The View from Right Field

The Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Over the next few days, I will be commenting on some of the things that happened while we were on vacation.  First, with Congress voting to repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with respect to homosexuals and lesbians, I wonder what excuse the Ivies and other colleges will come up with now to justify not allowing ROTC on campus or to deny equal access to things like the recruitment and placement facilities that colleges provide. 

Maybe for some schools, don’t ask don’t tell was the real reason that they didn’t allow ROTC on campus or that they fought against having to provide full and equal access to placement offices.  But for others, it was an easy reason to do what they wanted to do in any case, which was to keep out ROTC.  They don’t believe in ROTC (or the military), and they aren’t real keen on the kind of people who would want to join ROTC.  So, what are they going to do now?  What excuse will they come up with next?  I’m not sure, but it will be something. 

What Christmas Is All About

Charlie Brown:  "Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?"

Linus: "Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about. Lights, please?

  "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. And they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you. Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.’

  "That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown."

-- "A Charlie Brown Christmas"

 

Great News. Sad News.

Great news:  Woody's back.

Sad news:  Phil Cavaretta has passed away.  He was, I believe, the last person to have played against Babe Ruth; in 1935 when Ruth was with the Boston Braves.

December / Christmas Break

I will be taking the rest of December off.  We are going on vacation later this month, and with all there is to do to get ready, along with normal December things, I won’t have time to post.  I will be back in late December or early January.  See you then.  Thanks.

A Few Thoughts on the Tax/Unemployment Benefits/Estate Tax/Etc. Agreement Between President Obama and Congressional Republicans

A few short comments on this agreement, and then I will be taking a break for the rest of December.  These comments are going to be more in the way of a bullet-point list than a detailed article.  This is mainly because I don’t have the time for the latter, but I would like to make a few comments.  As you read this list, you will probably find references to things I have written about, in more detail, before.

A permanent plan would have been better.  A two-year extension is better than nothing, but it still leaves too much uncertainty in the economy.  We need certainty about government policy.

It was good to not raise taxes with the economy so tentative.  As for the Democrats’ concern about not being able to afford $75 billion to extend the current (i.e., Bush) tax rates for the “rich” for two years, what about the $310 billion it costs to extend them for those under $250,000 ($200,000 for single people)?

While the extension of the current tax rates was good, the lack of any kind of a medium- and long-term plan for how we are going to get the deficit down in the future was very unfortunate.  Republican Representative Paul Ryan has presented such an idea.  President Obama has not.  He appointed a commission, but he didn’t come up with a plan of his own.  Of course, not many Republicans signed up for Paul Ryan’s plan, but the President does have the resources to come up with a plan, and he hasn’t.

With respect to taxes in the future, I would favor something along the lines of what Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairmen of President Obama’s commission, recommended – or at least presented:  Broaden the tax base.  Get rid of virtually all, if not all, of the personal deductions (including both the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions).  Get rid of silly deductions and credits for things like electric cars, etc.

Once the base is broadened, cut the rates.  With a broader base, the rates don’t had to be nearly as high.  Low rates.  Broad base.  More taxes will be collected, and the economy will work better.

Cut corporate tax rates.  There is a world-wide market for businesses.  We have to compete or companies will leave.  Democrats may not like it, but that’s the way it is.

Get rid of corporate welfare, both in the tax system and outside of it.  Cut agricultural subsidies.  Stop subsidizing ethanol (and Iowa’s presidential caucuses).  Earmarks should be abolished not because they cost lots of money but because they are a symbol.

Cut subsidies for things the middle class can afford – if they really want them.

Russ Feingold on McCain-Feingold’s Limitations on Free Speech

This is a little late, but it’s still relevant.  Consider this quote from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, of McCain-Feingold fame (i.e., the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002).  The quotation is from late in Senator Feingold’s campaign for reelection, which he lost:

"I've always been a target in this stuff.  And this year, I'm getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal."

In other words, if the Supreme Court had not, in its Citizens United decision of last January, cut back on some of the restrictions on free speech that were contained in the so-called campaign reform act that bears his name, Senator Feingold would have had $2,000,000 of fewer commercials against him in the fall election.

So why did Senator Feingold, and so many other senators and representatives, support things like McCain-Feingold:  for the good of the country or for the good of their reelection campaigns?  And can they tell the difference?

Update (12/8/10 10:55 pm):  Let me see if I can phrase this another way.  Senator Feingold tried to make it illegal for certain people and certain groups to campaign against him – because he thought they were being unfair.  And it wasn’t good for democracy.  (Or is it that it wasn’t good for “Democracy“?)  In any case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Senator Feingold’s attempt to stop certain people from criticizing him in certain ways violated the Constitution.  (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” and all that.)  So Senator Feingold lost in November because, in part, he could no longer stop certain people from saying mean things about him.

Another Inconvenient Truth from Al Gore: We Can’t Trust Our Politicians

In 2007 Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize (jointly with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for his work on climate change (formerly known as global warming), including his documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth.”  

Doubts have been raised about the accuracy of former Vice President Gore’s film, but Mr. Gore told, or should I say admitted to, another inconvenient truth last month at green energy conference in Athens, and this inconvenient truth is absolutely true.  This truth is simple: we can’t trust our politicians when it comes to giving government subsidies, passing special tax breaks, etc.  But let Mr. Gore explain this inconvenient truth in his own words:

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol.

First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.

One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

Some of us realized this was true, but for many people, and for lots of our politicians in Washington, this discloses a most inconvenient truth.  It is a most inconvenient truth for liberals and big government conservatives because they like to think our government knows what it is doing when it supports things like ethanol.  Some people like to think government is smart enough to decide the best way to fuel our cars.  Others like to think government officials can pick winners when it comes to new ways to do things.  Still others think the government can identify the growth industries of the future.  In fact, some of them even like to think there really are shovel-ready projects the government can fund to stimulate the economy.

But in the vast majority of cases, these things are not true.  Government can pick winners now and then.  It can make the right choice every once in a while.  And liberals and big government conservatives use those examples to justify subsidizing more programs, funding more projects, and giving out more tax breaks.  But the law of averages and the law of unintended consequences eventually catch up with those programs and projects and subsidies.  Money is wasted, and outcomes are worse than if the government had just left things alone.

Sometimes these subsidies and projects are done with the best of intentions.  Other times, as former Vice President Gore admitted, they are not.  And that is another reason why we can’t let our politicians make these kinds of decisions.  Not only don’t they know enough to make these decisions, but based on what former Vice President Gore’s said, they can’t be trusted to even try to make the right decision.  We have ethanol because of farmers and Archer Daniels Midland – and because politicians like Al Gore wanted to be president.*

This is definitely an inconvenient truth.  But it also shows us the solution.  The solution is not more rules or better politicians.  That won’t work.  Rules can’t cover everything, and most politicians are no better than the system they participate in.  The solution, instead, is simple:  Stop the subsidies; stop the tax breaks; stop trying to pick winners.  Because our government – and politicians – can’t do it. 

----------
* In 2008 there was one major presidential candidate who both knew ethanol subsidies were not good and had the courage to oppose them in Iowa.  The rest of the candidates either didn’t know it or they didn’t have the guts to say so.  It was encouraging that this candidate got his party’s nomination.  It was discouraging that he didn’t win.

Ron Santo’s Gone

As people talk about Ron Santo’s baseball career and how he played with Type 1 diabetes, one thing needs to be made perfectly clear:  Ron Santo does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he had diabetes and he was a great player.  He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he was a great player.  Period.  End of story.