Idiot of the Day: On Taxes, Force and Missing the Point

I’m a little late on this, but I had to share this doozy from the NY Times.  In honor of tax day, Richard Conniff argues that we should start calling taxes “dues” because the word brings to mind social obligation rather than force and punishment.

The whole thing is kind of annoying, but the worst was the last paragraph:

So this will be an uphill struggle. But we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together. Instead of denouncing taxes, politicians would do better to appeal to the patriotic corners of our hearts that warm to phrases like “we the people.” “Taxation” is a throwback to the time when kings picked our pockets. “Paying my dues,” a phrase popularized in the jazz music world, is language by which we can stand together as Americans.

First, we don’t thrive in this nation because of government - we thrive because of entrepreneurial spirit, good ideas, liberty, moral values, etc.  This things are sometimes aided by taxes and government spending, and sometimes harmed.

Second, by singling out schools and transit systems, he ignores the main reason conservatives fight for lower government, missing the point of our outrage altogether.  I don’t object to the use of tax money to pay for public goods like roads and national defense, which meet the twin criteria of non-excludability and non-rivalry in consumption - things that are generally considered market failures.  I do object, most heartily, to the use of my tax money for those “10,000 other services,” which include transfer payments like welfare, earmarks, subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare, and programs aimed at social engineering.

Conservatives and libertarians also often object to the form that taxation takes, such as the unconstitutionality of an income tax, the progressive tax code that punishes success at the margins and the unnecessary complications that force Americans to waste time and money just trying to avoid breaking the law.

“Taxation” may be a throwback to an earlier time, but it conveys what “dues” cannot: the underlying threat of force behind taxes.  If you don’t pay your dues, you don’t get to stay in the club.  If you don’t pay your taxes, the government can throw you in jail.  That’s a distinction that goes far beyond semantics.

No thinking conservative sits around saying “there shouldn’t be any taxes on anything!”  But there is plenty of room for objections that go far beyond the feel-good rhetoric of doing your part and fulfilling your social obligations.

 

Happy Valentine’s Day! (Especially to you bitter Valentine-hating whiners)

You know what I hate about Valentine’s Day?  It’s not the incessant pink, the frivolous displays of hearts and cupids, or the manufactured Hallmark mushiness.  Those I can handle.

It’s those people who feel compelled to say something bitter about Valentine’s Day at every opportunity.

Yesterday, at work, my boss put all of our pink items on sale for an extra 20% off, as a way to get rid of some of our excess pink sweatshirts and make room for our spring colors.  One older woman I explained the sale to got this sour look on her face and snapped “Don’t you think it’s insensitive to single people to be shoving Valentine’s Day in their faces?”

Actually, I think it’s insensitive to be shoving your obvious case of reflexive rudeness in my face.  I resisted the urge to tell her that all of our Shriveled-Up Old Hag clothing was on sale for an extra 30% off as well.

Meanwhile, in the United States Congress, our lawmakers want to show us how much they care by putting out a call for earmark requests.  My favorite part of this whole article was this:

Lobbyists often say they feel obliged to make campaign contributions as a way of gaining access to lawmakers to present their arguments on earmarks and other issues. Asked if there was any connection between giving money to Mr. Murtha and receiving earmarks, Mr. Mazonkey (spokesman for Mr. Murtha) said: “Absolutely not. None at all.”

I’ll bet Mr. Mazonkey also has a bridge to sell us.

 

You mean earmarks are sometimes questionable?

Color me unsurprised. I actually have to give the Washington Post credit for a well-written story on earmarks. They are unbiased in their treatment of earmarks in general, and give both critics and lawmakers space to defend their positions, but definitely dig into some of the problems inherent in the bloated appropriations bills we’re seeing coming out of Congress. In this case, the focus is on House Majority Leader Steyn Hoyer (D-MD), who was an advocate of the earmark transparency reforms but who managed to get $96 million worth of pork in next years federal budget.

The Post covers the ethical and transparency issues of earmarks, using one of Hoyer’s as an example:

Consider the $450,000 that Hoyer inserted into a 2008 education spending bill for the California-based InTune Foundation Group, whose Web site describes it as a music-education nonprofit group.

In 2005, InTune got a previous earmark for nearly $500,000 to develop lesson plans on funk music and Nobel Peace laureates. Asked recently how effective that program had been, Education Department officials said they didn’t know. InTune hadn’t turned in a report on what it did, officials said.

[...]

That wasn’t the only issue involving the foundation’s performance. In its paperwork for the earmark, InTune said it would use some of the money to hire an educator, Joan Kozlovsky, to evaluate its program in 2005 and 2006. But Kozlovsky, a former school superintendent in St. Mary’s County, said in an interview that she did no such work and hadn’t heard from InTune in years.

The Post reached Eugene C. Maillard, director of InTune, on his cellphone. He said that the project was carried out, although it suffered delays because its senior consultant became ill. He said Kozlovsky is “part of the team that we want to use” to do the final report.

[...]

Maillard, his current and past In Tune associates and their families contributed at least $31,000 to Hoyer’s political action committee from 2004 to 2006, Federal Election Commission records show.

With thousands of earmarks tied to each appropriations bill, there is no way for the Appropriations Committee to evaluate all of the requests, which means that a lot of the earmarks that come through aren’t going to have undergone the kind of scrutiny that taxpayers deserve.

While earmarks account for only a minuscule proportion of overall federal spending, there are symptomatic of what I believe is a bigger philosophical battle.  The question is not whether all earmarks are wasteful, or whether all earmarks are the result of an ethically bankrupt process, but whether our representatives ought to be engaged in this kind of spending at all.  The citizens of a community may well decide that they need a new music program for teens, or abstinence-only sex education program, or teapot museum.  But why should we drain resources from taxpayers in Arlington, Virginia, to pay for a very narrow benefit to a few people in Sparta, South Carolina.  Why should I pay my taxes in Charleston so that a school in Pennsylvania can add some new sex ed programs?

In such a redistributive game, there are going to be winners and losers.  As we’ve seen, the biggest winners tend to be those with political clout rather than those with the greatest merit or need.

 

A few quick hits, and a tale from retail

A couple items of interest that will otherwise pile up in my bookmarks folder and be lost to the ages:

A good piece on the rising popularity of supply-side tax cuts abroad, written by Stephen Moore. Supply-side economic theory has been under attack as of late, with liberal columnists (most notably Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, whose new book claims debunking abilities) working overtime to discredit not just the ideas, but the men who advanced them.

There was an article in the New York Times today about namesake earmarks. I was amused, because this is hardly news - during my summer internship, I helped scroll through spreadsheet upon spreadsheet of earmarks, marking ones that seemed suspicious or particularly egregious, researching them, and compiling data. One great example is Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) earmark for a self-named Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. It’s common practice for colleges to name buildings after big donors, so considering that it’s taxpayers footing the bill, shouldn’t it be called “The American Taxpayer Center for Public Service?” Or maybe just “Boondoggle Hall” for short? I think it has a nice ring to it. But I digress. Another interesting set of earmarks belongs to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who funneled a total of $882,000 to 25 abstinence-only sex education programs in his state. Either Pennsylvania teenagers are a particularly promiscuous bunch, or Mr. Specter has realized that he needs to buy the social conservative vote to win reelection.

Kind of makes me proud to live in a state that Senator Jim DeMint represents. He, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake and John McCain deserve some applause for their very lonely work challenging federal earmarks.

Speaking of applause, I was at work one day, folding clothes and talking with a guy whose wife was shopping. He asked me what I was studying, and I told him (somewhat shamefacedly - I’m not deluded enough to believe it was a practical career choice) that I was a political science major. The gentleman, all Southern drawl and old-timey curiosity, asked what side I wanted to work for.

“Well,” says I, in a solidarity-seeking approximation of his accent. “I’m a conservative Republican.”

He looks at me for a long minute, then remarks:

“You probably need a hug right now.”

Yessir, I surely do.

He settles for shaking my hand, and tells me to keep up the good work. I hope he was talking about my politics, not my clothes-folding and cash register skills.