Aug
21
2025

"Discuss."

Smart guy. I've pre-ordered his upcoming book (paid link).

Also of note:

  • Here they come, to save the day! James Freeman notes the Mighty Mice swooping in from above: Rich Liberals to the Rescue! (WSJ gifted link)

    Better late than never, wealthy institutional donors seem poised to take a larger role in funding TV and radio shows they like, rather than letting average taxpayers get stuck with the bill. The taxpayer savings will not be enormous given the gargantuan scale of federal spending. Yet it certainly counts as progress to see the un-American phenomenon of state-backed media give way to a healthier model of voluntary support and independent broadcasting.

    James quotes a WaPo story headlined "Foundations step in to offer $37 million lifeline to public media". (WaPo gifted link).

    Freeman does the math, and so can you. Congress cut CPB two-year funding by $1.1 billion, and $37 million is … a lot less than that. (Although the WaPo reports that the "Public Media Company" organization "aims" to raise $100 million over the next couple years.

    And he notes the donors lined up so far are a "dream team of the tax-exempt."

  • I don't get the joke, but… I will take Veronique de Rugy's characterization to be correct. Tariffs as the New Tax Base: A Laughable Idea.

    After more deadlines and deals, another round of President Donald Trump's tariffs has arrived. With higher prices again needing to be justified — and on the heels of the "Big Beautiful Bill," which didn't exactly balance the budget — protectionists are positioned to once again play the revenue hawk's card. There are multiple problems with this story.

    The idea is that tariffs — which some believe function like the consumption taxes that economists generally view favorably — can raise money more efficiently than income taxes.

    First, how can tariffs both protect American producers and reliably raise tax revenue? Think about it: Any tariff high enough to keep out lots of foreign products will not be levied on very many. Conversely, any tariff low enough to generate steady revenue would need to let trade continue by skimming off just a small portion in duties, offering only token protectionism.

    I'll just offer my self-interested whine about consumption taxes: while I understand the economic argument in favor, it's a real kick in the teeth for retirees living off their investments. I recall the arguments when I set up my IRA long ago: "You'll have to pay income tax on your withdrawals in retirement, but you'll be in a lower tax bracket then!" A consumption tax would "fix" that.

  • But I find this kind of amusing. Andrew C. McCarthy takes a look at The Trump DOJ’s Embarrassing Letter in the Tariff Case.

    I’ve tried to take a break from news coverage over the past few weeks, so I was fortunate to miss (until reading Jason Willick’s always valuable Washington Post column) one of the more embarrassing submissions the Department of Justice has ever made to a federal court. But there it is: an August 11 letter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. That is the tribunal now considering the Trump administration’s appeal of a compelling decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) that invalidated one of the largest ever tax increases on the American people, President Trump’s unilaterally decreed tariffs.

    The letter was signed off on by Trump DOJ Civil Division Chief Brett Shumate, who is handling the case, in conjunction with Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Both are good lawyers, making their letter all the more indecorous. (Sadly, this is not Sauer’s first episode of masquerading Trump political blather as legal argument — see my discussion of his amicus brief in the TikTok case, which the Supreme Court unsurprisingly ignored . . . after which the president ignored the Court’s ruling and the governing statute.)

    I'm out of NR gifted links for this month, sorry. We looked at that ludicrous letter last week.

  • Six days on the road and I'm a-gonna make it home tonight. Jeff Maurer is dismayed: Teamsters Fight Back Against the Horrible Specter of Fewer Traffic Deaths.

    A self-driving car company takes initial steps to introduce its vehicles to a city. Residents — led by the Teamsters Union — push back, arguing that self-driving cars are unsafe. This happens even though the most comprehensive, peer-reviewed study on the impact of that company’s impact found that their cars dramatically reduced all types of crashes, sometimes as much as 96 percent. Despite data suggesting that driverless cars could reduce injuries and fatalities, city council members appear to side with the Teamsters, using the bizarre argument that the safer cars threaten safety.

    Now: What wrinkle could make this already-ridiculous scenario the most absurd, counterfactual bullshit you’ve heard in a good long while? That’s right: This all happened in Boston, a city where the streets are already a Hobbesian hell fight where the maladjusted battle the insane. The statistical and anecdotal evidence suggest that driving in Boston is less safe than slathering yourself with elk’s blood and jumping into the tiger pen at the zoo. Driving in Boston is like Mario Kart, except instead of turtle shells, drivers throw empty Dunkin cups and bespoke Northeastern ethnic slurs. That is the status quo that the Boston City Council seems poised to protect.

    If you're lucky, the Dunkin cups will be empty.

    Headline reference is to a great old song.

Recently on the book blog: