Hobby Lobby

We don't have much to add to the hyperbolic cacophony of punditry that was released by the SCOTUS's Holly Lobby decision yesterday, but simply want to point out the following to keep our left-wing friends grounded to reality: 1) This decision leaves completely untouched the long-settled rule, first set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut, that the state cannot interfere with an adult's right to use birth control. Whatever the Chicken Littles at Mother Jones, the Nation, or the NYT try to say, nobody took away anyone's access to birth control. Rather, this decision deals with the very narrow issue of the State not being able to force a third party to pay for birth control against that party's sincerely held religious beliefs. (And although the grounds for the holding were statutory, we thought we heard something somewhere about religious liberty having some sort of constitutional protection in our jurisprudence? Oh yeah, it was here.); 2) This decision returns us not the Dark Ages or even to the 1960s, but the the status quo of 2012; 3) The average cost of most forms of birth control is between $15 and $50 per month, meaning that the issue here really is religious conviction, not cost or even access. Moreover, most employers will continue to cover this anyway, because a) most employees want it and b) it is far cheaper than pregnancy. This mandate was only ever really about forcing conformity, not about a legitimate public health need (and if there is a legitimate public health need, there are other ways for government to meet that need); and 4) This should be the ultimate fusionist issue, uniting libertairans and conservatives in common cause, unlike Griswold from a generation ago, which put libertarians in the liberal's camp.

Jeanne Shaheen, Shameless Rent Seeker?

We're not yet sure just what to make of the kerfuffle re a client of Senior New Hampshire US Senator Jeanne Shaheen's husband receiving $78,000 in federal stimulus money in 2009. As these things go, the sum involved seems trivial and it appears that no formal Senate rules were violated (although this sounds rather ominous for Shaheen: "The Shaheens declined multiple requests for interviews and would not answer most detailed questions about their investments and connection to the firm.") Either way, this story bears watching. However, whether Shaheen violated any particular Senate Ethics Rule, we think this much is clear: The appropriations process--particularly with the Stimulus Bill, but really, the whole federal appropriations process--sucks. The fact that these stimulus dollars, or some of them anyway, might have ended up in the pockets what the Boston Globe calls "a partner in one of the most politically connected law firms in New Hampshire" (see article, above) should make anyone serious about good governance sick. But in the end, whether Bill Shaheen specifically profited from this or not is beside the point, because people like him--lawyers, lobbyists, and the politicall well-connected--undoubtedly did and that is the real scandal here. We oppose Sen. Shaheen's reelection not because of her alleged shirking of Senate ethical norms (although, if proven, that should be the end of her candidacy) but because she voted for the Stimulus Bill in the first place and a million other federal boondoggles like it. Whether she herself (or her husband) participated in the rent seeking extravaganza is secondary to the main point: NH fusionists (conservatives and libertarians) have had enough of lawmakers trying to "fix" the economy by handing out taxpayer dollars to their friends. So please, let's send Sen. Shaheen to an early retirement. Not because she allegedly steered money to her husband's firm, but because she is a supporter of a system whereby steering federal monies to your friends is simply business as usual.