Archive for the ‘Social Commentary’ Category

Goal of Taxation

Sunday, July 20th, 2008

“Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own?” — Matt 20:1-16

A reliable distinction between Conservative and Liberals is the way they view the purposes of taxation. While it is clear that Liberals are more expansive in their view of the ways that taxes should be used for public welfare programs, Liberals also view taxes as a redistributionist tool even if its use for this purpose reduces the level of taxes available.

H. L. Menchan  once defined Puritanism as “The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” By analogy, please permit the observation that some Liberals scowl fretfully at the world with the apprehension that someone, somewhere, may have accumulated what Liberals judge a disproportionate amount of money.

With such an attitude, one purpose of taxation becomes punitive. It is just unfair that some people have very much more money than others. By definition, this money could not have been accumulated entirely fairly. Even people who make money in direct proportion to a conspicuous talent, like a professional athlete or an entertainer are viewed with suspicion. The fact that some of these people become extraordinarily wealthy is not evidence of extraordinary talent, but a  economic system that unfairly rewards such talent.

All would agree that taxes are needed and in general it is better demand more taxes from those with more resources. Bank robber Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks, is reputed to have replied “because that’s where the money is.” Similarly, government taxes the more affluent because that is where the money is. Less cynically, the affluent can be said to have benefited more from the social arrangements under which they have prospered. Hence, they have a greater obligation for its maintenance.

However, the perpetual desire to punish the affluent can sometimes create a system where ironically the affluent less pay a smaller fraction of federal taxes, despite more progressive rates. In a recent article, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal cites a study by Columbia University economist Glenn Hubbard. In President Carter’s administration, the highest marginal tax rate was 70% (twice the current 35%). However, the top 1% paid only 16.7% of all federal income taxes. At the current 35% highest marginal rate, the top 1% actually pay more than twice the fraction of total federal income taxes (39%) than they did in the 1970’s. Hence, the federal income tax system became more progressive with lower marginal rates.

How can this be? The answer is simple. Capital and the wealthy who own capital have many options available to them. They can decide not to take the risks necessary to earn some additional income because the rewards are too small. They can shield themselves from taxes by finding tax loopholes, like the simple tax-free municipal bonds. They can move themselves and money overseas. Indeed, it is now far easier for capital to migrate to those regions of the world where wealth accumulation is treated more favorably than it was in the 197os.

Conservatives and Liberals rightly view taxation as a necessary expense for the functioning of government, though clearly Conservatives and Liberals differ on the proper role of government. However, it is simply wrong-headed and counterproductive for Liberals to seek to increase tax rates beyond the point where revenues go down and the federal tax system becomes less progressive to satisfy their congenital anger at the affluent.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment

Saturday, July 5th, 2008

“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 United States Constitution.

There are some Second Amendment advocates who are conspicuously pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. In many ways, they should be. The majority opinion swept away the lingering doubt about about whether or not the right to “keep and bear” arms is an individual right, not contingent upon membership on a militia. The Court came down unequivocally on the side of the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right.

However, the decision prevailed by the slimmest possible margin 5-4. A Court with a different composition, say one in which a potential President John Kerry had been able to choose different justices than John Roberts and Sam Alitio, or one in which a future President Barrack Obama would be able to replace one of the five in the majority, the decision would have been certainly different.

Nonetheless, the Heller case will serve as a  precedent and it will take some time for even a future, liberal and energetic Court to whittle away at this decision. One reason this precedent will be difficult to erode is the granite-hard reasoning and rigid clarity of Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion.

The most frequent argument against an interpretation of an individual right to keep and bear arms is that the first or “prefatory” clauses implies that the second or “operative” clause is limited to the militia. Specifically, that the militia rather that than an individual has the right to “keep  and bear arms.”

Scalia points out that other documents written at the time for state constitutions had prefatory clauses indicating intent, but such clauses have never held to limit the rights of the operative clause. Scalia cites legal doctrine of the time to buttress this approach, “It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.” [1]

Very simply, the writers of the Second Amendment were concerned that the Federal Government might supersede and the eliminate state militia. By explicitly recognizing the “right of the people,” the Founder realized that it would be impossible for the Federal government to disarm the militia (“all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”)

It is as important to note that the phrase the “right of the people” is used elsewhere in the Constitution. In each case, it refers to an individual right as in the:

  • “…right of the people to peaceably assemble…” (First Amendment) and
  • ” …right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” (Fourth Amendment)

There are some who have tried to interpret the “arms” that people have the right to keep and bear are the “arms” in common use at the time of ratification. Under such an interpretation, modern handguns are not arms that people have the right to. Of course, such an interpretation is easily dismissed. The Constitution is not limited by the technology of the time. For example, freedom of the press reasonably includes more modern forms of telecommunication.

According to this decision, the arms included under the Second Amendment protections are arms that people use for legal and legitimate purposes, such as hunting and self-defense. This leaves some broad discretion on the part of the state to limit the use of extreme or uncommon weapons. However, in this case, the Court ruled that handguns have an important self-defense use, the right to keep and bear these arms is protected.

The salient political observation with respect to this case is to recognize those who are pleased that individuals are little freer after this decision and those who are not.


[1] J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation, Section 51, p. 49 (1882)


A Battery Prize

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

As the British Empire was expanding its reach both for military supremacy and trade, navigation at sea was a limiting factor. Latitude, the angular distance from the equator, was relatively easy to determine in the sixteenth century. It could be measured by the angle between the horizon and the North Star or by the sun’s angular position at noon coupled with tables of solar declination.

Unfortunately, determination of longitude was more difficult. In principle, it could be calculated astronomically or with a sufficiently accurate clock. The necessary astronomical observations, though useful on land, were impossible to make from a bobbing platform of a ship. The most accurate clocks relied on a pendulum as a timekeeper. However, the motion of the ship and the large changes in temperature rapidly degraded such a clock’s accuracy.

The British were painfully reminded of this inadequacy in 1707. After a victory over the French, four British warships were destroyed when through a longitude navigation error they struck shoals around the Scilly Islands, and thousands of sailors perished. Clearly dead reckoning based on estimated speed was not sufficient for navigation.

This prompted the British Parliament in 1714 to offer the Longitude Prize, 20,000 pounds for a practical method of measuring longitude to within 60 nautical miles. In the popular book Longitude, Dava Sobel, artfully describes John Harrison’s three-decade pursuit of the prize through the steady improvement of his clocks. Sobel’s story explained Harrison’s very human struggle. It took decades to effectively claim his prize. The Longitude Board established to adjudicate the prize always seemed to keep moving the threshold for the prize. Harrison finally claimed the balance of his prize in 1765.

Now in response to rapidly increasing oil prices, Senator John McCain has suggested that we might mimic the success of the Longitude Prize with an $300 million prize for anyone or group that can produce a battery with “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

It is hard to argue against the offer of such a prize, not as substitute for additional action, but as away to draw attention and excitement to the technological challenge. Certainly, there is little cost to the prize unless its challenge is successfully met. Under those circumstances, no one would begrudge the prize.

There is one important lesson we can apply from the Longitude Prize. During his efforts, Harrison was granted stipends from the Longitude Board for promising innovations. If the government ultimately offers a Battery Prize, it should offer intermediate awards for important, but incremental steps along the way. This would maintain interest and keep monetary awards within reach. For example, there might be a prize for an alternate battery chemistry with higher energy density, that might still be more expensive than a conventional battery.

Innovation does not always occur at large institutions with large budgets. Indeed, “out of the box” thinking is hard to nurture at large research establishment and private companies. A Battery Prize might be just he motivation for a break through. There is certainly little downside.


Cat’s in the Cradle: Father’s Day Thoughts

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

In 1974, folk singer Harry Chapin released the song Cat’s in the Cradle.  The  song told the story of a father who, despite his best intentions, never seemed to have enough time for his kids. There was always something more pressing, a priority more urgent. Of course, over time the father implicitly taught this lesson to his children. Later when he noticed that his son now embraced these lessons, the father mournfully realizes that his “boy was just like me.”

It would convenient to leap to the conclusion that the best measure of a father is his children, especially easy for me because of three children of whom I am very proud. Unfortunately, I know of some children who turned out wonderfully in spite of their parents and others who are continuing problems despite authentically interested and giving parents. Nonetheless, on a statistical basis the more parents of a society and culture care for their children, the better they will likely turn out.

Children who are read to will enjoy reading. Children who are viewed as a source of happiness rather than a burden are likely to be happy and not burdensome. Children who are told the truth will embrace truth. Children who live in the warmth of family will likely have warm families of their own. Children who are loved will learn to love. Children who are shown compassion will show compassion. Children who enjoy the high expectation of their parents will expect much of themselves.

There is no greater reward than to be content with the observation that your children are just like you, and perhaps just a bit better.


Energy Schizophrenia

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

One problem with trying to engage Democrats on energy issues is that they are irremediably schizophrenic. In 2006, when gas prices were substantially lower than they are now, Democrats ran on a platform of reducing the price of gas. On April 19, 2006 the then minority leader Democrat Nancy Pelosi said, “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices…join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.”

Whatever approach they have implemented certainly has not been successful in reducing gas prices. Indeed, aided and abetted by Republicans, the government’s mandates for use of ethanol have managed to be a failure in lowering gas prices but wildly successful in increasing the income for corporate farmers and food prices.

Regardless of the success or failure of the Democratic plan for reducing gas prices and for whatever reasons, it was clear in 2006 that lower gas prices was a prominent Democratic goal. On the other hand, the presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama now seems somewhat sympathetic to high gas prices, suggesting that it will push Americans toward the use of hybrids.

But how does reducing gas prices square with other goals of the Left: decreasing in carbon dioxide emissions, increasing the use of public transportation, and reversing suburban sprawl?  Accomplishing these goals will require pain and increased gas prices are the quickest and most direct way of applying the necessary discipline. If by some miracle, all the cars in the country got twice the mileage, the pain of oil prices would be reduced by a factor of two and Americans would likely drive more than they do now. However, the goals of greater use of public transportation or less suburban sprawl will be thwarted.

Thus lies the current contradiction of Democratic energy policies. They are anti-oil, but wish to make gas cheaper. They rail against the middle-class suburban sprawl, but object to the pain in gas prices that mitigates sprawl. Like a dog trapped in a yard, the are really only for action, action, action, direction is unimportant.


One of Many

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

Perhaps there should be a special category in books stores for tell-all books by former members presidential administrations. Let’s face it. A book in praise of a current administration will likely end up in a discount bin soon after release or probably not be published at all. A critical book draws attention. The recount of behind the scenes conversations are hard to document so controversies quickly degenerate to he-said-he-said arguments. without resolution.

David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Ronald Reagan and a point man for a much of the budgets cuts the Reagan administration implemented. When Stockman left government he cashed in on his public service with the memoir, Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, which was highly critical of the Reagan economic plan. Of course, the book was hailed as the product of honest reconsideration of Reagan’s policies and the media just lapped it up. A couple of decades later, most remember Reagan and his time positively and only political junkies remember Stockman. Stockman has had a checkered career in finance since then.

When Georege Stephanopoulos,  President Bill Clinton’s Communications Directory retired,  he wrote  All Too Human. It describes the mental summersaults required for otherwise discerning and perceptive people to sustain the suspension of disbelief required to protect the President. Stephanopoulos’s key insight is that the ferocity and devotion required to support the political fight consumes so much intellectual and emotional energy, there is little strength left for doubt. The Clinton Administration was none too amused. However, Stephanopoulos has managed to maintain his prominence as a pundit and ABC journalist.

Now Scott McClellan has written a tell-all book about his time a press spokesman for President Bush with the not so clever title What Happened. Those not inclined to support president quickly seized upon the book.  Unlike other Bush press spokesman Ari Fleischer or Tony Snow who were respected by the press even while acting as vigorous spokesman for the president, McClellan not particularly well-respected for his competence. The book has a air of desperation about it.

This controversy will pass and only avid partisans will remember much about McClellan. However, McClellan will not be much respected by Conservatives and the Left will ignore him after he ceases to be useless. McClellan will fall into obscurity unless he moves further to the Left. It will be interesting to see what path he chooses.


Ms. Clinton Meet Mr. Freud

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

The Clintons have been nothing if not persistent opportunists whose immunity from embarrassment coupled with an entitlement attitude have produced a governor, a senator, and at least one president. Persistence is the Clinton lesson.

After the success of the first Gulf War, the first President George Bush reached a remarkable approval rating of 89%. The conventional wisdom held that 1992 would be a Republican year and President Bush would sweep to re-election. Prominent Democratic hopefuls decided to pass up the 1992 Democratic nomination. Big names like Senators Lloyd Benson, Bill Bradley, and Al Gore as well a popular New York Governor Mario Cuomo decided to sit out 1992. However, relatively unknown Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton beat out Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown for the Democratic nomination.

The economy soured in late 1991. Although it recovered in part by November 1992, President Bush’s popularity reached more conventional levels. Then third-party candidate millionaire Ross Perot parlayed his populist message to 19% of the popular vote. It lured enough moderates and conservatives away from Bush to yield the election to Clinton who won with a plurality of  43%. This  victory was, when perceived, from a year earlier  a unlikely turn of events that taught the Clintons: you can never tell what will happen if you keep your hat in the ring.

Since the Democratic nomination will almost certainly go to Senator Barack Obama, it is reasonable to ask why Senator Hillary Clinton remains in the race. The reason is probably because you can never know what will happen. Moreover, if she stays in, she may be able to force herself onto the ticket. As a vice-presidential nominee she would likely succeed Obama as presidential nominee in years ahead. If for some reason, Obama was not be able to complete his term a Vice-President Clinton would step in. In any case, if someone else becomes Obama’s vice-president, it would introduce a new and potential potent rival on the Democratic side.

A couple of days ago, Senator Clinton brought up Senator Robert Kennedy’s 1968 assassination with regard to how long primaries last. At this risk of practicing psychology without license, I offer the speculation that Hillary committed a Freudian slip. She did not mean to encourage assassination or invoke some sinister possibility. She was thinking out loud her thoughts about why to remain in the race for the nomination. She was simply pulling the curtain from the private Clinton motto of refusing to concede because you never know what will happen.

Bush’s Speech in the Knesset and Appeasement

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

From those on the Left we heard the refrain that we should care about what are allies think of us. The unpopularity of Bush among Europeans is marshaled as evidence as to the failure of his foreign policy. What conclusion are we the draw when Bush appears at the the parliament of a US ally to a standing ovation? I guess not much if that ally is Israel.

This week George Bush delivered a well-received speech to the Knesset reaffirming the commitment of the US to Israel. Masada is a plateau overlooking the southern end of the Dead Sea, where first century Jews committed mass suicide rather than submit to the the Romans. It is a potent symbol of Jewish resistance. Bush invoked this symbolism when he said to receptive audience, “Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

Later Bush criticized those, many of them in Europe, who wish to attempt to purchase peace at the expense of Israel”

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.”

As noteworthy as these commitments are, we are in a election year and the speech was received with political sensitive ears. Bush warned against empowering terrorists with the legitimacy of negotiation:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Senator Barrack Obama was not named and the paragraph would have likely been ignored after single day  like the rest of the speech by a media that isn’t much interested. Yet Obama considered it a “a false political attack.”

Why he really reacted the way he did?  Perhaps it was just political calculation. It is not obvious that the paragraph was intended as an attack, at least not directly at Obama, but what was false about it. Certainly, Obama does not dispute the history of Nazi appeasement. So his objection must reduce to whether negotiation with “terrorist and radicals” amounts to appeasement. Does unconditional negotiation grant terrorists and radicals an implicit concession of legitimacy? Obama says he is ready to debate anywhere and anytime about foreign policy.  Allow me to submit the debate topic for which Obama can take the affirmative: “Negotiation with terrorists is not appeasement.”

Appeasement is not the same as negotiation nor is it even identical to  trading land for peace.  Rather it is acquiescence to aggression with the hope that the aggression will be forestalled. The quintessential example was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement in 1938 with Nazi Germany. Chamberlain agreed to cede Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to “appease” Hitler expansionist ambitions. Chamberlain’s subsequent boast of “peace in our time” was contradicted when a year later Hitler invaded Poland.

Nonetheless, the “land for peace” equation is not necessarily appeasement. The Israelis managed to swap the Sinai Peninsula, originally seized from Egypt in the Six Day war, for a peace that has lasted decades. The Israelis found  a earnest partner for negotiation in Anwar Sadat. Unfortunately, Sadat was assassinated by the same radical Islamic movement that Bush warned about in his speech to the Knesset.

Hence, the question about negotiation that lies in the debate between Bush and Obama reduces to whether Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah more closely resemble Sadat or Hitler as a negotiation partner. At present, given the vicious anti-Semitism of radical Islam, the case for an affinity to Hitler rather than Sadat is easier to make.

Choosing a Narrative

Sunday, May 11th, 2008

It is hard to be insightful and original and much safer to avoid contradiction of the conventional wisdom. In journalism the prevailing conventional wisdom is the simple narrative that most in media subscribe to. There are many stories that could be written about, but those that support the implicitly agreed-upon media narrative gain traction by constant repetition. You can tell that a narrative has achieved a certain prominence when it becomes the basis for jokes by late-night comedians.

President Gerald Ford was a star high school and college football player.  Nonetheless, after a few physical mishaps, the media drew a narrative of a physical klutz. Every time Ford, as would any normal human being, tripped or bumped into some object, the event would receive play in the media. As a consequence, Ford received an undeserved reputation. The media had used isolated, unrepresentative facts to create an untrue picture of Ford.

In another example, former vice-president Dan Quayle, despite being an attorney and Senator, acquired the media reputation as a simpleton. Hence, when he misspelled “potato,” the event comported with the media narrative and was continually repeated, reinforcing the media picture of Quayle.

By contrast, Al Gore, had the reputation for being smart. Hence, when he misspoke a metaphor and said, “A zebra does not change its spots,” the incident did not receive much media attention. The incident was not consistent with the prevailing narrative of an intelligent Gore,  so it was not accorded much media attention.

It is important to be aware of this effect because we are likely to witness it this election year. Since Senator John McCain is 71, some of his political opponents would like to persuade sympathetic elements of the media that the appropriate narrative should paint McCain as loosing his mental capacities due to age. In pursuit of this narrative, it is likely that silly misstatements by McCain, mistakes that we all make, will be given undo attention.

When such events occur, it should be remembered that anyone can misspeak, and that even someone as intelligent and verbally gifted as Senator Barack Obama can momentarily believe that the US is composed of 57 states.

Moment of Truth

Sunday, April 27th, 2008

The war in Iraq and how to proceed from this point are difficult to debate. People have erected entrenched positions and are not open to evidence that might undermine those ideas. Moreover it is hard to find contemporaneous eye-witness accounts as to what is happening on the ground in Iraq.  Michael Yon’s on-site accounts provide a notable exception.

Micheal Yon is a former member of the Green Berets who has managed to become perhaps the most useful and prolific independent embedded journalist in Iraq. During his years in Iraq he has traveled with various different US and British troops throughout Iraq. His willingness to follow these troops into dangerous areas, armed only with a camera, has earned him the trust and respect of Coalition  forces.

Yon has regularly posted dispatches on his blog from Iraq. Now Yon has published a book, Moment of Truth in Iraq, which extend the stories behind these blogs to a more complete narrative.

When Yon first traveled to Iraq in 2004, he was frustrated by the US military establishment’s inability to deal with or even recognize the best way to deal with the Iraq insurgency. The Iraqis needed security and normalcy. There were simply not enough troops to provide these.  His critique angered some in the military and Yon had difficulty in returning to Iraq.

After the liberation of Iraq in 2003, the Coalition’s inability to provide security allowed Al Qaeda to gain a foothold. Al Qaeda’s goal was to further de-stabilize Iraq by trying and many times succeeded in instigating sectarian violence.

Yon’s thesis is that the reason that Al Qaeda did not ultimate succeed in 2004-2005 when it might have is the same reason that hope remains in Iraq.  Al Qaeda does not rule, it destroys. In areas, where they dominated they proved cruel lords, raping and killing indiscriminately, while rigidly enforcing rigid religious rules on others. Al Qaeda has no problem deliberately killing civilians to seize political advantage. Iraqis have come to recognize Al Qaeda do not offer a promising future.

On the other hand, while Americans have made mistakes, by and large,they  want to help Iraqis. With the recent surge in troops, American have been able to provide more security. Iraqis have seen Americans kill Al Qaeda and quickly returned to help build schools. Iraqi have seen American troops take personal risks to mitigate damage to civilians. Iraqis have seen American troops help fairly mediate disputes between Iraqis while they rebuild. It is this inherent goodness on the part of American troops on the ground that makes victory in Iraq possible.

Early in the war, some who disagreed with the war used the abuses at Abu Ghraid to make this event a symbol of the war and unfortunately of American troops. Perhaps with time the Yon’s famous picture from Iraq will come to be the iconic image of the Iraq War. It shows an American soldier sheltering a young Iraqi girl as he pulls her from the site of a suicide bombing.

As a consequence of the surge and the strategy employed by General Petraeus, Yon concludes:

“The war isn’t over yet. Victory remains in question. The choice is ours, the time is now — for a moment of truth in Iraq. What are we going to do?”