Conor Friedersdorf on 'constitutional conservatives' and job creation

The conceit among Republican presidential candidates, especially Tea Party favorites like Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann, is that they're "constitutional conservatives" -- men and women who strictly adhere to an originalist's understanding of our founding document. But that's just a self-serving mythology, and last night's debate helps to demonstrate why. The subject was the economy, and as in previous campaign events, the contenders competed to assure us that they'd be best at job creation, making it a top priority if elected president.

As envisioned by the Framers, however, the president wouldn't spend his time crafting economic policy, drawing up legislation, or championing 9-9-9 plans. Congress would do those things, while POTUS served as Commander-in-Chief, executed the nation's laws, sought the opinions of cabinet officials, made appointments, and provided Congress with information on the state of the union.

via theatlantic.com

This is probably the safety net's fault

There were 4.6 unemployed workers for every job opening in the United States in August, according to new data from the Labor Department.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, via Haver Analytics

That’s a slight tick up from July, because the number of unemployed rose slightly and the number of job openings fell.

via economix.blogs.nytimes.com

At my Facebook page, a conservative friend argued this morning that safety net programs like food stamps foster dependency by lazy twentysomethings on an indulgent government. That's a worry we can save for when economic times are good. Right now, they're not. The reason so many people aren't working isn't because they're getting fat on the taxpayer dime; it's because there's not that much work to be had.

Glomarization on the real uncertainty

Why do people repeat the "uncertainty" line without making the people who claim uncertainty explain it?

I'll tell you what uncertainty is. It's not knowing whether you can pay the rent or put food on the table next month. And states are cutting TANF left and right. TANF -- thank you, President Clinton -- is difficult to get in the first place, offers no childcare to moms while requiring them to go to work, and discriminates against non-married, non-nuclear families.

I said it yesterday and I'll say it again. It's no wonder that there's a tent city at City Hall, and I don't see why anybody there would hurry up to leave. There's nothing left to lose, and the critics are free to hire them so that they move into a higher tax bracket.

via glomarization.com

Philadelphia: This isn't yarn bombing. So what is it?

Saw this Monday during a walk up the Schuylkill River trail, underneath a bridge around Market Street, I believe. It's not "yarn bombing." So what is it?

And a closeup:

Is there a name for this?

On the al-Awlaki killing, the New York Times gives Obama too much credit

The Obama administration apparently spent months considering the legal implications of targeting Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who was killed in Yemen last month after being accused of being a terrorist organizer. It prepared a detailed and cautious memorandum to justify the decision — a refreshing change from the reckless legal thinking of the Bush administration, which rationalized torture, claimed unlimited presidential powers and drove the country’s fight against terrorists off the rails.

via nytimes.com

I dunno. The Bush Administration also managed to obtain legal memos justifying its acts during the War on Terror—that's why we know (and in many cases, revile) the name of John Yoo. I understand the Times editorial board's reflexive sympathy to Obama, but I'm not sure what the distinction is here.

In any case, the Times argues the memo isn't enough: There should be a "closed-door court similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, before anyone, especially a citizen, is placed on an assassination list." I agree. But the Obama Administration hasn't placed that on the agenda. The Times tries to give Obama some credit, but it doesn't appear he deserves it.

About food stamps and millionaires

At National Review today, Robert Verbruggen urges the federal government to save (admittedly minimal) money by tightening standards for the food stamp program. Spending on the program, he says, has quadrupled during the last 10 years and standards are too loose:

This has created some truly ridiculous situations — such as the case of a Michigan man who won $2 million in the lottery, tied it up in investments, and received so little income from them that he was still eligible for food stamps. Until a recent policy change, food-stamp eligibility in the state was based solely on income, with no consideration of savings accounts, investments, or other assets. Though the policy was set at the state level, federal taxpayers picked up the tab.

But how many millionaires are gaming the system to get food stamps? I'm guessing maybe ... this guy. Maybe there are a few others out there. But I'll pull a number out of my posterior and guess that 99.99 percent of all food stamp recipients are not millionaires. And I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

This is in keeping with standard conservative rhetoric—going back to the time of Ronald Reagan's legendary "welfare queen"—that the people who receive safety benefits are somehow secretly well-off people who don't need the government largess. (It's only been a couple of months since National Review tried the same tack against a school-lunch program in Detroit.) That seems unlikely to be as effective an argument as it once was: Formerly middle-class suburbanites are a huge portion of the new food-stamp recipients. But the policies conservatives advocate aren't really designed to keep millionaires from getting food stamps—they're designed to keep poor people from getting food stamps.

Here's how you can tell: Verbruggen's example—a millionaire escapes his responsibilities because he receives his income not as "income" but as interest on investments—is also the fundamental scenario underlying President Obama's advocacy of the "Buffet rule." Some millionaires actually do pay lower tax rates, overall, than most middle-class folks because they receive most of their living money from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income. Yet I doubt very much that Verbruggen would advocate increasing the tax rate on capital gains because of this situation.

Take a guess: Are millionaires more likely to avoid paying higher tax rates because of investment income, or more likely to use that income as a loophole to apply for food stamps? And which activity has a greater social impact?

This is one reason there is an Occupy Wall Street movement: Conservatives will defend millionaires from paying the same tax rates on investment income that you do on your work income—but they'll use that same investment income as a justification for undermining the safety net for the poor. It's almost as if Republicans were the party of the rich.

Philadelphia, where women are prostitutes and Mummers are innocent

CITY COPS last night found naked and barely clothed women, some participating in sex acts, inside a popular Mummers club in South Philadelphia, police said. Eleven people were arrested on prostitution charges.

The raid at the Downtowners Fancy Brigade clubhouse, at 2nd Street and Snyder Avenue, began about 7:30 p.m. and police were still on the scene after midnight.

Deputy Police Commissioner William Blackburn said that 10 women were charged with solicitation to prostitution, one man was charged with promoting prostitution and two other men were charged with liquor violations.

via philly.com

The math here doesn't work for me: 11 arrests, 10 of them women. The women charged with committing undefined "sex acts" that rise to the level of prostitution. They're at a popular club where—according to the story—they are solicited for sex "every second Tuesday of the month between 7 pm and 11 pm." But only one man is charged with "promoting prostitution?"

That sounds like pimping to me, though it's tough to say from the article. But: Where are the johns?

Why aren't any men charged with illegally soliciting sex?

It's unlikely the women were there because, hey, they wanted to offer themselves up every second Tuesday of the month just because. With that kind of schedule, there had to be a clientele. Either we're getting incomplete information from the newspaper, or something here stinks to high heaven.