House Passes Currency Legislation; Whoop-Dee-Freakin-Doo

Only moments before being forced to adjourn for its mid-term election recess, the US House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed angry-sounding legislation targeting "unfair" currency practices by certain unnamed countries (yes, I'm looking right at you, Chinese Government).  Sigh.  I've already gone over at ridiculous length why any unilateral action against China's currency policies is a really dumb idea, and Cato's Dan Griswold today gives us a good summary of many of those reasons (citing, as always, oodles of good research by his team):

• A stronger Chinese currency will not put a major dent in our large bilateral trade deficit with China, certainly not any time in the near future. 

• The bilateral deficit with China and America’s overall trade deficit is not a drag on growth or a barrier to manufacturing exports and output. 

• U.S. manufacturing has not been decimated by trade. In fact it has been expanding as American producers move up the value chain to more sophisticated, high-tech products. 

• Provoking a needless trade spat with China will jeopardize the healthy export success American companies have enjoyed in China’s fast-growing market.

AEI's Phil Levy helpfully (and humorously) adds that the CBO scoring of this big legislation is, well, less than exciting:

The House bill itself has gone through changes to make it fit with global trade rules. Those changes affect key provisions like whether Commerce must do something, or whether Commerce may do something.  How can one parse all this to see what it means? The Congressional Budget Office can!  That’s their job—to look at impenetrable or improbable pieces of legislation, take them seriously, and cost them out impartially. That’s what they just did on the China bill.  They were not asked to figure out how many American jobs it would produce; they were asked about revenue and cost effects, but those should give us a clue.

How much money would these new tariffs deliver in the next year (fiscal 2011)? CBO says: $0.

So much for an effective and speedy remedy to the recession.

Perhaps it was expecting too much to have a complicated procedural change kick in so soon. What about the year after that, fiscal 2012? CBO says: $5 million.

A little perspective may be helpful here. In 2009, U.S. imports of goods from China were $297 billion. So we’re talking about an average tariff rate change of 0.0017 percent. That’s expected to triple in fiscal 2013, to $15 million in revenue, perhaps 0.005 percent.

Finally, the latest news out of the Senate is that consideration of, and a vote on, any currency legislation in that chamber is increasingly unlikely, even in a post-election "lame duck" session.  So if the bill won't help (and might hurt) the US economy, and it won't help the budget, and it's almost certainly going to die in the Senate, then why'd the House overwhelmingly pass the darn thing?

Three guesses (if you need a hint, just check my blog post from yesterday).  Or as Griswold eloquently put it:

Advocates of the legislation say it is about jobs, and they are partly right. The bill is about saving the jobs of incumbent lawmakers who are desperate to appear tough on China trade, which they blame for the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Zing!  But hey, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that (i) the Senate comes back from the mid-term elections and just decides to go all damn-the-torpedoes-crazy and pass this bill; and (ii) President Obama signs the thing because he's overdue on some zany AFL-CIO payback.  Would this just-passed legislation, if it became law, cause a "trade war," like many people seem to think?

Quick answer: Nope.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think this whole episode is about as distasteful and embarrassing as they come (and considering we're talking about the US Congress here, that's saying a LOT).  And I'm particularly disappointed that President Obama has once again voted "present" on an important trade issue by not  preempting the House vote with a veto threat (and thus signalling the stupidity of aggressive unilateral chest-thumping).  But none of that changes the fact that, if it became law, this particular legislation probably won't have a big effect on things, at least in the near term.  I've already given several media interviews on this subject today (I'm so famous, I know), so here's the Cliff Notes version of what I told the journalists:

Assuming the bill becomes law as written, a large spike in CVD petitions against China is highly unlikely in the near term.  Instead, only a small number of “test case” petitions would likely be filed initially in order to determine how the Department of Commerce intends to exercise its initiation authority under the revised legal standard.  It's important to remember that the revised bill does not force the Department to initiate a CVD investigation based on alleged currency undervaluation. It only narrows the Department's discretion to refuse to initiate based on an allegation of export contingency and describes how the Department must calculate the subsidy benefit.  In short, if the administration wanted to not initiate a CVD investigation of alleged currency undervaluation, the door's still open for Commerce to do so, but only a little.  (And it's also important to remember that the US courts are highly deferential to technical administrative decisions like that.)

Should DOC decide to initiate CVD investigations in those test cases and then go on to find significant levels of subsidization, several more petitions would likely follow. However, even if DOC signals a broad and aggressive desire to go down this road, the number of new petitions will still be limited by (1) practical considerations surrounding the time and expense of filing a CVD petition; (2) the requirement of proving "material injury" at the International Trade Commission before the imposition of remedial tariffs (and that's typically the more difficult part of any AD/CVD investigation); and (3) the requirement that the petition be supported by a significant proportion of a domestic industry that manufactures a "like" product.  On the other hand, the new law would likely encourage industries with existing CVD orders on Chinese goods to request administrative reviews and submit new subsidy allegations to increase countervailing duties under those orders.

Or as I put it to the Wall Street Journal: "The change in language... gives the administration 'a way to say no' to U.S. industries and could signal to China that Washington isn't looking to declare a trade war over currency practices."  Now, it would intensify market uncertainty for Chinese exporters (and US consumers of Chinese goods), so it's not totally benign, but the bill's not the giant anti-China club that its supporters - and much of its opposition - claim it to be.

So be angry at (most of) Congress, folks.  They certainly deserve it for proving once again what misleading, self-interested jerks they are.  And be miffed with President Obama for once again putting politics over good policy.  And be embarrassed about the dismal state of American trade policy.

But cool it on the "trade war" talk, ok?

(Especially considering the undeniable fact that the Senate probably won't even touch the darn thing after the elections because all that great political motivation to be a raving protectionist will have just disappeared.)

Questions Arise In Tommy Lynn Sells Alleged Confession In Cordt Murders:

By Dave Warren and Kathee Baird:

Serial killer Tommy Lynn Sell on Texas' Death Row

 This is the fourth part of a series into the investigation of the 1985 murders of Ena and Rory Cordt in Forsyth, Missouri and the alleged confession letter written by Tommy Lynn Sells admitting to killing the mother and son. 

The Ozarks Sentinel recently published the alleged confession of serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells and his role in the murders of Ena and Rory Cordt. While some believe Sells is the signer of the confession, many are not certain that the document reflects the truth of what really happened in the small town of Forsyth, MO in July of 1985.

In fact, Sells himself has told at least one person he would sign the confession if it were prepared by someone else, indicating it may not necessarily be the whole truth. Some have questioned the timing of the stories, noting that one of those named is seeking public office in November. (We can state that the timing of the story was based solely on this being the 25th anniversary of a murder that law enforcement had all but forgotten about.  However, we understand the concern and questions that have arisen.)

-

To understand why a serial killer would be willing to sign a confession such as this one, you need to look into who prepared it and had it signed, and what their motivation might have been.
-

Muddying the case further, law enforcement has not moved forward on the murder case in more than a decade and yet requests for records and documentation in the case from law enforcement agencies in Missouri are met with, “We regret we cannot release those at this time as this is an ongoing investigation.”
-

While a source within the Missouri Highway Patrol has told The Sentinel that the agency is now taking another look at the case, no suspect has been named and officials will not confirm nor deny whether or not DNA has been preserved from the 25-year-old crime scene.
-

In the past few weeks The Sentinel has traced the origin of alleged confession back to 2000, when Sells allegedly signed it.
-

However, The Sentinel's investigation goes much deeper than just the naming of names. The alleged confession letter may be, in fact, a document that came into being to help discredit some, while vindicating others. Who created it? Did Sells sign it? What was the motivation behind the confession? All those questions demand answers.
-

A key component of the investigation into the alleged confession may lie with a Taney County man who author Diane Fanning said told her he had a confession from Sells.
-

Fanning, who wrote the book “Through The Window,” about the Cross Country serial killer spent time interviewing Sells on death row conducting research for the book and worked closely with Texas Rangers who listened to many of Sells' confessions about his involvement in a number of crimes – including those of Ena and Rory Cordt.
-

Fanning's book on serial kill Tommy Lynn Sells is available here

Asked about Sells' involvement in the Cordt murders, Fanning said, “Yes. He confessed to that. He went into great detail and even told me about how he killed them and why he killed the little boy.”
-

According to Fanning, the Texas Rangers believed Sells was the killer of Cordt and still do. “Yes. The Rangers definitely believe he killed them,” she said.
-

However, according to Fanning, the confession letter as written, is another story.
-

“Two men, Bob Schanz and Peter Rea, contacted me in 2001 or 2002, I don't remember exactly when, and that was the first time I had heard about a murder-for-hire plot,” Fanning said. “They said something about a judge and that Sells had been hired to kill them (the Cordts).”
-

Fanning said she made a point of asking Sells about the confession during her next interview with him on Texas' Death Row.
-

“I did ask Sells about it. He said that Schanz had asked him to sign a confession about that. He told me, 'Bob Schanz wants me to say this really was a murder for hire.”  Fanning noted that Sells told her he would “probably sign it,” but added, “If Bob Schanz typed it up, he would sign it.”
-

Bob Schanz and former President George W. Bush

“I can tell you with certainty that the wording isn't that of Sells in the confession. The basic language is not that of Sells,” Fanning stated.” Sells has no real care for people in jail like he said in his confession. Sells himself has told me that there are a lot of people sitting in jail for crimes he did and, “I don't care.”

-

The relationship between Schanz and Fanning has been a rocky one at best over the years.

Fanning told The Ozarks Sentinel, “he (Schanz) has gone out of his way to discredit me.” Fanning noted Schanz initially attempted to discredited her with the ABC News show 20/20 and the Montell Williams Show.
-
 However, over the years, Fanning has gone on to establish a solid reputation with ABC and Texas Rangers involved in the Sells case.
-

She has also spent countless hours speaking with and corresponding with Sells who has been dubbed The Coast To Coast Killer.
-

According to Fanning, the confession in which Sells tells of a murder-for-hire in Taney County, isn't the only such confession that Schanz apparently had him sign.
-

“Ranger Johnny Allen told me about another confession, in a different case, that Schanz wanted Sells to confess to in a murder-for-hire,” she said. “So there's more than one confession by Sells about murder for hire plots that Schanz had Sells do.”
-

At the time Schanz was in constant contact with Sells, according to Fanning. Fanning said Schanz provided Sells with items he wanted, or needed. “He would give him things like NASCAR stuff,” she said.
-

If true, why would Schanz want to implicate Taney County officials in such a plot through a confession that he had Sells allegedly sign?
-

To understand that, one needs to go back more than a decade and examine what was happening in Taney County at the time the alleged confession came into being.
-

In a complaint filed by Schanz with the Circuit Court of Taney County, Associate Division, a 17-page document outlines what Schanz believed was corruption within county government.
-
In the filing he notes some items related to the Cordt murders that seem to be part of the confession he Sells allegedly signed.
-

He notes on page 14 of the document: “11. Ena Mary Cordt and Rory Cordt were found murdered on July 30, 1985.  Affiant has not been able to prove that the Sheriff had a task force such as was working on the Mease murder two years later.
-

Affiaint does state that witnesses have stated the following about the law enforcement:

• 
  
  a. Sheriff Keithley is reported to have instructed Theron Jenkins that Ronald Houseman was not a suspect in the Cordt murders and would not be treated as such, (Source of this are the statements of JC Crouch and Joe Chowning before witnesses). (Theron Jenkins told Crouch and Chowning of this conversation).
• 
  
  b. Jenkins told Judge Rae that Keithley had recused from the Cordt case, did nothing on it at all, and that he, Jenkins, was in charge.
• 
  
  c. Keithley told Rae that he had never worked longer or harder on a case than the Crodt murder cases.”

The legal motion, at this point, brings up the names of two individuals who are named in Sells alleged confession in the Cordt murders. It should be noted that Sheriff Keithley would have automatically recused himself from speaking with his nephew, Ron Houseman, regarding the investigation, as that would be seen as a direct conflict of interest.
-
It is not evidence of any conspiracy but rather the standard way of conducting any investigation.
-

The third named person in the alleged confession appears on page 15 of the filing, section 14 where Schanz alleges that “Don Swan refused to help the affiant.”
-

Prior to the alleged confession coming to light, Schanz had filed papers with the court indicating what he believed was a conspiracy to cover up the Cordt's murder investigation.
-

While the original filing is against Judge James Eiffert, it seems suspect that those named in the alleged confession that Schanz claimed to have received from Sells would have been named in a court document prior to the securing of the confession.
-

If, in fact, Schanz had the confession in hand at the time of the filing, it should have been mentioned as a key piece of evidence.
-

The filing of the charge against Judge Eiffert only serves to bolster Fanning's claim that she was contacted in 2001 or 2002 and told that the confession was about a judge and a murder.
-

The Ozarks Sentinel spoke with Bob Schanz, twice, about the alleged confession by Sells, attempting to verify that the one in our possession was, in fact, the same version as the one he had allegedly received from Sells. Schanz did confirm, via a telephone interview, that the confession was a true copy of the one he had received from the convicted serial killer.
-

During one of the phone interviews, Schanz spent a great deal of time explaining just how the alleged murder-for-hire plot was set up, where Sells was two days before the killings (facts later confirmed by The Ozarks Sentinel) and that he was planning on writing a book on Sells himself. He later told another person who was investigating the alleged confession that he had, in fact, never spoken with us (despite phone records to the contrary). He did not produce his “original” confession for that person.
-

In the late 1990's and between 2000-2002, Schanz worked hard on behalf of a former friend of his, Judge Peter Rea, hoping to show a conspiracy took place in removing Rea from office. He even submitted signatures of other Taney County residents who were pushing for vindication for Rea. (It should be noted that Schanz has told reporter Kathee Baird, and others, that he is no longer a friend of Peter Rea's).
-

Does that explain the confession from Sells? Were those named in the confession innocent of any involvement other than being a target of Schanz's in his attempt to “clear the name of a friend?”
-

Some in Taney County believe that's exactly what happened.
- 

For Kathy Keithley-Johnston and her sister Jana Keithley Kueck, the search for the truth behind the confession is a very personal one. Their father, former Taney County Sheriff, Chuck Keithley, was one of the persons named in the articles that were printed in The Sentinel.
-

“Because our father was the former Sheriff of Taney County and because his name was brought into the story, we wanted to find out who was behind these lies! That is why my Sister and myself became so active in ascertaining who was behind these awful lies and what was truly behind their intent” stated Keithley-Johnston.
-
“We are Chuck Keithley’s daughters and proud of not only him but the name we carry. We knew this so- called confession wasn't the truth and didn't reflect the man that we know, love and respect. Our father defended this county for 20 years. He is and was a man of honor and certainly of courage."
-

Keithley-Johnston is convinced that specific people were responsible for the confession and she, along with her sister, set out to discover what they could and who might be behind it.
-

"We discovered several things about the confession as we spoke to people. No dates appeared on the confession, and above all else, we believe that the confession was certainly not accurate or factual. We were told by many in the community just to let it go – that is not our style when liars are involved,” said Keithley- Johnston.
-
“Dad always told us to make a stand when we knew someone had been harmed and wronged. We can’t think of a better person to make that stand for now – our father” said Keithley-Johnston, who is the Executive Director of Toxic Discovery a Non-Profit Consumer Protection Organization.
-

The two sisters began their quest for the truth with the man allegedly at the middle of the confession, Bob Schanz.
-

“I would like the readers to know Chuck Keithley's daughters formally met with Bob Schanz at his residence.” One of the questions they asked was whether Mr. Schanz was involved in this. Bob Schanz said "no and that the paper was the one lying. We didn’t believe that for one second," said Keithley-Johnston, who is the eldest daughter of the former sheriff.
-

“We asked if Mr. Peter Rea was involved. His statement was that Peter Rea was involved and how Mr. Rea had said awful things about our father”. Mr. Schanz said that he had “nothing personal against our father.”

The Keithley sisters say Schanz told them "he would “swear on a stack of Bibles that it was Peter who was the one who had shared things with him. He said that Peter was really getting him upset and didn’t know what his game was."
-

During the sisters meeting with Schanz, "he persisted on was showing us very disturbing paintings by Tommy Sells and presenting letters that were allegedly written by Tommy Sells. We had no desire to look at any of these documents in his possession. All we wanted was the truth to come out. Mr. Schanz said the confession that was printed was not the one he had, but he never showed us the copy. When we asked for it, he said he would have to dust off so many items before he could find it. That he had not looked at this stuff for years.”
- 

Keithley-Johnston says, “We asked him, why do you and Peter Rae hate our father so much? Mr. Schanz said he had nothing against my dad but that Peter Rae had it in for him and Ron Houseman. Mr. Schanz admitted to loaning Mr. Rea $5,000 one time and $2,000 another time. He says that Mr. Rea still owes him for the last $2,000 loan. Bob Schanz said he could solve the Cordt murders in two days if given the chance. Schanz told us that he did not believe that Sells killed Ena or Rory – he went on to say that Sells would admit even to killing President Kennedy if asked. He said that Peter Rea is the one that called him first saying that someone was wanting to do a story on the 1985 murder."
-

The Keithley sisters say they then asked Mr. Schanz where the statement came from about the “$1,000 piece of ass?” Keithley-Johnston says this statement bothered the sisters as women – “who says that kind of thing about a female and a single mother? The woman and her child are dead. We, as women, are repulsed by such a vulgar comment. Mr. Schanz told my sister and I that specific statement came directly from Peter Rea. Mr. Schanz told us that this whole thing is made up.”
-

During their search for the truth, the sister have met with, and called several people including:

Bob Schanz ,Peter Rea, Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel, Don Swan, and Attorney Barney Naioti.

Keithley-Johnston says she has also spoken to Taney County Sheriff Jimmie Russell, former Texas Ranger John Allen and Sgt. Dan Nash with the Missouri Highway Patrol.
-

As of press time, Keithley-Johnston said she had called to schedule an appointment with David Tate, Mayor of Hollister – "We want to know if the upcoming election between our cousin Ron Houseman and David Tate has anything to do with this document surfacing at this time. We just find the timing very interesting to say the least."
-

During their phone conversation with Peter Rea, Keithley-Johnston said a number of facts came to light. “He told me on the phone that he had hired a lawyer from Texas to go down and get the statement from Sells. That lawyer, Mr. Rea said, was paid for by none other Bob Schanz.  We asked who the lawyer was or where he was and we were told that he was in either heaven or hell.”
-

“I asked where the attorney was from and Mr. Rea said he was either from Austin, Dallas or Houston. I was shocked that Mr. Rea could remember he was on a road trip to California when the Cordt murders were committed but could not remember what lawyer he had hired to obtain the confession. When a confession is obtained does that not have to be provided to the prison or jail? Can anyone just walk in off the street and have a person sign a statement and walk out with it and then proceed to distribute it to people all over the country? None of this makes sense," says Keithley-Johnston.
-

Keithley-Johnston said she now believes that the witness signature which appears on the alleged confession is that of the very lawyer hired by Rae and allegedly paid for by Bob Schanz.
-

During their conversation, Keithley-Johnston said Rea made mention of corruption within Taney County. “He told me we were all embedded." He went on to say “We suffer from corruption and conspiracy in this county.”
-

One thing that struck the two sisters as odd was a statement made by Rea during the phone call about a former suspect in the Cordt murders, Paul Smart. “He (Rea) said he had met with Paul Smart at his cabin. Smart asked him if he could assist him in getting his driver's license back. Pete said he told him he no longer had his license to practice law.”
-

We don’t believe anything that Paul Smart has to say either. Why would he (Smart) bring up Peter Rea in his statement to The Ozarks Sentinel – has Mr. Smart been paid by someone to say these things?"
-

One thing the Keithley family is adamant about is that their father, who served the county for more than two decades, is a man of integrity and honor and would never be involved in anything illegal.
-

The Keithley sisters both agree on one thing “Our family's wish is that through the courts, justice for Ena and Rory finally happens. Our prayers are with their family. May the guilty individual finally be brought to justice. May the people behind these evil lies be exposed! The people of Taney County who know my father, can bear witness to his character and integrity in his two decades of loyal service to this county. Shame on those who have been behind these malicious lies. My heart goes out to the relatives of the Cordt family. I pray those truly behind the death of their loved ones be brought to justice,” stated Jana Keithley Kueck.
-

It's a theme that most involved in this case can relate to.
- 

“The family and community needs closure in this case,” Fanning said. “Springfield, Missouri indicted Sells for a murder so I don't understand why they (Missouri law enforcement) aren't looking at Sells.”
-

Fanning noted that one person named in the confession received by Schanz and the very person who interviewed him after his capture, told her he believes Sells is the killer. “Don Swan himself told me he thought Sells was the killer, but that because he was on death row, there was no need to move forward,” she said. “Texas would execute him.”
-

“Sells caused a lot of people pain before he was caught and now, sitting on death row, he still causes pain,” Fanning said.

Note:  Bob Schanz refused comment for this story stating, "I am meeting with a lawyer next week."

Jury Convicts Kissee Mills Man Of Multiple Sex Crimes Against Children:

Robert David Nelson (mug shot TCSO)

A jury in Christian County has convicted a Taney County man of two counts of child molestation for an attack on a 9 year-old girl in 2005.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell charged Robert David Nelson, 45, Kissee Mills, with two counts of child molestation with physical injury with a child under twelve, one count of statutory rape with physical injury to a child under fourteen, two counts of first-degree child molestation, two counts of sexual misconduct with a child and attempted statutory rape of a child. 

The child molestation charges were originally part of an eight-count felony case filed by Merrell, but the court severed some of the charges because they involve multiple victims. Nelson will be tried on the remaining six counts, which involve two other alleged victims, at a later date.

“This case was hard-fought, and not easy on the witnesses or the jurors. I’m extremely proud of the victim’s bravery in facing her abuser in open court, and enduring a difficult cross-examination,” said Taney County Prosecuting Attorney, Jeffrey Merrell. “I’m thankful that this allegation was brought to our attention. Although originally reported in 2005, these counts were not filed until 2009. That’s when the original reports were brought to me.”

Nelson, who was on Taney County’s sex offender registry at the time of the 2005 offenses, faces up to fifteen years in prison when he is sentenced.

The case was moved to Christian County on a change of venue.

Hoyer: Only My Political Party Can Save You from This Horrible Fake Problem

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) gave a big political speech today about the horrendous state of American manufacturing.  Here's The Hill previewing Hoyer's speech:

In the speech to be delivered at the National Press Club, Hoyer will lament the decline in homemade goods during the last three decades and highlight Democratic efforts to promote “Make It in America” policies as the November midterm elections draw closer.

“Manufacturing, and the middle-class economy it creates, is a part of the American character that we must not give up,” Hoyer plans to say, according to an excerpt released Monday.

Not reported in The Hill's rundown is one rather glaring problem with Hoyer's speech: American manufacturing doesn't actually suck.  Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux makes that fact clear in his scathing rebuttal letter to The Hill:

It's shameful that a person with such a strong grasp on power has such a weak grasp on reality. In 2008, the value of U.S. manufacturing output – measured in inflation-adjusted dollars – was 84 percent percent higher than it was in 1980. In 2009, despite the severe recession, the real value of U.S. manufacturing output was still nearly 60 percent higher than it was three decades earlier.

Mr. Hoyer and the many other politicians and pundits who keep insisting that U.S. manufacturing is dying remind me of the soldier in Stephen Crane's The Red Badge Courage who warned his fellow troops with great assurance, but with no evidence, that the army was finally to decamp the following morning: "He came near to convincing them by disdaining to produce proofs." The next morning the army remained in camp.

In fairness to these fictional soldiers, however, they – unlike Mr. Hoyer – had no access to overwhelming data that disprove their hallucinations.

Nice.  I'd only add that (i) even during our current economic malaise, American manufacturing has been doing relatively well (13 straight months of expansion), and (ii) while American manufacturing employment has declined over last several years, such reductions are happening everywhere in the world - in developed and developing countries, in nations with trade deficits and trade surpluses, and, yes, even in China - because of rising productivity and changing consumer tastes.  Oh, and not that it really matters, but the good ol' US of A is still the world's top manufacturer by value, folks.  (Cue the"we're #1" chant!)

So why would the House Majority Leader - the number three Democrat in the United States Congress - claim that American manufacturing stinks, despite the "overwhelming data that disprove his hallucinations"?

Obvious answer: to sell his party's big election-year plans, as The Hill also helpfully explains:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will tout the Democratic Party’s domestic manufacturing agenda, including a bill that could lead to tariffs on Chinese goods....

House Democrats are using the “Make It in America” theme to reach out to middle-class voters, particularly in Rust Belt states that have been hard hit by outsourcing. A centerpiece of the House agenda this week is a bill that targets China’s currency policy, which Democrats and the Obama administration have criticized as manipulative and unfair to American workers....

Another bill the House is expected to pass this week would require American flags purchased by the federal government to be domestically produced.

You see, it's rather difficult to sell your big campaign-season "solution," when it turns out that there is no real "problem" to "solve."  So in that rather inconvenient case, you make the problem up, and - BAM! - Democrats to the rescue!

Of course, as I've already mentioned several times, Leader Hoyer is hardly the only member of his party playing fast-and-loose with the facts in order to sell protectionist solutions that almost no one actually needs.  In fact, just this week Sen. Russ Feingold - facing increasingly abysmal poll numbers - got into the myth-selling act:



Leaving aside the hilarious contradiction that is a politician using an internet ad to deride innovation and progress (through creative destruction), here's the money quote for today's purposes: "according to independent analysis, unfair trade deals have resulted in the loss of over 64,000 jobs in Wisconsin."  But what Feingold fails to mention is that his scary job numbers come from union-backed and union-funded "think tank" and have been routinely debunked for almost a decade.  In short, this "independent analysis" is neither "independent" nor "analytical."

But other than that.....

Given the current state of the American economy, one must ask why incumbent Dems like Hoyer and Feingold feel the need to create fake problems to solve when so many real economic problems actually exist.  I mean, I get it that our "leaders" want to improve their electoral chances in November by "rescuing" us clueless voters from some impending "catastrophe," but with so many real crises out there, why pick a fake one?

Could it be that they don't want us to notice that their Party has been in charge of Congress for four years, and in total control of the American government for almost two more, and yet they've offered almost nothing in the way of real solutions to real problems?

Could it be that they need a defenseless scapegoat - dirty rotten foreigners(!) - on which they can blame all of America's ills because we're in deeper trouble now than we were back when they took over?

Could it be that if they were to offer real solutions to solve America's real problems, that their plans, while perhaps helpful for the nation, would further hurt their chances in November by highlighting just how dismal the last two years of Obamanomics (and Keynesianism) have been?

And could it be that, by emphasizing (and blatantly misleading the American public about) trade and the state of US manufacturing rather than trying to fix the problems they've helped create, Hoyer and his colleagues in Congress have undoubtedly proven just how desperate they are to maintain their power?

Nahhh, that just couldn't be it, now could it?

Rrriiiiiiiiiight.

On a positive note, at least that awesome "American flag" legislation gives us further proof that, at this point, Congress has run completely out of ideas and is just acting out episodes of The Simpsons until they adjourn for the year.  And for that (and only that) I heartily applaud them:

~UPDATED~Double Fatal Car Crash Leads To Manslaughter Charges For Man From Hollister:

Michael R. Green (mug shot TCSO)

Two women died from injuries in a car crash Monday (09-27-10) night in Taney County, now the driver of that vehicle faces charges of involuntary manslaughter.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell says Michael R. Green, 25, was drunk when he blew through a stop sign at Missouri 248 and slammed into a rock bluff. 

When first responders got the scene of the crash, they allegedly smelled alcohol on Green's breath. According to court documents, Green told the trooper he was “showing out” for the girls in the car and was “going too fast.”  Those same documents say he tested positive for alcohol.

Photo courtesy of WTCFPD

Twenty four year-old Jessica A. Jenkins of Branson died Monday night at Skaggs Regional Medical Center in Branson; twenty five year-old Nicole L. Porter died from injuries today at Cox Hospital in Springfield.  Both women were from Branson.

Green has been charged as a prior and persistent offender. He was convicted of  first degree tampering and receiving stolen property in 2007.

UPDATE 10-05-10:

Michael R. Green has been released from Skaggs Regional Medical Center and booked into the Taney County jail.  He has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter charges.

Springfield City Councilman Files Federal Lawsuit Against School District, Sheriff:

Springfield City Councilman Doug Burlison

A lawsuit was filed today (09-27-10) in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri by Springfield City Councilman Doug Burlison against Springfield Public Schools and the Greene County Sheriff's Department. 

Burlison alleges that students rights were violated during a lock down April 22 at Central High School.

In court papers, Burlison, his wife Mellony, his stepson and stepdaughter, who are both students at Central High School, allege that students were ordered out of their third period classrooms and told to leave all their belongings behind.

Court documents say that while the kids were out of the classrooms, cops and drug dogs rifled through their belongings.

Named in the lawsuit are Springfield Public Schools, Superintendent Dr. Norm Ridder, Central High School Principal Ron Snodgrass and Greene County Sheriff James Arnott.

The Turner Report offers a glimpse at those documents:

On or about Thursday April 22, 2010, C.M., (Burlison's stepson) then a freshman at Central High School, was in his third period classroom when an announcement was made over the school’s public address system by Defendant Snodgrass.

Defendant Snodgrass (principal) announced that the school was going into “lockdown” and that students may not leave their classrooms.

About fifteen minutes after Defendant Snodgrass’s announcement, deputies of the Greene County Sheriff’s Office, with their dogs, entered C.M.’s classroom. The deputies ordered students and teachers to leave the room. Students were told not to take any possessions or effects, such as backpacks, notebooks and purses, with them but to leave them in the classroom.

After approximately ten minutes, the law enforcement officers left the classroom and C.M. and his classmates returned to the room.


The condition of the effects C.M. observed when he reentered the classroom made it clear to him that the students’ effects had been searched by the law enforcement officials. Backpacks and other student belongings had been moved around, zippers had been unzipped and saliva on the effects indicated that the dogs had come in contact with the students’ belongings and effects.


In particular, C.M. observed that although all the zippers on his backpack were shut when he left the room, when he returned the zippers on his backpack were open and items within the backpack had been moved. At least three other students in his third period class also pointed out that their effects, i.e., purses and backpacks, had been moved and the students observed signs indicating that police had rummaged through their belongings.

Burlison's stepdaughter, who arrived during the search, was not allowed to enter the building until fourth hour, according to the lawsuit.

Burlison's lawsuit comes after he addressed his concerns at a school board meeting where board members did not respond.  His lawsuit says school officials and the sheriff violated students Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure, and Missouri state statutes (this case will probably come down to whether the search was justified.)

Ridder has said that the search was/is standard procedure at Central and other SPS schools.

Springfield attorney Jason Umbarger is representing the Burlisons.

~UPDATED~Authorities In Howell County Searching For Three Inmates In Jail Break--Two Captured:

CAPTURED Daniel Wilson (mug shot HCSO)



Authorities near the Missouri/Arkansas border are searching for three men who escaped from the Howell County Jail in West Plains yesterday (09-26-10) morning.



Carey Reese (mug shot HCSO)

Howell County Sheriff Mike Shannon says Carey Reese, 33, of Mountain View, Daniel Wilson, 26, of West Plains and Shawn Clark, 21, of Mountain View overpowered a jailer and stole his truck. Shannon says the trio said there was a problem in a cell and the jailer opened the door without backup.  That is a violation of procedure, according to the sheriff.

The jailer was treated at an area hospital for cuts to his head.



CAPTURED Shawn Clark (mug shot HCSO)

 Shannon says, Reese who was being held on charges of first-degree assault, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon, Wilson who is charged with felony theft and Clark who is charged with tampering with a vehicle and resisting arrest, have pepper spray and handcuffs.

 Anyone seeing the men or a truck matching the one stolen truck bearing Missouri tag 4AJ-189 contact the Howell County sheriff's office at 417-256-2544 or call 9-1-1.

UPDATE 5:20 09-27-10:

Authorities captured Wilson and Clark late this afternoon in a home about ten miles from a command station that was set up in Mountain View. 

Intel led them to a man to a man who was conspiring with the fugitives.  He directed them to a trailer in nearby Shannon County where Wilson and Clark were taken into custody. Wilson and two other men escaped from the roof of the same jail in June of 2008.

Gay Volner, 51, and Amy Tolbert, 37, and a man were taken into custody for questioning.  Volner, who had previously dated Reese and Clark, and Tolbert have been charged with aiding and abetting.

The jailers stolen truck was recovered from a nearby pond.

Police are still looking for Reese.

UPDATE 09-29-10:

Carey Andrew Resse was captured about 10:30 last night walking near the junction of State Route Y and Sharp Street in Mountain View. Reese was the third and final inmate sought from a jail break from the Howell County jail on Sunday.

Taney County Bank Robber Enters Stand Up Plea:

Chad Moreland (mug shot TCSO)



A man who held up a bank in Taney County earlier this year has pleaded guilty.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell says Chad Moreland, 38, of Roland, Arkansas entered the Great Southern Bank on West Highway 76 in Branson on January 27th, approached a bank teller with his right hand in his pocket and demanded money stating, “this is a robbery, give me all your money,” then fled the scene.

An eyewitness had jotted down the getaway vehicles license number and authorities arrested Moreland that same evening at his home in Arkansas.


Moreland caught on video surveillance

Moreland, who pleaded guilty without a plea agreement and as a prior and persistent offender, face up to life in prison when he is sentenced on November 18th.

More Research on the "Inequality Myth"

One of the more sophisticated arguments against free trade and other free market policies is that they exacerbate income inequality in the United States.  For example, here's Public Citizen in a 2008 anti-Bush/FTA screed:

U.S. median wages in inflation-controlled terms have scarcely risen in a generation, in no small part thanks to "labor arbitrage" between U.S. workers and low wage workers offshore, and the replacement of higher paying manufacturing jobs with lower paying service sector jobs....

[S]ome have suggested that technology – not trade deficits – are to blame for the job losses and stagnant real wages, meaning that policymakers should ignore trade and focus on making workers more computer literate. While more education and skills are certainly desirable, these are a separate concern.  For instance, college-educated workers have seen their wage growth stagnate in recent years, even in technologically sophisticated fields like engineering – the opposite of what you would expect if growing returns to skill were the main story. As well, a National Academies' study has found that employers will continue to demand mostly low skilled labor for the foreseeable future, projecting occupations like hospitality and restaurants as having the greatest demand in the coming decades. Thus, addressing the problems with the existing trade and investment rules, not only better educating American workers, will be an essential part of halting rising income inequality.

I've mentioned before that these criticisms are pretty misguided, most notably because (a) traditional measures of income inequality often focus on wages alone and neglect critical things like benefits and the ever-declining cost of basic necessities; and (b) recent work shows that trade actually decreases real income inequality by lowering prices for lower-end goods.  On this latter point, I've stated:

Beyond the obvious savings for basic household necessities (food, clothing, appliances, shelter, etc.) and the lower interest rates that it provides, free trade - particularly with low-cost countries like China - also has been shown to reduce real income inequality in the United States because the benefits of "cheap" imports are disproportionately enjoyed by lower income Americans. (Put simply, "rich" people don't shop at Wal-Mart, so they don't get as much benefit from free trade with China than do frequent Wal-Mart shoppers.)  Less real income disparity and more equal access to disrectionary goods and services means more social cohesion among America's rich, middle class and poor.

According to the Economist, new research supports both of these points and reinforces the notion that "income inequality" is mostly a myth and thus provides no grounds for the imposition of anti-market policies like protectionism:

In a recent paper weaving together several strands of new research, [Robert Gordon, an economist from Northwestern University] reports that improved use of income datasets "shows that there was no increase of inequality after 1993 in the bottom 99 percent of the population, and can be entirely explained by the behavior of income in the top 1 percent." So we are left needing an explanation for the rise of "the stinking rich"....  But when it comes to rising inequality, that's all there is to explain....

Mr Gordon's surprising conclusion is based upon recent studies showing that measured income inequality has been overstated due to inadequacies in traditional methods for constructing price indices and estimating real income. In the latest version of a much-discussed paper Christian Broda and John Romalis find that

the relative prices of low-quality products that are consumed disproportionately by low-income consumers have been falling over this period. This fact implies that measured against the prices of products that poorer consumers actually buy, their “real” incomes have been rising steadily. As a consequence, we find that around half of the increase in conventional inequality measures during 1994–2005 is the result of using the same price index for non-durable goods across different income groups.

Many popular narratives about inequality are grounded on the alleged fact that wages and incomes at the middle and bottom of the distribution have been stagnant for decades. It appears that this, too, may be an artefact of insufficiently sophisticated methods for building the price indices used to calculate rates of inflation. Using an updated price index, Christian Broda, Ephraim Leibtag, and David Weinstein find that

the real wages at the 10th percentile increased by 30 percent from 1979 to 2005. In other words, the real wages of low earners have not remained stagnant, as suggested by conventional measures, but actually have been rising on average by around 1 percent per year.

Surely there are intelligent objections to these studies. But taken together they are impressive and deserve careful consideration....

Please keep this research in mind the next time you hear someone breathlessly demanding the imposition of protectionist policies because they are "essential" to reversing American income inequality.  Either he's ignorant of the latest research, or he might just have other, less altruistic motives.

Gerald Carnahan Found Guilty In Murder Of Jackie Johns:

Gerald Carnahan (mug shot St. Louis County)

A murder case that began a quarter century ago has come to an end with a jury saying Gerald Carnahan did indeed rape and murder 20 year-old Jackie Johns in 1985.

Carnahan was always the chief suspect in the June 17, 1985 disappearance and murder of the former beauty queen from Nixa, but he wasn't officially charged with her murder until August of 2007 when new DNA evidence was submitted to the state crime lab in Jefferson City.

Johns, who was last seen at a convenience store in Nixa, was reported missing after her sports car was found abandoned with the drivers side door ajar on the side of U.S. 160 in Nixa.  Her body was floating in Lake Springfield by fisherman four days later.

Carnahan was questioned early in the investigation after it was reported that his distinctive truck was seen parked behind the 7-Eleven where Johns was last seen and, near Johns' vehicle on U.s 160 the night she went missing.  However, no charges were filed against him after he was indicted by a grand jury for perjury in the case. 
-

Jackie Johns (family photo)

It wasn't until 2007 when a detective with the Highway Patrol had time on his hands to investigate cold cases that Carnahan was charged.  Sgt. Dan Nash obtained a warrant to obtain DNA from Carnahan in August of that year.  Two days after that warrant was served, Carnahan was arrested after his DNA matched semen found in Johns' body at autopsy.

Investigators had attempted to close the case in the late '90's and again in early 2003 using DNA, however, it wasn't until advances in the science in 2007 that they were able to obtain the match.

When Carnahan is sentenced it will be just a formality because the only sentence available to him on the first-degree murder conviction is life in prison without the possibility of parole.  The jury has also recommended a life sentence for the forcible rape conviction to be served consecutively (after the life sentence,) which means in all likelihood Gerald Carnahan will never set foot outside a prison alive.

Carnahan is scheduled to be sentenced October 25th in St. Louis County where the case was moved on a change of venue.
-
Defense attorney Dee Wampler says he plans to file a motion for a new trial or an appeal.

Awesome: The Daily Show on Unions, Hypocrisy and Competitiveness

Once again the folks at The Daily Show convey in one 5-minute skit what I couldn't do in 30 blogposts:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Working Stiffed
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I'll again be the stick-in-the-mud and mention that this great skit, while certainly hilarious, also provides several fine examples of things that I've been trying to explain here for a while now:

• Most obviously, unions are self-interested organizations that, contrary to their statements about "greed" or "fairness" or "sticking up for the common worker," are readily willing to jettison their alleged principles when they don't benefit the union.  We've recently seen this union hypocrisy on the trade front, as the United Steelworkers loudly complained about Chinese "green energy" subsidies while conveniently forgetting to mention the billions than Uncle Sam has sent their way.

• Perhaps more interestingly, however, is that when push comes to shove, unions are rational employers that respond to market realities rather than vague concepts like "fairness."  This fact is made clear by the frank admissions of the UFCW's (rather unwitting) leader, Mike Gittings, about why they have hired temporary, non-union workers (and have given them part-time hours and no benefits) to protest Wal-Mart (starting at about 3:55): "Our union members are working.... We don't have union members that are able to go down there on a daily basis.... The alternative to the way that we do it would be to not do it...  We're doing the best we can with our limited resources..."  In short, the UFCW, as an employer without magically unlimited resources, is responding to market realities about its labor needs and costs, and if it adopted a "fairer" approach, simply wouldn't be able to hire ANYONE and thus would have to get out of the protesting business altogether.

• And thus brings us to our last lesson: the result of non-market demands on American employers erodes their global competitiveness and leads to their (a) going out of business in the face of foreign competition; or (b) offshoring of their labor force or hiring of illegal, off-book workers.  Don't believe me that a zany comedy show like TDS is providing this final lesson?  Well, check out correspondent Aasif Mandvi's "solution" to getting the "protesters" he needs at the right (non-government-mandated) price: picking up illegals to do the job.  In fact, Stewart rather coyly introduces the whole skit with an aside about "The American labor movement, sometimes criticized for driving jobs overseas with some outdated demands...."  Pretty clever, eh?  Yet labor unions don't recognize these obvious economic realities and instead choose to blame free trade for offshoring and job losses rather than look in the mirror.  And unfortunately, that's no laughing matter.

Considering that the union's behavior here - treating its own employees far more shabbily than the businesses it routinely demonizes - is hardly an isolated occurrence, these three lessons are broadly applicable.  So hopefully the millions of youngsters who watch The Daily Show instead of the real news absorbed the message.  

I'm not holding my breath, but a guy can dream.

~UPDATED~Murder Charges Filed In Ozark County In Peterson Death; Richardson Will Stand Trial:

Candace Richardson (mug shot OCSO)

Authorities in Ozark County say it was stolen money and drugs that led to the death of an Ozark County man earlier this month.

A neighbor called firefighters in Theodosia to report a fire On September 7th, and first responders followed billowing smoke to a trailer near Dora. When a state fire marshal was attempting to determine the origin of the fire he discovered a body in the charred rubble.

-

Charred rubble of Peterson's mobile home

The man, who had to be identified through dental records, was fifty six year-old Charles "Charlie" Earl Peterson. Peterson lived in the area for about a year and a half, but was originally from the Mountain Grove.

According to court documents, Candace Darlene Richardson, 34, and Marty Overby, 31, who are both from Mountain Grove and were formerly married, conspired for about three weeks to steal $30,000 and a large quantity of methamphetamine from Peterson.
-

Charles "Charlie" Earl Peterson (photo provided by OCSO)

Richardson is in jail, however Overby is on the run from the law and is considered armed and dangerous.

The probable cause statement says that Richardson and Overby told a roommate that they needed money and the woman told them that Peterson had $30,000 in cash to purchase land next to his, "Marty said we need to roll him."

The roommate told investigators that she witnessed Marty pouring a liquid substance in a mason jar and taped triangles to the side of the jar. She stated she, "seen him add gasoline to the jar," and watched as they blew up a mailbox and overheard Richardson say during a phone call "they blew the son-of-a-bitch up."
-

Marty Overby (mug shot OCSO)
-Another witness told Detective Darrin Reed, "Charlie and Candace had been fighting" and
Charlie was cooking his last batch of meth for her because "he was cutting her off
because Candace had been cutting the bag and shorting his customers."

Another witness says he was with Charlie Peterson until 3 a.m. the morning of the fire. "He stated that Charlie and Candace were fighting over money [he thought] and could tell there was a lot of tension between the two."

After the fire it is alleged that Richardson and Overby took Peterson's truck into a field and cleaned it for hours with a spray bottle containing an unidentified liquid substance.

Investigators say Richardson fled to Springfield in an attempt to avoid prosecution and that Overby was driven to Kentucky by a friend for the same reason.

Detectives met Richardson at Barnes and Noble in Springfield and could "tell she was on something," and asked her when the last time she shot up was. "She stated about a week ago." She was then arrested for a probation violation and allegedly became combative.

Court documents say that during a recorded phone call with her daughter from the county jail Richardson, "advised her to get ahold (sic) of Marty and let him know not to talk to the police until he reads a letter she wrote as to what happened so he would know what to say."

Richardson and Overby have been charged with first-degree murder, armed criminal action, first-degree robbery, and first-degree arson. Richardson is also facing charges for assaulting a police officer during her arrest.

Richardson is being held without bond in Ozark County.
-
UPDATE 10-14-10:

Richardson waived her preliminary hearing yesterday.  She was automatically bound over over to circuit court and will stand trial for Peterson's murder.

Ozark County Prosecutor Tom Cline says authorities are still looking for Marty Overby.  If you know where he is call 417-679-4633 or 9-1-1.

UPDATE----JURY HAS REACHED VERDICT IN CARNAHAN'S CASE:

Gerald Carnahan (mug shot St. Louis County)

The first-degree murder and forcible rape case against Gerald Carnahan for the 1985 murder of Jackie Johns has gone to the jury. Final arguments were heard this morning with the jury getting the case shortly before noon.

UPDATE 8:10 p.m.:

Judge Michael Jamison has dismissed jurors for the evening. They will begin deliberating again at 9 a.m. Thursday.

--

UPDATED 09-23-10 --3:10 p.m.:

Judge Michael Jamison has just taken the bench and apparently the jury reached a verdict about 30 minutes ago.

--

UPDATE 3:15 p.m.:

Carnahan has been found guilty of first-degree murder and rape for the 1985 death of Jackie Johns.

Rethinking the Conventional Wisdom that a True Free Trade Platform is Political Poison

I've often lamented the misguided political position of many free trade advocates in the House and Senate who are afraid to counter protectionist politics with a robust defense of trade liberalization, and instead use self-defeating mercantilism to deflect anti-trade criticism.  My reasoning is pretty simple: by focusing only on exports and trade surpluses, free traders are immediately exposed to false protectionist arguments that, for example, "if exports and trade surpluses are good, then current US free trade policies must be bad because we're running a trade deficit."  Of course, this response is poppycock (as I've noted seemingly millions of times), but a little thing like the truth has never stopped most politicians, especially during campaign season.

Typically, however, pro-trade politicians and their omniscient strategists respond to my idealistic (albeit totally fact-based) pleas with stories of bad poll numbers and "short-term political realities."  Their (short-sighted) argument is that because free trade is a dead loser of a political issue and because they don't have the time to teach folks the "truth" about trade and protectionism, they'll politely decline my advice thankyouverymuch and, assuming they can't avoid the issue altogether, merely deflect protectionist criticism with trite chatter about exports and international obligations, regardless of the inevitable protectionist auto-response.

But is this "conventional wisdom" correct?  Is true free trade advocacy really a one-way ticket to Loserville?

Recent events sure seem to indicate otherwise.  As I noted last week, Democrats across the country are running full-steam on an anti-NAFTA, anti-China, anti-trade campaign platform.  And as Cato's Dan Griswold points out today, protectionism so far appears to be a big fat dud of a plan:

The early returns are in on the Democratic tactic of making trade an issue in the 2010 campaign, and the results are not encouraging for those who want to blame trade agreements for the state of the economy.

In a column this morning for the Wall Street Journal (“Ohio’s Test of Protectionist Rage”), Gerald Seib reports from Ohio that two Republican candidates have been unscathed so far by Democratic attacks on their past support for major trade agreements.

In races for U.S. Senate and governor, Democrats have unleashed hard-hitting ads accusing their GOP opponents of supporting trade deals “that shipped tens of thousands of Ohio jobs overseas.” So far the attacks have failed to draw blood. According to Seib:

Right now, both Republican contenders in those races—Rob Portman for the Senate and John Kasich for governor—are coming under fire for their past support of free trade. The fact that both enjoy big poll leads right now suggests the attacks have had limited effect so far.

A key question in the campaign stretch run, both for Ohio and for policy making in Washington after the election, is whether that remains the case.

The Ohio races are ones that I've already noted here, and these polls are certainly a good sign that not only is protectionism not winning lots of votes these days (even in the Rust Belt), but also a free trade agenda might not be the political poison that it (allegedly) once was.  Nice.

Yet perhaps an even better sign of this phenomenon is a little-known race in Maine's 2nd district between incumbent Democrat Rep. Mike Michaud and his Republican challenger Jason Levesque.  Congressman Michaud, you see, is one of the House's biggest protectionists.  He's chair of the "House Trade Working Group," which ironically works to prevent trade, co-sponsor of the equally ironic TRADE Act, and routinely campaigns on rabid protectionism.  Michaud's congressional seat was thought to be very safe, but a little thing happened on the way to the mid-terms: he's getting a strong challenge from the relatively unknown Levesque, who now trails Michaud by only a few percentage points and is starting to pop-up on everyone's radar as a race to watch in 2010.

Now, given Michaud's hardcore protectionism and past electoral success, as well as the fact that Maine has long been represented by protectionist (and Republican) Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, one would expect Levesque to also express serious skepticism about free trade, or at best adopt the standard GOP "milquetoast mercantilism" in order to survive the inevitable protectionist onslaught and maybe eke out a win in a very favorable year for Republicans.

Guess again.

Now, it's not like Levesque is hanging his hat on free trade, and no one, not even your humble correspondent, can blame him for that. (As Griswold said today "free trade... is probably not a big vote-getter on Election Day, but neither is it a vote-loser.")  But Levesque also isn't dodging the issue or embracing mercantilism either, as these recent pro-trade statements make absolutely clear:

“We cannot be a protectionist society — this is a changing world, we live in a modern global economy, where communications, travel and goods are, quite frankly, regardless of border,” says Jason Levesque, Michaud’s Republican challenger in this year’s election and a big supporter of free trade.

The challenges faced by Maine’s paper industry, Levesque says, are more a result of the state’s non-business-friendly climate than foreign competition. “I’d argue that they need to look at the paper industry domestically and realize that there are paper machines and paper plants that are starting up in other parts of the United States, namely Virginia. So we’re not necessarily losing jobs to foreign entities, we’re losing jobs to other states because we are not a business-friendly district any more.”

Maine companies, he says, need to become more competitive and not rely on what he calls “trade walls” to insulate them from foreign competition. He does not, he says, support efforts to make foreign companies abide by certain labor and environmental standards.

“Do we just take our ball and go home and stop playing if they don’t abide by our rules and our social conscience?” Levesque says. “I just think it’s another excuse to be not competitive in a modern global economy and to build that wall and become more of a protectionist society, which will not work in this day and age.”

Awesome.  Of course, everything Levesque said is correct, and the facts about trade liberalization and competitiveness certainly support him (and contradict Michaud's anti-trade claims).  Indeed, I don't think I could've said it much better myself.

But as good as Levesque's response is, there's a much bigger point to be made here.  If Levesque - who currently trails Rep. Michaud by a an easily surmountable 7 percent - can pull off a win against a rabidly protectionist incumbent in a highly trade-skeptical area of the country, it would, in my humble opinion, go as far as the Ohio races - and considering his unapologetic free trade rhetoric, perhaps even further - to proving that the "conventional wisdom" on free trade and politics is dead wrong.  So stay tuned, folks.  And cross your fingers that Levesque's trade honesty and integrity pay off in November, and that the Democrats' broader protectionist plans go down in flames.

(Of course, a little contribution to Jason's cause couldn't hurt.)