Republished with permission of Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/a_federal_law_against_lying

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

Sunday, August 22, 2010

In 2005, Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., sponsored the Stolen Valor Act that made it a federal crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors from the military. Breaking the law could lead to a fine and a sentence of six months. Lying about being awarded the Medal of Honor, a Purple Heart or other top honors could carry a prison sentence of up to one year.

In 2006, the bill passed easily through the House and unanimously in the Senate. Last week, however, the Stolen Valor Act ran smack into the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — insert your favorite Ninth Circuit joke here.
A three-judge panel in San Francisco ruled that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional. Consider this tale the latest example of how impossible it is to get a simple law enacted, prosecuted and upheld in the American criminal justice system.

The beneficiary of the court’s ruling: One Xavier Alvarez, the first known man to be charged and convicted for breaking the new law. In 2007, as a newly elected Three Valleys Municipal Water District Board member, Alvarez announced publicly, “I’m a retired Marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

As U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Milan D. Smith noted, Alvarez never served a day in his life in the military, never was awarded a medal and has a rich history of telling lies about himself — also having claimed falsely to have played pro hockey, to have worked as a cop and to have been married secretly to a Mexican starlet.

Alvarez is now serving a five-year sentence in state prison for misappropriating public funds by signing up his ex-wife for health insurance benefits.
Before the state conviction, Alvarez pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Stolen Valor Act and was sentenced to community service and probation and a $5,000 fine. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Alvarez retained the right to appeal the law. A spokesman for the California Central District U.S. Attorney explained that conditional plea agreements are not unusual for convictions with “novel legal issues.”

The approach paid off. As Smith wrote, if the courts upheld the law, “then there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age or financial status on Match.com or Facebook, or falsely representing to one’s mother that one does not smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, is a virgin, or has not exceeded the speed limit while driving on the freeway. The sad fact is, most people lie about some aspects of their lives from time to time.”

It was of special concern to the court that the Stolen Valor Act imposes a criminal penalty “for the mere utterance or writing of what is, or may be perceived as, a false statement of fact.” The law isn’t limited, for example, to lies on job applications, but lies anywhere. For Americans wary of the government acting as thought police, Smith laid out a compelling argument. But in so doing, he essentially held that lying about yourself is a free-speech right.

Judge Jay Bybee wrote a spirited dissenting opinion in which he noted, “I can see no value in false, self-aggrandizing statements by public servants … If the Stolen Valor Act ‘chills’ false autobiographical claims by public officials such as Alvarez, our public discourse will not be the worse for the loss.”

“From a nonlegal perspective, I don’t necessary disagree with that,” Alvarez attorney Jonathan Libby told me. But as an attorney, Libby said he believes the new law “is beyond the Constitution.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley made a similar argument in a piece for USA Today. Turley didn’t disagree with those who would call Alvarez and others “valor thieves” and “semper frauds.” He wrote, “We can all agree that false claims of military honors are repugnant and worthy of social condemnation. These men deserve to be social pariahs, but there remains a serious question over whether they deserve to be criminal defendants.”
I should point out that if Alvarez had lied about his military record for financial gain, then other laws would have taken care of him nicely.

And: Smith, Bybee and Judge Thomas Nelson were appointed by Republican presidents, so you could call this issue an honest, if spirited, disagreement inside the right.

As Libby noted, “The point of the case was whether Congress, consistent with the First Amendment, can pass a law determining what lies are criminal and what lies are not.”

For his part, Bybee argued that knowingly false statements deserve no First Amendment protection. But in this complicated age, nothing is simple.

Think about it. I don’t think this lying, cheating poseur would have been caught if he hadn’t won an election.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

********************************************************************

The Views and Opinions Expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of this Web-Site or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company or person mentioned or referred to in the article.

A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow

Republished with permission of Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/lessons_of_the_summer_swoon

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The economy is suffering from something like a summer swoon. In the words of business columnist Jimmy Pethokoukis, the recovery summer has gone bust. We all know this from the sloppy statistics coming in for jobs, retail sales and, most recently, manufacturing. But market-based indicators are telling the same story.

Let’s start with the Treasury bond market. Yields have fallen to 2.6 percent today from 4.1 percent last April. Decomposing this Treasury rally shows that real yields have dropped 79 basis points, which is a signal of lower economic expectations.

Meanwhile, inflation break-even TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities) have fallen 64 basis points, showing that price expectations also have dropped. The consumer price index has only risen 1 percent over the past year. And long-term inflation fears have fallen all the way to 1.7 percent. It’s not deflation. It’s disinflation.

The corporate-bond market shows a similar decline of economic-growth and profits expectations. Credit-risk spreads are widening. The spread between investment-grade corporate bonds and risk-free Treasuries has widened by 62 basis points, while higher-yielding junk-bond spreads have increased by 138 basis points.

Now, all these bond-market indicators don’t tell us a whole lot about the future. But they are corroborating the summer slump in the present. Lower inflation is a good thing, but lower growth is not.

And here’s another hitch in the story. Using the break-even TIPS, the Federal Reserve’s zero target rate is really minus 1.7 percent, which is the same sort of negative real interest rate we had in the early and mid-2000s.

This is undoubtedly why Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig is worried about a new boom-bust cycle.

Hoenig calls the Fed’s latest decision to maintain the zero-interest-rate target a “dangerous gamble.” Those are strong words of criticism leveled at Ben Bernanke and the other Fed bigwigs. Hoenig says the financial emergency is over and predicts a modest economic recovery that requires small increases in the Fed’s target rate — still accommodative, but slightly less so.

Hoeing also echoes the fears of Stanford economist and former Treasury official John Taylor, who argues that the Fed is keeping its target rate too low for too long, just as it did between 2002 and 2005.

Are we doomed to repeat the boom-bust cycle? Very few people agree with Hoenig and Taylor. But one market that does is gold. While bond rates have been declining this summer, gold has jumped $100, and it is hovering near its all-time nominal high. That’s food for thought.

And let me repeat my own mantra: The Fed can produce new money, but it cannot produce new jobs. Fiscal policy — and its threat of overtaxing, over-regulating and overspending — is what’s ailing the economy. And that threat is reverberating through stock and bond markets. (The stock market, by the way, is still about 11 percent less than its late-April peak.)

So the long-run message of the gold rally may be this: The Fed may print too much money, but taxes and regulations may hold back the production of goods and services. And if too much money chasing too few goods is inflationary, then lower taxes and regulations to encourage more goods would promote stronger prosperity and domestic price stability.

Free market and supply-side father Robert Mundell argued for lower tax rates and stable money. Is anyone listening?

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Disclaimer:
The Views and Opinions Expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company mentioned or referred to in the article.

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

Republished with permission of Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/arnold_and_jerry_take_a_legal_holiday

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

When 52 percent of California voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008, Attorney General Jerry Brown said he would defend the measure during the inevitable appeals. Then, as is his fashion, Brown changed his mind. Ditto Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who twice vetoed same-sex marriage bills passed by the Legislature in deference to California voters who passed an earlier same-sex marriage statute in 2000.

But after Proposition 8 passed, both refused to defend the measure.
This month, after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, both Brown and Schwarzenegger urged Walker to lift a stay on his ruling — the will of the voters be damned. They didn’t even want to wait for the appeals process to play out.

If Walker has his way, there may not be an appeal. Last week, the judge wrote that the proponents who represented the measure in his court may not have legal standing to appeal. That could mean that if Brown or Schwarzenegger do not intervene, no one will be in a position to challenge Walker’s decision, which the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed late Monday.

Who will represent Proposition 8? Walker wrote, “(P)roponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction.”

The conservative website www.flashreport.org is working to push the governor to defend the measure. “You took an oath when you became governor to uphold the Constitution of this state, and that includes the duty to see that the law is faithfully executed, including the constitutional right of the people of this state to amend their Constitution by initiative,” explained constitutional law expert John C. Eastman.

The heat, however, really should be on Brown, who now is running for governor. As AG, it’s Brown’s job to represent the people in court.
As former state attorney general and now Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, put it, “I defended laws that I voted against. That was my obligation. You do your best job. You try to find the best arguments that you can, irrespective of the subject matter.”

If you don’t want to do that, then don’t run for the office.

Kevin Spillane, spokesman for Republican attorney general nominee Steve Cooley, said his candidate believes, “Unless something is blatantly unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of the attorney general to uphold the will of the people … through the initiative process and the legislative process. The personal feelings, philosophy or the agenda of the occupant of the office shouldn’t be imposed.” (Democratic AG nominee Kamala Harris agrees with Brown.)

Sterling Clifford, Brown’s campaign spokesman, told me that Brown decided not to defend the measure because “The attorney general’s job is to make sure that California stays within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.”

And: “To say that state resources should be used defending a law that no one thinks is constitutional, I don’t think holds up.”

Problem: The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6-1 vote — which tells you there’s a lot of room for debate. At least, Brown could have hired outside lawyers to represent the voters if he found defending Proposition 8 so discomforting.

As it is, I don’t know why Brown is running for governor. He doesn’t seem to relish his responsibilities as the state’s top lawman. Methinks what Brown really wants to be is a federal judge.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Disclaimer:
The Views and Opinions Expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company mentioned or referred to in the article.

Republished with permission of Rasmussen Reports

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/just_37_say_their_congress_member_deserves_reelection

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Incumbent members of Congress don’t exactly get a vote of confidence from their constituents in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 27% of Likely U.S. Voters think their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job, down six points from November of last year. Only 37% think their local congressional representative deserves reelection, compared to 42% who felt that way last fall.

Midterm elections are less than three months away, and most Congress members are home for the August recess, working hard to sell themselves for reelection.

But just 23% of voters think it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were reelected in November. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it would be better if most congressional incumbents were defeated. These numbers represent very little change from voter sentiments in February.

Forty-four percent (44%) say their member of Congress is not the best possible person for the job. Another 29% are not sure.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) say their local representative does not deserve to be reelected. One-in-four voters (24%) are undecided.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on August 13-14, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Voters have expressed unhappiness over a number of the current Congress’ major initiatives, including the national health care bill and the bailouts of the auto and financial industries.

Nearly two-out-of-three U.S. voters (65%) remain at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, including 40% who are Very Angry. Fifty-nine percent (59%) also continue to feel that neither Republican nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans and 72% of voters not affiliated with either major party think it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated in November. Perhaps surprisingly, just a plurality (45%) of Democratic voters believe it would be better if most members of the Democratic-controlled Congress were reelected.

Unaffiliated voters are more critical than both Democrats and Republicans of their current representatives in Congress and feel more strongly that they don’t deserve reelection.

The Political Class is much more comfortable with the status quo. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the Political Class says it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were reelected this fall. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Mainstream voters disagree and say it would be better for most to be defeated.

Most Political Class voters also feel their current congressional representative is the best person for the job and believe strongly that he or she should be reelected. Roughly half of Mainstream voters don’t share either view.

The majority of all voters nationwide believe the Democratic congressional agenda is extreme, while a plurality describes the Republican agenda as mainstream. Most also think it is at least somewhat likely that Republicans will win control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming elections, and nearly half say there will a noticeable change in the lives of Americans if this happens.

Most voters in the country believe, too, that President Obama and the average Democrat in Congress are more liberal, politically speaking, than they are. Just 26% think Obama shares the same political views they have, and only 23% believe that of Democrats in Congress. But then only 26% think the average Republican in Congress has about the same views politically as they do.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republican voters continue to feel that GOP members of Congress have lost touch with the party base throughout the nation over the past several years. By contrast, 61% of Democratic voters think their representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Democratic values over the past several years.

Republicans now hold a record 12-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot and are trusted more by voters on most key issues.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Disclaimer:
The Views and Opinions Expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company mentioned or referred to in the article.

Republished with Permission of Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/housing/august_2010/only_18_expect_their_home_s_value_to_increase_over_the_next_year

Monday, August 16, 2010

Short-term confidence in the U.S. housing market has fallen back to the level it was at at the beginning of the year, and long-term confidence is at its lowest point in over 18 months.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% of American homeowners now think the value of their home is likely to go up in the next year. That’s down four points from last month and 13 points from April.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of homeowning adults think the value of their home is likely to go down in the next year. Last month, 30% felt that way, the highest finding in over a year.

As for five years down the road, 41% expect their home’s value to have increased by then, but that’s down from 45% a month ago and 55% in April. Fifty-nine percent (59%) felt that way in December 2008 when Rasmussen Reports first asked the question. Fourteen percent (14%) still think the value will go down, and 36% predict it will remain about the same.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) say they owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth, marking little change from recent surveys. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say their house is worth more than what they still owe on it. In December 2008, 61% of homeowners said the value of their home was higher than what they owed on their mortgage.

The survey of 640 Homeowners was conducted on August 12-13, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Home sales remain sluggish, despite near-record low mortgage rates and the government’s tax credit program for first-time homebuyers which is now coming to a close.

ifty-one percent (51%) of Americans continue to believe a home is the best investment families can make, but that’s down 12 points from December 2008 and 28 points since the summer of 2008.

Only 21% disagree and say it’s not the best investment, but 29% aren’t sure.

Among homeowners, 54% rate a home as a family’s best investment.
In early July, one-in-seven homeowners (14%) said they are at least somewhat likely to miss or be late with a mortgage payment in the next six months.

Rumors have circulated that the Obama administration is considering a partial mortgage forgiveness plan to help those who owe more than their homes are worth. Just 28% of voters favor such a proposal.

Investors are as pessimistic as non-investors about the housing market in the short term but are much more confident about its long-term prospects.

Those who earn more than $60,000 per year are much more likely than those who make less to say that their home is worth more than what they still owe on their mortgage.

Adults over age 40 believe more strongly than those who are younger that a home is the best investment families can make.

Sixteen percent (16%) of Americans now consider themselves to be among the working poor.

Most Americans (61%) think it is better for the economy if the government stays out of the housing market.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. We poll on a variety of topics in the fields of politics, business and lifestyle, updating our site’s content on a news cycle throughout the day, everyday. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Disclaimer:
The Views and Opinions Expressed by the author are his or her opinions only and do not necessarily reflect those of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. or its agents, affiliates, officers, directors, staff, or contractors. The author at the time of this article did not own any shares or receive any consideration financial or otherwise from any company mentioned or referred to in the article.