How Government Buys Your Support

In Iraq and Afghanistan, US military officers routinely handed bundles of cash to local residents to buy influence and undermine resistance to the American occupation. Such payments came in especially handy after US troops inadvertently killed innocent civilians or sheep. Billions of dollars were shoveled out with little or no oversight as part of the Pentagon’s “Money as a Weapon System” program.

Dark Clouds over Auburn

I have lived in Auburn, Alabama, for more than three decades and have never seen a super-sized construction crane here. Last week two were erected in the middle of town.

One is being used to build a seven story building for retail, apartments, and parking. The other is on the Auburn University campus and is being used to build something in front of the University library.

Abolish the Supreme Court

The current frenzy over the vacancy on the Supreme Court in the wake of Scalia’s death should be enough to make it clear to even the most naïve observer that the Supreme Court is a partisan and political institution, and nothing like the group of disinterested non-political sages that we are supposed to believe the court to be. As I wrote in “The Mythology of the Supreme Court,” the idea of the court as a group of jurisprudential deep thinkers is a tale for little school children:

Could Banks Become Public Utilities?

Banking today is not the same as it was 100, 50, or even 20 years ago. The next 20 years will see even more changes to the banking system, perhaps a complete upheaval. At the turn of the 20th century, banknotes could still be redeemed for gold, and silver coins circulated in everyday commerce. Fifty years ago, silver had just disappeared from everyday use and credit cards were entering the mainstream. Twenty years ago the restrictions on interstate branch banking were being done away with, leading to a wave of bank mergers that created the large megabanks we know and love today.

Scalia’s Fate

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the various 2016 presidential campaigns have been thrown a serious curve ball. Should candidates cater to voters directly, by suggesting potential nominees for the Court? Should they insist that a lame-duck president-- albeit one with nearly a full year in office remaining-- refrain from nominating anyone? Should they demand that Obama push a nominee forward, and force Senate Republicans into a political fight if they refuse to hold nomination hearings?