On the economic “stimulus” plan, Elaine Vigneault’s husband, Ed Miller, has the very best possible denigration of this nonsense:
“So, what, we can’t have socialized medicine but we can have socialized shopping?”
I don’t agree with the idea of socialized medicine because of socialized, but “socialized shopping” is a brilliant term for a stupid idea. Kudos.
FYI, I’m going to use my rebate free money to stimulate the economy by paying the outstanding bill for my cancer removal. Productive, no?
This is only in the House so far, so there’s a chance, however slim, for cooler heads to prevail. I’m not counting on it.
Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.
…Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.
Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package. Rebates would go to people earning below a certain income cap, likely individuals earning $75,000 or less and couples with incomes of $150,000 or less.
Before addressing the plan, is the economy “slumping”? On what economic data is everyone falling all over themselves to give away public treasure? On what economic data is everyone reporting that the economy is in a recession (allegedly) requiring government intervention? Speculation rarely makes for good public policy.
Now, about that plan… This is naked welfare. If a “taxpayer” hasn’t paid any taxes, he is not a taxpayer. Under this plan, he will be a welfare recipient. If that’s what Congress intends to do, it should be honest about it. Because politicians are involved, they can’t be honest. Instead, they wrap their redistributionist garbage in “for the children”. Children do not stimulate¹ the economy.
As for subjecting this welfare to an income cap (there is a $3,000 income floor), is there an expectation that lower income non-taxpayers will spend the rebate free money better than others? Are there restrictions on how the money may be spent? Momentarily ignoring income distinctions, there will be a deadweight loss of some portion that will inevitably be spent on unproductive consumption (e.g. beer and cigarettes). There is no concern for the effect of this nonsense, only whether or not it buys more votes.
To those receiving my tax payments, you’re not welcome. To those distributing my tax payments, you’re economically illiterate scumbags.
More thoughts, both specific and general, here, here, and here.
¹ Stealing money from X and giving it back to X can no more stimulate the economy than stealing from X to give to Y. Welfare is an additional problem, but it is not the only problem. President Bush’s preferred “solution” would fail to achieve economic stimulus just as well.
Via Andrew Sullivan, Harper’s Magazine has an article by Ursula K. Le Guin. It’s behind a subscription firewall, so I haven’t read it, but this excerpt posted by Mr. Sullivan is interesting:
Over the years, books kept in print may earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for their publisher and author. A few steady earners, even though the annual earnings are in what is now dismissively called “the midlist,” can keep publishers in business for years, and even allow them to take a risk or two on new authors. If I were a publisher, I’d rather own J.R.R. Tolkien than J. K. Rowling.
But capitalists count weeks, not years. To get big quick money, the publisher must risk a multimillion-dollar advance on a hot author who’s supposed to provide this week’s bestseller. These millions—often a dead loss—come out of funds that used to go to pay normal advances to reliable midlist authors and the royalties on older books that kept selling. Many midlist authors have been dropped, many reliably selling books remaindered, in order to feed Moloch. Is that any way to run a business?
Consider yesterday’s screed by Robert Samuelson and compare it to this essay. All capitalists count weeks, not years. The indictment is against capitalists, not specific capitalists with a shorter-term view. If I go into my local bookstore, will I find books by midlist authors? Will I find Tolkein and lower-selling authors? Or will I just find J.K. Rowling?
The questions are absurd. Even small bookstores carry more than just the bestsellers. Of course they focus on the bestsellers; “bestsellers” suggests profit, so most bookstores would be stupid to ignore them. But not all customers want that. Thus, they also sell midlist (and obscure) titles. For bookstores to have books by midlist (and obscure) authors to sell, publishers (i.e. capitalists) must publish those titles.
The author’s opinion that going for the hot author is a bad way to run a publishing house is subjective. The only “right” way is the one determined by the capitalist that enables her to stay in business by meeting demand. All other ranting against capitalists as a group is sophistry.
What’s wrong with the title of this news story reporting on infant circumcision rates in the United States?
Half Of Newborn Americans Undergo Circumcision
That is not true because we discriminate against children based on gender. Half of newborn Americans are protected – by federal law – from needless cutting on their healthy genitals. Among the other half of newborn Americans (i.e. males), slightly more than half of them have their healthy genitals surgically reduced for non-medical reasons. The other half of unprotected newborn American males are still subject to their parents’ whim regarding circumcision, as if cosmetic surgery is a legitimate decision belonging to parents.
This is the predictable near-end-result of embracing the irrational.
Rwanda has launched a campaign to encourage all men to be circumcised, to reduce the risk of catching HIV/Aids.
Digging a little deeper, according to Innocent Nyaruhirira, secretary of state for Aids prevention, the truth:
“We will start this campaign with the new born and young men in universities, the army and police.”
Circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy is absurd when condoms and safe-sex are still necessary, but one target group is not like the others. Forcing circumcision on a child is a bizarre definition of encourage.
I will not pretend to be shocked. Even when leaving aside the glaring ethical violation of cutting the healthy genitals of a child, scarce medical resources will be used to circumcise those who will not be sexually active for a dozen or more years. Brilliant strategy.
But consider a few statistics. In 2000, 11% of Rwandan adults were HIV-positive. Over a period of years, traditional approaches to HIV prevention were implemented. In 2007, 3% of Rwandan adults were HIV-positive. Other than the obviously unfortunate reality that many HIV-positive adults have died in that period, the non-circumcision approach works. Why must those who will grow up to be responsible be judged irresponsible before they’ve had a chance to prove themselves? Why must they pay the price for a flaw they may not possess?
Coerced “protection” is morally inferior to the consequences of individual action, whatever the actual consequence.
I’ve never much cared for Robert Samuelson’s opinion pieces because he’s generally most obsessed with his opinion, regardless of fact. And he never met a problem that couldn’t be better solved by government intervention. Today’s nonsensical rant is no different, although he leaves his preference for government salvation as implied.
Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism’s most dangerous enemies are capitalists. …
Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few. It will be said in their defense that these packages reflected years of service, often highly successful. So? It’s not as if these CEOs weren’t compensated in all those years. If you leave your company a shambles — with losses to be absorbed by lower-level employees, some of whom will be fired, and shareholders — do you deserve a gold-plated send-off? Still, the more serious problem transcends the high pay itself and goes to the wider consequences for the economy.
The action of a few capitalists allegedly indicts capitalism as a whole. If capitalists argued that capitalism was perfect, yes, then Samuelson might have an interesting idea. But we don’t argue that. We only argue that it’s superior to everything else we’ve tried. That includes government control. Any system run by humans will be flawed, so noting human flaws is not an effective indictment.
The rest of Samuelson’s column is as ridiculous as the opener. Consider one or two more points:
… Now there are signs of problems involving securities known as “credit default swaps.” Never mind the details. Concentrate on the possible fallout. …
Never mind the details. No truer example of imposing one’s subjective opinion as a substitute for objective evaluation exists. Of course, Samuelson engages the same basic flaw into the subprime mortgage issue.
Just why investment bankers and traders out-earn, say, doctors or computer engineers is a question I’ve never heard convincingly answered. Are they smarter? Unlikely. Do they contribute more to the economy? Questionable. True, Wall Street often performs a vital function. It channels savings into productive investments. It helps provide access to capital and credit. In 2006, U.S. companies raised nearly $4 trillion through new stocks and bonds. Many financial innovations, including mortgage-backed securities, have benefited individuals and companies.
Other than demonstrating that Wall Street adds value to society, I can’t imagine why Wall Street earns money.
But Wall Street also frequently misallocates capital and credit. …
Misallocates according to whom? The central planner, of course. And who gets to be the central planner who decides what the proper allocation is? I’m guessing Samuelson has a pretty firm belief that he’s a good judge of proper allocation.
More importantly, Samuelson only points to “failures” of the market like the tech bubble of the late ’90s and the current subprime mortgage issue. The presence of failures is enough to prove that the process is flawed. But anything involving humans will involve failure. Trial and error requires error. Samuelson ignores the continued existence and success of companies that benefited from cash influxes during the tech boom. He ignores the continued health and repayment of most subprime mortgages. Some failures exist in those categories, so the system is broken. That’s irrational.
In an article in the New York Times on female genital cutting in Indonesia, here’s the obligatory mention. I’m only surprised that it appears so late in the story.
Any distinction between injuring the clitoris or the clitoral hood is irrelevant, says Laura Guarenti, an obstetrician and WHO’s medical officer for child and maternal health in Jakarta. “The fact is there is absolutely no medical value in circumcising girls,” she says. “It is 100 percent the wrong thing to be doing.” The circumcision of boys, she adds, has demonstrated health benefits, namely reduced risk of infection and some protection against H.I.V.
How much of “absolutely no medical value” is the result of scientific research finding no link between female genital cutting and potential health benefits? How much is the result of our realization that it would be cruel to investigate it, even on willing adult volunteers, with the forward-thinking realization that it would be cruel to impose on children, regardless of anything potential?
For many people, the history of male genital cutting precludes any reconsideration of the ethics and validity of imposing an extreme intervention on a healthy child (i.e. a human being). The surgery is wrapped up in tradition and “medical” justifications that society uses to pretend that an objective clinical finding is not merely a subjective wish when applied beyond the laboratory. That blindness is especially silly when looking at the disparity between volunteers in a study and infants with healthy genitals. Unfortunately, within that disparity rests the real issue of the individual and his/her inherent, identifiable rights. Those human rights are not predicated upon the claimed grandiosity of an action’s outcome. Nor are they predicated upon the gender of the person subjected to such irrational hope.
Healthy genitals, by definition, do not require intervention. As such, any intervention is excessive, unjustified, and thus, irrational. Healthy (i.e. medical need, or lack thereof) is the only reasonable standard needed to evaluate medical procedures when applied to a person who cannot exercise his own consent. Mounds of historical research are as irrelevant as any distinction based on gender.
As an informative aside, peruse the accompanying slideshow of an Indonesian circumcision ceremony (particularly this one). Try to justify how changing the gender of the participants – willing or otherwise – matters. Essentially, any time you see pink in a picture, change it to blue. Doing so demonstrates how arguing a difference based on subjective criteria imposed on non-consenting “participants” is a stupid mental exercise. Or, rather, I should say it’s a mental exercise by the stupid.
Would you choose moral preening over substantive solutions? If so, here’s your example for today, courtesy of Michelle Singletary’s column in the Washington Post:
When you’re living on the edge financially, you cannot afford convenience fees that go along with instant money. That’s why I dislike Refund Anticipation Loans, or RALs.
A RAL is a short-term loan backed by a person’s tax refund. Tax-preparation companies count on desperate people trying to get their refund as quickly as they can. But there’s a price for that speed.
What galls me is that there’s little, if any, risk to the lender — yet the loans often carry high fees. The Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center have found that RALs cost from about $30 to more than $125 in loan fees. Some tax preparers also charge a separate application or document preparation fee of about $40. The consumer groups say the effective annual interest rate for a RAL can range from about 40 percent to more than 500 percent.
This type of loan takes advantage of the very people — cash-strapped taxpayers (sic) — who can ill afford the costs.
And so on. Of course, it’s also possible to say that this type of loan offers an advantage to cash-strapped taxpayers, and getting a benefit generally requires a cost. We may deem the terms unfavorably lop-sided compared to what we would agree, but that does not mean they are “unfair”. As long as both parties involved agree that the terms are acceptable enough to enter the contractual agreement, they are acceptable.
That almost gets lost in the buildup to the key argument.
Although the appeal is that you get your money fast, you in fact marginally speed up the delivery of your refund cash. The turnaround on the loans can be a day or two. However, taxpayers who file returns electronically and opt for direct deposit can receive refunds in 10 days or less.
Logic is a powerful tool. I’m glad it’s finally unleashed here. But it’s strange that the article isn’t a plea targeted to the millions of Americans who receive a tax-refund, the potential customers for this service. Instead, a proposal:
I would like to see a ban on these loans. …
Of course. And concluding the essay with a rumination on the IRS proposal to regulate such loans:
The longer they take to restrict the marketing of this useless product, the more it costs the poor.
We have Ms. Singletary’s subjective assessment that these loans are “useless”. Her judgment is a better stand-in than the person who takes the loan. Thus always with central planners.
This is not to argue that I like these loans. I don’t. Nor am I arguing that I think poor Americans will make good choices when the terms of the loan are terrible. Income is not an indicator of intelligence, and circumstance can force decisions that involve choosing the lesser of two evils. But I believe that people who take these loans are taking them for a reason. I do not pretend to know what that reason might be, nor will I speculate or pass judgment. Still, it’s logical to accept that quick access to most of the money they’re owed is better than no quick access to any of the money they’re owed.
I will make a suggestion for an objectively better topic than calling for a ban on financial transactions between consenting adults. Tell poor Americans to stop being interest-free lenders to the United States government and start being taxpayers who pay only the taxes they owe.
If poor Americans do not pay the government money they do not owe throughout the year, they will have more money throughout the year to pay for whatever inevitably builds from a lack of those dollars. They are much less likely to need a solution such as a refund anticipation loan. Or they can save they money in an account that pays interest, spending it at tax-time if they must have the irrelevant visceral feel of a large lump sum amount. That’s stupid, of course, if there are creditors at the door who will charge interest and fees for debts not payed, but it’s smarter than lending that same money to the federal government without interest while those creditors are calling. And the money has the benefit of being available immediately, beating even the two days of the RAL.
Interest-free loans masquerading as tax refunds are the problem, not an imagined capitalist conspiracy to screw the desperate poor.
Following on my last entry, via The Liberty Papers, I see that Mike Huckabee is spinning (video here):
On last night’s Hannity & Colmes, Colmes cited Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution and said, “That makes people a little worried. It sounds like you’re looking to have a theocratic state when you make statements like that, talking about changing the Constitution in keeping with your view of God.”
Huckabee responded, “Not at all. On two things. The context is two things: Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And, by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it. Nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform. And it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we rewrite the Constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear… Except for you, Alan. I think maybe you should, maybe you should obey those things.”
Colmes said drily, “Well, thank you for the suggestion.”
Does he really think we’re all that stupid? He didn’t make a mistake in saying what he really meant. He said it with the right words. He’s just not happy he got called on his anti-American, anti-Constitution crap.
But I’ll take him at his revised word, if only temporarily, in order to demonstrate exactly why he’s using selective interpretations of the Bible because he is a bigoted fraud more interested in his codifying his bigotry than in hiding his lying. Remember the Bible passage I quoted in my last entry:
If a man has two wives, …
That is a statement of fact, not a refutation of the idea that a man may have two wives. Will Huckabee’s proposed amendment in order to keep consistent with his God’s law include a provision legalizing polygamy in the United States?
Mike Huckabee is a bigot and a liar. (The two flaws have a “strange” habit of appearing in the same person. Interesting.)
Via Jason Pye at The Liberty Papers, Mike Huckabee has a frightening understanding of how a secular, liberty-minded nation should use its government:
Using his selective reading and logic skills, I’ll suggest the 29th Amendment:
The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
Polygamy. Yeah, those’ll look good on us when viewed in hindsight by more heathen enlightened generations in the future. But, no worries. God’s law. Who are we to challenge that?
Mr. Pye makes the same argument I’ve made, that the United States people “are electing a President, not a pastor.” There is no place for this in our political landscape. He has the right to say it, of course, but the only valid response to him should be dismissive shunning of his earthly ambitions by every voter.
