April 24, 2009

Lucid Links (042409, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:44 am

Noteworthy Net-Worthies:

Great comment by “venividivici” at my “‘Going Galt’ Got Going Last Summer” PJM column“What I’ve noticed in the whole debate about ‘going Galt’ in the real world, as opposed to in Rand’s novel, is that the left seems to assume that ‘going Galt’ is some sort of binary decision, wherein one decides to work or not to work. It’s much more complex than that, as your analysis of the drop in tax revenues shows. Economic growth happens at the margins in a modern economy and in that context “going Galt” for a high earner can literally mean something as simple as billing five less hours a week or taking half a day off on Fridays. Of course the core of the economy remains, but even those small changes kill any growth.” Exactly. Well if they don’t understand the effect of changing marginal tax rates, how do you expect them to recognize the impact of other decisions at the margins? I also notice that the lefties who thought the previous column was the worst ever or some such nonsense aren’t laughing any more — and I know they’re paying attention.

Related — Rose commented here last week that “going Galt” is very relevant to many moms’ decisions to exit the workforce (“Many working moms are finding that their added income becomes a detriment after taxes and as such, it no longer pays to work…so they are staying home”). A couple of PJM column commenters (here and here) reinforce that point. There are lots of good reasons why a parent should consider staying home with younger kids, but punitive taxation stifling a person’s initiative shouldn’t be one of them.

Expect the leftist reaction to this to be muted, and thus hypocritical (HT Instapundit) — “The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights” (Wow, the AP wrote this; is the love affair hitting a speed bump?). I happen to believe that if someone, uncoerced in any way, wants to own up to having committed a crime, they should a) be allowed to do so in an open-ended, not-directed statement (otherwise, you’re stifling THEIR right to be heard, right?), and b) whatever they say should be allowed to stand as admissible evidence. But the exact opposite is an article of faith with the trial bar and leftist “civil rights” advocates. There will be perfunctory whining about what Obama and Holder are doing, but that’s it. (Also: See Comment 1 for a clarifier.)

More evidence that April sales at the bailed-out auto companies are horridFirst, “U.S. Said to Seek a Chrysler Plan for Bankruptcy.” I may be wrong, but I thought the plan all along was for a Chrysler-Fiat deal to be done expressly to avoid a Chrysler bankruptcy filing. Second, “GM reportedly to close plants for up to 9 weeks.” The closures will start less than three weeks from now. (Update: It involves 13 of the company’s U.S. plants.) Both stories are telltale signs of rapidly decaying situations. It would appear that no one at Team Obama has considered the possibility that half the American people, if not more, won’t buy a car from a de facto nationalized company. Sadly, it looks like the administration is indeed going to protect UAW members’ pensions and retiree health care benefits to an extent that goes far beyond what is normally done at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. An ultimate price tag to taxpayers of $100 billion or more grows more likely.

Nancy Pelosi, waterboarding enabler. She denies it. But she was briefed, and “raised no substantial objections.” This is stunning hypocrisy, even for her. Of course, President ‘Prompter and Eric Holder will be sure to prosecute her as an accessory to “torture” along with Bush administration lawyers who wrote the rules (/sarc).

Meanwhile, in an extraordinarily resourceful use of journalists’ precious time, CBS’s ‘Early Show’ hosts evaluated the realism of manufactured paper dolls of President Obama and the First Lady. I’m not kidding.



  1. Regarding the interrogation bit, the defendant can always confess, if they initiate the conversation, or simply make unsolicited statements.

    Currently, if a defendant says, “I want a lawyer,” the discussion stops until they get a lawyer. If they say more or volunteer something, that’s still admissible. What they want to do is to go back and say, “do you still want a lawyer?” or some such, then start questioning again.

    It is currently the case that if you say you don’t want to answer questions, the police can ask the person again at a later time, but the attorney question is a different sort of animal.

    Comment by Leo — April 24, 2009 @ 8:54 am

  2. #1, thanks for the clarification. Still something the trial bar won’t like.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 24, 2009 @ 9:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.