Government – Page 77 – artdiamondblog.com

Class Action Suit Did Little for Class Members, But “Enriched” Attorneys

Many attorneys are good people, including my late father, one of my brothers, and one of my favorite former students.
But a few attorneys must be conscience-challenged; for instance the ones “representing” the class in the case described below.
More importantly, class-action litigation increases the costs and uncertainty of doing business, and thereby increases the prices of the products and services we buy.
In speaking to one of my classes a few years ago, Omaha entrepreneur Joe Ricketts made a strong case for tort reform. it is hard to disagree, unless, like the Democratic Party, you are receiving large contributions from trial lawyers.

(p. B1) . . . , a 2008 settlement of a class action against Ford Motor Co., involving incidents in which Firestone tires exploded on Ford Explorers, offered certain Explorer owners coupons worth $500 toward the purchase of a new Explorer and $300 toward the purchase of any other Ford vehicle.

As of March, only 148 people had redeemed a coupon out of 1,647 people eligible. The plaintiffs’ attorneys who led that litigation collected about $19 million in fees.
“It was rather absurd,” said Julie Hamilton Webber of Glendale, Calif., a class member who has a 1993 Ford Explorer. “The net result was the attorneys were enriched and did nothing for the class.”

For the full story, see:
DIONNE SEARCEY. “Toyota Owners May Reap Little.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., MAY 20, 2010): B1-B2.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the slightly different title “Toyota Owners May See Little.”)

Feds Give EnergyStar Label to Fake Products Like Feather Duster Space Heater

“A space heater with a feather duster qualified for Energy Star . . . as an air purifier.” Source of caption and photo: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2010/03/gao-audit-energy-star-program-bogus-products-energy-use-consumer-reports-testing-best-appliances.html

Those who call for more government regulations to protect us, should deeply ponder the story quoted below.

(p. A16) WASHINGTON — Does a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” qualify for the EnergyStar label, the government stamp of approval for an energy-saving product?

Like more than a dozen other bogus products submitted for approval since last June by Congressional auditors posing as companies, it easily secured the label, according to a Congressional report to be issued Friday. So did an “air purifier” that was essentially an electric space heater with a feather duster pasted on top, the Government Accountability Office said.
In a nine-month study, four fictitious companies invented by the accountability office also sought EnergyStar status for some conventional devices like dehumidifiers and heat pump models that existed only on paper. The fake companies submitted data indicating that the models consumed 20 percent less energy than even the most efficient ones on the market. Yet those applications were mostly approved without a challenge or even questions, the report said.
Auditors concluded that the EnergyStar program was highly vulnerable to fraud.

For the full story, see:
MATTHEW L. WALD. “EnergyStar Program Audit Finds Fraud Vulnerability.” The New York Times (Fri., March 26, 2010): A16.
(Note: the online version of the article was dated March 25, 2010 and had the title “Audit Finds Vulnerability of EnergyStar Program.”)

MidAmerican Energy Gives Ben Nelson a $1.1 Million Ride from Georgia to Omaha

(p. 3B) LINCOLN — MidAmerican Energy is suing the state after state officials grounded a $1.1 million sales tax refund the company expected on the purchase of a corporate jet.

Under Nebraska’s 1987 economic development act, LB 775, companies can get sales tax refunds for such aircraft.
But the Nebraska Department of Revenue rejected the refund because MidAmerican’s multimillion-dollar Falcon 50EX jet, purchased in 2004, was used to transport U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on a trip between Albany, Ga., and Omaha on Nov. 28, 2006.
Using such planes for fundraising or transporting an elected official disqualifies a company from getting the sales tax benefit, State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald ruled, citing prohibitions in LB 775.
MidAmerican, an Iowa-based energy firm headed by Omaha businessman David Sokol, is appealing.
The company is asking the Lancaster County District Court to overturn the department’s March ruling.
MidAmerican argued that a single trip taken by Nelson should not be enough to deny the refund. It also maintained that the state, under LB 775, should have based its ruling on the intended purpose of the airplane and can test that use only when the plane is purchased.

For the full story, see:
Paul Hammel. “MidAmerican Sues State Over Tax Credit on Jet.” Omaha World-Herald (Friday, May 7, 2010): 3B.
(Note: the online version of the article was dated Thursday, May 6, 2010 and had the title “MidAmerica (sic) sues Neb. for refund.”)

FDR’s Logrolling to Pack Supreme Court

The unsavory political practice known as “logrolling” is discussed in one of the public choice chapters of the Gwartney et al text that I use in my micro principles courses. Here is an apt example:

(p. 193) . . . , McCarran was more than ever determined to (p. 194) fight the Court-packing plan, even if he lost all of his federal patronage.

Roosevelt had some success charming more malleable politicians such as young Florida senator Claude Pepper. Roosevelt invited the wavering Pepper into the Oval Office and turned on the charm. It helped even more when he turned on the spigot. “The president,” Pepper recalled, “was not above a little logrolling, promising to help me win re-election in 1938 and, in my presence, notifying the army that he wanted to see some favorable action on a Florida canal project that I had been pushing.” Pepper ended up backing Roosevelt.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

In Whom Can You Trust?

“Russian President Medvedev, left, Czech Republic President Klaus, center, and U.S. President Obama, right, toast the treaty’s signing on Thursday.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article cited below.

In the photo above, which of these three men would you want to sip champagne with? (Hint: the libertarian is in the middle.)

The photo accompanies this article:
JONATHAN WEISMAN. “Russia Sets Limits on Iran Sanctions.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, APRIL 9, 2010): A8.
(Note: the online version of the article had the title “U.S., Russia Focus on Iran Sanctions.”)

Reid on Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback: “He Got This for Himself; He Wanted It”

(p. 5A) WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week defended the now-defunct Nebraska Medicaid exemption that was tucked into the Senate health care bill as Reid sought the support of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Nelson has said that he never asked for the exemption and that his goal all along was to provide relief for all states.
Tagged with the derisive moniker “Cornhusker kickback,” the arrangement quickly proved politically toxic.
. . .
Asked why he didn’t offer the same deal to every state from the start, Reid said, “Because I didn’t have it for everybody at that time. I thought I could get it as we moved along in the legislation, and I did.”
Van Susteren said: “You’re telling me that when Ben Nelson got that, when the two of you sat down together, you said, ‘Ben, we’ll do it this way. … Nebraska’s got it now, but after we get this passed we’re going to go for everybody?’ ” “No, no, no. He got this for himself. He wanted it,” Reid said.

For the full story, see:
JOSEPH MORTON. “Reid thought Nelson should boast of ‘kickback’; The Senate leader says it was a “terrific” Medicaid deal that all states now share.” Omaha World-Herald (Weds., April 7, 2010): 5A.
(Note: first ellipsis added; second ellipsis in original.)

FDR Cared About the Politics, But Not the Economics, of Social Security

(p. 116) Roosevelt’s social security plan created an array of problems. First, it retarded recovery from the Great Depression by contributing to unemployment. From 1937 to 1940. employers and employees were docked for social security, and that money was out of private hands and lying fallow in the treasury. Lloyd Peck of the Laundryowners National Association concluded, “The burden of this proposal for employers to carry, through a payroll tax, will act as a definite curb on business expansion, and will likely eliminate many businesses now on the verge of bankruptcy.”
. . .
(p. 117) When an accountant quizzed Roosevelt about the economic problems with social security, especially its tendency to create unemployment, he responded, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through.” Roosevelt explained that “with those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. That’s why, as Roosevelt admitted, it’s “politics all the way through.” Most politicians, following Roosevelt’s lead, have taken delight in raising social security payouts and using that gift to plead for votes from the elderly at election time.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Ben “Kickback” Nelson Seeks More Earmarks

Source of graph and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1A) WASHINGTON — In the battle to secure federal earmarks for Nebraska, Sen. Ben Nelson is feeling lonely this year.

The Nebraska Democrat is seeking 51 earmarks worth $183.1 million. The four other members of the Nebraska congressional delegation, all Republicans, have submitted no requests this year, three of them agreeing to a House GOP moratorium.
That’s a big change from 2009, when Rep. Lee Terry requested 11 earmarks totaling more than $85 million, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry sought 28 earmarks totaling more than $75 million and Rep. Adrian Smith sought two earmarks totaling $1.2 million.
Sen. Mike Johanns has abstained from seeking earmarks since joining the Senate in 2009.
. . .
(p. 2A) Johanns has criticized earmarking as a method of directing taxpayer money based on lawmaker clout rather than a project’s merits. He said last week that the process would be better if lawmakers had to justify their individual earmarks at hearings.

For the full story, see:
JOSEPH MORTON . “Nelson stands alone on earmark requests; He is seeking $183 million for Nebraska projects while the state’s GOP lawmakers sit out this round.” Omaha World-Herald (Tues., May 18, 2010): 1A & 2A.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

After Health Care Plan, Are There Any Limits to What the Government Can Mandate?

(p. A10) As they constructed the requirement that Americans have health insurance, Democrats in Congress took pains to make their bill as constitutionally impregnable as possible.

But despite the health care law’s elaborate scaffolding, attorneys general and governors from 20 states, all but one of them Republicans, have now joined as confident litigants in a bid to topple its central pillar. In the process, they hope to present the Supreme Court with a landmark opportunity to define the limits of federal authority, perhaps for generations.
In the seven weeks since the legislation passed, at least a dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts to challenge it, according to the Justice Department. But the case that could carry the most weight, and may be on the fastest track in the most advantageous venue, is the one filed in Pensacola, Fla., by state officials, just minutes after President Obama signed the bill.
Some legal scholars, including some who normally lean to the left, believe the states have identified the law’s weak spot and devised a credible theory for eviscerating it.
The power of their argument lies in questioning whether Congress can regulate inactivity — in this case by levying a tax penalty on those who do not obtain health insurance. If so, they ask, what would theoretically prevent the government from mandating all manner of acts in the national interest, say regular exercise or buying an American car?
. . .
Jonathan Turley, who teaches at George Washington University Law School, said that if forced to bet, he would predict that the courts would uphold the health care law. But Mr. Turley said that the federal government’s case was far from open-and-shut, and that he found the arguments against the mandate compelling.
“There are few cases in the history of the court system that have a more significant assertion of authority by the government,” said Mr. Turley, a civil libertarian who acknowledged being strange bedfellows with the conservative theorists behind the lawsuit. “This case, more than any other, may give the court sticker shock in terms of its impact on federalism.”

For the full story, see:

KEVIN SACK. “Florida Suit Rated Best As Challenge to Care Law.” The New York Times (Tues., May 11, 2010): A10 & A11.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated May 10, 2010 and has the slightly different title “Florida Suit Poses a Challenge to Health Care Law.”)
(Note: ellipses added.)

“I Cannot Consent to Buy Votes with the People’s Money”

(p. 91) . . . Thomas Gore, . . . was first elected to the Senate in 1907, the year Oklahoma became a state. Gore had a populist streak in him, but he always recognized the protections to individual liberty that came from limited government. In the 1930s, therefore, he strongly opposed the federal government going into the relief business. Interestingly, Gore was made totally blind by two childhood accidents. He still managed to become a lawyer, and as a senator, he had to have family members or staff assistants read bills, books, and newspapers to him. Yet he claimed to see clearly through the political chicanery that would occur if the federal government entered the relief business. No depression, Gore argued, “can be ended by gifts, gratuities, doles, and alms handed out by the Federal Treasury and extorted from taxpayers that are bleeding at every pore.” On the issue of relief, especially, Gore argued that state and city officials “have immediate contact” with hardship cases and can best “superintend the dispensation of charity.” Soon after the ERA brought federal relief into existence, Gore said, “The day on which we began to make these loans by the Federal Government to States, counties, and cities was a more evil day in the history of the Republic than the day on which the Confederacy fired upon Fort Sumter.”

In 1935, Gore helped lead the charge in Congress against funding the WPA with $4.8 billion. After he spoke against the bill, thousands of people in southeast Oklahoma held a mass meeting to denounce Gore. They sent him a telegram demanding that he cast his vote for the WPA and, by implication, start bringing more fed-(p. 92)eral dollars into Oklahoma. Gore responded with a telegram of his own. Your action, he wrote, “shows how the dole spoils the soul. Your telegram intimates that your votes are for sale. Much as I value votes I am not in the market. I cannot consent to buy votes with the people’s money. I owe a debt to the taxpayer as well as to the unemployed.” Shortly after dictating these words, the blind Senator was led to the Senate floor to cast a lonely vote against the WPA.

Source:
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008.
(Note: ellipses added.)