Editorials and Op-ed

News We Did Not Want to Hear; 
A Warning We Had Better Heed
by George Israel

   A few months ago, I attended a breakfast meeting to hear from one of the top economic development consultants in America, Dennis J. Donovan, a man who has compiled a long and respected career advising corporations on expansions and relocations.

   I am a fanatic when it comes to companies locating in Georgia, but my reasons extend beyond pride and love for my state. I firmly believe that we have a multitude of benefits to offer any company or organization, from a strong pro-business climate to an unmatched quality of life. For decades, corporate America has agreed and Georgia reaped the benefits of corporate relocation.

   So, when breakfast was finished, the group settled back to hear Donovan speak. We were expecting to hear that even though things nationally had tightened up in economic development, Georgia was still in the driver's seat among all states.

   Although serious by nature, Donovan was even more so on this cold, crisp winter morning. The news he was bringing to this audience of north Georgia business and civic leaders was about to jolt us out of our seats.

   "Traffic in the metro Atlanta area," he said, "has put the area at the point of no return." But, instead of citing a long list of case histories and reciting statistics that most of us already know, he summed up his case with a quote he said he was hearing about the region from more and more of his clients: "Boy, isn't there a lot of traffic down there?"

   No surprise there, but the transportation problems we face in Georgia go beyond sheer volume and diminishing capacity. As a state, we are not addressing long-term transportation challenges with the vision and determination we've shown on other issues. Not to sound too pessimistic, but every day we delay in taking action, we are putting our future growth at risk, not just in metro Atlanta, but also in every part of our great state.

   How serious is the problem? Georgia faces a $200 billion transportation-funding shortfall through 2035. Right now, there are major repairs needed in all parts of the state, but not enough money to do the work. These problems will worsen if not corrected.

   In addition, one in five Georgia bridges shows significant deterioration or does not meet current standards. Seven percent of them are structurally deficient and 13 percent are functionally obsolete

   Finally, traffic fatalities on Georgia roadways are occurring at a rate higher than the national average. And, traffic fatalities on the state's rural routes are occurring at a significantly higher rate than on other roads, putting a portion of our population at risk when they travel in non-urban areas.

   All of this adds up to a crisis situation, fraught with peril in every direction.

   Why are we in this situation? Primarily, because the state has grown so dramatically over the past five years, adding more than 1 million people just since 2002. That means more Georgians than ever are driving longer distances for their daily commutes. Georgia's motor fuel tax has remained virtually unchanged for 27 years and does not generate enough money to fund badly needed projects.

   Speaking of projects, there are at least 600 of them, all deemed "high priority," that will have to wait until the money is there. And, delays simply add to the eventual cost.

Both the state Senate and the House have proposed constitutional amendments, which enable counties to band together to identify specific transportation improvement projects and then present them to voters in their region. If passed as a sunsetted SPLOST, the funds would remain at home. It's expected that either 100% or 90% of the money would be returned to the local community, earmarked for transportation only.

The Georgia Chamber supports this move as a first step. In the meantime, I urge everyone to contact their legislators and tell them that we need to address transportation funding now. We simply cannot wait any longer.

March 25, 2008
George Israel is President & CEO of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. 

The drumbeat for internet-accessible medical records is growing louder, as are calls in Georgia and other states for prescription-monitoring programs mandated by law. If patients care about retaining some semblance of confidentiality for their most private of information – their personal medical and prescription drug records – they will pay much greater attention to such moves than appears to be the case thus far.

   In Georgia, the pressure for establishing a statewide data base for all prescriptions administered by doctors throughout the state is being fueled by the continuing reaction (some say, over-reaction) to the murder-suicide of wrestler Chris Benoit and his family last summer. The physician in Carrollton, Georgia who allegedly prescribed large quantities of steroids and painkillers to the wrestler in the period before he went off the deep end, is under federal indictment and is being impliedly blamed for the wrestler's bizarre and ultimately tragic behavior.

   Following the example of gun control advocates, legislators moving to establish legally-mandated prescription-drug monitoring programs appear to have concluded the best way to punish the few bad apples who abuse their medical licenses by over-prescribing drugs, is to inconvenience everyone who obtains a prescription for medication, and endanger the privacy of all such citizens. The data base that would be established by Republican-sponsored legislation would require pharmacists to report to the Georgia State Board of Pharmacy all prescriptions filled for drugs listed in Schedules II, III, and IV of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Those three lists cover the vast majority of medications subject to abuse or over-use, including pain-management and depression-control medications.

   The new data base would include large amounts of sensitive data for each prescription thus reported; including the name, quantity and dosage of the medication, information identifying the prescribing physician, the patient's name, date of birth and address, the "approved prescriber identification number," and "other data elements." The state's Drugs and Narcotics Agency would monitor and enforce the reporting and data-basing requirements of the law. The data would be available to a wide variety of users, including law enforcement agencies, medical boards, and retail pharmacists.

   While the legislation and its proponents assure the public the data base that would be established would be secure, the fact of the matter is no data base subject to so many user agencies and individuals can be "secure."

   States that already have established prescription drug data bases, or, like Georgia are in the process of doing so, are motivated also by the lure of federal dollars. President Bush, for example, signed legislation three years ago establishing grants for states to cover the costs of such programs.

March 25, 2008
Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Georgia's 71 charter schools are outperforming traditional public schools and are serving a more diverse and economically disadvantaged population, according to the Georgia Department of Education's most recent Annual Report on Charter Schools. 

   The findings, based on 2007 data, correct many of the misperceptions that surround the state's charter schools and are particularly significant in light of the increased attention charter schools have received from legislative leadership over the past two years. 

   In 2007, the General Assembly enacted a law that allows entire districts - not just individual schools - to apply for a charter. Districts promise improved student achievement in exchange for freedom from certain state and local rules. This session, the Legislature is considering the creation of a new statewide authorizing commission that would have the power to establish new charter schools. 

   Charter-related initiatives frequently generate controversy. The annual report helps those involved in the discussion differentiate between the facts and the fallacies and provides concrete data that policy-makers should consider when passing on charter policy. Most important, as education reforms generate increasingly rancorous debate, the report provides compelling evidence that charter schools in Georgia deserve serious consideration as a school improvement strategy and option for parents and students. 

   In 2007, charter schools in Georgia met state testing goals - or made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) - at a rate that exceeded traditional public schools. In 2006, fully 85 percent of Georgia charter schools made AYP, compared with 82 percent of traditional public schools. 

   By comparison just 42 percent of charter schools made AYP in Florida, the state with the third-highest number of charter schools in the nation. The national average for charter schools was 64 percent, compared with 73 percent of traditional public schools. Georgia's success rate makes it a leader among chartering states and bolsters the notion that quality chartering, not merely more charter schools, is the key to charter success. 

   Indeed, while most reputable national studies of relative charter school performance have yielded mixed results, the performance levels in Georgia are increasingly encouraging. During the 2007 school year, for example, charter high schools in Georgia graduated their students at a rate of 90 percent, compared with an average of 72 percent for public schools generally. This is the highest graduation rate in the history of Georgia's charter sector and comes at a time when state leaders are redoubling their efforts to improve high school graduation rates. 

   Much of this success can be attributed to the fact that many charter high schools in Georgia were designed specifically to boost graduation rates. Charter career academies, for example, work in partnership with technical colleges and community colleges to offer a more engaging curriculum and to target students who might otherwise have fallen through the cracks. 

   The results are all the more impressive when one considers the student population served by charter schools. During the 2007 school year, 56 percent of students enrolled in charter schools qualified for free and reduced lunch, compared with 50 percent for students statewide. In addition, Georgia charter schools are more likely to enroll racial minorities: Fully 61 percent of charter school students are racial minorities, compared with the statewide average of 53 percent. And 43 percent of charter school students were African-American, the highest percentage recorded since the first charter school opened in Georgia in 1995. 

   These performance levels should be lauded. They should not, however, obscure the reality that some of our schools - charter schools and traditional public schools alike - are not performing at acceptable standards. Moreover, given the relatively small number of charter schools in the state (charter schools enroll approximately 3 percent of public school students statewide), the significance of these trends should not be overstated. 

   Nevertheless, Georgia charter performance strongly suggests that we should encourage more schools to use curricular flexibility to help improve student learning. Simply put, Georgia's charter schools are high-performing public schools serving a population that, on average, is more racially diverse and less affluent than Georgia generally. 

   In one sense, Georgia charter schools have come of age and are beginning to reach a scale where they can impact many more students. But even as the campaign continues to open more charter schools, Georgians must never lose sight of the ultimate goal: ensuring that every Georgia school is filled with quality teachers successful at improving student performance. 

March 14, 2008
Andrew Broy is the Associate Superintendent for Policy and Charter Schools for the state of Georgia and a former Teach for America corps member. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation is an independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.

   It's become a cottage industry —- scaring the bejesus out of the citizenry in an effort to push U.S. House members into following the example of their Senate counterparts and pass legislation giving the administration legal authority to secretly surveil phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens in this country without court approval.

   Surveillance advocates from President Bush on down are disingenuously mischaracterizing the law —- and the already vast power of the government to gather intelligence information electronically —- in order to gain the votes needed to send such legislation to the president for signature.

   To set the record straight, here are some key points concerning the surveillance powers of government —- current and desired:

Q. Despite the fact that the House has not yet caved to the president and the Senate and permanently expanded the power of the government to surreptitiously surveil Americans' international calls and e-mails, is our government still able to conduct necessary foreign intelligence surveillance?

A. Yes. The sky has not fallen and will not fall. The government has had and continues to have robust power and lawful authority to monitor calls and e-mails of known or suspected terrorists.

Q. As an American citizen within the United States, aren't my calls and e-mails protected against the government listening in, unless the government suspects me of unlawful activity, including working with or communicating with terrorists?

A. Such calls should be, and are, protected against warrantless surveillance by the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

   However, under the "Protect America Act," in effect from August 2007 until the middle of February of this year, the government was given vastly expanded power to listen in to any of your calls or e-mails, so long as a government official "reasonably believed" one party was outside the United States. In other words, any call you made with or e-mail you sent to, someone in another country —- a friend, a relative, a business associate or anyone else —- could be monitored by the government without any suspicion you were doing something wrong or that you were conspiring with a member of al-Qaida.

March 12, 2008

To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org
Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta.

   As a teenager, I loved to read comic books. Superman comics were my favorite. Among the many adversaries the Man of Steel faced (and always vanquished) was Bizarro World. In Bizarro World, everything was the opposite of that which prevailed in our world. Up was down, clean was dirty, black was white, good was bad ... you get the picture.

   Events of the past few years remind me more and more of Bizarro World, except now it's not a comic-book world, it's the real world. The effect of witnessing a federal government operating according to Bizarro World standards instead of those enshrined in our Constitution and legal system is truly frightening.

   In no instance is this scenario clearer than when the current administration has addressed the matter of whether its agents have, since September 11, 2001, tortured prisoners. The difficulty in resolving this controversy is immense, because administration officials won't even discuss "torture," preferring instead to talk about "enhanced interrogation techniques." Federal officials like the latter term because it is not defined in federal or international law ("enhanced interrogation" being essentially a made-up term), and therefore activities falling within its ambit are not—cannot be—illegal.

   When forced to answer questions regarding torture, as in the recent debate surrounding the technique known as waterboarding, administration officials dismiss such discussions as improper talk of vital national security matters; denigrate and dismiss such discussions as "silly," as Vice President Dick Cheney did in a recent interview; or deflect criticism by adding a waffle word in front of the operative term and sliding away. The administration and its supporters rely on the unfortunate propensity of many journalists, members of Congress, and others to accept whatever explanation is proffered without probing beneath the surface.

   Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has been employed for centuries as a tool with which to elicit information from prisoners. The fact that the technique often achieves the desired result—confessions—even as it leaves no obvious physical evidence accounts for much of its popularity by practitioners, from the time of the Spanish Inquisition to Nazi Germany. Waterboarding causes excruciating physical pain as the immobilized victim's lungs fill with water. At the same time, the process inflicts profound psychological pain by creating the very real impression in the victim's mind that he faces imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is, in essence, a torturer's best friend—easy, quick, and nonevidentiary. It had always been considered torture by civilized governments such as ours—until, of course, this administration.

March 11, 2008

To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org
Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta.

   “The very rich,” observed F. Scott Fitzgerald, “are different from you and me.” And nowhere is this so-called difference more apparent than in the growing divide between poor and working class Americans and the rich who rule over us.

   While working class Americans are getting poorer (there are five million more poor people today than in 2005), studies show that the rich are indeed getting richer. According to the Center for American Progress, 37 million Americans, a size roughly equivalent to the population of California, live below the official poverty line. Thus, in a nation of almost 297 million people, 12.6 percent are poor (for instance, a family of four that makes less than $19,971 is considered poor). And one out of every three Americans is considered low-income.

   At the other end of the spectrum, 19 percent of the nation’s income is held by the richest one percent of Americans who, according to former New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston, have gotten richer as a result of taxes, subsidies and regulatory policies that “take from the many to give to the already superrich.”

   In his latest book, Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill, Johnston explains that the trend of government policies favoring the superrich began when Ronald Reagan became president and has continued through the Clinton and Bush administrations. “The 400 highest-income Americans—people who on average make well over $100 million a year—were paying 30 cents on the dollar when (Bill) Clinton came to office, 22 cents when he left,” said Johnston. “Under (George W.) Bush, they’re paying 17.”

   A number of America’s wealthy elite are also on the government’s payroll, serving in the U.S. Congress. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reported in 2006 that about half of the Senate’s 100 members are also millionaires and their average net worth is $8.9 million.

   Even those members of Congress who do not belong to the so-called “Millionaire’s Club” enjoy a host of congressional perks. In addition to their six-figure salaries, our representatives also receive millions to maintain offices in their home state and in the nation’s capital, as well as other benefits such as free life insurance, a generous retirement plan for life, 32 fully reimbursed road trips home a year, as well as travel to foreign lands—all of which comes at taxpayer expense. And then there are the “extras” ranging from discounts in Capitol Hill tax-free shops and restaurants, $10 haircuts at the Congressional barbershop and free reserved parking at Washington National Airport to use of the House gym or Senate baths for $100 a year, free fresh-cut flowers from the Botanic Gardens and free assistance in the preparation of income taxes.

   Little wonder with such entitlement that elected officials who have, and have in abundance, are ill-equipped to relate to the struggles of those who have little to nothing at all. We see this in a multitude of ways, from hastily passed laws that infringe on our rights to pork barrel legislation that primarily caters to special interest groups. How else to explain the fact that taxpayers who live from paycheck to paycheck have, in years past, found themselves paying $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina and another $500,000 for a national wild turkey federation in South Carolina?

   This disconnect became particularly evident in 2005 when those in Congress who had no trouble voting themselves pay increases rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers. Such self-serving behavior arises in part out of the privileged, rarefied world in which our elected representatives reside. Fast forward to the present day, with the nation in a recession and Americans losing jobs at an alarming rate, and we find President Bush, born to wealth, seemingly surprised to find gas prices hurtling toward the $4 a gallon mark.

   This brings me to the 2008 bid for the White House, where the leading contenders are no strangers to wealth. Indeed, John McCain boasts an individual net worth of $29.21 million, while Hillary Clinton’s personal fortune is in the $10 million range (combined with her husband, her assets are between $10 million and $50 million). And Barack Obama, the “poor man” of the lot, has assets valued up to $1.1 million. However, his $1.9 million book advance in 2005 puts him on track to catch up with McCain and Clinton.

   So what does this mean for “we the people”?

   It means that the once-cherished idea that any American citizen, no matter their station in life, could someday become president of the United States has been reduced to little more than a pipedream. Only the wealthy, or those connected to great wealth, have much chance of holding high office anymore. This is illustrated by the fact that Clinton, Obama and McCain have already spent nearly $300 million for the privilege of sitting in the Oval Office.

   But it is the common person—you and I—who, by participation in government, not just voting, should determine governmental policy. As Abraham Lincoln observed, “Wise men established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity should look up again at the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began.”

March 10, 2008

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org .

   Two years ago in this column, I lamented the fact that toy manufacturers were cashing in on society's headlong rush toward constant and ubiquitous surveillance.

   I highlighted a Lego construction set that included, as part of a police 18-wheeler, a surveillance and monitoring unit. I also noted a plastic "play set," manufactured and marketed by Playmobil, depicting a police officer wanding a civilian figure as pretend belongings go through a pretend X-ray machine. This trend toward "play" search and surveillance has continued, and now includes a functioning toy metal detector.

   Wizard Industries Inc. recently heralded the latest children's toy —- as an "educational aid" —- designed expressly to make surveillance security "fun." The company's press release announcing its "Scan-It Toy X-Ray Machine" reveals much about the direction in which our society is moving.

   The company takes great pains to explain that the functioning kiddie metal-detecting machine is not the product of some impersonal research department but rather the product of the imaginative mind of a "mother of three" —- Kathy Arena. It seems Arena was going though what apparently was a not-so-happy divorce several years ago that required her and her children to pass through security checkpoints at the courthouse. We learn that they were "intimidated" by the courthouse security.

   The fear of the courthouse security scanner apparently rested heavy on Rena's psyche after the divorce. This intrepid divorcee decided the best way to meet the challenge presented by the distress was to invent a toy to teach other children that transiting a security checkpoint can be fun. Untold numbers of children yet unborn could easily avoid similar trauma by having their parents or guardians shell out $59.95 for a toy metal-detecting machine, and then practice the drill of being subjected to government searches in the comfortable surroundings of their own playroom.

March 5, 2008
Former congressman and U.S. attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   When Howard Linnenkohl, the immediate past Chairman of the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), resigned his post last September, he capped a 40-year career with the massive department. While it is highly unlikely Gena Abraham, who succeeded Linnenkohl less than three months later, will serve nearly that long in the department, the impact she may have on Georgia's transportation system and on the 6,000-person bureaucracy managing it, are likely to be at least as pronounced as any of her predecessors.

   The impressive nature of Ms. Abraham's abilities begins with her two engineering degrees from Georgia Tech – a bachelor's in 1992 and a doctorate in 2001 – but hardly ends there. There are thousands of Tech graduates serving our state in business, technology, academia, and government. Yet probably none, at least in recent memory, have accomplished as much and as quickly as Commissioner Abraham. That she has accomplished all that she has in a field largely (but certainly not entirely) populated by men, bears further tribute to her skills, but this is a distraction from the real capabilities of the woman.

   Described by John Watson, Governor Sonny Perdue's former chief of staff, and someone who worked closely with Abraham in her previous jobs in state government, as "incredibly smart and accomplished," Abraham's skill set will be greatly tested in her new post at Georgia DOT. However, the fact that she supplements tremendous intelligence, phenomenal work habits and impeccable integrity, with strong support from Governor Perdue, Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, DOT Board Chairman Mike Evans, and many top state legislators, gives her a serious head start at successfully tackling the myriad financial and substantive problems plaguing the important agency she now heads.

   Everyone seems to agree – at least publicly – that change is not only necessary, but vital at Georgia DOT if the state is to meet the challenges posed by sky rocketing costs, diminishing revenues, and oppressive federal regulations. The new Commissioner likely recognizes there are two ways to effect change demanded by time or circumstance or, in this case, both time and circumstance. Knowing what needs to be done and the direction you need to go is just the beginning. To accomplish the goal, you can either move gradually, like banking a large passenger plane, or you can bank fast and hard, which might get you headed quickly in the right direction, but at a cost of great discomfort to your passengers. The latter approach almost inevitably will make future trips more difficult and less productive.

   In the situation at the state DOT, Commissioner Abraham knows she has to press ahead firmly to effect the culture change necessary at the department, but not so hard or fast that she risks losing political support or institutional memory of those in the bureaucracy.

   Years ago, when I worked at the CIA under then-Director George Bush and his successor appointed by President Carter, Adm. Stansfield Turner, virtually an entire generation of senior Agency personnel were forced out directly or indirectly by the heavy-handed and insensitive manner in which the Admiral moved to "clean house" when he assumed command. The damage to our intelligence capabilities was incalculable, and is still being felt today, some three decades later. It is unlikely Ms. Abraham will make similar mistakes, particularly given the manner in which she handled the previous posts to which Perdue appointed her, and the way she has approached her first months at DOT.

   Not only will the approach she takes be important to maintaining the capabilities of the department's personnel, especially the technical brain trust, but also with respect to the extensive, outside contractor network that is essential to the functioning of the state's road system. Commissioner Abraham will have to walk a tightrope between maintaining that existing outside contractor network, even as she moves to open up the system to new blood. All this will have to be accomplished with a department bureaucracy not universally enamored of the Perdue administration that Abraham clearly represents, and in the face of continued dissatisfaction from a not-unimportant state representative named Glenn Richardson, who happens to double as Speaker of the State House.

   Still, now that she has survived the first real test of her staying power – the reelection of DOT Board Chairman Mike Evans who bucked Speaker Richardson last fall and voted for Abraham over the speaker's candidate – the Commissioner can start to work cleaning up a department sorely in need of precisely the skills she brings to the table. The fact that Gena Abraham has a reputation for tackling tough jobs, bringing them to the point they can continue to run well without her, and then moving on to other challenges rather than preening in the limelight or jockeying for political office herself, will likely work to Abraham's advantage at Georgia DOT. And that is good news for all Georgians.

March 1, 2008
Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Most police officers with whom I have worked over the years —- whether as a United States attorney, a lawyer in private practice, or a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee —- are men and women of integrity and commitment to the communities they serve. The vast majority of those officers have a sincere respect for the constitutional rights of the citizenry. But then again, I've not worked with the Boston Police Department.

   The police department in that Massachusetts city has just launched an initiative that exhibits a cynical disregard for the rights of the citizenry, even as it cleverly cloaks the program in language pretending to protect the people toward whom it is directed. I refer to the "Safe Homes Initiative," with its slick brochures and smooth rhetoric.

   On the surface —- as with virtually all government actions diminishing liberty —- the initiative appears benign. The program is "designed" to help parents who have so little control over their children that they cannot —- or do not want to —- search their rooms to discover if their young charges are hiding firearms in their homes. Boston's police chief, Edward Davis, graciously has agreed to fill this parental void by sending teams of officers to the homes of parents with children the police or other "community members" believe might be harboring hidden firearms. The "search teams" would then ask the parent or "other responsible adult" (whomever that might be) at the home for consent to search for guns.

   The program is problematic on several levels. First, of course, is the fact that three police officers showing up on your doorstep makes it very difficult for a parent or "other responsible adult" to say no when asked to consent to a search. This works a serious injustice to the notion that a person's home is and should remain free from government searches absent a warrant based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. While true, voluntary "consent" can validate an otherwise unlawful, warrantless search, consent born of the sort of police presence contemplated in this Boston initiative would not appear to constitute such grounds.

February 27, 2008
Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Following his 1987 acquittal on 100 criminal counts charged against him by the Justice Department, former Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan asked rhetorically — but pointedly — "Which office do I go to, to get my reputation back?"

   As difficult as it is for an individual exonerated of charges against him or her to remove the tarnish to reputation of criminal charges, it is more difficult still for a corporation to recoup lost reputation in such circumstances.

   Not all corporations exonerated in court suffer as greatly as Arthur Andersen, driven into dissolution prior to its pyrrhic victory of having its conviction overturned by the Supreme Court in 2005. The list of corporations harmed severely by federal prosecutors making "examples" of them continues to grow.

   One of the most recent examples of this troubling phenomenon is Purdue Pharma, manufacturer of the widely prescribed and highly effective pain-management drug, OxyContin. Shortly after the drug gained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995, it began to be vilified by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its parent agency, the Justice Department. Federal agents publicly denigrated the pain medication as "hillbilly heroin" because it had achieved a level of abuse in the Appalachian region, and issued incorrect but easily quotable statistics purporting to establish that OxyContin abuse rapidly had become an "epidemic."

   Once the government labeled the drug thus, it was only a matter of time before that same government would have to "correct" the problem it had defined. The handwriting was on the wall and Purdue Pharma's nightmare began in earnest in 2001.

   Aided by a series of inflammatory and irresponsible media stories describing in awful and largely erroneous detail the deaths and otherwise debilitating harm visited on "victims" of OxyContin abuse, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia launched a relentless investigation of the drug's manufacturer. Several years and hundreds of subpoenas and search warrants later, the government had its scalp; or rather, three small strands of corporate hair.

February 22, 2008
To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org

   The House of Representatives left town last week for its Presidents Day recess without having addressed the matter of amending the law defining how much power the federal government should have to electronically spy on American citizens.

   President Bush wants the government to have ever greater powers to surveil citizens. Telecommunications companies want the government to immunize them for disclosing private communications information on their customers to the government even if those requests are unlawful. Hence the president's public pique at the Congress for failing last week to definitively address this matter.

   However, the Congress, or at least the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, apparently concluded there were far more important matters to deal with last week than defining the power of the federal government to surreptitiously surveil the citizenry without limit.

   The House, you see, was investigating whether an aging but still outstanding major-league baseball pitcher, Roger Clemens, or one of his former trainers, Brian McNamee, was more believable in determining whether the pitcher had used performance-enhancing substances during the course of his now short-circuited career. The mavens of Capitol Hill had decided that subjecting Clemens to a day of grilling on the issue of steroid use among big-league ballplayers was the most important issue on the national agenda last week. While I and many others disagree with this prioritization, the proceedings actually were rather instructive.

   The Clemens-McNamee steroid hearing provided a textbook example for future congressional witnesses of how not to be a congressional witness. Clemens' appearance, and the lead-up to it, should be required reading for every future potential witness before a congressional oversight committee —- and for every lawyer representing such an individual.

February 20, 2008

To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org

   I spent three days last week in Washington, D.C., where, like a recovering alcoholic, I am not infrequently drawn for sustenance and comfort. Part of my time on this latest trip was spent at the 35th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, known among political junkies and media hounds by its acronym, "CPAC."

   CPAC this year attracted a record number of participants —- nearly 7,000 conservative activists of all ages, from mid-teens to octogenarians and beyond. However, most of the time the constant rush of young people charging through the all-too-narrow corridors of the huge but still inadequate Omni Shoreham Hotel made it seem like everyone there had overdosed on Red Bull. Still, it was a most interesting experience in this year in which the nation is poised to elect its 44th president.

   Noticeably absent this year were a handful of presidential wannabees who had generated such excitement at last year's event. Nowhere to be seen was "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani, who last year had sought to soothe continuing concerns over his liberal philosophical bent by sharing his personal conclusion that no other single human being on the planet was his equal in defending America from the scourge of terrorists. Apparently voters had, in the interim 12 months, reached a quite different conclusion.

   Also silent was former Sen. Fred Thompson's booming voice and TV-crafted persona, although reruns of "Law and Order" might still soothe the yearnings of his fans, who had tried in vain to inject a dose of adrenaline into his energy-deficient campaign. Mr. "Tough on Immigration" Tom Tancredo's one-trick pony gave out long before CPAC 2008 rolled around, as did Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback's evangelical express. Duncan Hunter, the congressman who'd hoped to ignite a dark-horse candidacy at last year's conference, was nowhere to be seen, apparently still in the dark.

February 13, 2008

To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org

   With the announcement last month by Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff of the final implementing regulations for the much-delayed Real ID Act, the debate over this thinly veiled national identification card project moved into high gear.

   The federal government for several years now has been fighting a guerrilla action with citizen groups and a number of state legislatures over imposing on the states and the citizenry this privacy-intrusive and costly mandate. With the announcement Jan. 11 of the final regulations, the debate is fully joined and pits those who support the principle of states' rights against the legions of Big Government advocates.

   Big Government advocates are personified by the current Bush administration, favoring central control of virtually every facet of activity in our society, from education to transportation and from the plumbing in our bathrooms to the bulbs in our lamps. While the Real ID debate shares some elements with its sister debate concerning voter ID, mixing the two as if two sides of the same coin dilutes the host of fundamental constitutional concerns and responsibilities affected by the Real ID Act program now being forced down the throats of the states.

   Let's leave aside for the moment the underlying federalism question — where does the federal government get the power to dictate to the states who can get a driver's license? — to focus on civil liberties that would be undercut by the Real ID Act.

February 7, 2008

   To read more of this article and others, please visit www.bobbarr.org

   Never content to rely on the Good Lord to deliver us from those things that might do us harm, one Congress after another — going back at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — has considered legislation or held hearings to highlight perceived threats and to then limit individual freedom to battle things that might bump us in the night.

   Members of today's younger generation (I can't keep them straight — are they Generation X, Y, Z or the "Millennial Generation"?) clearly have no personal memory, and almost as little historical knowledge, of the "Red scare" of the 1940s and 1950s, or of the House Un-American Activities Committee that was the weapon of choice for official witch hunts. However, things have come full circle.

   If California Rep. Jane Harman (D), Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R) and many of their colleagues on both sides of the political aisle have their way, President Bush may soon be able to sign into law an act that will create a new, 21st-century version of HUAC — the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

    And what would this latest "national commission" — the enabling legislation for which passed the House with but cursory discussion and only six dissenting votes last Oct. 23 — do? According to the platitudes of those arguing its adoption, it would figure mightily in protecting our nation against this century's "Red scare" — terrorism.

January 30, 2008

To read more of this article and others, please visit http:// www.bobbarr.org/

   In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has paid only lip service to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. In some instances, DOJ has gone after child pornographers and — in a scant few cases — has prosecuted purveyors of the most obscene and graphic adult pornography. But unfortunately, the government has been largely AWOL when it comes to enforcing an entire section of U.S. law, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1460-1470, which criminalizes much of the adult hard-core pornography that has saturated both the Internet and our communities.

   Although obscenity enforcement has not been a priority for the DOJ, it is a priority for most of the American people. A 2004 Wirthlin Worldwide opinion poll found that more than four out of five Americans want existing Internet obscenity laws vigorously enforced. To help illustrate that reality, Concerned Women for America is preparing to send the Justice Department more than 16,000 signed petitions that firmly but respectfully demand our nation's obscenity laws be properly enforced.

   The courts have held that there can be constitutional coexistence between federal obscenity laws, which criminalize certain hard-core pornography, and the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is "unprotected by the First Amendment" (413 U.S. at 23) and that obscenity laws can be enforced against "hard-core pornography" (413 U.S. at 28).

   Yet law enforcement officials at the local, state and federal levels have chosen to sit back and do almost nothing while the pornography epidemic hits critical mass. Like a sexually transmitted cyber-disease, it widely infects men, women and even children.

   Due to the instant availability of such obscenity and the lack of enforcement against it, there are, no doubt, many good people reading this article right now who know someone, love someone or have themselves been ensnared by this public pestilence. And, like a drug dealer doling out crack cocaine to his hopelessly addicted prey, those who produce and distribute this smut are getting away with societal murder.

   Many say pornography is victimless, but we know that's a lie. It is extremely destructive to all parties involved. It reduces women and even children to mere sex objects and destroys individuals, families and communities.

   Adult pornography creates a trap that is difficult to escape. It entices viewers to consume more and more smut and to delve deeper and deeper into more graphic and obscene material.

   During a 2004 hearing held by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, several experts testified as to the highly addictive nature of pornography. Those experts further testified that regular consumption of adult pornography can breed sex offenders who prey on women and children. It provides a gateway to child pornography and eventually to child sexual assault.

   Regrettably, our federal government's lack of enforcement has sent a clear signal — whether right or wrong — to smut peddlers and sexual predators: The government is a paper tiger. There are no real consequences for violating obscenity laws and abusing women and children.

   That's why it was very encouraging to hear Michael Mukasey, the new U.S. attorney general, declare during his confirmation hearings that he, too, is concerned about the proliferation of such illegal and obscene material.

   In a Nov. 9, 2007, letter to Mukasey, Wendy Wright of CWA and several other leaders in the fight against obscenity — including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund and Pat Trueman, former chief of Child Exploitation and Obscenity for the Justice Department — requested a meeting with the attorney general to discuss this rapidly growing pornography epidemic. He has not yet replied, and with less than a year left in the current administration, it is imperative that he soon does.

   Attorney General Mukasey is now in the unique position to reverse the ever-increasing tide of illicit obscenity. He has been given both a momentous opportunity and a grave responsibility. It is up to him to quash this epidemic at its source.

   The days of looking the other way are over. It's high time the welfare of families and children takes a greater priority within the Department of Justice than in previous years.

   The American people have spoken. The pornography plague on our culture can no longer be ignored. Federal obscenity laws are already on the books; they need only be enforced.

   General Mukasey, you have publicly indicated a willingness to take on this affront to decency, for which we are very grateful. Now it just needs to be done.

   Do it because it's right. Do it because the law demands it. Do it for our children. But, please, sir, for whatever reason — just do it.

January 18, 2008

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

   This may surprise many readers (indeed, readers easily shocked may wish not to proceed further), but I actually believe positive events occurred in 2007.

   Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq — and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ("nation building," if you will) was and remains ill-advised — the performance of our armed forces in Iraq improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the year.

   Whether this was the result of increasing the number of troops or the consequence of a shift in tactical decision-making by their commanders — or both — the drop in combat casualties and the significance decrease in Iraqi civilian deaths, has been pronounced. To be sure, the underlying problems in Iraq remain unresolved, and the enhanced stability manifesting itself in the past several months may prove temporary; but a significant decrease in military and civilian casualties is never a bad thing.

   Closer to home, while many view the water crisis facing the Atlanta metropolitan area in a negative light only, I prefer to at least see a silver lining to this dark cloud. The fact that this emergency has birthed a commitment that concrete steps must be undertaken to improve the manner in which we collect, retain and use this most precious of resources, should actually serve our long-term benefit. Moreover, if our elected officials at long last begin taking steps to rein in the largely unaccountable bureaucrats in the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service, whose actions have magnified the negative effects of the drought, Mother Nature may actually have done us a good turn.

   Speaking of the water crisis, I, at least, appreciate the manner in which Gov. Sonny Perdue is pushing federal officials and his counterparts in Florida and Alabama to recognize what he already understands — that human beings are more important than mussels. If we can emerge from this temporary crisis with a broadened recognition that human survival trumps shellfish reproduction, then something quite positive will have resulted.

   Before we leave the matter of Perdue, it might be worth noting that despite continued sniping at the governor by legislators in both major parties, his popularity among the population at large remains solid and the envy of politicians everywhere. Of course, while 2007 has been a good year for the Guv, heading into a contentious General Assembly session, and with several Republicans jockeying to succeed him, Perdue will need all the momentum he's built up to remain on the positive side of the political equation.

   Also here at home, the fact that the Jekyll Island Authority is finally — finally — taking concrete steps to pull the island out of its self-imposed and long-festering doldrums, and to significantly upgrade the quality of its facilities, is heartening news. A cautionary note is in order, however. The optimism this plan has engendered could be short-circuited if lawsuits driven by jealous developers take hold, or if vindictive and petty legislative efforts to derail the plans are permitted to proceed.

   This brings us to another high point in state government for the year just concluded — the new Commissioner of the Department of Transportation. Gena Abraham's October 2007 selection rocked the Good Ship Georgia — and not just because she is the first woman in this most powerful of state government positions. Commissioner Abraham's initial report to the governor, delivered as an early-December Christmas present, clearly reflected the tough, no-nonsense reputation she earned in her previous job as state property officer.

   In that assessment, Abraham identified possibly thousands of "ghost projects" for which the department could not provide proper data. She also alerted her boss to billions in apparent cost overruns. If the new commissioner is able to solve even some of the problems she has already identified, her future — in or out of state government — will be bright.

   In early 2007, we lost a good friend and a most able legislator — U.S.
Rep. Charlie Norwood. The bright spot in that sad event has been Norwood's successor, Rep. Paul Broun. He has, in just his first six months in office, carved out a solid conservative voting record that ought to make all Georgia Republicans cheer. Of course, Republicans being Republicans, that probably won't happen; but Broun has been another bright star for Georgia in 2007.

January 2, 2008

Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Do your children know who Robert E. Lee was? His birthday falls during
the same week of January as Martin Luther King. Both these men have,
today, become American and International Heroes.

   Some people call it a contradiction to remember the birthday of Robert
E. Lee during the birthday week of Martin Luther King. But, Dr. Edward
C. Smith, a respected African-American Professor of History at American
University in Washington, D.C., has spoken in honor of both men. He said,
in a 1995 Robert E. Lee birthday speech in Atlanta, Georgia, that "King
and Lee were individuals worthy of emulation because they understood
history." 

   Do we truly understand the history of our nation?

   In 1907, on the Centennial of Robert E. Lee's birthday, Charles Francis 
Adams, Jr., a former Union Commander and grandson of US President
John Quincy Adams, spoke in tribute of Robert E. Lee at Washington
and Lee College's "Lee Chapel." His speech was published in Northern
and Southern newspapers and is said to had lifted Robert E. Lee to a 
renewed respect among the American people.

   Veteran actor Robert Duvall, a descendant of Robert E. Lee, played
Lee in the 2003 movie "Gods and Generals." Duvall, in a 2003 CNN
interview with Robert Novak, spoke of his Virginia roots and of his
showing a half hour excerpt of the movie to Servicemen and women
at Baltimore Airport on their way to the Persian Gulf and possible 
combat. Read the transcript of the interview at:
http:/ /transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/15/smn.18.html

   Saturday, January 19, 2008, is the 201st Birthday of a great
American Soldier, Educator, Christian Gentlemen, Husband and
Father---Robert E. Lee.

   Did you know that Booker T. Washington, America's great African-
American Educator, wrote in 1910, quote "The first white people in 
America, certainly the first in the South, to exhibit their interest in the 
reaching of the Negro and saving his soul through the medium of the 
Sunday-school were Robert E. Lee and 'Stonewall Jackson?" unquote

   What is your church or synagogue doing to remember Gen. Lee?

   During the week of Robert E. Lee's birthday in 1899, Bishop Morrison,
of Atlanta, Georgia's First Methodist Church, eulogized General Robert
E. Lee to a standing room only crowd that included soldiers who fought
with Lee.

   But, why do some people want to hide history?

   Why were Soldier Memorial Plaques, which included a quote by Gen.
Robert E. Lee, removed from the Texas Supreme Court Building in Austin,
Texas? 

   Who was Robert E. Lee?

   Robert E. Lee was born at Stratford, Westmoreland County, Virginia on
January 19, 1807. The winter was cold and fire places were little help for
Lee's Mother, Ann Hill (Carter) Lee who suffered from a severe cold.

   Ann Lee named her son "Robert Edward" after her two brothers. Robert
E. Lee undoubtedly acquired his love of country from those who had
lived during the American Revolution. His Father, "Light Horse Harry" Lee, 
was a hero of the Revolution and served as governor of Virginia and
as a member of the United States House of Representatives. Members
of his family also signed the Declaration of Independence.

   Lee was educated in the schools of Alexandria, Virginia. In 1825, he
received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West
Point, New York. He graduated in 1829, second in his class and without
a single demerit. 

   Lee was commissioned as 2nd Lieutenant of the United States Engineer
Corps. His first assignment was at Cockspur Island, Georgia to supervise
the construction of Fort Pulaski.

   Robert E. Lee wed Mary Anna Randolph Custis on June 30, 1831, two
years after his graduation from West Point. Robert and Mary had grown
up together. Mary was the daughter of George Washington Parke Custis,
the grandson of Martha Washington and adopted son of George Washington.

   Mary was an only child; therefore, she inherited Arlington House, across 
the Potomac from Washington, where she and Robert raised seven children.
Arlington House was transferred to the National Park Service in 1933 and
in 1955 the mansion was designated as a memorial to Robert E. Lee.

   In 1836, Lee was appointed first Lieutenant. In 1838, with the rank of Captain,
he distinguished himself during the War with Mexico. 

   Lee was appointed superintendent of West Point in 1852.

   President Abraham Lincoln, through Secretary Francis Blair, offered Lee
command of the Union Army, but he refused. He said, "I cannot raise my
hand against my birthplace, my home, my children."

   War was in the air. The country was in turmoil of separation. For days Lee
wrestled with his soul. He had faithfully served in the United States Army
for over 30 years. Lee reluctantly resigned his commission and headed home
to Virginia.

   Lee served as adviser to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and then
commanded the legendary Army of Northern Virginia. 

   After four years of death and destruction, Gen. Robert E. Lee met Gen.
Ulysses S.Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, and ended their
battles.

   Lee was called Marse Robert, Uncle Robert and Marble Man.

   A prolific letter-writer, Lee wrote his most famous quote to one of his sons
in 1852: "Duty is the sublimest word in our language."

   In the fall of 1865, Lee was offered and accepted the presidency of troubled
Washington College in Lexington, Virginia. The school was renamed
Washington and Lee in his memory. Robert E. Lee died of a heart attack
on October 12, 1870. He is buried in Lee Chapel on the school grounds
with his family and favorite horse, Traveller. See more on Lee Chapel at:
http://c hapelapps.wlu.edu/default.asp

   Sir Winston Churchill called Lee "one of the noblest Americans who ever
lived."

   Lest we forget our nation's heroes!!

January 2, 2008

   We are winding down the holiday season, the time of year when we each celebrate our faith with family and friends. We pause in the busyness of preparations to remember the blessings of togetherness, belonging, and traditions. Yet, there are many children in our state who have not been blessed as so many of us have with those things that we would emphatically say mean the very most to us – the gifts of family, love, security and safety. I'm talking about the many children across our state who have been abused or neglected and now live in foster care.

   A year ago I launched Kids First, an arm of the Our Children Campaign, to bring greater involvement with abused and neglected children throughout Georgia. Our goal was to encourage volunteerism within local communities to help meet the needs of foster children and those who care for them. Each month, we hosted a different activity in a different community, guiding interested people through an event that could be repeated in years to come. We also highlighted the good work of the many unsung heroes whose dedication and determination make miracles for these children every day.

   Last January, I accompanied a First Steps volunteer on her visit with a new mother and baby at Grady Hospital. Later, we gathered many faith communities together and challenged them with opportunities for involvement in the Middle Georgia area. Foster families from across the state were welcomed to the Governors Mansion for an evening of fun and appreciation. The CASA volunteer program was spotlighted with a visit to juvenile court in Savannah, to observe a child deprivation case. Dougherty County foster children were treated to a birthday party in their honor.

   From a "Season's Readings" book drive in North Georgia to benefit a local domestic violence shelter, to a prom dress drive with the Foster Care Support Foundation, we have sought to involve local communities in meeting the needs of abused and neglected children who live among them. This holiday season, I joined Clark Howard of WSB 750 in the Department of Human Resources' Secret Santa Program, which has been fulfilling gift wishes for children in foster care for 17 years.

   During this holy season and the start of the new year, as we give thanks for the abundance that we enjoy, may we remember those most vulnerable among us, the children in foster care. And as this season passes, may each of us be challenged to continue to care, to act, and to share with those who need us most. This year, may our resolution be to make a lasting difference in the life of a child.

Mary Perdue
First Lady of Georgia
December 27, 2007

   It truly has been a banner year. No, not for the economy, or for America's prestige around the world; and not for the caliber of political discourse here at home as we prepare to enter a presidential election year. It was a very good year for idiocy at all levels — international, national, state, local and individual. Thus, in rendering our "Idiots of the Year" awards, the difficulty lay not in fielding sufficient nominees, but in deciding among so many nominees, those truly most worthy of such designation.

   Starting where I like to begin, with the U.S. Constitution, it should come as no surprise to note our first award — the James Madison Constitutional Scholarship Award — goes to former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Either ignorant of, or uncaring about, the fact that the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus has been an underpinning of Western civilization since the principle was crafted into the Magna Carta in 1215 and, specifically, referenced in our Constitution, this year Gonzales testified before the Senate that the right of habeas corpus is not guaranteed to the citizenry. This one should make every American feel safe and secure from their government.

   We also know that torturing individuals by our government is not only morally repugnant — or at least used to be — but is unlawful. However, perhaps like his predecessor Bill Clinton, who justified any of his actions that required explanation by reciting that, "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," President Bush apparently believes torture is not "torture" if you simply modify the word with a benign adjective. Thus, the Award for Creative Sophistry goes to the Bush administration for justifying the practice of "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is drowned but just not to the point of death, by calling it "simulated" drowning.

   Of course, we're all appreciative of the fine work our police officers perform in our behalf, but every once in a while an officer goes above and beyond the call. When this occurs, the officer is singled out for the Police Power of the Year Award. The 2007 award goes to Minneapolis Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who apparently has nothing better to do than sit in men's room stalls all day waiting for someone in an adjoining stall to tap his foot. Kudos to Karsnia for making his long stints in men's rooms pay off last summer when he arrested U.S. Sen.
Larry Craig (R-Idaho) for tapping a foot.

   Once our police officers do their jobs in apprehending criminals and those suspected of violating our laws, the judges take over. Thank goodness we have so many good judges in our society as to make awarding of the Judicial What, Me Worry? Award so easy. This year, it goes to Georgia Superior Court Judge Hilton Fuller, who, in presiding over the 2005 Brian Nichols multiple courthouse murder case, decided that further and indefinite delays in the case were warranted because to proceed would be "pointless."

   The Nanny State, as readers of this column at least certainly know, is alive and well. For example, we all perhaps should be thankful the federal government is taking steps — for which we pay, of course — to bail out homeowners who agreed to mortgages over their heads and the mortgage lenders who irresponsibly lent them such monies. The Nanny State Award is shared this year by the Congress and the Bush administration for moving to bail out subprime borrowers and lenders for their shared greed. Of particular note is a plan this year by the Senate Appropriations Committee to set aside $200 million for "counseling" of families whose subprime mortgages are threatened by foreclosure.

   The threat of terrorism looms large in our lives — or at least the government has us so believe. The Chicken Little Sky-Is-Falling Award goes this year to the Department of Homeland Security, for including propane gas as a "chemical of interest" to terrorists, and thereby subjecting its possession in large quantities to federal registration.
America's poultry farmers will be especially grateful to Uncle Sam for this action.

   Finally, none of this would be possible were it not for the ability of America's citizens to be able to read and comprehend basic skills. The Excellence in Education Award for 2007 goes to our public education system for ensuring our students placed 24th as among 30 industrialized nations in knowledge of math, according to a new study.
This should guarantee plenty of Idiots of the Year Awards far into the future.

December 27, 2007

Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Hallelujah! Stop the presses! News Flash! Headline: "Baseball players use steroids!"

   Forget the record number of mortgage foreclosures threatening to derail the world's largest economy. Don't worry that the Congress of the United States can't get its act together even to pass necessary spending bills. Who cares that we have a presidential nomination process that may determine the future of the Free World? Why concern yourself that the government is listening in to your phone calls and e-mails without oversight, torturing people and destroying evidence of such misdeeds, and denying even the most basic of procedural rights to those people it doesn't like?

   Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens supposedly used steroids or human growth hormones to temporarily improve their on-field performances. Now that's headline news; yes, siree, Bob.

   The priorities of the American people sometimes mystify me greatly. Granted, my priorities sometimes mystify people, including my wife, perhaps even greatly. But come on now, I would really like someone to explain to me with a straight face why — with all the serious problems facing us at home and abroad — a bunch of overpaid and underworked jocks taking drugs that provide short-term gain and long-term pain should concern me more than all these other crises. Even more to the point, why should such a matter be of any concern whatsoever to the Congress of the United States and to our president?

   I know that anabolic steroids are — have been since the 1990s — among the dozens of drugs deemed too dangerous to allow citizens to use without government permission; the mere possession of which may subject a person to years in federal prison. However, unlike many of the drugs occupying space on the federal Controlled Substances Act, anabolic steroids pose no real danger to anyone other than the users. If the users do harm others, they can be prosecuted for their misdeeds, as is frequently done for DUIs.

   These drugs bulk up one's muscles and shrink certain other parts of the male anatomy. And their potential long-term effects are not among those I would knowingly subject my body to. But, hey, if an athlete is willing to mortgage his long-term health and perhaps shorten his life span, in return for a few more home runs or strikeouts, and if the team employing him is willing to pay a ridiculous sum of money to have him do so, more power to him.

   Yet we now have a former U.S. senator — Maine's George Mitchell — at least two federal law enforcement agencies (the FBI and the IRS), at least one U.S. Attorney's office, and members of Congress from both major political parties, all tripping over themselves to prove they are tougher than the next person at removing this scourge from the face of sports in America. Surely, friends, there has to be something more important for Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Tom Davis (R-Va.) — the two leaders of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — to do than to hold more headline-grabbing hearings as they did just two years ago, highlighting how devoid of real sportsmanship major league baseball is. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.

   Even federal law enforcement agencies can't seem to resist the urge to dip their investigative toes into the shallow water of major league sports scandals. Pressuring the weak-willed hangers on those who frequent sports training rooms to snitch on sports celebrities, many of whom have incomes that far exceed their maturity level, as a way to save themselves a few years in the slammer is not exactly the stuff of Eliot Ness; but it will inflate the yearly plea bargaining statistics.

   While one can certainly understand the angst a Clemens, an Andy Pettitte or a David Justice might feel in being linked however tenuously to the use of steroids or human growth hormones, our pity for them ought be tempered by the fact that this entire "investigation" is essentially a carnival show based on innuendo, hearsay-on-hearsay, and self-serving statements.

   When all the dust settles, probably only a few of the celebrity figures named in the Mitchell Report will suffer any lasting economic or professional harm as a result of this maelstrom (Bonds, who faces a questionable federal prosecution for not "coming clean" when the government tried to pressure him into doing so, being the exception). However, the damage to our judicial and legislative systems, which have been trivialized and manipulated by these proceedings, will be much more serious.

December 20, 2007

Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   The image of the friendly firefighter helping rescue a wayward kitten from a tree might need updating. If the federal Department of Homeland Security has its way, firefighters across the country will be armed not only with firefighting equipment, but also issued training materials on how to recognize suspect behavior on the part of citizens and what to look for in peoples' homes that might be "suspicious." In other words, firefighters would become domestic spies. In fact, such training already has begun.

   Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, in a recent speech to the country's fire chiefs, reminded his audience that in the government's view, a fire or any natural disaster should be seen as no different from a terrorist act. The secretary noted that among the billions of taxpayer dollars that had been distributed to fire departments since the Sept. 11 attacks, were significant sums to develop "fusion centers" in the various states (including Georgia).
These strangely named "fusion centers" (officially, "Counter Terrorism Information Centers") already include firefighters. Chertoff did not in his public remarks to the fire chiefs explicitly mention training firefighters to spot "suspicious" activity or items as among the training they do or should receive, but recent news stories are detailing the troubling manner in which the feds are doing just this.

   As usual, New York City — training ground for public officials such as former mayor Rudy Giuliani and current mayor Michael Bloomberg who apparently consider surveillance the Holy Grail of modern government — is leading the way. Fire chiefs in the Big Apple, for example, already have been granted federal security clearances to further this "integration" of firefighters into the homeland security. According to published accounts of such training, firefighters are being trained to watch for "hostile" or "uncooperative" individuals, or those "expressing discontent" with our government. They are also trained to watch for and report on things that "seem out of place" in a home or business such as firearms and video recording equipment. Rooms with "little or no furniture" fall within the reportable suspicious activity.

   This latest Homeland Security program smacks of the previously discredited "TIPS" (short for Terrorism Information and Prevention System) started shortly after Sept. 11. TIPS was designed to enlist a broad swath of workers in America — meter readers, postal workers, cleaning personnel and others — to report "suspicious" activity to the federal government. Under pressure from many in the Congress and the private sector, the TIPS program supposedly was ended some four years ago, but this latest firefighter spying program makes clear the government has not lost its appetite to continue the effort.

   What makes the latest effort to bring firefighters within the ambit of government-sanctioned domestic spying especially insidious, is the fact that when a firefighter responds to an emergency or conducts a regulatory inspection, they do not require a warrant in order to enter a home or business and look around for "suspicious" items, people or behavior. This freedom greatly facilitates the power of the government to gather evidence on the citizenry.

   With more than 1 million paid and volunteer firefighters active across America, and with those men and women responding to millions of calls and dispatches annually, one can perhaps readily understand why the feds are eager to enlist the firefighting profession in its spying.
Some states, such as New York and Arizona (whose terrorism "fusion" center recently issued an alert concluding that the purchase of prepaid cell phone cards may be "suspicious"), are aggressively supportive of the effort. Others apparently prefer to remain quiet about the integration of firefighters into any cadre of domestic spies.

   Philosophical and legal worries aside, some experts are concerned that not only will using firefighters in this manner make the public more hesitant to call on them for assistance, but that it may also dilute the ability of these critically important public servants to carry out their real mission, which is not spying but saving lives. For Georgia, with a fire death rate nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, such concerns are very relevant.

December 12, 2007

Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" 

   More than 50 years after Ronald Reagan made this statement, government at all levels continues to grow. Georgia is under particular pressure this year to fund legitimate programs that have fallen behind such as transportation and trauma care, even as economists forecast lower revenues due to an unstable economy. Before we create new spending programs, Georgia needs to increase scrutiny of its existing spending.

   Georgia Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson is on the right track with his recent announcement that the House will apply zero-based budgeting to two state agencies in 2008. A zero-based approach has the advantage of not just examining new program requests from each agency but also taking a hard look at all existing programs. The first question of every program should be, "Is this a core function of state government?" If the answer is no, then that program ought to be phased out.

   With today's technology, there's no excuse why taxpayers shouldn't be able to find out where their tax dollars are being spent. A bill by Rep. Jill Chambers that would have made this information available to legislators passed the General Assembly by unanimous vote last year. Governor Perdue vetoed the bill due to technical concerns, but supports the concept. A similar bill by Senators Chip Rogers and Chip Pearson would place non-confidential spending information on a public, searchable database. Eight states and the federal government have already enacted transparency legislation. The bipartisan support for such legislation is evident; even Illinois Democrat Barack Obama and Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn agree on it. Imagine the scrutiny that thousands of bloggers could provide if given easy access to this information.

   If eliminating spending programs is not an option, then the best option is to limit their growth. The Founding Fathers believed in limiting government because they understood its propensity to grow. Georgia particularly needs spending limits because, in a growing state, government can increase in size without even needing to raise tax rates. Governor Roy Barnes implemented the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in 1999 to combat "stealth tax increases" that rising property assessments produced. This law could be improved, but a more comprehensive approach would be to address overall spending. A taxpayer protection law would require special approval for spending over and above a certain benchmark, such as population and inflation. This would provide transparency and a "speed bump" on spending at both the state and local levels.

   It's also important to enforce existing laws. In 2005, the General Assembly required every local school system to report budget information "for each school site." Today, two years later, this information is nowhere to be found. 

   The public and its elected representatives must constantly fight for limited and open government by asking tough questions. For example, why does Georgia spend 10 percent more per student on education than Florida and North Carolina, yet student achievement is higher in those states? Why does Georgia's Medicaid program spend 7 percent more per child and 39 percent more per adult than Florida? Why hasn't Georgia reformed its health care plan for current and retired state employees when, according to expert estimates, that could save more than $4 billion over five years?

   Some questions can be quite simple: Why doesn't the Senate follow the lead of the House and provide video coverage of committee meetings? Why are local assistance grants often slipped into the budget in the final hours of the session without any public scrutiny? Why do state agencies and local governments employ so many lobbyists? Why is the state still subsidizing golf courses? 

   The Internet has the capability of bringing government much closer to the people. Government should welcome the extra scrutiny, not resist it. Elected officials must remember that every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken from someone; a dollar that a family not longer has to spend on its needs and priorities. Georgia's legislators face difficult budget decisions when they enter the Gold Dome in January. As they do, disclosure and transparency should be at the top of their list.

December 7, 2007

Kelly McCutchen is executive vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that proposes practical, market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.

   Life used to be so simple; so un-complicated; so straightforward. You had four bowl games — the Rose, the Cotton, the Sugar and the Orange. And you had eight teams — generally the best in the country — playing in those four post-season bowl games. They were all held on the same day — New Year's Day, unless Jan. 1 fell on a Sunday, in which case the games would be held the next day. The final poll of the top 10 teams would then be released; not 20 or 25 "top" teams, just 10. Back in those days, everybody was not a winner.

   Now, we have not four, but 32 post-season bowl games. That's 64 teams, including many you've probably never heard of, playing in cities you'd never want to visit by choice, in bowls with names that read like chambers of commerce membership drive lists.

   There's the "Meineke Car Care" Bowl on Dec. 29 in Charlotte. And who wouldn't give their right arm for the chance to watch two teams with four-loss records battle it out in the "GMAC Bowl" on Jan. 6 in beautiful Mobile, Ala.? For the internationally minded, there's the "International Bowl" on Jan. 5 in warm, sunny Toronto, where you can watch two teams with 7-5 records slog through four quarters of world-class football.

   Mediocrity reigns. There are, for example, more than half a dozen teams on the bowl roster that sport non-winning, regular-season records. UCLA boasts a 6-6 record and will be in the Las Vegas Bowl. Oklahoma State (also 6-6) "won" the right to meet Indiana in the mis-named "Insight Bowl." The list goes on and on.

   Nearly lost amongst all the mediocre teams playing in mediocre cities in mediocre bowl games, are some truly excellent teams fully deserving of playing in what used to be considered exclusive bowl games. But, with the exception of the BCS National Championship game, few of these nearly three dozen football games stretching over nearly three weeks, from Dec. 20 to Jan. 7, will result in any lasting glory. Even the BCS championship game — which chooses its participants based on an algorithm apparently developed by Rube Goldberg — has seen its technologically crafted reputation tarnished considerably this year.

   The solution? Take a cue from Paris Hilton and return to the "Simple Life." Limit the football polls to the top 10 teams only. Schedule only four bowl games. Allow only the best teams with the best records to play in them; and hold all four games on the same day.

   Some may fret this will result in unfairly casting into the unemployment lines those Brainiacs who have given us the current BCS mess, along with all those officials who will not be making bad calls in the other bowl games. However, there is a solution: put the BCS folks in charge of the presidential primaries.

   Taking the BCS bureaucrats and making them responsible for the PCS — the Presidential Championship Series — will be a match made in heaven. After all, modern college football and contemporary presidential politics have much in common. Both are so complex the average fan has great difficulty following the players and the scores. In both "professions" true substance rarely outweighs showmanship and bluster. And, of course, both NCAA football and presidential politics now revolve around money. Lots and lots of money.

   Therein lies the secret to understanding why we have so many bowl games in so many cities with so many teams over so many days. All total, the 64 college football teams that will be playing in the post-regular season, will take back to their campuses the astonishing sum of $245 million. (If expanding the field to 128 from 64 would increase that take, you can bet the NCAA wouldn't waste a single time out before finding 32 more cities and 64 more teams anxious to prove they are not as mediocre as their records suggest.)

   The transition from BCS to PCS would be seamless. All the candidates in both major parties understand already the importance of raising the Big Bucks; more than $375 million has been raised by the lot of them thus far. The time-frame for the presidential primaries is already hopelessly complex and accelerated, just as the bowl schedule has moved earlier and earlier into December; so the BCS folks would have an easy transition there, too.

   And who knows, just like LSU vaulted over Georgia and four other teams to reach the BCS championship game, in our new PCS system, we just might get to see a Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich matchup next fall.

December 5, 2007

Former congressman and U.S. Attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta. Web site: www.bobbarr.org .

   Housing choice for a new home in metro Atlanta once meant your choice of siding, stucco, or brick on the outside of your detached single-family home. 

   Three new developments recognized recently by the Livable Communities Coalition and the Atlanta Regional Commission show how much – and how fast – the meaning of housing choice is changing in metro Atlanta. All three developments are already far along in construction. All were winners earlier this month of Developments of Excellence Awards given by ARC and co-sponsored by the Coalition. 

   If you threw a dart at the center of a map of downtown Atlanta, the tip of the dart might hit the site of Twelve Centennial Park, a hotel and 39-story condominium building adjacent to MARTA's Civic Center rail stop. Proximity to MARTA rail and the effect that it will have on reducing car trips for Twelve residents made Twelve Centennial Park a development of excellence. 

   In wooded, far south Fulton County, the much-acclaimed Serenbe community continues to take shape. Built on the hamlet/conservation-subdivision model, Serenbe's master plan surrounds 175,000 square feet of commercial space, 40 live-work units and 376 other housing units with abundant green space, much of it wooded. 

   Across town, West Village is taking shape near Atlanta Road just north of the I-285 Perimeter. There, residents have their choice of buying single-family homes, town houses, and condominiums. Or they can rent condos and town houses. In either case, the homes are efficiently clustered near shops, parks, a community center and a retail village and town square. 

   Amid the hand-wringing over metro Atlanta's future, the Developments of Excellence Awards celebrate new progressive developments scarcely imaginable a decade ago. They remind us to give Atlanta developers, planners, financiers and home buyers their due. Somehow, in a metro area famous for sprawl and mind-numbing commutes, exciting change is happening. 

   That's key because, while there's no one formula for all developments, the right mix of housing allows people of different incomes, needs, and lifestyles to be part of the same community. Quality growth means housing for everyone. And when the mix is a right, the result is a vibrant community. 

   We've come a long way from the time when the only real question facing an Atlanta area homebuyer was, "Would you like that in stucco, brick, or siding?" 

November 30, 2007

Jim Durrett is Executive Director of the Livable Communities Coalition.

         A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the  people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
                                               — Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

   In announcing last week that the U.S. Supreme Court would decide whether a lower-court decision last spring invalidating the District of Columbia's 31-year-old handgun ban should stand, the high court teed up a modern-day "shot heard 'round the world" that may very well define whether freedom retains any life breath in this country.

   Since its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Second Amendment has generated controversy far beyond its short, 27-word length. Yet, surprisingly, in all those 216 years, the Supreme Court has never ruled definitely on the amendment's reach. Does it, as the District of Columbia and a number of federal courts have decided, simply codify a collective right of an organized "militia" to arm itself? Or, as other courts and judges have concluded — including Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman of the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who wrote the decision in the case the Supreme Court will hear in its current term — does the Second Amendment guarantee the right of an individual to possess firearms for self-defense?

   While many modern-era opinions issued by federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are distressingly complex and convoluted, Silberman's published decision is not. His 58-page majority decision is remarkably lucid; legally sound and historically based. It is written for the layperson as well as the law school honors graduate; and, most important, it is written to appeal to the moderate among the Supreme Court's nine.

   Clearly with an eye toward his superiors on the high court, Silberman did not in his decision claim the Second Amendment serves to ban any government restriction of the individual right to keep and bear arms. Drawing analogy to the First Amendment's language (the amendment most often cited by more liberal jurists as the embodiment of individual rights against the restrictive power of the government), Silberman noted that both amendments may be held subject to "reasonable restrictions." The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but it does not shield the irresponsible shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, the Second Amendment's language guaranteeing the fundamental, pre-existing right to "keep and bear arms" for self-defense is subject to reasonable limitations by government.

   As noted by Silberman, drawing also on the historical notion of the "militia" as a citizen-based — not a government-based — self-defense entity, the Second Amendment must be held to guarantee to the individual citizen the right to possess those sorts of "arms" commonly and reasonably employed by a "citizen army"; namely, rifles and pistols. Importantly, however, the judge recognized in his opinion that the same reasoning underlying the conclusion that the amendment in fact guarantees an individual right to possess firearms, may — indeed should — be read to allow government to prohibit possession or restrict use of weapons not commonly or reasonably employed for self-defense. Thus, weapons employed collectively, as by a government armed service, such as cannon or other weapons of mass destruction, might properly be restricted.

   Likewise, and also cognizant of the desire by many Supreme Court justices to find solid middle ground, Silberman's opinion recognized that government may also limit the manner in which an individual might exercise his or her inherent right to possess a firearm. Thus, for example, the "state" (that is, the "government") might restrict concealed carry of a firearm, as many states and the District of Columbia have done. However, if the government entity places such onerous restrictions on the exercise of the right as to render it meaningless — as the District of Columbia did with its draconian 1976 gun-control ordinance — then it has impermissibly deprived the citizenry of a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

   Whether one owns firearms