Friday, August 08, 2003
BUSH IN TROUBLE? HA!
My new column at the American Prowler.
. . .
IT’S OKAY TO BE ANTI-AMERICAN AGAIN, PART 1
Well, anti-Americanism is chic again. The main exhibit is a piece in the Des Moines Register (where else?) by attorney Jonathan Wilson. He begins:
Sitting at the poolside bar of a five-star hotel in South Beach in Miami, I overheard a less than in-depth discussion of international affairs and the so-called war on terrorism that concluded with the rhetorical question, "Why can't we all just get along?" It implies we all should be able to get along, and that proposition is no doubt true.
Actually, it’s not true at all. Throughout human history we have clearly not gotten along. It’s a pipedream to think that somehow we can all just smoke a little weed, hold hands, hug some trees we’ve named “Luna,” and sing Kumbaya. It’s a fact, albeit a very sad one. But it’s a fact that you have to acknowledge to deal with the world we live in.
There have to be reasons, and if there's to be any hope of getting along, the question requires a serious answer.
And I’m sure Mr. Wilson has some.
There's a qualitative difference between homicidal and suicidal motivations.
What the hell does that mean?! Both someone who commits homicide and someone who commits suicide have no respect for life. Why should we be surprised that some nuts combine them?
If we can't figure out why someone will commit suicide to hurt us, we don't stand a chance of ending the practice. If we can't figure out why someone will commit suicide to hurt us, we don't stand a chance of ending the practice. If we don't discern why people want to get our attention enough to kill themselves without caring to see whether they succeed, we stay oblivious to root causes as to make the case for their effort. If we can't identify what motivates our detractors, our responses will be superficial at best, misguided at worst and ineffective for sure.
Well, we could pound such people until they get the message that the pounding won’t stop until they quit with the terrorism thing. As I recall from my history, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill didn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out what motivated the Nazis to invade France and Poland, or the Japs to bomb Pearl Harbor. Rather, they took the fight to the Nazis and Japs and kept taking it to them until they had won it. As I also recall from my history, that worked out pretty well.
If we don't get a handle on what our "leaders" do in our name and demand changes, we'll get more of the same, and violence will continue unabated.
Yep, the Nazis committed violence against us, we committed violence against them, they committed it back to us, and on and on and on, and it just keeps continuing to this day, proving Mr. Wilson’s theory. Oh wait, I forgot my history. World War II ended in 1945. Darn education system.
Sept. 11 proved we're not safe at home. The list of countries where it's not safe for Americans grows. The Bush administration has not offered an attempt at a serious answer.
How did I know he was going to say something bad about Bush? Lucky guess, I suppose.
Claiming that our detractors hate the United States because we subscribe to democratic principles doesn't cut it. Our commitment to democracy is hardly unique, and I can't imagine someone successfully recruiting a suicidal terrorist using that.
No, our commitment is not unique. That’s why others with a commitment to democracy, like Australians, have also been the victims of terrorist bombings. And I can very easily see someone recruiting a suicide bomber using that. You see, there is this little thing called radical Islam that is about the most anti-freedom ideology that currently exists on the planet. This was the ideology practiced by Taliban—remember them?—that resulted in forcing men to wear beards, women to wear burkhas, dissidents to be hung in soccer stadiums, etc. What could be more inimical, more hateful to a fanatic steeped in such an ideology than its polar opposite, a society like ours that has a great deal of liberty? I think Mr. Wilson has a problem with imagination—namely, he doesn’t have enough of it.
Part 2 of the takedown of this schlock on Monday.
. . .
HE’S NOT THAT LIBERAL—HONEST!
The Des Moines Register did its obligatory editorial on Howard Dean the other day. I particularly liked this passage:
The "too liberal" charge stems from Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq, which several of his Democratic rivals supported. But that hardly makes him a radical. A large percentage of Americans opposed the war, and in its aftermath growing numbers question its justification. As time wears on, his position may look less like radicalism and more like common sense.
I read things like that, and I wonder what the Register editorialists sprinkle on their breakfast cereal and where can I get some?
. . .
Thursday, August 07, 2003
NO BLOGGING TODAY
Very busy day yesterday and a busy one today. Check back tomorrow.
Besides, there is plenty of news coming out of California to keep you busy. Me, I'd still vote for Larry Flynt.
. . .
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
BE LIKE MIKE!
Michael Fujioka usually leaves thought-provoking comments at this site. Here are some that I’ve edited a bit:
Real State Product in California increased by an average of about 3.2% from 1989-2001. Thus saying that real spending has increased by 10% or 13.4% or whatever percent is not very meaningful unless you also consider real growth of the economy. The point is that when taken as a percentage of Real Gross Product, real state spending in California has not increased very much, and may have even decreased from 89'-03'…
Mr. Leo has a point when he suggests that state spending should not be tightly tied to revenue in the short run due to short term volatility- it is always easier to increase spending than to cut it, however tax revenues decline and swell despite such inclinations. But it is ridiculous to argue that spending should not increase proportionally in the long run with real economic growth…
Unless you care to argue that real government spending should stay constant, and not rise proportionally with real output growth, than any argument that California's has a problem of "wild reckless spending" is inconsistent with the data.
About California spending, total state spending was $49.9 billion in 1991 and $92 billion in 2001. Using the BLS inflation calculator, that’s real increase of 42%. Gross State Product (henceforth GSP) was $814.7 billion in 1991 and $1359.3 billion in 2001. Using the same calculator, that’s a real increase of 28%. It appears California state-government spending outpaced economic growth. This seems to be confirmed by the total numbers: In 1991 state spending was 6.1% of state GSP; in 2001 it was almost 6.8%.
Also, I’m all too happy to argue that state government spending should not be linked to growth in GSP. It should be limited to increases in population and inflation; beyond that, any spending increase should require the approval of the voters. It seems to me unwise to link state spending to growth in GSP for a couple of reasons.
First, if Michael believes that “state spending should not be tightly tied to revenue in the short run,” wouldn’t tying spending to GSP do just that? In other words, revenue streams are heavily dependent on economic growth. To the extent that GSP reflects economic growth, tying spending to growth in GSP would require a government to absorb as much of the revenue stream as possible. Thus, it would seem that linking government growth to GSP wouldn’t have made the current situation any better.
The other reason not to link government to GSP is that it is economically wise to have government shrink as a percentage of GSP. This leaves more of the GSP in the private sector, which leads to more economic growth. Unless, of course, you want to argue that government allocates resources more efficiently than the private sector. I’d rather not.
Growth in government spending should be linked not to GSP but to some measure of what the government needs to spend. Inflation and population growth are very rough approximations of that. Nevertheless, they are a good starting point and ones which if adhered to would prevent states from spending their way into a future budget crisis.
. . .
WHILE I’M AT IT…
Mr. Fujioka also left this remark at the end of one his comments from a few weeks ago:
And finally, if you don't believe that government spending stimulates the economy, then it’s silly to argue that any sort of tax cuts do. Any argument grounded in simple math must acknowledge this.
On the surface, that seems correct. After all, if government spends one dollar, and someone given a tax cut has an extra one dollar to spend, the amount of economic impact is the same, right?
The problem with that argument is that there is a hidden cost of government spending. In other words, the cost of raising an additional dollar of revenue for the government is greater that $1.
The reason for this is that all taxes impose a “deadweight loss” on the economy, which is “the value that consumers and producers of a good lose from the imposition of the tax.” An excellent paper (and I do mean excellent: even the average layman with a poor understanding of economics will be able to read it) by Jim Saxton of the Joint Economic Committee examines the cause of the deadweight loss. They include:
-Reduction of Overall Economic Activity. For example, if the pre-tax cost of an item is $1, and the tax raises the price to $1.10, the producer loses sales to those folks who were unwilling to pay more than $1.09. The consumers that do buy the item now have less money for other purchases.
-Compliance Costs. Businesses and individuals must bear the cost of complying with taxes. This requires spending money on record keeping, accountants, etc.
-Enforcement Costs. Government has to spend money on attorney, accountants, inspectors, and clerks to ensure that taxes are being paid. As Jim Saxton puts it “The more difficult a tax is to enforce, the more the revenue it generates is eaten up by the expense of paying government officials to extract it.”
No one is certain how much deadweight loss costs our economy, but Saxton refers to a study that suggests that the cost of raising an additional $1 of revenue is close to $1.40. That means that for government spending to be economically beneficial, it has to generate a 41% return.
Now consider a tax cut; specifically, consider a reduction in tax rates, not a rebate check. All the government has to do is change the law. The “beneficiary” of the tax cut no longer has to send the money he saves from the tax cut to Washington (or a state capitol). No compliance costs and no enforcement costs on the money saved from a tax cut. The money goes back into the private sector.
I could also get into the incentives tax cuts—especially income tax cuts—provide for investing, wealth creation, etc. I won’t. Suffice to say that it costs the economy more for the government to spend an additional dollar than it does to simply leave that dollar in the private sector.
. . .
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
THE WRONG AMENDMENT?
Ed Boyd comments on my compromise amendment. He says I have mis-diagnosed the problem.
. . .
BUSH HATERS VS. CLINTON HATERS
Over at CalPundit, Kevin Drum compares Bush-hating Democrats to Clinton-hating Republicans, and concludes that the former aren’t as bad as the latter:
The most tin-foil-hattish conspiracy about Bush that I can come up with is from the folks who say that he's going to cancel the 2004 elections and declare martial law. That's wingnut territory, but it probably seems plausible to little more than 1% of the country.
Jay Caruso suggests that if that’s all Drum can come up with, he hasn’t tried too hard. (The Fat Guy has more.)
But I wonder, does only 1% of the population believe that Bush would cancel the 2004 election? Here’s something from an article about Howard Dean by David Tell in the Weekly Standard back in April:
After Dean, parked between the sink and stove, delivers an abbreviated--and notably "progressive"--version of his standard spiel, he opens it up to questions and comments. Whereupon one respectable-looking, articulate, and deadly earnest lady announces that she's "terrified" over a rumor that "at the next election, George Bush is going to drag out the war and declare a national emergency and suspend the election." Dean makes no effort to reassure her. "I've actually heard that," he says, with a facetious, speculative aside about whether "that's in the Patriot Act or not."
Of course, this was before Dean was the frontrunner. Maybe back then he was only traversing wingnut territory.
. . .
GOOD INTENTIONS GONE AWRY
The Des Moines Register discovers that it doesn’t like the initiative process:
The messy recall campaign against Gov. Gray Davis in California is made possible by "reform" enacted during the Progressive Era. It shows how good intentions go awry.
Now, do you think you’ll ever see a Register editorial about “how good intentions go awry” on welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security? A process that yields tax revolts, government spending limitations, and banning of racial preferences—that’s a process where the results just didn’t live up to the hopes and aspirations.
Also, how about this sentence “The consensus among scholars of government today is that initiative and recall were bad ideas.” A consensus? How do they know that? Did they take a poll of “scholars of government”? In all likelihood, another unsubstantiated claim to back up a lame editorial.
. . .
OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE = RELIGIOUS NUTS?
The Register also had a go at those who oppose gay marriage. The editorial broke marriage into two parts: the secular or government part, and the religious part. It then states:
At the same time, the state can make decisions governing its aspect of marriage - the legal contract - separate and independent from religious aspects. For instance, the state allows marriages to be dissolved, even though the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce.
Vows recited in a church or garden or on a mountaintop are separate from the legalities of marriage. What binds people in the eyes of the government is different from what some believe binds them in the eyes of God.
The president and all other secular officeholders should recognize this divide and focus on the legality of the institution, not on religious doctrine..
This is how I read that passage: Thos who object to gay marriage do so only on religious grounds. And since the Constitution mandates separation of church and state (actually, it doesn’t, but that’s a different blog for a different day), those who oppose gay marriage have no grounds to stand on since all they are trying to do is impose their religious beliefs. What about those who are concerned how gay marriage might weaken heterosexual marriage—an institution already in disrepair? Better just to not even acknowledge them.
Anyone read that passage differently (or the same)? Post a comment.
. . .
MORE ON KRUGMAN
One my readers, Peter Mohan, emailed to point out what may be another deception by Krugman. Here is the passage from the column:
As analysts at the nonpartisan California Budget Project point out, real state spending per capita was only 10 percent higher in 2002-03 than it was in 1989-90 — that is, most of the spending growth was simply a matter of keeping up with the population and inflation.
Peter writes,
You correctly pointed out that the budget grew 13% not 10%. BUT this increase was in constant dollars, so that the 2002-03 had already been adjusted for inflation and the increased spending was a REAL increase. In addition, the figures were all PER CAPITA, so PK's attempt to say the increase barely kept up with population growth is ridiculous. Please tell Paul that PER CAPITA means per person.
So, is Krugman being deceptive, or just vague, in that passage?
. . .
Monday, August 04, 2003
COMPROMISE AMENDMENT?
What if there was a way to appease both sides in the debate over gay marriage? It would give proponents of gay marriage a chance to make their case in state legislatures across the nation. At the same time, it would not impose gay marriage on the country, and conservatives could stay true to the principle of Federalism.
The likely way gay marriage would be imposed on the nations is by one state legalizing it, and, eventually, the Supreme Court would require other states to recognize it via the section 1, article 4 of the Constitution which reads “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.” Thus, why not an amendment that makes an exception to this portion of the Constitution? The amendment might read something like this: “A State shall not be required to give full faith and credit to the recognition in any other State of a marriage not consisting of one man and one woman.”
This permits gays and lesbians to make their case before state legislatures—or, in the case of states with the initiative process, directly to the voters. A few states will likely recognize gay marriage, and gays and lesbians can go to such states to be married if they so wish. At the very least, there wouldn’t be a Federal Marriage Amendment in the Constitution.
For those on the political right, this amendment would prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on the rest of the nation. It would also leave them with ability to fight it out in state legislatures.
Perhaps most importantly it would uphold Federalism. The founders envisioned the states as the laboratories of democracy. With the suggested amendment, some states could experiment with gay marriage. The rest of the country could see what effect gay marriage in a few states has on the institution of marriage in general—if it further weakens it, has no effect, or, perhaps, even strengthens it. In the end, we would have a much better understanding of the effect of gay marriage which would enable us to enact better public policy on the matter.
Anyway, it seems like a good compromise to me. Your thoughts?
. . .
|
. . .
|
