Issues
Click to read more about the positions that the Adam Smith Foundation was created to defend:
- Judicial Reform
- Government Accountability
- Education Reform
- Tax & Spending Reform
- Protecting Private Property
HIGHLIGHTS from the BLOG:
On Wednesday, October 29th, the governors of New York and New Jersey came to...
The recent Congressional bailout of many of our nation's biggest financial companies...
The Wall Street Journal Sees a Problem, Why Doesn't the Missouri Bar?
On...
Adam Smith Foundation Blog
Enough Already!
November 4, 2008
On Wednesday, October 29th, the governors of New York and New Jersey came to Congress to plead for federal tax money to help reduce their states' budget deficits, and it is sure that more states are to follow. The question, though, is why should it be the job of all taxpayers in the nation to pay for irresponsible budgeting at the state level? State income taxes are supposed to take care of state expenditures, and state legislatures are supposed to budget accordingly. To have the federal government pay for part of these states' expenses would, in effect, tax non-residents for services provided to residents in financially-strapped states. This would make a mockery of what little of the federalist system is left.
Of course, not all the blame for these actions lies with the states. It is doubtful that these states would be coming to the federal government for help had Congress not shown such willingness to subvert free market principles and bail out badly-managed companies to the tune of $700 billion dollars. Obviously, several states think they can now make the government toss another couple hundred billion their way. Unfortunately, they seem to forget where this money comes from: taxpayers throughout the nation.
It is time for the government to put a stop to these handouts. Not only is it a waste of taxpayer money, it is irresponsible fiscal policy. All that a bailout accomplishes is to encourage a company or a state to continue unsound financial practices. If they are not forced to make hard decisions to rein in their spending, they won't do it. The market, left to its own devices, would force companies and state governments to practice responsible spending or face tough times until they do so. This is the essential corrective power of the market, and our government's handouts are interfering, rewarding the very people who caused our economy's current problems and doing nothing to encourage responsibility. Congress needs to know that taxpayers have had enough already.
Is Capitalism Dead?
October 10, 2008
The recent Congressional bailout of many of our nation's biggest financial companies has many people asking one question: Is capitalism dead in America? There are those who believe that the bailout indicates our nation's willingness to give in to the allures of socialism, choosing to prop up businesses in hard times using public money rather than to let the market correct itself as it naturally will. Others see such regulation of the economy as a necessary evil, having lost faith in the ability of a complex economy to regulate itself. Those who aren't so quick to leave capitalist ideas realize that the bailout is a serious government intrusion into a volatile market in the midst of correcting itself.
The bailout is a sad reminder that Congressional leaders have forgotten how to properly interact with the economy. Yes, the market is in a downturn, but politicians must remember what got our nation to this point: it was not the invisible hand of the market, but a series of ham-fisted attempts by Congress to regulate the economy. For the government to interfere more is irresponsible.
To bail out companies only keeps the market from correcting itself. The market, through mergers, sales, and revisions of strategy, would have turned around without government interference. Unfortunately, the government's decision to throw taxpayer money at failing companies has interfered with the natural survival of the fittest in the economy. In a free market, these companies would have been forced to change management practices and streamline to meet the demands of the present. Instead, the bailout has been marked by golden parachutes, expensive trips, and no change in direction.
Were Congress to have taken a more responsible course, choosing to insure bad bank loans or to make loans to troubled banks, rather than handing out taxpayer money with attached government regulation, the interference with the market would have been minimized and taxpayers would have profited. Instead, taxpayer money has been handed over to failed financial institutions, the stock market is still in a downturn, and regulation of the economy has increased.
Our legislators need to learn how capitalism works. The government should regulate as little as possible and let the market operate in its natural state: efficient, responsive, and prosperous. Trying to artificially change the financial direction of our country is doing nothing more than holding us back.
The Wall Street Journal Sees a Problem, Why Doesn't the Missouri Bar?
August 27, 2008
The Wall Street Journal Sees a Problem, Why Doesn't the Missouri Bar?
On August 23rd, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial (which can be found here) that detailed the problems with "merit selection" plans, specifically mentioning the catastrophic failure of the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission to act in a manner compatible with the spirit of such a plan. To the astute observer, it cannot be denied that there is a problem with the Missouri Plan. Why, then, can't the Missouri Bar see the problem?
As the article mentions, courts in states with so-called "merit selection" plans have been steadily marching to the left, out of step with the ideals of the voters and the rest of the government. This happens because trial attorneys are allowed to game the system, pushing nominees of their choice into state courts and keeping responsible conservative judges out. Trial attorneys do this only for personal gain, knowing that they can count on liberal judges to treat them kindly in the appellate courts and subscribe to judicial activism.
It is time for a change in Missouri. We need responsible courts that have the best interests of the citizens in mind. This is why we need a reformed Missouri Plan to call our own. Missourians deserve openness and accountability in our judicial nominating system, and it is time for legislators to stand up to the Missouri Bar and stand up for our rights.
The ABA's Proposal for Nationwide Merit Selection: A Bad Idea Made Worse
August 19, 2008
On Thursday, August 14, a Wall Street Journal editorial was written about the American Bar Association's decision to endorse "merit selection" for federal judges. Much like the author of the editorial, we of the Adam Smith Foundation feel that a move to such a system on a national scale would be disastrous and a major Constitutional foul. To make a bad matter worse, the accompanying push to adopt "merit selection" at the state level is a mistake.
As the author of the article points out, state "merit selection" systems don't de-politicize the process, they just move the politics away from the watchful eye of the voters and into back rooms and private offices. In a democracy, the last thing a government should do is allow part of the political apparatus to be put out of reach of voters. A functioning democracy must not allow for the voters to be silenced just because the bar thinks it is a good idea.
Instituting "merit selection" at the federal level would be an even more tremendous mistake. While the Senators involved would still be accountable to the voters (unlike the "merit selection" committees in most states, where the committee members are usually not elected officials), to implement such a system would be to completely disregard the framers' intent when designing the judicial selection process. The system provided for in the constitution works, and there is no reason to change it or to diminish the president's role in selecting judges. The current system allows for the president to check the legislature's power and vice-versa. Tipping the scales in favor of the legislature would accomplish nothing other than to remove one constitutional safeguard from the judicial selection process.
The Wall Street Journal article can be found here.
The Big Top is Going Back Up
August 1, 2008
Once again, it is time for the three-ring circus known as the Appellate Judicial Commission to get back to work and decide the fate of our state's Supreme Court. As you may recall, Justice Stephen Limbaugh, the court's staunchest conservative, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush. His departure left a gaping hole that trial attorneys want to fill with yet another lawyer-friendly judge. Twenty-three people have applied to take part in the fight to fill the position, and it looks like things are shaping up for this summer's nomination process to be just as controversial as last summer's.
Some say this year's process will be different. Advocates of the Missouri Plan insist that the citizens of Missouri will see a smooth, non-partisan process to select Justice Limbaugh's replacement, giving the Governor a panel of apt potential judges to choose from. After last summer's fiasco, it is fairly obvious that a smooth nominating process is unlikely. It is equally unlikely that the members of the Commission will try to uphold a non-partisan approach to filling this vacancy, despite the lip service they pay to non-partisanship. Special interests have too much control over the Commission and, under current law, there is little that anyone outside the Commission can do about it.
Hopefully, Justice Stith will resist the temptation to (again) misuse our state's nominating process. Maybe the Commission will finally nominate someone based solely on their ability to function as a responsible, apt judge rather than based on their political or personal affiliations. Unfortunately, with a broken Missouri Plan still in use, it is almost assured that this will not be the case.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Millionaire Rule in Big Victory for Free Speech Advocates
July 10, 2008
The recent ruling in Davis v. FEC has scored a victory in the fight against government control of free speech. Under the old rule, should a candidate choose to use $350,000 or more of their own money in financing their campaign, they were actually penalized, forced to use standard contribution limits while their opponent was allowed to bypass standard limits and raise three times more money from each donor until their campaign reached spending parity.
Proponents argue that the Millionaire's Amendment "leveled the playing field," but all it really did was discourage candidates from putting their own money on the line as a way of speaking their mind on the issues for fear that, in doing so, they would allow their opponent access to an unfair advantage. The Supreme Court, in a spot-on decision written by Justice Scalia, acknowledged that the Millionaire's Amendment was more of a burden and punishment than a measure of "equalization" and struck down the law.
In acknowledging this, the Supreme Court has pointed out a glaring fault in campaign finance laws: they limit the ability of every American to speak with their pocketbooks, promoting the political speech they support using their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, they couldn't go so far as to get rid of contribution limits, being that it was not within the scope of the case. Maybe next year...
SLOW DOWN THE SPENDING
May 13, 2008
Earlier this month the AP reported that Missouri's tax revenues dropped sharply, to 1.9%. According to David Lieb's report, alarms were sounding in the Capitol. Whatever alarms sounded were apparently not loud enough. Legislators need to slow down the spending.
When Governor Blunt came to office, Missouri was in terrible fiscal shape. Budget cuts were made, priorities re-adjusted, and the fiscal situation dramatically improved. But all of that hard work, and the criticism that came along with it, are at risk of being squandered. Could anyone blame Missourians for being upset at Republican legislators or the Governor if Missouri's budget situation in 2010 looks substantially like the budget situation in 2004?
The St. Louis Post, with whom we frequently disagree, had some useful cautionary words about this:
Tom Kruckemeyer, chief economist for the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project, said that the decline in revenue collections - coupled with the national economic slump and tax cuts enacted in 2007 - means that Missouri "almost certainly will face a budget shortfall of nearly $500 million in fiscal 2010." Fiscal 2010 begins July 1, 2009.
In other words, whoever becomes governor of Missouri in January is going to face a major financial crisis in his or her first year in office.
The root of the problem is pork. Legislators are fascinated with their ability to pass special appropriations for this or that. But, just like a family's budget, the state budget must sacrifice special expenditures when times are tight, as they certainly might be very soon.
The first person to stand up and lead the charge to slash the budget, in anticipation of the difficult road ahead, will surely be criticized for cutting whatever it is that gets cut. But that person will also have the luxury of sleeping well at night, knowing that Missourians all across the state will be better for it in the long run.
The Wall Street Journal has printed yet another editorial attacking the Missouri Plan for selecting judges.
May 12, 2008
The Wall Street Journal has printed yet another editorial attacking the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. The latest, from this Saturday, focuses on the Tennessee version of the Plan and the opposition it has received from both Republicans and Democrats in that state, including governor Phil Bredesen. It looks likely that Tennessee will soon be abandoning the Missouri Plan. It is unfortunate Missouri's legislature did not elect to do the same during the last session. From the WSJ article:
Since the 1970s, Tennessee has used a modified Missouri Plan for choosing its judges, known to its proponents as "merit selection." Intended as a way to keep politics out of judicial selection, the method has instead given disproportionate influence to the state trial bar and tilted state courts leftward. The Tennessee plan is set to expire this summer, requiring it to be renewed, reformed, or left to disappear when the legislative session ends this month.
Not if the trial lawyers can help it. Under the current process, nominees to the state appellate court and state supreme court are chosen by a 17-member nominating commission, of which 14 are lawyers and 12 are chosen from among five lawyer groups, including the Tennessee Association for Justice (aka the Tennessee tort lawyer lobby), the Tennessee Bar Association, the District Attorneys General Conference and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Sounds familiar.
The American Spectator magazine publishes article concerning the Missouri Plan for selecting judges.
April 23, 2008
The American Spectator magazine has published a pseudonymously written article concerning the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Be sure to check it out, as it contains some very good facts and arguments. Here is a snippet:
This system for choosing judges, called the Missouri Plan, was adopted by Missouri voters in 1940 (and by more than 30 states since) following a few contentious elections said to have been influenced by the Tom Pendergast machine out of Kansas City. The Missouri Plan was sold as a way to keep politics out of the court system, but as the Wall Street Journal reports, the plan "has instead marched Missouri's courts steadily to the left." This is due largely to the left-leaning judicial commission, which recommends judicial candidates. Last year Missouri Governor Matt Blunt was so dissatisfied with the liberal nominees for the state Supreme Court he considered rejecting all three, which would have allowed the commission to select the most liberal candidate. If you think this is "keeping politics out of the courts," I have a bridge I'd like you to take a look at.
Government Waste: Pig Book
April 8, 2008
Ctizens Against Government Waste has once again done yeoman's work by compiling data and releasing it in the annual "Pig Book." This year's Pig Book details more than 10,000 in pork projects across the country, totaling more than $17.2 billion. According to the organization's guidelines:
A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.
Unfortunately, Missouri's legislators were cited by the book. As reported by the Sedalia Democrat:
Skelton's earmarks included $10.4 million for a chapel at Fort Leonard Wood, $11.4 million for a consolidated communications center at Whiteman Air Force Base and $341,000 for facilities and equipment at State Fair Community College, according to the watchdog group.
Skelton's total of $45.9 million for 10 projects was only the third highest for the state. U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of the Missouri 8th District ranked highest, tied for 51st place, with $60.7 million for 50 projects.
Missouri gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof, U.S. representative for Missouri's 9th District, brought home about $19.5 million for 13 projects, placing him in sixth place for the state and tied for 224th overall for the House.
Missouri senators were on the opposite ends of the pork spectrum.
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond ranked ninth out of 100 with $309.8 million for 142 projects, while junior Sen. Claire McCaskill came in dead last with no pork spending and no projects.
McCaskill was tied for last place with fellow Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz.
They say one man's pork is another man's bacon. But it looks like Missourians may be overdosing on bacon. Call your federal legislator and let them know it's time to stop building bridges to nowhere and to start giving Missourians the chance to spend that money the way they want.
Welcome to Our New Site
February 23, 2008
Welcome to the new and improved Adam Smith Foundation website. We hope the changes we have made will provide you with an easier and more enjoyable experience.
Report Government Waste!
The national debt is rising and politicians are promising to cut waste, but government spending remains out of control. Do you have an example of government waste or irresponsible spending that you would like to report? Please tell us about it at info@adamsmithfoundation.com
Email Alerts
Sign up today for important email alerts to stay up to date on issues affecting your government. While optional, your address and phone number allow us to contact you with important information.
