Dukakis

About 4 years ago, I attended a seminar that Michael Dukakis gave on public policy, and I found him to be articulate, passionate, and visionary. Too bad that didn't get across to the electorate.

Intelligent Design?

Even though the topic is well-lambasted elsewhere, I can't resist talking about intelligent design (ID). Few topics make me as self-righteously indignant. Latest news: a Pennsylvania school district in on trial for mandating the teaching of intelligent design in 9th grade science class. I am fascinated by ID's growing appeal. It is linked to a rising conservatism in our country, and, I must suppose, a dissatisfaction with science in general. Make no mistake, ID is not science. It is religion wrapped in psuedo-scientific clothing. Says one scientist, "At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith." Some resources, pro and con: Intelligent Design Network Discovery Institute http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html National Center for Science Education These are ones I just happen to like. Google the subject and you'll find plenty more.

Crime and Blandishment

The Justice Department just released the 2004 US crime rate statistics. The upshot: crime is at its lowest level in 30 years. That report is based on victim surveys. The FBI tracks by police reports. It tells a similar story. How does the US compare to Europe? The conventional wisdom is that crime in the US is much higher than in Europe. Is this true? Well, it's hard to make straight-across comparisons, based on differing methodologies, definitions, etc, of tracking data. Also hard to find the info. Unfortunately, the logical place to look, INTERPOL, is off-limits. Data in the European Sourcebook, the only on-line source I could find, is over 10 years old (but interesting nonetheless). However, a fellow blogger did post on this subject a couple of years ago. His conclusion: crime is actually higher in Europe. I wish I could find more up-to-date material, but in the meantime, it looks like the conventional wisdom is wrong.

Conservative wakes up, smells coffee

Here is a quote from a conservative article about a proposed international treaty involving maritime law, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST): LOST could become the multinational corporations' delight but often those companies have appeared to be more concerned with agreements that promise short-term profits over the long-term interest of our country. Wait, let me get this straight. Corporations are more concerned with their own profit than with the long-term interest of their country? Who would have thought?

Religion of Tolerance

And the Catholic church wonders why it is losing relevancy in American today....

Birth of a Nation

In the US, whites (14.7 births per 1000 women) have the lowest birth rate among all categories tracked: Blacks: 17.6 Native Americans: 17.1 Asians: 17.8 Hispanics: 25.1 Should this be addressed by public policy? In other words, if current trends continue, whites will no longer be a majority in the US (as they no longer are in California, Texas, Hawaii, and New Mexico). Should we care about this? Other countries do. France, for instance, is trying to increase the birth rate among professional women, presumably to counter the growth of non-French groups. In the US, and in most of western Europe, the rate of 1.9 children per family is lower than the replacement rate (which is held to be 2.1 kids per family). In Italy, the population is shrinking. What do you think?

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer, but I always look for solutions to problems in objective fact. This applies to so-called moral problems as well. This is why I liked the analysis linking abortion to crime rates found in the book Freakonomics (I've mentioned this book before). In this analysis, the author says that legalized abortion was responsible for the large drop in the crime rate in the US in the 1990's: In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. This is a controversial subject, no doubt. But the most interesting thing, I found, was his concluding paragraphs on this topic (unfortunately not on the website linked above). He says that legalized abortion has prevented 25,000 murders. He also says that 25,000,000 abortions have been performed. So the real question society should ask, then, is 25 million abortions worth 25 thousand murders? Similarly, a another recent study found that "Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution." The author go on to say that capital punishment may therefore be morally required. These are two examples of where society can deal with sticky moral problems using fact (25,000 murders and 18 murders, respectively, averted). Fact won't necessarily make the questions easier to answer, but it will in my opinion make the answers more defensible. Here's a third example. I think anyone would agree that US society is conflicted about sex. Sex is corrosive, but it sells movie tickets. Sex is off-limits to kids, but low-cut and provacative clothing is de riguer in middle and high school. In truth, many of our attitudes or responses to sex are theological or aesthetic in nature. Crafting public policy around those types of attitudes is unsatisfying at best. Nontraditional sex behaviors, such as homosexual, oral, and anal activity, are even more unmentionable. But this recent Slate article presents a more objective angle: the public health aspect. To wit, anal sex is quite dangerous. So, policy-makers, forget about arguing that Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future. Try instead, "Anal sex is five times more dangerous than vaginal sex and 50 times more dangerous than oral sex. Presumably, oral sex is far more frequent than anal sex. But are you confident it's 50 times more frequent?" That's the basis for sound public policy.

Conservative city planning

Conservatives often dismiss or disparage city planning because, by its nature, it requires central planning and big government (things that smack of communism). So I was pleased (since I am a city planner) to stumble across an article at The Conservative Voice wherein a conservative commentator, Paul M. Weyrich, suggested that the new conservatism include as a plank New Urbanism. New Urbanism for those that don't know is a term for what's more technically known as neo-traditional development. It is a city planning, or more properly, an urban design movement that hearkens back to small-town America and Main Street, USA. It is often used as a shorthand term for a larger movement called Smart Growth. These both deserve more space than I will give them here; suffice it to say that they are alternatives to the current sub- and exurban sprawl that development in the US usually takes today. But as happens so often with The Conservative Voice, I was confused. I was tickled that Weyrich addressed the topic of our struggling cities. But his article displayed a frustrating lack of understanding of, well, of a lot of stuff, misunderstandings that I think are endemic to conservatism. Let's take a look. The difference is this. Much of present-day new urbanism is statist. It envisions using the power of government to force people to adopt new urbanist ideas. An example is Portland, Oregon's "urban growth boundary," a line drawn on a map by government bureaucrats that tries to stop sprawl by decree. Guest [sic] what? It doesn't work. Not only does it violate property rights, if you actually go to Portland and look what has been built inside the boundary, most of it is still sprawl. Note to author: the purpose of the Portland, OR, urban growth boundary is stop sprawl OUTSIDE the boundary, not inside it. It was enacted as an agricultural-land preservation measure, and is by most estimations a success story. Weyrich doesn't explain how the urban growth boundary violates property rights, but I've heard that complaint before. Let me say that I am not necessarily against sprawl. Suburbs are great places for families to raise kids. What we need is suburbs and living, thriving cities, not one or the other. Sprawl and suburbs are not the same thing. Sprawl is a characteristic of our current pattern of developing suburbs. We will always need suburbs, because suburbs is how populations centers grow. But they need not look and act like they do now. The next conservatism should call for dual codes, nationwide. Under one code, a developer would be perfectly free to build a sprawling suburb. But he could also choose to build under a new urbanist code, which would be consistent with the way towns and cities were traditionally designed and built. Obviously, developers would make their choice based on demand in a free market. Developers make their choice based on the free market, all right. But the market they operate in involves things like asphalt, lumber, water pipes, and available land. And the fact is, neo-traditional development costs more to build. In a new urbanist development, there is proportionally less land to build on (and thus to sell), proportionally more roads and sidewalks (which require paving), proportionally longer utility lines. The reason that suburban development looks the way it does now is because it represents the cheapest way to develop land. Sure, a new urbanist development may sell houses at a higher price later, but it may not. What developer wants to take the risk? Building codes, which guarantee the safety of buildings, make development more expensive, too, because a safe, well-built building costs more to build. If developers didn't have to comply with building codes, they wouldn't. Not because they are irresponsible, but because their job is to maximize profit. I think that everyone agrees that building codes are worthwhile, though. My point is that many things that society finds desirable, such as safe buildings or neo-traditional suburbs or e. coli-free beef or national defense, are things that would NOT arise in a free market. There are a whole host of market failures, such as information asymmetry, tragedy of the commons, externalities, and the free rider problem, that say so. In sum, neo-traditional development is worthwhile, but we can't get there without state intervention. Weyrich knows this, too, even if he doesn't know that he knows: Sometime when you are in Washington, go look at the architect Andres Duany's Kentlands development in Montgomery County, Maryland. It is a beautiful traditional town. And houses there are selling for tens of thousands of dollars more than houses with the same floor space in surrounding suburbs. You see, Kentlands development arose specifically because of zoning, subdivision regulation, planning approvals, and other heavy-handed tools of government, not because of the free market.

My 2 mommies

One of the arguments against homosexual marriage has been the implications for child rearing in such an arrangement. How would children be affected by having "2 mommies"? A report from the Brookings Institution suggests, "Not much:" "There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation. . . . On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. . . . Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." The report goes on to conclude the childern of gay/lesbian parents are no more likely to be gay/lesbians themselves. Unfortunately, reports like this will do little to pave the way for homosexual marriage in this country in the short term (something I support, if that's not obvious). But marriage in this country is being redefined, and I think sooner or later, with results like this report, nontraditional marriages will be here.

Under God redux

A federal judge in California has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Many may remember a similar ruling from the 9th Circuit Court back in 2002. I supported the decision then and I support it now. But I was (and am still, I imagine) in the minority. The 2002 ruling sparked a "firestorm" of controversy (and ridiculous posturing--the US House of Representatives recited the Pledge en masse on the steps of the Capitol). Most people saw it as a triumph for dreaded secular atheism, and yet another example of judicial activism. The current ruling will no doubt be the same. Why do I support this ruling? Simple. I think "under God" is an example of coercive, state-sponsored religious activity. It takes a profession of patriotism (which in itself is rather weird, don't you think?) and turns it into a public prayer. What are the common arguments against this ruling? We are a Christian nation We've all heard this one before. What does it mean, to be a Christian nation? Is it because 75% of Americans call themselves Christian? By that logic, we are a white nation and a female nation. No, to me, the important thing is that the word "God" is notably absent from the US Constitution. Beside the 1st Amendment, the document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office. We already use God in terms like "In God We Trust" and "So help me God." This isn't really an argument, as any parent knows ("Everyone else is doing it...."). Someone against the current Pledge would say those uses are wrong, too. The Pledge has always had those words

One pro-Pledge person calls the Pledge "one of the nations most important and cherished traditions—the ability of students across the nation to acknowledge the fact that our freedoms in this country come from God, not government." (We can dispute the truth of this later).

But I think everyone knows by now that the words "under God" were not part of the original Pledge and were only added in 1954 to distinguish god-fearing America from the godless communists. The Pledge itself is a relatively recent addition to our public life, anyway.

Reciting the Pledge doesn't necessitate a belief in God Just as valid: removing the words from the Pledge doesn't negate a belief in God. I think this last point is to me the most important. Keeping the words in the Pledge is coercive to the 25% of America who are not Christian, but removing the words does nothing to anyone.

Katrina, meet Darwin

A couple days ago, I talked a bit about the role of government in redistributing wealth. I approached it from a very pragmatic angle, but my final argument holds across the wide range of government services. I also talked some time ago about the "high cost of being poor." In a BBC op-ed piece from last week, Harold Evans expands on my point. He argues that Katrina may be the next disaster (a 1927 flood, the Great Depression, 9/11 being others) to shake America's idea of itself vis-a-vis government vs. the individual. He says that the American attitude of "survival of the fittest," of Social Darwinism, is due for an overhaul in the face of reality. Read the article.

Don't BRAC me

I suppose that because of everything else going on in the world these last few weeks (Iraq, Katrina, start of the NFL season), the most recent round of military base realignments and closures--the BRAC process--has gone on rather quietly, at least compared to previous rounds. Every so often, the Department of Defense reviews its needs and capabilities, and if it determines that it has facilities in excess (as it did this year on May 15), it recommends closure or realignment of these facilities to Congress. Here is the charter of the BRAC Commission: The Congress established the 2005 BRAC Commission to ensure the integrity of the base closure and realignment process. As directed by law, the Commission will provide an objective, non-partisan, and independent review and analysis of the list of military installation recommendations issued by the Department of Defense (DoD). In general, I applaud the BRAC process. I'm sure that everyone can agree that the DoD can stand a little trimming, and I believe that the DoD is the best one to decide where that trimming should take place. But in truth, everyone really agrees that the DoD can stand trimming--as long as the trimming is not in their hometown. And I also dispute that the BRAC commission is as objective as we'd like. As Jeff Taylor notes, the reality is, politicians don't see the military as a tool for national defense, they see it as a "pork engine." For instance, take a look at the BRAC Commission's major recommendations. Here's what it recommends for Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico: Keep open Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., until at least 2009, and urged DoD to find a new mission for the base, if possible; Doesn't that seem a bit backwards? The base is kept open, and then only later is a mission found for it? Or what about Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota? That base was kept open, too, over the Pentagon's objections. Was it political? Well, according to CNN, [Senator John] Thune, a freshman Republican, unseated then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle partly on the strength of his claim he could help save the base. Thule saved 4000 jobs. To be fair, I can understand the motivation to preserve military bases, especially in places like South Dakota or New Mexico. They are major sources of employment. But as Jane Jacobs describes in her great book Cities and the Wealth of Nations, military bases are actually drains on economic vitality. Since military bases actually produce no product (especially bases without missions), they are in essence large-scale federal welfare for the local community, artificial infusions of resources. This is bad because this welfare ties up the potentially productive activity of the people employed there. In other words, Jacobs would say that Thule really did his state a disservice because those 4000 jobs he saved could have been used elsewhere to even greater ends, in jobs that actually produced something. But that attitude won't get you votes.

Redistribution

I believe that one of the major roles of government is the redistribution of wealth. "Redistribution of wealth" is a loaded term for what is usually a prosaic and un-controversial process: the collection of taxes and fees for the provision of public service, infrastructure, and other "commons." However, the term IS loaded, and it is so because, since we are human and we are subject to numerous economic laws, we can often make distributional choices that have unfair or inequitable results, intended or not. For instance, Myron Orfield, in his influential book Metropolitics, found that in the Minneapolis/St Paul metro area, poor inner-city neighborhoods were subsidizing the construction of wealthy suburban neighborhoods because of the way sewer charges were levied. A seemingly benign decision to charge based on average cost instead of marginal cost actually distorted the land development market. In another example from the Twin Cities, the University of Minnesota found that the state highway ramp meters also encouraged suburban living. Ramp meters are the traffic lights found at highway on-ramps. They are designed to control the flow of traffic on to heavily used highways so that the highways can remain traffic-jam free. But since ramp meters aren't needed or aren't activated as often in the suburbs where traffic is usually lighter, suburbanites are rewarded with higher travel speeds and shorter commute times while those who live in the urban center are delayed at the ramp meters and are consequently punished with lower speeds and longer commute times. I offer these as quick examples of the law of unintended consequences. Mike, at M1ek's Bake-Sale of Bile, provides an in-depth discussion of decisions made in roadway funding in Austin, Texas, that are perhaps more pernicious. Readers of this page will know Mike as the one who argued against the regressivity of the gas tax. (I got in over my head challenging him, because you'll see from his site that he's done his homework). In the Austin case, funding sources and funding streams result in costs being unfairly shifted onto various groups. So what's my point? I guess I have several. First, that despite such shortcomings, this role of government must not stop. (In my opinion, libertarians often seize too quickly on these unfair results and thus denounce all such redistribution). Austin still needs roads, and the Twin Cities still need sewers. But, my second, more important point is that it behooves public policy-makers to carefully consider the full impacts of their policies. Easier said than done, I know. (As I've noted elsewhere, I've been involved in the drafting of state legislation, and I can tell you that it's difficult to examine all the angles, especially in the crucible of a legislative session). But just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Gas tax regressive?

Mike took me to task for failing to read his links on the supposed regressiveness of the gas tax before responding to him. He's right--I should have. So I did. He makes a compelling point. He says that even though the conventional wisdom is that the gas tax is regressive, it is in fact not. But Mike doesn't seem to support his argument with more than anecdotal evidence. For instance, the study he links to in his most recent post says this: "Thus the gas tax is not regressive at the very poorest levels, but it is regressive across most of the rest of the income spectrum." Page 9 And this: "Like other earlier estimates, our results suggest that a tax on gasoline is regressive, since low-income working families spend a fraction of their income on gasoline that is higher than for other families with more income." Page 96 And his New Jersey article here says: "In a 1991 paper, MIT economist James Poterba concluded that the gasoline tax is less regressive than conventional analyses suggest." (emphasis mine). So, what I conclude from these articles is not that the gas tax is not regressive, but that it is just not as regressive as we think. Mike's argument seems to hinge on the definition of "the very poorest levels" or the "lowest income group." If we use the threshold of annual household income of $15,000 as the definition of lowest income, as John Pucher does, we find, according to the US Census, that 15% of the US is lowest income. So perhaps the real point is the the gas tax is regressive for 85% of the US, and neutral for 15%. And here's something else to think about. It's not disputed that low income people drive less. "According to 1995 data, individuals in low-income households, earning less than $15,000 per year, make 19 percent fewer trips annually and travel nearly 40 percent fewer miles annually (9,060 compared to 14,924) than the average American household (see Exhibit 1-4). Income differences are even more dramatic on the household level. VMT per household in low-income households is approximately half that in other households (11,594 miles compared to 23,427)." But why do they drive less? One reaons is certainly the low auto ownership rates. Low income people cannot afford to own cars. But maybe it is also because low income people cannot afford to operate the cars they do own. (California, for instance, has a subsidy program for low income people who cannot afford to keep their cars maintained to adhere to emissions standards.) In other words, maybe low income people don't use much gas because they can't afford gas. In this way, gas taxes have a "hidden regressiveness." I haven't found anything to support this hypothesis, I merely offer it for consideration. On a related note, Mike also says: "The other problem with this analysis is that it ignores other sources of roadway funding, such as property and sales taxes, which in this state are a huge portion of revenues for roads (even state highways)." But according to the General Accounting Office, is this completely true? In 2000, at least, no property or sales taxes went to the Texas State Highway Trust Fund. 32% came from vehicle/motor carrier taxes, 61% from the gas tax, 4% other, and 2% from tolls. In sum, I'm not sure if I agree with Mike or not. Mike, am I missing something?

Fight Katrina with Pork

Ronald Utt at the Heritage Foundation recommends that Congress redirect some of the $25 billion in pork barrel earmarks in the latest transportation spending bill toward Hurricane Katrina relief. I think this is a great idea. I opposed the bill because, despite its stupid name SAFETEA-LU (which stands for Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), it is anything but accountable or efficient. If you are not already familiar with these famous earmarks, go here. But beware. The full list of earmarks is 8 MB in size. (That's bigger than the Bible). Update: Utt is not the only one saying this. Tim Cavanaugh at Reason Online agrees. Update 2: SAFETEA-LU is named after the wife of Rep Don Young (AK), Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

You Might Be A Left-Wing Extremist Brainwashing Victim If...

I didn't write this, but I enjoyed reading it.

You are a left-wing extremist if: You believe that the U. S. Constitution prohibits the open recognition of God by our federal (or any state) government, and the exhibition of religious symbols on public grounds. Or you believe that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

Or you believe that most television and print news outlets in this country are politically neutral.

Or you believe that outlawing private gun ownership will reduce crime. Or you believe that the U. S. Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, and that Supreme Court Justices have the right to redefine its text in order to make it compatible with what they interpret to be the current moral standards of society. Or you believe that Charles Darwin's macro-evolution theory is a proven fact. Or you believe that the U. S. should be a signatory to the Kyoto Treaty. Or you believe that Michael Moore is patriotic. Or you believe that requiring children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school violates their "civil rights". Or you believe that the United States of America is an imperialistic nation. Or you believe that private clubs like the Boy Scouts of America should be forced to accept as members individuals who's lifestyles they disapprove of. Or you believe that affirmative action programs are morally defensible. Or you believe that illegal aliens have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens. Or you believe that big oil companies make more money from the sale of gasoline than the federal and state governments do. Or you believe that most American soldiers joined the military because they were either tricked into it, or they couldn't make a living in the civilian world. Or you believe that taxpayer money should be used to fund "the arts". Or you believe that the guarantor of your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the federal government. Or you believe that unborn human beings are not really human beings simply because they require the impermanent sanctuary of their mothers' wombs, and therefore, abortion is not murder. Or you believe that George W. Bush is more dangerous to the American way of life than Al-Qaeda. Or you believe that Rush Limbaugh is an extremist, but that Al Franken isn't. Or you believe that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska will destroy the environment. Or you believe that raising taxes on the "rich" will lead to economic prosperity for everyone else. Or you believe that the invasion of Iraq by U. S.-led coalition forces violated "international law". Or you believe that things like the education system, the healthcare system, and the social security system are best controlled by federal agencies, as opposed to private citizens. Or you believe that spanking an unruly child equates to abuse. Or you believe that Hillary Clinton was genuinely shocked when Bill finally admitted to the American people that he'd had an "inappropriate" relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Down with spam

I got my first piece of "comment spam." It was inevitable, I suppose. To counter this, I activated blogspot's "word verification" feature for comments. Please don't let it discourage you from commenting, unless, that is, you are a spammer.

Death tax dead?

Last week, Edwin Feulner at the Heritage Foundation (a great resource for conservative thought), published an op-ed calling for the permanent repeal of the estate tax. The Senate will be voting soon on this very thing. (This seems to be the time of year to resurrect tax discussions. Last week, I talked about the flat tax, and today, I'll talk about the estate tax.) As is so often the case, the controversy surrounding the estate tax has little to do with the actual facts. Feulner's piece is no different. Let's take a look. "Many families have been forced to sell their land or shutter the family business just to pay the death tax, which can seize up to half of a dead person’s assets." Actually, according to the Tax Policy Center, the average estate tax paid by all farm and business estates in 2004 was just under 20 percent of the value of the estate. The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, 40% paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent. Feulner is confusing these figures with the top marginal tax rate, which is currently 47 percent. But that marginal rate applies only to what is taxed, and currently the first $1.5 million of an estate is exempt. "The Congressional Joint Economic Committee reports that charitable bequests in 2003 reached a record $21.6 billion -- a 25 percent increase from 1999. And that’s with the death-tax rate declining and set to go even lower in years to come. If anything, the death tax crowds out charitable giving: The larger the share of an estate the government seizes, the less money remains for survivors to support worthy causes."

Correlation does not imply causality. Just because charitable bequests increased at the same time that estate tax rates were declining does not mean there one causes the other. Charitable gifts are deductible against the total estate at death, so such gifts are incentivized. In fact, studies suggest that eliminating the estate tax would reduce total charitable contributions by about 12 percent, or by about $12 billion per year.

"So it’s difficult to believe that Americans support a policy that takes from the dead to feed the federal coffers." Opponents of the estate tax glibbly call it the "death tax," as if it were a tax on the act of dying. Talk about framing! More properly, it should be called the "windfall tax," since those who pay the tax are the inheritors, not the decedents. In other words, estates should be treated like lottery winnings and other sources of unearned income.

Here's something else to consider. In 1998, 36% of the average estate (and 54% of the averat estate over $10 million) was comprised of unrealized capital gains. Unrealized capital gains are the increases in value of stocks, bonds, artwork, etc, as these things appreciated during the lifetime of the owner. They are unrealized because the owner has not yet sold them to "realize" the profit. And since they were never sold, the profit was never taxed. This means, then, that, without the estate tax, one third of the average estate will never be taxed. The estate tax is the only mechanism to tax unrealized capital gains.

Perhaps the estate tax does need to be repealed. Some studies indicate that it hinders job creation. And the jury is still out on whether large inheritances make the inheritors work more or less hard than without the inheritance. But to make such decisions, we need fact and thoughtful analysis, not hyberbole and emotionally-charged appeals.

On our way yet....

There's been a lot of action at the Hammer of Judgement lately, I'm glad to say. Maybe we're moving from off-off-Broadway to off-Broadway (with Broadway just around the corner?). First, Tee Bee took issue with my discussion of Kelo v. New London, though I'm not sure if it was because I called her piece hysterical or because she disagreed with my interpretation of the ruling. But I stand by what I wrote. It seems to me that many who are unhappy with Kelo are unhappy with eminent domain in general. Take a look at the last line of the Fifth Amendment and let me know what it says to you re eminent domain. Take a look at Tee Bee's site. She has a lot to say on Kelo. Second, Mike says he believes that gas taxes are not always regressive, and that they are better than sales and property taxes. I dispute the first point. Not only is a gas tax regressive because everyone pays the same tax per gallon regardless of income (thus consuming a larger share of a low-income person's total available resources--the very definition of regressive), but low-income people usually own older and less fuel-efficient cars so they actually have to buy more gas (though the SUV trend may change this statistic). Just because a tax is regressive doesn't make it not worthwhile, but it does mean that society should recognize it as regressive and make remedy elsewhere. Are gas taxes better than sales and property taxes? Well, gas taxes have the advantage of a direct connection to what they fund, in this case transportation projects. This is called a rational nexus. (In Europe, gas taxes are used to fill the general fund, so there is no such nexus). Sales and property taxes are used to fill the general funds of local and state governments, on the other hand. So in my mind it's hard to compare the twotypes of taxes, other than to say that all are necessary. In general, I'm happy to get interest and feedback from the site. If we can only keep it going....

Flat tax is flat wrong

A topic near and dear to my heart, or rather, a topic the opposition to which is near and dear to my heart, is the much-vaunted flat tax. It hasn't really been visible in the blogosphere lately, but, today the Wall Street Journal carried a pro-flat-tax op-ed piece, which gives me the opportunity to express my opinion. Well, not my opinion but some facts (as is so often the case on these pages). But for those of you who don't have the time, I'll sum up in one sentence: The flat tax is not only bad, it is unfair. For those who don't know, the idea of the flat tax is that everyone pays the same percentage of their income in income tax, say, 15%. Currently, we have a graduated income tax, in which different levels of income are taxed at progressively higher rates. The appeal of the flat tax is two-fold. First, it seems more fair, because everyone pays the same percentage. Second, it seems simple because one need only multiply one's income by the tax rate to find the tax owed. Thus was born the idea of a tax return the size of a postcard. Let's examine these features. The second one first, because it is easier to dispel. The hard part in filling out tax returns is not figuring out the tax owed. It's figuring out taxable income. Take a look at a Form 1040. Go to line 42. That's were taxable income is finally calculated. It takes 42 lines to arrive there. Now go to line 43. That's were the tax owed is calculated. One line. Recall also that line 43 is found by looking in a large chart. No calculator necessary. So, a literal flat tax actually only saves you from having to look at a multi-page table of 8-point font. It hasn't addressed the previous 42 lines of figuring (or the following 12 lines for that matter). In other words, implicit in the idea of a flat tax is also a very large tax code simplification. But this tax code simplification could happen with or without a flat tax. Since with a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage of their income in tax. it is perceived to be more fair. But is it really more fair? Well, an economic theory known as the declining marginal utility of money would say no. This theory says that the first dollar you earned has much more value than the last one you earned. If you need to earn $10,000 a year to provide basic shelter, food, transportation, healthcare, etc, to your family, but you earn $20,000 year, you value the second $10,000 less because it's not buying you a home, it's just buying you a nicer home. Consider an extreme example. Why do you think that the super-rich buy $100 hamburgers (or whatever else seeming waste of money you pull from the pages of People magazine). Because $100 means less to them than to the average person. That is why we currently have an income exclusion, and why we have a graduated tax. Another social theory, of which I have blogged in the past (see my Aug 6 post here), also says no. This theory says that higher income people actually derive more benefit from living in society than lower income people. Higher income people get better police protection, better roads, more tax breaks. This may seem false, but consider one example. What is the single largest deduction on a typical tax return? And what one deduction is the key to enable the average tax payer to itemize deductions so that they save more money than if they had taken the standard deduction? The mortgage income interest deduction. But to take this deduction, you have to own a house. And guess who don't own houses? The lowest income groups. So, in short, a massive federal benefit (subsidy in the form of a tax deduction) flows to the wealthiest groups at the expense of the poorest groups. Similar examples abound. My point in these two examples is that a flat tax is probably not fair (well, maybe fair, but not equitable). A flat tax is regressive, which means that it hits lower income people harder (as opposed to a progressive tax, which hits higher income people harder). The current income tax is progressive, and we want to keep it that way. Sale taxes, by the way, are regressive, as are property taxes and gas taxes. The Wall Street Journal piece says that with a flat tax, government revenues need not fall. But to ensure that, poor people would have to pay more in tax than they do now, while rich people would pay less. Not just more and less proportionally, but more and less absolutely. Worse yet, the income tax increase to the poor would be proportionally worse than the income tax decrease to the rich. Is that what we want as a society? For a more detailed discussion on the ills of a flat tax, see here.

It was only a matter of time

I've decided to run a weekly feature. It will be the examination of the latest piece from my colleague Nathan Tabor at the Conservative Voice. I've already talked about him twice in the last month, but since his stuff just keeps getting better and better, I am compelled to continue. Take a look at this week's submission "Liberals hate GOD." To be honest, it's so laughable, I'm starting to wonder if Nathan is making sport with us. I mean, can anyone who writes this-- "Simultaneously, along the way, a new generation of super-secular Scientists replaced the Biblical account of Divine Creation as a manifestation of God's handiwork with the logically absurd theory that we humans have evolved from apes (recently) and pond scum (ultimately). Today these pseudo-intellectual, self-styled "genius experts" even ridicule the perfectly valid concept of Intelligent Design, derisively calling it "junk science." No inquiring open minds here: nothing but vintage Darwin will do for these Liberal denizens of our academic ivory towers." --be taken seriously? I'll let you read the rest. But be forewarned: it's so bad it's like smelling spoiled milk. A grimace is unavoidable. There is a serious topic behind his rant, though. Take a look at Chart 67 of the 2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States. In 1990, 86% of Americans (in the lower 48) considered themselves Christian, 3.4% non-Christian, and 7.5% not religious. In 2001, 77% called themselves Christian, 3.7% non-Christian, and 17% not religious. In 11 years, the number of self-professed Christians dropped by 10% while the number of irreligionists more than doubled. I think we will see that trend continune--America is becoming a more secular nation. And I think that is a good thing. Nathan brings up a lot of examples of this secularization. What they all have in common is an element of coercion. Take the recent situation at the US Air Force Academy. That change in official guidelines was precipitated by the feeling of many cadets that a certain brand of Christianity was being forced upon them (for instance, instructors--military officers--were opening classes with a prayer). Sure, we are a Christian nation, but 1 out of every 4 people in this country is not a Christian. 1 out of every 4. That's greater than the number of non-white minorities (1 out of every 5 people). Cultural or religious coercion has no place in a pluralistic society. The founding fathers set up things like the Electoral College and, yes, the First Amendment, to avoid such tryanny of the majority. Ponder this while we wait with bated breath for next week's column from Nathan.