The Trunk

The Mandate

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:47:05 -0500

That’s astonishingly unfair. I’m not a fan of the mandate either (I’m not a fan of guaranteed issue, for that matter) but we need to acknowledge where this comes from. “The Democrats” (as if they’re a Borg Collective) generally supported an individual mandate as a compromise short of single payer. During the Presidential campaign Obama was the only one not to support a mandate. This is him compromising to match the will of the rest of his party, nothing else.

I’m not buying this. When Obama campaigned against Clinton, the issue of the mandate was the single biggest policy difference between them. He campaigned as if this difference mattered. He campaigned as if this were an issue of principle. For him to jettison this in his first year in office is atrocious. This isn’t a compromise he needed to make with the rest of his party—it’s a compromise he chose to make with the insurance companies that donated lots of money to his party.

The debate over health care has been raging for decades. This imposed mandate is something relatively new and absolutely awful. It’s also, most likely, unconstitutional. But we shouldn’t have to resort to the courts to protect our rights … we should be able to turn to our leaders. Obama failed us in this regard.

"Now, jail isn’t a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And,..."

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:25:34 -0500

“Now, jail isn’t a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And, looked at another way, all this really means is that the government continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don’t pay their taxes. But still, this is a stark reminder that when liberals talk about “health care as a right,” what they really mean is “health insurance as a requirement.””

- No Health Insurance? Go Directly to Jail. - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

It’s the last sentence that is astonishingly right. This debate began as a discussion of health care as a right. But the legislation winding its way through the system isn’t about that—it’s about health care as a requirement. As a mandate. As an obligation. It’s not a right to health insurance; it’s the loss of the right not to buy insurance from insurance companies.

I hate the idea of government-provided health care, but in many ways that seems preferable to the product we’re getting. Once again, the Democrats sold out their principles and managed to find something worse than what they originally promised.

"I am not a great outdoorsman."

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:24:49 -0500

““I am not a great outdoorsman.””

- Congressman Barney Frank, who was present while police busted his partner for growing pot. The quote is his excuse as to why he was unaware that his partner was growing pot. Yes, he expects us to believe that it takes a great outdoorsman to know what pot looks like.

I wish Frank had said: “It’s absurd that pot is illegal. It’s just a plant, for crying out loud.” But instead of saying something reasonable, he said something ridiculous.

It’s funny that Frank’s excuse is that he is not a great outdoorsman, while Sanford’s excuse was that he was a great outdoorsman.

"Democrats counter that their agenda has kick-started a recovery on Wall Street, even if it..."

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:37:05 -0500

“Democrats counter that their agenda has kick-started a recovery on Wall Street, even if it hasn’t trickled down to the job market yet, and that Republicans are putting what they’ve begun at risk.”

-

Worst. Talking Point. Ever. - Megan McArdle

Trickle down economics, Obama style

The Volunteer-Based Solution

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:03:00 -0500

The Volunteer-Based Solution:

squashed:

azspot:

At Thursday’s tea party march protesting government-run health care, a participant suffered a heart attack about 20 minutes into the proceedings. As Dana Milbank reports, medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office rushed over, attaching electrodes to the man’s chest and giving him oxygen and an IV.

The Capitol physician’s office, unlike the bills being considered in Congress, is actually socialized health care. Government employs the physicians, and taxpayers help pay their salaries. But despite the presence of so many committed free market activists who so deeply fear the consequences of government-provided health care, no one stopped the bureaucrats from treating the protester nor developed a market or volunteer-based solution.

It may have saved his life, but it cost him his soul.

This is why I burn all of the mail the comes to my house. It’s why I drive through people’s yards, instead of on streets. It’s why I refuse to use GPS … I mean, who shot that satellite into the sky anyway. I won’t eat any food either … not with all the farm subsidies that are out there.

Or actually, this is absurd. There’s nothing hypocritical the protester accepting this care. As a taxpayer, he paid for it—why not use it? Again, this is why I’m happy to collect my Social Security, even though I think it should be abolished.

In any event, I suspect that the Capitol physicians were not required by their employment to render aid to non-federal employees. They were, therefore, the “volunteer-based solution.”

This is the magic lawnmower that created 50 jobs. Although the...

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:15 -0500

This is the magic lawnmower that created 50 jobs. Although the New York Times seems skeptical, ignore this cynicism … we’re in the era of HOPE! Let’s plow the rest of the stimulus funds into rider mowers and ride our way into endless prosperity. (h/t Reason)

"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of..."

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:59:50 -0500

““The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.””

- Thomas Jefferson, 1782, via my friend Matt

More on Gay Marriage

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:39:38 -0500

Adrian left a thoughtful comment on this post:

Legislating that marriage is not only between one man and one woman may not be like affirmative action or welfare, but it is like counterfeiting currency. A counterfeiter doesn’t steal from any one person, he steals from every person…because the value of the dollar declines when the counterfeit is treated like the real.

Rights aren’t simply whatever anyone says they are, as long as somebody isn’t directly getting hurt. There is a truth about the human person that is constant and immutable. Whether or not somebody appears to get hurt isn’t the measuring stick for what is true or not true. We may not agree on what that truth is, but let’s not assume it is/isn’t there simply because we can’t see a harm.

(As a side note, freedom of speech can and does deprive individuals of things. That’s why slander, libel, and shouting “fire” in a theater are against the law.)

I think that the counterfeiting analogy is wrong. Yes, counterfeiting is stealing from everyone. When someone prints and uses fake money, it deflates the value of existing money. If there are more dollars floating around, naturally each will be worth less. This is rational. We value our money based upon its scarcity. But marriage is not like this, or at least it shouldn’t be. My feelings for my wife are not the least bit dependent upon whether other people get married or not. If 200 million people got married tomorrow, it wouldn’t devalue what my marriage means to me. If 200 million married people died tomorrow, it wouldn’t inflate what my marriage means to me. The value of my marriage isn’t set in a market. It’s established between my wife and me. Or, if you are religious, between you and your wife and God.

Adrian says that rights ought to transcend our concerns about people hurting others, and that rights should somehow encapsulate what is true. I think it’s dangerous for us to let the majority decide what is true. The majority may decide that evolution is true, or, one day, that atheism is true. Do we want the state to ban intelligent design, to outlaw churches? The Holocaust, slavery, the oppression of women … these were all carried out by people who (1) thought they knew the truth and (2) thought the role of government was to enforce the truth.

Or there is this: What is the point of virtue if the virtuous action is always compelled? If you ban all forms of sin, don’t you devalue sainthood? Or more severely—what’s the point of life if every choice is made for you?

As for slander, libel, and shouting fire in a theater … notably, these are all instances where words hurt others. These aren’t actionable because they are false … these are actionable because they cause harm to others. If I say “the moon is made of cheese,” I’m lying, but I haven’t broken the law. Speech itself is not illegal. But if I induce you to take an action to your detriment based upon my lie, I’ve gone beyond speech.

"About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration..."

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:50:38 -0500

“About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren’t saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren’t saved.
… .
But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs. “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,” HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.”

- The Associated Press: STIMULUS WATCH: Salary raise counted as saved job

This administration is shameless.

When you make an mistake, it’s an error. When someone points out your mistake, and you still refuse to acknowledge it, it’s a lie.

julyshewillfly: Contrasting images from Maine. On the left, the...

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:37:00 -0500

julyshewillfly:

Contrasting images from Maine. On the left, the people who had their rights taken away by a majority vote. And on the right, the people who happily celebrated, and put their hard work, time, and money into taking away the rights of their fellow human beings. (Images via Daylife)

There’s something ugly about the inclination to celebrate the revocation of another’s rights. Mind you, the right to marry does not come at the expense of another. It is not like affirmative action, whereby one candidate for a slot displaces another. It is not like welfare, whereby money is taken from one to give to another. If anything, it is like speech … another person’s exercise of it may offend your sensibilities, but it does not deprive you of anything. The people above on the right are celebrating something that has no effect on their lives, and a huge effect on the lives of those on the left. Tomorrow, they will give little thought to the initiative they passed; those on the left will feel it every day.

We would be a happier and better people if we learned to let people do things we don’t like.

Aguanomics: The Political Economy of Lobbying (h/t Marginal...

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:58:34 -0500

Aguanomics: The Political Economy of Lobbying (h/t Marginal Revolution)

When EVERYONE Benefits

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:08:00 -0400

robot-heart-politics:

Everyone benefits from this service. As I said before (repeatedly), cutting a break for pet owners creates the immediate benefit of pet owners being more able to keep their pets and care for them, which keeps animals off the street. It also helps city shelters from further driving up their costs. But these are by no means the only beneficiaries.

This should be a short-term or emergency addition to this year’s tax code, in order to help alleviate problems created by the recession, but then expire that in a year or two, when the issue of pet abandonment and shelter overflow is less of a problem, so that it doesn’t become a permanent tax hike on everyone. But in the short-term, I do think it’s a good short-term fix for a short-term problem.

This is the problem (or, rather, one of the many problems) that arises when you design programs without figuring out how to pay for them. You assume the people who will eventually pay the costs are less deserving than the people receiving the benefit.

Again, everyone benefits.

And with respect to the pet tax deduction—is there one other person reading this who thinks this is a good idea? Or that pet owners are inherently more deserving of this break than the people who will ultimately pay for it.

Again, everyone benefits. Keeping stray dogs off the street isn’t just about making pet owners happy. The fact that you seem completely incapable of acknowledging that failing to provide adequate animal control services will have more negative effects than a few sad pet owners either shows that you know that this is a flaw in your argument and are avoiding confronting it, or you are so accustomed to this service being provided, you seem to think it will take care of itself in the absence of the government doing it.

The flaw in the libertarian argument is that while, yes, it might make more sense in terms of balancing a budget to cut almost all public services, it doesn’t make any sense at all when you start talking about actually removing services that, though we take those services for granted because they’ve been around for as long as any of us can remember, actually do necessary and useful things for us as a society. This isn’t an issue of pet owners being more deserving than non-pet owners. This is an issue of a public service to all people being delivered or not.

I think I know where you went wrong.

I’m a libertarian, and that means that a lot of my beliefs seem crazy to most people. You assumed that I was expressing crazy libertarian beliefs in my post. But I wasn’t making a libertarian argument at all—I was making a common sense one. I was making an argument that ought to appeal to reasonable, mainstream people in both parties. But you didn’t expect this from me, and so, by mistake, you adopted a wholly unreasonable position.

You’re saying, I guess, that it doesn’t matter who pays the cost of your tax break for pet owners because everyone benefits from this break. This makes no sense. Even if everyone benefits from something, you still need to know who pays the cost of it in order to assess it. Suppose the Government gave everyone a penny, and they paid for this program by taxing people over the age of 75. Would you defend this program because EVERYONE benefits? Maybe this is right if EVERYONE has a NET benefit—but without assessing who bears the cost, you can’t decide this.

But let’s consider whether EVERYONE really benefits from making petcare deductible. You say that it will reduce animal abandonment. I highly doubt that many people savvy enough to keep track of pet car receipts for tax time are the kind of people who would otherwise kick their animals to the curb. You yourself said that you’d like the benefit of the pet care tax deduction because you incurred significant pet expenses. But you didn’t kick your animal to the curb, right? So why should we give you the deduction? You want the deduction because it’s money in your pocket. Fine. I get that. But it’s just a selfish wealth transfer. If you wanted a policy that actually targeted abandoned animals, you’d spend the money on a service that rescues them. But no, that way you wouldn’t get your precious tax break.

At the end of the day, you want us to subsidize your pet ownership, but that sounds crude and wrong, so you pretend it’s for a policy that benefits EVERYONE. Sure, the money stays in your pocket, but its better for EVERYONE that way. And this is how EVERYONE loots money from each other, right? We all pretend that our own pet causes are noble—that they help the greater good. We’ll bail out GM because EVERYONE benefits from the American car industry. We’ll save AIG and the big banks because EVERYONE benefits from a sound financial industry. Oddly, there doesn’t seem to be a wealth transfer from one person to another that can’t be justified by an EVERYONE BENEFITS argument.

This is not a serious way to look at policy.

The Other Side of the Scale

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:01:00 -0400

robot-heart-politics:

“At the core of Robot-Heart’s thinking is the notion that tax credits (and indeed, any policies) are free. The idea that someone else will have to pay for them (whether now or later) seems like a complete fantasy to her. You might think that’s absurd, but her view is the popular one.”

—

Jeff Miller

I did not say that tax credits were free, and in fact acknowledged that in my argument (See: “Yes. The tax break will have to be paid for somehow.”) What I argued is that when faced with a problem, you have a variety of solutions with a variety of positive and negative outcomes. The object, for all of us, is to pick the best solution.

The problem is that we (and by “we” I mean both you and I, and people in general) have completely different ways of determining what is the best solution. You, for instance, reject any solution outright that involves more spending or unequal tax burden. (Side note: I think you base your opinion on the idea that the free market is inherently equal to begin with—or at the very least that the inequality is “natural,” and therefore okay—and that all money gained or lost is gained or lost on a more or less equal playing field. I do not agree, which is why it’s not as important to me if the wealthy carry a slightly heavier tax burden. It’s not that I think they “don’t deserve their money.” It’s that I think the system is inequitable to begin with, and even in a system where there is unequal tax burden, on the whole the wealthy still overwhelmingly have the upper hand.) I am more concerned with the service rendered: how useful or necessary is this service, and is it worth the total cost? Then, if the service is worth supporting, what’s the best way to implement that service?

It’s not that I’m bad at math. It’s just that I have a different set of priorities when I do the math.

With all due respect, just how are you supposed to perform your cost benefit analysis when you have no idea who will pay the cost? With your pet example, you clearly weigh the fate of pet-owners (or, at least, their pets) heavily. What precisely are you putting on the other side of the scale?

This is the problem (or, rather, one of the many problems) that arises when you design programs without figuring out how to pay for them. You assume the people who will eventually pay the costs are less deserving than the people receiving the benefit. Putting aside issues regarding the morality of the transfer, there is no good reason for you to believe that less deserving people will actually pay. Rather, the evidence suggests that the people who will pay for this are those least politically connected or influential.

And with respect to the pet tax deduction—is there one other person reading this who thinks this is a good idea? Or that pet owners (or pets) are inherently more deserving of this break than the people who will ultimately pay for it.

Re: One more thing about the pet tax break vs. personal freedom argument

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:22:48 -0400

Re: One more thing about the pet tax break vs. personal freedom argument:

With respect to the Robot-Heart post above, I received an email from a loyal reader. Parts of it, including a completely fair chastising of me, are below:

According to my old philosophy professor, there are two symptoms of oxygen deprivation in pilots. The first symptom is that their fingernails turn blue. The second symptom is that they don’t mind that their fingernails turn blue. The lecture was on the topic of the indistinguishability of dreams and reality. When asleep, the things we observe don’t make sense to the rational mind. However, since we are asleep, and not thinking rationally, everything seems to make sense.

This is what runs through my head when confronted with what I call the bad-at-math liberal (similar to the bad-at-math conservative).

Robot-heart believes strongly that there is a difference between adding a tax for the pet-free and offering a tax credit for pet-owners. In the short term, she is right, of course. The government will run a greater deficit for the tax credit scenario. In the long run, income must match or exceed expenses. Taxes will rise to cover the deficits, and the net effect will be greater taxes for those without pets (now with interest).

I actually believe that robot-heart could accept your premise and every step of your argument and still disagree with your conclusion. I understand that you give her more credit than that, but that is also why I shy away from such debate.

I’ve lost my mojo for arguing against populist arguments recently. Part of it is that I don’t have solutions. Until some of the negative consequences start being realized, I have little opportunity to say that the unintended consequences will be worse. Robot-heart used this precise argument against you. You can’t solve the animal abandonment problem, and this government policy appears to be able to help. Any unintended consequences are not “real life problems.” The fact that you might have to pay more taxes as a consequence isn’t “real life,” it is a “theoretical bullshit.” You are now left with the position of proving that the government solution cannot solve the problem and offering a better solution. Even offering a better solution isn’t sufficient unless you somehow prove it is mutually exclusive with the government proposal. As I see it, you’ve been outmaneuvered.

How did she accomplish this? Aren’t you a lawyer? You are supposed to be the one doing the maneuvering (see this? I mock you). You used the word “tyranny” in your original response. This allowed her to resort to name calling (putting you in the position of “unreasonable blowhard”). A fallacy perhaps, but effective. You effectively granted her premise that tax credits can solve problems while using a reductio ad absurdum argument. Unfortunately, she granted the entire argument to the extreme point. She did this without acknowledging that the tax credits must be accompanied by offsetting tax increases (or spending cuts). You could go as far as offering support for such a bill provided that the bill was budget neutral. That would concede your argument of not allowing the government a say in how we choose to live. You remained polite and she called you names. Again, I cannot remain rational in such a debate.

People like robot-heart do not view government policy as the allocation of scarce resources by force. The force seems fantastic (of fantasy), and the rich don’t deserve their money anyway. But more importantly, the resources don’t seem scarce because for as long as we’ve been alive, the government has acted as if the resources weren’t scarce. Nothing was foregone because of lack of money. That’s what deficits are for. Until recently, there hasn’t been much of a threat of a realized cost. Our growth masked any opportunity cost from deficit spending. Restricting government spending might have made us grow faster, but at what cost? Lower minimum wage? No thank you. It would take a huge crisis (one I fear we are in) to actually have to give something up in return for the government spending. Only a huge crisis could make your “sky is falling” paranoia a reality. Now we face the very real possibility that we will face a long period of a reduced quality of life. Until that point comes, you are paranoid. Once that point comes, it will merely be the loss of things we didn’t need. Only further down the line, when shortages in things like food occur, will they admit that there is true pain. But then you will still not be vindicated. It was the free market, greed, and corruption that brought us here.

Now fortunately, I don’t think we’ll actually get to a point where massive food shortages effect us. Double digit unemployment runs the risk, and the lobbyists asking for subsidies to increase pork prices will contribute to the problem, but I think that food is plentiful enough that even a manipulated economy will find a way to avoid extreme shortages. A severe shock to oil and I call the bet off, but that’s the path I see. Until then, your arguments will fall on deaf ears as people praise the new age of austerity.

He’s right on all counts. Part of the problem is that I tried to play on Robot-Heart’s field. I tried to appeal to her values—to explain how these kind of policies lead to a homogenization of society. To explain how they dull us as a people. How they lead to corruption, with only the connected or represented able to benefit from government policy. But these things can’t sway her, because WE MUST DO SOMETHING. And if I can’t solve the problem, then why shouldn’t we adopt her solution?

I tried to sway her with the idea that there must be a limit—can we really give tax credits for everything that is good? For education, and healthcare, and fitness, and literacy, and rest, and food? Doesn’t there have to be a limit? I thought this was a winning argument … but instead, she simply agreed … why not allow credits for all of these things. Or if not credits, why not a massive government program to take care of them. Health care—she has a program for that. Schools, she’ll make better, I’m sure. Food—free for kids, I’m assuming. Any problem, no, every problem—she can fix. She just needs to get her favorite people into office.

At the core of Robot-Heart’s thinking is the notion that tax credits (and indeed, any policies) are free. The idea that someone else will have to pay for them (whether now or later) seems like a complete fantasy to her. You might think that’s absurd, but her view is the popular one. This is how the government acts. Obama spends as if there are no repercussions—as if money is free. Bush did the same. When Robot-Heart professes these beliefs, she is within the mainstream of modern politics. This matters more today than actually being reasonable. Robot-Heart could be elected to office. I could not. This is depressing beyond belief to me.

How NOT to market your restaurant | wine me, dine me

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:28:15 -0400

How NOT to market your restaurant | wine me, dine me

The Problem with Winning

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:20:37 -0400

The Problem with Winning

Re: One more thing about the pet tax break vs. personal freedom argument

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:33:19 -0400

robot-heart-politics:

One of these is an argument about legitimate problems and one of these is an argument about a philosophical problem.

The truth is, the economy is bad. Not only have many lost jobs and homes, many others have experienced reduce incomes, loss of assets. People are having to make sacrifices and prioritize things that they would not otherwise have to prioritize. For many people, pets come in low on the list of priorities. So if the issue is make your mortgage bill or pay for Fluffy’s medications, you’re probably going to pick your mortgage.

What this has resulted in is a rise in pet abandonments. Many responsible pet owners take their pets to shelters, because there they have the hope that their pet will be cared for, possibly adopted, and if all else fails, they will be put down with a little bit of dignity and comfort. It’s not a great situation, but most pet owners would agree it is preferable to dropping your dog off on a sidewalk somewhere and saying, “Best of luck, old friend.” Although plenty of people are doing that, too

… .

So what is your solution? And please, no nonsense about “People who can’t afford their pets shouldn’t have them.” …

Look, I don’t like the fact that people are abandoning pets. But your mistake, I think, is in thinking that we have to, or even can, solve every problem with Government force.

Think about the lunacy of this proposed bill. Currently, people cannot deduct their own health care expenses from their taxes.[1] Consider this for a second. Your proposed tax break would prioritize pet care over human care. This is insane!

There are countless, endless problems. We have kids in failing schools. Should we give a tax break for parents who send their kids to private schools? We have kids who are hungry; should we give tax breaks for food for our children? For children’s clothes? For children’s books? For a computer for every family, so they aren’t deprived of vital information? What about exercise equipment and sporting goods?—don’t we need to be healthy? What about transportation? You need transportation for a job. Isn’t this vital? Is pet care more important that being able to go to your job?

You can’t hand out tax breaks like they are trinkets. You can’t dole them out like candy. There are too many things that are GOOD—we can’t subsidize them all.

Consider two possible laws:

1. Everyone with pets gets to pay $10 less in taxes.

2. Everyone without pets must pay $10 more in taxes.

You seem to think that there is some real, appreciable difference in these scenarios. But in either scenario, people with pets pay less than others, and people without pets pay more than others. To give a tax break for behavior you like is to penalize behavior you don’t like. Maybe that’s sensible if we’re talking about gas consumption, which spews pollution into the environment, and thus, hurts everyone. But you cannot do this for every human activity—you can’t do this because it’s unfair, and you can’t do this because it tries to make everyone the same. I don’t want to live in a world where everyone is a house-buying, straight-marrying, child-having, pet-owning automaton. If you add on a tax break for white picket fences (gotta help the fence industry in these hard economic times), then you can penalize everyone right back to the 1950s. This is creepy.

I’m not saying that your concerns about pets are wrong—they are real and legitimate and honest and true. But we cannot legislate away every problem that is real and legitimate and honest and true.

___

1. The law allows employees to set aside some sums in advance, but this is limited.

The Stepford Lives

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:38 -0400

robot-heart-politics:

So now you’re complaining about tax cuts?

I’m sorry, it’s just hard to take a person seriously when they are shouting tyranny(!!!!) over giving people a tax break on their vet bills.

You want to be “more free,” presumably by having a lower tax burden? (I can’t even type that without snorting.) Get a dog. Spend thousands of dollars on that dog over the course of a year just to keep that dog alive and from suffering, and then have the government maybe give you a tax break that will cover a fraction of the total cost of owning a dog. You’ll still be out several hundred dollars, but hey! The government gave you a tax break, so you’re more free!!! Woohoo!!!!

…

Someone has to make up the shortfall every time there is a tax break. Thus, every tax break for one person is a tax increase on another. When homeowners get tax breaks, it’s essentially a tax on us renters. When parents get tax breaks, it’s a tax on the childless. And when pet owners get a tax break, it’s a tax on the pet-less.

None of these individually seem particularly like tyranny. But in each of them, the Government isn’t just helping one behavior; it’s penalizing another. And the more the Government does this, the more the Government uses its power to homogenize us. It’s one thing for someone to say: You should get married and have kids, buy a house and a dog. It’s another thing to say: We’ll penalize you if you don’t.

Everyone Has a Pet Project

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:46:50 -0400

robot-heart-politics:

“(HR 3501 IH) The Happy Act, which stands for Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years, is a bill that would allow pet owners to deduct up to $3,500 off their yearly taxes for qualified pet care expenses. And in today’s crappy economy, who couldn’t use an extra $3,500 in their pocket? Although the best part of all is that this will actually save pet’s lives! How you ask? Well think about it. Money is tight for everyone these days and the sad truth is that many people who are struggling to stay afloat look at their pet as an extra “unneeded” (ouch, that word makes me cringe) expense. They see their beloved pet as disposable income and simply dispose of them. That is why so many animal shelters are becoming overrun with unwanted, or rather unaffordable, pets. Pets are being put to sleep everyday and it’s simply heartbreaking. So if the Happy Act can’t help struggling pet owners deal with the cost associated with properly caring for a pet, I’m all for it!”

—

The Rest Is Still Unwritten: The Happy Act - Rewarding Pet Owners With $3,500

I spent nearly $2000 on my dog this year. One surgery in January was $1200 all by itself. I could get behind this.

Everything sounds like a good idea. Clothing for your kids—of course that’s a good thing to buy. Should it be tax-deductable? Fruits and vegetables—everyone should eat them. Should we give a tax credit? We like when people choose to take public transportation—how about that? Self-help classes? Haircuts?—we all need to get our hair cut now and then. Books—reading is good! Newspapers—we have to do something to save the industry. What about indie-music stores? Alt-comics? Fair-trade coffee? Yoga class?

Who decides what’s good? If pet-owners decide, then we’ll get to deduct costs associated with our pets. If realtors decide, then we’ll give even more tax credits for home purchases. If newsmen decide, we’ll bailout the newspapers. Who gets to decide depends largely upon who has the best lobby in Washington. Of course, if you can afford a DC lobbyist, you probably don’t need much help at all.

Here’s a thought: if you spend ten dollars on something you love and I spend ten dollars on something different that I love, this doesn’t mean that one of us did something noble while the other did something frivolous. Every person is different. Some people want to have kids that they’ll have to clothe. Some people want to play video games that they’ll have to buy. Freedom is choosing what makes us happy. Tyranny is the state making some of us more free than others.

The Point I Should Have Made

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:11:01 -0400

southpol:

“The University of Central Florida, where Jordan is a freshman basketball player, has a $1.9 million contract with Adidas that requires all Golden Knight athletes to wear its shoes and apparel. That includes Jordan, son of Nike icon Michael Jordan.”

—

Marcus Jordan needs to get with the Central Florida and wear Adidas, not Nike — chicagotribune.com

Forget the controversy over Jordan. The shocking part of the story is that Adidas is paying $1.9 million to the University of Central Florida so that the team will wear Adidas shoes and apparel. This isn’t UCLA, or Duke, or Indiana. This isn’t the University of Florida. It’s the University of Central Florida.

There is an insane amount of money available in the shoe industry.

(via jeffmiller)

And an insane amount of money available to NCAA programs on the backs of talented kids who don’t get paid.

CBS pays the NCAA $545 billion to broadcast their basketball games. Per year. And let’s not even start on football…

Southpol makes exactly the point I should have made. As a good libertarian, I don’t care if private schools offer scholarships to athletes with the proviso that they don’t accept money for their play. But when public schools do this, we’re all complicit in the deal. Because these schools are established by the exercise of government power, denying athletes their market value is exploitation. And for the most part, it’s exploitation of an economically-vulnerable class. In light of the disproportionate racial composition of some of our most popular sports, this exploitation feels more than a little like racism. I don’t mean to suggest that this racism was ever intended by those who set up this system. But I wonder whether our indifference to the fairness of the arrangement has anything to do with race.

As I think more about this, I don’t think our indifference is a reflection of racism. It’s a reflection, I think, of ageism. We largely don’t care about the young. We let them fight our wars; we make them pay our debts. And we make them play games for our amusement.