LibertyVoter.Org

By Ryan Bourne

Ryan Bourne

To the extent bipartisan policy reform is possible, ideas must
appeal to the instincts of both conservatives and liberal
progressives.

In that tradition, Sen. Cory Booker’s proposal for ‘baby bonds’ may be
a stroke of political genius. Founding special accounts for newborn
children with a taxpayer-funded deposit, and means-tested
government additions through childhood, has obvious appeal to
liberals. It redistributes money and reduces measured wealth
inequality.

But Booker is no doubt hoping it can pique conservative interest
too. The so-called American Opportunity Accounts, on the face of
it, introduce children to the concept of saving and support
families, while providing young people with a nest egg to become
more self-sufficient in achieving major life goals.

Booker’s idea is this: When an eligible child is born, an
account would be opened with a $1,000 deposit from the taxpayer.
Each year until the child turns 18, the government would deposit a
means-tested sum rising to a maximum $2,000 contribution. The funds
in these accounts would generate returns free of tax but could not
be withdrawn until the child turns 18. After that point, the money
could be accessed but only be used for specified investments, such
as down payments on a house, college tuition, professional
training, or retirement savings. The eventual sums could be
significant, with a maximum of nearly $50,000 for someone in
receipt of the highest annual contribution and returns of 3 percent
per year.

There’s a crucial difference though between this proposal and
child trust funds that have been previously tried in countries such
as the United Kingdom. Under Booker’s plan, families would be
prohibited from adding to government contributions with their own
private funds. In the U.K., the government merely opened the
accounts and administered two small payments at birth and at age 7.
But the bigger idea was that parents and grandparents would scurry
up to $1,000 more away each year, on top of the government
deposits, valuing the tax advantages and the self-discipline of
being unable to draw down the funds.

Booker’s proposal is entirely different. Being solely a public
scheme, it amounts to pure redistribution — transfers from
taxpayers to those on low incomes. As such, it has little to offer
conservatives. The argument it will encourage saving or show
children the power of investment is bogus. Saving is about
deferring consumption — sacrificing today to fulfill other
goals tomorrow. But this is pure taxpayer support: taxing or
borrowing to take from Peter to pay Paul, with no sacrifice on the
part of those enjoying the rewards.

It’s actually worse than that. Precisely because it
amounts to pure redistribution, Booker would naturally impose
conditions on what the …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Ilya Shapiro

Ilya Shapiro

With Democrats seizing the House and Republicans keeping the
Senate, bills beyond the proverbial post-office-naming will be
hard-pressed to make it out of both chambers in the next Congress.
The threat President Trump faces from Democrats, then, isn’t
legislative obstruction, but the ready-aim-fire of the
opposition’s “subpoena cannon.”

That’s the term one senior Democratic source used last
month in describing to Axios the opposition’s main anti-Trump
weapon. Not all of the investigatory weapon’s payload will be
fired at once, but the appetite for “resistance” is
strong and will tie up significant White House and agency
resources. (Full disclosure: My wife is a lawyer in the House
general counsel’s office, but hasn’t participated in
any discussions regarding the Democrats’ plans.)

In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with spending time
on congressional oversight. Indeed it’s a salutary check,
flowing from the “legislative powers” that Article I
grants Congress. The Framers assumed Congress would follow the lead
of the British House of Commons in questioning executive action.
James Wilson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and
future Supreme Court justice, had written that members of
parliament were considered “grand inquisitors of the realm.
The proudest ministers of the proudest monarchs have trembled at
their censures.” Accordingly, George Mason argued at the
Convention that members of Congress “must meet frequently to
inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

When the first Congress convened in 1789, the House established
a select committee to investigate the country’s accounts
during the American Revolution, to clear Robert Morris, the
superintendent of finances. In 1792, the House authorized a special
committee to investigate the military defeat of General Arthur St.
Clair. President George Washington ultimately agreed on rules of
disclosure that formed the early basis of what we now know as
“executive privilege.”

And so it went, with the Supreme Court eventually determining
that it was constitutionally kosher for Congress to seek
information when crafting or reviewing laws and overseeing federal
programs — but that Congress must confine itself to
“legislative purposes” and avoid purely private
matters.

Congressional authority here ultimately boils down to the
subpoena power: compelling the production of documents or
appearance of witnesses, on pain of contempt and referral to
federal prosecutors. In practice, few subpoenas actually issue
— and even fewer are enforced through legal process —
because committee staff and the target’s lawyers negotiate
some sort of resolution that narrows the scope of information or
questioning sought. For example, former FBI director James Comey
just this week withdrew his motion to quash a House deposition
subpoena because he “reached an acceptable
accommodation” for voluntary testimony, with a public
transcript to be made available within 24 hours.

Which brings us to the “cannon.” Axios counted
“at …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter

kraine’s behavior in the Kerch Strait is another example of a
U.S. ally (or security dependent) trying to gain American military
backing for its own parochial agenda. Georgia sought to do that in
2008 regarding its territorial dispute with Russia over two
secessionist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A European
Union-sponsored report subsequently concluded that Georgia started the fighting that broke out in
August of that year. And there is little doubt that Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili expected to get much stronger support from the United States and NATO
than he ultimately received.

There are other examples of such self-serving behavior. Saudi
Arabia routinely attempts to entangle the United States in Riyadh’s regional power struggle with Tehran.
Washington’s
shameful support for the Saudi-led military intervention in
Yemen suggests that the effort has not been in vain.

Americans must not let
the Ukrainian tail wag the American dog, or the result could be
tragic for all concerned.

U.S. leaders need to be far more alert to such maneuvers and
take steps to make certain that the American republic does not
become entangled in conflicts that have little or no connection to
important American interests. Too often, members of this
country’s political, policy, and media elites act as though
the interests and ambitions of an ally or “friend” are
congruent with the best interests of the American people. That
notion is not only erroneous but dangerous.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s conduct before, during,
and after the November Kerch Strait incident, should trouble all
thoughtful Americans. Three Ukrainian naval vessels sought to
transit the strait—a narrow waterway between Russia’s Taman
Peninsula and Crimea—that connects the Black Sea and the Sea
of Azov. Kiev considers the strait international waters and points
to a 2003 bilateral navigation treaty with Russia to vindicate its
position. However, after Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine and
annexed that territory in 2014, Moscow now treats the strait as
Russian territorial waters. It insists on forty-eight hours notice
and explicit Russian approval before Ukrainian ships can use the
strait.

Ukraine had complied with that requirement a few months earlier,
but in late November declined to do so and attempted to carry out
an unapproved crossing. Russian security forces rammed a Ukrainian
tug, fired on the two other ships (wounding several sailors) and
then seized all three vessels.

The motive for Kiev’s challenge was murky and the timing extremely suspicious. Poroshenko
faces a tough reelection campaign in Ukraine’s presidential
election at the end of March. Polls showed him languishing in a
crowded field, lagging far behind the leading candidate, former
Prime Minister …read more

Source: OP-EDS