Ron Paul: Last of the Goldwater Republicans?

It may be unfair to characterize U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) as the "last of the Goldwater Republicans." There are plenty of us out there in the party, but our voices are often lost amidst the shrill sounds emitted by the increasingly larger social conservative wing of the GOP. And a few legislators -- notably Arizona's Jeff Flake -- still hold firm against pork-barrel spending and vote according to a Goldwateresque understanding of the Constitution.

Dr. Ron Paul -- like Senator Tom Coburn, he is an obstetrician-gynecologist in real life -- is the only life member of the Libertarian Party in Congress. He ran for president as a Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, after he had given up his seat in the House of Representatives for an unsuccessful run for the Senate in Texas.

Saturday's Houston Chronicle has a largely positive profile of Dr. Paul. The article says, in part:

Paul almost always goes against the grain. He recently cast one of the few votes against President Bush's emergency spending for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In March, he initially declined to comment when part of the Texas City BP refinery in his district exploded and killed several workers. A staffer said Paul wanted to avoid the appearance of grandstanding.

In general, Paul's goal is to provide an alternative voice in Washington, even if it's often ignored. And his nine terms in Congress may be proof of his constituents' admiration of his independent streak. Texans have a soft spot for those kinds of politicians, said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.

"They sometimes value people who will get in the way of government and slow it down to question, to prod and sometimes steer for the ditch rather than down the center lane," Jillson said.

Paul "doesn't work the mechanism and play the game," he said. "He is the guy sticking the broom in the spokes. There are enough people in his district, the old and the new, who know who Ron Paul is in the context of American politics and think that's fine."

Paul opposes anything that in his view is not proscribed in the Constitution as a federal responsibility. He'd like state governments or charitable institutions to take care of those things.

A sidebar to the article lists a few of Ron Paul's votes that set him apart from other Republicans in Congress -- indeed, from most other Members of Congress:

In the U.S. House, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson was:
•One of three Republicans who voted against the U.S. Patriot Act.
•The only Republican who voted against the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002.
•The only Republican who opposed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004.
•One of six Republicans who voted against authorizing military force in Iraq in October 2002.
•One of three Republicans who voted against the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On his own House web site, Dr. Paul lists the "freedom principles" that animate his service:

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Property should be owned by people, not government.

All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

This list of principles echoes the political manifesto presented by Barry Goldwater in his 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

I'd venture a guess that Dr. Paul is the only Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, in the House or in the Senate, who features on his web site the famous story about Tennessee Congressman Davey Crockett called "Not Yours to Give." The story, which describes an incident years before Crockett's death defending the Alamo, illustrates Crockett's philosophy that Congress cannot use other people's money -- taxpayers' money -- for even a good purpose, unless that use is specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The story begins:

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

The story, taken from Edward Sylvester Ellis' biography of Davey Crockett, ends with a succinct summary of Crockett's view of the men who served with him in Congress and their poor adherence to constitutional principle and concomitant desire for private gain:

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Ron Paul is one of the few federal legislators, if not the only one, to see Davey Crockett as someone to emulate. He may not be the last of the Goldwater Republicans, but he is surely among the last of the Congressional Crocketts.

John Taylor and the Freedom & Prosperity Agenda

There's an excellent interview (in two parts) with John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy over at One Man's Trash. In part one, Taylor describes part of the impetus for launching the Freedom & Prosperity Agenda for Virginia last month:

In thinking about the situation, it became increasingly obvious to me that conservatives in Virginia had to stay on offense by promoting a forward-looking agenda that would rally the right-thinking people in the General Assembly, the grassroots, and a sizable portion of the business community. An old Chinese proverb states, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” To be able to build support for any cause, people have to understand what you are trying to accomplish. I felt that if conservatives defined their goals, and articulated a strategy for achieving those goals, they could build an enormous base of support here in Virginia.

In part two, he identifies what he considers the most important plank in the agenda:

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). This legislation reestablishes the hierarchy of the people to their government. It reestablishes the notion of limited government. It checks the influence of special interests. It forces politicians to prioritize spending alternatives.

Seldom is a politician going to vote against his own perceived self-interest by limiting government and by restricting his own power of the purse. A TABOR allows the people to reclaim their original role of sovereign as opposed to the current and somewhat lesser role of sheep to be sheared.

Both parts of the interview are well worth reading.

Star Wars and Downfall

Twenty-five years ago today, Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back opened in cinemas nationwide. What a different world we lived in, in 1980!

Now the Star Wars saga is complete. Early Thursday morning, May 19, just a few minutes after midnight, I – along with thousands of other fans – saw Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith.

By chance, less than 48 hours later, I saw another film, the Oscar-nominated Downfall (Der Untergang), which is playing this week at Charlottesville’s Vinegar Hill Theatre.

This may seem like an odd pairing – sci-fi blockbuster and art-house historical feature – but there is a connection between these two films that I had not anticipated. Star Wars: Episode III shows how tyranny begins. Downfall, which follows the last 10 days of Adolf Hitler, shows how tyranny ends. In seeing both films, audiences know the ultimate outcome.

Already pundits are using the final chapter in the Star Wars saga to claim it for their point of view. Historical and political parallels are there, to be sure, but they tend to lie in the eye of the beholder. The most obvious comparisons are with Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire or with the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Third Reich. Such comparisons come short, of course. For instance, the Roman Senate did not have representatives from far-flung territories but only from Rome itself.

Others see more contemporary comparisons. Some see Chancellor Palpatine as a sort of George W. Bush, using foreign adventures to circumscribe dissent and destroy the Bill of Rights. Others might see a former seminary student (say, Joseph Stalin) turning evil and becoming a ruthless dictator. There is even one line by Palpatine that could have been in a recent speech by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, though the script was written long before the incident I have in mind (Yushchenko’s disfigurement by political enemies) occurred. There are Cold War comparisons and War on Terror comparisons. There are comparisons regarding domestic politics and comparisons regarding foreign policy.

The pivotal line in Revenge of the Sith is delivered by Senator Padmé Amidala, at a meeting of the galactic senate where dictatorial powers are handed to Palpatine by pliant legislators: “So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause.”

I do not wish to dwell on the political import of Revenge of the Sith. Others are doing that so much better, including blogger Tim Hulsey and New York Times columnist John Tierney. One thing is clear: The second trilogy (Episodes IV-VI) is more about personal redemption than about politics. The first trilogy is about politics, no matter how you interpret the type of politics at issue.

Downfall tells a story that is familiar in all but the details. Based on two books -- Joachim Fest's Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich and Traudl Junge's memoir, Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary -- it shows the brutality of war in the destruction of Berlin by the Red Army’s crushing onslaught -- real people, civilians and soldiers both, suffer. It shows the Hitler we all recognize from newsreel footage, the madman foaming at the mouth. But it also shows Hitler’s softer side – in one early scene, he comforts his secretary by saying “When I dictate, sometimes I make mistakes.” (Whether that is a double entendre also in the original German, I do not know.)

In Downfall, we see the “true believer” in the person of Magda Goebbels, who murders her children rather than let them face the prospect of growing up in a world without National Socialism, and then commits suicide with her husband, Joseph. We see Eva Braun, trying to boost morale by calling for music and dance amidst the blasting sound of artillery explosions. And we see those who lived through the war as if protected by a womb, unaware of the events encircling them, the secretaries and cooks and nurses who served Hitler’s inner circle, primarily the film’s main character, Traudl Junge.

The irony of Downfall is that, while we know that Hitler’s demise means the end of Nazi tyranny, it is also the beginning of Soviet tyranny over East Germany and most of Central and Eastern Europe. The Red Army may be liberators in April 1945, but they are oppressors for the next 45 years. The Soviet Union thus becomes the only one of the aggressor states at the beginning of World War II that achieves its war aims, and then some.

Knowing what has transpired in the past sixty years, since the incidents portrayed in Downfall, makes me curious about what happens after Episode VI of the Star Wars story. What happens after the Return of the Jedi and the defeat of the evil empire? Can peace be maintained? Will prosperity and stability ensue? Will democracy and republican governance return? Or will one tyranny be supplanted by another, as happened in Eastern Europe?

Would George Lucas answer those questions, given the shift in theme from trilogy one to trilogy two? Would a third trilogy bring us back to the political issues of Episodes I-III?

Alas, given Lucas' protestations that he is finished with the series, it appears we will never know.

Courage, Tolerance, and Gay Youth in Virginia

There was a touching and informative article in the Style section of Monday's Washington Post, written by theatre critic Nelson Pressley, about an aspiring actress and playwright from Loudoun County.

Sabrina Audrey Jess, a student at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn, found herself embroiled in controversy last year when a one-act play she wrote and directed fell afoul of religious-right activists. She based the play, called Offsides, on stories she had heard from friends and classmates who, in her words, "went through a really hard time":

"Some of them didn't tell anybody because of how scared they were. There were some who told people, and their parents said they were going to get kicked out of their house, or they had to go to counseling, and if they didn't go to counseling they would be forced to leave the house -- it was just a lot of stuff. And it didn't make sense to me."

In response to this, she wrote the one-act about a gay high-school football player coming to terms with his feelings and his identity. As Pressley explains,

The play contained a tentative and ambiguous homosexual kiss that was blacked out almost before it began; more unsettling were the physical beating and blistering ostracization the football star then endured from his friends.

Since Offsides was just one of five short plays presented on the program, Jess was caught off-guard by what happened next. Pressley again:

Her play was the hot topic of the next county school board meeting, which was preceded by anti-"Offsides" leaflets and even an e-mail campaign urging constituents to tell school board members that "it is inappropriate to promote homosexuality in our public schools." That came from the office of Del. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun), who later stated that he didn't write the e-mail but was simply passing it on.

Sabrina Jess's story reminds me of an essay written by my friend Richard's escort to the Turner Ashby High School prom a couple of weekends ago. He wrote the piece for an English class, but it ended up published on a high-school-oriented Web site called Youth Noise. Corey wrote, in part:

Maybe if schools start emphasizing the acceptance of homosexuality, groups will start to help make people aware of what it is. A GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) is a great club to have at school. It helps people understand what homosexuality is and whom it affects. They also do other things, like raise money for diseases such as AIDS. They try to reduce sexual orientation discrimination, promoting that you don't have to hide yourself, and they help people understand homosexuality.

Eventually, teenagers may be able to go to dances, like Prom or Homecoming, with whomever they would like. At Turner Ashby High School, they speak over the intercom and tell us that males taking males or females taking females to dances is strictly prohibited. This is discrimination against the rights of all humans. If you want to take someone to a dance because you like that person and aren't allowed to because of the school policy, wouldn't that make you angry?

Corey writes that his school had a policy that prohibited him from taking a male date to the prom. He chose to ignore that policy, with no negative repercussions. Tiny acts of civil disobedience like that help promote the vision (and practice) of tolerance. They require courage but they reap great rewards.

What is particularly heartening about the Loudoun County gay-play controversy is the poise with which Sabrina Audrey Jess responded to it. She told the school board:

"I try to promote tolerance in a school where there is not enough among teenagers and am in turn flooded with the intolerance of their parents. People who are negatively commenting on my play are proving my point."

Asked by the Washington Post what she wanted her listeners on that occasion to know, she replied:

"That it wasn't Mr. Person's fault," she says, referring to Stone Bridge Principal Jim Person and sounding almost apologetic. "It wasn't Mr. Hochkeppel's [her drama teacher's] fault. I did this all on my own, and I'm proud of what I did, and I had something to say, so I said it. And you can't hide your kids from something that does exist. A lot of parents that got upset said, you know, 'My child shouldn't be exposed to this.' Well, news flash: They are. And you need to deal with it. Because if you're not going to deal with it, somebody else is." Pause, and a blush. "And I got a standing ovation for my speech."

As an ex-gay teenager -- or, rather, a one-time gay teenager -- who had to hide my views and feelings in convoluted and veiled prose at the time (see my own high-school prom story, reprinted here on May 7), my heart warms to stories like these. The times are different now, and the closet is no longer the only option available.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Economic Liberty

In a David-and-Goliath case that pitted independent small businesses against state-supported oligopolists, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of David today.

In a 5-4 decision in the case of Granholm v. Heald, the justices split into rather odd coalitions. In the majority were Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the Court's opinion) and Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Steven Breyer. The dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas (who each wrote dissenting opinions), Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was not, in other words, a typical "liberal"/"conservative" split with Kennedy or O'Connor providing the swing vote.

At issue were laws in Michigan and New York and 22 other states that prohibit consumers from purchasing wine by mail-order or over the Internet from out-of-state wineries. It featured a clash between the Constitution's Commerce Clause and the 21st Amendment, which not only ended Prohibition but also granted states the authority to control the manufacturing, sale, and purchase of alcoholic beverages within their borders.

The Supreme Court today essentially found that the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, trumps the 21st Amendment.

Here's how the New York Times summarized the arguments:

Today's decision, in the cases of Granholm v. Heald, No. 03-1116, from Michigan, and Swedenburg v. Kelly, No. 03-1274 from New York, had to do with interpretation of the Constitution, the intent of the 1933 Amendment that ended Prohibition and changing personal tastes in the age of the Internet.

When the case was argued before the justices on Dec. 7, lawyers for New York and Michigan asserted that the Prohibition-ending 21st Amendment to the Constitution gave states such wide authority over the importation of alcohol that it trumped the principle embodied in the Commerce Clause: that the states may not, without Congressional authorization, discriminate against one another.

New York's and Michigan's lawyers insisted then that the goals of preventing minors' access to alcohol and assuring that the states could collect taxes from out-of-state shippers justified their states' statutes. Solicitor General Caitlin J. Halligan of New York told the justices that the case "goes to the very core of the 21st Amendment."

Justice Kennedy responded - tellingly, it would appear from today's ruling - that "it also goes to the very core of the Commerce Clause."

Justice Kennedy wrote today that the real object of the Michigan and New York statutes was not protection of minors but rather to give in-state wineries a competitive advantage over those in other states. Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, said New York and Michigan "provide little evidence for their claim that purchasing wine over the Internet by minors is a problem."

"The 26 states now permitting direct shipments report no such problem, and the states can minimize any risk with less restrictive steps, such as requiring an adult signature on delivery," the majority said. Moreover, the majority said, the states could devise tax-collection procedures without resorting to discrimination in interstate commerce.

"In all but the narrowest circumstances" the states violate the Commerce Clause if they erect barriers to help in-state business at the expense of outsiders, the majority said in describing the Commerce Clause as "essential to the foundations of the Union."

The majority observed that "the current patchwork of laws - with some states banning direct shipments altogether, others doing so only for out-of-state wines, and still others requiring reciprocity - is essentially the product of an ongoing, low-level trade war."

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy concludes:

States have broad power to regulate liquor under §2 of the Twenty-first Amendment. This power, however, does not allow States to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers. If a State chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot stand.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Clint Bolick, an attorney with the libertarian public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, said in a statement that "this is the best day for wine-lovers since the invention of the corkscrew."

Juanita Swedenburg, the owner of a small winery in Middleburg, Va., was IJ’s lead plaintiff in the case (she sued the state of New York). Her reaction: "This opens up interstate markets just like our Founding Fathers envisioned. They wanted us to be one nation when it comes to trade -- not 50 states. This is a boon for America’s wine-loving consumers who like to have various wines from throughout the nation."

The Institute for Justice also represented the homeowners threatened by abusive eminent-domain actions in Kelo v. New London, which awaits a ruling by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that the Court continues down the path of economic and personal liberty it traveled in today's decision.

'Property Rights Are Also Guaranteed'

My recent post on candidate Rich Collins and his crabbed view of the rights of property owners sent me searching my archives for an article I remembered writing some years ago. I found it in a dusty filebox dating to the early 1990s. Entitled "Property Rights Are Also Guaranteed," it appeared on the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights in the Roanoke Times & World News (now known simply as the Roanoke Times).

The article mentions a bill then before Congress called the "Private Property Rights Act," introduced by Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho). Senator Symms has retired, but it is interesting to note the number of cosponsors of that bill who are still in the Senate some 14 years later: Conrad Burns (R-Montana), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), John McCain (R-Arizona), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), and Richard Shelby (R-Alabama -- but in 1991 still a Democrat).

As printed in the Roanoke Times & World News on Sunday, December 15, 1991:

Property Rights Are Also Guaranteed
By Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

In a somewhat obscure but important decision in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court explained: “Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful destruction, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a ‘personal’ right.” The court went on to declare that “a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property.”

Property rights – a shorthand term for the rights of people to own and use property – and human rights are indistinguishable. One cannot exist without the other. The right to a free press is impossible without the right to own ink or a photocopier or a typewriter. The right to free exercise of religion is not possible without the right to own churches and seminaries and cemeteries and Talmuds and schools.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to hold property and to make contracts using that property. The Fifth Amendment makes plain that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Still, property rights are under assault throughout the United States. Through taxation and regulation, state and federal governments are impeding our rights to do what we please with our property, even if we are not harming other people or their property.

Towns and cities across the country, for example, have begun to designate certain neighborhoods as “historic districts,” usually without the consent of homeowners in those neighborhoods. This designation is accompanied by hundreds of restrictions regarding what homeowners can do with their property, such as whether they can repaint their homes, put up aluminum siding, replace a roof, cut down a tree, and so forth.

In Arlington, the ugly face of historic-district designations is seen in the case of Anthony Denice, whose attempts to repair his property within the constraints of his budget have been stymied by busybody neighbors and intrusive government bureaucrats.

Denice wanted to replace the deteriorating facade on his house with weatherproof siding to protect the building and its contents. Arlington County denied Denice his right to do this, insisting on cedar shingles instead of vinyl. The county-approved improvement would cost Denice tens of thousands of dollars, not the $3,600 he budgeted for the task.

This is not a trivial issue. It affects any person who owns property, whether a residence or a business. “Historic district” designations strike at the root of individual liberty and should not be dismissed lightly. Much is at stake. In fact, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled a similar law unconstitutional because it took away the decision making capacity of homeowners in favor of a politically defined “public good,” thus taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Environmental regulations do much the same. Thousands of acres of farms, ranches, and residential areas have been declared “wetlands” that deserve government protection. The owners of the designated property are not permitted to plant crops, graze cattle, or build homes or factories on government-designated “wetlands” unless they can cut through miles of red tape.

Fortunately, a response to this assault on the basic rights of Americans is swelling in Congress. Idaho Sen. Steve Symms has introduced the Private Property Rights Act as an amendment to this year’s transportation act. A bipartisan list of 20 senators cosponsors the bill, which requires federal agencies to delay implementation of regulations until they have assessed “the potential for the taking of private property in the course of Federal regulatory activity, with the goal of minimizing such where possible.”

This bill has been endorsed by a host of organizations that represent those most severely hurt by regulation that takes away their property rights, such as farmers, small businesses, and homeowners. The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the Symms bill will “serve as a restraint upon abuse of government power.”

We should take comfort in what one opponent of the bill, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, has said: “This amendment has major implications for the ability of all agencies of the federal government to issue regulations.” Good. We must put a brake on accelerating government power.

More than anything else, the Private Property Rights Act reminds us of the fundamental importance of private property and the way it undergirds our civilization. Any protection of property rights protects all other rights and freedoms.

* * * * * * * * * *

Richard E. Sincere, Jr., is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.

Hillary's Own Fundraising Scandal

For a man who has been in prison for several months, Aaron Tonken is turning up in all sorts of places. His photograph appeared last week in The Washington Times and the Charlottesville Daily Progress. His name turns up in a major article in today's Observer (a British left-of-center "quality paper") that begins:

It all sounds horribly familiar. Financial skulduggery, calls for a Senate investigation and the whiff of a sex scandal caught on tape. And all of it whirling around the Clinton name.

A court case involving the fundraising activities of Senator Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance chief threatens to put a time-bomb under the former First Lady's presidential ambitions.

Late last year, shortly after he was sent up the river, Tonken published a book called King of Cons: Exposing the Dirty, Rotten Secrets of the Washington Elite and Hollywood Celebrities. In it, Tonken describes the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of both political and charity fundraising. Here's an excerpt:

There is also a category called "in-kind" contributions. This covers, among other things, expenses incurred in the putting on of such events as the Salute [to President Clinton, a Hillary fundraiser]. These are supposed to be meticulously recorded and accounted for when a political fundraising entity makes its annual report of income and expenditures.

Thus, if Cher agrees to perform for a fundraiser, she can elect to do it for free, in which case the campaign is not obligated to place a value on her performance and report it. On the other hand, if she is paid by the campaign, that is a reportable expense. If she is paid indirectly, by someone like me, then I become the donor of record, and her performance becomes an in-kind contribution. It must be reported. Also included, and therefore subject to reporting, would be such things as air travel expenses, hotel bills, ground transportation, and so on.

It is these in-kind contributions that, in my experience, are seldom properly reported. Certainly, that was the impression from my dealings with Hillary Clinton's staffers. All told, I spent millions on expenses for fundraisers that I organized for her. How much was ultimately reported I don't know, but it couldn't have been much, since no one ever asked me for a detailed accounting. And, as I have noted, when I tried to offer campaign officials receipts, they were refused.

Considering these irregularities, the naturally-occurring questions are: who knew what, and when did they know it? Those are the questions that have started many a political figure's downfall.

All I can say is that David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's director of finance, worked out of our offices and knew about every dime that was being spent. More than that, he participated in the spending.

Just before Tonken went to prison, venerable Hollywood gossip columnist Army Archerd wrote a synopsis of what took Tonken from the high life to Club Fed in Daily Variety:

Tonken is involved in California, federal and local lawsuits ranging from the fraud charges to Chapter 7, plus a countersuit vs. David Schwimmer who has sued Tonken for defamation. Tonken's book names a long list of celebs who took fees -- and demanded more -- for so-called charitable appearances. The extent of some of the celeb demands, Tonken says are beyond imagination. The Federal Election Commission has also demanded information from Tonken on a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign he headed. (It was sponsored by New York Senate 2000). Tonken's association with the Clintons was remarkable in view of his minor status in the establishment. How did this comparative newcomer gain the confidences of so many in the showbiz and political community? All in the name of charity. He claims he took none of the funds for himself. The book unravels an incredible rollout of cash and goods to the celeb participants in the charity events.

It's amazing that Tonken got off so easy, with just 63 months. And it's amazing how a man in prison can get so much press despite his, shall we say, incapacitation.

Candidate Rich Collins Arrested

With all the hoo-haw about the strange timing of arrest warrants and citations issued for Republican General Assembly candidate Steve Chapman in Prince William County (see Bacon's Rebellion for the latest discussion) and accusations against Republican challenger Chris Oprison in Loudoun County, the arrest of Democratic candidate Rich Collins in Charlottesville might raise some eyebrows, too.

It shouldn't. Collins' arrest lacks any of the earmarks of politically-motivated prosecution that are present in the Chapman case.

For those of you who arrived at the game without a scorecard, here's what happened to Professor Collins, as reported by the Daily Progress (via George Loper):

"One of the three city Democrats running in the 57th House of Delegates District June 14 primary reported Tuesday that he was detained last weekend while campaigning on parking and sidewalk areas of the Shoppers World shopping center on U.S. 29.

Rich Collins, a professor in the University of Virginia's architecture school, said he was arrested while campaigning Saturday. Collins said Charles T. Lebo, president of Lebo Commercial Properties, demanded that he stop campaigning at the shopping center.

Collins said he agreed to leave provided that Lebo would affirm that the shopping center was off-limits to all candidates for office, not just Collins. When Lebo declined to make such a statement, Collins said he stated, 'Then you'll have to arrest me. I believe that this is a violation of my First Amendment rights."

After Lebo pressed a trespassing charge against him with a county magistrate, the candidate was given a court date at 9 a.m. Friday in Albemarle County General District Court.

Lebo could not be reached for comment on Tuesday." (The Daily Progress, May 11, 2005)

In complaining about his treatment on WINA radio, Collins said (again via George Loper, who took the time and effort to transcribe the remarks):

I am trying to find some public spaces where candidates can meet people who are likely to be voters, are likely to be concerned about growth and the rising spike in our tax assessments. That is what I was trying to do. In many other states, these are declared public spaces not private property. This is a key constitutional issue. There are lots of laws that for a time are considered to be perfectly appropriate. Circumstances change. The rules of property change. What concerns me about Mr. Lebo's response was that he seemed to think that private property rights are absolute against all other rights including freedom of speech, when the democratic process is concerned with balancing these rights in appropriate settings."

"In many other states, these are declared public spaces not private property." What a chilling, frightening concept. Collins seems to be saying here that the government can, at will, through legislation or executive fiat, decide that your home or business is no longer simply your own "private property" (those are not meant to be "scare" quotes) but it is a "public space" upon which anyone can trespass at will, engaging in "speech" or "expression" with which you may disagree.

Writing in a different context, British political scientist Nigel Ashford, now with the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, notes that Britain and the United States both face the same problem. "The distinction between private and state (usually expressed as 'public') is extremely important in a free society. Unfortunately the definition of the private has become narrowed to include only the person's home, and sometimes not even that. The distinction between private and public should be ownership, not who goes there. 'Public' should mean government owned, not open to the public, as in a bar or club." Ashford, who is co-editor of the excellent reference volume, A Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought, concludes: "Those who control the power of the state will use it for their own purposes and preferences."

One of Collins' opponents in the June 14 primary, Kim Tingley, recognizes this distinction and therefore has a much more sensible position than his opponent, which is also posted at loper.org. For a Democrat, Tingley seems unusually respectful of small business owners:

As a small businessman, my imagination runs to a different scenario. I imagine an anti-abortion protester with particularly hideous graphics quietly protesting in front of my store on the day after Thanksgiving. I fear that all of the traffic will detour away from my store on the biggest shopping day of the year due to the actions of this protester. How would you craft a way of prohibiting political discourse that could adversely affect the businesses while allowing other forms of first amendment expression?

On of the expressions that is frequently used in the General Assembly is the need for a "bright line" to define some limit. Today we have such a bright line. Either it is public property or it is not. The challenge in any legislation that would require reasonable First Amendment activities at shopping centers and malls is to define an unambiguous limitation that protects both the rights of the person exercising free speech while also protecting the rights of that small business person. It is, after all, this small business person through her or his rent who is paying to operate and maintain the space.

What's really scary is the reaction of Kay Peaslee, a Collins supporter, who sees no distinction at all between public and private property:

It's about time someone publicized and protested the prohibitions enforced in shopping malls by their owners. The malls, despite what anyone says to the contrary, ARE INDEED public areas and to close them to any but commercial interests violates the whole notion of the First Amendment and the right of assembly.

Let's get something straight: The First Amendment protects us against the government, not private individuals or other private entities. We have no First Amendment claim to use property belonging to another in order to advance our own views or interests.

A group of Baptists can't walk into a Presbyterian church and hold worship services against the Presbyterian church owner's wishes. The First Amendment clause that protects "free exercise of" religion does not permit that.

The people who edit The Hook (a Charlottesville weekly) can't take over the printing presses of The Daily Progress, without the permission of Media General, to print their newspaper. The First Amendment clause that protects "freedom of the press" does not permit that.

Those people in Charlottesville who are circulating a petition to complain about how the School Board is performing do not have the right to forge other citizens' signatures on their petition. The First Amendment right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" does not permit that.

Neither the Virginia General Assembly nor the U.S. Congress can pass laws to permit those actions I've given as examples.

There's a great exchange of dialogue in the movie Shenandoah, starring Jimmy Stewart as a Virginia farmer whose pacifist principles do not permit him to take sides in the War Between the States. (This movie belongs on every libertarian film-lover's shelf.) Stewart's character, Charlie Anderson, maintains his principles despite tremendous pressure from his community and from the Confederate Army. As he says to one army officer, "Now let me tell you something Johnson, before you get on my wrong side. My corn I take seriously, because it's mine. And my potatoes and tomatoes and my fence I take note of because they're mine. But this war is not mine and I don't take note of it. "

One day, some soldiers come to his farm and insist on taking his horses. They say they have been ordered to "commandeer this property".

One of Stewart's sons asks, "Pa, what does 'commandeer' mean?"

Stewart snarls back, "It means stealing."

I paraphrase from memory, but that's the gist of the scene. And that, essentially, is what trespass is: It is stealing someone's property, perhaps temporarily, perhaps for a good cause, perhaps with right intention. But it's stealing nonetheless.

Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

Using the coercive power of the state to require property owners to make their property available to anyone -- those with whom they disagree or even those with whom they agree -- for purposes of political or religious expression is the equivalent of reaching into their pockets and taking their money to pay for that speech or expression.

It should be my choice whether to make a contribution to Rich Collins' campaign treasury; it should be my choice whether to put a pro-Collins sign in my yard or sticker on my bumper; it should be my choice whether Mr. Collins can use my home or my business to advance his political views and career. That choice -- those choices -- do not belong to the state, the city, or to Rich Collins.

Gildersleeve and Reed

In an odd coincidence, on the same day that newspapers published reports that the Pentagon has marked Walter Reed Army Medical Center for "realignment" (i.e., closing, with its functions and personnel to be reassigned elsewhere), this passage appeared in an article about Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, a classics professor at the University of Virginia who fought in the Civil War:

His wound left him with a permanent limp, and on returning to full-time teaching, he became something of an institution at UVa., famous for his biting wit.

On one occasion, he was able to help a fellow prodigy. In 1868, a 16-year-old student petitioned to be awarded a bachelor's degree after only one year at the university. He said his family was too poor to continue supporting his studies. A panel appointed to review his petition was impressed with his brilliant record but refused him a degree.

The student countered that if he couldn't receive the bachelor of arts degree, would the university award him a medical degree the next year if he could finish the medical course in that time? Gildersleeve was on the panel and urged his colleagues to give the boy a chance. The next year, Dr. Walter Reed received his medical degree.

Saving the Taxpayers' Money -- or Not

Congratulations and much thanks are due to my representative in Congress, Virgil Goode, for his abstemiousness on behalf of his constituents.

According to a front-page article published today in The Hill, a local D.C. newspaper that covers Congress, Goode spends less money on office expenses than any other member of the House -- bucking a trend of rising expenditures paid for with money from our pockets:

In a political atmosphere colored by tax cuts and a growing national debt, spending by House members on office-related expenditures has risen by 25 percent in the past five years, according to government figures.

Representatives are given a yearly allowance, called the member’s representational allowance, by the Administration Committee to fund office expenses. In 2004, representatives spent a total of $490 million from their allowances, up from $391 million in 1999.

The top 10 House members in spending were determined by the percentage of their allowances spent during 2004. Reps. Barbara Cubin (R-Wyo.), Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), came within 1 percent of their congressional spending limits during 2004, almost 10 percent over the average for that year.

Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Steven Rothman (D-N.J.), Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash), Ed Case (D-Hawaii) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) spent between $1.1 million and $1.4 million each, or more than 98 percent of their allowances. Of the 10 lowest spending House lawmakers, Virgil Goode (R-Va.) spent the least, $686,202.29, or 58 percent of his allowance.

David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, said, "Charity begins at home, and if members are so concerned with helping taxpayers then maybe they should look at their own spending. It is an important symbolic gesture.

"There is a reason that people become cynical about government with the image of a big fat-cat politician with dollar bills coming out of his pockets, and it would be nice to see congressmen change that."

Taxpayers from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District may express their gratitude by writing to Representative Goode at his district office in Rocky Mount:

70 East Court St., Suite 215
Rocky Mount, VA 24151
Fax: (540)484-1459

And for those who live in the districts of those Members who are profligate with your money, feel free to send messages of disappointment. You can find your representative's contact information at the official House web site, www.house.gov.

Kennedy Center to Honor Humorist Steve Martin

A news release from the Kennedy Center dated Tuesday, May 10, just arrived in my email box, announcing that the new Inspector Clouseau will be receiving this year's Mark Twain Prize. You'll be reading about it in the morning papers, I'm sure, but here it is (almost) in full. Be sure to mark your calendar for October 23:

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The Kennedy Center will award the eighth annual Mark Twain Prize for American Humor to Steve Martin on Sunday, October 23 at 8 p.m. in the Kennedy Center Concert Hall. The award, named to honor one of America’s—and the world’s—greatest humorists, will feature a star-studded ceremony that will be taped for broadcast nationwide at a later date. Tickets for the event will go on sale to the general public on August 10, 2005.

Martin, a Renaissance humorist, is an actor, comedian, author and playwright who has won any number of awards for his performances and his writing. Among his many films that he both wrote and starred in include Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, The Man with Two Brains, Roxanne, L.A. Story and Bowfinger. Other films he has appeared in include the blockbusters Father of the Bride, Parenthood, Cheaper by the Dozen and Bringing Down the House. He has had two plays produced Off Broadway: Picasso at the Lapin Agile and The Underpants, an adaptation of a 1911 play by Carl Sternheim. He has published two novellas Shopgirl and The Pleasure of My Company, as well as a collection of comic pieces entitled Pure Drivel. His work frequently appears in The New Yorker and the New York Times. . . .

"The Kennedy Center is pleased to give Steve the Mark Twain Prize for an extraordinary career," said Center Chairman Stephen A. Schwarzman, "His creations, be they on stage, on film or in a book, have created a collective memory of humor and joy for all Americans."

Upon learning that he had won the Mark Twain Prize, Martin remarked, "I think Mark Twain is a great guy and I can’t wait to meet him."

The Mark Twain Prize recognizes people who have had an impact on American society in ways similar to the distinguished 19th century novelist and essayist best known as Mark Twain. As a social commentator, satirist and creator of characters, Samuel Clemens was a fearless observer of society, who startled many while delighting and informing many more with his uncompromising perspective of social injustice and personal folly. He revealed the great truth of humor when he said "against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."

The Kennedy Center, as the nation’s center for the performing arts, recognizes and presents all of the performing arts including opera, jazz, musical theater, drama, ballet and dance, as well as symphony and all kinds of smaller musical ensembles performing every imaginable kind of music.

The proceeds of the evening are used for the Kennedy Center Education Department’s programs. As recipient of the Mark Twain Prize, Steve Martin will receive a copy of an 1884 bronze portrait bust of Mark Twain sculpted by Karl Gerhardt (1853-1940). The bust and images of it are courtesy of the Mark Twain House and Museum, Hartford, Conn. The event is a joint production of the Kennedy Center, Mark Krantz, Bob Kaminsky, Peter Kaminsky, and Cappy McGarr.

The Kennedy Center Celebration of American Humor was instituted as an annual event in October 1998. Recipients of the Kennedy Center Mark Twain Prize have been Richard Pryor (1998), Jonathan Winters (1999), Carl Reiner (2000), Whoopi Goldberg (2001), Bob Newhart (2002), Lily Tomlin (2003) and Lorne Michaels (2004).

Tickets will go on sale to Kennedy Center subscribers on Mon., Aug. 1 and to the general public on Wed., Aug. 10. Tickets can be purchased in person at the Kennedy Center Box Office or charged by phone at (202) 467-4600 or toll-free at (800) 444-1324 for people calling from outside the Washington area.

Murky 'Shadow Board' Lurks in Charlottesville

Both Charlottesville TV stations had lengthy reports Tuesday night about a "closed door" meeting of City Councilors and School Board members, at which they discussed appointing an advisory body to help in the search for a new school superintendent (a job that taxed the competence of the School Board when they tried to do it a year ago, ending in the recent "resignation" of troubled Superintendent Scottie Griffin, Charlottesville's own thesaurus entry for "Peter Principle").

On WCAV-TV (Channel 19, the CBS affiliate with hundreds of viewers throughout the area) Michael Gorsegner reported:

Tonight, Charlottesville City council members met in a closed door meeting to try and iron out the details of an advisory committee aimed at finding a new superintendent of schools.

* * *

However, not all of the council members were present for the meeting. Councilor Rob Schilling says he opposes the committee because, "this commission would serve as a shadow board whose accountability relationships would be murky, which is not an improvement on our current situation."

This controversy comes at a time where two Charlottesville school board members have announced they will not seek reappointment to their post as well as the beginning of a petition to have school board members elected rather than appointed by the council.

Meanwhile, on WVIR-TV (Channel 29, the market's dominant broadcast news source), Joe Holden put Councilor Rob Schilling closer to the top of the story:

Councilor Rob Schilling was not present, saying the entire process is questionable and stayed away from the proceedings in protest. Rob Schilling says the commission "would only serve as a shadow board, whose accountability would be murky," because of an alleged lack of public input. He says this could further problems with an already embattled school board.

* * *

Missing from Tuesday night's gathering was councilor Rob Schilling who says he's not participating because the commission lacks public input. In an email Schilling wrote, "to introduce another indirect layer of accountability via council appointments is to repeat the problem we experience currently with our appointed school board: no distinct lines of accountability."

School board members have endured pointed criticism following the resignation of superintendent Scottie Griffin.

Mayor David Brown counters Schilling's claims saying the school advisory commission is modeled to include the public in every step.

But in an interview Monday, Schilling explains he wants to take public input a step further by having an elected school board. He stated, "Here you have a school board that's been hung out to dry in this process and taken a lot of criticism and I think if you had direct accountability to voters, you wouldn't be in this position right now."

Prior to Tuesday night's closed-door meeting, Schilling sent a letter outlining his views to members of City Council and of the School Board. Here is the text, in full:

Dear Councilors and School Board members,

I write to you today to alert you that I will not participate in tonight’s closed session City Council meeting—a meeting for the purpose of appointing membership to the Charlottesville Schools Advisory Commission.

Although I could support an advisory commission established to assist the School Board in their superintendent search, I cannot support the process by which this commission came forth, the proposed membership of the commission, or the lack of public involvement in decisions regarding the charge and membership of the commission.

It is my understanding that Mayor Brown and Mrs. Van Yahres jointly conceived of this board, and each later brought the idea to their respective government bodies. I, personally, heard nothing about this proposed Commission until about 11:00 AM on Monday, May 2. At that time, I received a telephone call from the Mayor, informing me that the School Board had put together a proposal, and that they would be holding a press conference at 1:30 PM that day to announce the idea. Mayor Brown stated to me that he would be present for the press conference, and that the purpose of the call was to let me know that event was taking place. Mayor Brown did not solicit my degree of support for the Commission at that time nor was I informed of the specific charge and composition of the Commission.

The topic of the Commission was again raised during our May 2 City Council meeting under “other business.” At that time, I requested a written copy of the proposal. I was told that one did not exist, but that I would receive a copy within the next few days. I also expressed concern that Commission member “categories” had already been established without citizen input. I called for a public process wherein members of the community could submit their names for consideration of inclusion on the Commission, as has been done in most, if not all other task forces and commissions I can recall appointing. I was told that this was not possible because there was a time factor involved and that we needed to appoint Commission members as soon as was practicable.

The next day, I received a press release from the City’s communications department, stating: “the Charlottesville School Board and the City Council are proposing the formation of the Charlottesville Schools Advisory Commission.” This was troubling because, while the press release implied unanimous consent, there had been no substantive group Council discussion regarding particulars of the Commission, no vote of council, and I had not even been asked my opinion of the concept. This press release was sent out to the media and to other interested parties on Monday, May 2, at approximately 2:30 PM, although I (and perhaps all of City Council) did not receive the release until Tuesday, May 3, at 11:10 AM. Upon inquiring about the propriety of such a release without any substantive discussion of the initiative by the entire council, I was told by the City Attorney’s office that the Mayor, through an ‘informal poll’ of council, had obtained “a consensus of council,” and therefore, the wording of the press release was appropriate, if not entirely accurate.

During the subsequent days, I received many questions and comments from concerned constituents regarding this Commission. One inquiry centered on the School Board, and whether in fact that body had voted on the charge and composition of this Commission.

On behalf of constituents, on Friday, May 6, I posed the following question to the School Board, via email:

Did you approve the charge and membership of the council proposed Advisory Commission?

On Saturday, May 7, I received the following reply from Mrs. Van Yahres:

It is my understanding that many Board member approve of the Commission or why would 5 of us appear at a press conference supporting it. I support it. It is a good opportunity to have a group of experienced people give us feedback on superintendents qualification criteria, the search process and possibly review of the final candidates. It would not usurp the responsibility of the Board. [sic]

Although Mrs. Van Yahres’ reply was somewhat unclear, the implication seemed to be that the School Board never specifically voted on the issue. A subsequent conversation with other School Board members confirmed that indeed, no School Board vote regarding the formation or charge of this commission had taken place.

The membership of this commission, as indicated in the city press release, has been established as follows:

• Former School Board Member
• Former Member of City Council
• Representative of the PTO Council
• Current City School Staff Member
• Representative from an organization involved with the low-income community
• City Manager
• Two members of the School Board

I do not believe that the membership of this group, as proposed, gives voice to the wide range of interests that many parties have in the process. Certainly, the categories of Commission membership should have been discussed, debated, and voted upon at open meetings of both the School Board and City Council, prior to the Council making any appointments. The Commission is intended to provide “the core” of public input in the superintendent search process yet, the general makeup of the group could be described as exclusionary, while some proposed positions seem redundant and potentially inappropriate. I am also bothered by the fact that specific names for certain positions seem to have been pre-decided by the drafters of this proposal. I am aware of this, because in private conversations, specific names were being strongly suggested to fill designated spots on the Commission.

Finally, I have heard concerns from constituents and some School Board members, that a Council-appointed commission is inappropriate in this case. Often, governing bodies desiring a task force or commission, themselves appoint the members of those bodies. Virginia State law attributes exclusive authority to local school boards to hire division superintendents, and this Commission’s stated intent is to assist the School Board in its superintendent search and hiring process.

If this Commission is to work directly with the School Board, then its members should be directly appointed by and thus accountable to the School Board. To introduce another indirect layer of accountability via Council appointments is to repeat the problem we experience currently with our appointed School Board: no distinct lines of accountability between the public and subsequent School Board actions and decisions. In effect, this Commission would serve as a “shadow board,” whose accountability relationships would be murky, which is not an improvement on our current situation.

If the majority of School Board desires assistance in their upcoming superintendent search, then they should appropriately decide upon a charge, and name the members to a commission as they have done previously. This should be done; however, only after a public dialogue and a public vote on the charge and composition of such a Commission has taken place. It is questionable to comprise a Commission intended to represent the “core” of public input on the important issue of hiring a division superintendent, without public input on the process of creating the Commission itself, as has been the case.

If the School Board seeks input from Council because it is deemed that Council’s assistance would be valuable, then perhaps a joint, public work session would be in order during which School Board members could seek Councils’ guidance. Certainly a public meeting such as this would be far preferable to, and more appropriate than the private, Closed Session planned for tonight wherein the public is excluded from the discussion.

In conclusion, I regret that I cannot participate in the naming of members to a Commission that reportedly was brought forth by a “consensus” of two governing bodies, because no substantive public discussion or vote of City Council or School Board has taken place. I cannot participate in the naming of a Commission that has the real possibility of increasing School Board accountability problems rather than alleviating them; and I cannot participate in the naming of a Commission that has been determined via a process devoid of significant public input thus far.

I look forward to assisting the School Board in its superintendent search in a manner that is consistent with the goals of transparent government and clear accountability and is fully open to public scrutiny and participation.

Sincerely,


Rob Schilling

Schilling's thorough presentation of his position and civil tone stand in stark contrast to the approach of another local elected official.

The issues raised by Councilor Schilling are far from being settled. Expect them to be in the news for weeks, or even months, to come.

Fitch to Make Campaign Stop in Charlottesville

I was listening to WINA radio's "Plug Away Monday" segment yesterday morning when Mike Smith of the Greene County taxpayers group called in to announce that George Fitch, GOP gubernatorial candidate, will be making an appearance at Wolfie's Bar & Grill in Charlottesville on Wednesday, May 11, at 2:30 p.m. Wolfie's is located at 1525 Rio Road East, across from the putt-putt golf course.

There's nothing on the campaign website yet, but I did confirm with Fitch campaign headquarters in Warrenton that Mayor Fitch will, indeed, be coming to Charlottesville tomorrow.

Research Shows Gay Marriage Reduces VD

An associate professor in the Department of Economics at Swarthmore College has written a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows how in Europe, where same-sex relationships have been granted legal recognition since 1989 (beginning in Denmark), there is a correlation between same-sex marriage (or civil unions) and a decline in the rate of at least one sexually transmitted disease, syphilis.

In "Forsaking All Others? The Effects of 'Gay Marriage' on Risky Sex," Thomas S. Dee writes:

One of the conjectured benefits of establishing the legal recognition of same sex partnerships is that it would promote a culture of responsibility and commitment among homosexuals. A specific implication of this claim is that “gay marriage” will reduce the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI). In this study, I present a simple 2-period model, which provides a framework for discussing the ways in which gay marriage might reduce (or increase) the prevalence of STI. Then, I present reduced-form empirical evidence on whether gay marriage has actually reduced STI rates. These evaluations are based on country-level panel data from Europe, where nations began introducing national recognition of same-sex partnerships in 1989. The results suggest that these gay marriage laws led to statistically significant reductions in syphilis rates. However, these effects were smaller and statistically imprecise with respect to gonorrhea and HIV. [from the paper's abstract]

Professor Dee is no neophyte or quirky economist working on a pet project. He has contributed articles to numerous academic journals and chapters to several books, including No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability, Developments in School Finance, and An Economic Analysis of Risky Behavior Among Youths.

Dee's concluding paragraph suggests the impact on both the U.S. economy and public health that could ensue from legalizing gay relationships:

These results suggest that gay marriage might reduce, perhaps dramatically, the social costs associated with STI like syphilis. In the United States, over 34,000 cases of 25 syphilis were reported in 2003 (CDC 2004b). And the direct and indirect annual costs of syphilis have been estimated at nearly $1 billion, which reflects in large part, the role that syphilis plays in spreading HIV (CDC 1999). However, the policy relevance of these results probably extends beyond the issue of improvements in public health. For many who are debating the desirability of gay marriage, these results may be more important because of what they suggest about the likely effects of gay marriage on the degree of personal commitment in same-sex relationships.

The full paper provides extensive economic analysis, including charts and graphs, and is worth reading for all those concerned about the prospect of equal-marriage rights in the United States -- whether proponents or opponents of the concept.

Becker and Posner

I have just discovered a fascinating blog, apparently new (the archived postings go back only to December 2004), written by Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker and federal appeals court judge (and prolific author) Richard Posner.

Becker and Posner use their blog for a series of exchanges on current and controversial topics, ranging from the sexual revolution to bankruptcy laws to China's economy to plagiarism.

Here is a sample of one exchange, on the War on Drugs, initiated by Gary Becker:

Every American president since Nixon has engaged in a “war” on illegal drugs: cocaine, heroin, hashish, and the like. And every president without exception has lost this war. The explanation lies not in a lack of effort- indeed, I believe there has been too much effort- but rather in a basic property of the demand for drugs, and the effects of trying to reduce consumption of a good like drugs by punishing persons involved in its trade.

* * *

Assuming an interest in reducing drug consumption- I will pay little attention here to whether that is a good goal- is there a better way to do that than by these unsuccessful wars? Our study suggests that legalization of drugs combined with an excise tax on consumption would be a far cheaper and more effective way to reduce drug use. Instead of a war, one could have, for example, a 200% tax on the legal use of drugs by all adults-consumption by say persons under age 18 would still be illegal. That would reduce consumption in the same way as the present war, and would also increase total spending on drugs, as in the current system.

Here is part of Richard Posner's response:

I am in broad agreement with Becker. But I am somewhat hesitant to describe the war against drugs as having been “lost.” By that token, so has the war against bank robbery, or any other crime, been lost, because there is a positive rate of these crimes as well. As Becker explains, law enforcement activity raises the cost and hence price of illegal drugs and as a result of the price increase reduces their consumption. If the object of the “war on drugs” is to reduce rather than completely eliminate the consumption of illegal drugs, then the war has been partially won. Which is not to say that the partial “victory” has been worth the considerable costs. If the resources used to wage the war were reallocated to other social projects, such as reducing violent crime, there would probably be a net social gain. For one thing, it is particularly costly to enforce the law against a “victimless” crime, more precisely a crime that consists of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The low probability of apprehending such criminals has to be offset by very stiff sentences in order to maintain deterrence. Yet if potential criminals have high discount rates, an increase in sentence length may have little incremental deterrent effect because the increase is tacked on at the end of the sentence. The present disutility of an increase in sentence length from 20 to 30 years may, given discounting, be trivial. Still another consideration is that if the principal effect of illegal drugs is to impair the health and productivity of the consumer of the drugs, then it is just another species of self-destructive behavior and we normally allow people to engage in such behavior if they want; it is an aspect of liberty.

* * *

The political source of the war on drugs is mysterious if, as I am inclined to believe, there is a legal substitute for every one of the illegal drugs: selective serotonin uptake reinhibitors (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft) and other antidepressive drugs for cocaine, liquor and tranquillizers for heroin, cigarettes for marijuana, caffeine and steroids for “uppers.” Obviously these are not perfect substitutes; and some of the illegal drugs may be more potent or addictive or physically or psychologically injurious than the legal ones. But it is apparent that our society has no general policy against the consumption of mind-altering substances, and there seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the choice of the subset to prohibit. If these drugs were regulated instead of being prohibited, their content could be made less potent and addictive and consumers could be warned more systematically about their dangers, as they are about the dangers of cigarettes and prescription drugs.

Oddly enough, I discovered the Becker-Posner project on the blogroll of Arianna Huffington's new celebrity blog, which includes contributions from Larry David, Walter Cronkite, Senator Jon Corzine, and Harry Shearer, among others.

No matter how I found out about it, the Becker-Posner blog is worth a look for its civil dialogue, erudition, and clear thinking -- not to mention its principled libertarian point(s) of view.