The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I'm running for Idaho state senate I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Under God I've updated this essay to discuss the Treaty of Tripoli with its "not a Christian nation" clause. Polygamy A Constitutonal Right? From the Dallas Voice (which describes itself as a gay and lesbian paper): SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — If Texas cannot criminalize sodomy, Utah should not be able to criminalize polygamy, argued the attorney for three adults who want to live together as husband and wives.The logic is impeccable. So why do so many gay activists insist that this is wrong? Labels: polygamy Friday, August 13, 2004
Will She Ever Overcome The Shame? The actress Anne Hathaway muses on her shocking past: Hathaway, who shot to stardom with the original "Princess Diaries," embraces the girl-power films that made her a star, but as she moves into adulthood she said she's ready to distance herself from the saccharine roles she's known for.It rather reminds of the joke about the little kid who, when the teacher asks the students what their fathers do for a living says, "He plays piano in a whorehouse." The teacher is so shocked that she abruptly sends everyone to recess, and questions the kid in private. "I'm sorry, but I was afraid of what people would think if I told them he was a lawyer." Look, The Princess Diaries wasn't a great film, but it was entertaining. I laughed, I enjoyed Ms. Hathaway's performance in it--she definitely has a nice comic twist for physical humor, and she did the ugly duckling changes into a swan very convincingly. (It helps that she really is a swan in a wholesome, girl next door sort of way.) Is it really necessary for her to look down on a film that everyone can enjoy? Labels: humor McGreevey's Resignation: It's Not About His Orientation, But His Corruption This news story about the McGreevey resignation quotes someone from one of the gay lobbying groups that shows how hard they are trying to spin this crook's problems into "homophobia": Gay rights groups expressed support and compassion for McGreevey, but their reactions were tinged with sorrow because McGreevey announced his resignation just as he became the nation's first openly gay governor.Look, the reason he's leaving office isn't that he's gay, but because: 1. He was being threatened with a sexual harassment suit by a guy who McGreevey appointed to a job for which he was clearly unqualified--and paid him $110,000 a year. When that became an embarrassment, the "boy toy" was hired by a series of firms with financial and political dealings with the state government. If he had appointed a woman with the same lack of qualifications, and were under the same threat--give me millions of dollars or I will file a sexual harassment suit--the results would have been the same. 2. He broke his marriage vows. If he didn't like being straight, he should have told his wife and left her, instead of being unfaithful to her. (Admittedly, if you are a Democrat, this isn't a big deal post-Clinton and Lewinsky.) 3. There are corruption scandals swirling around McGreevey, and one of the boy toy's employers has been recently indicted. There's probably more stuff floating around here than we are being told quite yet. Gay activists are proud to finally have an openly gay state governor: and one that's as crooked as a three dollar bill. Good News On The DC Second Amendment Case Professor Volokh points to this blogger's report about the three appellate court judges having been picked for hearing the Seegars v. Ashcroft suit. (You can read the complaint here.) This is a legal challenge to the District of Columbia's outrageous handgun law. I've long argued that our best shot at destroying the wrongly decided case law on the Second Amendment would be a case like this. Because this is a DC law, there is no need to argue the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike some laws that, at least as written, allow you to obtain a gun, the DC law makes no provision for someone moving into the District to bring a handgun with them. This is such an absurd law that it is impossible to argue that it is simply "reasonable regulation." There is no right being regulated here; the right is simply taken away. The good news: one of the judges picked is believed to be strongly on our side; a second seems to be a doctrinaire leftist. The third judge, however, as this report tells us, seems to recognize the absurdity of extremist gun control logic, and wrote a dissent in U.S. v. Bailey, 36 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 1994) arguing that you can't give an enhanced sentence for using a gun in a crime if you don't even have the gun on you. Don't hold your breath for a victory, because remember, it then has to go to the Supreme Court--and I have no question that this Supreme Court could easily decide that red=green, if it suited their whim. Labels: gun rights Ever Wondered How Progressive Political Platforms Are Developed? Well, this seems like the executive summary of any number of progressive political platforms: She has pledged a campaign that will concentrate on creating world peace, helping the homeless and poor, and taking care of animals.Of course, when you find whose platform this, and how it was developed, you won't be surprised: NEW YORK (AP) - Barbie thinks she knows who can make a difference in this year's presidential race - girls - and she's the one who is going to represent them.Of course, it isn't because they are female that the platform is so brainless--it is because the drafters have a single digit median age. This explains a lot of progressive politics--a desire to be eight again. Thursday, August 12, 2004
Ohio Attorney General Posting Concealed Carry Reciprocity States Right here. This is a sweet moment for me, because I went to Ohio in 1995 to testify as an expert witness in support of a non-discretionary concealed weapon permit law. The list of states who have agreed to honor Ohio permits--and vice versa--now includes Delaware, Florida, Idaho (yeah!), Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Some people are stupid, however. The town of Clyde, Ohio, has apparently decided that it is exempt from state law, and passed an ordinance that conflicted with the new state law. Washington State's reciprocity list is growing, now including the following states that recognize Washington carry permits, and vice versa: Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. World About to Slip On Its Side New Jersey judge overrules prosecutor; orders issuance of concealed weapon permit to civilian: BELVIDERE -- A Warren County ship captain may carry a concealed weapon in New Jersey waters and ports, state Superior Court Judge John Pursel ruled Wednesday.Okay, so the permit is limited to when at dock or operating a vessel, but for New Jersey, that's amazing. You normally have to be an organized crime figure or a retired police officer (and in New Jersey, they are sometimes hard to distinguish) to get a permit there. I Found A Web Page From the 1950s! Which is amazing, because I was quite sure that HTTP isn't that old! Sure enough, I was fact-checking this critical review of Planned Parenthood's website aimed at kids. Some of the concerns that she raised seemed a little overheated--much of this material is carefully non-judgmental, and yet still encourages somewhat responsible behavior--or at least as responsible as you can expect Planned Parenthood to promote. But one of the links makes statements that clearly show it hasn't been updated since Ozzie & Harriet was still on network television: A lot of us also grow up with the idea that pornography, or any directly arousing material, is somehow bad and wrong and that we shouldn’t even want to look at it. The culture that we live in isn’t very positive about sex or sexuality. People are taught to think of sex, and porn, as always being “dirty” and “icky,” or maybe “sinful” or just “ugly.”Is there anyone that thinks that the bold statements above describe America, in any way at all? Or is this just Planned Parenthood's way of making concern about the corrosive effects of pornography seem primitive and irrational? The second page of this badly outdated report includes the claim: A lot of how people define “pornography” has depended, historically, on what sorts of things people felt were especially sexual in nature. Many of the textbooks that are used in public school Sex Education classes in 1999 would’ve been considered “pornographic” or “obscene” twenty or thirty years ago.Nope. To quote from Roth v. U.S. (1957): However, sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, e. g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.Clear enough? Even in 1957, the portrayal of sex in a scientific or educational work would not have qualified as obscene. Of course, what are mere facts when you are busily promoting a social agenda? Oh yes, one of Planned Parenthood's "partners" is this store, Toys in Babeland (definitely not work safe), which sells all sorts of toys that I can see making sense for adults with libido problems, but aimed at teenagers? Why? Bogus Analogies One of the reasons that academics (especially law professors) seem to be so taken with the idea of homosexuality as a victimized group is the analogy to race. But this is a bogus analogy. Oddly enough, even most American blacks don't buy the analogy, probably because they know it falls apart in dozens of ways: 1. No one knows who is a homosexual unless you make a point of announcing it, or behaving in a stereotyped way. Very few blacks are lucky enough to be able to choose whether to be identified as black or not. Racism is not at the level that it was in 1950, or even 1970, and there are times when being black has its advantages (applying for jobs, college, seeking a book publisher), but there are many times that I am glad that I am not black, because of the assumptions that many people (both white and black) make as soon as they see your skin color. To quote Jesse Jackson: There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it's somebody white and feel relieved. How humiliating. [Paul Glastris & Jeannye Thornton, "A New Civil Rights Frontier: After His Own Home and Neighborhood Were Invaded by Street Punks, Jesse Jackson Dedicated Himself to Battling Black-on-Black Crime," U.S. News & World Report, January 17, 1994, quoted in Nelson Lund, "The Conservative Case Against Racial Profiling in the War on Terrorism," Albany Law Review 66:2 [2003] 329-43]. 2. Homosexuals are not impoverished, nor do they have generations of receiving inferior educations because of their sexual orientation. Nor have they grown up in poverty (as many American blacks have) because of who their parents were. 3. At least half of homosexuals who have made a concerted effort to become heterosexual (not just in behavior, but in orientation) have done so. The number of people of African-American ancestry who have the option of passing for white isn't anywhere near that large. 4. Perhaps the most powerful of all: blackness is not condemned by the Bible. Indeed, the Bible is pretty clear that in the eyes of God, color means nothing. This is probably why blacks in America are less likely than the average American to approve of same sex marriage. Well, So Much For The Sanctity of Marriage I guess you don't have to ask which party this guy is a member of: In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.But this news story says that a sexual harrassment suit by one of his aides--apparently hired without the appropriate experience for a security advisor--is about to be filed. That's not what I would consider the definition of an "extramarital affair." UPDATE: This gets better and better. This news story makes me think of "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas": Among those caught up in recent scandals were his first chief of staff and former counsel; a top Democratic fund-raiser and former high school classmate; and real estate developer Charles Kushner, McGreevey's biggest campaign contributor, who was charged with trying to thwart a federal campaign-finance investigation by luring a grand jury witness - his own brother-in-law - into a compromising position with a prostitute and sending video and photos to the man's wife.So, The Sopranos turns out to be a documentary? Here's a news story about that charming character. UPDATE 2: This story just gets more and more bizarre. This MSNBC account reports: WABC-TV of New York reported that McGreevey was expecting a lawsuit by a former aide accusing him of sexual harassment. The station identified the former aide as Golan Cipel, who resigned as McGreevey’s security adviser in 2002 after months of questioning about his credentials and job qualifications.And this story from a couple of years ago describes how Cipel, with no apparent qualifications, was hired at $110,000 a year--and as each position became untenable, he kept getting employed by people that were cozying up to Governor McGreevey: Job One in 2002 was as McGreevey's $110,000 homeland security advisor. But because the 33-year-old Cipel is a citizen of Israel, federal law-enforcement officials would not share information with him.So, is Cipel McGreevey's tax-funded "boy toy"? More On Those Syrian Musicians Annie Jacobsen has another article, in which she interviews other passengers from that flight, and reports that while the federal air marshal service is saying that there was nothing to this, they acknowledge the FBI is investigating it still. Read the whole thing. Something is definitely very wrong. And I'm flying to Philadelphia in a month. What was I thinking? California Supreme Court Tells Mayor Newsom To Obey The Law The decision is here. Professor Volokh describes it as a 5-2 decision, but really, the split is not about whether Mayor Newsom and the City of San Francisco broke the law or not. Justice George wrote the majority opinion, which concludes: As observed at the outset of this opinion, granting every public official the authority to disregard a ministerial statutory duty on the basis of the official’s opinion that the statute is unconstitutional would be fundamentally inconsistent with our political system’s commitment to John Adams’ vision of a government where official action is determined not by the opinion of an individual officeholder — but by the rule of law.I am pleased that many of the same sorts of arguments that I used against this nonsense appear in the majority opinion: For example, we would face the same legal issue if the statute in question were among those that restrict the possession or require the registration of assault weapons, and a local official, charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing those statutes, refused to apply their provisions because of the official’s view that they violate the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution.Justice Werdegar's opinion concurs in part (agreeing that Mayor Newsom and the City of San Francisco had no authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples), and dissents in part (claiming that until the constitutional challenge has been resolved, the Court should not have declared the same-sex marriages null and void). Justice Kennard wrote a separate opinion, but it concurs in part and dissents in part in exactly the same way as Justice Werdegar. Justice Moreno's concurring opinion is only disagreeing with the majority about the mechanism, not the result: that Mayor Newsom may not arbitrarily decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. No justice was prepared to defend Mayor Newsom's decision to break the law. What will the world come to if elected public officials have to actually obey the laws, rather than just arbitrarily decide which ones they want to follow? It's not civil disobedience when you are supposed to be enforcing the law, it's just criminal behavior. How Did I Miss This Bunch? Ambra Nykol, another member of the Conservative Brotherhood, has this to say about the rapper Nelly: Being a black conservative should not be grounds for dismissal from the black community. This however, should. Rapper Nelly seems to have consumated his relationship with the word "pimp". Last year introduced an energy drink called "Pimp Juice", and he recently announced that for the first time ever he will be awarding two "P.I.M.P." scholarships in the amount of $5,000. Oh but it gets better. This time we're dismissing our flippant use of the word by turning it into a hokey acronym, "Positive Intellectual Motivated People". Okay let's stop just for a moment. Was the word "intellectual" just used in an acronym for the word "pimp"?There was a time that you had to read literature from the Klan or neo-Nazis to find such nasty portrayals of black sexuality--now people like Nelly are doing a job that used to be reserved for white supremacists. The Advantages of Hindsight While Michael McBowen's remarks aren't explicit that this is the intent, it is clear from this list of things that we now know that those criticizing Bush's decision to go to war (and those Senators, like John Kerry, who voted for it) are doing so with the enormous advantage of hindsight. There's a lot that we know now that we didn't know two years ago: I now know that Saddam Hussein could be captured alive.And a number of other important points. Hindsight is wonderful, but it's hard to blame Bush for the decision to go to war based on what we knew then. Many things that we know for sure now were at best uncertain two years ago, and as President Bush pointed out, the first proof of Iraqi possession of nuclear weapons might be a detonation. McBowen is part of the Conservative Brotherhood, a group of black conservative bloggers. Election Observers La Shawn Barber (part of the black conservative blogosphere--don't laugh, there are many black conservatives) writes: While I agree in theory that we have nothing to hide and that foreign observers can observe all they want, in reality, it offends me. I’m offended that liberals, such as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, don’t realize that if the U.S. really needed international election monitors, people like themselves would be in danger for bad-mouthing their country the way they do.I actually think having international election monitors would be a good thing. Imagine what it would do for Democratic vote totals if dead people stopped voting in Chicago. I'm Flabbergasted Pro-Bush groups are running ads on black radio stations pointing out that while John Kerry's wife has called herself "African-American," it's a bit misleading--and the Kerry campaign is complaining! Another ad attacks Teresa Heinz Kerry, who, at the Democratic convention last month cited her birth and upbringing in Mozambique and who has described herself as African American. In the radio commercial, the announcer says: "His wife says she's an African American. While technically true, I don't believe a white woman, raised in Africa, surrounded by servants, qualifies."Democrats are complaining about using race as a political weapon? This from the party that had Al Sharpton address their convention this year? What will they complain about next? Republicans using the politics of envy? Defining Enabler If person A provides assistance to person B such that person B doesn't have to confront serious emotional problems, person A is often described as an enabler. This article is a tragic example: STUART, Fla. -- A 480-pound Martin County woman has died after emergency workers tried to remove her from the couch where she had remained for about six years.Mr. Thomas almost certainly believed that he was taking "care of her the best he could." But since she hadn't left the couch in many years, and she didn't starve to death, or die of thirst, someone had to be bringing food and water to her. More PATRIOT Act Errors Professor Orrin Kerr over at Volokh Conspiracy points to another example of how the left's campaign against the PATRIOT Act is factually wrong: In her latest guest column in the New York Times, Dahlia Lithwick has fallen for one of the often-alleged-but-still-false claims about the Patriot Act. She writes:And then Professor Kerr points out that the PATRIOT Act didn't create any such crime. It created a definition of what "domestic terrorism" is, thus providing one consistent meaning across the entire federal code. According to Kerr, there is only one place that he can find this definition used, and that is with respect to identity fraud, in 18 USC 1028. Professor Kerr isn't thrilled with how broad the definition of "domestic terrorism" is--and neither am I--but like most of what the ACLU screeches about with respect to the PATRIOT Act, it does not that the law says what they say it does. Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Another Reason Why I Think Of Homosexuality as a Form of Mental Disturbance Professor Volokh, who supports gay marriage, and all sorts of other components of the gay agenda, had a very thoughtful posting recently about the real possibility that the choice might be gay rights vs. the rights of others to disapprove of homosexuality--and that it practically speaking might be impossible for a society to have both: But it seems to me that we shouldn't deny that antidiscrimination laws do burden liberty. The broad gay rights program isn't just about increasing the freedom of gays; it is also about decreasing the freedom (though its backers of course think that this is a legitimate decrease) of those who don't want to associate with gays in various ways. Thus, "Why do you oppose our proposals? It doesn't affect you if gays are free to have sex the way they please, marry, adopt, etc." is not an adequate argument -- the broad program would affect others, and the first steps (including ones I support despite this danger, such as decriminalizing homosexual conduct or allowing same-sex marriage) do make it politically easier to enact the next steps.And my, the reactions to that! Like this fellow: But if Prof. Volokh is right, and the slippery slope condemns us to one extreme or the other, restrictions on the liberty of racial minorities, or restrictions on the liberties of racial bigots, I can’t imagine a decent human being who would choose the former over the latter. And if it comes down to a choice between restricting the liberty of gays, and restricting the liberty of anti-gay bigots, it’s perfectly to me what the right answer is.I also ran into this charming post by Will Baude over at Crescat Sententia (about whom I had no strong opinion, until I saw this) asking everyone to pick the worst former or guest blogger on the Volokh Conspiracy--and pointing to, as an example, my farewell entry there about why I think homosexual tolerance of child molesters is a bad thing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: whatever the libertarian theory is in favor of treating homosexuals like everyone else, the enormous threat to civil liberties that they insist on imposing on the rest of the society makes them dangerous. They are like slaveowners in antebellum America: few in number, but rich, arrogant, and powerful, because of their internal political cohesion. Their sexual behavior (at least if they can stay away from children) isn't the biggest hazard; it is the corruption of the political process that they cause in their effort to suppress dissenting opinions, through anti-discrimination laws, through their attempts at shutting people up. Amusing Excuse for Playing Video Games I don't dare tell my son. This is from a soldier's blog in Iraq, describing his part in searching a very, very large somewhat underground research facility suspected of being a chemical weapons plant: The main entrance into the office complex, deep within the heart of the bunker, an architectural security feature probably borrowed from the Egyptian pyramids, is where the massive metal doors were, with an intermediate vestibule area with a small round portal one could look into or fire into should the person entering be deemed enemy, an idea borrowed from Medieval castle architecture. This structure was the kind of thing that David Macaulay would do a book on. Or better yet, something designed by John Romero. I felt like I was playing Doom. I am not joking when I say that all the hours I spent pissing my life away playing Quake were actually not wasted at all. The techniques used to safely and systematically go from room to room in any first-person shooter translate over to real life in situations like this. The next time your mom lectures you about the time you waste playing Half-Life and that there is no benefit whatsoever in it, tell her that if things keep going the way they have been, you'll most likely serve time in the Army sooner or later and being familiar with basic room-clearing concepts could save your life. But then she could just as easily explain how algebra skills are necessary to accurately call in indirect fire missions and that you should finish your homework.Lots of pictures! Bizarre Lottery Winner My first reaction to this story was, "There is no justice": LONDON (Reuters) - A convicted rapist serving a lengthy jail sentence has won $13 million on Britain's national lottery, a newspaper reported Wednesday.Not only is this guy about to be released from a "life sentence," but he will be rich as well. Then it occurred to me: can his victims sue him for damages, or has the statute of limitations on civil suits been exceeded? Headed to Philly I will be arriving on the evening of September 14, and leaving the afternoon of September 19. While I expect to be pretty busy during the days (and some evenings) doing research, I hope to meet some of my readers while I am there. What John Kerry Really Believes About Gay Marriage Here's a column he wrote in 1996 for The Advocate about the subject. It doesn't match what he is saying now at all. More On Embryonic Stem Cell Research Instapundit only partially retracted his enthusiasm for John Kerry's dishonesty about embryonic stem cell research: I also realize that stem cell research won't cure Alzheimer's tomorrow, or whatever, and is oversold by the likes of Ron Reagan, Jr. But it looks pretty promising, and I don't think we should drag our feet.This article by William Saletan over at Slate points out that the embryonic stem cell research crowd is more like a religion than science--in spite of their snide attacks on the concerns of opponents of killing embryos in the hopes of coming up with cures: The trouble is, the Alzheimer's hype isn't true. On June 10, the Post's Rick Weiss reported that "given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm [for stem cell research] stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions. It is a distortion that some admit is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why don't scientists dispel the myth? "People need a fairy tale," NIH researcher Ronald McKay told Weiss. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."Yes, there's a religious fervor involved in this stem cell research question, and it looks to be more on the side of John Kerry. What is driving this? It's not the science. I think it is the need to find some way to justify the abortion industry, and to express disapproval of Christian concerns about the widespread use of abortion. When I say "abortion industry," I don't mean the woman who finds out that her unborn child is going to be born acephalic (no brain), and die almost immediately after birth. I don't mean the woman who finds out that her child is going to be born with Tay-Sachs disease, and die after several months of great pain. I don't mean the woman (or often as not, the girl) who was raped. These are tragedies, but they aren't the cause of hundreds of thousands of abortions a year in the U.S. By "abortion industry," I mean those abortions that are purely a convenience for women who weren't prepared to use reliable means of birth control, and men who are too selfish to use a condom. And yes, I am thinking of that article in the New York Times that I discussed a few weeks back. Labels: abortion The Importance of Context From a BBC news report: "The great British faggot is full of flavour and a great belly warmer at this time of year."Adding the paragraph before makes it sound like cannibalism: Her husband Fred added: "It's unfair because faggots were a British delicacy long before any of the others.Of course, "faggot" is the name of a type of West Midlands dish as well as, you know, that other meaning. Thanks to Professor Volokh for the pointer. Bright Meteor Last night about 10:45 PM--brighter than Venus, traversing perhaps 40 degrees of the sky. Wow! Alternatives to the Income Tax A few days back, Hastert apparently floated a trial balloon about replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Bush has now called this "interesting." Some conservatives are fearful of a national sales tax because they believe that it would not be revenue-neutral, but would actually make it easier for the government to increase spending. Some people are concerned that a national sales tax might actually become a national Value Added Tax, like many European countries use. The real merit of a national sales tax is simplicity. When I ran a small business in California, all the work required to compute and pay sales tax on the goods that I sold came to about ten minutes, even with the unnecessary complexity of the form that the State Board of Equalization had created. Instead of 70 million taxpayers spending ten to forty hours each on federal income tax returns, there would be about ten million businesses (at most) spending about fifteen minutes filling out a sales tax return--and the vast majority of those businesses already gather and compute most of that information right now, for state sales tax returns. Another part of the upside of a national sales tax is the fairly bizarre things that the income tax code encourages. I've mentioned the way in which SUVs over 6000 pounds get treated differently from passenger cars. Without a federal income tax, there would be no reason for this. There are a lot of economically questionable purchases that individuals and businesses make today just because it is a way to reduce taxable income. There are some potential downsides to replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Without question, a big chunk of our economy has been structured around this tax code. The Schedule A deductions for house mortgage interest and property taxes strongly encourage middle income and above taxpayers buying houses. Eliminate the federal income tax, and the equivalent deductions on state income taxes simply wouldn't be strong enough to drive the current housing market. All other things being equal (and I emphasize that because nothing else would be the same, to be discussed below), this would probably dramatically reduce the housing market. Charitable contributions? I am sure that a lot of people would still be making them, but right now, for every $1 I contribute to charitable causes, I get about a $0.35 reduction in my income taxes, and this does influence my level of giving, as I am sure it does for most Americans. Without an income tax, and this deduction, I would expect perhaps a 25% reduction in charitable giving, which is why many charitable organizations have historical opposed abolishing the income tax. Medical deductions. Right now, most Americans don't get to use the Schedule A medical deductions, because you have to spend enough to get above 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income. Those who are getting above this level are: 1. People who paying for their own medical insurance. 2. People who have no medical insurance at all. 3. People whose insurance doesn't fully cover the extraordinary expenses of some horrible health problem. These aren't common situations, but wiping out the federal income tax would have the effect of discouraging people in category #1 from buying medical insurance, and sticking people in categories #2 and #3 with the entire costs. Right now, the medical deduction means that a family who has spent $100,000 caring for a sick child may get a reduction in their income tax of tens of thousands of dollars. They are still destroying themselves financially caring for this child, but it isn't quite as painful. Without the federal income tax, and the medical deduction, they will get stuck with the entire bill. For many families in this situation, this will be a disaster. The big objection that liberals usually make to replacing a federal income tax with a national sales tax is that it would drop the burden unfairly on the poor. There's an element of truth to this, but there is also an implication that the current system burdens the rich. If you are poor (and by that, I mean the family of four trying to live on $20,000 a year or less), what do you buy that would be subject to sales tax? Groceries, cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, clothes, toys. Exempting groceries from the national sales tax wouldn't be difficult, since many states already do that. Taxing cigarettes and alcohol might well injure poor people (who seem to smoke and drink a lot), but my sympathy for the poor has its limits, and that is one of them. Of course, doing this would complicate the tax computation, taking away the great advantage of simplicity. In states where groceries are taxed, you would have to calculate state and federal sales tax differently. In some states, labor on a car repair is taxed; in others it is not. The other point is that the progressive income tax system is quite a bit less progressive than a look at the tax tables might suggest. People with significant net assets (say, above five million dollars) don't pay much in the way of income tax now unless they really want to; they just buy municipal bonds, whose interest is exempt from federal income tax and the tax of the issuing state. I do think it is very likely that a national sales tax might well be pretty darn effective at getting money out of the superrich. Buy a Cadillac for your mistress? You'll pay sales tax on it. Meals out at Spago? Sales tax. Buy another jet? Sales tax. While houses are not usually subject to sales tax, this might be a way to get the rich to pay their fair share. To the extent that the superrich invest or put their money into savings, which is a good thing for the economy, they would be able to avoid paying taxes--but what's the point of having a million dollars a year in income if you can't spend it on toys? As should be obvious, all of these would constitute major changes to the economy, and I doubt that anyone really knows what the net effect would be. I'm not sure that a national sales tax replacing a federal income tax is really a good idea, or a bad idea. It would, however, be a major change, and I doubt that anyone really knows the net effect. Tuesday, August 10, 2004
What Is The Iowa Tobacco Settlement Authority? And why do they issue bonds? I was out hunting for bonds with good returns today, I found something called the Iowa Tobacco Settlement Authority, bonds due 6/1/2013 (about nine years out), with an annualized yield to maturity of 5.8%--pretty good for a municipal bond, which is exempt from both federal income tax and Iowa state income tax. Iowa received a pile of cash out of the tobacco settlement several years back--but try as hard as I can to figure out from this Iowa government report why they would be issuing bonds, when they received cash, I am lost. Will someone who understands these machinations tell me what this means? The General Assembly passed HF 2579 (Tobacco Settlement Authority Act) during the 2000 Legislative Session, creating the Tobacco Settlement Authority with the governing board comprised of the Treasurer of State, the State Auditor, and the Director of the Department of Management. The Act began the process necessary for the State to sell its future tobacco settlement payments due from the Master Settlement Agreement.Okay, I understand that they were selling the rights to future tobacco payments to the state in exchange for a big lump of money right now--effectively, selling an annuity. So why are they issuing bonds? Clearly, Racial Profiling At Work! Or so the ACLU will probably claim. The affadavit about this Pakistani, illegally in the United States, who was videotaping banks, dams, and a building with the FBI offices in it, giving false and conflicting stories about why he was doing so, and what is status is here, is pretty damning. Abortion Rates & Birth Rates Michael Williams has a photo-montage illustrating what the high abortion rates have meant in terms of who isn't here today--the medical school graduating class picture is quite powerful, except that all those slots would have certainly been filled, and probably with people just about as qualified to be doctors. The big problem with this photo-montage, however, is that while the number of abortions has been quite large, it hasn't really lowered birth rates by 1/3--and for a reason that is pretty darn repulsive. Donohue and Levitt's paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" mentions that legalized abortion seems to have only reduced birth rates about 5%. Why? Weren't there tens of millions of abortions since Roe v. Wade (1973)? On the footnote to pages 8-9, they explain: Note, however, that the decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially – an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increasesAnd Donohue and Levitt are pro-choice! A lot of people who are pro-choice say that they want abortion to be legal but rare. (Bill Clinton and John Kerry have both made this statement.) Very, very few pro-choice advocates will admit that a lot of abortion is really retroactive birth control, instead focusing on the rape victim, the incest victim, the 13 year old that didn't know what she was doing, the severe birth defect case. If these cases were really an explanation for the large number of abortions, then someone needs to explain why these became a huge problem in 1973, when they weren't before--or quit pretending that most abortions are these troubling cases. Labels: abortion How Do Young People Feel About the Democrats? This Newsweek/MSNBC poll shows that while they still narrowly prefer Kerry over Bush: Asked about their views on the Democratic Party, nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of voters under 30 say they feel it “cares about issues facing people my age.” Nonetheless, more than half agree that the Democratic Party is too much under the control of special interests (58 percent) and is too liberal (53 percent).This matches my impression that much of the under 30 generation is, while not necessarily conservative, definitely well to the right of the "War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" generation that today typifies the Democratic Party. Republicans need to focus on Kerry's liberalism, and especially on the Michael Moore. It is guilt by association--but let's face it, Kerry and his crowd aren't running for the exits when Michael Moore enters the room, and not just because Moore's gravitational field counterbalances their leg muscles. I Sure Wish These Guys Were Advertising On My Blog 
Click here to go buy one. If you can't read the fine print at the bottom, it basically tells all the leftist fools to shut up and stay out of the way while important work is under way. This should make you very popular with many of your professors! For All You Anti-War Sorts You really have no choice but to vote for Ralph Nader: GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.If you still vote for John Kerry in November, it isn't because you are anti-war, but anti-Bush. Strange Discussion of the War on Terrorism at the Belmont Club I am always very impressed with what The Belmont Club writes about geopolitical struggles. That's why I am somewhat surprised by this posting. After a useful discussion of how recent arrests seem to be rolling up big chunks of al-Qaeda--showing that it has become a far less powerful organization than previously--it launches into a long, not terribly thoughtful discussion of the ideas of British historian Karen Armstrong and a writer named Sam Harris: Harris claims that if we seriously subscribe to God in any form we will eventually wind up settling accounts with WMDs; hence we must abolish God. Armstrong asserts that unless we accept all gods, any religion left out will eventually resort to weapons of mass destruction. "Now more and more small groups will have the capability of destruction that were formerly the prerogative of the nation-state ... The way we're going -- and Britain is just as culpable as the United States -- we're alienating Muslims who were initially horrified by Sept. 11 and we're strengthening al-Qaeda, which has definitely been strengthened by the Iraq war and its awful aftermath." She argues that we should simply recognize that many people "just want to be more religious in some way or another."Some of the comments on this posting are considerably more intelligent: The stuff on God is fairly weak, facile nonsense, real greasy kid stuff of moral and philosophical reasoning.And this comment: The War on Terror is partly a war to free Islam from the Islamists. It's no wonder that the United States is by far the most religious country in the west. The First Amendment practically ensures that. And while the idiots at the ACLU might worry about miniscule crosses on a county seal, most of America is busy building the most tolerant, prosperous, and successful culture in the history of the world. In God We Trust, but we won't shove it down your throat at the point of a gun. Allah, Yahweh, all our welcome here, just don't fly planes into our buildings. "The Slaveholder's Position" Alan Keyes certainly knows how to get press coverage: make a statement guaranteed to be controversial on several different levels: Republican Alan Keyes ripped into Democratic rival Barack Obama's views on abortion Monday, calling them "the slaveholder's position," as the U.S. Senate race roared back to life in Illinois.Perhaps Keyes has been misquoted here. There is certainly an argument that you can advance to support the point of view that Obama's position is "the slaveholder's position." I say that because in most states, causing the death of an unborn child is murder--unless you are a licensed doctor, performing an abortion at the request of the mother. For an example of such a statute, see Cal. Penal Code sec. 187(b)(3). What turns the mother's request from murder to a non-crime? That the unborn child is the property of the mother, to be destroyed as she wishes. Of course, this isn't quite the situation of slavery. At least in theory, a master was not free to arbitrarily kill a slave. It was theoretically illegal, and there is at least one case in 1791 Fairfax County, Virginia where a slave successfully argued justifiable homicide because his master was threatening to castrate him. [Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 117-118.] Apologists for slavery at least did not have the nerve to deny that slaves were still people. In practice, slaveholders were very seldom convicted of murder of a slave. Labels: abortion More On Keyes' Run For U.S. Senate Rant + Rave points out that since Keyes has almost no chance of winning the election, he should use the opportunity to emphasize how the Democratic Party has taken advantage of blacks, and (at least in the last 40 years) unintentionally caused them great injury: But Keyes is going to lose unless Obama dies, or is caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. He can at least make a splash, and remind people where the parties really stand on race issues. Monday, August 09, 2004
Going To Los Angeles? Concealed Handgun Permit, Please Thanks to Calblog for pointing me to this amazing Los Angeles Times article that points that Modoc County has about as many concealed handgun permits issued as Los Angeles County--in spite of Los Angeles County having fifty times more people. But how do you get a permit in Modoc County? Mix said he believes everybody who lives in his county has a constitutional right to self-protection. But bearing arms here appears to have little to do with fear of crime or violent confrontations with humans.To the credit of the reporters, they point out that even though one out of 29 residents of Modoc County has a permit to carry a handgun, Records kept by the state attorney general's office indicate that violent crimes occur here at less than one-third the rate in Los Angeles County. According to FBI statistics, there was only one homicide in Modoc County from 1993 through 2002. Sheriff Mix says the county averages about one "questionable death a year, including suicide." Maybe Planned Parenthood Thought This Would Be Funny But I can't imagine why they are marketing rulers to teenagers with the slogan, "Does Size Matter?" How John Kerry Sank The Democrats In 2004 Mark Steyn's column points out something that should have been obvious to the Democrats. It wasn't obvious to me, so I guess they can be forgiven for their error in judgment: But hang on, most of these fellows in the anti-Kerry ad — the ones talking about how he can't be trusted, etc — are also Swift boat commanders? If being a Swiftee is the most important thing in American life, why are all these "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" less entitled to be heard than John Kerry?Bush could still lose this election, but watching the way the mainstream media are beginning to cover the controversy leads me to think that something terribly, terribly bad (and for which Bush can be plausibly blamed) is going to have to happen between now and the election for Kerry to get elected. This Is Not A Good Sign For the Illinois Republican Party I happen to think pretty well of Alan Keyes, who is going to be the Republican Party's nominee for the U.S. Senate that Professor Obama is almost certainly going to win. But I do agree with Sen. Durbin on one point: Critics in the state Democratic Party dismiss Keyes as an opportunist, and described the GOP selection as "sad."You see, Keyes doesn't live in Illinois. I understand that because Obama is a black person, the Republicans aren't allowed to run a white person against him. (At least, it would be called "racist" by liberals, and there would be some real danger that many of the votes for the Republican would come from people who would vote strictly on racial lines--unlike the votes for Obama, which will, of course, be cast entirely race-blind.) But the Illinois Republican Party can't find a single qualified black person who actually lives in Illinois to run against Obama? I understand that as late as the 1940s, Texas Republicans often were unable to find candidates to run for some legislative seats because the Texas Republican Party was still overwhelmingly black, and running a black candidate for public office was tantamount to insulting the voters--rather like running a white candidate against Obama would be considered today. This is very sad indeed--and not just for the Illinois Republican Party. When's A Good Month To Visit Philadelphia? I mean weather-wise. I need to make a research trip in the next month or so. When does Philadelphia weather become tolerably cool? (Yes, I know about Philadelphia's reputation, but I have permits valid there, and cold weather means that I can wear a bulky coat.) Kerry Gets It Right? Instapundit thinks that John Kerry "got it right" about stem cell research. There was an interesting discussion of this on Fox News this morning, with Charles Krauthammer--who is what liberalism used to be, before the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party appropriated that label--pointed out that Kerry is engaged in demagoguery on this issue because: 1. The only "ban" on embryonic stem cell research is federal funding of it--and then, only if involves embryonic stem cell lines after a certain date. There is research going on involving adult stem cells that shows great promise, including those from liposuction (and believe me, fat is not in short supply in America), as do stem cells from baby teeth, but because the primary goal of the Democrats in pursuing this is to justify abortion, you aren't hearing about it. 2. The promises being made for progress from stem cell research are greatly overblown. Yes, there might be something there, but Kerry is making it sound like cures for all sorts of diseases are right around the corner. Krauthammer supports stem cell research, and made a point of saying that he would not have taken Bush's position on banning federal funding of such research--but he is tired of this sort of manipulation by Kerry and the Democrats. Now, Instapundit really doesn't have a problem with stem cell research. A lot of people do, because embryonic stem cells involve destroying an embryo (perhaps one already destined for destruction). Sure, if the embryo is already going to be aborted, it doesn't matter if it goes to the hospital incinerator or to a lab--but the problem is that once you make the argument that there is a positive good that comes out of abortion, it makes abortion a more attractive alternative. The last century had too many examples of human lives (excuse me, "subhuman lives") be sacrificed in the name of science. Most of what the Nazis did in |
