D.C. teaches basic economics.

I imagine New York faces a similar problem, although the scale is likely different.

People who work in the District make some of the highest wages in the United States — on average, higher than those in San Francisco and the Boston area. But every night a significant proportion of those handsomely paid workers take their earnings back to homes and stores in the suburbs.

Let’s gather our big brains and surmise the explanation. Could it be this?

That gap leaves the District with an imbalance that is growing worse, said Stephen S. Fuller, head of the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis. “People have choices and want to buy homes with yards and good schools,” he said. “If those workers are taking out their income tax and going home to do their shopping, there isn’t much left behind for the District.”

I’ve never lived in a home with anything resembling a real yard since I moved to the D.C. area in ’98. It would be nice, but it’s not significant. More importantly, when I was younger, and it really made no difference, I lived in a high-rise apartment complex. D.C. can offer that type of accommodation without question. But that never kept me away from considering the District as a home. The obscene tax rates, however, factored significantly, as did the ineptness with which the city managed the revenue from those obscene tax rates. Why live in the District when I can live in Virginia and pay only a portion of what I’d pay in taxes as commuting costs? It’s really been a no-brainer. Incentives matter.

Where do Washingtonians learn to drive?

I’d planned to catch up on a few quick items yesterday, since I was away in New York for a few days. Unfortunately, the Great Blizzard of 2007&#153 struck, snarling traffic. Danielle and I made it back to Northern Virginia in about 3.5 hours. We stopped at the grocery store before finishing our journey home. This should’ve been a minor detour, but it turned into a giant misadventure. We left Whole Foods at 1:50. We pulled into our driveway at 5:20.

Witness the white-out conditions that caused this:

While Danielle’s Jetta handled the conditions without incident, even big vehicles can’t help most drivers in the area:

This happens every year at this time in D.C. It should scare everyone that these are the same people leading our nation through actual crises.

Okay, if your son is Teddy Roosevelt.

Very often, arguments so stupid as to warrant little more than an eye roll and a click to the next article come along to annoy the intelligent reader. Those are easy enough to set aside. Sometimes, though, someone will make an argument so mind-numbingly pointless that highlighting is necessary in an effort to remind others that such drivel will be exposed for what it is. Today, I found such an argument arrived in my rss feed.

Among pediatricians and obstetricians and some insurance companies, there are few topics that generate more controversy than whether newborn boys should undergo circumcision. In this country at this time it is the most common surgical procedure being done. Having done duty with troops in the tropics, the writer has some very strong opinions about the benefits of this operation, whereas most of the physicians (primarily pediatricians) who are opposed to the routine circumcision of boys seem to have escaped the experience of heat, humidity, dirt, and poor opportunities for good personal hygiene that is often the story in the tropics. Circumcising a 20 year old is a far more formidable procedure than taking care of a 20 hour-old baby. And the 20 year-old will be disabled for duty for about 20 days, which is a great loss to the overall effectiveness of the unit, plus misery for the 20 year-old.

The perpetrator of this irrelevant tangent is Dr. Richard S. Buker, Jr., Health Officer for Liberty County, Montana. That scares me. A doctor providing information to the community should provide factual information for use by patients. This is anecdotal hooey aimed at parents with blatant disregard for the child’s medical needs and rights.

Dr. Buker thinks it’s correct to hold every boy to a standard that might – might – be appropriate in a tropical environment with limited access to proper hygiene facilities. I’m fairly certain that Liberty County, Montana does not meet that requirement. (Money should be spent on proper hygiene facilities instead of circumcision, if that’s a problem.) As for any potential decrease in troop effectiveness if soldiers are intact, Dr. Buker posits that forced surgery on infants is a benefit in case he joins our volunteer army. This is not rational. The boy can have himself circumcised before joining the military, if he so chooses.

Or non-facts:

Good evidence keeps increasing to support the argument for routine circumcision, which people should be aware of. The single biggest recent finding is that HIV/AIDS transmission is 80% less when men are circumcised. The big push in Africa and South East Asia is to get all males circumcised to decrease the spread of this horrible scourge. What works in Africa works here as well.

I’m going to be kind to Dr. Kruger and say that he is mistaken instead of lying when he quotes an 80% decrease in HIV transmission. The rate mentioned in the few studies done so far indicate a decreased incidence of between 50 and 60%. That extra 20% or more is huge, aside from the obvious arguments against the other 60%. Dr. Buker is a public health official. He must get his facts correct. The burden is especially important when he’s advocating unnecessary, permanent alteration of a child’s body.

It has long been established that the statistical risks of circumcision are considerably less that the risks of not being circumcised. Cancer of the penis is almost unknown in circumcised men. Sexually transmitted disease is less common in circumcised males. In the experience of the undersigned, who has served as a venereal disease control officer (in the tropics), chancroid was 80 times as common in uncircumcised males as in circumcised men.

Cancer of the penis is almost unknown in intact men. Sexually transmitted disease can be prevented with condoms and responsible sexual behavior. No surgery necessary.

Urinary tract infections in children under 5 years of age are less common in circumcised males. Paraphimosis (the writer hated getting up in the middle of the night to treat this problem), balanitis, and getting foreskin caught in a zipper can all be avoided by routine circumcision plus it is no fun being teased in the locker room, all of which are arguments for circumcision of newborns. What about arguments against the procedure? It is a bit cruel to overpower a helpless baby and do an operation on him, and like all operations there is a small risk. As all readers will readily have concluded by this point, the writer is highly in favor of the procedure.

UTIs are more common in girls than in intact boys. Paraphimosis (the writer should not be a doctor if he doesn’t want to treat patients) and balanitis can be avoided by procedures less invasive than circumcision. Getting the penis caught in a zipper can happen with or without circumcision. Being teased in the locker room is not a medical condition justifying surgery. The only argument against infant circumcision that Dr. Buker can come up with is that it’s a bit cruel, and there are risks. No kidding. That should be enough, since it’s also medically unnecessary at the time it’s performed.

These are the arguments of a man who’s already made up his mind and is looking for excuses in the face of logic and facts.

Coalition of the Willing and Unwilling

From yesterday’s Washington Post, this report on a new “consensus” on healthcare reform:

On the surface, it looked to be just another Washington news conference, part of the white noise of the political and policy process.

But this one was different. There, at the National Press Club, stood the president of the Business Roundtable, representing the country’s largest corporations; the president of the Service Employees International Union, the country’s most vibrant union and one of its fastest-growing; and the president of AARP, the formidable seniors lobby. They put aside their usual differences to deliver a clear, simple message to President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties:

We stand ready to give you the political cover you need for a centrist, bipartisan fix for a broken health-care system.

Or, if you refuse, we stand ready to embarrass you and run you out of office.

That’s interesting enough, if it were actually true. But I reject any claim that those three groups have the authority to speak for the nation as a whole. Only the AARP represents a sizeable portion of the nation, and that’s not enough to provide any claim to policy making. Populist rent-seeking never appeared so obvious.

In my case, I’m a small-business owner. I’m only 33. I’m not in a labor union. Who’s got my voice? Me, of course, and willingly so. But this is no one’s concern. The only outcome that matters is coming up with a solution that represents 20th century forces in the 21st century. This press conference could have just as easily occurred in 1907 as 2007.

What does that consensus look like?

It starts with universal coverage, accomplished either through a mandate on everyone to purchase basic health insurance or a mandate on all employers to offer it.

That much we already know, because we think people just aren’t motivated enough (the former proposal) or that more of what we already have will fix the problem (the latter proposal). There is no need to understand why we got here. Once we have a solution worked out, we’ll find the path backwards to where we are to tell the correct story. It’s insanity.

A few of suggestions warrant consideration, and by consideration, I mean outright dismissal.

Finally, it sets a deadline for physicians and hospitals to switch to computerized health records, along with a program to provide no-interest loans to buy the necessary hardware and software.

I’m sure that physicians and hospitals have delayed computerizing health records because no-interest loans were not available. Or it could be that the economic efficiency created by the process wasn’t supported by the cost. Or maybe it’s that physicians and hospitals are in the business of providing care instead of information technology. Only in a world where universal assumptions pass as analysis for the multitude of scenarios in which physicians provide care can an outcome that a universal solution will work. Of course, it’s a lot easier to say that when you impose a no-interest loan requirement. I’m certain “no-interest” means taxpayers will pick up the cost to subsidize this. It would be important to remember that something economically-justified would pay for itself, despite the cost of interest. It’s silly to let that get in the way, though. PEOPLE ARE DYING IN THE STREET!

Hospitals and insurers would have to agree that 85 percent of their revenue would go to providing direct care, capping profit and administrative expenses at 15 percent.

Wow. Central planning at its most crass. We know what expenses should be, as well as a fair profit. There need not be a direct tie to quality here. Fifteen percent for admin expenses and profit is enough. This will not end well.

Health insurers would have to accept the obligation to sell insurance to everyone, with only modest variation in rates for age and health status.

I guess actuaries should start looking for other work. It hasn’t proven to be useful, anyway, since risk can just be ignored. What could go wrong?

Pointing fingers will help, I’m sure.

I guess if I want to be in with the cool kids in the blogosphere, I need to talk about Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. The problem is, with a title like that, I don’t care. It says everything necessary to dismiss the book without further contemplation. I haven’t read it, nor will I. But Mr. D’Souza’s first column for Townhall.com warrants a comment.

As I returned home to the United States, I wondered: are these students right? I don’t think American culture as a whole is guilty of the charge of moral depravity. But there is a segment of our culture that is perverse and pornographic, and perhaps this part of American culture is the one that foreigners see. Wrongly, they identify one face of America with the whole of America. When they protest what they see as the glamorization of pornography and vice, however, it’s hard to deny that they have a point.

“They hate us for our freedoms” is a tired slogan, but it takes an especially perverse anti-liberty sentiment to add on “they’re right to hate us for that freedom.” It’s absurd and should be shunned from the public sphere of ideas by everyone. Unfortunately, not everyone hates assaulting the Constitution. (There’s a nuance involving freedom in quotes, but that makes no sense because we’re talking about consensual choices.)

I think Mr. D’Souza’s mistake becomes clear here:

Groups like the ACLU have taken the approach that pornography rights, like the rights of accused criminals, are best protected at their outermost extreme. This means is that the more foul the obscenity, the harder liberals must fight to allow it. By protecting expression at its farthest reach, these activists believe they are fully securing the free speech rights of the rest of us.

There is no flaw in what Mr. D’Souza attacks. All rights must be protected at their extremes. Whatever limitations the majority desires still leaves the minority grasping to retain what inherently belongs to everyone. The right to not do something must include the corresponding right to do that something. No one will fight publishing “the bunny is grey.” But when the bunny starts attacking the chickens in the coop with a machete and blood and feathers are flying all over the page, someone must defend it when the moralists come charging to society’s rescue.

Mr. D’Souza believes that whatever is an outlier, especially if it’s repugnant to most, must therefore be unworthy of protection. Unfortunately, there are principles of rights and liberty that are more vision-impaired than Mr. D’Souza’s belief that his 20/20 analysis is enough.

Who defines “satisfactorily”?

The given title is “Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make”, but the Washington Post should’ve titled Robert Samuelson essay in today’s newspaper to accommodate the fact that at least two choices are stupid. Consider:

Let me engage in a fantasy. Let me assume that Democrats and Republicans actually intended to address two serious national problems: first, our huge dependence on insecure sources of foreign oil; and second, the persistent mismatch between public resources (taxes) and public obligations (spending). What might they do? Herewith, a package of proposals:
…

  • Increase the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains (profits on stocks and other assets) from today’s 15 percent to at least 25 percent.

This list is clearly doomed, because Mr. Samuelson accepts the same garbage that the economically ignorant love to perpetuate, namely that only the rich have dividends and capital gains, and anyone rich enough to receive them is rich enough to pay their “fair share” without concern. No data actually backs this up, and principles of economics and fairness disprove it, but a lie told often enough, and with enough pleasant motivations can overcome truth.

  • Raise the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare gradually to 70 by 2029. At 65, people would have to buy into Medicare (that is, pay for coverage) until they reached eligibility for subsidized benefits.

If we’re going to force people to buy into Medicare for those five years before they turn 70, wouldn’t it make sense to stop the charade and let them spend the money they would currently contribute to Medicare (and Social Security) on their own private insurance? This is a better-than-nothing approach, but Mr. Samuelson’s solution offers little more than a blatant acceptance that Social Security is a shell game in which no one is much interested in correcting the foundational flaw. It’s stupid.

Reading Mr. Samuelson’s conclusion, much of this becomes obvious:

That something like this won’t soon be proposed — let alone passed — speaks volumes about our politics. Both parties have marketed government as a source of aid and comfort. Benefits are to be pursued, burdens shifted and choices avoided. Problems are to be blamed on scapegoats (“the liberals,” “the rich”). There is little sense of common interests and shared obligations. Politicians resort to symbolic acts that seem more meaningful than they actually are: the minimum wage, for instance.

Mr. Samuelson’s analysis of the problem seems to coincide nicely as an explanation for his recommendations.

I want my $10 share of the subsidy returned.

Is riding the rails so romantic that we must subsidize it long after its useful life and economic feasibility? The United States Senate thinks so:

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.
…

A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.

“It’s not going to be that difficult this year,” Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak’s chief executive.
…

Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.

Is it really? Danielle and I will visit New York City this weekend. We’re driving. How long do you think we considered traveling by train before deciding upon driving? Zero seconds.

No cost comparison can justify a journey on Amtrak, no matter how wonderful it would be. With tolls and gas, we’ll spend a bit shy of one hundred dollars. For Amtrak, we’d spend $220 for a roundtrip ticket. Each. And the expense of parking the car must still be considered, as well as the lack of disparity in trip length with either choice.

I don’t think I need to go on, for the case against Amtrak is obvious. Remember, too, that I’m talking about a trip in Amtrak’s only profitable service, the Northeast corridor. Amtrak makes its money in the Northeast through business and government. If you’re in one city, and going to another, it makes sense. Especially on someone else’s dime, which is how I’ve paid for it both times I’ve ridden Amtrak.

Trains have a legacy and mythology in America’s history, but that time has passed. It’s time to stop funneling taxpayer money into nostalgia. Let Amtrak sink or swim on its own. Those services that can’t be justified economically should be forced allowed to die.

More thoughts at A Stitch in Haste.

For discussion: if this is how Congress treats a non-essential service in financial distress, how will it treat a financial healthcare crisis under a single-payer system when should problems arise?

We should use this opportunity to regain what’s been lost.

On Monday, I tangentially referenced statements made by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson earlier this week. In summary, he said that corporate America should boycott any firms that provide legal representation to the detainees in Guantanamo because such assistance amounts to siding with the terrorists. It was stupid and offensive to anyone who values American ideals and liberty. Everyone is entitled to express hold such opinions. Unless they work in the government, for the people of the United States, anyone may express them. For such a disgusting disregard for the Constitution of the United States, Stimson should be fired immediately. Instead, of course, the Administration has done nothing more than disavow his statements. And now, Stimson is doing the same, in the Letters to the Editor section of today’s Washington Post:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

I believe firmly that a foundational principle of our legal system is that the system works best when both sides are represented by competent legal counsel. I support pro bono work, as I said in the interview. I was a criminal defense attorney in two of my three tours in the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. I zealously represented unpopular clients — people charged with crimes that did not make them, or their attorneys, popular in the military. I believe that our justice system requires vigorous representation.

I apologize for what I said and to those lawyers and law firms who are representing clients at Guantanamo. I hope that my record of public service makes clear that those comments do not reflect my core beliefs.

And I’m sure it was really the alcohol that made Mel Gibson an anti-Semite. All that happened here is Stimson got his hand caught in the totalitarian cookie jar that he and the administration so desperately want to raid for all of its goodies. The outcry, while surprising given how indifferently much of the nation has looked the other way over the last six years, is entirely justified. We’ll accept some offensive rights violations, but this is too far. I’m saddened by where it is, but at least there’s still a line.

Despite his apology, Stimson should be shown the door. Now.

It’s a safety concern. Think of the children.

Robert Eberth appealed and won his battle against Prince William County, in Virginia, and its practice of ticketing parked cars for expired state inspection stickers. I’m slightly deflated because Fairfax County ticketed my car under this same scenario a few years back, and I paid it without a fight¹. Regardless, good for Mr. Eberth for forcing counties in Virginia to abide by the law. It’s a miraculous concept. We should all aspire to win such an appeal in our lifetimes.

Naturally, Prince William County is responding as any libertarian would expect.

In the meantime, county attorneys in Prince William are scrambling to draft legislation for the General Assembly that would authorize ticketing of parked cars with expired stickers.

The county can’t simply stop ticketing parked cars. That would decrease revenue permit potentially unsafe vehicles from being on the road. I’m sure there will also be an update of the provision that Mr. Eberth fought, which is that the county went onto the lot of his apartment complex to ticket his vehicle. Under the court’s ruling, the county can’t do that. Want to bet its proposed legislation will include such a feature? I’ll take yes, you can have no.

Finally, I don’t know if this just comes off poorly in print, but this quote is not a ringing endorsement for leadership oriented to considering citizens.

Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), chairman of the Board of County Supervisors, said: “We thank him for pointing out this error. I’ve got to hand it to him — he’s got determination. I hope he’ll get on with his life now.”

Mr. Eberth wins a victory indicating that Prince William county steals more than $150,000 per year from its citizens, and that’s what the county chairman has to say? He pointed out the error for six years. Prince William only listened when the Appeals Court told them the same thing. And the Stewart’s last line, why not just tack on an explicit “Go eff yourself” for good measure?

¹ I might file an appeal with Fairfax County requesting a refund. I know it would be fruitless because I did not contest the ticket at the time, but it might be fun to waste their time. And any response letter would no doubt create much amusement.

An Execution Chamber in Every Courthouse

Anyone want to read that Texas is considering the death penalty for repeat sex offenders and suggest that capital punishment serves any other function greater than revenge?

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who won a second four-year term, has led the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters, calling for a 25-year minimum sentence after the first conviction when a victim is less than 14 and the death penalty option for repeat offenders.

“The idea is to prevent these kinds of crimes,” said Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons. “It sends a clear signal and maybe these monsters will think twice before committing a crime.”

Gov. Rick Perry, also a Republican, said Texas is a “tough on crime” state and he’s open to tougher penalties, including the death penalty.

From the article, the plan is obviously in its initial stages, and there appears to be some resistance. But this is what counts as resistance.

“We support the intent,” said Torie Camp of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. “We’re concerned about the unintended consequences.”

This is a brilliant move for covering against looking weak in the “war on crime”. “Kill ’em all, except it might create situations we don’t like.” Why is institutionalized murder acceptable when a punishment without revenge killing will serve just as well? It’s perplexing because offenders murdering their victims is the feared unintended consequences. Admittedly, if someone must be murdered, it should be the offender, but it’s a fool’s intellectual blindness that believes murder must occur for justice to prevail.

Lt. Gov. Dewhurst should provide evidence that capital punishment offers any deterrence. Note, of course, that this is the same type of rhetoric that suggests sexual offenders are powered by uncontrollable urges that almost guarantee they’ll sexually assault another child. Otherwise, why would we have sex-offender registries and restrictions on how close to schools such persons can live? Isn’t this almost like guaranteeing that Texas will execute people under this proposal, if they’re right? And if they’re right, why not make capital punishment available on the first offense? At least then we could save all of the children who might will be harmed after the sex offenders first jail term is finished.

Capital punishment does nothing more than satiate the public’s thirst for the blood of the bad men.

Source: Fark.