Politics roundup

  • Romney’s view of government benefits as politically hypnotic mirrors a “gratitude” fallacy advanced by many progressives [Julian Sanchez, Cato]
  • Ascendancy of “constituent services” on Hill is a bad sign on many levels [Fred Bernstein, NYT]
  • Dems vs. ACLU: platform vows to obliterate Citizens United [Damon Root]
  • Union-backed “Protect our Jobs Amendment” (POJA) ballot proposal, constitutionalizing “collective bargaining” concept, would take Michigan down path of Italian labor law [Emilio Rocca, CEI “Open Market”]
  • Isn’t it sad there’s a major political party contemptuous of science? Actually there are two [Alex Berezow/Hank Campbell, RCP]
  • Yale unions defeat uniformed-worker unions in battle to take over New Haven government [NH Independent] SEIU almost had Connecticut-5 House seat in pocket, till FBI arrested candidate’s finance manager [PSI]
  • Checking up on the outcome of a 1995 class action co-repped by attorney Barack Obama [Hans Bader]


  • Politics at war with science?
    Labeling and thimerosal
    Evolution, Global warming, stem cell research, alternative energy sources, pollution, comments by Rick Santorum about educated people (although he may not have been thinking of scientists as educated)

    Just off the top of my head.

    Both sides get money from lobbyist pushing an agenda. And so many politicos aren’t willing to take the time to consider if someone is slipping money in their pockets for a vote…and may omit the whole truth in the process.

  • re: “Romney’s view of government benefits as politically hypnotic mirrors a “gratitude” fallacy advanced by many progressives” by Julian Sanchez.
    The author was spewing diatribe using the standard weasel words: “presumably”, “it’s hard to believe”, “a very tiny fraction”. So what are the numbers? The Matt Yglesias data does not say what Julian claims; the data represents the population that files a tax return, not those who pay net positive income taxes.
    Even so, “a very tiny fraction” is verifiable, and I conclude that it is wrong. According to US Census (2000) data, 27% of the adult population falls within the typical age ranges for college (up to age 24, a liberal estimate) and retirement (over age 64, a conservative estimate). Compared to 47%, that is nowhere close to “a very tiny fraction”. That’s 20% who are net negative on taxes and not in college/retirement.

  • Just because someone is of college age, or is retired does not mean they don’t pay income taxes.

  • […] note of what labor unions are doing on the Michigan ballot [Emilio Rocca/CEI, earlier] […]