Tag: government

Categories
National politics

Politics vs Economics

I was interested in the idea of six economic policies that economists across the spectrum support and politicians across the spectrum oppose. It’s not that I am surprised that there are big ideas that make perfect sense from an economic perspective which are politically unpopular – after all, doing what has been deemed to be politically possible has led us to a dire economic position. Once I read the six policies I found my reactions to be interesting.

  1. Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. I have to admit that is one deduction that I have always wanted to keep but the fact is that it is not economically beneficial overall. The people who benefit the most are those who least need the deduction.
  2. End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. This is one that I have long felt should be enacted. Many people are unaware of this deduction but I think if they understood how it works and what effect it has on our health care costs they could realize that it should be eliminated.
  3. Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. I can easily see why this one is politically unpopular but, like the deduction for providing health care for employees the net effect is to remove capital that would otherwise be used to create jobs or increase wages.
  4. Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. I can easily see why this is politically unpopular but the logic is the same as eliminating corporate taxes. I especially liked their explanation on this one: “Taxes discourage whatever you’re taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs.” For those who are squeamish about this they go on to encourage the creation of a progressive consumption tax to replace it – this isn’t simply a starve the government proposal.
  5. Tax carbon emissions. This is the first of their proposals that I am not sure I support. I recognize their justification for the policy but I’m not sold yet. This is really just a new version of a tobacco tax and I’m not sure that taxing tobacco has really accomplished what proponents might have hoped. Also, I consider that such a tax might distort the market in adverse ways that we have not yet considered.
  6. Legalize marijuana. I’m not a fan of the war on drugs but like the carbon tax I am not prepared to jump on board with this idea yet. I have heard the arguments and I recognize a certain amount of logic behind it but I am dragging my feet for now. I figure that to be intellectually consistent anyone pushing such a proposal should at least include taxing marijuana like we tax tobacco and like they are proposing to tax carbon.

So there they are. Six proposals and I really like at least four of them. The other two would take some convincing.

Categories
life

Rich with Irony

While it’s not as entertaining as what “the FBI” sent me in 2008, the million dollar scam victims grant I recently received from Obama’s Foundation (based in the UK, right where Obama would set up shop I’m sure) has a high enough irony quotient (not least because of the trillions that Obama has been flinging around since he took office) to be worth sharing.

It laid out so well in my spam folder that I decided to share a screen shot rather than just the text.

Obama's Foundation Scam Victims Grant

Categories
culture Education thoughts

Use the Proper Tool

I have written before about our national propensity to use government when it is not the proper tool for the job. Scott summed my point up very succinctly in a recent post:

There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.

One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.

Government is not the only tool that we often use inappropriately, and sometimes the wrong tool is employed not because it is the tool of choice, but because we refuse to use the proper tool. Such is the often the case with regard to schools disciplining children.

A large number of schools use potentially dangerous methods to discipline children, particularly those with disabilities in special education classes, a report from Congress’ investigative arm finds.

In some cases, the Government Accountability Office report notes, children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time.

Some people would be quick to blame the authoritarian, impersonal schools for their outrageous methods of discipline and while I am far from a believer in the infallibility of schools I think that such blame is misplaced in the vast majority of cases.

The real blame lies in the fact that many parents fail to enforce discipline in their homes and even among those who do enforce discipline in their homes all too many make themselves unavailable to take on that responsibility when their children require more discipline than can reasonably be applied by a teacher in charge of more than a dozen students. What’s worse, is that we cannot even safely place the blame fully on the shoulders of the individual parents. Too many of them are forced into situations where they cannot devote themselves to parenting full-time. (Sometimes they just feel forced into those situations.)

As a society we have set too low a value on the role of parenting – placing it completely secondary to economic productivity. We have set expectations too high for our material and economic standard of living – where the luxuries of yesterday must necessarily be necessities today. Consider cell phones for every family member over the age of 10, cars for everyone over 16, cable TV, computers, game consoles, television sets in every room, dance-lessons, sports, and hobbies for each day of the week.

None of these things is intrinsically bad, but together they form unreasonable and unsustainable expectations and they destroy the possibility for most stable families to keep at least one parent available to take care of their children when needs arise.

Not only that, but we expect the schools to provide many of those hobbies through requiring gym, art, and music classes as well as extracurricular sports. The result is that even where there are parents at home and available the children often spend too many hours under the care of their teachers and not enough under the influence of their parents. This serves to lessen the parental influence and offers incentive for parents who would otherwise be available to commit themselves to other activities lest they feel they are wasting their time.

The problems are complex and interwoven so that any hope of identifying the solutions is dependent on our recognition of how and when any given tool can be used and insisting on using each tool in its proper place rather than finding favorite tools and trying to make this reduced tool set suitable for all our needs.

Cross Posted at Pursuit of Liberty

Categories
life

Thank You FBI

Apparently the FBI just prevented me from receiving a large transfer of money from Nigeria -but I can have the money if I prove that it is not connected to drug or terrorist activities. I just have to share:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
601 4TH STREET, NW.
WASHINGTON, DC. 20535. USA.
ATTENTION FUND BENEFICIARY,

Dear Sir,

This is an official advice from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI). It has come to our notice that some certain individuals has used your name as the beneficiary of funds worth Millions of United States Dollars from Nigeria.

. . .

until you can be able to provide us with a Diplomatic Immunity Seal of Transfer (DIST)document within 3 days from the  local bank that authorize the transfer from where the funds was transferred from to certify that the funds that you are about to receive are terrorist/drug free or we shall have cause to impound the Payment and subsequent prosecution.

We shall release the funds immediately we receive this legal documents and make sure that you get your payment without any further delay.
——————————
——————————————————————
We have decided to contact you directly to acquire the proper verifications and proof from you to show that you are the rightful person to receive this fund, because of the amount involved. . . You are to forward the document to us immediately if you have it in your possession, if you do not have it,let us know so that we will direct you where to obtain the document and send to us so that we will ask the bank holding the funds, to go ahead and credit your account immediately.

An FBI Identification Record and Diplomatic Immunity Seal Of Transfer (DIST) often referred to as a Criminal History Record or Rap Sheet, is a listing of certain information taken from fingerprint submissions retained by the FBI in connection with arrests and, in some instances, federal employment, naturalization, or military service.

These Condition Is Valid until  31st of November, 2008, after we shall take actions on canceling the payment and then charge you for illegally moving funds out of the country under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. Guarantee: Funds will be released on confirmation of the document.
————————————————————————————————-
Final Instruction;
1. Credit payment instruction: Irrevocable credit guarantee.
2. Beneficiary has full power when validation is cleared.
3. Beneficiaries bank in U.S.A., can only release funds.
4. Upon confirmation from the World Bank / United nations.
5. Bearers must clear bank protocol and validation request.
————————————————————————————————

. . .

We are sorry for what you have gone through and we want to provide justice.

Yours  Sincerely,
Robert S. Mueller, III.
FBI Director.

I really need to hurry if I am to get this DIST by the 31st of November to redeem my millions before “These Condition Is Valid” No Longer.

Categories
life meta politics

Surprise Benefit

When Congress passed the measure to extend daylight savings time I thought it was a silly move. I still do. They claimed that it would save some great amount of energy while I argued that the amount of energy saved was insignificant. Honestly it is an issue  that is not worth much of a fight either way. I only bring it up now because I discovered a benefit to the extended daylight savings time – it is not dark by 6:30 on Halloween night which means that walking the neighborhood with young children is much more pleasant than it was before that change.

I forgot to mention that in my Halloween post but that is another reason that I was able to enjoy Halloween more this year. I remembered it today when I realized that I had to adjust my blog for daylight savings – I can’t wait for WordPress to fix that bug.

Categories
National politics

Obama’s Words

If Obama becomes president I will measure his presidency against his own words – starting with his acceptance speech. (I will measure a McCain presidency against his own words as well.) I caught parts of the speech while I was driving a moving truck last night and though I did not hear every word, there were a couple of parts that were noteworthy.

What — what is that American promise? It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours — ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology. (p. 3)

Businesses have the responsibility to play by the rules of the road – what he left unsaid is that he believes that government has the right/responsibility to define the rules of the road. While there may be some rules that government should define, most of the rules of the road should be left to the market.

Perhaps more disturbing to me is that third paragraph which starts promisingly with the admission that “government cannot solve all our problems,” and that it should stick to doing things that we cannot do for ourselves. I’d like to know why we cannot “{keep} our toys safe, invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.” In the short term and on specific projects it may make sense for the government to make those investments, but we do ourselves a disservice if we learn to expect that government should be respoonsible for all those things that we can do for ourselves.

If Obama becomes President I will weigh what he does against these words:

And, Democrats, Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America’s promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us . . . each of us must do our part . . .

Yes, we must provide more ladders to success . . . But we must also admit that programs alone can’t replace parents, that government can’t turn off the television and make a child do her homework, that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, that’s the essence of America’s promise. (p. 4 to p. 5)

Those are wonderful and true words but if his policies do not support that requirement for individual responsibility his will be a failed presidency – regardless of his popularity. (I’m confident that the mutual responsibility aspect will not be ignored under Democratic leadership.)

Categories
National politics

Enumerated Powers Act

If the United States is truly a nation that is ruled by law then the Enumerated Powers Act should be a no-brainer. When the Constitution was adopted it laid out the specific powers of the various branches of government. As the supreme law of the land and the document defining what Congress is meant to do, it should be a simple thing to require that each bill cite the section of the Constitution granting authority for the bill in question. The Constitution is short enough that our congressional representatives should be able to quickly find the applicable section. If the authority is not specified in the Constitution there is a means in place to acquire that authority if it is warranted – that is the amendment process. This limitation to the codified law was so important to our founders that they specified in the Bill of Rights that any power not specified in the Constitution was to be reserved to the states.

When Congress felt it was necessary to levy an income tax the appropriate steps were taken to amend the Constitution to allow for such a tax. That is an example of the rule of law. Unfortunately, most of our Congressional leaders do not care if they have the authority to do what they are doing – they only care if doing what they are doing will jeopardize their chance for re-election. Maybe Congress should try to repeal the Tenth Amendment.

If the Enumerated Powers Act were passed it would enable people to verify the authority of Congress on any bill they passed and it would highlight any passages of the Constitution that were being used to justify excessive or undesireable legislation. If such passages were identified, the people have the ability to clarify those specific passages of the Constitution – through the amendment process.

Categories
culture politics

Funding Fire Departments

As we drove through heavy smoke that seemed to be blowing north from the fire in Draper last night, our girls started asking about firefighters and how we (as a society) support them. It got me thinking about firefighters as a service of government. Although they are every bit as legitimate and important a service as police, I rarely think about the Fire Department in relation to government.

Since my brain was chewing on the subject it apparently decided to throw me a what-if to consider. I wanted to share here to see what others thought.

Virtually every structure is insuread against fire – this means that insurance companies are highly interested in the work of firefighters. Would it make sense to privatize the fire department by having insurance companies be in charge of funding them? If so, what kinds of changes in service would you expect to see?

I’m not trying to suggest that our fire departments need to be privatized or that they should be. I just wanted to get some feedback on that random idea.

Categories
culture National politics

Why We Vote “No”

Two weeks ago I suggested that our tendency as voters is to vote against the subject of any given election. This morning my brain supplied me with a possible explanation as to why that might be. Scott Hinrichs has written on various occasions about the fact that we expect more from our president than could ever be met by one person. When my brain connected those two ideas I began to wonder if the reason we tend to vote against whoever is in our focus is because the more we focus on someone the easier it is to see that they could never do all that we expect of them as President.

Thoughts?

Categories
culture National politics

American Debt is No Accident

The fact that Americans have allowed themselves to be led down the rosy path of false economic hopes for a rosy tomorrow – where we can borrow now for anything we want with no thought for the fact that we are paying more by mortgaging our futures all the time – is not surprising. What caught my attention are the actual statistics of this fiscal malpractice and the stark proof that our financial institutions are trying to profit by keeping us individually on the brink of financial ruin.

Since the early 1980s, the value of home equity loans outstanding has ballooned to more than $1 trillion from $1 billion . . .

However, what has been a highly lucrative business for banks has become a disaster for many borrowers, who are falling behind on their payments at near record levels and could lose their homes.

The portion of people who have home equity lines more than 30 days past due stands 55 percent above its average since the American Bankers Association began tracking it around 1990; delinquencies on home equity loans are 45 percent higher. Hundreds of thousands are delinquent . . .

None of this would have been possible without a conscious effort by lenders, who have spent billions of dollars in advertising to change the language of home loans and with it Americans’ attitudes toward debt.

Aside from the precise numbers listed above, none of that information should surprise anyone with their eyes open to the economic situation of the country.

It might seem hard to believe, but not long ago people borrowed money to buy a home with the expectation that they would eventually pay off the debt. A mortgage had a finish line. . .

The newly mortgage-free even used to throw mortgage-burning parties to celebrate their financial freedom. . .

Now the idea of paying off the mortgage and owning a home outright is disappearing. . . banks now enable homeowners to keep borrowing. In fact, they encourage it. . .

As a result, the United States has become a nation of half-home owners. For the first time since World War II, the portion of home value that Americans own has fallen to less than 50 percent. In the 1980s, that figure was 70 percent. (emphasis added)

Let me translate that – we now own less of our own homes as a nation than we did 20 years ago. We have sold majority interest in the most valuable piece of property we have to our bankers for the sake of extra stuff which, while often nice to have, does not provide any of life’s necessities (shelter being a necessity while wave-runners, trampolines, nice furniture, and timeshares are not).

If the majority of our citizenry acts that way with their own money, it should not be surprising that our government does the same with public funds. (In the last 40 years, the only time our deficit spending has even tapered off was from 1998 to 2000.) Our public financial blinders have brought us to the attention of Nouriel Roubini:

After analyzing the markets that collapsed in the ’90s, Roubini set out to determine which country’s economy would be the next to succumb to the same pressures. His surprising answer: the United States’. “The United States,” Roubini remembers thinking, “looked like the biggest emerging market of all.” Of course, the United States wasn’t an emerging market; it was (and still is) the largest economy in the world. But Roubini was unnerved by what he saw in the U.S. economy, in particular its 2004 current-account deficit of $600 billion. He began writing extensively about the dangers of that deficit and then branched out, researching the various effects of the credit boom — including the biggest housing bubble in the nation’s history — that began after the Federal Reserve cut rates to close to zero in 2003. Roubini became convinced that the housing bubble was going to pop.

By late 2004 he had started to write about a “nightmare hard landing scenario for the United States.”

Anyone who is uncomfortable with the fallout of private homeowners beginning to default on their mortgages is going to be aghast at the results of the government declaring bankruptcy – and unless we change our thinking we’re going to have to declare bankruptcy – already we are faced with a debt that we are going to hate paying off. If we kept paying our current taxes and the government did nothing but pay debt at 0% interest it would take four years to pay it off and if we kept paying our mandatory spending programs it would take 10 years.

It’s about time our nation put both our public and our private financial houses in order.