McCain-Feingold Bites

So a court confirms that, under the McCain-Feingold law, it's illegal to run ads urging a senator to vote for a bill in Congress if the bill is coming to the floor within 30 days of a primary election in which the senator is running unopposed. Because letting a grassroots ...

Posted on May 11, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

Intolerance and its discontents

Why would Mary Cheney campaign for an administration that promises to make her, as a lesbian, a second-class citizen

Posted on May 11, 2006  Posted to The Guardian

McCain-Feingold Bites ( General ) by David Boaz

So a court confirms that, under the McCain-Feingold law, it's illegal to run ads urging a senator to vote for a bill in Congress if the bill is coming to the floor within 30 days of a primary election in which the senator is running unopposed. Because letting a grassroots group contact voters on a proposed constitutional amendment would compromise "the integrity of the electoral process." John McCain often takes the lead on economic freedom, and Russell Feingold was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act, but they should both be sorely ashamed that they have so effectively blocked the voters from the sacred "electoral process."

Posted on May 11, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

Diversity: Math Counts

The Washington Post reports: President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats. Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared ...

Posted on May 10, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

Diversity: Math Counts ( General ) by David Boaz

The Washington Post reports:
President Bush's crop of political appointees includes fewer women and minorities than did President Bill Clinton's at comparable points in their presidencies, according to a new report by House Democrats. Women made up about 37 percent of the 2,786 political appointees in the Bush administration in 2005, compared with about 47 percent in the Clinton administration in 1997, according to the report and supplemental data released last week by the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. Similarly, about 13 percent of Bush administration appointees last year were racial minorities, compared with 24 percent in the fifth year of Clinton's presidency.
Unlike the Democratic report [.pdf], the Post noted that Bush is the first president to appoint a minority to any of the top four Cabinet posts: State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice. And he has appointed three minorities to those jobs. But there's another problem with the Democratic analysis. Presidents usually draw their appointees from the ranks of their supporters, and they tend to reward constituencies that support them. Get more support from the South, and you'll likely appoint more Southerners to office. If Catholics vote heavily for one party, that party is likely to appoint more Catholics. That's partly a matter of rewarding your voters, and partly a reflection of the pool of supporters you can draw from. If blacks vote 9 to 1 Democratic, it's likely that a Democratic president will have more blacks among his campaign workers, contributors, and party faithful. By that criterion, Bush has lived up to the demands of affirmative action better than Clinton. In 1996, about 58 percent of Clinton's voters were women, 11 points higher than the percentage of women among his appointees. In 2000, about 47 percent of Bush's voters were women, about 10 points higher than the percentage of women among his appointees. More dramatically, Clinton got 27 percent of his votes from minorities, compared with 24 percent of his appointees. Bush got only 9 percent of his votes from minorities, but 13 percent of his appointees were minorities. So an identity-politics advocate would say that Clinton under-rewarded his minority supporters while Bush over-rewarded his. The people who are going to manage vital services ought to be selected on the basis of their qualifications, not their race and gender. (Appointees who are merely going to be involved in useless and unnecessary federal programs can, I suppose, be selected on some other basis than ability and experience.) But to the extent that we're going to look at "diversity" criteria, it seems appropriate to note that Bush has appointed more women and minorities in proportion to their presence in his coalition than Clinton did.

Posted on May 10, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

Is the era of limited government over?

Social conservatives are better organized than libertarian voters.

Posted on May 9, 2006  Posted to The Guardian

PC enforcement in Virginia

Just who is insisting on imposing their values on everyone

Posted on May 8, 2006  Posted to The Guardian

Education and the Constitution

Does the Wall Street Journal think the Constitution is suspended on the weekends Two weeks ago on Saturday, April 15, the Journal claimed on its front page that ââ?¬Å?the Constitution guarantees a public-school K-12 education for every child in the U.S.ââ?¬Â Then this past Saturday, April 29, the Journalââ?¬â?¢s usually ...

Posted on May 5, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

May Day: Two Directions for Latin America

Bolivian president Evo Morales has nationalized his country's natural gas industry. He sent soldiers to occupy the gas fields on May 1, celebrated by socialists worldwide as May Day. This May Day was also the 25th anniversary of Chile's Social Security privatization. As Jose Pinera wrote in the New York Times: Since ...

Posted on May 5, 2006  Posted to Cato@Liberty

The other lobbying scandal in Washington

Shouldn't politicians give back money raised at illegal fundraisers

Posted on May 4, 2006  Posted to The Guardian

About David Boaz

Click here to learn more.

Follow

Commentator

Search