Morning Fog

Second Amendment - The Truth Of Context

Anyone who read my last post might suppose that I'm a rabid advocate of absolute gun control.  I'm not.

Growing up in various places around the country (and in a military environment as well) I know that every farmer has a gun rack in the back window of his pickup, and in it, a couple of guns for shootin' varmints (a term loosely defined).  I know a lot of people who hunt and I don't see anything wrong with that.  My dad never hunted, so I never picked up the habit, but hunting is as old as man.  And, I understand that there are other reasons to own guns -- for self-protection, or (let's face it) for the occasional murder or bank robbery too.   No problem! (Except for the murder and robbery part.)

On the other hand, as I demonstrated in yesterday's article, none of these uses of guns has any basis in the Constitution.  They are neither forbidden, nor regulated.  That's also true of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, poisons, and health insurance.  In short, the Constitution leaves up to us, and to our governments, which operate for our general good, to decide how to handle all these elements of modern life.  The good news is that guns, drugs, cars, insurance, and poisons are widely available for all who have perfectly rational reasons for wanting them.  In short, regulation is not denial.

The bad news is that of all these examples, only guns are largely unregulated.  That's dumb, because guns are dangerous (probably more dangerous than insurance).  If you want to believe that "guns don't kill people," that's OK - except maybe for those (often kids, or those with the mind of a child) who get killed playing with guns, or while cleaning them; and maybe also for all those police who are killed in the line of duty by criminals.  Or possible suicides who might think twice if it weren't so easy to get a gun.  Cars don't kill people either, I guess - drivers do! But we do regulate driving, giving drivers a test, attempting to keep habitual drunks and reckless drivers from behind the wheel, and setting different standards for a license to drive a semi than for a Smartcar.  

In interpreting the law, some judges deny that context has any bearing.  But I think the second Amendment is a perfect example of why we need context.  We need context to tell us that the authors of the Constitution were thinking of militias when they penned this part of the Bill of Rights, so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right for the average citizen to own guns at all.  We also need context to tell us that even in the mostly agrarian society of the late 1700s, as now, many people in this country owned and used guns.  It was so common that no one would have thought to mention it, any more than the right to own a pig.  The first context shows why no guns, not even those of the "militia," are exempt from regulation; the second part demonstates why nobody has sought to prohibit guns generally, or ever will.

So let's get on with reasonable measures:  registration of guns; controls that might make it harder for a kid to kill himself accidentally; preventing drunks, druggies and convicted criminals from owning guns; and higher standards of licensing and background check for the purchase of guns that go far beyond the needs of hunting or personal protection:  military weapons, automatic weapons, rockets, grenade launchers, and the like.  

Second Amendment - Chicago's Guns

Predictably, the gun lobby is prepared now to try to shoot down limitations imposed on weapons ownership by Chicago and some of its suburbs.  Their limits are similar to those the supreme court struck down more than a year ago in the District of Columbia, but that decision was based on the District's status as a federal district; the case in Chicago would apply the Court's nullification to state and local governments as well.

We shouldn't be sidetracked by the supposed falling out between the Libertarian Party and the National Rifle Association who are arguing the case (mentioned, and almost certainly exaggerated, in an article today in the Washington Post).  Both these groups, regardless of their differences over the legal grounding, are completely against any control.

A truly conservative court - one that wanted to honor the letter of the Constitution - would not even take the Chicago case after reading the actual wording of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's pretty clear, especially if we keep in mind the historical context.  Most Second Amendment fans like to leave out the annoying first half, but there it is:

• First, the right to bear arms exists in the context of a "well-regulated" militia, so regulation is embedded in the document itself.
• Second, all of this is in the context of the security of a free State, so you folks who want to "protect your loved ones," or to go hunting, just don't have a dog in this fight.
• Third and finally, the word "state" is very important, since the Founders envisioned the union as a collection of states, and the term is used consistently in the Constitution to refer to one of the constituent states of the union (NOT the union itself). Clearly, the states do have authority to regulate the militia and anyone who might wish to become a part of it, which puts a big hole in the Libertarian/NRA case coming before the court now.

Q.E.D.  An informed, commonsense citizen can easily see that the court would never annul Chicago's regulations.  But I don't think that will be the outcome.  I take for granted that the court's decision will be to find a reason to declare the Chicago laws unconstitutional.  The NRA is not a lobbying group for gun owners, it's a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers, who find gun owners useful as their tools (as in politics, lies and exaggerations help them a lot in this endeavor).  And any doubt as to where the Roberts court stands when a big business is involved should have been dispelled by their decision on corporate political advertising.

The Paradox Of Tax Expenditures

Yesterday, in a column about charitable giving,  Michael Gerson seemed horrified that efforts to reduce the tax deduction for charitable giving might be motivated by revenue considerations (rather than "fairness").  The revenue angle seemed self-evident to me, but Gerson's point is helpful in one respect -- it highlights the fact that a tax deduction, often popular with legislators who see it as a cost-free way of pandering to a constituency, does have a cost.  The opposite of "tax revenue" is "tax expenditure," and ultimately nearly all the deductions in our tax code are just inefficient and expensive spending to encourage a certain behavior.

My favorite example is the item on the income tax form that asks taxpayers if they want to have $3 donated to election campaign funding.    For years, the people who devised this scheme have puzzled over why more people don't accept the checkoff.  But I imagine most people think, as I did, that the accompanying disclaimer ("checking yes will not increase your taxes") is inherently false.  It may not add three dollars to the amount I pay this year, but in the long run, the money comes from somewhere - it's a hidden government expenditure.

Recently Len Burman, a professor of public administration and economics, wrote an excellent article about these tax expenditures.  It's well worth reading in its entirety but as a highlight, take this statement:  "A cap on tax expenditures would raise so much money because the expenditures are big and growing fast. The Office of Management and Budget counts 180 of them, totaling more than $1.1 trillion" [per year].  

Of course, as Burman points out, although there were some cuts in income tax deductions during the Reagan years, change is immensely difficult because every one of these special tax breaks has an army of special interests defending it now; they become entitlements, just as entrenched as social security or medicare.  Think of the uproar that would ensue (has ensued) when anyone mentions doing away with the mortgage interest credit, for example.  Yet this one, despite its popularity, also illustrates another fact about tax expenditures:  their existence can severely skew people's otherwise rational economic behavior.  In favoring breaks that assist people to invest in real estate, we shift funds into that sector, and contribute to such unwelcome phenomena as the recently-burst housing/loan bubble.

Burman speculates on what would happen if Pres. Obama's freeze/cap on [some categories of] discretionary spending were extended to "tax expenditures."  Does it sound like it's worth a look?  It does to me.

The Margins Of Charitable Giving

When Republican Scott Brown won election to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago, the political machinery of Washington almost ground to a halt as both parties reevaluated their plans and prospects.   While the Obama White House, in particular, is retailoring its message and shaping a new strategy, pundits are offering a lot of opinion as to how to proceed, but no one is really certain now how things will shake out.

Perhaps that's why many opinion-makers are focusing on marginal issues, as Michael Gerson does in an opinion piece today devoted to the enduring question of tax deductions for charitable giving.  He takes the Obama administration to task for proposing to limit the charitable deduction that people in the higher tax brackets may take.  

I've always thought this is a non-issue because I believe that for the most part people (and even corporations) give for reasons other than taxes.  In fact, most good investment advisors counsel never to make any financial decisions based on tax considerations alone.  Experts disagree on how a reduced deduction would affect charitable giving;  some say it would make no difference at all; Gerson, undoubtedly quoting the most favorable source he can find, admits that even the Tax Policy Center estimates the proposed change in rules would skim only about $10 billion off a total 300 billion in donations.

The side of the coin nobody every looks at in considering charitable giving is the extent to which we in the U.S. rely on voluntary contributions and nongovernmental organizations to perform functions that would otherwise be (and I would say should be) done by government.   Be it hunger, poverty, health, or even such post-caveman niceties as support for the arts, we rely far too much on volunteers and donations to accomplish basic services to our citizens that are really the province of government.  So, from my perspective, shifting funds away from NGOs and toward the government is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Gerson also complains that the government is not seeking "fairness" (in which case it would let everyone take the high 35% deduction on their donations, regardless of their tax bracket) - no, not fairness but revenue.  O anathema!  This is the standard Republican blind spot, the laughable notion that government doesn't need to be paid for.  Yes, Mr. Gerson, of course it's about revenue; otherwise there would be no need for a change. 

Claimed Link Between Autism And Vaccinations Debunked

Today, low key reports like this one revealed that the British medical journal Lancet has "retracted" a study published twelve years ago whose author, Andrew Wakefield, suggested that a certain vaccine might cause autism in children.  

The article, because it appeared in an authoritative, reputable medical journal, had been a mainstay of parents and parents-to-be desperately seeking an explanation for autism; it had caused amazingly high percentages of parents to deny vaccination of their children for common childhood diseases. 

The retraction unfortunately comes too late for many, and perhaps too late for the good conscience of the editors of Lancet.  It would be nice to think that this simple step would correct the misconceptions, but a whole industry has grown up around the idea of blaming (and more important, suing) a drug company for "causing" autism.  Lawyers won't let it rest; and these times of recession-driven paranoia, others invested in the unproven link between vaccine and autism will simply believe that this overdue step by the British journal is a conspiracy.  (Check out the "comments" on the Washington Post story linked above.)

By the way, it's interesting to note that Wakefield is reportedly practicing (what?) in the U.S. now.

Boston Moves To Dixie

Here's an idea whose time has NOT come:  Virginia state legislators are setting an "example" for the nation, busying themselves passing bills (three different ones) that would "make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance."  A number of Democrats in iffy districts were evidently stampeded across the aisle by the "tea-party" movement to vote with Republicans and pass these idiotic and shameful bills.

Idiotic?  Yes, since of course if such a requirement were a part of federal legislation, these bills would themselves be illegal.  And if the politicized Supreme Court were to decide the federal requirement was unconstitutional, these self-indulgent little lawlets would have no standing either.  (My guess is that the Roberts Court would not strike down the mandate, which benefits big health care and insurance companies.) 

Of course, the bills are designed not as law, but to have a political chilling effect and to express a view.  It's the view of a noisy minority whose actions if successful would unwittingly serve, not to declare liberation from an oppressive regime, but effectively to paralyze government and turn the whole country into California.  Some may say that's what they want; but they would not care to live with the result.

Shameful? Yes, Virginians ought to be ashamed of these posturing politicos.  The tea-party movement, despite its name, doesn't fit in the historical or philosophical framework of the U.S. war of independence.  It's a much better match for some of the most heinous moments in history.  The raucous disruption of political gatherings, for example, belongs squarely in the playbook of the Nazis in the early 1930's as Hitler schemed to seize power. 

Virginia politicans in particular ought to recall another shameful moment in history.  This is the Virginia that can't think of any better tourist attraction to advertise in its Richmond motel rooms than being the former capital of the Confederacy; the Virginia where every other highway, park, statue, and public building is still named either "Lee" or "Jeff Davis"; and the Virginia that had as its official state song until just a decade ago, "Carry Me Back to Ol' Virginny," with its talk of "darkies" and such (and no new state song has been chosen).  The efforts to preempt federal legislation with defiant rants in the halls of state capitals is from the Civil War playbook, one with which responsible state assemblymen ought to refuse to be associated - even as they're running like frightened rabbits from the fox (or the mad hatter).

The linked article above helpfully shows who voted in favor of these bills, and I reproduce it here - 18 Republicans,5 Democrats.  If one of them is your state delegate, you might think about sending him/her a note.

Yeas: 23   Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William), Blevins (R-Chesapeake), Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta), R. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania), Robert Hurt (R-Pittsylvania), Stephen H. Martin (R-Chesterfield), Ryan T. McDougle (R-Hanover), Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach), John C. Miller (D-Newport News), Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg), Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City), Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell), Frederick M. Quayle (R-Chesapeake), William Roscoe Reynolds (D-Franklin), Frank M. Ruff Jr. (R-Mecklenburg), Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke), Walter A. Stosch (R-Henrico), Richard H. Stuart (R-Westmoreland), Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), Frank W. Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), William C. Wampler Jr. (R-Bristol), John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield)

The Message Of The Burning Bush For Republicans

I hate to sound like a broken record* but on the other hand, our Republican Party leaders don't seem to let that concern stop them, as the GOP drags out its worn drum again to complain that the Obama administration's budget is all wrong and they won't support it.  So I'll just reiterate that the huge deficit they're so worried about was created by their President - the one who left office just a year ago.

It's interesting how seldom we hear that guy's name (except from the Democrats, of course).  For Republicans, he's a black hole in the party history; they prefer to deny his existence.  If you have a Bible (I'm partial to the Ishka bible myself) you can find there the tale of Moses and the burning bush.  The latter was an attention-getting device to assure that Moses heeded an important message (as in later years, as the old joke runs, you had to use a 2x4 to get a mule's attention). 

Now, what was that last President's name?  .... Bush! Yes, that's it!  Glad you were able to recall it, because unlike the biblical bush, this one seems to have been consumed by the fire.  As the administration of George Bush caught fire and went down in flames, the modern-day Moseses of the Republican Party (for example, take minority leader Mitch McConnell...please!) were either too oblivious even to look (the mule syndrome) or they got the message garbled (e.g., many say the problem with Bush was he wasn't conservative enough, he should have cut taxes even more and that would have saved the economy, for sure.)

Regrettably, many people today seem willing to let "Dubya" slip unobserved and unlamented under the waves of history.  But I would still be very doubtful about relying on this crop of Republicans to lead us out of the wilderness.

  * How many expressions such as "like a broken record" will disappear in the next 10-20 years? For readers under 40 or so, I'll just note that back in the dark ages, music came on things called "LPs" which were different in two ways from today's digital downloads: (1) you had to pay for them and (2) they could stick in one groove and endlessly repeat some little phrase or snatch of music.  Some people still acquire music on LPs, or collect old ones, but even I'm not that retro. 

While we're on the subject of the ancients, Ishka Bibble and Henny Youngman were comedians of a very different era - my dad's more than mine - yet they don't seem so out of date in the context of today's Republican leadership.  I'll bet Mitch McConnell remembers them! 

Monopoly Money: Ticketmaster

Have you bought tickets for an "event" lately?  A local music concert, a sports event, theater during your planned trip to New York, even a dogfight two blocks down from your house...you just can't avoid "Ticketmaster," the company that seems to have a lock on the tix for every entertainment in the country -- nor its exhorbitant add-on fees.

It turns out that Ticketmaster doesn't just seem to be everywhere, it is, with a recently reported 83% market share.   According to Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post, a degree of competiton emerged about a year ago, but in short order, Ticketmaster and its rival LiveNation decided to merge; this in turn was challenged by antitrust authorities.  You can read all the details of the antitrust action in the article, but what comes through clearly to me in all of it is "monopoly." 

I don't begrudge a company a profit for services rendered, but on a typical order I made recently, Ticketmaster's fees and charges added 15% to the price of the event.  And that was before I declined the extra 4.75 they wanted just to e-mail the tickets (...wait, isn't e-mailing easier and cheaper than snail mail?  Shouldn't the e-mail be free, and the postally mailed tickets cost extra?)  Welcome to the world of monopoly pricing, prices that we unfortunately can't pay with Monopoly money.

The approval of the merger comes with some limitations aimed at benefitting consumers, but it will be interesting to see if anything really changes.  The basic fact is that - as in many other businesses in the past decade or so - you're being charged again for something that's already included.  Admission prices have always included the costs of printing, selling, tracking, and delivering the actual tickets.  It's part of the cost of doing business, so when you purchase admission to an event, you have a right to assume you don't get charged a separate fee for the receipt (which is effectively what a ticket is).

At the arena/theater/stadium box office, you don't; consumers can still normally avoid the add-on charges that way.  But if you don't want to drag yourself to the box office, or physically can't (e.g., buying tickets in advance for another city), you'll pay more.  Ticketmaster offers a degree of convenience that some people in some circumstances may value, but any website, not just Ticketmaster's, can offer the benefits of ordering across the country, or receiving your tickets quickly by e-mail.

The event venues have abdicated their responsibility to their patrons by not running their own ticket operations.  More should.  Too many of those that do will still charge you a fee for online orders (figuring, I guess, that if Ticketmaster can get away with it they can too).  That practice should cease.

Note: This piece is also being published on The Tin Lizard,  
because its subject matter is also relevant there.

State Of The Union

If any of us thought the State of the Union address Wednesday evening would create some kind of sea change in the political picture, we were mistaken. 

First, of course, it would be naive to think so.  When was the last SotU you remember that altered anything?  It hasn't happened lately.  The problem is that SotUs long ago ceased striving to inspire, and instead became a laundry-list of accomplishments, plans, projects, and (rarely) mea culpas of the President and his party.  Obama did not disappoint those who expected the bland and boring. 

Still, the tone was unusual -- a mostly unapologetic President, offering the occasional sop to populist trends, but pushing two more important themes:  He won't abandon key elements of his agenda; and the opposition's obstructionism was not in the interests of the country.  The White House had let it be known he would be feisty, and indeed he was, dashing Republican hopes that he might meekly submit to the "lesson of Massachusetts" (I told you they'd misread the meaning of Massachusetts. didn't I?)

Those who hoped that the Republican Party would abandon its negative stance on every Administration proposal were just as wrong.  This was clear from the point where Obama talked about some of his tax cuts, the magical GOP solution to every problem, yet Republicans pulled another Boehner and sat silent.  The President's cheery acknowledgment that he thought he'd get some credit on that line was perhaps the best point he scored, emphasizing the already clear message that Republicans will continue to resist any effort to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and their country because it might be read as "giving the Democrats a victory," which might in turn create a few Democratic votes in the next election. In the day following the address, there was plenty more evidence of the same, if any were needed.

Will Obama's precedent-setting on-the-record session with Republicans today succeed in breaking the ice jam?  Doubtful, but slightly more promising than the State of the Union Address.

Things Falling Off Cliffs

There's a lot of ferment right now about what the President will say in his State of the Union address tonight, and at least some indications are available, but I would rather comment after it's given.

Meantime, it seems the country has come to a near-halt, though not near enough to force us to deal seriously with some of the problems we face.  Steven Pearlstein today has taken a look ahead to describe what the President should (but will not) say.  He captures the feeling I've had also, that our government is deadlocked in extreme partisanship that prevents it from accomplishing even its most basic tasks.  He also offers an idea for fixing that -- he professes to think that real change could be achieved by Obama's being rigid about requirements (i.e., any initiatives have to be paid for, no legislative special deals and earmarks, etc.).   Pearlstein, I think, has analyzed the problem correctly but his solution could not be effective even if Obama were to adopt it.

One reason nothing is working right now to restore momentum is the nihilism discovered in a recent survey.  People are confused, disillusioned, and most important, feeling the pinch - so they're basically critical of everything.  As writer Achenbach says, they don't like the status quo, and they don't like efforts to change it.  Go figure.  As I've noticed myself, people have resisted beneficial changes in their health care because they prefer to believe untruths than truths; they complain that the government is more interested in rescuing banks than rescuing them without realizing that they were rescued -- from a far worse fate -- by the taxpayers' support of key financial institutions.

Effective government isn't the only thing falling off a cliff.  We now have houses and other buildings on both coasts falling off cliffs too.  In California, recent storms threaten apartment buildings; in Maryland, cliffside homes are under threat for several reasons: damage done by storms earlier this year, plus the cumulative effects of natural coastal erosion; oh, and some insects, too -- the cliffs are home to the endangered Puritan tiger beetle, and local politicians are blaming the Endangered Species Act for preventing action to shore up the cliffs.  In both cases, there seems to be an expectation on the part of residents and local governments that it is (federal) government's job to try to rebuild the cliffs. 

Wrong on both counts, I think. People who build or buy homes need to realize that no cliff is forever; a cliff by definition implies ground falling away, collapsing, eroding.  If you buy such a place, you should buy a damned good - and expensive - insurance policy right along with it.  Governments might provide some disaster assistance but if they do, the principle should be that aid is conditioned on relocating, and abandoning the endangered property.  (This works for flood areas too.) 

So we have a pretty typical picture, I think, of what people expect from government:  Do nothing for the common good like rescuing banks or extending health care (that might cost me money) but help me out of a jam of my own making by saving my house (when somebody else pays me).