And he does so very effectively in Forbes’ latest issue (2nd item at link, which probably requires subscription), in the process exposing the hypocrisy of ultra-rich death tax defenders:

Term Limits for Foundations?

In announcing his extraordinary gift to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Warren Buffett repeatedly criticized efforts to repeal the death tax, warning of the dangers of “dynastic wealth” and belittling the idea that great wealth should be passed on to “members of the lucky sperm club.”

Ironically, there is one, largely unaccountable aristocracy in American life today: foundations. These organizations run on in perpetuity. They control hundreds of billions of dollars in assets. They only have to distribute a minimum of 5% of their assets each year, and even that mandate can be lessened by various loopholes and legal dodges. They do not answer to the marketplace or an electorate. Most of them are dominated by proactivist-government types vibrating with barely concealed hostility to entrepreneurial capitalism.

At least charitable organizations such as the American Red Cross and United Way have some form of public accountability because they are dependent on private donations. Hence the American Red Cross’ president felt she had no choice but to resign when it turned out that monies received to help victims of 9/11 were being diverted for other purposes. Years before, the president of the United Way had to resign in the aftermath of bad publicity over excessive salaries and expense-account abuses.

As for the death tax, its very existence has actually helped to preserve those “dynastic” fortunes so worrying to Warren Buffett. It has led to a proliferation of trusts and other instruments designed to escape the tax collector. These devices–usually run by competent money managers–help preserve and expand fortunes by not letting the heirs get their hands directly on the money.

Eliminating the death tax would in most if not all instances eliminate the need for the trusts in the first place. Heirs would then have control of their money to squander it (creating work for those who work in the businesses where the money is being squandered) or invest it (if done wisely, contributing to economic growth). It will less likely be wasted on far-left ideas that would wither on the vine without their gravy-train of foundation funding. What’s not to like?

Jeff at Credit/Debt Recovery thinks the Federal Reserve study of creditor behavior mandated by the Bankruptcy “Reform” law that took effect last year, specifically whether they’ll lend to anyone who has a pulse and not necessarily the ability to repay, was, in essence, a whitewash (my word).

I have to agree.

Here’s the hysterical punch line from Page 3 of the actual study (PDF):

Currently, the principal means of solicitation is direct mail, the bulk of which is guided by careful prescreening of potential recipients regarding their financial condition and history.”

I guess the “careful prescreening” explains why direct mail credit card solicitations, as reported by CardTrak, increased to an alltime off-the-charts record of over 6 billion in 2005 — more than 40% higher than in 2003:

Now it may very well be, as the study claims, that the actual approval standards for those who respond to these offers and apply for credit are sound — in other words, that those who really can’t handle another credit line don’t get one (I have reasons but not proof for doubting this, which I’ll get to).

But this claim misses a huge point, which is the Money Tip of the Day, and is simply this: The credit scoring system penalizes you if you apply for credit too frequently. Literally, the more you apply for credit (after the first few in a roughly six-month period; they don’t tell us the exact impact), the lower your credit score will go, and the more likely it is you’ll get turned down for credit or have your existing credit lines trimmed.

The tidal wave of mail offers encourages those who don’t know better to keep applying, which only increases their futility, and certainly in some cases causes them to take a look at really bad borrowing ideas (the consumer-finance sharks, title loans, and payday “advances”).

As to whether card industry approval practices are actually permissive to the point that they encourage consumers to get further into debt, two points:

1. The card issuers are in many cases owned by the same banks who have, with their “creative” products and the encouragement of mortgage security giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, lowered approval standards for conventional and subprime mortgage loans to the point where almost anyone who can fog a mirror can get a deal. Why should we believe that standards haven’t been similarly lowered in the card business?
2. I know this won’t apply to everyone, but many readers should ask themselves these questions:
   – What is the total of all available credit lines on my cards?
   – If I maxed every one out, could I afford to pay them back?
   – If lending standard are supposedly so rigorous, how has this been allowed to happen?

__________________________

UPDATE: Others aren’t pleased with the Fed whitewash, either. I’m not normally inclined to be in the same camp as the Consumer Federation of America, which publishes Consumer Reports and leans heavily left, but something is out of whack when lenders grant credit to the point where, according to Fed data, “27% of the lowest-income U.S. households that carry consumer debt, such as mortgage and credit card balances, paid more than 40% of their income toward this debt in 2004.” Since the “income” is a pre-tax number, that means families in this position need to make the remaining 40% or so of income cover everything else — a tall order indeed.

The Bush Administration has betrayed its lack of seriousness about controlling immigration and conducting the War on Terror outside of Iraq by nominating Stephen Murphy III to serve as judge on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The awesome research on and awful detail about Murphy at Debbie Schlussel’s post from a month ago confirms what she says early in that post:

….. the Bush nomination of Stephen Murphy should shock all freedom-loving Americans, let alone conservatives…..

If you can’t get through the whole post, please, please read Debbie’s nine bullet-point reasons to oppose him that appear near its beginning. My “favorite,” which shows beyond doubt that he has refused to carry out his duties in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, is this one: “Deliberately sat on multiple terror indictments and waited until Hezbollah terrorists were safely out of the country before he chose to do anything against them.”

I sent an e-mail that also appears in one of the comments at Debbie’s June post to Ohio Senator and Senate Judiciary Committee member Mike DeWine in mid-June before the Murphy nomination became official, urging him to have the Senate Judiciary Committee convince the administration not to nominate him, and posted at the SOB Alliance encouraging others to do the same. I just sent another telling him that he risks losing my vote in November if he supports the nomination. I encourage others to communicate their position on the Murphy nomination to the Judiciary Committee member of their choice. Drafting a letter should be easy: Just copy and paste Debbie’s nine bullet points.

I believe that any senator who approves the Murphy nomination with full knowledge of what is in Debbie Schlussel’s post will be demonstrating dereliction of duty.

If this post at Confirm Them is any indication, Murphy is clearly getting a pass in the righty blogosphere, perhaps on the assumption that the Bush administration is doing an acceptable job vetting its nominees. In this case, the assumption is dangerously wrong.

There is every reason to believe that if this nomination goes through, the new Murphy’s Law in the 6th Circuit will be “any thing I can do to thwart the War on Terror and immigration law enforcement, I will do.”

And the deck is not complete (requires free registration if seen today).

First, some historical background. The core of the WSJ’s position can be summed up in five words from a 1984 Journal editorial that were repeated in 2001 by the late Robert Bartley, words that The Journal feels belong in a constitutional amendment (you read that right): There shall be open borders.

I hope I can be forgiven for agreeing with The Journal — in 1984. But the Reagan amnesty in 1986, its foolish “problem solved” predictions, and the tidal wave of illegal immigration that followed it shortly thereafter, and which has not stopped since then, shocked me into reality. This meeting with reality clearly has not yet occurred at The Journal. I daresay if the paper was headquartered in Phoenix or San Diego, they would see things quite differently.

But back to today’s editorial. At its core is a fundamental denial of what two decades of virtually de facto open borders combined with the worst features of the “diversity” movement, the left’s antipathy towards our fundamental national values, and the changed nature of those who are entering this country have wrought. It’s right there in these amazingly ignorant statements, with my response following in each instance:

We realize that critics are not inventing the manifold problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert, and a sense that the government has lost control of the border. But all of these result, ultimately, from too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas. Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally.

Phooey. The trespassers, violent criminals, pregnant mothers who want to come here just to have their babies, and con artists have no interest — none — in doing things legally.

But the immigrants who arrive here come to work, not sit on the dole. And thanks to welfare reform, the welfare rolls have declined despite a surge in illegal immigration in the past decade.

Oh please. The relevant question is first how much smaller the welfare rolls might be if illegals weren’t here. Additionally, families receiving food stamps, in-state college tuition rates, and free emergency-room care aren’t seen as being “on the dole” for statistical purposes, even though they are most certainly receiving free government benefits.

As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

Yikes. The Journal knows darn well that renters with one or two children in the public schools don’t even come close to paying their “fair share” of property taxes through their rent payments, let alone the not-unusual situations of multiple immigrant families, each with several children, occupying small rental units.

It may very well be true that LEGAL immigrants contribute more than they extract; even if they don’t quite do that, that’s all right with me, because over the long-term past descendants of legal immigrants have become net contributors. I have no reason to believe it will be different for those who are currently here, legally.

But there is no conceivable way this is true for illegals, especially if you consider the adverse effects of unfair competition with legal workers. Just one small example of that is described here at former US Senate candidate Bill Pierce’s blog. After you multiply it by hundreds, if not thousands, of other instances that are certainly occurring around the country, don’t even try to tell me it’s a win-win.

But the good news is that these newcomers by and large aren’t listening to the left-wingers pushing identity politics.

Again, The Journal fails to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, as if the difference is trifling. Despite the entreaties of the identity obsessives, legal immigrants probably are assimilating just fine. But it is highly doubtful that illegals, who violated the law to get here, violate the law with identity fraud to get jobs, and very often mooch off the system, are assimilating at all. If amnesty or amnesty-lite ever becomes a reality, illegal immigrant families will, first, be far too likely to become the multigenerational welfare clients of the future, and second, will be far too likely not to have any kind of meaningful loyalty to their new country.

According to the most recent Tarrance Group survey, 75% of likely GOP voters support immigration reform that combines increased border and workplace enforcement with a guest-worker system for newcomers and a multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here–provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes.

That’s so nice. Too bad the immigration bill passed by the Senate requires almost none of this. The bill actually rewards past unlawful behavior by vesting those who have worked illegally with earnings for Social Security benefit purposes and entitling them to file back tax returns on which they will often be able to claim the Earned Income Credit. It further assumes an ability along with willpower to enforce and monitor the crime-free and language-learning requirements that simply doesn’t exist, and, given the unconditional amnesty-oriented outlook of perhaps a third of our politicians and judges, most likely never will.

House Republican leaders, who passed an immigration bill last year focusing only on enforcement, want to frame this debate as a choice between more border security or “amnesty” for the 11 or 12 million illegals already here.

Darn it, no they don’t. The House just wants to know that the borders are reasonably secure BEFORE comprehensively addressing the problem of those who are here. Why? Painful experience from 1986 shows that when increased enforcement and amnesty are designed to occur at the same time (both at the border itself and at employers who are expected to, but don’t, do the most basic screening to prevent the hiring of illegals), enforcement gets short shrift. The House is saying: Not this time. And when poll questions are framed appropriately, the electorate agrees.

When border patrol agents don’t have to chase down people coming here to work, they can concentrate on genuine threats, like gang members and terrorists.

Once it becomes known that the chances of success at illegal entry are very low, that is exactly what will happen — And not a moment sooner.
__________________________

UPDATE: A letter agreeing with The Journal’s position, signed by roughly 40 known conservatives, also appears today, and is essentially more of the same. These people refuse to get it, and mischaracterize the House bill (deliberately, in my opinion) as enforcement-only, when it is of course enforcement-first.

UPDATE 2: Right on the Right provides plenty of well-documented evidence that The Journal and others underestimate the influence of La Raza’s racist elements and the Southwest separatist/ethnic cleansing movement.

Free Links:

• The NY Times sees good news and makes every attempt to turn it into bad — There is more news that tax collections are way up, and the deficit way down, since the Bush tax cuts of 2003 kicked in. The Times is so worried about it that they’re announcing the deficit-reduction results before the Bush Administration does this week (i.e., someone leaked it). Then Times writer Edmund Andrews finds all manner of “reasons” why we shouldn’t be impressed, and “experts” to back him up. Read for yourself. Also see this previous BizzyBlog post from a year ago for four reasons why I’m still not happy with the progress in deficit reduction — yet (or more correctly, less unimpressed).
• Another Airbus jet is apparently going to be late to market (HT Redhawk Review).
• “Google” is now officially a verb in the dictionary.
• Some “cap” — Reflecting the popularity of the sport and the shrewd collective bargaining agreements hammered out between the players and the league, the NFL has a salary cap pegged to revenues, and the cap has nearly doubled in just 8 years.
• George Reisman read the New York Times’ editorial page and op-ed offerings for Independence Day so you didn’t have to — and you wouldn’t have wanted to:
  

  ….. (it) does not mention Independence Day on its editorial page. And there is no word of celebration of it on its Op-Ed page. What is present on the Op-Ed page is a further demonstration of that newspaper’s hostility to the fundamental values on which the United States was built.

• Both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing indices from the Institute for Supply Management showed continued expansion in June, but not quite as strong. Manufacturing’s Purchasing Managers Index went from 54.4 to 53.8, and Non-manufacturing’s Overall Business Index went from 60.1 to 57.0. Any reading over 50 indicates expansion.
• Excessive pork gets the attention of a sportswriter (HT Club for Growth). Patrick Hruby’s column goes toe-to-toe with any critique of pork I’ve seen by more experienced writers.
• This is really weak employee relations (HT “S.O.B.er” Pro Ecclesia, who says “Companies Like This Give Free Enterprise a Bad Name”) — National Semiconductor gave away iPods to all employees in June. In July, it laid off 35 people, and demanded that terminated employees return those iPods. Value recovered: Maybe $10,000. Bottom line hit to come for decimated employee morale: Priceless.

Including a two-month-old baby (HT Good News Blog):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hero makes life-saving grab: Catches tot tossed from house fire
By Russell Reynolds as told to Jessica Fargen
Friday, July 7, 2006 - Updated: 02:54 AM EST

Russell Reynolds, a Brockton auto mechanic, was on his way to work at 5:45 a.m. yesterday when he came upon a fast-moving house fire on Montello Street in Brockton. His quick action helped save lives. Eleven people were hospitalized, including a 2-month-old baby who is in intensive care at Massachusetts General Hospital, said Russell, who visited the child’s family and other victims at area hospitals yesterday. The Plymouth district attorney is investigating the cause of the fire.

I came over the bridge on Grove Street. It was pouring rain out and I saw a mushroom cloud.

(The house) was, like, orange. I saw the first floor was fully involved in flames. There were people standing across the street and they didn’t want to get involved. I was wondering why no one else was doing anything.

I heard people on the first floor.

I kicked in the front door. I got midway to the second floor and the fire and flames were coming up through.

The voices were coming from downstairs. There was a lot of powerful screaming. It wasn’t a cry for help. It was a deathly cry.

The people on the second floor were asleep. When I got to the second floor, I kicked the door again.

The door would not open. I came back down the hallway.

I said, “Go to the front of the house. Go to the light. Follow the light. Follow my voice.”

That’s when the father started kicking the window. He was swinging the baby. I said, “Throw the baby. Throw the kids.”

First came the 2-year-old.

“It was like catching a football. It was just like, I didn’t fall down or anything.”

Then came a 7-year-old, 12-year-old and the children’s parents.

When the mother came down, she landed on the people, all of us.

I could still hear the people on the third floor.

By this time, firefighters had arrived and rescued a 2-month-old infant and the baby’s family from the third floor.

“They were doing CPR on the mother. (The infant) was covered with soot and black. It was not breathing. There was another relative. They were doing CPR, too.”

Reynolds and several witnesses said that, had he not ran into the building, the outcome would have been much worse.

“If I didn’t show up when I did, there would definitely be fatalities.”

I’m trying to remember a violent action during a championship sporting event more cravenly stupid (YouTube video here) than than the one committed by French soccer player Zinedine Zidane in yesterday’s World Cup championship game, and I can’t:

In the end, eventual winner Italy was the most deserving team, although you could make a strong case that France was the better team in the actual final itself. Sadly though, the everlasting memory that most people will have will be that of French legend Zinedine Zidane headbutting Italy’s Marco Materazzi. That move probably cost the French the game, and to a large degree will tarnish how people remember Zidane. It was always a stretch to compare him to Pele and Maradona, but on the heels of that act of violence, it’s highly doubtful that people will ever elevate him to such a platform.

With soccer’s sacramental status in France, it’s hard to imagine that forgiveness will be forthcoming soon — if ever. Quite a change from just 48 hours ago.