Category: Government

Via Bruce, I found a story about an interview with Michael Moore by John Stossel on his movie “Sicko”.  One thing I’ve always hated about Moore is how he presents his arguments, which is how I’ve often feel when talking to people of the more extreme left.  It’s probably not surprise to anyone that I don’t support an expansive welfare state, but nor do I buy that libertarian line that we can solve our social problems with private charity.  I do think private charity has a role, but there are good reasons for there to be some (albeit minimal, and not necessarily federal) government sponsored safety net.  The primary reasons are:

• Although safety nets allow people to freeload, they also allow people to take risks without having to worry about becoming destitute.
• They free people from the burdens of their families and communities.  A lot of conservatives are probably opposed to these policies for exactly this reason, but family and community ties, if they are especially strong, can arguably result in loss of freedom.   Think Iraq, where family comes first, and tribe comes second.
• We’re an incredibly wealthy society, and we can provide safety nets without creating undue burdens on taxpayers.  Our tax rates are high now in large part because we’re providing universal social insurance, without much regard to need.

That’s why I get pissed off at folks like Michael Moore, who suggest the solution to people not being able to afford health insurance is to create another universal benefit without any means testing.  I don’t need the government to provide me with health care; I can do it on my own.  I also get pissed when they suggest that I’m a selfish, heartless bastard for thinking I pay too much in taxes to government.  I’m fine with the government providing some safety nets, as long as taxes stay reasonable.  European levels of taxation are not reasonable.   Our current levels of taxation are not reasonable.  I’d like to see what they could be if we rejected this idea of universal benefits, and instead only focused on the people who need it.

Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer apparently think a million of my tax dollars are well spent on a museum dedicated to Woodstock:

$1 million for the Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

One of the sad disappointments that associated with the advances in medical science, is that the Baby Boomers are going to be with us a long time, and will have many more years to impose this self-absorbed crap on younger taxpayers as they start hitting their retirement years. If aging hippies want a museum dedicated to Woodstock, they can have a friggin bake sale, and raise the money themselves.

SayUncle has a good post up about the ATF getting smacked down by federal courts over the “one a machine gun always a machine gun” and their AOW regulations. What do to?

Well, probably not much. It would help, I think, if we had a President who was interested in getting the various federal bureaucracies, including the ATF, under control. I think, though, that there’s been too much proliferation of federal law enforcement in general, and it would be beneficial to eliminate some of them. As I’ve said before, if I were dictator for a day, I’d eliminate the ATF, FBI, and Secret Service and roll their functions and agents into the Marshall service.

I don’t think this would automatically solve problems, but it would present the opportunity to get some new leadership into the bureaucracy, which hopefully would effect change in the long run.

Even though I think some tasks are best left for the police, I’d much rather live in a world where a few people are a little too eager to throw themselves into dangerous situations, than one where everyone cowers in the corner, crippled with fear, and then afterwards complains about how long it took the police to show up.

I think one thing that separates us from other people is we’re a bit more cognizant, and maybe even a little more accepting, of human limitations and failings. I’ve long thought that one of the key features of the left is a belief in the perfectibility of man, whereas we tend to think that’s a fool’s errand.

A person of the left would look at the two citizens, who tried to stop the killer in Idaho, and think “See, that’s exactly why only the police should have guns.” I’m sure many of us at least understand the motives that drive someone to go hunting after a killer, and therefore don’t see things that way.  We may think it’s foolhardy, but view it as a consequence of human nature, and not something we can, or really should, try to weed from the population.

The left tends to place a great deal of faith in government, and tend to be the most surprised when it fails.  Government failings aren’t simply an inevitable consequence of a system made up of imperfect humans, but are somehow the fault of those in positions of power. Put the right people in charge; people who have faith in, and are competent in the exercise of governmental power, and the world’s problems can be solved.  Mankind can be perfected!  This attitude, taken to the extreme, leads to Marxism. We deal with a much softer manifestation of that, but I’m convinced it all erupts from the same intellectual well.

It explains why the left is eager to trust police as the only ones with the means and authorization to engage in violence. The police are an organ of the state, which is the left’s primary tool.  The idea that the police are just a collection of imperfect humans that we hire to do the job of keeping law and order, well, that idea is giant wrench thrown into the intellectual works.  If the police make mistakes, if sometimes they fail to or cannot protect, indeed, if sometimes they actually even harm, then maybe those folks who demand that they have the means to act when the government can’t, or won’t, have a point, don’t they?

But accepting that means accepting you can never end crime, stop foolhardy people from trying to be heroes, prevent the idiot from accidentally shooting himself, or the depressed from doing it on purpose. It means accepting that man is not perfectible, and that’s a tough pill to swallow, especially if you’re, say, a politician or other person of means and influence, that fancies himself as one of those smart, competent people who is just the right person to tug on the levers of power.

Personally, I like living in a world with other imperfect human beings, and where people have the freedom to make decisions and take action, even if in hindsight we find that action foolish or reckless. I think most of the time, most of the people will do the right thing. I’d rather with a government that finds ways to work with its citizens rather than live under a government that just wants to manage them. To me it’s the difference between actually being free, and just saying you are.

It’s tax freedom day for a lot of us today. Looks like Pennsylvania’s tax freedom day was last Friday. Bitter’s is today! Washington D.C. still has to work 13 more days to their tax freedom. New Jersey has 11. People in Tennessee were free 15 days ago. Most heavily taxed states?

1. Connecticut (May 20)
2. New York (May 16)
3. New Jersey (May 10)
4. Vermont (May 9)
5. Rhode Island (May 9)
6. Nevada (May 8 )
7. California (May 7)
8. Washington (May 6)
9. Massachusetts (May 6)
10. Minnesota (May 4)

Least heavily taxed states:

1. Oklahoma (April 12)
2. Alabama (April 12)
3. Mississippi (April 13)
4. Alaska (April 13)
5. Tennessee (April 15)
6. New Mexico (April 15)
7. Louisiana (April 16)
8. South Dakota (April 16)
9. Texas (April 19)
10. Idaho (April 19)

Pennsylvania appears to be slightly below the average rate of taxation. There’s a handy map, if you follow the link.

Hat tip to Instapundit

Generally I’m in favor of government records being very transparent and freely available to the public.  I’m a big proponent of the Freedom of Information Act.  But I do believe the public interest is best served by keeping some information private.  I would not like to see IRS returns made a matter of public record, for many of the same reason I disagree with making gun licenses public record; it lets people who want to steal valuables or firearms know which houses have them.

I also think in may-issue systems, there’s a public interest in knowing whether licenses are being handed out as political favors to the connected and powerful, which I believe might override anyone’s privacy interest.  So if people in may-issue states wants privacy, pass shall-issue laws, and then I’ll be fine with keeping the records private, since I know that licenses are being handed out according to statutory criteria rather than based on the whim of a politician or bureaucrat.

A good example of how I think about privacy can be found in David Brin’s book The Transparent Society.  It’s a great book to read, and will change your ideas on privacy and open government.

… and “Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.”

So says Megan, referencing an earlier post:

Which brings up one of my perennial peeves about people advocating national health insurance or any other big programme: they point out all the ways in which public choice problems make the current system suck, and then proceed to outline their future plans as if those problems will somehow magically fall away in their system. Companies won’t lobby. Voters won’t demand that every stupid alternative procedure they can complain about be covered, much less react to the lack of a price signal by using more of everything. People employed in that sector won’t band together to keep wages high and productivity as low as possible. Bureaucrats won’t shift priorities to minimizing their own political risk, rather than maximizing the level of service provided to the public.

Both her first and second observations I think are quite good.  I’d also recommend reading the original Tyler Cowen post linked to if you follow the last link to the quoted post.

I don’t talk much about health care because it’s one of those subjects where I don’t trust anyone who tells me they have a good solution to the problem.  The more I understand about the problem, the less I think I understand it, and the less I think anyone else understands it either.   This is, of course, going to naturally make me skeptical about government solutions to the problem.