Category: Politics

D.C. gets the government it deserves

I’d planned to go into more detail about Wednesday’s hearing weighing the merits of a proposed flat tax experiment in D.C. I would’ve discussed Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s simple-minded objections and the progressive taxation double-standard she wants to perpetuate. Now that I’m writing the post, I’m unmotivated by the specifics of the issue. All sides are interested in ideological sound bites more than intelligent reform.

Instead, I wish Congress would “experiment” with a flat tax for the whole nation, but I’m paying attention enough to see that Congress has shown no will in recent years to address serious tax reform. If it wants to talk a big game about trying an optional flat tax experiment in the District, that’s wonderful. Maybe then we can see some progress back to common sense. Initially, though, it’s not going to affect me because even the flat tax isn’t enough to make me move into the District, to be governed by its incompetent local politicians.

Instead, this quote is interesting:

Shadow senator Paul Strauss (D), who sat in the audience, said, “They think of us as a state when it comes to federal liabilities.”

“When it comes to federal rights,” he added, “they think of us as a laboratory rat.”

Apart from being the first time I realized D.C. has a shadow senator, I’m amused that Mr. Strauss seems not to have read the Constitution. The Constitution says what it says about D.C. and its treatment. And to think Congress will do anything other than treat all of us the District as more than laboratory rats with deep pockets is simply laughable.

But here’s the key point in this debate. If you don’t like it, move. It’s that simple. Like the residents of D.C., I have a choice of where to live in this region. I choose to live in Virginia. I understand there are good and bad aspects of that. I’ve concluded that the benefits outweigh the costs. Unless there’s some nefarious force enslaving people in the District, I fail to see the causal link.

Work to change the Constitution or move.

Put that on the posters and see how it sells

Updating last week’s post about South Dakota’s new abortion bill, Governor Mike Rounds signed the bill. There’s little surprise there, and nothing really commenting further about regarding the specific topic. Instead, I’d like to highlight a quote from Gov. Rounds:

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Rounds said in the statement.

That’s a great sentiment, but why do so many Americans only support strict interpretations on that theme? Can anyone imagine a day in which Gov. Rounds would issue a statement like this?

“In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that routine infant circumcision is wrong because children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them,” Rounds said in the statement.

It shouldn’t be such an intellectual leap.

The debate is worth having, but honestly

Here’s an amusing opinion piece in today’s Opinion Journal by Victor Davis Hanson decrying that we’re winning in Iraq, but Americans won’t or can’t recognize that. Somehow, misperception settled in on America, so we’re undermining the war effort. It all sounds very sinister and unpatriotic. However, there are a few interesting points in Mr. Hanson’s editorial:

Then the great civil war sort of fizzled out; our own frenzy subsided; and now exhausted we await next week’s new prescription of doom–apparently the hyped-up story of Arabs at our ports. That the Iraqi security forces are becoming bigger and better, that we have witnessed three successful elections, and that hundreds of brave American soldiers have died to get us to the brink of seeing an Iraqi government emerge was forgotten in a 24-hour news cycle.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “thousands” of soldiers have died than to say “hundreds”? Both are accurate in the purely mathematical sense, but the former seems like an representation, while the latter reeks of trying to overstate our success by making our losses seem smaller. We have to win in Iraq now that we’re there. Acknowledging the price we’ve paid, and continue to pay, in honest terms is reasonable. That’s my interpretation; challenge me if you think saying “hundreds” is just as appropriate.

When Mr. Hanson turns his attention to the pessimistic response at home, he presents this argument:

The second-guessing of 2003 still daily obsesses us: We should have had better intelligence; we could have kept the Iraqi military intact; we would have been better off deploying more troops. Had our forefathers embraced such a suicidal and reactionary wartime mentality, Americans would have still torn each other apart over Valley Forge years later on the eve of Yorktown–or refought Pearl Harbor even as they steamed out to Okinawa.

I disagree, because I think comparing the American Revolution with the war in Iraq is absurd. But, if Mr. Hanson wanted to make his overall point instead of trying to score easy “support the war or you hate George Washington” points with his alleged parallel, he should’ve stated that we would’ve never made it to Yorktown because of the persistent bickering about Valley Forge. But, again, the comparison is ludicrous.

Continuing:

There is a more disturbing element to these self-serving, always evolving pronouncements of the “my perfect war, but your disastrous peace” syndrome. Conservatives who insisted that we needed more initial troops are often the same ones who now decry that too much money has been spent in Iraq.

I interpret the complaint from those conservatives as implying that we would spend fewer dollars in the end if we’d put enough troops on the ground in the beginning. Instead, we’re fighting what feels like a never-ending battle which is consuming a continuing stream of dollars. More importantly, there is no credible indication from the Bush Administration that our soldiers are leaving Iraq in any significant numbers in the near future, thus reducing future expenditures. Could we have left Iraq sooner with more troops in the beginning, limiting the ultimate cost of the war? I don’t know the answer, but that should’ve been Mr. Hanson’s focal point instead of making a senseless claim that vocal conservatives are now contradicting themselves when they’re doing no such thing.

I will not be happy if he wins in 2008

The Washington Post ran an interview with Virginia Senator George Allen yesterday. He had a few interesting thoughts. Consider:

Why do you think the political environment in this country is as sour as it is?

ALLEN: I don’t know, and it’s something that I’m trying to find ways to unify this country and recognize who our enemy is. Usually you can unify — and this does come from football — you try to get people motivated and inspired for something. We are in the midst of a war. That doesn’t mean we don’t have differences on domestic policy, tax cuts maybe, exploration of the north slope of Alaska, who knows what. But as far as the war on terror we ought to have unity of purpose and there just doesn’t seem to be that.

That’s the opening question and part of the answer? Is Sen. Allen just trying to stay on point, bang the War on Terror drum, and say nothing offensive? Here’s a better answer. The political environment is sour because Republicans can’t understand that we have a common enemy as Americans and it’s not gays and lesbians. The political environment is sour because Democrats can’t understand that President Bush is not the anti-Christ trying to kill little children by withholding health insurance. The political environment is sour because everyone else is watching the two parties punch each other in the face for the chance to steal a few more dollars and a few more bits of liberty. It’s not complicated. If I can realize that, a United States Senator should be able to do so, as well. Of course, I’m not running for president for the next 34 months.

But then when Karl Rove goes to the RNC and says here’s what we’re going to make this election about and says the Democratic Party has a pre Sept. 11 mindset and the GOP has a post Sept. 11 mindset — that doesn’t do a lot to bring the two sides together. Do you think that was a mistake?

I’m not going to say it was a mistake. I do think there are three key things for our country or three conditions or matters that are important. One is security, clearly. Second is competitive. The third is our values as a country. …

There’s nothing else in the answer about either competitiveness, unless he means between Democrats and Republicans. There is also nothing else about values. That’ll change later in the interview, since everyone has to hold the same values or else the terrorists win/the children get hurt/Jesus wants to punish us/whatever. Moving on.

What does it mean at this point given the record of the Bush administration to say, “I am a conservative”? What are the elements of conservatism today?

… The term conservative means different things to different people. I haven’t looked at a dictionary definition. For me, it is one who trusts free people and free enterprise as opposed to meddling, burdensome government. There’s a need for government in a civilization, but it should be very focused on its key responsibilities. At the state level, the top responsibilities are education and law enforcement. The federal government level — it is clearly national security, national defense issues and I think key areas of research beyond the interstate commerce matters. And you need to do those things and focus on those.

Otherwise, leave people free. There are those though who think people won’t make the right decisions and so therefore the government makes those decisions for them. You end up with higher taxes because the government needs to provide services. I’d just assume leave people to their freedom and they may not make the decisions that are the best decisions but it’s their life. And I like the concept of individual responsibility. …

I like the spirit [described] by De Toqueville in the mid 1830s — his observations of America where everything’s in motion, nothing is settled, the only things that haven’t been done are those that man has not attempted to do. In other words, we are only limited by our imagination. Maybe that’s conservative, but that’s my view of it. Trusting individuals rather than large institutions and authorities … all this nanny government and pestering regulations.

Someone so inclined could write a dissertation on how poorly Senator Allen’s statement above meshes with his actions as a United States Senator (and as Governor of Virginia). I won’t highlight the obvious contradiction that people are free and should remain free of nanny government, and that people may make decisions, no matter how poor, as long as those decisions don’t violate the moral code of another. No, I’m above pointing out that flaw in Sen. Allen’s reasoning, because that would be too easy. Instead, I want to point out that government should “be very focused on its key responsibilities”, like telling individuals who they can marry. To accomplish what, I have no idea, but it all sounds very liberty-loving conservative. Wave the flag for me.

Aside from Jefferson and Reagan, which presidents have influence your political philosophy or your political approach?
…

Another great leader that I learned over time was George Mason, a very unsung person. He wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which is … a predecessor to the Bill of Rights and it’s much better than the Bill of Rights because it’s more words to it. The Statute of Religious Freedom is paragraphs as opposed to one sentence. He was one that if this country had listened to George Mason in the beginning — and he lost his friendship with George Washington over this because he would not support the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. He also said that we should have gotten rid of slavery right at the beginning. And what a better country this would have been. He was one who put principle over everything else.

I agree about George Mason. It’s not Senator Allen’s domain now that he’s a U.S. Senator, but I’d be curious to know how he feels about the Virginia General Assembly tarring the Virginia Bill of Rights with the proposed bigoted marriage amendment? Given that he supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, I think I know the answer. But it’s good to know that he respects that, by his natural rights, every man is free. Quite consistent. Perhaps I can learn something.

I’ll just leave it with this statement about whether or not Sen. Allen will run for president, since I’m sure this isn’t the last time we’ll hear this statement

You never know the future, but no matter what I’m doing I’m going to be advocating these common sense Jeffersonian conservative principles.

He also mentioned “Mr. Jefferson’s university” earlier, which is not the official name for the University of Virginia. Ass.

I suppose they’re Liberals now

Ignore for the moment the heated nature of the specific topic involved in this story. Instead focus on the contradictory, though not surprising, lack of principle underlying the action.

South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say they hope lead to an overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. The proposal still must be signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who opposes abortion.

The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies. Its sponsors want to force a reexamination of the ruling by the court, which now includes two justices appointed by President Bush.

Like it or not, Roe V. Wade is the law. It may even be appropriate to challenge it, as these legislators are doing. But every legislator who voted for this can never again complain about “activist judges”. Not only are they counting on judges to be activist in accepting their change to accepted law, they’re engaging in activist legislating. There is no other way to explain this action, as they openly accept that it violates current law. They’re counting on the expectation that President Bush stacked the court in their favor with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Roger W. Hunt, offered another interesting perspective on good for me but not for thee:

Hunt has also said that when the inevitable challenge to the ban is filed in court, the ban’s supporters will be prepared for a costly court fight with $1 million already pledged by “an anonymous donor.”

If the issue at hand was a liberal favorite, and supporters replaced “anonymous donor” with George Soros, Republicans like Mr. Hunt would be screaming rather than boasting.

Hypocrites, every one of them.

I’m corrupting my own mind

This isn’t shocking, but the FCC is back in the nanny business:

The Federal Communications Commission plans to levy fines against broadcasters or their affiliates for violating decency standards in about a half-dozen cases, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

One incident involves Nicole Richie saying “shit” on Fox’s broadcast of the 2003 Billboard Music Awards. The first obvious response is to state that it was the Billboard Music Awards. Nobody was watching. For those few who were, I’m going to guess that they’ve heard the word “shit” before. They’ve probably even uttered it once or twice. Our society still exists. Somehow.

Another case involves the unsurprising conclusion that Janet Jackson’s not-really-revealed breast during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show violated decency standards. I have nothing else to add about the specific incident beyond what I’ve already written. Instead, I’ll point out that human creativity provides me with uncensored radio, in spite of the decency cops at the FCC (and Congress). They may be violating one Amendment, but they haven’t figured out how to violate all of them. Yet.

Until then… Suckers.

The tobacco fields are weeping in Virginia

I’ve written about smoking bans in the past, but I suspected the push to enact them in Virginia would take longer. Not so:

The Virginia Senate voted Monday to ban smoking in restaurants and virtually all other public places, an extraordinary sign of cultural change in a state that is home to the worldwide headquarters of Philip Morris and whose agricultural economy has been rooted in tobacco farming for almost 400 years.

The bill is unlikely to survive review in the House of Delegates. Yet its passage on the floor of the Senate — where smoking has never been formally banned and lawmakers lit up openly even until the late 1990s — signaled mounting popular support for smoking restrictions.

The second paragraph is the key support for my original conclusion. The House won’t pass this, and Governor Tim Kaine (D) opposes it, but I’m still amazed that it passed the Senate. Just as interesting, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. J. Brandon Bell II, is a Republican. First came tax increases (pushed by Democrat Mark Warner/passed by Republican General Assembly) and now anti-property rights anti-smoking legislation? Remind me again how Virginia is a bastion of limited government conservatives?

That should be enough lunacy surrounding one bill, but we’ve abandoned all hope of reason, so there’s more:

“This is not about whether I prefer or do not prefer the smell of smoke,” said Sen. J. Brandon Bell II, the sponsor. “This is about public health. . . . The research has come forward over the years, and it’s shown us that secondhand cigarette smoke is a very insidious health problem.”

It’s not about whether or not Sen. Bell prefers the smell of smoke. It’s about whether or not he prefers property rights. That shouldn’t be a hard distinction. But with arguments like this next one, who’s surprised:

“This shows that Virginia is ready to move its way to where the mainstream is on health issues,” said Keenan Caldwell, director of government relations for the [American Cancer Society]’s regional office. “People are starting to see, even in Virginia and other tobacco-growing states, that there is proven science about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.”

There’s proven science about the harmful effects. So what? There’s also a previously-accepted principle that property rights trump everything. I win the intellectual fight. But this isn’t about who is right. Clearly that’s not getting anything for those of us with principles, especially when this is a justification:

“It makes you really pay attention,” Bell said. “I may have reservations about increased regulations [on businesses], but this is something that people seem to want to be regulated.”

When we come to the conclusion that regulation is good and appropriate because people want it, with no further consideration necessary, what are we left fighting over? Which television programs and books my neighbors think it’s acceptable for me to consume? Smashing.

Some sanity remains, of course:

… opposition has been spearheaded by the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, which represents restaurants. The group lobbied vigorously against an early version of the bill that would have given localities the ability to regulate indoor smoking, complaining that the option would lead to a patchwork of regulations and pit businesses in neighboring counties against one another.

So Bell moved forward with the statewide smoking ban and picked up enough support to pass the bill, 21 to 18.

Those who voted against the measure said the marketplace is already pushing many restaurants to ban smoking, without government regulation. They said businesses should have the right to cater to their customers.

“We’re talking about a legal product that’s licensed and sold in Virginia — that’s taxed and taxed and taxed,” said Sen. Charles R. Hawkins (R-Pittsylvania), who represents tobacco growers. “Now we’re saying we know better than people who operate their own businesses what they can do.”

Count me among those not amazed that market forces have the ability to solve the problem.

Failed socio-economic policies redux

Sebastian Mallaby’s column in today’s Washington Post is interesting more for the assumptions it proposes than for its specific content regarding President Bush’s looming marketing push for Health Savings Accounts. While mocking President Bush’s term “ownership society”, presumably because he prefers the “social contract” and all it entails, Mr. Mallaby declares these flaws:

A rerun of last year’s [Social Security] debate would show that health savings accounts are harder to defend than personal retirement ones. They are shockingly regressive: Furman’s study shows how a poor family might get a subsidy of $150 while a rich one might get more than $4,000. They have not just a transition cost but a real cost: The tax breaks could widen the deficit by at least $132 billion over 10 years and a lot more after that. And health savings accounts pose a more formidable threat to traditional corporate health plans than personal accounts posed to Social Security. Market forces are already dislodging company health plans; an extra shove could cause an avalanche.

The limited consumer discipline that would come from health savings accounts could not justify these disadvantages. But when you talk to administration officials, they express remarkably few doubts. They believed in the ownership society last year; they still believe in it this year. They believe in individual choice; they distrust collective programs. They don’t worry too much about the risks to the budget. Or to distributional justice. Or to existing safety nets.

Simple administration. Straightforward administration. The Clinton team would never have proposed such a clunker of a policy.

Three paragraphs and I lost count of the intellectual disasters. It’s feasible to argue that Health Savings Accounts aren’t the solution. I won’t argue that they’re perfect, only that something must be done. That doesn’t mean action for the sake of action, of course, which is what I think Mr. Mallaby is partially offering as the Bush Administration’s motive. Anything that fits the ownership society storyline, or something along those lines. To his credit, he challenges the logic of HSAs and offers a suggestion in return. I disagree, but that’s reasonable in such a change with unknown consequences. Unfortunately, his conclusion relies on the assumptions I marked in bold. In order:

  • Income differences matter only in tax liability. Receiving benefits, if tied to income and the resulting spending differences, must be quantitatively equal or they’re unfair and regressive.
  • Market forces are dislodging company health plans, violating the social contract. That’s Bad. The central planners know better, so we must halt that trend, not encourage it.
  • Individual choice is bad. We’re all in this together, so everyone should pay the same (unless he’s poor) and receive the same benefits (unless he’s rich), because the collective nature of government health care is important.
  • Liberals worry a lot about the budget. That’s why raising taxes to meet Dubya’s irresponsible budget is necessary.
  • “Distributional justice” is important above all else. If you don’t have enough, however that’s defined, and however much you do to earn it, you should be given what must be taken from others. Progressive taxes are good. Progressive benefits are bad. Regressive benefits are good. Regressive taxes are bad. Lather, rinse, repeat.
  • Existing safety nets are good. Reform must keep those. Remember, that’s why raising taxes is important. Cutting spending would destroy safety nets. Government is the best provider of safety nets.
  • The Clinton team would never have proposed such a clunker of a policy. They would’ve introduced a better clunker. It’s important to focus on better, not clunker. That’s why we need national health care, not individual choice. Everyone will like one-size-fits-all coverage. It doesn’t matter if the rich get worse health care. It’s a fixed pie. You don’t want others to be without. Do you? You’re selfish.

I hope it’s clear that I disagree with Mr. Mallaby’s assumptions. In the future, I hope he’ll put his assumptions in the first three paragraphs instead of the last three so that I may decide whether or not to bother reading his suggestions before I read them. That way, I’ll avoid the socialistic noise and read whatever’s left.

American Political Philosophy, circa 2006

Pot. Meet kettle.

Citing troubling behavior by the Kremlin, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed skepticism yesterday about the future of democracy in Russia.

“We are very concerned, particularly about some of the elements of democratization that seem to be going in the wrong direction,” Rice said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, while on good terms with President Bush, has been criticized for centralizing political power and rolling back democratic gains.

And, no, I’m not just pointing my finger at Republicans.

Can he pronounce “plenary”?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee today to explain the Bush Administration’s contention that the Terrorist Surveillance Program warrantless wiretapping is legal. He claims that the Constitution’s presidential powers and statutory powers granted by the Congress authorize warrantless wiretapping. In the past month he’s offered other justifications, which I suspect were dictated by the day of the week, as I can’t find any other coherent pattern. It was necessary that the Judiciary Committee challenged Attorney General Gonzalez, because it’s apparent to me that the warrantless wiretapping violates the Constitution.

Better analysis can be found elsewhere explaining why, so instead I want to focus on this peremptory editorial in today’s Opinion Journal by Attorney General Gonzalez. Specifically, consider this excerpt:

The president, as commander in chief, has asserted his authority to use sophisticated military drones to search for Osama bin Laden, to deploy our armed forces in combat zones, and to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives around the world. No one would dispute that the [Authorization for Use of Military Force] supports the president in each of these actions.

It is, therefore, inconceivable that the AUMF does not also support the president’s efforts to intercept the communications of our enemies. …

Sorry? What was that? I don’t follow that “A” leads to “B” logic. The legality is arguably more nuanced than I’m about to render it, but as his argument’s logic is absurd, I feel uncompelled to comply with any notion of realisitc outcomes. So, carrying that argument to its logical conclusion, why is it not acceptable for the president to use sophisticated military drones to search for al Qaeda terrorists in the United States? Let’s assume we allow the warrantless wiretapping. We want to win the war, right? We shouldn’t prevent the president from using any and all measures at his disposal, right? What harm would a few drone flights be, especially if I’m innocent?

Or do we accept that the rules are different for international and domestic actions, since American citizens (who are presumed innocent) are involved? Logic is a cruel master when you’re honest.