington Post says “he called it a matter of church-and-state separation, with this a potential example of undue church influence on government through members of Congress.” Of course, the First Amendment was crafted to keep government out of religion — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” – not to keep religion out of government.
And last but not least, George Will offers his entertaining take on the state of the world at CPAC:
