President Bush, our Father Figure
Really? So says Babs Streisand.

In a news statement reprinted by James Taranto over at www.opinionjournal.com, the singer tells us that "The president is our leader, the figurehead of the country, a father figure." Head of government, maybe. (Though the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and most member of the Supreme Court would disagree.) Head of state, even, since we don't have a king or queen.

But "a father figure?" That's creepy. Yes, another George--Washington--has been called "the father of our country," but that was so long ago, it's more in the genetic rather than overseeing sense by now.

Still, you have to wonder if this symbol really does portray the attitude that some people have towards government, especially the federal government. I respect the office, and its current occupant. But a father figure?

Sad, what some people need to get along. (permalink)

Save Now for Medical Expenses
Writing in National Review, philosopher Michael Novak proposes a simple way of dealing with medical expenses in old age: parents should set up an account--to be untouched for 65 years--to pay for the child's medical expenses in old age.

If I have done my arithmetic correctly, $1,000 invested at birth for each newborn American child would at 7 percent annual growth amount to $128,000 at age 65. It would seem to me that at that age, that amount of money would buy a lot of catastrophic medical insurance until the end of each citizen's life (for big-ticket items), with a little left over for ordinary health-insurance co-payments.

I suppose that this may even--if we will have a government program of some sort--be implemented by the government (federal, most likely) taking that $1,000 from money taken from other taxpayers and sticking that into an account for the newborn: Pay a little now, or much later.

Ok, so it's not exactly constitutional. And if you expect a government fund to remain untapped for 65 years, you simply haven't heard P.J. O'Rourke's comments about whisky, cars, and teenaged boys.

Labels: Health care

(permalink)

Medicare Reform Dead: Barnes
Fred Barnes, of the Weekly Standard, credits Sen. Ted Kennedy with being "wise" in his handling of the proposal to add prescription drugs to Medicare. By "wise," Barnes means that Kennedy "has figured out how to get what he wants. And what Kennedy wants is to kill, or at least forestall, the privatization of Medicare.

Would-be Medicare reforms once had the leverage of holding the proposal to add prescription drugs (currently not covered) hostage to a series of reforms that would promote consumer, rather than bureaucratic control and responsibility. For some reason, President Bush and others have decided to add a prescription drug benefit to the creaky Medicare system with no significant reform.

It calculates that 48 percent of Medicare recipients would jump to private insurance under the bill, which was negotiated by Chairman Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee under the watchful eye of majority leader Bill Frist. After all that attrition, old-fashioned, government-run Medicare would gradually fade away. Kennedy and conservative opponents don't believe this, and neither does the Congressional Budget Office, which says no more than 12 percent would jump to private plans. The administration originally demanded a strong incentive for seniors to switch: They wouldn't get the drug benefit unless they did. But this provision has been jettisoned. Now seniors would get the benefit either way.

Kennedy would have liked to have noinvolvement of private plans, but is willing to let them in, to change things later.

So once again, the Republicans have walked away from their stated principles. (permalink)

GOP=Government Operated Programs
Stateline.org has another story on state finance, uncovering the latest crop of tax increase advocates: Republican governors. The list of governors is long:

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (income, property tax),
Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (car rental tax),
Arkansas Gov. Mike Hucklebee (sales, cigarette),
Connecticut Gov. John Rowland (income, cigarette and sales tax),
Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (cigarette tax),
Idaho Gov. Dick Kempthorne (sales, cigarette tax),
Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (property tax),
Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn (property, gambling, corporate fees),
Ohio Gov. Bob Taft (sales)
South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (cigarette tax)
Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (beer tax).

Perhaps these men have "grown" in office, or as we used to say, "gone native" in the bureaucracy. Or perhaps they are assessing the political climate, concluding that civil society has grown dependent on the state such that fundamental reform in spending is not politically possible. (permalink)

A Retreat in State Spending
Stateline.org reports that for the first time in 20 years, state fiscal spending will "shrink from one fiscal year to the next." Does this mean that government is being slashed and the tax burden is shrinking? Not exactly. As the story notes, "governors in 29 states proposing $17.5 billion in revenue increases. If enacted, this would be the largest total state tax increase since 1979."

Medicaid has in the last year or so finally gotten attention from policy analysts. It's bad health care, and it's also hideously expensive (these two facts are tied together by the fact that it's a government program.) Speaking of Medicaid, the executive director of the National Governors Association says ""It is now becoming, we would argue, the Pac-Man of state government. Which means it is eating up each additional dollar that can be generated in revenues."

Labels: Medicaid

(permalink)

Just Like Sweden?
Didja ever notice? In the last 40 years, laws governing sexual behavior have loosened: Griswold v. Connecticut (establishing the "right to privacy"); Loving v. Virginia (laws against mixed-race marriages struck down); Roe v. Wade (establishing a right to abortion) and its successors (which included the conclusion that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and the mystery of human life."); and now, Lawrence v. Texas.

While the sexual liberty of Americans was increasing in those years, their economic liberty was decreasing, with government taking an ever-increasing share of the economy.

Just like Sweden. But with lower tax rates. (permalink)

A Depressing Week at the Supreme Court
First, the Supremes affirm affirmative action. Then, they strike down sodomy laws. In the affirmative action case, they enshrine unequal treatment of individuals as the law of the land. If anything, then, the US is more firmly down the road of ethnic separatism and capricious government than it was before the decision. And in the Texas sodomy case, the Court has seen fit, once again, to usurp the democratic process.

In its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal called this "A Roe v. Wade for Gay Rights." And they're right, of course. Both cases involve fundamental questions of morality, religion, and the role of the state. Both deal with highly contentious issues. In both areas of law (abortion and laws aimed against homosexual conduct), the country was already far down the road of liberalizing policy through the democratic process. Both cases involve social engineering. Finally, both cases stand rooted in the "right to privacy" doctrine not enunciated as a constitutional principle until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1956.

In its editorial, the Journal says

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas calls the Texas anti-sodomy law "silly" and says he would vote to repeal it if he were a Texas legislator, as we would too.

The nine Justices are not legislators, however, and in deciding Lawrence they have once more usurped the electorate's right to find its own consensus on matters of social mores. The Court's opinion suggests that as those mores change the Justices have the power to reinvent the Constitution's privacy right along with it.
But why should nine--or six--Justices accrete this power to themselves? Such highly charged issues are better addressed by legislatures representing voters than by judicial edict. The genius of democracy is that it has the ability through debate to achieve consensus and settle these disputes over time.

The High Court's interventions only keep the cultural wars going.

Meanwhile, the folks over at Powelineblog call the Texas decision Amazing Disgrace for overturning long-held natural law understandings of homosexuality. Many libertarians, of course, are delighted to have one less "judgemental" law on the books. (permalink)

Internet Tax Avoidance: Not the Cause of State Budget Problems
Is the Internet taxed? Yes, and no.

No--Congress outlawed taxes on Internet taxes a few years ago.
Yes--At least 18 states imposes taxes on 'net access, say Sonia Arrison and William Simon Jr.

Are Internet transactions taxed? Yes, and no.
Yes--If a person buys something over the net from a company with a physical presence in the state, the seller collects taxes. (I just received a package from Staples.Com; there is a Staples store somewhere around here, so Staples.Com collects taxes from me).

No--If the company has no physical presence in the state (as is the case with most catalog operations and web sites such as Amazon), the buyer is supposed to pay "used tax," though that rarely happens.

The Direct Marketing Association reports that states themselves estimate that this "lost" tax revenue amounted to either $1.9 billion or $13 billion (there appears to be an editing error of one sort or another). Since California alone faces a budget deficit of $35 billion, leakage from unreported Internet sales is hardly the cause of state treasury woes. (permalink)

Sandra Day O'Conner and NASCAR
As I was driving this morning, I came saw three NASCAR-related window decals in the back of a cab of a pickup truck. One decal was a number, presumably of a famous NASCAR driver. Another said "I'm not tailgating, I'm drafting." While I had seen that one before, the third sticker was new to me: "I'm not speeding, I'm qualifying." While these stickers express the vehicle owner's love of the sport, they convey another message as well: "I may be breaking the law, but I have a very good reason for doing so."

While thinking of this message, I was reminded of this week's Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action. In upholding the use of race as a tool of govenrment policy (and indeed, advancing it), the court (or more accurately, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) shared an attitude with the NASCAR-loving motorist. O'Connor admitted that affirmative action was (at best) problematic in light of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law. But she also expressed the idea that affirmative action was still necessary.

In other words, "Affirmative action may be unconstitutional, but I have a very good reason for saying it ain't so." (permalink)

Profit = Evil
In Ohio, the "Coalition for Affordable Prescription Drugs" wants the state to secure, under threats of price controls, discounted drugs for the uninsured, and those with insurance but without prescription drug coverage.

It has obtained over 100,000 signatures in an attempt to force the legislature into enacting its ideas (or ultimately, force the issue to a public vote). PhRMA, the industry trade group, has challenged many of the signatures in an attempt to derail the petition effort.

The coalitions' ideas have been encapsulated in House Bill 166 and Senate Bill 14. The nonpartisan Legislative Service Commission describes the Senate version (slightly longer than the House version) in plain English.

The coalition is made up of industrial unions (AFL-CIO, UAW), government employee unions (AFSCME and the state teachers unions). To throw in some moral and "good government" weight, the coalition includes the Ohio Council of Churches and the League of Women Voters.

The logic of the coalition is thus:
a. Prescription drugs are important for the health and life of people who cannot afford them.
b. Drug companies have lots of money; they can cut their prices in half, easily.
c. Drug companies are evil for opposing us.

The answer, of course, is not to destroy the pharmaceutical industry, but to revamp tax policies and remove many of the regulations that inflate the costs of health care and health insurance.

But nah, it's easier, and fun, to whip up union members and religious folk by whoopin' on evil corporations. Even if those same corporations are, in their production of life-saving cures, more worthy public servants than politicians and their supporters who peddle ignorance, envy, and self-righteousness.

Labels: Health care

(permalink)

Private Ferry Boat to Face Government-Backed Competition
According to the Detroit News, " A federal agency has approved $14.5 million in loan guarantees for Lake Express LLC, a planned high-speed ferry" between Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Muskegon, Michigan. (They are the largest ports on the lake of either state.)

It's hard for non-midwesterners to appreciate the size of Lake Michigan. True, you can see its Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan shores if you're in an airplane flying over the extreme southern end of the lake. But take a boat out far enough, and you won't see land for a couple of hours.

There's already one company providing cross-lake service north of Milwaukee, between the small towns of Manitowoc (WI) and Ludington (MI). Unfortunately for the Lake Michigan Carferry Inc., of Ludington, this privately financed company will now be paying taxes that will help underwrite its competition.

The Mackinac Center, a think tank also based in Michigan, has repeatedly warned against this unfair and ill-advised practice. Lawrence W. Reed, for example, wrote back in April, the latest federal dependent

doesn’t want to take the risk itself for the debt it expects to incur to run the business it proposes. It wants to fob off much of that risk to taxpayers — millions of whom will never even see, let alone ride, one of its ferries

The U.S. Maritime Administration, which is giving Lake Express $14.5 million in loan guarantees, has been burned once before, when it had to pick up the tab for a failed $187 million venture elsewhere.

There are three possible outcomes of this latest act of government intervention in the private marketplace. One both Lake Michigan Carferry and Lake Express will succeed, and there will be two services crossing the lake in routes roughly 60 miles apart. A second is that Lake Express will fail, and feds will have to make good on a bad decision one more time. A third is that Lake Express will drive Lake Michigan Carferry out of business.

As someone with connections to both Michigan ports of Muskegon and Ludington, I'd like to see both ventures succeed (though obviously, with private money at stake). But contrary to the 1970s rock song, in this case, two out of three is bad. (permalink)

Chicago Suburb Stops Funding Beauty Pageant
The city of Oakbrook Terrace has decided to pull the plug on its $120,000 contribution to the Miss Illinois pageant. The pageant, which determines which woman will represent the state at the Miss America competition, has been hosted (and, I infer from this article in the Daily Herald, subsidized as well) by the city.

It's not that the Miss Illinois competition has been unsuccessful. Three women have gone on to win the Miss America title since 1990. But as the Oakbrook Terrace finance director puts it, "While the pageant is nice, it is not a necessity or a vital human service. We could no longer justify contributing the money to the pageant when other services needed to be funded."

Exactly. If only more governments would take heed, and restrict their spending to the essentials. (permalink)

Another Traffic Safety Shibboleth Falls
Taking some time out from his fine work in pressing the case for lower tax rates, Steven Moore comments on a US Department of Transportation report that injuries on the country's highways have reached their lowest rates, ever. Since the nationally mandated 55 mph speed limit was repealed in 1995, states have been free to set their own limits. And even though it reaches 80 mph in some areas, both fatality and injury rates have fallen--not the 6,400 extra fatalities forecasted by Ralph Nader, Joan Claybrook, and others. WIll these facts discredit the "trust government" crowd in which Nader and Claybrook run? Don't be on it.

Moore, by the way, calls the repeal--and letting states set their own speed limits based on local conditions--"one of the Republican Congress's enduring and under-appreciated accomplishments."

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

Supreme Court Makes "A Pathetic Decision"
That's the reaction over at Powerlineblog. "Deacon," one of three contributors, predicts that yesterday's decisions will guarantee racially-charged politics indefinitely.

The Supreme Court's decisions actually ensure that race-based preferences will never disappear. . . . If today's black applicants are "200 point SAT handicaps" when they apply to the top colleges, the next generation will be 250 or 300 point handicaps. The soft bigotry of low expectations all but guarantees that blacks and Hispanics will never be able to compete on equal terms with whites.

There are multiple lessons to take away from this case, but here are three observations: vetting candidates to the court is important, but uncertain (O'Connor and Souter, nominated by Reagan and Bush I, respectively, made the difference). Two: conservatives "grow" in office--that is, turn more liberal, but liberals rarely return the favor. Three: The Bush administration is to be faulted for not pressing a full-throated brief against affirmative action in the brief it filed with the court. (permalink)

Untie Those Federal Money Strings
If Kentucky takes money from taxpayers in New York, though the federal budget, they must abide by rules established by the federal government for spending that money. Those rules may or may not be in agreement with how the people in Kentucky would want to spend the money, but that's one of the costs of free money.

In the same light was one of yesterday's Supreme Court decision. The court upheld a law that makes libraries install pornography filters as a condition of getting federal grants to pay for Internet wiring. Never mind the question of why taxpayers in Casper, WY are paying for 'net connections of libraries in Bilouxi, MS --that's just the latest example of federalism gone astray.

More interesting is the fact that at least one library system may refuse more federal money rather than comply. The Minneapolis public library system may forfeit $160,000 rather than install filters. Good for them, I guess, for standing up for their principles--though the principle seems to be "free porn for all" rather than any principled stand on federalism. The decision would come at an awkward time; the library is facing a budget shortfall, and is considering cutting down on operating hours. In effect, the library would be choosing to offer porn access during fewer hours over filters and more limited hours.

But even then, would-be porno viewers can't get a free look. The library system has a policy of asking those who are viewing porn on the screen to stop, or face expulsion from the building. So maybe the library head honchos do object to turning computer terminals into peep shows. In other words, they want to do the right thing, but don't like being told from Congress to do it. Admirable or not? I report, you decide. (permalink)

Free Markets, not Big Business
It's been said before, but worth repeating. From Alan Murray's "Political Capital" column in today's WSJ: It's a mistake to confuse support for free-market capitalism with support for entrenched business interests; often, the two are directly opposed." (permalink)

More on the Supreme Court and Affirmative Action
From the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:

A cynic might conclude that yesterday's decisions mean universities can still racially discriminate, as long as they're not too obvious about it.

Given the celebratory comments of universities, "cynic" may be the wrong word. (permalink)

A Temporary Racial Remedy?
Writing in the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web," James Taranto holds to the "Glass is half full" interpretation of the court's decisions. He says that the "practical effect of this pair of rulings will be to scale back the use of racial preferences by public colleges."

Worrisome, though, are two facts about the case. One, as Taranto notes, "diveristy" is now established as a legitimate rationale for public policy, a rationale that race-concious administrators will hide behind to, in effect, promote quotas. Two, the argument that affirmative action is yes, a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but still must be excused, is noxious on its face. "We know this violates the constitution," is the spirit of the court's decision, "but trust us, it's going to last only a little longer, perhaps 25 years."

Yeah. A temporary government program. Add that to your lexicon of oxymorons. (permalink)

Racially-Divided Democracy Lives On
The Supreme Court has ruled that we live in a race-based society, and at least some bodies of government can at sometimes pick and choose among racial groups. More or less, that's what they said. It will take a while to sort out the implications; here is a quickly assembled Washington Post article on the two rulings from the court. (Note, the headling is misleading: The court struck down one form of racial preferences, but ratified the notion of racial preferences in education.)

It did strike down the practice of automatically giving 20 points to undergraduate applicants (a total of 100 is required for admission). But it also said that universities may make "narrowly tailored use of race" for "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." This doesn't change things much from the late 1970s ruling in Bakke. But since that time, "diversity" has become a buzzword in the university, governments, and corporate America. It reflects the belief that there are no truths, only beliefs held by differing communities that are based on race or other categories. This is a problematic position to hold in a free society: if truth is only subjective, there are no inherent rights, and a majority can strip a minority of its right at any time. (permalink)

County-supplied Internet Access?
The Times-Herald reports on 'Net developments in St. Clair county (northeast of Detroit). The county recently sent over 7,000 lengthy (questions) questionnaires to local residents, asking for their opinion on Internet access. A deputy administrator for the county insists that there are no plans for the county to regulate Internet providers. But the article also notes that "If demand does exist for increased broadband infrastructure, the county will join with the private sector to provide services."

Michigan has a "broadband authority" which offers low-interest loans to companies interested in setting up shop in underserved areas. County officials, apparently, hope to find companies who can tap into that money. The Mackinac Center cautions against such an approach. (permalink)

Government Regulations and Drivers Licenses
For most people who live outside of Manhattan, getting a drivers license is up there with death and paying taxes as an inevitable event.

Writing in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, columnist Toni Coleman provides a few vignettes of the trials and tribulations of getting one's license. The knowledge test component of licensing requires the applicant to correctly answer at least 32 of the 40 questions, or 80 percent. Those who fail the test can come back the next day. And the day after that. And the day after that, until they pass.

"Statewide," Coleman write, "34 percent of prospective drivers fail the knowledge exam needed to get their driver's license. In region one, which includes Arden Hills, Stillwater and the Midway Driver's License exam station, the largest in the state 44 percent fail."

One in three! OK, so the instruction booklet--which provides all the information a person needs to know to pass the test--isn't the greatest piece of literature. I've seen cereal boxes with more compelling content. Yet ... when you think of what opportunities are open to a person equipped with a car, you'd think that more people would read the booklet. Coleman estimates that fully one half of the people she talked to have not even opened the booklet. Maybe they are functional illiterates, graduates of a government-operated school. (permalink)

Media Bias--or Just Carelessness?
We had a thunderstorm here last night, so I turned on one of the local TV channels (wish I could remember which one) to see if there were any reports of downed tree limbs, floooding, and the like.

What I saw was a visual image so arresting as to be appalling. The newsreader was working her way through a quick list of "top news" stories. One concerned proposed changes to how the criminal justice system treats sex offenders.

Apparently, Minnesota's governor has some role in convening a panel on the subject, or something. So what did I see on the screen? A photo of the governor, with the words "Sex offenders" splayed right next to it.

Again ... bias, or carelessness? (permalink)

Local Government Staffer: I won't Cut
The federal government certainly has its wasteful spenders, from Senator Robert Byrd (D-Byrdland, aka, West Virginia) on down. State governments, as I have detailed at various times on this site, have gone on a spending binge in the 1990s.

But the spending epidemic occurs at the local level, too--even in solidly Republican cities and counties that have a reputation for fiscal prudence. My own city of residence, for example, has an elaborate water park that rivals many a commercial venture.

The county, meanwhile, is set to increase its own budget by nearly 6 percent, even though inflation is nearly non-existent. According to a report in a local suburban newspaper, county commissioners committed themselves to keeping the next year's budget to "under 6 percent." The final result was-no surprise, perhaps--a 5.99 percent increase.

What happened? The board chairman, Will Branning, polled fellow board members, asking how much of an increase they would support. No one gave a solid number, only "under 6 percent." Banning then told staff to prepare several possible budgets, all keeping budget increases to "under 6 percent." Patricia Bataglia, whom the paper describe as "frustrated," said "I did not agree to 5.9 and neither did Kathleen [Gaylord] and We spoke to that issue. I asked for options, I didn’t ask for a 5.9.”

It looks like she was given one option--the highest possible spending increase. Says another board member, "as I watched the process it seemed too much like staff setting up the board and the board was sort of taking it.”

Particularly noteworthy was in this episode was the inability of county staff to think creatively in ways to save money, as directed by a few of the commissioners (the group of people are, by the way, are allegedly the boss of county workers). One commissioner "kept encouraging innoation, offering ideas and potentials for partnering and prioritizing."

So what was the response of the people who are supposed to be taking, not giving the orders?

Staff responses ranged from taking notes regarding the elected officials’ suggestions, to detailing how certain approaches wouldn’t work ....

County administrators are apparently so used to getting seeing their budgets grow and grown that anything else is literally unthinkable. Tom Novak, apparently a long time government hack and director of the Public Services and Revenue department, told the commission of his pro-spending bias. He

said the budget was “going to be devastating” to a “great county” and later added his thoughts on budget cuts, stating, “I’m not advocating any cuts in government — that’s not my style. I’m not for spending less.”

In fairness to Mr. Novak, it's possible he is only expressing his own opinion, and is willing to be a good soldier and do as ordered, no matter what he thinks of the order. But that's not the impression I get from this account.

And I thought the responsibility of an administrator was to carry out the directives of those who make policy. Then again, public choice theory, which tells us that bureaucrats will tend to do things that enhance, not reduce, their budgetary power, warned us about this a long time ago.

The blame does not lie entirely with the staff. Commissioners should have specified more than one number, as in "give us a budget with no spending increase, and others with 2, 4, and 6 percent," or something like that. Allow those whose livelihood and outlook depends on the maintenance and expansion of government spending too much leeway, and you'll be pushed towards ever-increasing government. (permalink)

Faith Cuts Crime
One serious problem with criminal justice is the high rate of recidivism. That is, ex-cons who return to society are highly likely to be repeat offenders. In short, "rehabilitation" usually doesn't work, and the threat of further imprisonment doesn't much of a deterrent.

Another approach is to pursue rehabilitation through faith-based rehabilitation. That's what Prison Fellowship does through its InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI). This, which Prison Fellowship operates in several states, features education, Bible study, and community service while in prison, and and an after-release requirement of employment and church attendance.

The Manhattan Institute has just published a review of how IFI has worked in the state of Texas. The results are promising: when matched with prisoners of similar age, offense, race, and other factors, IFI graduates were 50 percent less likely to be arrested again. The 59-page report is available in PDF.

The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com comments on the inevitable constitutional challenge to programs that involve religion:

All this, no doubt, will be profoundly discomforting to those who like the results but don't like the religion; a similar program in Iowa is already being sued by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But the question is joined: Can you achieve the positive social outcomes of faith-based programs if you strip out the faith?

As Penn's John DiIulio reminds us, the positive findings about the InnerChange Freedom Initiative parallel more than 500 other studies showing that the "faith factor" often makes faith-based programs more effective than their purely secular counterparts.

To put it another way, critics of the faith-based approach may claim that their only issue is with religion. But if these results are any clue, increasingly the argument against such programs requires turning a blind eye to science.

Of course, in government programs, efficiency is not always the most important consideration. (permalink)

Buckeye Blog
The Buckeye Institute, a fine think tank in my old city of Columbus, has started a blog on state government in Ohio. (permalink)

State legislator seeks to ban superstores
The alleged ills of suburbia include not only social alientation ("bowling alone") and "suburban assault vehicles" (SUVs) but the character-destroying menace of superstores. Superstores are those places where one can buy hardware, clothes, households goods, and groceries in one place.

While regional stores such as Meijer in the western Great Lakes region predominate, Wal-Mart SuperCenters are the leading examples on a national scale. There certainly are things I don't like about living in suburbia, but life's full of choices, and at this point, the good exceeds the bad.

The Mackinac Center publishes my take on a proposal to ban superstores, which combines the aesthetic sensibilities of Those Who Would Design Life for the rest of us, and the economic self-interest of grocery story unions. (permalink)

Overspending, not Mandates. Cause Problems for State Budgets
The Heritage Foundation reviews state spending habits:
- General fund revenues have climbed 46 percent since 1990.
- General fund spending hasi ncreased 50 percent
- State spending has increased at twice the rate of federal spending
- State spending, collectively, now exceeds $1 trillion.

States plead poverty from unfunded mandates from Washington. But as Brian M. Riedl. a fellow at Heritage, points out, there have been only two major unfunded mandates since 1996, which have cost the average state less than 0.09 percent of its budget. In other words, the recent shortfalls in the states cannot be blamed on anything recently done in Washington. He uses data from a Congressional Budget Office report. The CBO annually tallies the cost of mandates.

States chafe under the restrictions of federal programs. "When Washington instead requires that federal dollars be used only for federally approved purposes, states feel cheated." So Riedl suggests that states opt out of some programs that allow for a state opt-out, such as the No Child Left Behind Act. But as Michael Greve explained last month (reviewed here), the incentives from Washington distort the political process in the states, giving a bias towards increased spending that is hard to cut in downturns. (permalink)

Free Government Money! Become an Indian!
George Neumayr reports on the latest public-private partnership: Indian casinos.

Last year in California, where Indian tribes pay no state or local taxes on gaming, five new casinos opened, bringing the total to over 50. Indian gaming revenue is now in the ballpark of $4 billion. Much of this money flows to a small network of hucksters who live not on poverty-stricken reservations but in gilded mansions. And millions of these profits go back to the politicians who let these casinos clog and corrupt the state.

In most states, Indian tribes have a policy advantage in getting the right to host a casino. The result, though, is sometimes ridiculous, with in at least one case, a "tribe" consisting of one woman.

It's not fair to be too hard on the Indians, who as a group are genuinely poor. If they find a way to improve their lot, good for them. But the Indian gambling industry has the smell of favoratism and political corruption to it. At the end of this year's legislative session in Minnesota, it was sometimes heard that the greatest accomplishment of the DFL (what we call the Democrats here) was to keep the Republicans from passing a proposal to add slot machines to race tracks, which would threaten the legal monopoly on gambling held by the Indian casinos. (The Indians, in turn, are large donors to the DFL.) Protecting the business interests of gambling operations as a great accomplishment? What a comedown for the party of Hubert Humphrey. (permalink)

Churlish Neighbor Brings Law Down on 6 Year-Old's Lemonade Stand
In Naples, Florida, a 6-year old girl was doing what children in this country have always done: set up a lemonade stand on a summer afternoon. Then the cops came and shut her down. One of the officers at the scene said, in effect, we're just doing our job.

Police acted after directed by city hall, which said that the girl was operating a business without a licence. Said a city official, "Normally we don't get involved in it but once we do get a formal request we must take action." The formal request came from ... a neighbor. There's no mention in the story of whether or not the neighbor first talked witih the girl or her parents about any complaints arising from the kiddie business.

Happily, city officials did the sensible thing, and granted a license to the child, and without a fee, to boot. At least she didn't have to call in the anti-regulatory litigators at the Institute for Justice. (permalink)

Grrrl Power
Concern over the status of women is the source of many policies at all levels of government (including schools), and in corporate America, too. Here's a sign that things are better than thought: women outnumber men in college. According to a report by the Business Roundtable, noted in the (suburban Chicago) Daily Herald,

"The Growing Gender Gaps in College Enrollment and Degree Attainment" study found women outpace men by about 28 percent in enrollment in colleges and stay to graduate more often. The graduation totals for women outpace men by 51 percent at community colleges and 33 percent at four-year institutions.

The gap means that women will routinely have a higher level of education than men in the workplace.

Since more education tends to result in higher income, belief in the famed (but overstated) "wage gap" may some day be put to rest.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Raising Taxes, Again
More proofs that "Republican" does not necessarily mean "lower taxes"--Ohio, where the House, Senate, and Governor's office are controlled by Republicans--is set to increase the state sales tax again. Of course, this is to deal with a budget deficit--brought on my ever-expanding spending over the last decade. (permalink)

Life's Little Nuisances and Government Rules
There are many differences between the town I lived in 10 months ago and where I live now: definitely upscale there, not so much here; sidewalks there, not here; and, a heavy factor on the "plus," side, no family there, but family here.

But there is one other feature of my old town that I miss: the peace and quiet of being in my house. Here, by contrast, I deal with a steady stream of door-to-door strangers, peddling religious beliefs, magazine subscriptions, and frozen meat out of the back of a truck. Ok, so I broke down once and gave a box of macaroni and cheese mix to some teenagers who said they were collecting items for a food bank. But otherwise, the peddlers get annoying.

Writing in the St. Paul Pioneer Dispatch, columnist Joe Soucheray makes a few comments:

Now that the weather is turning warmer, the birds are tweeting and the flowers are blooming, the driveway scam artists are out in their customary legions. ... By "driveway scam" I mean that here they come, up the driveway

Soucheray explains how he questions the peddlers (if you're doing this as part of a program, who's running it?) and scares off many with a one-size-fits-all line ("I need a receipt for tax purposes.")

In my old town, I hardly ever got door-to-door solicitations--at least not for frozen meat or pre-paid oil changes (I've received two of each.) Why? Perhaps the famed "Minnesota Nice" makes it hard for people here to "Just say no" to peddlers. But I suspect that government policy plays a role. In my old town, commercial vendors had to register with the local government. It's enough of a barrier, apparently, to discourage peddling. This is one government intervention I don't mind. Hypocrite? Perhaps, but at the least, it isn't an act of playing favorites among businesses, which is what traditional forms of local regulation (zoning) have become. (permalink)

Maybe there is Horse Sense in Government
When I type in www.stateline.COM to get to the excellent site with news from across the states, and about state government, I get redirected to a www.horseweb.com, the "resource gallery for horses for sale and horse classifieds ...." What this means, I don't know. The correct address, of course, is www.stateline.ORG. (permalink)

Governors Strike Back at Charges of Frivolity
From Stateline. Actually, the two governors interviewed here--an R and a D--don't say much except to dismiss the suggestion (made by Grover Norquest and Stephen Moore) that bankruptcy is an option for states. (permalink)

Do States Need Great Productivity?
David Hogberg, publisher of the Cornfield Commentary, rips a BusinessWeek article which contends that state government spending is not out of control.

Michael J. Mandel, author of the B-W article, excludes from his analysis public education (K-12 plus higher ed) and criminal justice. Further, he looks only at employee compensation costs, not all costs. Hogberg writes:

Given that public education (excluding higher ed) and criminal justice constitute almost 53% of said employees, it's a bit like saying expenses for Major League Baseball haven't grown that much in the last 10 years if you exclude salary costs.

If, however, the growth in the state's spending for 1992-2000 (the year of Mandel's analysis), had been restrained, we would be looking at a much brighter budget picture now. If state spending growth had grown only at the rate of inflation (plus population growth, to account for an increasing number of people to served), states would have a surplus of over $102 billion. Instead, they face a collective debt of $85 billion.

While productivity growth of employees may have some effect on the budget, the largest cause of budget troubles, by far, is the decision of many policy makers to spend like every year was 1999. (permalink)

Conceal Carry in Ohio
Conceal carry legislation is being debated in Ohio, which may become the latest state to liberalize the requirements for carrying a concealed weapon. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a series of stories that trace this development back to lower court rulings that found existing prohibitions unconstitutional. (permalink)

Aided by Deregulation, Upstart Airlines Revive Old Airport
The suburban Chicago Daily Herald reports that Midway Airport, on the city's south side, is thriving.

While the rest of the aviation industry is struggling, Midway is thriving. Airline traffic nationwide was down last year, but Midway handled the most passengers it's ever served: 17 million, a 9 percent increase over 2001. O'Hare had nearly 67 million passengers, down about 1 percent.

Why? Two words: Southwest Airlines. The low-cost, point-to-point airline has made Midway its midwest home.

Well, it's more than that, of course. Not only is the airport served by Southwest--the only major airline to show a profit last year--but ATA, a mini-Southwest.

Some passengers call Midway better at customer service, "from accommodating people with handicaps to holding planes for late connecting flights."

A recently reconfiguration of the small terminal makes the place a lot more attractive, and the food court featuring outposts of Chicago institutions (Potbelly subs, for example), is nice.

The key to the story though, is what the federal government did--or rather, didn't do:

It opened in 1927 and was the world's busiest airport from 1941 to 1959. Then the much larger O'Hare opened and took the crown, leaving Midway abandoned mostly to small private aircraft in the 1960s and '70s.

Then in 1978, deregulation allowed new airlines to start serving new destinations.

The Reason Public Policy Institute has many fine reports--including this one--about how turning over airport operations and management to private companies can improve air travel. Unfortunately, much of the momentum to involve the private sector more often was stopped cold by 9/11, and the knee-jerk reaction to federalize as much as possible.

I am pleased to see the fortunes of this small airport revived, but I avoid it whenever I can--because of government policies, and they way they are implemented. Flying in is fine, but flying out makes me feel that I'm in a quasi-totalitarian state. There are more security checkpoints there than at other airports I've been to, and the screeners there seem more thuggish. Perhaps I would feel better about it all if I didn't take my laptop with me; they're always wanting to plaster a sticker on its sleek case, and someone is usually bleating "remove all laptops from all bags. Remove all laptops from all bags." It just gives me the sense that so much of this is "security" just for the sake of appearances (wanding 70 year old grandmothers, etc.)

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

Medicaid Reform: Sooner or Later
As part of the recently enacted "tax cut" package agreed to by Congress and President Bush, states will receive $10 million to spend on their medicaid programs. But as stateline.org reporter Erin Madigan, that is a pittance.

Trudi Matthews, chief health policy analyst at The Council of State Governments says that this money is "a real boon to states," since it will allow them to "stave off cuts for a little while longer."

The lowest-income of people have been spared cuts, but their dependency on tax money only shows how poorly the system serves them. The least that should be done is to give those on Medicaid some power over how the money is spent. The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) and Buckeye Institute have created one possible solution to the long-term problem of artificially low reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals, soaring budgets for states, and health care inflation.

Labels: Medicaid

(permalink)

Parents Jump at Educational Choice
Last year, the state of Ohio mandated intradistrict school choice--open enrollment within a school district on a "space available" basis. Now, the Akron Beacon-Journal reports, one school has been so popular that some folks are complaining about crowding at the school. Apparently parents know a good thing when they see it.

Better schools: build it and they will come. If you let them ....

Labels: Education, School choice

(permalink)

What a Difference a Drive Makes
In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm and the legislature have been in a dispute over road funding; the legislature wants to build more roads, while the governor wants to emphasize road maintenance.

Having driven [bump] many miles [thump] on Michigan's roads [what was that?], I can sympathize with Granholm.

She became more agreeable to building more roads after getting stuck in a Detroit-area traffic jam. According to the Detroit Free Press, the normally punctual governor arrived 45 minutes late at a meeting after getting stuck in traffic. Granholm, who has spent the last five years driving from Detroit to the state capital of Lansing, has this reaction: "We didn't realize how bad the traffic was going the other way."

Labels: Transportation

(permalink)

I Only Know What I Read in the Papers
If that's the case, you ought to reconsider. So much has been made in recent weeks over the various scandals of the New York Times--making up stories, using uncredited writers, and such--that I won't belabor the point.

WordSpy spots the origin of new words or phrases. Perhaps sometime we will see a new term that has come from the riches of embarassments that the Times has experienced.

Blogger Eric Berlin offers a quick tutorial on "Dowdification," or malicious editing of a person's remarks. (permalink)

Old News: Lottery Players are Poor
The Bangor News of Maine analyzes spending patterns on the lottery for that state, and come up with an unsurprising conclusion: lottery players are disproportionately poor.

Per capita spending on the lottery was $105 in the state's wealthiest county, but $160 for the poorest.

Maine is now selling a $10 version of the lottery. Even the owner of a store that sells these pricey tickets says "To me, it's like taking $10, lighting it on fire and throwing it in the garbage."

Hey, if you want to, I suppose. But the state ought to get out of the business, which is hardly a vital public interest. (permalink)

Streamlining Elections
In Michigan (and perhaps other states) elections for government-owned schools are held in June--to meager turnout. Not only does this make those elections more vulnerable to manipulation by a small but dedicated group, it costs more. Hoping to produce some economy of scale, Michigan's Secretary of State has proposed consolidating elections to four days in given year.

Sure, elections are critical to democracy. But we don't need to have them all the time. We go six years, for example, between elections for each of a state's two seats in the U.S. senate. Some minor consolidation in elections is a reasonable approach. But some members of government school boards don't like the proposal put forth by Terri Land. They say they want the flexibility to approach voters for more money whenever they need to. Perhaps they ought to, instead, manage their (our) money better. (permalink)

Public and private diversity
Ever notice? Private groups are not allowed to discriminate, but public entitities are allowed to?

A golf club in Georgia comes under intense media pressure for having an all-male membership policy. Private schools are accused of being the province of bigots and racists (though Catholic schools serve black children from low-income families much better than government-operated schools in the same area), allegedly excluding minorities. Bob Jones University was stripped of its tax exemption for its odious policy of forbidding interracial dating, which was seen not only as an impingement of student's freedom, but as a racist statement.

Government contracts and university admissions, on the other hand, follow a soft form of racism. "Soft" in that they don't exclude certain groups (like the "whites only" drinking fountains of old); instead, they bend the rules in favor of those determined to be in a favored class.

There's something odd about a situation when many private clubs are more dedicated to constitutional principles of equal protection and treatment than the government that is supposed to protected and defend the Constitution.

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

One Man's Legacy--the "diversity" industry
Any time now, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on the Michigan case. The University of Michigan rates applicants according to a 150 point scale; (certain) minorities receive a 20 point "gimmie" as a matter of policy. (In case you're wondering, that's a 13 percent boost, or in academic terms, a full-letter grade.) The policy has been challenged on constitutional grounds.

According to the Wall Street Journal, some defenders of "affirmative action" think the U of M is making the wrong defense. It used to be that such programs were defended on the basis of past wrongs: to make up for institutional racism, race became a factor in hiring and admissions decisions. As reporter Daniel Golden notes, though, the couirts have been scaling back this rationale, ruling that it is valid only if the institution awarding the preferences was itself guilty of racism in the past. Since "This university was racist" is a higher standard to meet than "Racism existed in society," the result could be the end of many programs.

Then a new defense came up, most suited for the university, but applied in the corporate world as well. Actually, it isn't such an old defense, going back (at laest) to the 1978 Bakke decision. And herein is the story of the power of one man. In Bakkee, the Supreme Court rejected racial quotas, and ordered the University of California-Davis to admit Allan Bakkee, a white applicant who claimed he had been discriminated against.

Four justices sided with UC-Davis, on the standard grounds of redressing past racial wrongs. But as often happens in Supreme Court decisions, one person--who casts the tie-breaking vote--has extradordinary power. Lewis Powell Jr., wrote "the atmosphere of speculation, experiment and creation so essential to the quality of higher education" was promoted by a diverse student population.

A Michigan graduate and defender of affirmative action rejects the diversity argument, saying that "The term 'diversity gets tossed around so much that it's offensive to students of color. It sounds as if we're just in college to enrich the education of white students."

The diversity defense can be questioned on two other fronts, the Journal cites critics. One, how does "diversity" contribute to the study of study of, say, physics? Second, why, if diversity is important, do diversity preferences include only blacks, Hispanics and Indians? Why not religious groups such as Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or Christian fundamentalists?

According to the Journal report, some advocates of affirmative action fear that the "diversity" approach is weak because it "suffers from flawed analysis and weak social-science research." The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is a good place to start looking at the flaws in the research.

As important as disputes over the research may be, there is something even more troubling. When court decisions, especially those from our highest court, depend on "social-science research" rather than a reading of constitutional principles, all sorts of mischief can happen.

Likewise, the pursuit of "diversity" has become such a major goal of schools that the pursuit of knowledge itself is compromised.

If a private business or organization wants to discriminate on its own--by creating a scholarship program only for the daughters of left-handed Norweigian bacheloer farmers, for example--fine. For government entitites--those part of that element of our society that administers justice--the logic ought to be very different: equal justice under the law.

Perhaps the best way out of the education morass is to fund students and not universities. That is, take the money appropriated to government-operated universities and put it on the back of students, who can carry the money to wherever they want, which may include universities that judge some things by race.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

More on Spam
Clyde Wayne Crews responds to Christopher Caldwell's essay in The Weekly Standard calling for a tax on email to address the problem of spam. (permalink)

"Government agencies did not have to earn their money."
On the passing of journalist David Brinkley, The American Spectator today reprints a review of Brinkley's book, Washington Goes to War, Brinkley's recollection of life in the nation's capital city during World War II. Even then, Brinkley writes,

The single fact most clearly differentiating government employers from private employers was, always, that government agencies did not have to earn their money. Congress simply handed it over every year and almost always more than the year before, so it was there to be spent and it was unthinkable not to spend it. Nobody in government ever benefited in any way from saving money. Whatever was not spent had to be handed back to the Treasury and if an agency had money left over at the end of one year, how could it ask Congress for more money the next year?"

As reviewer Brit Hume asks, "Sound familiar?" (permalink)

Save the Teachers
The Dearborn (Michigan) schools anticipates a $4 to $ 7 million deficit, and plan to lay off 160 teachers as a result. Mackinac Center scholars Robert P. Hunter and Michael LaFaive suggest that before this happens, the schools ought to enter into contracts with private for non-teaching functions such as student transportation, food service, and security, to save costs and perhaps improve service as well. You'd think the teachers union would favor anything that would save the jobs of teachers. You would also be wrong.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Say No to Spam--and Government Action
Arnold Kling issues the first (that I've seen, at least) salvo against Christopher Caldwell's argument that the pervasive presence of spam calls for an email tax, and more generally, increased government regulation of the Internet. "All such bills are misguided. The cost of creating the mechanisms on the Internet to track down spammers in order to tax or regulate spam is greater than the cost of spam itself."

The problem, he says, is that the standard protocol for internet mail, SMTP, is "fast but stupid." It relays emails without looking inside them. It is impractical for email to be inspected enroute, he says. Instead, ISPs can take technical measures (as Yahoo! has done recently) to make spamming difficult. He also holds out hope for filters as a solution to the problem of spam.

"I wish that spam would go away. I am against spam. But all solutions to the spam problem are costly. The least costly solution is self-reliance." (permalink)

Corn in the Gas Tank
It's summertime driving season, which usually means higher gasoline prices. The culprit, to a large extent, is the array of government regulations covering gasoline. But the fuel in your tank is going to get more expensive, due to legislation working its way through Congress. Over at The Knowledge Problem, economist Lynne Kiesling has been raging against ethanol mandates. (permalink)

Save us from Cheese
During the Iraq war, the French were often derided as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." As it turns out, the FDA is vigiliant, trying its best to keep Americans from consuming cheese, at least cheese preferred by the French. In "Hey, Buddy, Wanna Score Some Cheese?" (online only to subscribers), the Wall Street Journal says that "the Food and Drug Administration bans the sale of all cheeses made with raw milk that haven't been aged for at least 60 days." This includes camembert and brie. The FDA is thinking of even banning the importation of parmesan and cheddar cheeses made with raw milk, no matter how long it has been aged. (Aging, apparently, does a lot to reduce the risk of food poisoning.) All this busy-bodiness comes out of a listeria outbreak nearly 20 years ago. You'd think our over-active legal system would be a sufficient safeguard.

At least the agricultural official at the French embassy had a sense of humor about it all: "We don't feel that our cheeses are that much of a weapon of mass destruction." (permalink)

Republicans: The Party of Tax Increases?
Democrats are the party of tax-and-spend, while Republicans advocate smaller government and a lighter tax bill. Right? Well, not exactly. David Hogberg, writing in The American Spectator, provides a quick rundown of Republican governors who are raising taxes.. They include usual suspects, such as yet another Republican governor in Ohio, to the unexpected, such as the governor of Idaho. Hogberg lays out the challenge for the Republicans:

Republicans are unlikely to ever get a handle on spending if some of their leaders are willing, if not eager, to raise taxes to close budget gaps. For in the long run, new taxes unleash eras of new spending. Then, when the good times end, it becomes time to make "the hard choices" and raise taxes again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Fortunately for the Republicans, some governors, such as Pawlenty of Minnesota, are holding the line. Some Democrats are making sensible choices as well, such as Jennifer Granholm, Michigan's new governor, who has crafted a budget free from major tax increases. (permalink)

Bigotry based On Ideology
Affirmative action, by its nature, takes race into account when making decisions about hiring, firing, and promotions. Sometimes it is a quota, sometimes it takes softer measures. But is it racism?

No, say its defenders. It's meant to improve the lot of minorities. One cannot be racist without having power. Minorities do not have power. Therefore, anything that promotes minorities cannot be racist.

A similar logic is at work (and invoked) in the scorn that some leftists have for conservatives, and in terms of political parties, for Republicans. At best, the conservative who outs himself is met with stares: "And you seem intelligent. Why?" At worst, well, the nasty names fly. Willy Stern describes a blind date that turned out badly after he defended Republicans, and identified himself as one

She dropped her chopsticks and stared at me as if I had just announced that I was a convicted child rapist.

"Well, look," she said as she pulled her purse out from under her seat. "I'm sorry but I can't deal with this. Please don't think me rude, but I really think it would be best if I just left."

"Sadly," he writes, "this is not an extreme case." He labels such attitude bigotry, and finds an official of the Anti-Defamation League to back him up. Stern then lays out the logic of leftist-based bigotry:

In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated Left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We're a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We're better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We're right. They're wrong. QED: All Republicans are assholes"

Of course, a parallel charge can be made against some conservatives, which only goes to show, again, the bigotry knows no boundaries. [Courtesy of Real Clear Politics.] (permalink)

Welfare for Artists
Here's a constituency that needs welfare reform: artists. Writing in OpinionJournal, Daniel Grant describes how artists and arts organizations are finding creative ways to dip into the pockets of John Q. and Jane Public: excise taxes. San Francisco's Grants for the Arts program, for example, gets its $14.5 million budget from the city's bed tax--on the theory that (a) tourists come to San Fran for art; and (b) the Grants program produces the art, and therefore, (c) tourists ought to fund the Grants program. There are other assumptions in there, of course, but it's all part of the same story: an organized group, intensely interested in its own betterment, lives off the tax dollars of a dispersed group of people who pay only a little bit each for the privilege of subsidizing someone else.

The Bay area is not the only transgressor, of course: Denver, and Tempe, AZ are among the cities that have bought into the logic of "If you tax them, they will come (back)." Broward County, Florida, however, doesn't follow the "tax the to tourist" route; rather, it taxes plebian art (video rentals) to support (allegedly) more high-minded art institutions. (permalink)

Work Promotes Welfare
Welfare reform is back in the news thanks to a new report from a social policy research organization called MDRC. Stateline.org has a brief review of the study. Here's the thumbnail version: work promotes the welfare of children and parents. Not only do households where with a wage earner have higher incomes than one without (that should be obvious), but both children and adults are better off on a number of non-economic measurements.

Under the New Hope program in Wisconsin, members of the experimental group received, on average $100 a month in supplemental income and subsidized health care and child care. A control group did not, and received welfare benefits under the standard terms (which does include a work requirement). The group that received the supplements were more likely to have higher incomes and were otherwise better off.

This shouldn't be surprising. One, the experimental group had, effectively, a higher income, and when you're at the level of welfare recipients, every extra dollar helps, a lot. Members of the experimental group worked longer than those in the control group, lifting their incomes. A WSJ article on the study interprets the report as contradciting "most state's welfare-to-work policies that make dollar-for-dollar reductions to benefits as recpients earn more money." That's a 100 percent marginal tax. Lifting that tax (part of the experiment) will naturally encourage people to work more.

But as Heritage Foundation scholars Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan point out, "the most effective way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is to increase the number of stable, healthy marriages." That was something beyond the scope of the New Hope project, and perhaps of government officials as well. (permalink)

Jesus and Tax Cuts
An an op-ed that ran in the yesterday's NYT, Adam Cohen asks the vogue phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" and gives his answer: "Sock It to Alabama's Corporate Landowners."

Here are the facts:
- Families with incomes as little as $4,600 are subject to the state income tax (in neighboring Mississippi, it's over $19,000)
- Sales taxes (thought to hurt the poor the most) run as high as 11 percent (apparently there are local plus state levies)
- People can deduct from their state income tax obligations all money paid in federal income taxes. [It's not as if they are getting away with paying no taxes--they do pay federal taxes, plus property, sales, and other state taxes.]

Cohen notes that "The upshot is wildly regressive: Alabamians with incomes under $13,000 pay 10.9 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those who make over $229,000 pay just 4.1 percent." As George F. Will would say, Well. Everything in life is regressive, isn't it? A Kia automobile will represent a bigger portion of annual income for a $10,000 household than it will for a $100,000 income. Same for a new TV, a 2,000 square foot house, or three pounds of hamburger. The fact that each purchase represents a smaller portion of one's income is one of those benefits of being wealthy rather than poor.

There are two reasons why issues of tax fairness even come to a head:
- Resentment of wealth, resulting in calls to take some of it away. (The socialist impulse)
- A perceived need to tax the wealthy much more, simply to fund government. (The result of too-big government)

And one reason that government has grown so much is that many people pay no income taxes at all--roughly half pay no federal income tax. Sounds odd? Sure, governments don't have income from those folks, but non-payers, not, well, paying taxes, may be less concerned about the burden of taxes, and thus overpurchase (with other people's money) government services. But government is not free, and knowing that is a matter of good citizenship. One way to teach that lesson is to require everyone to pay income taxes of some sort. It can be set at a token amount--say, $10, even--for those with the lowest of incomes. This would, of course, be "unprofitable" in an economic sense, in that the cost of processing such a return would swamp the income gain to the government. But it would benefit the political culture as a whole.

Since we're bringing religion into the discussion, one critical point that Cohen never