Category: Government

Protectionism or Principle?

Sen. Harry Reid has an interesting stance on the recently passed anti-gambling bill, as the gambling lobby prepares to reverse its fortunes with one of Nevada’s senators as Senate Majority Leader:

“I have said on many occasions that I don’t believe in Internet gambling,” Reid said in a meeting with reporters, adding he’d be open to looking at the results of a study on it.

“I know that people say it can be controlled, I just have extreme doubts that it can be. But I’ll be happy to look at the study. I’m not going to turn my head and say never, never.”

We could get to the underlying principle of liberty, in which consenting adults spend their money as they see fit, in a way that harms only themselves, if even that. Since Senator Reid doesn’t believe in Internet gambling, the unprincipled moral position is correct. Wonderful, but rather than asking for studies that suggest Internet gambling isn’t bad, Senator Reid should produce the studies that convinced him that it is bad. Perhaps something a little more compelling than extreme doubts.

I don’t expect a fruitful two years ahead for liberty.

This has to be satirical.

I didn’t get to blog this yesterday, but it’s still worth a mention. It’s always wise to check your assumptions when promoting an idea, especially when that idea is that deficits are wonderful:

A reporter once asked President Reagan if he had anything to say in defense of his deficits. “No” answered Reagan, “they’re big enough to defend themselves.” Liberals howled, and conservatives chuckled, but no one questioned the premise of the question: that deficits are inherently a bad thing. The argument has always about whether the bad thing called deficits are too large and whether they will ever be paid off, not whether they can actually be good for our country. For the record the answers are: no, they’re not too big (see attached chart); no, they will never be paid off, and yes, they can be a good thing.

I actually like the premise of the question, because deficits involve politicians playing with other people’s money. Considering some of those other people haven’t been born yet, caution and responsibility seem to be key. But that’s not the flawed assumption I’m concerned with in this essay.

When strong nations go to war, they borrow money. Weak nations, not so much. That’s because strong nations usually win, and winning nations usually repay their creditors. Rich and successful people don’t have any problem getting someone to loan them money. The same holds for wealthy and successful nations. That’s why, historically, the interest rate of a nation’s bonds is a pretty good inverse indicator of investor confidence in the war effort. The more trouble investors see on the horizon, the more compensation they demand for the added risk.
…

This is the way the world works, some might say, but is it right? What about the children? Is it really fair for them to shoulder the burden of our wars? Heck yeah, it’s fair. Number one, they won’t be children when they start to share the burden of the national debt. Number two, they benefit.

Here’s the flawed assumption. The author expresses a selfish belief that we can have anything we want, and as long as the country survives, the children should just shut up. We’re wise, or at least rich. That’s enough, right?

The author concludes:

Defense is a sort of infrastructure, too. It provides benefits for future generations, just like roads and bridges do. Is it some kind of rip-off that my kid’s future tax bills will include interest payments from the war against Jihadists? Not if we win.

Good grief. Of course defense is vital, and the benefits of maintaining a strong nation carry over beyond just the immediate expenditure. (An assumption with some danger, but I can accept it.) No sane person believes that government shouldn’t protect its people. Defense is a legitimate expense for any government and should be made to the point that the nation remains safe. But that does not give a free pass for rampant spending elsewhere at the expense of future generations.

Look at the federal budget. The bulk of expenditures are in entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), not defense. To ignore these and believe that the war on Jihadists somehow excuses annual deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars is absurd. Eventually, the interest will absorb the entire budget, so the government will need further resources. At what point does this stop? (Hint: It begins with bank and ends with ruptcy.)

If the author wanted to make a case that the national debt is good, and shouldn’t be paid off, we can talk. He’d still be wrong, I believe, but there might be a case. But the deficit? Ridiculous. There is more than just interest rate signaling involved. Namely, interest payments.

If we want to do something for the children, we need to teach them economics. And the author of this essay should be last in line for the job.

Something Not About The Election

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps believes we’re not doing enough to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband access to The Internets. Consider:

America’s record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country. Too few of us have broadband connections, and those who do pay too much for service that is too slow. It’s hurting our economy, and things are only going to get worse if we don’t do something about it.

I’m fired up to Do Something&#153. So what’s Commissioner Copps’ solution? Take a guess:

The FCC needs to start working to lower prices and introduce competition. We must start meeting our legislative mandate to get advanced telecommunications out to all Americans at reasonable prices; make new licensed and unlicensed spectrum available; authorize “smart radios” that use spectrum more efficiently; and do a better job of encouraging “third pipe” technologies such as wireless and broadband over power lines. And we should recommend steps to Congress to ensure the FCC’s ability to implement long-term solutions.

We need a broadband strategy for America. Other industrialized countries have developed national broadband strategies. In the United States we have a campaign promise of universal broadband access by 2007, but no strategy for getting there. With less than two months to go, we aren’t even within shouting distance.

Government is the answer, apparently. To be fair, Commissioner Copps later suggests that universal broadband access will require a public-private partnership. Perhaps, but he offers no clear situation in which private comes into play, other than taking dictation from the FCC. We already have that, and we’re going to miss our goal. What am I missing?

Maybe the government just needs to get out of the way and let the market develop itself. If Americans don’t have access to broadband, it’s certainly possible that they don’t care to have access. Considering they can get satellite DSL anywhere, I’m hard-pressed to find a lack of access warranting massive intervention.

An argument against satellite is that it’s too expensive. But who decides what price is the reasonable limit that government should push? Because we want that price does not mean that we can sweep aside the cost of infrastructure to build that access. Price is a function of that cost. If customers want the service at the price necessary to make universal access possible, they’ll pay it. If not, they won’t pay it. Why should everyone else be forced to subsidize another’s decision to live in a sparsely-populated location where universal access isn’t economically feasible?

There are costs associated with the rush to get universal access. If it costs us $600 billion to achieve the $500 billion economic boost Commissioner Copps mentions elsewhere in his editorial, we will have fallen behind to avoid falling behind. With deference to Commissioner Copps, we already have a broadband strategy for America. It’s called Capitalism. It works. Maybe a little slower than the snap-of-a-finger speed desired, but better slow-and-correct than fast-and-wrong.

Limited Government, Not Rights

Before I get into this entry, I admit to being guilty of What’s the Matter With… in this entry. Do I get a free pass because I’m complaining about citizens voting away the rights of other citizens, rather than people aren’t behaving the way I want? Yes or no, so be it. Moving on.

I didn’t expect to be as angry as I was when the anti-marriage amendment passed yesterday in Virginia. As I mentioned this morning, I knew it would pass and I still wanted to rant and swear and threaten to leave Virginia. But I’m beyond that, for several reasons. Primarily, I own a home here, so it’s not as easy as just letting my lease run out and then moving away. But that’s only the structural roadblock. There is something more fundamental.

I grew up in Virginia. I went to college in Virginia. This is my home. And I’m not abandoning it to the bigots. Virginia’s role in the founding of America and the enshrinement of our principles in the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States is too proud and too strong to let it slip away just because a majority of adults motivated enough to vote fear gay Virginians. Those of us who know better must stay and fix this mess. As such, I’m not going anywhere. This victory will be Pyrrhic.

With that in mind, I want to bring attention to a few quotes on the anti-marriage amendment. After that, I’ll be done for awhile. Probably.

First:

Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, “Today Virginia said yes to traditional marriage. This amendment to add constitutional protection to traditional marriage gave Virginians the opportunity to directly affirm their longstanding belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This is a victory for Virginia families, and the democratic process. Virginia is stronger because of the passage of this amendment.”

Let’s see, this amendment attacks a portion of my family, but it’s a victory for them. It also proves that the democratic process includes the ability to vote away the rights of a group of citizens. How exactly does this make Virginia stronger?

Next:

“I’m not an ultraconservative when it comes to homosexuals. I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Ann Potocnak, 37, of Prince William County.

Forty-five years ago, that would’ve said I’m have some wonderful friends who are black, but…, followed by a self-satisfied cleansing of any possibility she might be wrong. I’m sure her gay friends are content to know what she thinks of them, though. I hope my wonderful friends will stab me in the back when given the chance.

“I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman,” said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” he said.

Of course, a logical person might say “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” to Mr. Murray’s unproven fear that a Virginia judge will rule that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. Apparently you can vote maybe or kind of, if the desired outcome fits your personal whim. Collateral damage be damned.

I’m going to end with a nod to someone who gets the obvious:

“It’s already there. Why go on and drag this out, just because some religious groups want to exclude certain things from certain people that have different lifestyles?” asked Frans Hagen, 72, a retired restaurant executive from Annandale who runs an education foundation.

Anti-marriage amendments are just a speed bump in the path of liberty. An ugly, shameful speed bump, but Frans Hagen is correct. History will not be kind to the defenders of these amendments.

Asleep at the wheel

Is this a sign of an exit strategy or a desire to continue avoiding accountability?

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

I don’t have the answer, although this administration and Congress have convinced me that cynicism is probably the best first response. So, if I had to guess between the two, I’d say it’s the latter, inexcusable explanation.

That’s not what got me fired up, though. The timing of this is a coincidental indication for why we need change. Lawmakers presumably voted for the bill but had no idea that a “yea” vote meant ending this oversight of reconstruction in Iraq. I’m offended by much of what this Congress has passed knowingly, but what has it passed without knowing it? I’m not foolish enough to think we can enforce a requirement that lawmakers read every piece of legislation before voting on it. (Congressional book reports?) But we must hold them accountable when they don’t.

Our strategy Tuesday should not be to vote out the Republicans. We should vote them all out, Republicans and Democrats alike. There are a few exceptions, perhaps, but the damage of throwing out a few good ones seems minimal given the damage caused by the rest.

Why not give them the company?

More signs of dinosaurs protecting their territory using the power of government.

A music industry group is asking XM Satellite Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. to pay at least 10 percent of their revenues for the right to play songs over their networks.

Unlike land-based radio stations, which pay royalties only to songwriters and music publishers, federal law requires satellite radio, digital cable and Internet companies that broadcast music to pay the artists and record companies.

The two subscription satellite radio companies have been paying about 6.5 to 7 percent, analysts estimate, although the figures are not publicly disclosed. That agreement expires at the end of this year, and the Copyright Royalty Board, an arm of the Library of Congress, will determine the rates the companies pay for the next six years.

Why is there a federal law for satellite radio, digital cable, and Internet companies? Maybe there’s a valid reason for such a difference, but I can’t think of one that appeals to common sense. And why are rates decided by the government, rather than negotiated in the marketplace? It would make more sense to find the true market value of those rights than to have the government decide what they should be. Letting the market decide would allow companies to create new distribution and pricing models that might prove more beneficial to the music industry.

Besides could the market work faster than this?

The Copyright Royalty Board will hold hearings before it decides on new rates, a process that many say could take 18 months. Until then, XM and Sirius will continue to pay the current rates. If an increase is approved, they will be required to pay the difference retroactively.

Without regulation forcing capitalism out of the equation, no such structure would survive the pressures of competition.

Bigot-Bigot Bigot Amendment

Delegate Robert Marshall co-sponsored the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that voters will likely pass next Tuesday. In his determination to show that he really isn’t a bigot, he included a nice bit in his latest newsletter. I’ve scanned the original for proof, but a few thoughts are warranted, so I’ve transcribed the text.

Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment

This November citizens will be able to vote for Del. Marshall’s proposed Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman. In four states (MD, MA, VT, and HI) courts have, on their own and without legislative input or sanction, granted same sex couples the legal authority to “marry” or enter into “Marriage lite,” i.e., a civil union.

One-man and One-woman. [sic] and [sic]. Del. Marshall can’t grasp the English language, yet he’s qualified to propose a wordy amendment that goes beyond his stated goal of banning what’s already been banned twice by Virginia. This will go well. Of course, I’m sure he wishes he could have this newsletter back to amend New Jersey into his parenthetical proof that Virginia’s courts will catch The Gay. Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s spreading south, can’t we see?

But the ability to register to vote, enter a contract, have a joint bank account, write a will, buy a house with a friend, start a business, receive job benefits from an employer, designate a friend to carry out advance medical directives, or the right to be free from assault belong to any competent adult. These rights do not derive from marriage or a legal relationship approximating marriage, and are not altered by the Marriage Amendment.

So, if these rights – excuse me, “abilities” – are still in effect, in spite of the wording of the proposed amendment, why do we need this amendment? Again, two laws against same-sex marriage already exist in Virginia, as well as the indefensible-yet-still-accepted federal DOMA. Same-sex marriage isn’t coming to Virginia any time soon, amendment or not. That leaves one explanation, which is quite unbecoming of an elected official. But maybe Del. Marshall can save himself with an example.

When Massachusetts parents objected to a public school requiring their second graders to read a story with pictures about two princes who “marry,” the school said, “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them … decides their child should be removed. [This community] is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.”

Bonus libertarian points if you’ve already figured out what I’m going to say about this paragraph. Ready? Is this paragraph support for a bigoted marriage amendment, or would it be better support for eliminating the public provision of education? Without public provisioning, parents could send their children to whichever school sells their preferred bigotry, if that pleases them. Instead, Del. Marshall believes we should all be sold bigotry, in the Virginia Bill of Reduced-at-the-Whim-of-the-Majority Rights, no less. Del. Marshall seems to be on the wrong side of (at least) two issues. Let’s bump that to three, just for fun, since it’s clear he favors mob rule over republicanism.

The Amendment reads:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Remember, Del. Marshall says no rights will be eliminated because they do not derive from marriage. So why do we need the second paragraph in the amendment, in as much as we (don’t) need any of it? I’m trying to draw a conclusion other than bigotry, but I can’t.

I like alien radio. Here’s why.

Witness the actions of a dinosaur:

The radio wars are escalating. In a one-two punch aimed at enlisting regulators to their cause, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and National Public Radio want the Federal Communications Commission to investigate alleged misdeeds by satellite radio companies XM (XMSR) and Sirius (SIRI).
…

In its second claim, the NAB contends that XM and Sirius shouldn’t be allowed to give away their products for free to new car buyers or online. Last week, Sirius streamed Howard Stern’s program for free on its Web site.

The NAB argues that such freebies ought to subject satellite radio to the same FCC regulations as those governing terrestrial radio. That likely would trigger restrictions, for example, on language and other racy content.

If you can’t beat them, force them to join you? I don’t recall learning that maxim in business school. Yet, that’s exactly the perversity unleashed by regulation. The NAB’s members roll over and play dead every time the FCC yells Bang!, so it expects satellite broadcasters to do the same. They’re imbeciles. People don’t have to consume satellite radio, even when it’s free. They don’t have to consume terrestrial radio, either, which is what the NAB seems to miss in bowing before legislators instead of customers.

I won’t be surprised if the FCC takes action, though XM and Sirius will clearly fight back if it does since they’re businesses are on the line. But the NAB’s complaint leads to an obvious, and chilling, conclusion. If we’re going to take its claim as valid, that would open every podcaster to FCC regulation if he allows his customers to download his podcast for free. I’ll take my liberty in maximum strength tablets, not children’s chewables. Liberty for all, including customers.

Guilty until proven innocent, unless married

She doesn’t mention same-sex marriage, but the timing of this editorial by Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, is interesting enough to make it a reasonable consideration here. I won’t address it directly, because she doesn’t, but assume when I mention marriage I intend that to include same-sex marriage. I hope the reason will be clear.

For the first time in history, less than half of U.S. households are headed by married couples. And on Sept. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that almost 36 percent of all births are the result of unmarried childbearing, the highest percentage ever recorded.

In family law, as in the rest of American society, there is an intensifying debate about how we should respond to this kind of news. Should law and society actively seek new ways to support marriage? Or should family law strive to be marriage-neutral by providing more rights and benefits to its alternatives, such as cohabitation and single parenthood?

We know where this is going, right? Marriage is good, for the children. Right, I’m not disagreeing, as a general assumption. But given that “the children” is the basis of the rest of this editorial, it would make more sense to ask if the goal of family law should be to best protect children. That doesn’t require the derision the Chief Justice seems to assign to her open-ended interpretation of what family law should address.

I am not a law professor. But from where I sit as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, a family law that fails to encourage marriage ignores the fact that marriage has long been associated with an impressively broad array of positive outcomes for children and adults alike. Experts who contend that we need to move “beyond marriage” say they are only responding to the facts. But here is one major fact: High rates of family fragmentation hurt children.

That needs some support, right? Okay.

For example, studies have consistently shown that children raised outside marriage suffer disproportionately from physical and mental illness; are more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs or alcohol, and engage in violence or suffer it in their homes; and are less likely to attend college. Child Trends, a nonpartisan research organization summed up the evidence in 2002: “Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step-families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.”

Does that have anything to do with marriage, specifically, or is it a function of the maturity and character of the parents? If it’s the latter, marriage won’t fix that. And it’s especially useful to note the part about step-families. The Chief Justice does indicate that family law should “find ways to reduce unnecessary divorce and unmarried childbearing.” Who gets to decide what qualifies as “unnecessary divorce”? Are we really ready to equate unmarried and married to a non-biological parent? Strengthening marriage sure is strict.

I changed my mind, I will address the question of same-sex marriage directly. Her step-family analogy implies that children raised by a parent married to a same-gender spouse will face higher risks of poor outcomes. I want proof.

The Chief Justice acknowledges that single parents can and do raise children well. Great. But that is not proof that we need to “build a healthy marriage culture,” as she next states. If we get back to the assumption that family law should be designed to protect children, we’ll likely arrive at a better solution. Such an assumption would also treat parents, married or unmarried, as competent until they prove otherwise. Personal biases exist, but the law should not be designed to impose them without sufficient factual support.

In the end the Chief Justice makes a mistake that doctors often make:

As a judge I am often frustrated that I must work within a system designed only to pick up the pieces after families have already fallen apart or failed to come together. We must work to prevent family fragmentation, because the consequences for children and society are severe.

Choose to be a doctor and you’ll see mostly sick people. That doesn’t mean everyone is sick. Similarly, many children show up in the court system due to unfortunate circumstances. That doesn’t mean every child with unmarried parents will end up in court. Working to reduce that case load is reasonable, but the approach should aim for what will improve their lives, not how a predetermined solution can best fix the problem. Perhaps the conclusion from the two will be the same. But there is a chance they might not be the same. The law must recognize that possibility.

New meaning to unionization

I mostly skipped the “marriage in everything but name” option when I posted my thoughts on the New Jersey ruling this morning, but Kip stated it well in the comments:

Does anybody honestly think that New Jersey gay couples are going to run around saying, “We got civil unioned!”? Of course not; they’re going to say, “We got married!”

After a few years and a few thousand incidents of this, the politicians, or the judges, will give up and say, “This is silly — just call it marriage and be done with it.”

That’s pretty much the way I see it happening. I’d like to believe that the New Jersey legislature will accept the obvious and designate same-sex marriage within New Jersey as marriage. That’s what it is, so that would be the efficient way to do it. The purpose of civil marriage is the economic efficiency associated with not having to replicate a bundle of benefits wrapped into one contract. Why build inefficiency in for no other reason than the bigotry of a few. Call it marriage, and let the bigots pretend otherwise for as long as it takes them to realize they’ve lost.

Giving in to the inevitable avoidance of the word marriage, though, I suggest a public naming contest, similar to what a new sports team would run in the local media when it moves to a new city. This way, the populist ideals of anti-marriage marriage defenders can still play into this debate. If they stuff the ballot box, they’ll get their name that isn’t marriage. Maybe Joined in Sin or some other such stupidity. It could be a good laugh to hold us over until the masses come to their senses.

Of course, this will just end with an overwhelming vote for “marriage”, with the quotation marks, so I’m not sure how much fun it would be. At least New Jersey could use the same forms it already has, with two quick keystrokes for gay couples. Let me just get it out of the way now: Hacks, every one of them.