May
10
2013

Carol Shea-Porter Has Yet Another Plan to Make Us Poorer

Factory for sale It's time once again to look at one of "Carol's Columns", the latest in a series of pieces from my own CongressCritter and perpetual toothache, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH01).

This time around, Carol's column is titled is "Make It In America". To put the most positive spin on it: it's about revitalizing the USA's manufacturing sector. Carol's for that. Yay!

But, in reality, her column is yet another incoherent mess, full of fallacies, economic illiteracy, and bad policy proposals. Carol is, as always, and despite all evidence to the contrary, devoted to her core belief that a Government Fist (when wielded by Democrats, anyway) can produce better results than the free market's Invisible Hand.

Bushwa. But let's look in detail.

Carol's column appears at her government-provided website and residents of NH01 may see it at some point as an op-ed in their local papers. I am reproducing her entire column here, lest I be accused of quoting out of context. Carol's words are (appropriately) on the left with a lovely #EEFFFF background color; my comments are on the right.

When I talk to constituents in New Hampshire's First District, I find that while there are many issues dividing our residents politically, there is one issue that always creates the same response. Manufacturing. They want to see the companies who left America return. They want to see the label "Made in America" again. It is a matter of pride as well as jobs, and they want Congress to help make that happen. Note the interesting word choice: she talks "to" constituents. God forbid she should talk "with" them. Let alone listen to them. No, she just talks "to", then observes the "response" her words have "created". Pavlov, call off your dogs!

This is why I believe Carol writes these columns herself. Even a novice professional writer would have noticed the implicit arrogance and rewritten this paragraph.

But, even though Carol is notoriously shy about unscripted, unmanaged interactions with constituents, let's grant the premise that it happens. I don't actually disbelieve that people generally have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about "manufacturing", and can nod in agreement tnat making useful products out of raw materials is an honorable trade. Should government "do something" to encourage that? Uh, sure. As long as things stay vague and there are no messy details about competence, costs, and trade-offs.

And then Carol's constituents get into their Hondas and Subarus, and drive away hoping they didn't upset the crazy lady.

I share that opinion. I worked my way through college with factory jobs. They paid better than most other local jobs at that time, and there was more overtime. Now, when I shop, I think about the good people I worked with. Those factories are long gone. But there are still others making American products, and I try to keep those employees working by buying American-made products. Nostalgia is OK, as far as it goes.

When it morphs into the mild xenophobia Carol displays here, it might be a little unpleasant, but as long as she's spending her own money, it's not worth making a big deal about it.

Except… hey, Carol, shouldn't you be looking to buy New Hampshire Congressional District One-made products? I mean, if you're going to champion economic isolationism, why not go all the way, to the benefit of people who really deserve it, your constituents?

Because, of course, drawing your red-line zone of economic protection around NH01 would be self-evidently silly. Drawing it around the USA is equally silly, but it plays better with people who don't think about such things too much.

Three recent purchases show the challenges we face. I needed dishes and I wanted American-made. I spent several hours looking, but finally found an American company. However, I could not find American-made every-day silverware. Next, I went to a number of stores looking for an American-made pocketbook. There weren't any. One of our local chain stores had one. Just one. Eventually, I gave up and looked on-line for American-made brands. I did find an American product, but it was far harder than it should be. The last example was furniture. There were only a few American-made pieces every place I looked. It took me a few weeks, but I found a couch made in North Carolina. There was a time when all of these purchases could have been made in just one afternoon, but now we struggle to find American brands in our retail stores. This is just wrong. As long as Carol is spending her own money on her buy-American quest, I can't gripe much. Even though it's probably her Congressional salary, straight out of taxpayer pockets, I won't begrudge.

And the time she spends wandering the stores and websites? You might say that she doesn't value those hours very highly.

I say, on the other hand, that the time she spends shopping is time she doesn't spend on her job; that is, on average, almost certainly a plus for the country.

But that reminds me that, unfortunately, Carol Shea-Porter is not just another shopper wasting time and money on irrational preferences based in sloppy thinking and economic illusions. She's perfectly willing to translate those preferences into wacky legislation that will make us, on average, worse off.

This is just wrong.

When I was a child, an article made abroad caught my attention, because it was unusual. Now, American-made labels catch my eye. There is a long list of reasons for this--mistakes made in trade policies sit at the top in my opinion--but we now need to try to reverse this. I believe we can bring good jobs back home and see that label again, but we need a plan. More nostalgia… Why aren't things like they were in the 50s?

It would be sweetly pathetic, if it weren't coming from someone in power; instead it's sad and dangerous. As David Harsanyi observed, this push is ironically reactionary for people who like to bill themselves as "progressive". Hey kids, let's get back those jobs that decades of progress and prosperity have left behind!

Carol says "we need a plan". Which is nothing new: people have been demanding that sort of thing for centuries. Instead of hundreds of millions of private citizens deciding on their own what they want to produce and consume, figuring out how they want to allocate their scarce resources to accomplish that, and entering into mutually voluntary agreements to implement their schemes…

Why, we'll just ("democratically") decide all that stuff in Washington: figure out what people need, figure out who's going to produce it, and just make it happen!

As I said: bushwa. Dangerous bushwa. People have written books debunking this pernicious notion that central planners can do a better job of producing economic prosperity than private citizens operating in the free market under general rules. It just doesn't work.

I was an original member of the "Make it in America Working Group" that Congressman Steny Hoyer launched a few years ago. I have rejoined the group, and we are working to pass legislation that will support American manufacturers. There are, of course, probably tens of thousands of American entrepreneurs who would dearly love to make a profit producing things in America, if it were at all possible. Those people don't need legislative "support"; they need government at all levels to get out of the way.

Of course, on the other hand: there are always industries that welcome government "support". Typically entrenched enterprises with plenty of political pull, the "support" they receive allows them to—literally—engage in "business as usual", without worrying overmuch about competition from companies that government has decided not to "support". Result: inefficient bloat, and higher prices for unlucky consumers.

The Make it in America plan has four major parts. First, we need a national manufacturing strategy. Other countries have highly developed strategies that offer tax incentives, support for infrastructure projects, investments in research, etc. It is time for America to do the same. You would not know from Carol's column that the USA is one of the top two manufacturing countries in the world, the other one being China. Some sources have the US slightly ahead of China, some behind. But nobody else is even close, and nobody else shows any signs of getting close.

So those "other countries" with "highly developed strategies"? They ain't working.

What has happened: manufacturing's share of the US GDP has declined. That furrows some brows, but it mostly means that other sectors are growing more quickly.

In addition, the number of US workers employed in manufacturing has shrunk. While China produces its manufacturing output with a workforce of around 100 million souls, the US does it with around 12 million.

That's a feature attesting to the insanely high productivity of US manufacturing workers. It's a good thing. But for Carol and her ilk, it's a bug that needs to be "fixed".

Second, we need to increase exports. There are a number of barriers holding companies back from global markets. We need enforcement of fair trade laws, and we need to help our businesses navigate through the maze of rules and regulations here and abroad. Other countries are far more aggressive in helping their businesses access foreign markets. American businesses also need better communication, road, and rail infrastructure to compete on equal footing. One slightly amusing thing: Carol's just spent a couple paragraphs telling us how diligently she tries to avoid buying other countries' exports.

But she wants those other countries to buy more US exports. Carol wants those furriners to do as she says, not as she does.

The US, according to Wikipedia, is the third-largest exporting country in the world, slightly behind Germany. (Both more-than-slightly behind China.) Could it do "better"? Well, probably. Do I trust Steny Hoyer and Carol Shea-Porter to know what the "right" level of exports is, and how to make that happen? When they don't seem to know the meaning of the phrase "get out of the way"?

No.

Instead, let's let companies that can profit by increasing exports figure out how to do that; they have every incentive to do so without the "help" of government.

The Make It In America plan also encourages businesses to return. Currently, there is a bill to eliminate the tax deduction for moving expenses for companies that send jobs abroad and to offer a tax credit to them if they bring jobs back. There is also a bill that gives companies preference in government contracting and a 5% reduction in taxable income if they make at least 90% of their goods and services in America, and that pays at least 70% of an employee's health insurance costs. There are many other bills that offer help to companies as well. The funny thing here is: Carol's immediately previous column was all about extracting more taxes from the private sector. Carol specifically trashed General Electric (a manufacturing company), for making creative use of existing loopholes in the tax code to minimize the government bite. Close them loopholes and get companies like GE to cough up big time!

But that was April, this is May, and suddenly Carol is all about offering more tax gimmicks and loopholes to get companies to behave the way she wants.

Were I the CEO of GE, I wouldn't know which way to bet.

[BTW: A year ago I compiled a short list of Democratic candidates' promises to do away with "tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas"; it's something they've been promising for over 20 years. They are remarkably slow at figuring out how to make it happen. Do you think that might be because it's a far better demagogic campaign promise than sound policy?]

The fourth part of the plan is to train and secure a twenty-first century workforce. We need to compete in a world market. Therefore, our students need top skills and education. The plan calls for all stakeholders--the government, educational institutions, and private industry--to work together to prepare students. One proposed bill would give a tax credit to businesses that offer apprenticeships and then keep the employee on the payroll for at least two years after the training. The implicit admission here is: government schools have been doing a lousy job of their appointed task to "train and secure a twenty-first century workforce."

Do you think that Steny and Carol have suddenly figured out how to make that happen? Me neither. I think it's just another excuse to shove more money at schools.

And there's another stupid tax loophole. Please: if it makes economic sense for companies to offer "apprenticeships", they can and should do it on their own.

Americans are ready to move on this agenda. Make It In America sounds right and feels right because it is right. Congress might not be leading on this, but they could at least follow their constituents and start putting Make It In America bills on the floor. Or, alternatively, start putting Make It In America bills in the handy recycling bins just outside the door. Government has spectacularly mismanaged itself for years; if it were a business, it would be out of business. And now they want to help manufacturers? Aieee, run away!

Last Modified 2013-05-10 2:47 PM EDT
Bookmark and Share
May
7
2013

Dick Harpootles Haley, Again

Nikki Haley Back in 2011, Pun Salad coined the verb "to harpootle", and proposed the rough definition: "to attack someone in a way that reveals the attacker as foolish, petty, vile, and/or stupid."

It was derived from the name of Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, who attempted to make a big deal over the fact that the (Republican) Governor of South Carolina, Nimrata "Nikki" Randhawa Haley, was listed on SC voter rolls as W, as in White. When obviously, um, at least as evidenced by her name, she is not!

That meaningless "scandal" did nothing but cement the image of Harpootlian as an old white southern pol trying to stir up racial animosity at some uppity minority attempting to "pass."

Dick (or as his friends call him, "Dick") stepped down from his position as SC Dem Chair, but managed to Harpootle one last time on his way out:

South Carolina Democratic party chairman Dick Harpootlian on Friday assured Democrats that next year, their party's challenger will "send Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from."

The linked article also refers to Harpootlian's comment last year about Gov. Haley's interview in a basement television studio. She was, Harpootlian said, "down in the bunker a la Eva Braun."


Last Modified 2013-05-07 5:37 AM EDT
Bookmark and Share
Apr
24
2013

Carol Shea-Porter: Here Are Ideas, Which I May Or May Not Like

Reps. Carol Shea-Porter & Paul Hodes It's time once again to look at one of "Carol's Columns", the latest in a series of pieces from my own CongressCritter and perpetual toothache, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH01).

I sometimes wonder: does Carol write these columns herself, or does she have some flunky on her staff do it? I am leaning toward the former opinion. For evidence, here is the column's headline:

Common cents for raising revenue

"Sense, cents, get it?" Moan.

She couldn't be paying an actual salary for someone to write a headline that lame, could she? Well, maybe. But I have a feeling we're getting direct insight into the Mind of Carol here.

[Update: since I posted, the column's title has been truncated to "Common cents". Concentrating the inanity into two words instead of spreading it out over five.]

Carol's column appears at her government-provided website and residents of NH01 may see it at some point as an op-ed in their local papers. I am reproducing the entire column here, lest I be accused of quoting out of context. Carol's words are (appropriately) on the left with a lovely #EEFFFF background color; my comments are on the right.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats want to lower the debt, but they have very different approaches. The Republicans' idea, the Ryan Budget, would repeal the health care law, turn Medicare into a voucher program and reduce benefits, slash Medicaid -- the program that more than 60 percent of nursing home residents need to pay for their beds -- cut other domestic programs, and would be revenue-neutral. In other words, it would not raise a penny of revenue to help pay down the debt; it would rely just on deep cuts. Democrats offered a budget, the Van Hollen Budget, which had a mixture of cuts and revenue. For Americans who want to lower the debt but still invest in good government, the question has to be, "Can we raise revenue to pay the bills without increasing taxes on the middle class and small businesses?" Interesting word choice: Carol talks about "debt" and never "deficit". Does she know the difference? We will never "lower the debt" until we eliminate the deficit altogether, and start running a surplus. Nothing Carol suggests will even come close to that.

Clearly, though, her constant use of "revenue" throughout this column is a dishonest euphemism for "taxes".

It was only a few weeks ago, by the way, that Carol trashed the Ryan Budget: "[S]ince there is no effort to even acknowledge the other party or compromise on any issues what-so-ever, it has zero chance of success."

But that was then, this is now, and Carol now cheers for the "Van Hollen Budget" which is, if anything, more partisan, less compromising, and has even less chance for success. And that's fine with Carol.

The answer is, "Of course." There is plenty of revenue to be found, but guards, otherwise known as lobbyists, are standing watch over the revenue and our incredibly unfair tax code. America desperately needs revenue to rebuild transportation and communication infrastructure and create jobs, to provide health care to seniors and poor children, to invest in medical and business research and technology, to educate our young people, keep our country safe, and to pay down our debt, but we should not borrow for all of this. We should raise revenue. So, looking past both budgets, where can we find money? In CarolLand, taxes are not raised; instead, "revenue" is "found". That is, if you can get around the "guards" who are "standing watch" over it.

What is that money doing in private hands anyway? Nothing that Carol deems worthwhile. That money is what "America desperately needs". The $5.4 Trillion in cash that government currently extracts? Sorry, just ain't enough. For Carol, it's never enough.

What's clear from her rhetoric: There is not a single dollar in private hands that Carol does not imagine she could spend more wisely and humanely. Oh, sure: she'll probably let you keep some of yours. But that's not due to any lofty principle. The only rule is: if she thinks government "needs" it, and she can politically get away with it, she'll take it.

Carol deems the current tax system "incredibly unfair"; she never spells out what she means by that, except that it doesn't generate enough cash flow to satisfy her unlimited spending desires.

Even though most people don't hear about them, there are many suggestions being made by many different groups. I am going to include some here, whether I agree or disagree with the suggestions. Translation: "I don't have enough political courage to advocate specific positions and take responsibility for them."
Some want to raise taxes on the wealthiest. The Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget "asks the extraordinarily wealthy to pay a sensible share by creating five additional tax brackets, the highest of which is still lower than the top bracket in place during most of the Reagan Administration." Their brackets would be 45 percent for $1-10 million, 46 percent for $10-20 million, 48 percent for $100 million-1 billion, and 49 percent for $1 billion and more. I know Carol's just quoting someone else here, but note the "asks" euphemism. The government does not "ask" for more taxes. It takes them, under threat of force. Anyone who says government should "ask" for more taxes is a dishonest and cowardly charlatan, and is demonstrating contempt for your intelligence.

Also note the "sensible share" bit. That's an interesting way to frame an arbitrary grab for more cash.

Many are taking aim at those corporations that have managed to escape paying any federal income taxes. David Kocieniewski's article in the New York Times, March 24, 2011, titled "G.E.'s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether," certainly caught the public's attention. He wrote that General Electric had worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, $5.1 from U.S. operations, and "Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion." And G.E. is not alone. Kocieniewski points out that while we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, "companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less." A debunking of the "GE pays no taxes" meme is here.

Carol, of course, has no idea what to do about the corporate income tax, other than vaguely "taking aim" at the corporations. (Gun-based metaphors are OK to use when you're a Democrat.)

It's notable that even a lefty like Matthew Yglesias thinks we should just get rid of the corporate income tax. Whether the GE factoid is true or not, the corporate income tax has become a dirty joke, an inefficient snakepit of favors for the politically well-connected.

(Of course, being a lefty, Yglesias thinks we should more than make up for it by increasing taxes—on, of course, "the rich"—elsewhere. But unlike Carol, he's honest about it.)

He reports that the corporate contribution to our nation's revenue was 30 percent of the total 60 years ago, but only 6.6 percent in 2009. Reform the tax code now. Some think we need to do a better job collecting taxes that are already owed under the current code. James Thompson wrote in an article, published on April 13 in USA Today, that, "The government's failure to collect the $385 billion that is owed but not paid the government each year -- called the "tax gap" -- translates to a $3,300 surtax on each taxpaying household, according to the Taxpayer Advocate Service." He argues that instead of cutting the IRS and its 98,000 employees, 10,000 employees smaller than in 2010, we should invest in catching cheaters to bring in revenue and make it fairer for the rest of us. If the government manages to snatch more money away from corporations, fine. Of course, they'll have less to fritter away on jobs, etc. But that's OK with Carol: the increased government revenue can be spent on unemployment benefits! And as Nancy Pelosi knows, unemployment benefits create jobs!

Carol also has a naive faith that throwing money at an organization—the IRS in this case—is an effective way to improve its operations. Daniel J. Mitchell debunks.

There are many other ideas to raise revenue without hitting the middle class and small businesses. Stop allowing hedge-fund managers and private equity fund managers to report their income differently, paying a capital gains rate instead of an ordinary income rate. No more deductions on yachts, gambling debts and private jets. A small financial speculation tax on huge institutional (not individual) transactions on Wall Street would raise billions over 10 years. A mix of mostly dreadful ideas. Mostly chosen for their value as demagogic political theatre, not for any rational fiscal purpose. Also, since they conveniently target "someone else", Carol can pretend that there would be no negative effects of sucking more money out of the private financial sector, or punishing people who choose to invest their money instead of spending it.

I have to admit that I have no idea what Carol is referring to about taking a tax deduction for gambling debts. Is that a thing? I can't find anything about it, for example, in this Forbes article describing the tax implications of Carol's fellow Democrat Maureen O'Connor's $1 billion gambling losses.

The financial "speculation" tax (usually referred to as a "financial transaction tax") is a spectacularly bad idea. Here's an article discussing a European proposal, but the argument applies to the US.

The point here is that we have a choice. Put options on the table and have a vote on them, one by one. I listen to government officials, service providers, educational institutions and small businesses each day. They talk about the need for some revenue to invest in our people and build our country. We can raise revenue to pay down the debt and adequately run the country, and we don't need to ask the middle class to pay more than their fair share. We just need to ask others who have been holding back to pay theirs. Note (once again) the "ask" euphemism, demonstrating Carol's lack of respect for her readers and constituents.

Bottom line: Carol doesn't worry overmuch about the details as she gets more money to play with, to spend on her worthy schemes.

But, perhaps surprisingly, I agree with her on one thing: If I were advising Speaker Boehner, I would put every silly tax-raising scheme up to a vote in the House, so that Carol would go on the record. No more hiding behind the "I'm not going to tell you whether I agree or disagree" tergiversations.


Last Modified 2013-04-28 5:20 AM EDT
Bookmark and Share
Apr
18
2013

Obama Pouts

pout face

I made the mistake of watching the local news on Manchester, NH's WMUR last prevening. On came President Obama with a pious, pouty, petulant, partisan rant in response to the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey "background check" amendment to the "gun control" legislation under consideration in the US Senate. My feelings wavered between outrage, disgust, and embarrassment, maybe a few others.

First, the outrage: Obama yammered on for many minutes. Video at the WaPo goes for over 13 minutes. I don't know if WMUR stuck through the whole thing, because I clicked off about 8 minutes in. Gotta watch that blood pressure.

But seriously, WMUR. Are you going to give a Republican gun control opponent comparably equal time to rebut this heavily partisan speech? Or are you just going to keep airing unpaid ads for the Democratic Party?

My feelings of disgust were aimed at the President, who reminded me of a spoiled teenage girl who didn't get the exact prom dress she wanted. And I'm not alone. Jacob Sullum was also appalled ("Obama Responds to His Gun Control Defeat With Self-Righteous Solipsism"):

Obama does a fine job of empathizing with the parents of Adam Lanza's victims. But that is something any decent human being should be able to manage. Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy's shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents. He not only says they are wrong, which is to be expected. He refuses to concede that people who disagree with him about gun control are acting in good faith, based on what they believe to be sound reasons—that they, like him, are doing what they think is right. His self-righteous solipsism is striking even for a politician.

Similar observations from Peter Wehner:

Mr. Obama’s effort at emotional blackmail has failed, and in bitterly lashing out at those who called him out on his demagoguery, he went some distance toward confirming that he is, in fact, a demagogue.

Both Wehner and Sullum seem to give too much weight to taking Obama's words at their face value, as if they're honestly felt. I have serious doubts about that.

I don't know if Obama is delusional enough to believe his own arguments; it's (unfortunately) much more likely that his posturing is a cynical ploy to gin up know-nothing outrage against the GOP for the 2014 elections.

Evidence: Gun control was, essentially, off the table for the 2012 elections. And now we're supposed to believe that it's suddenly the most important issue ever?

Nah. It's all about coldly leveraging people's (understandable) post-Newtown emotions into political power.

And that's (finally) why embarrassed: for the country that elected this demagogic phony.

But there's a silver lining: for all Obama's poutiness, the emotional blackmail didn't work. The country yawned. So there's also optimism.


Bookmark and Share
Apr
17
2013

Senator Ayotte Chooses Wisely

Kelly Ayotte

New Hampshire's better Senator has decided, after careful consideration, to oppose the Toomey-Manchin "background check" amendment to the "gun control" legislation under consideration, as Pun Salad suggested yesterday. Her bottom line:

I believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will not prevent a deranged individual or criminal from obtaining and misusing firearms to commit violence. While steps must be taken to improve the existing background check system, I will not support the Manchin-Toomey legislation, which I believe would place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales.

She also voted for cloture on the legislation, as Pun Salad advocated last week.

I won't say my well-reasoned and respectful communications on her website helped to sway her vote, but … well, I'm allowed to imagine they did, right?

Next up: the "Gang of Eight" immigration bill. I'm leaning toward "No", Senator.


Bookmark and Share
Apr
16
2013

URLs du Jour — 2013-04-16

  • Copley Square I have no deep thoughts about the horror at the Boston Marathon yesterday. We spent quite a bit of time watching the local TV news folks babble, and report a lot of stuff that later turned out to be wrong. Jim Geraghty's "Morning Jolt" e-mail is titled "Making Sense of the Sensless", and it's pretty good:

    Right now, I could write segments on the idiot comments made by the usual suspects . . . but do you really need another piece of evidence to support the argument that, say, Cynthia McKinney is a lunatic? Eh, if so, here you go. I can't get all that revved up about it. She is what she is. If you really put much stock in her judgment of what's "the real story" behind a horrific news event, theories that hear this awful news and immediately jump to elaborate theories of "false flag" operations and the notion that our local and federal law-enforcement ranks are full of men and women willing to set bombs and blow up children in order to score some sort of propaganda victory . . . well, then I doubt there's anything anyone can say to dissuade you of that vast worldview you've constructed within your mind.

    The conspiracy theorist is only a couple of steps away from the person who — often on Twitter — begins discussing who was behind it with way too much certainty. As I said on Twitter yesterday, I suspect that speculation, unhelpful as it is, is a coping mechanism: People attempt to make a sudden unexpected horror fit into pattern of known facts. If we can figure out who did it, we can find someone to feel anger and rage towards and, for some people, that's a much easier emotion to deal with than shock, horror, fear, and sorrow.

    The all-too-confident speculator is only a few steps away from the ordinarily knowledgeable terrorism expert or pundit yanked into a television studio at a moment's notice and asked to speak, extemporaneously, about what could be behind these awful events based on nothing more than initial reports and the most horrific of images playing on a monitor just beyond the camera.

  • A Washington Post article claims that New Hampshire's better Senator, Kelly Ayotte is "undecided" on the Manchin-Toomey "background check" amendment.

    So Granite Staters might want to sway her one way or the other. If you're like me, you might want to point out that the amendment is the worst sort of "do something" legislation: hastily cobbled together, "limp and pointless" (J.D. Tucille); "broader and fuzzier than the legislation described in the press" (Jacob Sullum); a "slippery slope" with a near-guarantee that today's "exemption" will become tomorrow's "loophole". (C.W. Cooke).

  • Two good articles from the current print edition of Reason are now free online. The first is "The End of Power" by Moisés Naím. It suffers a bit from gee-whiz breezy prose. But Mr. Naiím notes some trends that might make even the most cynical pessimist cheer up a bit. E.g.:

    According to the World Bank, between 2005 and 2008, from sub-Saharan Africa to Latin America and from Asia to Eastern Europe, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty (those with incomes under $1.25 a day) plunged. Given that the decade was marked by the onset of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1929, this progress is even more surprising. The world is expected to reach the Millennium Development Goals on poverty set in 2000 by the United Nations much earlier than originally anticipated. One of the most audacious goals back then was to cut the world’s extreme poverty in half by 2015; that impressive feat was achieved five years early, in 2010.

    Even though it's in Reason, Mr. Naím is not your usual libertarian nutbar (like me), but an internationally-known journalist and scholar. If he says something revolutionary is happening, it probably is.

  • The second article is from Peter Suderman, titled "Down the Drain" and it refers to the $833 billion stimulus from a few years back—you know, the one that was supposed to bring us to 5% unemployment rate by now.

    I can't recommend it unless you have your blood pressure under control and are not prone to throwing things when enraged.

    If you want to see where a little bit of your $833 billion stimulus went, head south from St. Louis on Interstate 44 until you reach the Mark Twain National Forest. On March 13, 2009, less than a month after President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law, the federal government awarded $462,912.30 to a Spokane, Washington, construction firm called CXT Incorporated to build and install 22 “precast concrete toilets” in the park.

    I, for one, am making travel plans to visit my ex-money.

  • Remember the Jesus-stomp incident from last month? That bizarre incident revolved around a faculty member, one Deandre Poole, in the "School of Communication and Multimedia Studies" at Florida Atlantic University, who thought it would Teach a Useful Lesson to have his students write "JESUS" on a piece of paper, then put it on the floor and stomp on it. Mr. Poole was placed on leave.

    The FAU Administration has now decided to reprimand a different facule in the same department, one James Tracy, over wacky conspiracy-mongering at his blog. Among other things, Tracy questions "the official Newtown narrative". Like, did the whole thing ever really happen?

    Speaking as a University employee who expresses out-of-mainstream views on his blog at times: I don't think a University should be reprimanding its employees for expressing out-of-mainstream views on their blogs.

    But to expand a point I made: FAU is a clusterfrak of (a) clueless administrators who don't understand academic freedom or the First Amendment; (b) academically-worthless departments with names like "School of Communication and Multimedia Studies"; (c) which are full of undergifted faculty like Poole and Tracy.

    That's your real scandal, right thar.

    (Story via Col·lege In·sur·rec·tion, which I enjoy typing.)


Bookmark and Share
Apr
14
2013

URLs du Jour — 2013-04-14

  • Tax It's that time of year again. Since Pun Salad does not provide legal advice of any kind, I can not suggest you follow any of the advice contained in this classic Dave Barry column from 1997.

    It's time for my annual tax-advice column, which always draws an enthusiastic response from grateful readers.

    "Dear Dave, " goes a typical letter. "Last year, following your advice, I was able to receive a large tax refund simply by claiming a $43,000 business deduction for 'paste.' I am currently chained to a wall in federal prison, but they tell me that, with good behavior, in 25 years they'll remove the skull screws. Thanks a lot!"

  • Kevin D. Williamson brings us the happy news that local health bureaucrats are producing Obamacare regulations that are totally reality-based and will save us all a bunch of money real soon now.

    Just kidding!

    The District of Columbia's Obamacare czars --- the board that sets rules for the phony insurance marketplace, or "exchange," that the law creates --- have decided that henceforth insurers shall be forbidden by law to charge smokers higher rates than non-smokers. Smoking, as it turns out, "is a preexisting medical condition," according to Dr. Mohammad Akhter, the chairman of the D.C. Health Exchange Board. Two liberal states, California and Connecticut, have decided likewise, while Colorado and Alaska have rejected the idea.

    The obvious point: non-smokers get to subsidize the health care costs of smokers.

    The slightly less obvious points: the Einsteins behind this decision are unelected and unaccountable. They make decisions unencumbered by rationality or constraint. There are myriads of decisions like this coming down the pike, and they will wind up destroying the health insurance market.

    But of course, that's what Obamacare was designed to do.

  • For us non-Twitterers, Iowahawk is hard to find these days. But here he is reflecting on the recent profundities emanating from the mouth of one Melissa Harris-Perry, for example that "we" should "recognize that kids belong to their communities." The Hawk concentrates on the thought-corrupting, Orwellian language used:

    One of the creepier features of lefty language is the application of possessive pronouns. "My" is for rights (real or imagined), "your" is for responsibilities, "our" is for the stuff in my bank account they want to take. Unless it's the case of "our responsibility" in which case they actually mean "your responsibility." As the old saying goes, "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

  • Iowahawk's observation has been made by others. Here is one of my favorite examples, from the late Underground Grammarian, written back in 1987 (space down to "The Witching Our: Pronominal and Participial Considerations from our Acting Adjunct Sociogrammatologist") He wrote about some earnest babbler of that age who demanded that something be done "to protect our young and needy."

    My admonisher is surely sincere, and, although history does not suggest that it is out of a lack of sincerity that tyrants and other monsters are made, I do believe that he believes that the result of his admonition, somewhere down that long, long road of consequence, will be of some good to some child. And that may be so. In other words, I do not suppose him a man who designs to deceive. Why is it, then, that he talks like a liar?

    The UG is sorely missed.

  • Cracked lists "The 5 Creepiest Ways Major Companies Are Watching You".

    Not a bad article. But here's an interesting combination of facts:

    1. Microsoft has an anti-Google site, scroogled.com which details all the different slimy tactics Google uses to make money off your personal information: e.g., using the text of your Gmail to position ads; providing your personal information to Google Play app-sellers; using paid ads for shopping-search results. Ack, horrible, horrible Google!

    2. Gosh, thank goodness at least one company—Microsoft— is dedicated to its customers' privacy.

      Oh, wait. From the Cracked article:

      Microsoft filed a patent back in 2010 for a proprietary technology that will scan your emails, text messages, and browsing history, while monitoring your facial expressions and speech via webcam or Kinect (if you have an Xbox) to try and determine your emotional state, delivering ads that they think will appeal to your current mood.

    If you want me, I will be in a cave with an abacus, trying to protect my computing privacy.


Bookmark and Share
Apr
9
2013

A Letter to Senator Ayotte

Gals too Inspired by this post from the Minute Man, I sent the following e-missive to our state's finer Senator, Kelly Ayotte:

I oppose the gun control legislation proposed by President Obama and Senate Democrats, but I would suggest you NOT support the filibuster some Senate Republicans are proposing in response. The bill would not pass the House. There would be no harm, and a lot of good, resulting from getting all Senators to vote on the merits of the legislation. Specifically, I would enjoy seeing Democratic Senators, like your colleague Jeanne Shaheen, agonize over whether to outrage their liberal donors or their nowhere-near-as-liberal constituents.

I surprisingly find myself allied with John McCain on this issue. Oh well.


Last Modified 2013-04-09 7:59 AM EDT
Bookmark and Share
Apr
7
2013

Carol Shea-Porter: Has No Solutions, Doesn't Like Yours

Reps. Carol Shea-Porter & Paul Hodes My own CongressCritter and perpetual toothache, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH01), pens an occasional column to the Little People Back Home, i.e. me, and perhaps you. Her latest effort is titled "Ryan's Path to Prosperity - Still a Bad Idea" and it appears at her government-provided website. Eventually, residents of NH01 may see it as an op-ed in their local papers.

Once again, let's take a look at Carol's column! Carol's words (appropriately) on the left with a lovely #EEFFFF background color; my comments are on the right.

The House Republican budget, crafted by the Chair of the House Budget Committee, has been presented. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has kept the misnamed "Path to Prosperity" title for this year's budget, and he has also kept most of his really bad ideas. This budget is not based on any reality and lacks specifics because of that. As the Associated Press reported on 3/12/13, "A document released Tuesday offers few specifics on the proposed cuts to domestic programs, but it generally appears to incorporate spending levels for day-to-day agency operations significantly below levels called for by controversial automatic spending cuts." Congressman Ryan's budget needs to spell out the cuts so we can all judge it. You can check out Ryan's proposal, without the spin of AP or lefty think tanks, here.

What Carol doesn't mention: President Obama was also supposed to present his proposed FY2014 budget back in February. Not yet, as I type; its ETA is now sometime in the coming week. ("It's hard! It's math!")

It is true enough that Ryan's proposal does not get detailed enough for us to learn whether Your Federal Government will still be funding the study of duck penises. Instead it provides numbers for broad spending categories in a ten-year window. (E.g., $30.574 Billion for "General Science, Space and Technology" in FY2019.)

That's not specific enough for Carol. Fine. You might think that would be the end of her column, then. You would be wrong.

It also fails as a statement of our values, since its deep cuts tear at our moral and social fabric. And finally, since there is no effort to even acknowledge the other party or compromise on any issues what-so-ever, it has zero chance of success. So, what exactly is in this budget? Politicians are supposed to hide their arrogance, but Carol can flaunt hers at times. Like here, when she imperiously refers to "our values". Please.

She really means her values.

And one of her Highest Values: Federal government spending. Spending as much as it can possibly spend. And then some. More every year. Otherwise, you "tear at our moral and social fabric."

That fabric is apparently a very fragile item indeed. As Ryan pointed out: "current path" spending is scheduled to increase 5% per year through the ten-year budget window. Ryan's "deep cuts" proposal is to … gasp! … increase spending at a 3.4% rate instead.

Keep that in mind as you read Carol's phony apocalyptic rhetoric. We're just talking about different rates in spending growth.

There are tax cuts--for the richest among us. A Tax Policy Center analysis of the Republican budget shows that the average millionaire would reap a $408,000 tax cut under Chairman Ryan's proposal to reduce the top individual tax rate from 39.6% to 25%. Unless offset, the overall tax cuts in the Republican budget add an additional $5.7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Those in the top 0.1% of income, who make $3.3 million or more, would get a whopping $1.2 million on average-a 20% increase in their after-tax income. Another one of Carol's "values" leads her to view tax policy not as a means of raising revenue, but as a means to kick rich people in the teeth.

In fact, Ryan's proposal is pretty tame stuff: simplify the byzantine tax code, lower rates, broaden the base. His goal is to have the Feds take in around 19% of GDP in revenue, which is the (high) ballpark of the long-term historical average since World War 2.

Don't look for Carol to propose specific tax ideas of her own. (Other than the constant "RaiseTaxesOnTheRich" drumbeat.) Like Tim "Turbo Tax" Geithner, she doesn't have a solution, she just doesn't like Ryan's.

I will not vote to give still more tax cuts to the wealthiest while asking the middle class to pay more. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "families with children that have incomes below $200,000 would have to face tax increases averaging more than $3,000 a year, if policymakers were to avoid increasing the deficit while reaching Chairman Ryan's 25-percent top-tax-rate goal." That is just morally wrong, and it is bad for our economy as well. We need a vibrant middle class to move this country forward. Carol's rhetoric about "still more tax cuts to the wealthiest" is dishonest. She voted for Obamacare, which (at current estimates) will raise taxes by over a trillion dollars over the next decade. And there's the $620 Billion "fiscal cliff" tax increases passed just a few months back. "Still more tax cuts"? Give me a break.

Note that Carol (however vaguely) admits that higher taxes can hurt the country's prosperity. She appears to think that this effect is magically confined to tax increases on the "middle class". It makes them less "vibrant".

But tax increases on the rich, no problem!

She doesn't have to resolve this contradiction, or even have evidence to support it. It's what she feels to be true, and that's all she needs.

There are changes to Medicare which would be devastating to senior citizens. Half of all seniors have an income of $22,500 or less per year, but the tax cuts go to the richest, and the cuts in benefits and the costs fall heavily on the old and the sick. Under the Ryan budget, our seniors would be handed a voucher and would have to go out and purchase their own insurance. The burden would be on them to keep costs down, and costs would rise faster than the voucher payment. My parents had enough difficulty negotiating the medical system with traditional Medicare. I cannot in good conscience vote to make it even more difficult and expensive for our older and sicker citizens. The Ryan budget also would increase seniors' costs for prescriptions, and slash Medicaid, despite the fact that 60% of nursing home residents need Medicaid to pay for their stay.

Ryan is (at least) honest about pointing out that Medicare and Medicaid are on a fiscally unsustainable path.

Carol prefers to ignore that. What's her plan? She doesn't have one.

Other to close her eyes, clap her hands over her ears, and whine about people who are actually trying to get the government's fiscal house in order.

Education is the key to prosperity for any nation, and as Dr. Jill Biden says, the country that out-educates us will out-compete us. Young people need a good education if they are to succeed, and their families need help with the high costs of education. The Ryan budget makes very deep cuts in education, taking us backwards instead of forwards. Actually this tired "out-educate/out-compete" rhetoric has been a Democrat staple in recent years. Carol (like her cronies) use it to assert (without evidence) that continually shovelling federal dollars into a pipe labelled "education" will magically produce smart people and economic prosperity coming out the other end.

But in fact the US already outspends other nations by a wide margin; the results are mediocre.

(It's hard to resist observing: if we were smarter, we wouldn't keep electing people like Carol Shea-Porter. QED.)

This is an area where I don't think Ryan's proposals go far enough. Democrats want to prop up this wasteful, corrupt system at 110%; Ryan wants to do 80% instead. Please, someone: put it on a glide path to zero.

Transportation takes a hit under the Ryan plan. This is the moment where we can invest in infrastructure and both create jobs, and repair and rebuild. The Democrats' budget calls for an infrastructure bank to get America moving again, while the Ryan budget slashes investments. Again, wrong direction for job creation. Another bit of magical "Federal spending in/prosperity out" thinking from Carol. She relies on our short memories; didn't we just have an $833 billion "stimulus" that was supposed to fix all this stuff? Shovel-ready and all that? Supposed to get us back to full employment?

Never mind that, Carol says. We'll do it right this time. Promise.

Bullshit then. Bullshit now.

For those Americans who care about the old and the sick, who care about school lunches and Meals on Wheels for shut-ins, who care about education and research and infrastructure, this budget is the wrong approach. I care, I care, I care, Carol says. "Caring" focus-groups well.

But, for Carol, "caring" means spending other people's money. And spending more than you can actually afford. When you "care", there's never enough of that.

I know that we have to reduce the debt, […] Readers, if you've been paying attention, I bet you can guess Carol's next word.
but I believe a slow, careful, and balanced approach is the way to go. Countries like England that have tried austerity-only approaches have not been successful. Our economy, while still fragile, is improving. This is not the time to let ideology trump sound practice. Did you guess correctly? I bet you did.

Beyond throwing out adjectives ("slow, careful, and balanced"), Carol has no plan to actually regain fiscal sanity.

As for the UK (or, as Carol calls it, "England"): see Matthew Feeney: "British Austerity is a Myth, Despite What the Keynesians Say"


Last Modified 2013-04-22 12:54 PM EDT
Bookmark and Share
Apr
4
2013

URLs du Jour — 2013-04-04

  • Saving for College Nick Gillespie is inspired by Rutgers' firing of coach Mike Rice (for getting caught "abusing" of his players) into looking at a larger outrage: the "way that Division I college sports is abusing most college students at most shools around the country, even if they never suit up for a practice or attend a single varsity competition of any sort."

    Nick looks at the latest USA Today report describing how 277 NCAA Division 1 public institutions of Higher Education fund their athletic programs.

    When all is tallied up, USA Today calculates that Rutgers is subsidizing the operation of its athletic department to the tune of 47 percent of its expenses. Let's underscore that: This is money that is overwhelmingly going to field football, baseball, lacrosse, and other sports teams. It's not going to create new sections of Biology 101 or English 251 or underwrite the discovery of the next Streptomycin or publish the next Economics and the Public Interest or anything that remotely comes close to education or research.

    Rutgers is Gillespie's alma mater. Milton Friedman, also a Rutgers alumnus, is quoted.

  • Rutgers is one of the "comparator schools" for the University Near Here. Gillespie's article made me wonder how the level of athletic subsidy compares at those schools. Here 'tis:

    School Revenue Subsidy % Subsidy
    Massachusetts $27,248,277 $22,043,976 80.9%
    Buffalo $26,228,030 $20,823,478 79.4%
    Delaware $36,074,840 $28,535,457 79.1%
    Rhode Island $23,614,858 $17,588,496 74.5%
    Vermont $16,671,903 $11,972,477 71.8%
    UNH $26,237,332 $18,348,442 69.9%
    Maine $18,443,619 $12,096,275 65.6%
    Rutgers $60,190,100 $28,475,523 47.3%
    Connecticut $63,089,340 $15,029,723 23.8%

    To quote T. Brennan: "I don't know what that means." Other than the 47.3% subsidy that outrages Gillespie is pretty modest when compared to UNH, or even most other schools (except UConn).

    Other fun facts gleaned from the USA Today data: for UNH, over the 2006-2011 period, the amount of revenue obtained by ticket sales declined by 10%, while revenue from (mandatory) student fees increased by 40% and from "school funds" went up by 29%. "Coaching staff" expenses went up by 25%.

  • Libertarians might want to check out an interesting post from Tyler Cowen; it's in response to people who ask him about "guns and gun control". Although Tyler leans libertarian, he would "gladly see a cultural shift toward the view that gun ownership is dangerous and undesirable, much as the cultural attitudes toward smoking have shifted since the 1960s."

    Really? But he goes on:

    I am, however, consistent. I also think we should have a cultural shift toward the view that alcohol — and yes I mean all alcohol — is at least as dangerous and undesirable. I favor a kind of voluntary prohibition on alcohol. It is obvious to me that alcohol is one of the great social evils and when I read the writings of the prohibitionists, while I don’t agree with their legal remedies, their arguments make sense to me. It remains one of the great undervalued social movements. For mostly cultural reasons, it is now a largely forgotten remnant of progressivism and it probably will stay that way, given that “the educated left” mostly joined with America’s shift to being “a wine nation” in the 1970s.

    I don't agree with this—at least not yet—but I admire Tyler's willingness to take his argument where consistency demands he take it. Check it out.


Bookmark and Share