There is a great article by the always interesting William Voegeli in the most recent issue of Commentary. I prefer mine on dead tree but you can read it here. Essentially, Voegeli examines the lack of ardor for soaking CEOs and hedge fund managers on the part of the middle class that so puzzles academics and journalists and other members of the chattering classes. To extend the conundrum, why do the great unwashed seem to be susceptible to attacks on the government which can benefit them so?
Voegeli suggests that it has something to do with who you know and who you consider to be peers. The average guy doesn't know a rich CEO or hedge fund manager (they are exceedingly thin on the ground)so doesn't much care what they make or how they live. He does know teachers and cops who seem very comparable to him but relatively better off.
On the other hand, columnists and professors all know the average student back at Princeton who did nothing but chase girls and drink beer. The buffoon now makes twenty times what they do. That must not stand.
Sure there's more to be said, but it's an interesting observation.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Supreme Court Conference
In late August of 2009, it occurred to me that it might be a good thing if Marquette University Law School held a conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. We had a great inaugural conference in October 2009 and last Friday reprised the conference for an audience of over 150 lawyers in Eckstein Hall.
There are too many people to thank here. One of the great things about doing this conference is the willingness of so many great lawyers of all ideological persuasions and specialities to help. See you next year.
There are too many people to thank here. One of the great things about doing this conference is the willingness of so many great lawyers of all ideological persuasions and specialities to help. See you next year.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
I often lament about the public debate on legal matters and how it tends to be framed. But the public debate on religion is just as skewed. A recent phenomena is the evangelical atheist. Folks like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who, to my mind, represent nothing as much as an adolescent who thinks he knows something that everyone else has missed. Just as science is unlikely - almost by definition - ever to prove the existence of God, it is just as ill suited to prove the absence. So guys like Dawkins, et al., and Dennett and PZ Myers go after low hanging fruit - making fun of caricatures of religious viewpoints and the most simple minded of believers. It's great sport but its largely useless.
Into the fray enters Phillip Goldberg, author of a book on Indian spirituality and the West. He wants to posit an alternative to the cartoonish religion of the Traveling Atheism Show but winds up suggesting a some mix between agnosticism and a religion of the Self. Rather than suggest a religion that is is consistent with reason, he suggests one that is barely religious.
Goldberg's preaching the faith called Spiritual But Not Religious which, at least in his mind, sees God as "a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar." The SBNR are, apparently unlike the traditionally religious, rational and reasonable. These folks don't see God as an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky and "don't accept all religious dogma as revealed truth ...." "If they value scripture at all," he says, "they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality."
The difficulties with such a "faith" are well rehearsed. It amounts to what some have called "Sheilaism" - which threatens to become a reification of whatever one happens to feel at the moment without much regard for the wisdom of others, particularly of one's ancestors. Because it can mean anything, it means nothing.
But more fundamentally, Goldberg has missed much of the Judeo-Christian tradition (I can't comment on Islam) which has always read the Bible as something other than literal history or moral statutes. For Goldberg, people like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Barth, etc., must never have existed. He obviously doesn't know - or at least care to acknowledge - that people wrestle with the issues that they wrestled with every day.
To say that the Bible is something other than the literal word of God (something that Roman and Anglo Catholicism and the mainline Protestant denominations and Judaism largely do say) does not render it irrelevant. To acknowledge moral complexity is not to slide into moral relativism. To recognize that our images of a personal God are metaphorical because God as God exists cannot be fully known ("we see through a glass darkly") is not to render God the equivalent of some groovy form of Dark Matter.
Into the fray enters Phillip Goldberg, author of a book on Indian spirituality and the West. He wants to posit an alternative to the cartoonish religion of the Traveling Atheism Show but winds up suggesting a some mix between agnosticism and a religion of the Self. Rather than suggest a religion that is is consistent with reason, he suggests one that is barely religious.
Goldberg's preaching the faith called Spiritual But Not Religious which, at least in his mind, sees God as "a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar." The SBNR are, apparently unlike the traditionally religious, rational and reasonable. These folks don't see God as an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky and "don't accept all religious dogma as revealed truth ...." "If they value scripture at all," he says, "they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality."
The difficulties with such a "faith" are well rehearsed. It amounts to what some have called "Sheilaism" - which threatens to become a reification of whatever one happens to feel at the moment without much regard for the wisdom of others, particularly of one's ancestors. Because it can mean anything, it means nothing.
But more fundamentally, Goldberg has missed much of the Judeo-Christian tradition (I can't comment on Islam) which has always read the Bible as something other than literal history or moral statutes. For Goldberg, people like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Barth, etc., must never have existed. He obviously doesn't know - or at least care to acknowledge - that people wrestle with the issues that they wrestled with every day.
To say that the Bible is something other than the literal word of God (something that Roman and Anglo Catholicism and the mainline Protestant denominations and Judaism largely do say) does not render it irrelevant. To acknowledge moral complexity is not to slide into moral relativism. To recognize that our images of a personal God are metaphorical because God as God exists cannot be fully known ("we see through a glass darkly") is not to render God the equivalent of some groovy form of Dark Matter.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Feingold for Supreme Court ? Probably Not
And what about Russ Feingold as a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court as suggested by the Progressive's Matt Rothschild?
He'd be a very serious candidate. I don't have much sense of him as a lawyer. My recollection is that he was a few years ahead of me at Harvard Law School where I think he was an average student. We worked briefly at the same law firm but he was in Madison and pretty clearly more interested in politics than practicing law. My guess is that he would be a very attractive candidate for those on the legal left.
As a result, he'd attract powerful independent opposition. Because he's never been a judge - or, for that matter, much of a lawyer - there'd be little in the way of a record concerning actual cases as will be the case with Justice Prosser and his current opponent. But Feingold has been fairly adamant in adopting a view of the Bill of Rights that emphasizes the rights of criminal defendants and that is always a tough sell in a judicial election. I think he'd lose in a hugely expensive race and that would probably make a race for the Senate in 2012 highly unlikely.
More than that, it may be a mistake to come back to a statewide race so quickly. The voters just said no. It may be best to wait a while before you ask them again.
He'd be a very serious candidate. I don't have much sense of him as a lawyer. My recollection is that he was a few years ahead of me at Harvard Law School where I think he was an average student. We worked briefly at the same law firm but he was in Madison and pretty clearly more interested in politics than practicing law. My guess is that he would be a very attractive candidate for those on the legal left.
As a result, he'd attract powerful independent opposition. Because he's never been a judge - or, for that matter, much of a lawyer - there'd be little in the way of a record concerning actual cases as will be the case with Justice Prosser and his current opponent. But Feingold has been fairly adamant in adopting a view of the Bill of Rights that emphasizes the rights of criminal defendants and that is always a tough sell in a judicial election. I think he'd lose in a hugely expensive race and that would probably make a race for the Senate in 2012 highly unlikely.
More than that, it may be a mistake to come back to a statewide race so quickly. The voters just said no. It may be best to wait a while before you ask them again.
Second Annual Supreme Court Conference
For those of you lawyers out there in BlogLand, one of the best deals on Continuing Education that you'll ever see is the Second Annual Conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Review and Preview to be held on December 3 at Marquette University Law School. I mean 5 credits plus lunch for $ 40. That, ladies and gentlemen, is insane.
This year, we will be joined by national scholars such as James Sample and Brad Smith to discuss the ongoing recusal issues before the Court in a panel including me and moderated by the Hon. Diane Sykes. Other panelists include Michael O'Hear, Dan Blinka, Jack Kircher, Tom Shriner and a host of other stars of the bar. You really have to be there.
This year, we will be joined by national scholars such as James Sample and Brad Smith to discuss the ongoing recusal issues before the Court in a panel including me and moderated by the Hon. Diane Sykes. Other panelists include Michael O'Hear, Dan Blinka, Jack Kircher, Tom Shriner and a host of other stars of the bar. You really have to be there.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Myths About "Job Creation"
Some of us like to say that the state can spend a large sum of money - say $ 810 million on a train - and "create" jobs. As statements go, this one is fairly meaningless. The only thing we can say for certain is that it has employed - directly or indirectly - however many people that amount of money has hired. Want 8100 jobs paying $ 100,000 in 2011? Give me that money. I'll find something for those folks to do - or not. To say that I created jobs is, in one sense of the word, a truism but a meaningless one.
In another sense of the word, it is almost certainly a false statement. It is false if you mean by "create" a net addition of 8100 jobs. That $ 810 million must come from somewhere. Had it remained where it was, it would save for the rare possibility of something like a Keynesian "liquidity trap") have been put to some use. That use also would have resulted in people being hired. I have not, therefore, added jobs to the economy in the numbers that I have claimed for I have also caused other jobs not to be created.
This is why statements about how many people would be hired (jobs "created") by some public works project are, if not entirely meaningless, not particularly helpful. The relevant question is whether the project creates additional value, i.e., gives people something they desire or increases the productivity of the economy, in an amount greater than some alternative use of the funds expended upon it.
Sharp readers will note that this statement implies that there are circumstances in which government might "create" jobs in the sense of causing there to be more jobs than there otherwise might be. This is true. Public education can create jobs although this does not mean that every dime spent on public education does so or that any additional spending on public education is justified. Highways may create jobs but, again, this doesn't mean that all highways are justified. Even consumer rail might create jobs but, given its cost and the demographics in most parts of the United States, that is unlikely.
The real test of any expenditute of public funds is whether it constitutes a better use of dollars than alternative uses - including private ones. In addition, that question must take into account the fact that state expenditures involve coercion. One does not have to be a Randian or regard private property rights as absolute to believe that regard for the intrinsic value of human beings and their autonomy creates a certain presumption against taking the fruits of their labor.
Of course, a presumption can be overcome but it is also true that, in the great run of cases, market mechanisms are ging be more efficient in directing funds to the most productive or desired use than centralized bureaucracies.
Not always, but mostly.
In another sense of the word, it is almost certainly a false statement. It is false if you mean by "create" a net addition of 8100 jobs. That $ 810 million must come from somewhere. Had it remained where it was, it would save for the rare possibility of something like a Keynesian "liquidity trap") have been put to some use. That use also would have resulted in people being hired. I have not, therefore, added jobs to the economy in the numbers that I have claimed for I have also caused other jobs not to be created.
This is why statements about how many people would be hired (jobs "created") by some public works project are, if not entirely meaningless, not particularly helpful. The relevant question is whether the project creates additional value, i.e., gives people something they desire or increases the productivity of the economy, in an amount greater than some alternative use of the funds expended upon it.
Sharp readers will note that this statement implies that there are circumstances in which government might "create" jobs in the sense of causing there to be more jobs than there otherwise might be. This is true. Public education can create jobs although this does not mean that every dime spent on public education does so or that any additional spending on public education is justified. Highways may create jobs but, again, this doesn't mean that all highways are justified. Even consumer rail might create jobs but, given its cost and the demographics in most parts of the United States, that is unlikely.
The real test of any expenditute of public funds is whether it constitutes a better use of dollars than alternative uses - including private ones. In addition, that question must take into account the fact that state expenditures involve coercion. One does not have to be a Randian or regard private property rights as absolute to believe that regard for the intrinsic value of human beings and their autonomy creates a certain presumption against taking the fruits of their labor.
Of course, a presumption can be overcome but it is also true that, in the great run of cases, market mechanisms are ging be more efficient in directing funds to the most productive or desired use than centralized bureaucracies.
Not always, but mostly.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Return of the Shark: Walker hits the ground running
This has probably been my longest hiatus from blogging but I didn't want to have take sides in the recent midterm elections.
Or, of you don't believe that, I have just completed a month or so of a series of outside events and dead tree writing, including talks in Southern California, western Virginia and New York City. Throw that in with the ordinary course of business and some personal issues and there has been no time to blog. I am happy to report that the polity seems to have thrived without me.
Still, its time to come back. My impressions on the rise of the Tea Party and its influence on the midterms will be forthcoming in the WI Interest. What I find intriguing is that, before the celebratory hangovers had even subsided, Scott Walker made high speed rail the first issue of his nascenct administration.
I've written in the Journal Sentinel that the debate over high speed rail frustrates me. Advocates are almost never willing to address the real economic issues in proposed systems. Analyses have shown that commuter rail is almost never economically justified on a wide variety of measures. This is not the same as saying that it does not "pay for itself." Generally speaking, what it costs (from all sources) exceeds its benefits (to all beneficiaries).
This shouldn't surprise us. Rail is an outmoded technology. It is good at moving large quantities of people or things between two fixed points. It may still work well when there are large numbers who wish to travel between those two points and then, upon arrival, go nowhere other than to another fixed point served by the rail line or some extended system of transportation that it is not too inconvenient or inexpensive.
In contemporary America, this is rarely so. So advocates must accept magical numbers regarding ridership or economic benefit to justify proposed systems.
Or, as with the train proposed to run from Milwaukee to Madison, they regard federal funds as free money. We don't hear much about why it makes sense to spend over $ 800 million dollars on a train that few people can be expected to ride. It is, we hear, "free money" since it comes from the federal government.
I suppose, although there is still the almost certain cost overruns and operating expenses (which may or may not be subsidized). But there is a certain peversity in that view. I tis precisely what leads to unchecked and irresponsible spending as every one wants to get part of the money that no one would actually spend were it her own.
That Scott Walker is refusing to play this game suggests that he may be a different type of Governor.
Or, of you don't believe that, I have just completed a month or so of a series of outside events and dead tree writing, including talks in Southern California, western Virginia and New York City. Throw that in with the ordinary course of business and some personal issues and there has been no time to blog. I am happy to report that the polity seems to have thrived without me.
Still, its time to come back. My impressions on the rise of the Tea Party and its influence on the midterms will be forthcoming in the WI Interest. What I find intriguing is that, before the celebratory hangovers had even subsided, Scott Walker made high speed rail the first issue of his nascenct administration.
I've written in the Journal Sentinel that the debate over high speed rail frustrates me. Advocates are almost never willing to address the real economic issues in proposed systems. Analyses have shown that commuter rail is almost never economically justified on a wide variety of measures. This is not the same as saying that it does not "pay for itself." Generally speaking, what it costs (from all sources) exceeds its benefits (to all beneficiaries).
This shouldn't surprise us. Rail is an outmoded technology. It is good at moving large quantities of people or things between two fixed points. It may still work well when there are large numbers who wish to travel between those two points and then, upon arrival, go nowhere other than to another fixed point served by the rail line or some extended system of transportation that it is not too inconvenient or inexpensive.
In contemporary America, this is rarely so. So advocates must accept magical numbers regarding ridership or economic benefit to justify proposed systems.
Or, as with the train proposed to run from Milwaukee to Madison, they regard federal funds as free money. We don't hear much about why it makes sense to spend over $ 800 million dollars on a train that few people can be expected to ride. It is, we hear, "free money" since it comes from the federal government.
I suppose, although there is still the almost certain cost overruns and operating expenses (which may or may not be subsidized). But there is a certain peversity in that view. I tis precisely what leads to unchecked and irresponsible spending as every one wants to get part of the money that no one would actually spend were it her own.
That Scott Walker is refusing to play this game suggests that he may be a different type of Governor.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
More Bad Economics
Tom Foley just can't understand why PolitiFact would pronounce Russ Feingold's assertion that free trade deals have cost Wisconsin 64,000 jobs to be half true.
Neither can I. I would call it "false" or, were I given that option and inclined to be more charitable, wholly unsubstantiated.
I would direct Tom to Frederic Bastiat who observed that the difference between a good and bad economist is the ability of the former to recognize the unseen.
Feingold's protectionism is the economic equivalent of young earth creationism. Virtually no serious economist buys it. If jobs are moved to where they can be performed more cheaply, the money that is saved does not disappear. We may no longer build typewriters or pay unionized workers premium wages for turning lug nuts, but the difference is invested and new jobs are created. This is true even if other countries engage in protectionist practices.
Looking at the net gain or loss in manufacturing jobs tells us nothing. The new jobs may or may not be manufacturing jobs and, of course, pacts like NAFTA are hardly the only - and probably not the principal - impact on the growth and decline in these jobs. Manufacturing jobs have been declining from well before the passage of NAFTA.
This is the creative destruction that Feingold and his supporters pretend they cannot understand.
Neither can I. I would call it "false" or, were I given that option and inclined to be more charitable, wholly unsubstantiated.
I would direct Tom to Frederic Bastiat who observed that the difference between a good and bad economist is the ability of the former to recognize the unseen.
Feingold's protectionism is the economic equivalent of young earth creationism. Virtually no serious economist buys it. If jobs are moved to where they can be performed more cheaply, the money that is saved does not disappear. We may no longer build typewriters or pay unionized workers premium wages for turning lug nuts, but the difference is invested and new jobs are created. This is true even if other countries engage in protectionist practices.
Looking at the net gain or loss in manufacturing jobs tells us nothing. The new jobs may or may not be manufacturing jobs and, of course, pacts like NAFTA are hardly the only - and probably not the principal - impact on the growth and decline in these jobs. Manufacturing jobs have been declining from well before the passage of NAFTA.
This is the creative destruction that Feingold and his supporters pretend they cannot understand.
Last night's debate: John Galt v. Tom Joad?
It is is a common Democratic trope to call Republicans stupid. Conservatives are insufficiently informed about global warming and the implications of evolutionary science. They don't understand that embryos harvested at the blastocyst stage (before implantation) are just a clump of cells. They don't seem to understand that homosexuality is not a choice (even if its not a gene).
But the economic misunderstandings displayed by Democrats are often staggering. Russ Feingold is quickly becoming Exhibit A. He has taken a rather perceptive comment by Ron Johnson about creative destruction - one that virtually no mainstream economist would disagree with - represents some sort of heartlessness.
We can argue about the extent to which government might ameloriate the impact of creative destruction, but does Sen. Feingold really believe that it should be prevented? Should we tax every day people to prop up typewriter and film manufacturers? Should we have floated municipal bonds to save the blacksmith shop? Should those same every day Joes be forced to pay more for their flat screens to keep Zenith building televisions in the United States?
Feingold's misunderstanding of Atlas Shrugged is of a piece with that. The villians are not every day people who work, but the looting class that wishes to control - and profit from - the work of others; to reap where they did not sow and to rule the innocent by making them criminals.
I am not a Randian, but Johnson may have cited another Rand novel, The Fountainhead, to the effect that the upper class is a nation's past, while the middle class is its future. The difference between the two has to do with the way in which the middle class creates and sustains itself.
But the economic misunderstandings displayed by Democrats are often staggering. Russ Feingold is quickly becoming Exhibit A. He has taken a rather perceptive comment by Ron Johnson about creative destruction - one that virtually no mainstream economist would disagree with - represents some sort of heartlessness.
We can argue about the extent to which government might ameloriate the impact of creative destruction, but does Sen. Feingold really believe that it should be prevented? Should we tax every day people to prop up typewriter and film manufacturers? Should we have floated municipal bonds to save the blacksmith shop? Should those same every day Joes be forced to pay more for their flat screens to keep Zenith building televisions in the United States?
Feingold's misunderstanding of Atlas Shrugged is of a piece with that. The villians are not every day people who work, but the looting class that wishes to control - and profit from - the work of others; to reap where they did not sow and to rule the innocent by making them criminals.
I am not a Randian, but Johnson may have cited another Rand novel, The Fountainhead, to the effect that the upper class is a nation's past, while the middle class is its future. The difference between the two has to do with the way in which the middle class creates and sustains itself.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Does Russ Respect Rights
In the event that people feel that Charlie Sykes criticism of Russ Feingold's use of NFL footage in his ad is partisan hyperbole, it is not.
Those who know me may have heard me say that I think much of Intellectual Property Law is facism. But, in my capacity as General Counsel of a moderately sized multi-national corporation, I was faced - at least once and maybe more often - with questions of whether our marketing people could grab small bits of NFL video in marketing pieces - including one in which we had hired a former NFL player to promote one of our products and wanted to show the guy scoring a touchdown in the Super Bowl. Our IP guy told us - quite correctly - that we couldn't do that. He explained to me that it wasn't even a close question. He showed me that the law was clear and noted the NFL's well known vigilance in protecting its property rights. I didn't like it, but I accepted it.
It really is hard to see this as an honest mistake. Ad agencies and campaigns are lousy with lawyers and no lawyer or agency in business for more than a week and a half would have failed to recognize this issue.
When you combine this with Feingold's creepy attempt to make one of his ads look like a news broadcast, this campaign seems to be in need of some ethical guidance.
Those who know me may have heard me say that I think much of Intellectual Property Law is facism. But, in my capacity as General Counsel of a moderately sized multi-national corporation, I was faced - at least once and maybe more often - with questions of whether our marketing people could grab small bits of NFL video in marketing pieces - including one in which we had hired a former NFL player to promote one of our products and wanted to show the guy scoring a touchdown in the Super Bowl. Our IP guy told us - quite correctly - that we couldn't do that. He explained to me that it wasn't even a close question. He showed me that the law was clear and noted the NFL's well known vigilance in protecting its property rights. I didn't like it, but I accepted it.
It really is hard to see this as an honest mistake. Ad agencies and campaigns are lousy with lawyers and no lawyer or agency in business for more than a week and a half would have failed to recognize this issue.
When you combine this with Feingold's creepy attempt to make one of his ads look like a news broadcast, this campaign seems to be in need of some ethical guidance.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
It's A Wonderful Life but Social Security? Not So Much
I have met Jay Bullock a few times. He seems like a nice enough guy and I am sure he is a very good English teacher. Heck, he might even the second best English teacher in MPS. (Sorry, Jay, but top honors go to Karra Esenberg at Hamilton.)
But, Jay, you're thinking about this social security thing all wrong.
He seems to think that his insurance company (and mine), American Family, operates its business like the government has operated social security. If I thought that were true, I'd be looking at the Gekko or the ditzy girl with too much make up.
Jay fundamentally misunderstands the analogy between social security and a ponzi scheme. It is not that the government should have kept excess social security dollars locked in a vault. That would have been better than what it did do, but would have been its own piece of mismanagement. Jay says I would have beaten George Bailey to death for putting the money in Joe's house.
Not hardly.
In fact, had good old George failed to do so, I would have taken my money over to mean old Mr. Potter. Lending to Joe is how George earns the money to pay me interest.
But the social security trust fund is no Bailey Building & Loan. It did not lend its money to Joe. Lending the money to Joe - and to the Kennedys and Mrs. Macklin and a hundred others - gave that broken down old Building & Loan a claim on someone else's assets (it carries a mortgage on Joe's house) and a right to be paid income on that claim. (Joe owes principal and interest). The trust fund could have invested its money (much like American Family invests its money)in a way that gave it a claim on a someone else's assets. But it didn't. Think of Uncle Billy losing or blowing the money and leaving George with nothing but his IOU. Now that would have truly meant bankruptcy, scandal and prison.
Now, to be fair to Jay, you could operate social security (although not an insurance company) on a pay as you go basis. Insurers don't do that because they can't compel policyholders to stay with the company and can't raise the rates to whatever is required to pay current claims (and because, for those and other reasons, regulators wouldn't let them). The government, of course, has a more or less captive customer base. Taxpayers can't take their business "elsewhere."*
But social security long ago abandoned a strict notion of "pay as you go" and for good reason. We have know for a long time that birth rates following 1964 were far lower than those between 1946 and 1964. We have long known that this was going to result in a reduced ratio of workers to retirees when the little darlings born between 1946 and 1964 hang it up.
Not very complicated math demonstrated that this would result in levels of taxation that would be politically - and perhaps even economically - unsustainable. (Taxpayers may be unlikely to go elsewhere but they can prefer leisure to labor.) So we decided to charge our current "customers" "extra" to fund the largely predictable costs that would be incurred when it came time for them, as a class, to submit their "claims."
The government should not have kept the money in a safe. It should have invested it in conservative investments outside the federal government. This is, after all, what both private and public pension funds do.
Indeed, Jay should probably be a bit more concerned with this than he is. MPS has promised over two billion dollars of unfunded benefits to future retirees. If, in the end, taxes are imposed on city residents to pay those benefits, we should just rename ourselves "New Detroit."
Jay argues that, well, if the government had not done this, every dollar invested would have been a dollar in additional deficit spending or taxes. Another possibility, apparently even too hard to imagine, would have been reduced spending. But to suggest that behaving responsibly would have been hard takes nothing away from Johnson's original point that social security has been operated as a Ponzi scheme.
In the end, Jay succumbs in the end to the Ultimate Stupid Blogger Trick of the left. Concern about social security is, in the end, reducible to fear of the "Brown Menace." He cites Charlie Crist's proposition that we could fix the problem by creating a "path to citizenship." Because some critics of social security don't do that, they are, implicitly, racists or cynical exploiters of racism. I hope he doesn't teach his students to be that intellectually lazy.
Crist's comments reflect a misunderstanding of the problem. He thinks the trust fund has assets. Beyond that, current levels of illegal entry won't fix the problem. Most illegal residents already pay social security taxes. There are many issues surrounding immigration about which reasonable people can differ. Playing the race card against conservatives in general (as opposed to some particular position that might be fairly characterized in that way) fouls, rather than advances, the conversation.
* Of course, increased taxation can result in a reduced tax base.
But, Jay, you're thinking about this social security thing all wrong.
He seems to think that his insurance company (and mine), American Family, operates its business like the government has operated social security. If I thought that were true, I'd be looking at the Gekko or the ditzy girl with too much make up.
Jay fundamentally misunderstands the analogy between social security and a ponzi scheme. It is not that the government should have kept excess social security dollars locked in a vault. That would have been better than what it did do, but would have been its own piece of mismanagement. Jay says I would have beaten George Bailey to death for putting the money in Joe's house.
Not hardly.
In fact, had good old George failed to do so, I would have taken my money over to mean old Mr. Potter. Lending to Joe is how George earns the money to pay me interest.
But the social security trust fund is no Bailey Building & Loan. It did not lend its money to Joe. Lending the money to Joe - and to the Kennedys and Mrs. Macklin and a hundred others - gave that broken down old Building & Loan a claim on someone else's assets (it carries a mortgage on Joe's house) and a right to be paid income on that claim. (Joe owes principal and interest). The trust fund could have invested its money (much like American Family invests its money)in a way that gave it a claim on a someone else's assets. But it didn't. Think of Uncle Billy losing or blowing the money and leaving George with nothing but his IOU. Now that would have truly meant bankruptcy, scandal and prison.
Now, to be fair to Jay, you could operate social security (although not an insurance company) on a pay as you go basis. Insurers don't do that because they can't compel policyholders to stay with the company and can't raise the rates to whatever is required to pay current claims (and because, for those and other reasons, regulators wouldn't let them). The government, of course, has a more or less captive customer base. Taxpayers can't take their business "elsewhere."*
But social security long ago abandoned a strict notion of "pay as you go" and for good reason. We have know for a long time that birth rates following 1964 were far lower than those between 1946 and 1964. We have long known that this was going to result in a reduced ratio of workers to retirees when the little darlings born between 1946 and 1964 hang it up.
Not very complicated math demonstrated that this would result in levels of taxation that would be politically - and perhaps even economically - unsustainable. (Taxpayers may be unlikely to go elsewhere but they can prefer leisure to labor.) So we decided to charge our current "customers" "extra" to fund the largely predictable costs that would be incurred when it came time for them, as a class, to submit their "claims."
The government should not have kept the money in a safe. It should have invested it in conservative investments outside the federal government. This is, after all, what both private and public pension funds do.
Indeed, Jay should probably be a bit more concerned with this than he is. MPS has promised over two billion dollars of unfunded benefits to future retirees. If, in the end, taxes are imposed on city residents to pay those benefits, we should just rename ourselves "New Detroit."
Jay argues that, well, if the government had not done this, every dollar invested would have been a dollar in additional deficit spending or taxes. Another possibility, apparently even too hard to imagine, would have been reduced spending. But to suggest that behaving responsibly would have been hard takes nothing away from Johnson's original point that social security has been operated as a Ponzi scheme.
In the end, Jay succumbs in the end to the Ultimate Stupid Blogger Trick of the left. Concern about social security is, in the end, reducible to fear of the "Brown Menace." He cites Charlie Crist's proposition that we could fix the problem by creating a "path to citizenship." Because some critics of social security don't do that, they are, implicitly, racists or cynical exploiters of racism. I hope he doesn't teach his students to be that intellectually lazy.
Crist's comments reflect a misunderstanding of the problem. He thinks the trust fund has assets. Beyond that, current levels of illegal entry won't fix the problem. Most illegal residents already pay social security taxes. There are many issues surrounding immigration about which reasonable people can differ. Playing the race card against conservatives in general (as opposed to some particular position that might be fairly characterized in that way) fouls, rather than advances, the conversation.
* Of course, increased taxation can result in a reduced tax base.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Just A Little on Vote Caging
A commenter in response to my earler post on our hapless (and now ex-) SEIU operative wanted to know if I would offer a "a similar critique about the just-exposed conservative voter suppression efforts ...." Faith will be rewarded.
One Wisconsin Now accuses certain conservative operates from running what they call "a vote caging" operation which, according to Bill Christofferson, is made illegal by the National Voter Registration Act.
The first thing to note is that "vote caging" is not a legal term. Some things that people call "vote caging" might be illegal, but not because of a direct legal prohibition against it.
By vote caging, most people mean a process in which potential voters are sent some type of mail that is either nonforwardable or requires a response and then some effort to remove these voters from the rolls when the mail is returned or there is no response.
The federal statute referred to by Mr. Christofferson is not, as he seems to think, an absolute prohibition against ever challenging a voter on the basis that they do not reside within the voting district, but a limitation on the circumstances under which states may remove registrants from the rolls based on failure to vote or change of registration. Thus, the state can't simply remove registrants on the basis of returned mail. But this doesn't preclude any further inquiry as to the eligibility of a voter. Compare, e.g., U.S. Student Ass'n Foundation v. Land
546 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008) with Bell v. Marinko, 367 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2004).
Techniques referred to as vote caging sometimes involve challenges at the polls, but it is unclear to me that the groups here were planning to do that. Such a practice has been challenged when specifically targetted at minority voters, but there is not, in my voew, a general prohibition against challenges that a voter is ineligible because he or she doesn't live within the district.
However, it seems fairly obvious that such a challenge is not going to succeed if it based on nothing more than returned mail. The documents seem to suggest that the groups were planning to do much more than that, but, if it was their intent to seek the removal of, or make challenges to, voters based on returned mail, it wouldn't have worked. It wouldn't have forced the casting of provisional ballots and, depending on how it was implemented, might have faced other legal challenges.
One Wisconsin Now accuses certain conservative operates from running what they call "a vote caging" operation which, according to Bill Christofferson, is made illegal by the National Voter Registration Act.
The first thing to note is that "vote caging" is not a legal term. Some things that people call "vote caging" might be illegal, but not because of a direct legal prohibition against it.
By vote caging, most people mean a process in which potential voters are sent some type of mail that is either nonforwardable or requires a response and then some effort to remove these voters from the rolls when the mail is returned or there is no response.
The federal statute referred to by Mr. Christofferson is not, as he seems to think, an absolute prohibition against ever challenging a voter on the basis that they do not reside within the voting district, but a limitation on the circumstances under which states may remove registrants from the rolls based on failure to vote or change of registration. Thus, the state can't simply remove registrants on the basis of returned mail. But this doesn't preclude any further inquiry as to the eligibility of a voter. Compare, e.g., U.S. Student Ass'n Foundation v. Land
546 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008) with Bell v. Marinko, 367 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2004).
Techniques referred to as vote caging sometimes involve challenges at the polls, but it is unclear to me that the groups here were planning to do that. Such a practice has been challenged when specifically targetted at minority voters, but there is not, in my voew, a general prohibition against challenges that a voter is ineligible because he or she doesn't live within the district.
However, it seems fairly obvious that such a challenge is not going to succeed if it based on nothing more than returned mail. The documents seem to suggest that the groups were planning to do much more than that, but, if it was their intent to seek the removal of, or make challenges to, voters based on returned mail, it wouldn't have worked. It wouldn't have forced the casting of provisional ballots and, depending on how it was implemented, might have faced other legal challenges.
Monday, September 20, 2010
The "Sexting DA" and Attorney Discipline
There aren't many things that political bloggers of all stripes can agree on, but I suspect there is near unanimous support for the notion that Calument County District Attorney Ken Kratz has, on apparently more than one occasion, acted like a pathetic dweeb.
I suspect that there is almost as much support for the proposition that Kratz' behavior toward a victim of domestic abuse was worse than pathetic in that it showed an utter disregard for the victim's humanity. A woman who has been the victim of domestic abuse doesn't need to be hit on by a person charged with helping to protect her. In proposing an amorous relationship at a time when he was supposed to be prosecuting her abuser, Kratz placed her in an untenable position. She was not free to laugh in his face or even to let him down gently. She may well have felt pressure to accede to - or to at least play along - with his desires.
It would not be hard to see this as a form of "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. The problem was not the words he used, but what the words proposed. If he wanted a relationship with her (in violation of the rule that you ought not to date people who could be your children much less the overly generous "half your age plus seven" rule), he needed to wait until there was no longer a professional relationship.
People are now wondering why charges were not issued by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. OLR itself is prohibiting from commenting. Under SCR 22.40, investigations are confidential.
I should point out that I am part of the attorney discipline system. I serve as a referee, i.e., I am assigned to sit as the "trial judge" in discipline cases and make - not a decision - but a recommendation to the Court. I don't see the cases until they are charged. Because of that, I don't want to comment further on the investigation which may have included significant material not in the public domain.
But ... I suspect that the question will now arise as to why "lawyers regulate lawyers." There are nonlawyers in the system and no charge can issue without review by a committee that includes nonlawyers. Often, a committee including nonlawyers will be involved in an investigation, but the rules do not make this mandatory.
Maybe a charge should have been brought in the Krantz case, but the reason that it wasn't is not that OLR is soft on lawyers.
The short answer to the question I've posed is that it takes professionals to judge many forms of professional misconduct. But there is misconduct which is more evident (this case may well involve it) and I fear that some people may believe that the OLR "goes easy" on lawyers.
Based on my experience, that is simply not the case. While it may be somewhat understaffed, my impression is that the OLR takes its charge quite seriously and, in my experience, it does take positions that are, from time to time, harsher toward the lawyer respondent than I would take. While I don't believe it is overly harsh, neither do I think that it is an easy mark.
I suspect that there is almost as much support for the proposition that Kratz' behavior toward a victim of domestic abuse was worse than pathetic in that it showed an utter disregard for the victim's humanity. A woman who has been the victim of domestic abuse doesn't need to be hit on by a person charged with helping to protect her. In proposing an amorous relationship at a time when he was supposed to be prosecuting her abuser, Kratz placed her in an untenable position. She was not free to laugh in his face or even to let him down gently. She may well have felt pressure to accede to - or to at least play along - with his desires.
It would not be hard to see this as a form of "quid pro quo" sexual harassment. The problem was not the words he used, but what the words proposed. If he wanted a relationship with her (in violation of the rule that you ought not to date people who could be your children much less the overly generous "half your age plus seven" rule), he needed to wait until there was no longer a professional relationship.
People are now wondering why charges were not issued by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. OLR itself is prohibiting from commenting. Under SCR 22.40, investigations are confidential.
I should point out that I am part of the attorney discipline system. I serve as a referee, i.e., I am assigned to sit as the "trial judge" in discipline cases and make - not a decision - but a recommendation to the Court. I don't see the cases until they are charged. Because of that, I don't want to comment further on the investigation which may have included significant material not in the public domain.
But ... I suspect that the question will now arise as to why "lawyers regulate lawyers." There are nonlawyers in the system and no charge can issue without review by a committee that includes nonlawyers. Often, a committee including nonlawyers will be involved in an investigation, but the rules do not make this mandatory.
Maybe a charge should have been brought in the Krantz case, but the reason that it wasn't is not that OLR is soft on lawyers.
The short answer to the question I've posed is that it takes professionals to judge many forms of professional misconduct. But there is misconduct which is more evident (this case may well involve it) and I fear that some people may believe that the OLR "goes easy" on lawyers.
Based on my experience, that is simply not the case. While it may be somewhat understaffed, my impression is that the OLR takes its charge quite seriously and, in my experience, it does take positions that are, from time to time, harsher toward the lawyer respondent than I would take. While I don't believe it is overly harsh, neither do I think that it is an easy mark.
SEIU Operative Kicks His Own A**
One of the things about blogs is that they can extend stories that appear in the mainstream media. Yesterday, Dan Bice wrote on comments by a union operative who said that he was going to "kick Scott Walker's ass" over the O'Donnell Park tragedy and problems at the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex. In describing the coming campaign, he referred to things that Tom Barrett planned to say in coming debates.
I was interviewed for the story and was quoted as saying that I "could see the labor union encountering problems if it ran ads on the O'Donnell Park tragedy now that an employee is on record saying he talked with Barrett's staff about hitting Walker on this issue." Retired Elections Board lawyer George Dunst apparently agreed.
That's exactly what I said. Here's the problem. The SEIU, in a post-Citizens United world, is perfectly free to run ads that say bad things about Scott Walker. What it can't do is coordinate those communications with the Barrett campaign. If it does, it runs the risk of violating, among other things, laws that forbid providing something of value to a campaign with, to generalize, "unregulated" money.
That a guy from SEIU says that he is discussing a planned attack campaign with the Barrett campaign suggests coordination. To avoid such a suggestion, sophisticated operatives don't have those conversations. Or, if they have them, they don't tell strangers on the street.
I don't know if there was coordination. But, if SEIU now spends money to run attack ads focusing on O'Donnell Park and the County Health Complex, regulators are almost going to have to investigate.
I was interviewed for the story and was quoted as saying that I "could see the labor union encountering problems if it ran ads on the O'Donnell Park tragedy now that an employee is on record saying he talked with Barrett's staff about hitting Walker on this issue." Retired Elections Board lawyer George Dunst apparently agreed.
That's exactly what I said. Here's the problem. The SEIU, in a post-Citizens United world, is perfectly free to run ads that say bad things about Scott Walker. What it can't do is coordinate those communications with the Barrett campaign. If it does, it runs the risk of violating, among other things, laws that forbid providing something of value to a campaign with, to generalize, "unregulated" money.
That a guy from SEIU says that he is discussing a planned attack campaign with the Barrett campaign suggests coordination. To avoid such a suggestion, sophisticated operatives don't have those conversations. Or, if they have them, they don't tell strangers on the street.
I don't know if there was coordination. But, if SEIU now spends money to run attack ads focusing on O'Donnell Park and the County Health Complex, regulators are almost going to have to investigate.
Ron Johnson Understands Social Security All Too Well
The urgency of portraying Ron Johnson as clueless leads smart people to make silly claims. Last week, local blogger Jay Bullock said that Johnson's reference to social security as a "ponzi scheme" means that he doesn't understand it.
If that's so, then Johnson has a lot of company. Referring to social security as a
"ponzi scheme" is quite common.
To do so is, of course, an analogy and analogies point to one thing that is like another in some significant ways even if they may differ in others. Social security is not a ponzi scheme in the sense that, unlike Charles Ponzi, the government promises nothing to those who pay into social security. You aren't supposed to get a return on your money and you have no right to a dime in benefits. The government will, in any event, probably be good for whatever it decides to pay out - perhaps even for what it currently says it will pay out - because, unlike Charles Ponzi, it has the right to take money from others.
But there is a way in which social security is very much like a Ponzi scheme. Social security has not, strictly, speaking been, as its defenders lole to say, a "pay as you go" system for a very long time. Back when Baby Boomers were young, it was absolutely predictable that paying benefits upon our retirement was going to be extremely difficult because of the absolutely predictable diminishment in the ratio of workers to retirees. In other words, there are a lot of us and less of those born after us. Demography is, in a very real sense, destiny. It is a future that has already occurred.
So, in 1986, it was decided to raise social security taxes beyond that required to pay current benefits and create a trust fund. The problem, of course, is that the money was not invested in a way that represented a claim on anything other than the government's promise to pay. It was invested in special government bonds and, essentially, used to fund current government spending. It's as if you saved for your own retirement by placing money in a piggy bank and then replacing it with IOUs to yourself so that you could spend the money.
Thus taxpayers have been paying in more than a "pay as you go" system would require in order to create a trust fund consists of nothing more than IOUs. That sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme.
People like Jay who defend the system like to say that the government won't or can't default on those bonds. It certainly can. Congress could repudiate the bonds, although it likely won't. The problem - the one that Jay elides by saying that the trust fund "can pay" out benefits for a number of years - is what it would take to pay those benefits.
The trust fund can't just write a check. It must redeem those bonds, i.e., call in the government's IOU to itself. The government can't just write a check to honor the bonds because it doesn't have the money. It must either raise taxes or borrow more money. To the extent that this cannot be done, benefits must be reduced. Thus taxpayers who have paid "extra" as "we went" really have nothing to draw on. They must either forego benefits or impose even higher taxes on younger people. That sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme.
Jay wants to argue that this happened because we have been "undertaxed." Johnson would presumably argue that it happened because we have "overspent." Those are value judgments about how the problem that Johnson describes could have been avoided. But the problem that he described is very real and "Ponzi Scheme" is not a bad way to describe it.
If that's so, then Johnson has a lot of company. Referring to social security as a
"ponzi scheme" is quite common.
To do so is, of course, an analogy and analogies point to one thing that is like another in some significant ways even if they may differ in others. Social security is not a ponzi scheme in the sense that, unlike Charles Ponzi, the government promises nothing to those who pay into social security. You aren't supposed to get a return on your money and you have no right to a dime in benefits. The government will, in any event, probably be good for whatever it decides to pay out - perhaps even for what it currently says it will pay out - because, unlike Charles Ponzi, it has the right to take money from others.
But there is a way in which social security is very much like a Ponzi scheme. Social security has not, strictly, speaking been, as its defenders lole to say, a "pay as you go" system for a very long time. Back when Baby Boomers were young, it was absolutely predictable that paying benefits upon our retirement was going to be extremely difficult because of the absolutely predictable diminishment in the ratio of workers to retirees. In other words, there are a lot of us and less of those born after us. Demography is, in a very real sense, destiny. It is a future that has already occurred.
So, in 1986, it was decided to raise social security taxes beyond that required to pay current benefits and create a trust fund. The problem, of course, is that the money was not invested in a way that represented a claim on anything other than the government's promise to pay. It was invested in special government bonds and, essentially, used to fund current government spending. It's as if you saved for your own retirement by placing money in a piggy bank and then replacing it with IOUs to yourself so that you could spend the money.
Thus taxpayers have been paying in more than a "pay as you go" system would require in order to create a trust fund consists of nothing more than IOUs. That sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme.
People like Jay who defend the system like to say that the government won't or can't default on those bonds. It certainly can. Congress could repudiate the bonds, although it likely won't. The problem - the one that Jay elides by saying that the trust fund "can pay" out benefits for a number of years - is what it would take to pay those benefits.
The trust fund can't just write a check. It must redeem those bonds, i.e., call in the government's IOU to itself. The government can't just write a check to honor the bonds because it doesn't have the money. It must either raise taxes or borrow more money. To the extent that this cannot be done, benefits must be reduced. Thus taxpayers who have paid "extra" as "we went" really have nothing to draw on. They must either forego benefits or impose even higher taxes on younger people. That sounds an awful lot like a Ponzi scheme.
Jay wants to argue that this happened because we have been "undertaxed." Johnson would presumably argue that it happened because we have "overspent." Those are value judgments about how the problem that Johnson describes could have been avoided. But the problem that he described is very real and "Ponzi Scheme" is not a bad way to describe it.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Shark at the Capitol
One important, but perhaps underreported, development in our legal world is the work of the Legislature's Special Committee on Judicial Discipline and Recusal. The committee grew out of a request from Justice Patrick Crooks for the legislature to consider amendments to statutes governing judicial discipline and disqualification. Both issues have been hot button items in the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the wake of hotly contested and exceedingly well financed campaigns for seats on the Court in the 2007 and 2008 election cycles. The committee, consisting of legislators and public members, is charged with studying both issues and, if appropriate, make recommendations to the legislature.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of being one of nine invited guests to testify before the Committee. Four of the nine witnesses were sitting Justices on the Court - Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley, Crooks and Roggensack. The hearing can be viewed here. I am the last (or as I would prefer to say "clean up") witness.
Yesterday's hearing had to do with recusal although some of the speakers addressed matters of discipline, largely addressing issues concerning the deadlock in the Gableman matter and how that might be avoided in the future. Much of the discussion on recusal centered on whether the legislature should adopt an objective standard (presumably other than, as I pointed out, the one announced in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.), how that standard should be enforced and what it should be.
More to follow.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of being one of nine invited guests to testify before the Committee. Four of the nine witnesses were sitting Justices on the Court - Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley, Crooks and Roggensack. The hearing can be viewed here. I am the last (or as I would prefer to say "clean up") witness.
Yesterday's hearing had to do with recusal although some of the speakers addressed matters of discipline, largely addressing issues concerning the deadlock in the Gableman matter and how that might be avoided in the future. Much of the discussion on recusal centered on whether the legislature should adopt an objective standard (presumably other than, as I pointed out, the one announced in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.), how that standard should be enforced and what it should be.
More to follow.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Don't Get Smug
It's now official. Wisconsin will elect a Governor from Milwaukee for the first time since 1939. Nevertheless, I think anti-Milwaukee feelings will play a role in the election. If outstaters see Milwaukee as an ungovernable mess seeking favors from Madison, they may well prefer a candidate who they see as, while from Milwaukee, not "of Milwaukee." If anti-Milwaukee animus is rooted in a belief(whether right or wrong) that the city want to be bailed out by the rest of the state, then the small government candidate is likely to benefit.
At the same time, Scott Walker is in a position to make great inroads against the normal Democratic margin coming out of Milwaukee. The fact of the matter is that most people in Milwaukee County actually like the way that he has dealt with the financial mess he inherited. There is a reason that he continues to be re-elected.
Jim Doyle has not done Tom Barrett any favors. His financial juggling act may have gotten him a few points in 2006. But it's not going to help the Democratic candidate in 2010.
Add to that the Zeitgeist and a Democratic nominee who seems disengaged from the campaign, there is a strong opportunity for a change in the state house. But, for Republicans, I want to quote an old trial lawyer friend of mine. When things went well, he'd always remind us.
Don't get smug.
At the same time, Scott Walker is in a position to make great inroads against the normal Democratic margin coming out of Milwaukee. The fact of the matter is that most people in Milwaukee County actually like the way that he has dealt with the financial mess he inherited. There is a reason that he continues to be re-elected.
Jim Doyle has not done Tom Barrett any favors. His financial juggling act may have gotten him a few points in 2006. But it's not going to help the Democratic candidate in 2010.
Add to that the Zeitgeist and a Democratic nominee who seems disengaged from the campaign, there is a strong opportunity for a change in the state house. But, for Republicans, I want to quote an old trial lawyer friend of mine. When things went well, he'd always remind us.
Don't get smug.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
God and the Lieutenant Governor
Dan Bice is interested in Rebecca Kleefisch's appeal to evangelical Christian voters to pray for her. He suggests that there is, if not something wrong, at least unusual in Kleefisch's apparent intent to "rely on her conservative Christian principles and interpretation of the Bible when making decisions as a government official."
So? I would expect her to act on her sense of what is right and wrong and for most of us those concepts are religiously informed. In the absence of some indication that she is about to jettison the religion clauses of the federal and state constitution, why shouldn't she call moral questions as she sees them?
(Of course, Bice is right in suggesting that the Lt. Governor has only slightly more power than the guy who runs the Capitol newstand - at least not until the Governor becomes ambassador to Tonga.
So? I would expect her to act on her sense of what is right and wrong and for most of us those concepts are religiously informed. In the absence of some indication that she is about to jettison the religion clauses of the federal and state constitution, why shouldn't she call moral questions as she sees them?
(Of course, Bice is right in suggesting that the Lt. Governor has only slightly more power than the guy who runs the Capitol newstand - at least not until the Governor becomes ambassador to Tonga.
Questions for a Tuesday
There is a great piece by National Review's editors defending the legal and cultural distinctiveness of "traditional" marriage. There is much to commend it, including its frank assessment of the notion that same sex marriage is necessary to avoid the devaluation of homosexual relationships. I was struck by the following:
Does this matter? Is there a response to it? Are reciprocal beneficiary schemes a response to the problems cited by advocates of same sex marriage?
Same-sex marriage would introduce a new, less justifiable distinction into the law. This new version of marriage would exclude pairs of people who qualify for it in every way except for their lack of a sexual relationship. Elderly brothers who take care of each other; two friends who share a house and bills and even help raise a child after one loses a spouse: Why shouldn’t their relationships, too, be recognized by the government? The traditional conception of marriage holds that however valuable those relationships may be, the fact that they are not oriented toward procreation makes them non-marital. (Note that this is true even if those relationships involve caring for children: We do not treat a grandmother and widowed daughter raising a child together as married because their relationship is not part of an institution oriented toward procreation.) On what possible basis can the revisionists’ conception of marriage justify discriminating against couples simply because they do not have sex?
Does this matter? Is there a response to it? Are reciprocal beneficiary schemes a response to the problems cited by advocates of same sex marriage?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Ron Johnson: A Good Kind of Scary
With the start of classes, I took an extended blogging break. But the main theme of the local political blogs on the left has continued to be saturation bombing of Ron Johnson. Ron is not a politician, lawyer or academic and has not yet mastered the art of phrasing his views in a way that will minimize the ability of his opponents to twist them with uncharitable interpretations.
His statement on global warming is an example. It is an overstatement to say that claims of anthropogenic global warming are crazy, but it is perfectly "respectable," i.e., there is lots of scientific support, for the proposition that the claim - or at least its more alarmist manifestation - is unproved. (In fact, I think you can argue that Al Gore's views on global warming are just as scientifically flawed as the weakest of the "deniers.") One might express that, off the cuff, by saying that the claim for AGW is confounded by other impacts on the climate such as solar activity or the very long term climate changes that we know occur but for which we have very little data. While it is unlikely that Greenland was "green" when Lief Erickson tried to sell beachfront realty in Baffin Bay, it was significantly warmer.
Much the same silliness has accompanied the irrelevant accusations regarding Johnson's company benefiting from industrial revenue bonds and his statement that they are not a "subsidy." There is, of course, a subsidy in the sense that, because the state will not tax the interest earned by bondholders, they are willing to accept a lower interest rate. But not everyone would regard the advantages that flow from an absence of taxation as a subsidy. My house undoubtedly has a higher value than it would if potential buyers could not deduct their mortgage interest.
One can argue that IRBs are a bad idea, but wrangling over the use of the word "subsidy" doesn't get us anywhere.
Yet another example is the uproar over Johnson's use of the term "creative destruction" - a phenomenon that all economists recognize - as if it were some radical and evil right wing plot. There is a reason that we don't have many blacksmith shops or typewriter manufacturers and it is a good thing.
Imprecise and hyperbolic statements are something that all politicians - heck all people - engage in. There is, for example, no reasonable reading of anything that Ron Johnson ever said that supports Feingold's claim that he would "turn the Great Lakes over to oil companies." Even if Johnson would support extraction of whatever fossil fuels are located in the lakes, that is a far cry from "turning them over" to "oil companies."
The point of this is to make Johnson seem stupid or scary. So far, it's not working and I doubt it will. Ron Johnson is scary in one sense, though. He's got Democrats petrified.
His statement on global warming is an example. It is an overstatement to say that claims of anthropogenic global warming are crazy, but it is perfectly "respectable," i.e., there is lots of scientific support, for the proposition that the claim - or at least its more alarmist manifestation - is unproved. (In fact, I think you can argue that Al Gore's views on global warming are just as scientifically flawed as the weakest of the "deniers.") One might express that, off the cuff, by saying that the claim for AGW is confounded by other impacts on the climate such as solar activity or the very long term climate changes that we know occur but for which we have very little data. While it is unlikely that Greenland was "green" when Lief Erickson tried to sell beachfront realty in Baffin Bay, it was significantly warmer.
Much the same silliness has accompanied the irrelevant accusations regarding Johnson's company benefiting from industrial revenue bonds and his statement that they are not a "subsidy." There is, of course, a subsidy in the sense that, because the state will not tax the interest earned by bondholders, they are willing to accept a lower interest rate. But not everyone would regard the advantages that flow from an absence of taxation as a subsidy. My house undoubtedly has a higher value than it would if potential buyers could not deduct their mortgage interest.
One can argue that IRBs are a bad idea, but wrangling over the use of the word "subsidy" doesn't get us anywhere.
Yet another example is the uproar over Johnson's use of the term "creative destruction" - a phenomenon that all economists recognize - as if it were some radical and evil right wing plot. There is a reason that we don't have many blacksmith shops or typewriter manufacturers and it is a good thing.
Imprecise and hyperbolic statements are something that all politicians - heck all people - engage in. There is, for example, no reasonable reading of anything that Ron Johnson ever said that supports Feingold's claim that he would "turn the Great Lakes over to oil companies." Even if Johnson would support extraction of whatever fossil fuels are located in the lakes, that is a far cry from "turning them over" to "oil companies."
The point of this is to make Johnson seem stupid or scary. So far, it's not working and I doubt it will. Ron Johnson is scary in one sense, though. He's got Democrats petrified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)