Here is all you really need to know about why Puerto Rico is without power and why Whitefish got the contract to restore it.
Government is not your friend.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) —Spanish: Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica(AEE)— is an electric power company and the government-owned corporation of Puerto Ricoresponsible for electricity generation, power distribution, and power transmission on the island.[1]PREPA is the only entity authorized to conduct such business in Puerto Rico, making it a government monopoly. The authority is ruled by a board of directors appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Since 2014, PREPA is subject to the Puerto Rico Energy Commission, another government agency whose board of directors is also appointed by the governor.
Concerning the Whitefish contract:
. . . . the contract, which Whitefish signed with the government-owned PREPA states that “In no event shall [government bodies] have the right to audit or review the cost and profit elements.” That gave Whitefish wide of discretion and privacy over how it used $300 million in American taxpayer money.
The contract also waived “any claim against Contractor related to delayed completion of the work,” which means the government couldn’t do much if Whitefish dragged out its work . . .
Monday, October 30, 2017
Sunday, October 29, 2017
It is Governments that create poverty
Here is an article by Chelsea Follett from HumanProgress.com.
CF is on target.
Unfortunately, most people continue to think that Government helps, e.g., the clamor for more government interference and even socialism.
-------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, the United Nations urged the world to celebrate the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, advertising it on social media using the hashtag #EndPoverty. The UN noted the incredible progress on the issue:
Countries have taken action to end poverty… The Government of Tanzania, for example, started a massive overhaul of its current national programme, the Tanzania Productive Social Safety Nets, to reach people living below the food poverty line.
It is an accidentally instructive example. Tanzania has made impressive progress against poverty, but that is not because of increased government spending on food for the poor. In fact, Tanzania’s government is today far less redistributionist than in the past — and those past policies of redistribution led to near-starvation for the poorest Tanzanians.
In 2011, the most recent year for which the World Bank has data, just under half of Tanzanians lived in extreme poverty. That figure was 86 per cent in 2000.
The real cause of that reduction is pretty straightforward: economic freedom. Tanzania has gradually dismantled the socialist or “ujamaa” economic policies enacted by the dictator Julius Nyerere, since he stepped down in 1985. Nyerere was widely praised by leftist intellectuals in developed countries for his sincere belief in socialism, relatively low level of corruption, and not intentionally slaughtering his own people like so many other dictators.
But Nyerere instituted policies that, according to Dr. John Shao, resulted in intense food shortages, a collapse of agricultural and industrial production, deteriorating transportation infrastructure, economic crisis and “general distress of the population” by the 1980s. Nyerere also banned opposing political parties to consolidate his authority and prevent debate about his ruinous policies.
Post-Nyerere, Tanzania managed to speed up its economic growth rate by removing price controls, liberalizing trade, and freeing its people to engage in private enterprise.
The UN’s attribution of progress to government programs, and its insistence on the importance of foreign aid to development, is as worrying as it is unsurprising.
Nyerere was able to hold onto power for so long despite his disastrous programs thanks to billions of dollars of aid money. As my colleague Doug Bandow put it, “The World Bank, demonstrating that it lacked both a conscience and common sense, directly underwrote his brutal ujamaa scheme.”
Not only is government aid ineffective compared to market-led development, but aid programs often ignore the property rights of the poor and the need for institutional reform. Other examples of dictators who received aid money include Idi Amin of Uganda, Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and even the infamously brutal Pol Pot of Cambodia.
The money often props up authoritarian regimes while they pursue destructive policies such as stealing their citizens’ farmland through nationalization. That was the case in Tanzania, which received billions of dollars in foreign aid while its socialist government nationalized hundreds of farms — slashing agricultural production and leading to the aforementioned massive food shortages. The store shelves were empty, and people waited for rations of food.
“When I first came to Tanzania in the 1980s, we used to have whole wards of kids very debilitated with malnutrition, some too far gone to survive,” recalls an aid worker for the World Food Programme, the food-assistance branch of the United Nations, “now there will only be up to one or two at any time, and we would usually find a social cause, such as an alcoholic father, or being orphaned, or inheriting HIV.” The page containing that quote goes on to claim that the U.N. food programme “made a difference”, but the reason far fewer children resort to using the food programme today compared to the 1980s is conspicuously absent.
Reducing trade barriers is far more effective at improving the quality of life for those in poor areas of the world than sending aid or technocrats to help design government programs. To get serious about eradicating poverty, countries should pursue policies of economic freedom. Because, ultimately, countries don’t fight poverty. Individuals free of excessive regulations and able to participate in global trade do.
CF is on target.
Unfortunately, most people continue to think that Government helps, e.g., the clamor for more government interference and even socialism.
-------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, the United Nations urged the world to celebrate the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, advertising it on social media using the hashtag #EndPoverty. The UN noted the incredible progress on the issue:
Poverty has declined globally, from 1.7 billion people in 1999 to 767 million in 2013, a drop in the global poverty rate from 28 percent in 1999 to 11 per cent in 2013. The most significant progress was seen in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, where the rate declined from 35 per cent in 1999 to 3 per cent in 2013.Unfortunately, the UN seems to misunderstand the source of that progress. It argues that government action and top-down technocrat-led programs are to thank for poverty’s remarkable decline. The UN statement continues:
Countries have taken action to end poverty… The Government of Tanzania, for example, started a massive overhaul of its current national programme, the Tanzania Productive Social Safety Nets, to reach people living below the food poverty line.
It is an accidentally instructive example. Tanzania has made impressive progress against poverty, but that is not because of increased government spending on food for the poor. In fact, Tanzania’s government is today far less redistributionist than in the past — and those past policies of redistribution led to near-starvation for the poorest Tanzanians.
In 2011, the most recent year for which the World Bank has data, just under half of Tanzanians lived in extreme poverty. That figure was 86 per cent in 2000.
The real cause of that reduction is pretty straightforward: economic freedom. Tanzania has gradually dismantled the socialist or “ujamaa” economic policies enacted by the dictator Julius Nyerere, since he stepped down in 1985. Nyerere was widely praised by leftist intellectuals in developed countries for his sincere belief in socialism, relatively low level of corruption, and not intentionally slaughtering his own people like so many other dictators.
But Nyerere instituted policies that, according to Dr. John Shao, resulted in intense food shortages, a collapse of agricultural and industrial production, deteriorating transportation infrastructure, economic crisis and “general distress of the population” by the 1980s. Nyerere also banned opposing political parties to consolidate his authority and prevent debate about his ruinous policies.
Post-Nyerere, Tanzania managed to speed up its economic growth rate by removing price controls, liberalizing trade, and freeing its people to engage in private enterprise.
The UN’s attribution of progress to government programs, and its insistence on the importance of foreign aid to development, is as worrying as it is unsurprising.
Nyerere was able to hold onto power for so long despite his disastrous programs thanks to billions of dollars of aid money. As my colleague Doug Bandow put it, “The World Bank, demonstrating that it lacked both a conscience and common sense, directly underwrote his brutal ujamaa scheme.”
Not only is government aid ineffective compared to market-led development, but aid programs often ignore the property rights of the poor and the need for institutional reform. Other examples of dictators who received aid money include Idi Amin of Uganda, Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and even the infamously brutal Pol Pot of Cambodia.
“When I first came to Tanzania in the 1980s, we used to have whole wards of kids very debilitated with malnutrition, some too far gone to survive,” recalls an aid worker for the World Food Programme, the food-assistance branch of the United Nations, “now there will only be up to one or two at any time, and we would usually find a social cause, such as an alcoholic father, or being orphaned, or inheriting HIV.” The page containing that quote goes on to claim that the U.N. food programme “made a difference”, but the reason far fewer children resort to using the food programme today compared to the 1980s is conspicuously absent.
Reducing trade barriers is far more effective at improving the quality of life for those in poor areas of the world than sending aid or technocrats to help design government programs. To get serious about eradicating poverty, countries should pursue policies of economic freedom. Because, ultimately, countries don’t fight poverty. Individuals free of excessive regulations and able to participate in global trade do.
Trade
Here is Richard Epstein's article "The Looming NAFTA Disaster" at the Hoover Institution.
It is a fact that free trade has the potential to make everyone better off. It also is a fact that the previous sentence does not imply that free trade will make everyone better off. Too many people ignore the latter fact. That contributed to Trump gaining the Presidency.
My comments are in italics.
----------------------------------------------------
The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Canada, Mexico, and the United States was put into place in November 1993 with the staunch support of the Clinton administration. A sweeping agreement that lifted major trade barriers among these three nations, NAFTA had its share of problems when it was implemented, including the dislocation of some workers.
It is a fact that free trade has the potential to make everyone better off. It also is a fact that the previous sentence does not imply that free trade will make everyone better off. Too many people ignore the latter fact. That contributed to Trump gaining the Presidency.
My comments are in italics.
----------------------------------------------------
The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Canada, Mexico, and the United States was put into place in November 1993 with the staunch support of the Clinton administration. A sweeping agreement that lifted major trade barriers among these three nations, NAFTA had its share of problems when it was implemented, including the dislocation of some workers.
This is no different than dislocation of workers from competition and new technologies domestically. If there is a net gain that makes the dislocation worthwhile domestically, then why not recognize the same internationally?
But the mutual gains from free trade dwarfed any losses associated with the agreement.
Not everyone gained. This is the kind of overstatement that breeds widespread distrust. If there was a system in place to assure that everyone gained, perhaps no one would object.
Now, over twenty years later, NAFTA needs to be updated to take into account new technologies, such as those associated with the digital economy.
Free trade is free trade is free trade . . . . If the agreement needs to be updated, then it was incorrectly characterized as free trade in the first place. And if that is true, some people benefited unfairly at others' expense. More reason for widespread distrust.
As the agreement gets renegotiated, all three parties should make as few changes as possible to bring the agreement up to date without altering its fundamental structure. But that might not happen. Each of the three signatory nations has adopted a tough bargaining position that could result in a breakdown of the treaty, which would be the greatest trade disaster in recent years.
What is to be bargained if it is free trade? Simple agreement: No government interference or involvement anywhere.
The American public seems to be mixed on free trade. On the one hand, during the recent presidential campaign, much of the electorate, including many Republicans, turned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade deal among Pacific Rim nations, while still announcing their support for free trade in the abstract.
The American public seems to be mixed on free trade. On the one hand, during the recent presidential campaign, much of the electorate, including many Republicans, turned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade deal among Pacific Rim nations, while still announcing their support for free trade in the abstract.
The problem is that "Free Trade" agreements are not free trade agreements.
But upon taking office, Donald Trump proudly but foolishly withdrew from the TPP, and since that time has taken every opportunity to denounce free trade and to express his frustration with NAFTA. Today, his demands on NAFTA, as communicated through his trade representative Robert Lighthizer, have effectively deadlocked negotiations going forward.
No doubt these agreements benefit the average citizen of all participating countries - and in that sense "foolish" is justified. However, nobody is average - so perhaps those who advocate these agreements and ignore those who lose in the bargain should be characterized as scam artists.
Trump’s position is particularly galling because of the total discontinuity between his approach on domestic and foreign economic issues. Just last week, I wrote a column that strongly defended Trump’s efforts to introduce competition and choice into the health care market.
Trump’s position is particularly galling because of the total discontinuity between his approach on domestic and foreign economic issues. Just last week, I wrote a column that strongly defended Trump’s efforts to introduce competition and choice into the health care market.
Here, too, more competition and choice have the potential to make everyone better off - but will not. And, here, too, the losers will be left to fend for themselves.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
The Ninth Circuit Court fails at law and logic
Here is an example of how the Ninth Circuit Court makes law, rather than interprets it, and proves itself illogical.
Here is the Summary of Argument from the Amicus Curiae brief filed by the Crime Prevention Research Center with the United States Supreme Court.
This Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) established that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to keep and bear arms. The majority concluded that the outright ban on handguns at issue in that case failed constitutional muster under any level of possible scrutiny, but the decision left for future evaluation whether other gun regulations would be subject to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny (or some other scrutiny more rigorous than the rationale basis test), and how those levels of scrutiny would be applied. Id., 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
After nearly ten years, however, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Heller decision. Most of the circuits have adopted a form of intermediate scrutiny for regulations that do not include a wholesale ban on a type of firearm. But even then, the standards applied by the lower courts vary widely. Some circuits, specifically the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, have demonstrated ongoing hostility to the core concept of Heller that the right to bear arms is an important individual right and, while purporting to apply a level of intermediate scrutiny borrowed from other areas of constitutional jurisprudence – primarily free speech cases – have weakened their constitutional jurisprudence to approve restrictions on Second Amendment rights that would not be allowed for other rights.
As a research and education organization, CPRC is concerned by decisions, such as the Ninth Circuit’s decision here, that pay lip service to a 3 heightened level of scrutiny for gun regulations, but that end up wholly ignoring the evidentiary standards and academic research that inform the appropriate breadth of other constitutional rights.
Here, the Ninth Circuit reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable. The trial court received and evaluated numerous studies that were offered at trial and found, as the trier of fact and with full support in the record, that none of the studies provided even a scintilla of evidence that a gun purchase waiting period beyond the time required to complete a background check enhanced safety or reduced gun violence for those who already owned a gun. This evidence-free approach is inconsistent with other circuits (excepting in part the Second Circuit) and with the constitutional evaluation of other constitutional rights.
Also, by replacing the weighing of evidence with its own view of what was reasonable, the Ninth Circuit effectively nullified the burden of proof that is supposed to apply to any form of heightened scrutiny, watering down the intermediate scrutiny test to little more than a rational basis review with a different name.
Similarly, an appropriate intermediate scrutiny analysis requires that a law not burden more of the right “than is reasonably necessary.” United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, under an intermediate scrutiny review, a 4 court should consider reasonable, but less restrictive, alternatives. And in the context of First Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit agrees. Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Ninth Circuit here, and the Second Circuit in New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 255 (2d Cir. 2015), however, have determined that this protection need not apply to Second Amendment challenges. Rather, laws that infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are upheld in the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit if they promote safety, even if narrower laws would provide the same level of safety.
This case presents an opportunity to ensure uniformity among the circuits and respect for the core principle that the right to keep and bear arms is an important individual right deserving of the same rigorous protections as other individual rights recognized by the United States Constitution.
Here is a beautiful example of the Ninth Circuit Court's lack of logic.
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit only endeavored to look at one piece of the trial level evidence that the trial court had concluded was unhelpful to the government. That one piece was a pair of studies reviewed by the trial court that showed a slight correlation overall between waiting periods and a reduction in immediate post-purchase acts of violence or suicide (at least for the elderly). The trial court correctly noted that the study provided no information on whether the reduction in impulsive post-purchase acts of violence or suicide applied to those who already had a gun at hand.
The Ninth Circuit decided that its own rationalization was just as good as actual evidence, writing that “the studies [finding a reduction in postpurchase violence or suicide with a waiting period] related to all purchasers.” And since the class of purchasers who already owned a gun was part of the class of “all purchasers,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, then it was only “common sense” that the reduction in violence and suicide found by the study applied to prior gun owners too. Id., 843 F.3d at 828.
The Ninth Circuit blatantly replaced evidence with its own “common sense.” And in the process, it fell into a form of a common logical error known as the Fallacy of Division.
The Fallacy of Division is committed when an argument is presented “[a]ssuming that what is true of a whole is therefore true of each of the parts of that whole.” T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments 151 (7th Edition 2012). Professor Damer provides as an example the argument that because a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean, and because a Boeing 747 has jet engines, each jet engine can fly unaided across the ocean.
Applied here, just because the whole of all gun owners may have the characteristic of benefitting from a waiting period does not mean that all subsets of gun owners likewise benefit. What the Ninth Circuit saw as common sense was actually a common logical fallacy. And in such mistakes we see the need to rely on evidence, and not rational speculation.
Here is the Summary of Argument from the Amicus Curiae brief filed by the Crime Prevention Research Center with the United States Supreme Court.
This Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) established that the Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to keep and bear arms. The majority concluded that the outright ban on handguns at issue in that case failed constitutional muster under any level of possible scrutiny, but the decision left for future evaluation whether other gun regulations would be subject to strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny (or some other scrutiny more rigorous than the rationale basis test), and how those levels of scrutiny would be applied. Id., 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783.
After nearly ten years, however, the lower courts have struggled to apply the Heller decision. Most of the circuits have adopted a form of intermediate scrutiny for regulations that do not include a wholesale ban on a type of firearm. But even then, the standards applied by the lower courts vary widely. Some circuits, specifically the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, have demonstrated ongoing hostility to the core concept of Heller that the right to bear arms is an important individual right and, while purporting to apply a level of intermediate scrutiny borrowed from other areas of constitutional jurisprudence – primarily free speech cases – have weakened their constitutional jurisprudence to approve restrictions on Second Amendment rights that would not be allowed for other rights.
As a research and education organization, CPRC is concerned by decisions, such as the Ninth Circuit’s decision here, that pay lip service to a 3 heightened level of scrutiny for gun regulations, but that end up wholly ignoring the evidentiary standards and academic research that inform the appropriate breadth of other constitutional rights.
Here, the Ninth Circuit reversed the evidentiary findings of the trial court and supplanted the evidence that the trial court received and weighed with its own non-empirical views of what it thought was reasonable. The trial court received and evaluated numerous studies that were offered at trial and found, as the trier of fact and with full support in the record, that none of the studies provided even a scintilla of evidence that a gun purchase waiting period beyond the time required to complete a background check enhanced safety or reduced gun violence for those who already owned a gun. This evidence-free approach is inconsistent with other circuits (excepting in part the Second Circuit) and with the constitutional evaluation of other constitutional rights.
Also, by replacing the weighing of evidence with its own view of what was reasonable, the Ninth Circuit effectively nullified the burden of proof that is supposed to apply to any form of heightened scrutiny, watering down the intermediate scrutiny test to little more than a rational basis review with a different name.
Similarly, an appropriate intermediate scrutiny analysis requires that a law not burden more of the right “than is reasonably necessary.” United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, under an intermediate scrutiny review, a 4 court should consider reasonable, but less restrictive, alternatives. And in the context of First Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit agrees. Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005).
The Ninth Circuit here, and the Second Circuit in New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 255 (2d Cir. 2015), however, have determined that this protection need not apply to Second Amendment challenges. Rather, laws that infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are upheld in the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit if they promote safety, even if narrower laws would provide the same level of safety.
This case presents an opportunity to ensure uniformity among the circuits and respect for the core principle that the right to keep and bear arms is an important individual right deserving of the same rigorous protections as other individual rights recognized by the United States Constitution.
Here is a beautiful example of the Ninth Circuit Court's lack of logic.
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit only endeavored to look at one piece of the trial level evidence that the trial court had concluded was unhelpful to the government. That one piece was a pair of studies reviewed by the trial court that showed a slight correlation overall between waiting periods and a reduction in immediate post-purchase acts of violence or suicide (at least for the elderly). The trial court correctly noted that the study provided no information on whether the reduction in impulsive post-purchase acts of violence or suicide applied to those who already had a gun at hand.
The Ninth Circuit decided that its own rationalization was just as good as actual evidence, writing that “the studies [finding a reduction in postpurchase violence or suicide with a waiting period] related to all purchasers.” And since the class of purchasers who already owned a gun was part of the class of “all purchasers,” the Ninth Circuit reasoned, then it was only “common sense” that the reduction in violence and suicide found by the study applied to prior gun owners too. Id., 843 F.3d at 828.
The Ninth Circuit blatantly replaced evidence with its own “common sense.” And in the process, it fell into a form of a common logical error known as the Fallacy of Division.
The Fallacy of Division is committed when an argument is presented “[a]ssuming that what is true of a whole is therefore true of each of the parts of that whole.” T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments 151 (7th Edition 2012). Professor Damer provides as an example the argument that because a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean, and because a Boeing 747 has jet engines, each jet engine can fly unaided across the ocean.
Applied here, just because the whole of all gun owners may have the characteristic of benefitting from a waiting period does not mean that all subsets of gun owners likewise benefit. What the Ninth Circuit saw as common sense was actually a common logical fallacy. And in such mistakes we see the need to rely on evidence, and not rational speculation.
Friday, October 27, 2017
The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding
Food for thought about what you have been told about climate change.
Here is the link.
Here is the conclusion.
--------------------------------------------
Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be completely open.
Here is the link.
Here is the conclusion.
--------------------------------------------
Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be completely open.
Regarding the model used for ENSO adjustment, recall that the exact same linear functional form and 3 MEI-related variables were used, except that the 1977 Pacific Shift variable is dropped for the Satellite data modeling since its history begins in 1979.
The econometric modeling process output was remarkable in that, for all 13 temperature time series analyzed, the results were invariably the same: The identical (3 or 2 MEI-related variables as appropriate) model worked very well for all 13 time series:
1.) All parameter estimates had the correct signs and with high, statistically significant t Statistics; except that the MEI coefficients for U.S. and Global temperatures were positive, but not statistically significant.
2.) However, it was noted a priori that MEI would be expected to have less impact outside the tropics.
3.) Model R Bar Squares were all higher than relevant Naive forecasting models and high for such empirical work.
The 13 time series analyzed constituted a robust test set in that they were produced by many different entities using different technologies involving Surface, Buoy, Balloon and Satellite temperature measurement.
Removing the ENSO impacts using the same MEI-based model resulted in 13 ENSO-adjusted temperature time series each having a flat trend.
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-otherthings-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.
Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?
Thursday, October 26, 2017
The Glyphosate Scandal
Here is Matt Ridley's column "The Glyphosate Scandal.
-----------------------------------------
Bad news is always more newsworthy than good. The widely reported finding that insect abundance is down by 75 per cent in Germany over 27 years was big news, while, for example, the finding in May that ocean acidification is a lesser threat to corals than had been thought caused barely a ripple. The study, published in the leading journal Nature, found that corals’ ability to make skeletons is “largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification”. But good news is no news.
And bad news is big news. The German insect study, in a pay-to-publish journal, may indeed be a cause for concern, but its findings should be treated with caution, my professional biologist friends tell me. It did not actually compare the same sites over time. Indeed most locations were only sampled once, and the scientists used mathematical models to extract a tentative trend from the inconsistent sampling.
Greens were quick to use the insect study to argue for a ban on the widely used herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, despite no evidence for a connection. Glyphosate is made by Monsanto and sometimes used in conjunction with genetically modified crops.
Their campaign comes to a head this Wednesday in Brussels, where an expert committee of the European Commission will decide whether to ban glyphosate. The European parliament has already voted to do so, though its vote carries no weight. The committee will probably defer a decision until December, amid signs that the commission is getting fed up with the way French politicians in particular demand a ban in public then argue against it in private.
The entire case against glyphosate is one “monograph” from an obscure World Health Organisation body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that glyphosate might cause cancer at very high doses. It admitted that by the same criteria, sausages and sawdust should also be classified as carcinogens.
Indeed, pound for pound coffee is more carcinogenic than the herbicide, with the big difference that people pour coffee down their throats every day, which they don’t glyphosate. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was recently found to contain glyphosate at a concentration of up to 1.23 parts per billion. At that rate a child would have to eat more than three tonnes of ice cream every day to reach the level at which any health effect could be measured.
The IARC finding is contradicted by the European Food Safety Authority as well as the key state safety agencies in America, Australia and elsewhere. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment looked at more than 3,000 studies and found no evidence of any risk to human beings at realistic doses: carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or reproductive. Since glyphosate is a molecule that interferes with a metabolic process found in all plants but no animals, this is hardly surprising.
Meanwhile, glyphosate has huge environmental benefits for gardeners and farmers. In particular, it is an alternative to the destructive practice of ploughing to control weeds. It allows no-till agriculture, a burgeoning practice that preserves soil structure, moisture and carbon content, enabling worms and insects to flourish, improving drainage and biodiversity while allowing the high-yield farming that is essential if we are to feed humanity without cultivating more land. Organic farmers rely on frequent tillage.
-----------------------------------------
Bad news is always more newsworthy than good. The widely reported finding that insect abundance is down by 75 per cent in Germany over 27 years was big news, while, for example, the finding in May that ocean acidification is a lesser threat to corals than had been thought caused barely a ripple. The study, published in the leading journal Nature, found that corals’ ability to make skeletons is “largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification”. But good news is no news.
And bad news is big news. The German insect study, in a pay-to-publish journal, may indeed be a cause for concern, but its findings should be treated with caution, my professional biologist friends tell me. It did not actually compare the same sites over time. Indeed most locations were only sampled once, and the scientists used mathematical models to extract a tentative trend from the inconsistent sampling.
Greens were quick to use the insect study to argue for a ban on the widely used herbicide glyphosate, also known as Roundup, despite no evidence for a connection. Glyphosate is made by Monsanto and sometimes used in conjunction with genetically modified crops.
Their campaign comes to a head this Wednesday in Brussels, where an expert committee of the European Commission will decide whether to ban glyphosate. The European parliament has already voted to do so, though its vote carries no weight. The committee will probably defer a decision until December, amid signs that the commission is getting fed up with the way French politicians in particular demand a ban in public then argue against it in private.
The entire case against glyphosate is one “monograph” from an obscure World Health Organisation body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which concluded that glyphosate might cause cancer at very high doses. It admitted that by the same criteria, sausages and sawdust should also be classified as carcinogens.
Indeed, pound for pound coffee is more carcinogenic than the herbicide, with the big difference that people pour coffee down their throats every day, which they don’t glyphosate. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was recently found to contain glyphosate at a concentration of up to 1.23 parts per billion. At that rate a child would have to eat more than three tonnes of ice cream every day to reach the level at which any health effect could be measured.
The IARC finding is contradicted by the European Food Safety Authority as well as the key state safety agencies in America, Australia and elsewhere. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment looked at more than 3,000 studies and found no evidence of any risk to human beings at realistic doses: carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic or reproductive. Since glyphosate is a molecule that interferes with a metabolic process found in all plants but no animals, this is hardly surprising.
Meanwhile, glyphosate has huge environmental benefits for gardeners and farmers. In particular, it is an alternative to the destructive practice of ploughing to control weeds. It allows no-till agriculture, a burgeoning practice that preserves soil structure, moisture and carbon content, enabling worms and insects to flourish, improving drainage and biodiversity while allowing the high-yield farming that is essential if we are to feed humanity without cultivating more land. Organic farmers rely on frequent tillage.
Descending to the null set of intelligence, and academic and political honesty
Here is Jonathan Turley's column. JT is on target but understates the issue.
-----------------------------------------
University of Illinois math professor Rochelle Gutierrez has triggered a national controversy over her recent anthology for math educators entitled, “Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods.” Gutierrez suggests that mathematic tends to perpetuate white privilege that must be actively addressed in classrooms. For many, math is one subject that was viewed inherently objective and unbiased in its emphasis. Albert Einstein and others saw beauty in math. He stated “Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.” Yet, Gutierrez appears to see the “politics that mathematics brings” and white privilege.
Gutierrez warns that “School mathematics curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean Theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.” She adds “On many levels, mathematics itself operates as whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white.”
Gutierrez raises these same views in her 2013 academic article entitled Why (Urban) Mathematics Teachers Need Political Knowledge in the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. She wrote that “similar to whiteness, mathematics holds unearned privilege in society.” She emphasized that she was going beyond earlier writers who maintained that “mathematics education (emphasis added) operates as White institutional space. I am arguing that mathematics itself operates as whiteness.”
Gutierrez seeks to inject “political knowledge” into math classes to foster a “greater awareness of the unearned privilege that mathematics holds in society,.” She ties math to the ever-expanding notions of “microaggressions” and warns that many students “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”
While I do not agree with much of what I read in the article, which I found hyperbolic and superficial. However, I also disagree with some of the responses. Critics have called for Gutierrez to be removed from her position. Gutierrez is advancing her intellectual view of the role and barriers of mathematics education in the United States. Her voice adds to the broader debate over the influence of privilege or race on subjects. One can disagree with those views while defending Gutierrez’ right to articulate and defend them.
Guiterrez has a stellar background that includes a Ph.D., in Curriculum and Instruction, from University of Chicago as well as an M.A. from Chicago and a B.A. in Human Biology from Stanford University. Her bio states that “Dr. Gutierrez’ scholarship focuses on equity issues in mathematics education, paying particular attention to how race, class, and language affect teaching and learning.”
In the end, it is a shame to see math treated as a field of privilege when many of us view it as a field of pure intellectual pursuit and bias neutrality. Either the math is there or it is not. The race of the mathematician will not change the outcome. Moreover, the way to fight any bias is to leave “political knowledge” outside of the classroom. Guiterrez has attracted some cache by calling for teachers to look beyond the numbers to find white privilege. Yet the danger is importing extrinsic influences into an area that is wonderfully self-contained and politically neutral. Indeed, many minorities sought math careers because it is a field premised on objective measurement. That is why I was left unconvinced by the earlier academic article. To use a valuable expression, “the numbers simply do not add up.”
-----------------------------------------
University of Illinois math professor Rochelle Gutierrez has triggered a national controversy over her recent anthology for math educators entitled, “Building Support for Scholarly Practices in Mathematics Methods.” Gutierrez suggests that mathematic tends to perpetuate white privilege that must be actively addressed in classrooms. For many, math is one subject that was viewed inherently objective and unbiased in its emphasis. Albert Einstein and others saw beauty in math. He stated “Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.” Yet, Gutierrez appears to see the “politics that mathematics brings” and white privilege.
Gutierrez warns that “School mathematics curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean Theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.” She adds “On many levels, mathematics itself operates as whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as white.”
Gutierrez raises these same views in her 2013 academic article entitled Why (Urban) Mathematics Teachers Need Political Knowledge in the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education. She wrote that “similar to whiteness, mathematics holds unearned privilege in society.” She emphasized that she was going beyond earlier writers who maintained that “mathematics education (emphasis added) operates as White institutional space. I am arguing that mathematics itself operates as whiteness.”
Gutierrez seeks to inject “political knowledge” into math classes to foster a “greater awareness of the unearned privilege that mathematics holds in society,.” She ties math to the ever-expanding notions of “microaggressions” and warns that many students “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”
While I do not agree with much of what I read in the article, which I found hyperbolic and superficial. However, I also disagree with some of the responses. Critics have called for Gutierrez to be removed from her position. Gutierrez is advancing her intellectual view of the role and barriers of mathematics education in the United States. Her voice adds to the broader debate over the influence of privilege or race on subjects. One can disagree with those views while defending Gutierrez’ right to articulate and defend them.
Guiterrez has a stellar background that includes a Ph.D., in Curriculum and Instruction, from University of Chicago as well as an M.A. from Chicago and a B.A. in Human Biology from Stanford University. Her bio states that “Dr. Gutierrez’ scholarship focuses on equity issues in mathematics education, paying particular attention to how race, class, and language affect teaching and learning.”
In the end, it is a shame to see math treated as a field of privilege when many of us view it as a field of pure intellectual pursuit and bias neutrality. Either the math is there or it is not. The race of the mathematician will not change the outcome. Moreover, the way to fight any bias is to leave “political knowledge” outside of the classroom. Guiterrez has attracted some cache by calling for teachers to look beyond the numbers to find white privilege. Yet the danger is importing extrinsic influences into an area that is wonderfully self-contained and politically neutral. Indeed, many minorities sought math careers because it is a field premised on objective measurement. That is why I was left unconvinced by the earlier academic article. To use a valuable expression, “the numbers simply do not add up.”
The road to tyranny
The road to tyranny is a corrupt Department of Justice and corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation. Once these are under political control, tyranny is relatively easy.
We are at risk.
We are at risk.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Transparent solar technology
Here is a link to an article about transparent solar technology, which has potential to obtain electric power from windows.
• Democrats are working to ensure Trump’s re-election
Here is a column by Jonathan Turley.
Trump vs. Clinton again? What entertainment!
You can't make this stuff up.
-----------------------------------------------
We have previously discussed how the Democratic establishment has held on to power despite the disaster in the last presidential election. The Democratic leadership and members were virtually unanimous in guaranteeing the nomination for Hillary Clinton despite the clear anti-establishment mood of the electorate and Clinton’s record negative polling. By the end of the campaign, the Democrats were largely arguing for an anti-Trump vote rather than a pro-Clinton vote. Despite the loss to the least popular presidential candidate in history, Nancy Pelosi and various other Democratic leaders have tightened their grip on power. The establishment then fought off a challenge from Bernie Sanders supporters and elected close Clinton ally Tom Perez to lead the Democratic National Committee. Now Perez has moved to fill high-ranking positions with establishment figures and Clinton allies. Among them is Donna Brazile who lied about her violation of DNC rules in sharing debate questions with Clinton. While the DNC staff rallied around Brazile, others saw Brazile as the very embodiment of the rigged primary and the hard-wired Clinton support in the media. Her unethical conduct led to the termination of her CNN contract, but Perez now wants her on the DNC rules committee.
At the ironically named “DNC Unity Commission” meeting in Las Vegas, Perez circulated his list of appointments and nominations to DNC positions, which was leaked to the media. Sanders people found themselves outside of high-ranking positions in favor of lobbyists and insiders associated with the establishment.
The appointment of Brazile will be particularly galling for many activists who view her as one of the architects of the election disaster — and someone who lied to the media in the wake of the scandal. It will be hard to show Sanders’ supporters that the party has changed when these same figures reassume control over key positions. Yet, as the DNC continues to struggle with failing contributions, they are doubling down on establishment. These figures have succeeded in deflecting criticism of their key role in electing Trump with the selection of the candidate with the least chance to defeat him in an anti-establishment election. It is precisely the tactics used so unsuccessfully in the election, Now, with the opposition to Trump growing, they are returning to their prior positions in the hopes that voters will focus on their hate for Trump as opposed for their disdain for the Democratic establishment.
The risk is considerable for the party. They seriously miscalculated with Clinton in the last election. While she received more votes that Trump, many felt that other candidates would have easily prevailed against him. For critics, this move will reaffirm the view that the party elites are primarily concerns with their insular interests and their own self-preservation and self=perpetuation.
Trump vs. Clinton again? What entertainment!
You can't make this stuff up.
-----------------------------------------------
We have previously discussed how the Democratic establishment has held on to power despite the disaster in the last presidential election. The Democratic leadership and members were virtually unanimous in guaranteeing the nomination for Hillary Clinton despite the clear anti-establishment mood of the electorate and Clinton’s record negative polling. By the end of the campaign, the Democrats were largely arguing for an anti-Trump vote rather than a pro-Clinton vote. Despite the loss to the least popular presidential candidate in history, Nancy Pelosi and various other Democratic leaders have tightened their grip on power. The establishment then fought off a challenge from Bernie Sanders supporters and elected close Clinton ally Tom Perez to lead the Democratic National Committee. Now Perez has moved to fill high-ranking positions with establishment figures and Clinton allies. Among them is Donna Brazile who lied about her violation of DNC rules in sharing debate questions with Clinton. While the DNC staff rallied around Brazile, others saw Brazile as the very embodiment of the rigged primary and the hard-wired Clinton support in the media. Her unethical conduct led to the termination of her CNN contract, but Perez now wants her on the DNC rules committee.
At the ironically named “DNC Unity Commission” meeting in Las Vegas, Perez circulated his list of appointments and nominations to DNC positions, which was leaked to the media. Sanders people found themselves outside of high-ranking positions in favor of lobbyists and insiders associated with the establishment.
The appointment of Brazile will be particularly galling for many activists who view her as one of the architects of the election disaster — and someone who lied to the media in the wake of the scandal. It will be hard to show Sanders’ supporters that the party has changed when these same figures reassume control over key positions. Yet, as the DNC continues to struggle with failing contributions, they are doubling down on establishment. These figures have succeeded in deflecting criticism of their key role in electing Trump with the selection of the candidate with the least chance to defeat him in an anti-establishment election. It is precisely the tactics used so unsuccessfully in the election, Now, with the opposition to Trump growing, they are returning to their prior positions in the hopes that voters will focus on their hate for Trump as opposed for their disdain for the Democratic establishment.
The risk is considerable for the party. They seriously miscalculated with Clinton in the last election. While she received more votes that Trump, many felt that other candidates would have easily prevailed against him. For critics, this move will reaffirm the view that the party elites are primarily concerns with their insular interests and their own self-preservation and self=perpetuation.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
In Too Deep
Here is a link to a video about one of the dangers of flying - the pilot and the weather.
In Too Deep
In Too Deep
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Renewable energy
According to Wikipedia, “Renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources, which are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal heat.”
It is hard to see why geothermal heat should be classified as renewable, since it is not replenished. In fact, sunlight, wind, tides, and waves stem from the sun’s energy, which also is not replenished. Yet these energy sources are useful, partly because they will be around for a long time.
Is the attractiveness of “renewable energy” based on whether they are truly renewable? Evidently not. And why the “replenished on a human timescale”?
Probably, the real reason why renewable energy is attractive is because it is not associated with greenhouse gas emissions, hence appeals to those concerned about climate.
If it is climate that is of concern, why not consider wood as a source of renewable energy? Growing a tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning the wood restores it. There is no net increase in CO2 over the grow-burn cycle. Sunlight drives this cycle. Wood is just as much renewable energy as “renewable energy”.
And to get back to the why the “replenished on a human timescale” issue – does it refer to a single human lifetime, several, or what? Why not focus on energy sources that do not increase CO2, net?
Fossil fuels are like wood, they are just as much renewable energy as all these other energy sources. The only difference is that you don’t burn the wood at once – you wait until it turns into coal or oil. Only the timescale is different. Fossil fuels represent just as much a zero net CO2 increase as “renewable energy” – the only difference being that their one-time cycle has not been completed. So, what’s the big deal about fossil fuels?
A little more careful thinking and less alarmism, please.
It is hard to see why geothermal heat should be classified as renewable, since it is not replenished. In fact, sunlight, wind, tides, and waves stem from the sun’s energy, which also is not replenished. Yet these energy sources are useful, partly because they will be around for a long time.
Is the attractiveness of “renewable energy” based on whether they are truly renewable? Evidently not. And why the “replenished on a human timescale”?
Probably, the real reason why renewable energy is attractive is because it is not associated with greenhouse gas emissions, hence appeals to those concerned about climate.
If it is climate that is of concern, why not consider wood as a source of renewable energy? Growing a tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Burning the wood restores it. There is no net increase in CO2 over the grow-burn cycle. Sunlight drives this cycle. Wood is just as much renewable energy as “renewable energy”.
And to get back to the why the “replenished on a human timescale” issue – does it refer to a single human lifetime, several, or what? Why not focus on energy sources that do not increase CO2, net?
Fossil fuels are like wood, they are just as much renewable energy as all these other energy sources. The only difference is that you don’t burn the wood at once – you wait until it turns into coal or oil. Only the timescale is different. Fossil fuels represent just as much a zero net CO2 increase as “renewable energy” – the only difference being that their one-time cycle has not been completed. So, what’s the big deal about fossil fuels?
A little more careful thinking and less alarmism, please.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Eyes on Voyager
To learn about the Voyager spacecraft and see videos of their flight path:
Go to this Eyes on Voyager
Click on "Download App"
Install the app.
Click on "Launch"
You will appreciate what humanity can accomplish, as opposed to the mess that politicians and the media create daily.
Go to this Eyes on Voyager
Click on "Download App"
Install the app.
Click on "Launch"
You will appreciate what humanity can accomplish, as opposed to the mess that politicians and the media create daily.
Proposed bump stock ban is really an opening to ban ordinary firearms
Here is John Lott on the proposed bump stock ban.
JL is on target. The anti-gun crowd is using the Las Vegas massacre as an opportunity to make it possible to ban ordinary semiautomatic rifles.
A law banning bump stocks will not accomplish that. It is easy to make one out of readily available materials. The proposed law would make it possible to ban a trigger, since (paraphrasing the proposed law) in combination with, for example, a bump stock, it is an integral part of a combination of parts designed to and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
It is a mistake to ban parts of ordinary firearms simply because adding a bump stock or other external part can increase the rate of fire to that approximating an automatic weapon. Rather, it should be illegal to 1) convert in any manner a semiautomatic firearm so that it fires at a rate approximating an automatic firearm, and 2) banning only parts that do so that are not semiautomatic firearm parts. In other words, no parts should be banned that are semiautomatic firearm parts designed for semiautomatic operation.
Here is JL's comment.
-------------------------------------------
Sometimes in the rush “to do something” after a tragedy, politicians put forward bills that could easily cause more harm than good. The legislation being put forward to ban “bump stocks,” a firearm accessory that uses the recoil of the semi-automatic gun to fire more rapidly, might end up banning all semi-automatic guns. Take a bill in the House by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, which has 28 co-sponsors. The key part of this bill is that it bans “any part or combination of parts that is [SIC] designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle” and “any such part or combination of parts.” The bill is available below. The problem is that this reads so broadly that a semiautomatic gun has parts that when used in combination with a bump stock or other similar device that will increase the rate of fire of a rifle.
People have three types of guns
— Manually loaded guns. After firing a bullet, the shooter has to physically load the next bullet into the chamber of the gun.
— Semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, the gun reloads itself. One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, and so on.
— Fully automatic. As long as the trigger is depressed, bullets will continue being fired. It isn’t necessary to pull the trigger a second time to fire another bullet.
If politicians actually want to ban all semi-automatic guns, they should be explicit and say so. But it would be a real problem for people who use guns in self-defense. Not everyone has time to manually reload their guns when confronted by criminals. If one’s first shot misses or there are multiple criminals, people may not have the time to manually reload their gun so that they have a second or third shot.
JL is on target. The anti-gun crowd is using the Las Vegas massacre as an opportunity to make it possible to ban ordinary semiautomatic rifles.
A law banning bump stocks will not accomplish that. It is easy to make one out of readily available materials. The proposed law would make it possible to ban a trigger, since (paraphrasing the proposed law) in combination with, for example, a bump stock, it is an integral part of a combination of parts designed to and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
It is a mistake to ban parts of ordinary firearms simply because adding a bump stock or other external part can increase the rate of fire to that approximating an automatic weapon. Rather, it should be illegal to 1) convert in any manner a semiautomatic firearm so that it fires at a rate approximating an automatic firearm, and 2) banning only parts that do so that are not semiautomatic firearm parts. In other words, no parts should be banned that are semiautomatic firearm parts designed for semiautomatic operation.
Here is JL's comment.
-------------------------------------------
Sometimes in the rush “to do something” after a tragedy, politicians put forward bills that could easily cause more harm than good. The legislation being put forward to ban “bump stocks,” a firearm accessory that uses the recoil of the semi-automatic gun to fire more rapidly, might end up banning all semi-automatic guns. Take a bill in the House by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, which has 28 co-sponsors. The key part of this bill is that it bans “any part or combination of parts that is [SIC] designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle” and “any such part or combination of parts.” The bill is available below. The problem is that this reads so broadly that a semiautomatic gun has parts that when used in combination with a bump stock or other similar device that will increase the rate of fire of a rifle.
People have three types of guns
— Manually loaded guns. After firing a bullet, the shooter has to physically load the next bullet into the chamber of the gun.
— Semi-automatic. One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, the gun reloads itself. One pull of the trigger, one bullet fired, and so on.
— Fully automatic. As long as the trigger is depressed, bullets will continue being fired. It isn’t necessary to pull the trigger a second time to fire another bullet.
If politicians actually want to ban all semi-automatic guns, they should be explicit and say so. But it would be a real problem for people who use guns in self-defense. Not everyone has time to manually reload their guns when confronted by criminals. If one’s first shot misses or there are multiple criminals, people may not have the time to manually reload their gun so that they have a second or third shot.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
The Curse of Good Intentions
Matt Ridley distinguishes between good intentions and results - not much correlation - and probably negative.
MR is on target.
------------------------------------
The curse of modern politics is an epidemic of good intentions and bad outcomes. Policy after policy is chosen and voted on according to whether it means well, not whether it works. And the most frustrated politicians are those who keep trying to sell policies based on their efficacy, rather than their motives. It used to be possible to approach politics as a conversation between adults, and argue for unfashionable but effective medicine. In the 140-character world this is tricky (I speak from experience).
The fact that it was Milton Friedman who said “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results” rather proves the point. He was one of the most successful of all economists in getting results in terms of raising living standards, yet is widely despised today by both the left and centre as evil because he did not bother to do much virtue signalling.
The commentator James Bartholomew popularised the term “virtue signalling” for those who posture empathetically but emptily. “Je suis Charlie” (but I won’t show cartoons of the prophet), “Refugees welcome” (but not in my home) or “Ban fossil fuels” (let’s not talk about my private jet). You see it everywhere. The policies unveiled at the Conservative Party conference show that the party is aware of this and (alas) embracing it. On student fees, housing costs and energy bills, the Tories proposed symbolic changes that would do nothing to solve the underlying problem, indeed might make them worse in some cases, but which at least showed they cared. I doubt it worked. They ended up sounding like pale imitations of Labour, or doing political dad-dancing.
“Our election campaign portrayed us as a party devoid of values,” said Robert Halfon MP in June.
“The Labour Party now has circa 700,000 members that want nothing from the Labour Party but views and values they agree with,” lamented Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group last week. I think that what politicians mean by “values” is “intentions”.
The forgiving of good intentions lies behind the double standard by which we judge totalitarians. Whereas fascists are rightly condemned in schools, newspapers and social media as evil, communists get a much easier ride, despite killing more people. “For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big,” read a New York Times headline last month.
“For all its flaws, Nazi Germany did help bring Volkswagen and BMW to the car-buying public,” replied one wag on Twitter.
Imagine anybody getting away with saying of Mussolini or Franco what John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn said of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez. The reason for this double standard is the apparently good intentions of communist dictators: unlike Nazis, communists were at least trying to make a workers’ paradise; they just got it wrong. Again and again and again.
Though Jeremy Corbyn is a leading exponent, elevating intentions over outcomes is not entirely a monopoly of the left. It is something that the coalition government kept trying, in emulation of Tony Blair. Hugging huskies and gay marriage were pursued mainly for the signal they sent, rather than for the result they achieved. (Student loans, to be fair, were the opposite.) Indeed, George Osborne’s constant talk of austerity, while increasing spending in real terms, was an example of the gap between intention and outcome, albeit less sugar-coated.
I can draw up a list as long as your arm of issues where the road to failure is paved with counterproductive benevolence. Gordon Brown’s 50p top tax rate brought in less tax from the richest. Banning foxhunting has led to the killing of more foxes. Opposition to badger culls made no ecological sense, for cattle, hedgehogs, people — or badger health. Mandating a percentage of GDP for foreign aid was a virtuous gesture that causes real inefficiency and corruption — and (unlike private philanthropy) also tended to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Or take organic farming, which has been shown repeatedly to produce trivial or zero health benefits, while any environmental benefits are grossly outweighed by the low yields that mean it requires taking more land from nature. Yet the BBC’s output on farming is dominated by coverage of the 2 per cent of farming that is organic, and is remorselessly obsequious. Why? Because organic farmers say they are trying to be nice to the planet.
My objection to wind farms is based on the outcome of the policy, whereas most people’s support is based largely on the intention. There they stand, 300ft tall, visibly advertising their virtue as signals of our commitment to devotion to Gaia. The fact that each one requires 150 tonnes of coal to make, that it needs fossil fuel back-up for when the wind is not blowing, that it is subsidised disproportionately by poor people and the rewards go disproportionately to rich people, and that its impact on emissions is so small as to be unmeasurable — none of these matter. It’s the thought that counts.
The Paris climate accord is one big virtue-signalling prayer, whose promises, if implemented, would make a difference in the temperature of the atmosphere in 2100 so small it is practically within the measuring error. But it’s the thought that counts. Donald Trump just does not care.
One politician who has always refused to play the intention game is Nigel Lawson. Rather than rest on the laurels of his political career, he has devoted his retirement to exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality in two great movements: European integration and climate change mitigation. In his book An Appeal to Reason, he pointed out that on the UN’s official forecasts, climate change, unchecked, would mean the average person will be 8.5 times as rich in 2100 as today, rather than 9.5 times if we stopped the warming. And to achieve this goal we are to punish the poor of today with painful policies? This isn’t “taking tough decisions”; this is prescribing chemotherapy for a cold.
Yet the truth is, Lord Lawson and I and others like us have so far largely lost the argument on climate change entirely on the grounds of intentions. Being against global warming is a way of saying you care about the future. Not being a headless chicken — however well argue your case — leads to accusations you do not care.
MR is on target.
------------------------------------
The curse of modern politics is an epidemic of good intentions and bad outcomes. Policy after policy is chosen and voted on according to whether it means well, not whether it works. And the most frustrated politicians are those who keep trying to sell policies based on their efficacy, rather than their motives. It used to be possible to approach politics as a conversation between adults, and argue for unfashionable but effective medicine. In the 140-character world this is tricky (I speak from experience).
The fact that it was Milton Friedman who said “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results” rather proves the point. He was one of the most successful of all economists in getting results in terms of raising living standards, yet is widely despised today by both the left and centre as evil because he did not bother to do much virtue signalling.
The commentator James Bartholomew popularised the term “virtue signalling” for those who posture empathetically but emptily. “Je suis Charlie” (but I won’t show cartoons of the prophet), “Refugees welcome” (but not in my home) or “Ban fossil fuels” (let’s not talk about my private jet). You see it everywhere. The policies unveiled at the Conservative Party conference show that the party is aware of this and (alas) embracing it. On student fees, housing costs and energy bills, the Tories proposed symbolic changes that would do nothing to solve the underlying problem, indeed might make them worse in some cases, but which at least showed they cared. I doubt it worked. They ended up sounding like pale imitations of Labour, or doing political dad-dancing.
“Our election campaign portrayed us as a party devoid of values,” said Robert Halfon MP in June.
“The Labour Party now has circa 700,000 members that want nothing from the Labour Party but views and values they agree with,” lamented Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group last week. I think that what politicians mean by “values” is “intentions”.
The forgiving of good intentions lies behind the double standard by which we judge totalitarians. Whereas fascists are rightly condemned in schools, newspapers and social media as evil, communists get a much easier ride, despite killing more people. “For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big,” read a New York Times headline last month.
“For all its flaws, Nazi Germany did help bring Volkswagen and BMW to the car-buying public,” replied one wag on Twitter.
Imagine anybody getting away with saying of Mussolini or Franco what John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn said of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez. The reason for this double standard is the apparently good intentions of communist dictators: unlike Nazis, communists were at least trying to make a workers’ paradise; they just got it wrong. Again and again and again.
Though Jeremy Corbyn is a leading exponent, elevating intentions over outcomes is not entirely a monopoly of the left. It is something that the coalition government kept trying, in emulation of Tony Blair. Hugging huskies and gay marriage were pursued mainly for the signal they sent, rather than for the result they achieved. (Student loans, to be fair, were the opposite.) Indeed, George Osborne’s constant talk of austerity, while increasing spending in real terms, was an example of the gap between intention and outcome, albeit less sugar-coated.
I can draw up a list as long as your arm of issues where the road to failure is paved with counterproductive benevolence. Gordon Brown’s 50p top tax rate brought in less tax from the richest. Banning foxhunting has led to the killing of more foxes. Opposition to badger culls made no ecological sense, for cattle, hedgehogs, people — or badger health. Mandating a percentage of GDP for foreign aid was a virtuous gesture that causes real inefficiency and corruption — and (unlike private philanthropy) also tended to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
Or take organic farming, which has been shown repeatedly to produce trivial or zero health benefits, while any environmental benefits are grossly outweighed by the low yields that mean it requires taking more land from nature. Yet the BBC’s output on farming is dominated by coverage of the 2 per cent of farming that is organic, and is remorselessly obsequious. Why? Because organic farmers say they are trying to be nice to the planet.
My objection to wind farms is based on the outcome of the policy, whereas most people’s support is based largely on the intention. There they stand, 300ft tall, visibly advertising their virtue as signals of our commitment to devotion to Gaia. The fact that each one requires 150 tonnes of coal to make, that it needs fossil fuel back-up for when the wind is not blowing, that it is subsidised disproportionately by poor people and the rewards go disproportionately to rich people, and that its impact on emissions is so small as to be unmeasurable — none of these matter. It’s the thought that counts.
The Paris climate accord is one big virtue-signalling prayer, whose promises, if implemented, would make a difference in the temperature of the atmosphere in 2100 so small it is practically within the measuring error. But it’s the thought that counts. Donald Trump just does not care.
One politician who has always refused to play the intention game is Nigel Lawson. Rather than rest on the laurels of his political career, he has devoted his retirement to exposing the gap between rhetoric and reality in two great movements: European integration and climate change mitigation. In his book An Appeal to Reason, he pointed out that on the UN’s official forecasts, climate change, unchecked, would mean the average person will be 8.5 times as rich in 2100 as today, rather than 9.5 times if we stopped the warming. And to achieve this goal we are to punish the poor of today with painful policies? This isn’t “taking tough decisions”; this is prescribing chemotherapy for a cold.
Yet the truth is, Lord Lawson and I and others like us have so far largely lost the argument on climate change entirely on the grounds of intentions. Being against global warming is a way of saying you care about the future. Not being a headless chicken — however well argue your case — leads to accusations you do not care.
If turn about was fair play, we would muzzle the elites
Here is Jonathan Turley's comment on three academics' paper "Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of 'Fake News'."
JT is on target.
Don't let the Elites fool you. A Ph.D. doesn't imply that you
--------------------------------------------------------
In one of the most reckless and chilling attacks on free speech, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Berkeley lecturer Ann Ravel is pushing for a federal crackdown on “disinformation” on the Internet — a term that she conspicuously fails to concretely define. Ravel is pushing a proposal that she laid out in a a paper co-author with Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law. To combat “fake news,” Ravel and her co-authors would undermine the use of the Internet as a forum for free speech. The regulation would include the targeting of people who share stories deemed fake or disinformation by government regulators. The irony is that such figures are decrying Russian interference with our system and responding by curtailing free speech — something Vladimir Putin would certainly applaud.
In addition to new rules on paid ads, Ravel wants fake news to be regulated under her proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.” If adopted, a “social media user” would be flagged for sharing anything deemed false by regulators:
“after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”
Without clearly defining “disinformation,” Ravel would give bureaucrats the power to label postings as false and harass those who share such information. Of course, this would also involve a massive databanks of collections ads and discussions by the government.
The authors of the proposal see greater government regulation as the solution to what they describe as “informational deficits” in the largely free exchanges of the Internet. There is a far dosage of doublespeak in the article. Rather than refer to the new regulation as guaranteeing greater government control, the authors insist that “government regulations . . . improve transparency.” Rather than talk of government controls over speech, the authors talk about the government “nudging” otherwise ignorant readers and commentators. Here is the worrisome section:
Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation
Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.
Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.
Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.
I have been writing about the threat to free speech coming increasingly from the left, including Democratic politicians. The implications of such controls are being dismissed in the pursuit of new specters of “fake news” or “microaggressions” or “disinformation.” The result has been a comprehensive assault on free speech from college campuses to the Internet to social media. What is particularly worrisome is the targeting of the Internet, which remains the single greatest advancement of free speech of our generation. Not surprisingly, governments see the Internet as a threat while others seeks to control its message.
What Ravel and her co-authors are suggesting is a need to label certain views as “false” while giving not-so-subtle threats of legal action for those who share such information. Once the non-threatening language of “nudges” and “transparency” are stripped away, the proposal’s true meaning is laid bare as a potentially radical change in government regulation over free speech and association.
JT is on target.
Don't let the Elites fool you. A Ph.D. doesn't imply that you
- Know anything useful.
- Have any idea about what you don't know.
- Have any common sense.
- Have any respect for those without Ph.Ds.
- Can refrain from trying to force others to live as you see fit.
- Are not a threat to a free society.
--------------------------------------------------------
In one of the most reckless and chilling attacks on free speech, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Berkeley lecturer Ann Ravel is pushing for a federal crackdown on “disinformation” on the Internet — a term that she conspicuously fails to concretely define. Ravel is pushing a proposal that she laid out in a a paper co-author with Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law. To combat “fake news,” Ravel and her co-authors would undermine the use of the Internet as a forum for free speech. The regulation would include the targeting of people who share stories deemed fake or disinformation by government regulators. The irony is that such figures are decrying Russian interference with our system and responding by curtailing free speech — something Vladimir Putin would certainly applaud.
In addition to new rules on paid ads, Ravel wants fake news to be regulated under her proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.” If adopted, a “social media user” would be flagged for sharing anything deemed false by regulators:
“after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”
Without clearly defining “disinformation,” Ravel would give bureaucrats the power to label postings as false and harass those who share such information. Of course, this would also involve a massive databanks of collections ads and discussions by the government.
The authors of the proposal see greater government regulation as the solution to what they describe as “informational deficits” in the largely free exchanges of the Internet. There is a far dosage of doublespeak in the article. Rather than refer to the new regulation as guaranteeing greater government control, the authors insist that “government regulations . . . improve transparency.” Rather than talk of government controls over speech, the authors talk about the government “nudging” otherwise ignorant readers and commentators. Here is the worrisome section:
Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation
Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.
Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.
Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.
I have been writing about the threat to free speech coming increasingly from the left, including Democratic politicians. The implications of such controls are being dismissed in the pursuit of new specters of “fake news” or “microaggressions” or “disinformation.” The result has been a comprehensive assault on free speech from college campuses to the Internet to social media. What is particularly worrisome is the targeting of the Internet, which remains the single greatest advancement of free speech of our generation. Not surprisingly, governments see the Internet as a threat while others seeks to control its message.
What Ravel and her co-authors are suggesting is a need to label certain views as “false” while giving not-so-subtle threats of legal action for those who share such information. Once the non-threatening language of “nudges” and “transparency” are stripped away, the proposal’s true meaning is laid bare as a potentially radical change in government regulation over free speech and association.
Elites who would reduce our freedom to protect us from our stupidity
Here is a link to a paper "Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of “Fake News” by Abby K. Wood, Ann M. Ravel, Irina Dykhne.
Wood is Associate Professor of Law, Political Science, and Public Policy at University of Southern California (awood@law.usc.edu); Ravel is Lecturer in Law at Berkeley Law, and former Chair of the Federal Election Commission and California Fair Political Practices Commission; Dykhne is a J.D. candidate at the USC Gould School of Law.
The paper is a wonderful example of elitists wanting to run our lives to protect us from ourselves. Of course, that involves more regulation and bureaucracy.
Wood is Associate Professor of Law, Political Science, and Public Policy at University of Southern California (awood@law.usc.edu); Ravel is Lecturer in Law at Berkeley Law, and former Chair of the Federal Election Commission and California Fair Political Practices Commission; Dykhne is a J.D. candidate at the USC Gould School of Law.
The paper is a wonderful example of elitists wanting to run our lives to protect us from ourselves. Of course, that involves more regulation and bureaucracy.
A More Plausible Theory of Climate Change
One of Henrik Svensmark's videos about his theory of climate change can be found here.
The Cloud Mystery
This video is designed for the layperson.
A more technical video can be found here.
Professional Talk in Essen, Germany
Both videos should convince you that there is more to climate change than you have been told by the media, politicians, and Al Gore. The latter provide propaganda, not science.
The Cloud Mystery
This video is designed for the layperson.
A more technical video can be found here.
Professional Talk in Essen, Germany
Both videos should convince you that there is more to climate change than you have been told by the media, politicians, and Al Gore. The latter provide propaganda, not science.
Trump and Obamacare
Judge Andrew Napolitano sets the record straight.
If you don't like the law, change it - not break it.
------------------------------------------------
Late last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to cease making payments to health care insurance companies in behalf of the more than 6 million Americans who qualify for these payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
Obamacare is the signature legislation of former President Barack Obama, enacted in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. Its stated goal was to use the engine of the federal government to make health insurance available and affordable to everyone in America.
It seeks to achieve that goal by regulating the delivery of health care, giving federal bureaucrats access to everyone's medical records, compelling everyone in America to acquire health insurance and providing financial subsidies for those people whose household incomes are below certain levels and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Under President Obama, the subsidies were regularly paid, and they had been paid under President Trump, as well, until he decided to cease paying them last week.
Here is the back story.
How is it up to the president to decide whether to spend federal dollars when the law requires him to do so? The answer to that question depends on whether Congress has authorized the specific expenditure of the tax dollars.
Under the Constitution, when Congress passes legislation that directs the president to spend federal tax dollars -- or, as is likelier the case today, dollars borrowed by the federal government -- Congress must appropriate funds for the expenditure. So for every federal program that spends money, Congress must first create the program -- for example, building a bridge or paving an interstate highway -- and then it must pass a second bill that appropriates money from the federal treasury and makes it available to the president for the purpose stated in the first law.
When Obamacare was drafted in 2009 and 2010, one of the many compromises that went into it was the gradual rollout of its provisions; different parts of the law became effective at different times. The law was enacted with all Democratic votes. No Republican member of either house of Congress voted for it, and only a handful of Democrats voted against it.
By the time the subsidy provisions took effect, the Republicans were in control of Congress, yet Obama was still in the White House. When Obama asked Congress to appropriate the funds needed to make the subsidy payments required by the Obamacare statute, Congress declined to do so. Thus, Obama -- who, as the president of the United States, was charged with enforcing all federal laws -- was denied the means with which to enforce the subsidy portion of his favorite legislation.
So he spent the money anyway. He directed his secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to take appropriated funds from unstated programs and to make the subsidy payments to the seven largest health insurance carriers in the United States from those funds. Of course, by doing so, he was depriving other federal programs, authorized and funded by Congress, of the monies to which they were entitled. But Obamacare was his legacy, and he was not about to let it die on the vine.
Can the president spend federal dollars, whether from tax revenue or borrowing, without an express authorization from Congress, even if he is following a law that requires the expenditures? In a word, no.
That's because the drafters of the Constitution feared the very situation confronted by Congress and Obama in 2013 -- a law that is no longer popular, is no longer supported by Congress and costs money to enforce, with a president eager to enforce it and a Congress unwilling to authorize the payments. To address this tension between a president wanting to spend federal dollars and a Congress declining to authorize him to do so, the drafters of the Constitution put the power of the purse unambiguously in the hands of Congress. The Constitution could not be clearer: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
It follows that where the appropriations have not been made by Congress, the funds may not be spent by the president. When Obama declined to recognize this constitutional truism, the House of Representatives sued the secretary of health and human services in federal court, seeking to enjoin her from making the subsidy payments, and the House won the case. The court underscored the well-recognized dual scheme of the Framers whereby two laws are required for all federal expenditures -- one to tell the president on whom or on what the money should be spent and the second to authorize the actual expenditure. Without the second law -- the express authorization -- there can be no lawful expenditure.
President Trump, after making the same unlawful expenditures for nine months, decided last week to cease the practice. Whether he did so to bend Congress to his will on health care or he did so out of fidelity to the Constitution, he did the right thing, but he should have done it on his first day in office.
Let's not lose sight of the whole picture here. President Obama has triumphed over President Trump and the Republicans who control Congress because all but a handful of those who are faithful to the Constitution are behaving as if there were a constitutional obligation on the part of the federal government to provide health insurance for everyone in America. According to a plain reading of the Constitution -- and even as articulated by the Supreme Court in the case that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare -- there isn't.
If you don't like the law, change it - not break it.
------------------------------------------------
Late last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to cease making payments to health care insurance companies in behalf of the more than 6 million Americans who qualify for these payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
Obamacare is the signature legislation of former President Barack Obama, enacted in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. Its stated goal was to use the engine of the federal government to make health insurance available and affordable to everyone in America.
It seeks to achieve that goal by regulating the delivery of health care, giving federal bureaucrats access to everyone's medical records, compelling everyone in America to acquire health insurance and providing financial subsidies for those people whose household incomes are below certain levels and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Under President Obama, the subsidies were regularly paid, and they had been paid under President Trump, as well, until he decided to cease paying them last week.
Here is the back story.
How is it up to the president to decide whether to spend federal dollars when the law requires him to do so? The answer to that question depends on whether Congress has authorized the specific expenditure of the tax dollars.
Under the Constitution, when Congress passes legislation that directs the president to spend federal tax dollars -- or, as is likelier the case today, dollars borrowed by the federal government -- Congress must appropriate funds for the expenditure. So for every federal program that spends money, Congress must first create the program -- for example, building a bridge or paving an interstate highway -- and then it must pass a second bill that appropriates money from the federal treasury and makes it available to the president for the purpose stated in the first law.
When Obamacare was drafted in 2009 and 2010, one of the many compromises that went into it was the gradual rollout of its provisions; different parts of the law became effective at different times. The law was enacted with all Democratic votes. No Republican member of either house of Congress voted for it, and only a handful of Democrats voted against it.
By the time the subsidy provisions took effect, the Republicans were in control of Congress, yet Obama was still in the White House. When Obama asked Congress to appropriate the funds needed to make the subsidy payments required by the Obamacare statute, Congress declined to do so. Thus, Obama -- who, as the president of the United States, was charged with enforcing all federal laws -- was denied the means with which to enforce the subsidy portion of his favorite legislation.
So he spent the money anyway. He directed his secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to take appropriated funds from unstated programs and to make the subsidy payments to the seven largest health insurance carriers in the United States from those funds. Of course, by doing so, he was depriving other federal programs, authorized and funded by Congress, of the monies to which they were entitled. But Obamacare was his legacy, and he was not about to let it die on the vine.
Can the president spend federal dollars, whether from tax revenue or borrowing, without an express authorization from Congress, even if he is following a law that requires the expenditures? In a word, no.
That's because the drafters of the Constitution feared the very situation confronted by Congress and Obama in 2013 -- a law that is no longer popular, is no longer supported by Congress and costs money to enforce, with a president eager to enforce it and a Congress unwilling to authorize the payments. To address this tension between a president wanting to spend federal dollars and a Congress declining to authorize him to do so, the drafters of the Constitution put the power of the purse unambiguously in the hands of Congress. The Constitution could not be clearer: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."
It follows that where the appropriations have not been made by Congress, the funds may not be spent by the president. When Obama declined to recognize this constitutional truism, the House of Representatives sued the secretary of health and human services in federal court, seeking to enjoin her from making the subsidy payments, and the House won the case. The court underscored the well-recognized dual scheme of the Framers whereby two laws are required for all federal expenditures -- one to tell the president on whom or on what the money should be spent and the second to authorize the actual expenditure. Without the second law -- the express authorization -- there can be no lawful expenditure.
President Trump, after making the same unlawful expenditures for nine months, decided last week to cease the practice. Whether he did so to bend Congress to his will on health care or he did so out of fidelity to the Constitution, he did the right thing, but he should have done it on his first day in office.
Let's not lose sight of the whole picture here. President Obama has triumphed over President Trump and the Republicans who control Congress because all but a handful of those who are faithful to the Constitution are behaving as if there were a constitutional obligation on the part of the federal government to provide health insurance for everyone in America. According to a plain reading of the Constitution -- and even as articulated by the Supreme Court in the case that upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare -- there isn't.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Who Pays What in Taxes
Here is Walter Williams's column. Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
According to WW:
There’s another side to taxes that goes completely unappreciated. According to a 2013 study by the Virginia-based Mercatus Center, Americans spend up to $378 billion annually in tax-related accounting costs, and in 2011, Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code. Those hours are equivalent to the annual hours of a workforce of 3.4 million . . .
Just think of all the consumer goods and services that could be produced by employing these people gainfully. That would amount to a substantial increase in our standard of living.
WW is on target.
-------------------------------------------------
Politicians exploit public ignorance. Few areas of public ignorance provide as many opportunities for political demagoguery as taxation. Today some politicians argue that the rich must pay their fair share and label the proposed changes in tax law as tax cuts for the rich. Let’s look at who pays what, with an eye toward attempting to answer this question: Are the rich paying their fair share?
According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows. The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes (https://tinyurl.com/yddvee2o). About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more? By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn’t make one rich. It’s not even yacht money.
But the fairness question goes further. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes. Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year (http://tinyurl.com/h8ks4ge). There’s a severe political problem of so many Americans not having any skin in the game. These Americans become natural constituencies for big-spending politicians. After all, if you don’t pay federal taxes, what do you care about big spending? Also, if you don’t pay federal taxes, why should you be happy about a tax cut? What’s in it for you? In fact, you might see tax cuts as threatening your handout programs.
Our nation has a 38.91 percent tax on corporate earnings, the fourth-highest in the world. The House of Representatives has proposed that it be cut to 20 percent; some members of Congress call for a 15 percent rate. The nation’s political hustlers object, saying corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter — which even leftist economists understand, though they might not publicly admit it — is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics is called tax incidence. It holds that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear its full burden. Some of it can be shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation, it will have one of four responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends, cut salaries or lay off workers. In each case, a flesh-and-blood person bears the tax burden. The important point is that corporations are legal fictions and as such do not pay taxes. Corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.
Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will impose taxes not on them but on some other entity instead. We can personalize the trick by talking about property taxes. Imagine that you are a homeowner and a politician tells you he is not going to tax you. Instead, he’s going to tax your property and land. You would easily see the political chicanery. Land and property cannot and do not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes. The same principle applies to corporations.
There’s another side to taxes that goes completely unappreciated. According to a 2013 study by the Virginia-based Mercatus Center, Americans spend up to $378 billion annually in tax-related accounting costs, and in 2011, Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code. Those hours are equivalent to the annual hours of a workforce of 3.4 million, or the number of people employed by four of the largest U.S. companies — Wal-Mart, IBM, McDonald’s and Target — combined (http://tinyurl.com/y9dvbzja). Along with tax cuts, tax simplification should be on the agenda.
According to the latest IRS data, the payment of income taxes is as follows. The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes (https://tinyurl.com/yddvee2o). About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more? By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn’t make one rich. It’s not even yacht money.
But the fairness question goes further. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes. Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year (http://tinyurl.com/h8ks4ge). There’s a severe political problem of so many Americans not having any skin in the game. These Americans become natural constituencies for big-spending politicians. After all, if you don’t pay federal taxes, what do you care about big spending? Also, if you don’t pay federal taxes, why should you be happy about a tax cut? What’s in it for you? In fact, you might see tax cuts as threatening your handout programs.
Our nation has a 38.91 percent tax on corporate earnings, the fourth-highest in the world. The House of Representatives has proposed that it be cut to 20 percent; some members of Congress call for a 15 percent rate. The nation’s political hustlers object, saying corporations should pay their fair share of taxes. The fact of the matter — which even leftist economists understand, though they might not publicly admit it — is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics is called tax incidence. It holds that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear its full burden. Some of it can be shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation, it will have one of four responses or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends, cut salaries or lay off workers. In each case, a flesh-and-blood person bears the tax burden. The important point is that corporations are legal fictions and as such do not pay taxes. Corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.
Politicians love to trick people by suggesting that they will impose taxes not on them but on some other entity instead. We can personalize the trick by talking about property taxes. Imagine that you are a homeowner and a politician tells you he is not going to tax you. Instead, he’s going to tax your property and land. You would easily see the political chicanery. Land and property cannot and do not pay taxes. Again, only people pay taxes. The same principle applies to corporations.
There’s another side to taxes that goes completely unappreciated. According to a 2013 study by the Virginia-based Mercatus Center, Americans spend up to $378 billion annually in tax-related accounting costs, and in 2011, Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code. Those hours are equivalent to the annual hours of a workforce of 3.4 million, or the number of people employed by four of the largest U.S. companies — Wal-Mart, IBM, McDonald’s and Target — combined (http://tinyurl.com/y9dvbzja). Along with tax cuts, tax simplification should be on the agenda.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Common sense concerning Trump's rescinding Obama's order giving insurance companies billions in subsidies
Here is Jonathan Turley's blog entry "Democrats Challenge The Right Of Trump To Rescind Obama Order That A Federal Court Declared Unconstitutional.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as lead counsel in the successful challenge to the Obama insurance payments under the Affordable Care Act.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and served as lead counsel in the successful challenge to the Obama insurance payments under the Affordable Care Act.
JT is on target. These actions imply an interest in Power, not doing what is good for the Country.
----------------------------------------------
There are now eighteen states and the District of Columbia lined up to challenge the executive order by President Donald Trump to rescind the Obama order giving insurance companies billions in subsidies . . . without an appropriation of Congress. As explained below, this challenge advances a rather curious claim that Trump cannot rescind an earlier order found to be flagrantly unconstitutional by a federal court. In most high-profile litigation cases, counsel spends considerable time exploring whether a challenge will allow a bad case to make bad law on appeal. That would seem the most likely outcome here but much of the litigation by Democratic Attorneys General have been driven more by political than legal calculations. Voters now expect every act of Trump to be challenged and no Democratic AG wants to be the only one to sit out a challenge to an unpopular order. The result is a type of perpetual litigation machine where bad precedent is being cranked out because it is viewed as good politics.
There appears no end to the villainy of President Trump. This week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra denounced Trump as nothing short of a saboteur while members have lined up before cameras to denounce his latest executive order as tantamount to murder.
His offense? He rescinded an unconstitutional order by President Obama and restored the authority of Congress over the “power of the purse.” The response to what Becerra called “sabotage” has been a call for a rather curious challenge where Democrats want the judicial branch to enjoin the executive branch from recognizing the inherent authority of the legislative branch. It is an institutional act that would have baffled the Framers.
I had the honor of serving as lead counsel, with an exceptionally talented team from Capitol Hill, for the U.S. House of Representatives in its challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. In a historic ruling, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that President Obama violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury without the approval of Congress.
The money went to insurance companies, even though Congress had rejected an Obama administration request for the appropriations. The case is pending on appeal, but the Trump administration has filed a notice with the D.C. Circuit that it was rescinding the order found unconstitutional by the federal court. The result of the order is to return the matter to the place where it should have remained: in Congress.
The ruling of the federal court was a triumph for those of us who have warned for years about the erosion of the separation of powers within our constitutional system. That high point in the judiciary followed a low point in Congress. In a State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he would circumvent Congress after it failed to approve measures in immigration and health care that he demanded.
This alarming declaration was met with an equally alarming response of rapturous applause by members thrilled by the notion of their own institutional obsolescence. President Obama proceeded to then assume the core defining power left to Congress under the “power of purse” in Article I of the Constitution. When Congress refused to appropriate money for subsidies for insurance companies, President Obama ordered the money from the Treasury through a claim of executive authority.
As affirmed by the federal court, the actions of President Obama directly violated the “power of the purse” clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” It also violated the federal law itself and the court declared that such actions “cannot surmount the plain text [of the law].”
If a president could simply ignore the Constitution and a federal law, the separation of powers becomes little more than a constitutional pretense, a power subject to the discretionary whim of presidents. In first requesting the money and then unilaterally ordering its payment, President Obama established that the limits of the Constitution would not be allowed to exceed the patience of a president.
Madison believed that, under the separation of powers “ambition must…counteract ambition.” He was speaking of the institutional ambition of the branches and their respective leaders in jealously protecting their inherent powers. However, the Affordable Care Act subsidies showed that the Framers underestimated how short-term political ambitions could overwhelm institutional interests. It is a problem that I have previously described as “constitutional short sellers” who are willing to discard core powers to achieve immediate political benefits.
Now many of these same members are irate that President Trump would remove an order found to be unconstitutional and leave the question of any subsidy to Congress. Some members have noted that President Trump is only doing this to force their hand on the deadlock over new health care reforms. However, this would only mean that the President might have done the right thing for the wrong reason.
Democrats in Congress spent eight years dismissing concerns from constitutional scholars over the loss of legislative authority in favor of a type of “uber presidency.” They are now outraged that President Trump is using the very unilateral powers that they celebrated when used by President Obama. In reality, the Trump administration has largely used the powers to rescind the Obama administration orders and thus far has not acted unilaterally to the degree of his predecessor. Yet, what if he did? Would these same members celebrate their transcendence of unilateral executive power?
Consider Trump’s controversial border wall. Democrats have steadfastly opposed any funding for the wall. What if President Trump were to take the lesson from his predecessor and his congressional allies and simply order billions to be paid out of the Treasury? It would violate the Constitution and existing federal laws, but so did the Affordable Care Act payments. If that act would be outrageous in the eyes of members, then we have clarity on this issue. It is not the principle but the personality behind these orders.
When it comes to constitutional law, “good fences make good neighbors.” For whatever reason, President Trump has restored part of the wall that separates the branches. This is one wall that all members should be eager to maintain and, if belatedly, to protect as a matter of principle.
His offense? He rescinded an unconstitutional order by President Obama and restored the authority of Congress over the “power of the purse.” The response to what Becerra called “sabotage” has been a call for a rather curious challenge where Democrats want the judicial branch to enjoin the executive branch from recognizing the inherent authority of the legislative branch. It is an institutional act that would have baffled the Framers.
I had the honor of serving as lead counsel, with an exceptionally talented team from Capitol Hill, for the U.S. House of Representatives in its challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. In a historic ruling, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that President Obama violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury without the approval of Congress.
The money went to insurance companies, even though Congress had rejected an Obama administration request for the appropriations. The case is pending on appeal, but the Trump administration has filed a notice with the D.C. Circuit that it was rescinding the order found unconstitutional by the federal court. The result of the order is to return the matter to the place where it should have remained: in Congress.
The ruling of the federal court was a triumph for those of us who have warned for years about the erosion of the separation of powers within our constitutional system. That high point in the judiciary followed a low point in Congress. In a State of the Union address, President Obama announced that he would circumvent Congress after it failed to approve measures in immigration and health care that he demanded.
This alarming declaration was met with an equally alarming response of rapturous applause by members thrilled by the notion of their own institutional obsolescence. President Obama proceeded to then assume the core defining power left to Congress under the “power of purse” in Article I of the Constitution. When Congress refused to appropriate money for subsidies for insurance companies, President Obama ordered the money from the Treasury through a claim of executive authority.
As affirmed by the federal court, the actions of President Obama directly violated the “power of the purse” clause of the Constitution, which provides that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” It also violated the federal law itself and the court declared that such actions “cannot surmount the plain text [of the law].”
If a president could simply ignore the Constitution and a federal law, the separation of powers becomes little more than a constitutional pretense, a power subject to the discretionary whim of presidents. In first requesting the money and then unilaterally ordering its payment, President Obama established that the limits of the Constitution would not be allowed to exceed the patience of a president.
Madison believed that, under the separation of powers “ambition must…counteract ambition.” He was speaking of the institutional ambition of the branches and their respective leaders in jealously protecting their inherent powers. However, the Affordable Care Act subsidies showed that the Framers underestimated how short-term political ambitions could overwhelm institutional interests. It is a problem that I have previously described as “constitutional short sellers” who are willing to discard core powers to achieve immediate political benefits.
Now many of these same members are irate that President Trump would remove an order found to be unconstitutional and leave the question of any subsidy to Congress. Some members have noted that President Trump is only doing this to force their hand on the deadlock over new health care reforms. However, this would only mean that the President might have done the right thing for the wrong reason.
Democrats in Congress spent eight years dismissing concerns from constitutional scholars over the loss of legislative authority in favor of a type of “uber presidency.” They are now outraged that President Trump is using the very unilateral powers that they celebrated when used by President Obama. In reality, the Trump administration has largely used the powers to rescind the Obama administration orders and thus far has not acted unilaterally to the degree of his predecessor. Yet, what if he did? Would these same members celebrate their transcendence of unilateral executive power?
Consider Trump’s controversial border wall. Democrats have steadfastly opposed any funding for the wall. What if President Trump were to take the lesson from his predecessor and his congressional allies and simply order billions to be paid out of the Treasury? It would violate the Constitution and existing federal laws, but so did the Affordable Care Act payments. If that act would be outrageous in the eyes of members, then we have clarity on this issue. It is not the principle but the personality behind these orders.
When it comes to constitutional law, “good fences make good neighbors.” For whatever reason, President Trump has restored part of the wall that separates the branches. This is one wall that all members should be eager to maintain and, if belatedly, to protect as a matter of principle.
Puerto Rico's Man-Made Disaster Might Be Worse than the Hurricane
Daniel Mitchell's article at the Foundation for Economic Education.
DM is on target.
I suspect that one reason the hurricane did so much damage in Puerto Rico is the inadequately designed infrastructure - largely due to bad incentives created by bad Government. However, keep in mind that the voters chose a Government that implemented the bad incentives because the voters wanted them. Voting for handouts (including high minimum wages) will ruin an economy every time.
-------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico is getting lots of attention because Hurricane Maria caused a tremendous amount of economic damage.
That leads to an important discussion about the role of government – particularly the federal government – when there is a natural disaster (and a secondary discussion about the silly Keynesian argument that disasters are good for prosperity).
But let’s focus today on a man-made disaster. Puerto Rico is the Greece of America, and it was a fiscal mess well before the hurricane hit. Indeed, there’s already been partial-bailout legislation from Washington.
The Wall Street Journal opined wisely on the topic, starting with the observation that we shouldn’t feel too much sympathy for investors who purchased bonds from the island’s profligate government.
But that doesn’t address the underlying problem of how to generate growth in Puerto Rico. The answer, needless to say, is free markets and small government.
Investor’s Business Daily delves deeper into the issue of how big government is strangling prosperity.
DM is on target.
I suspect that one reason the hurricane did so much damage in Puerto Rico is the inadequately designed infrastructure - largely due to bad incentives created by bad Government. However, keep in mind that the voters chose a Government that implemented the bad incentives because the voters wanted them. Voting for handouts (including high minimum wages) will ruin an economy every time.
-------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico is getting lots of attention because Hurricane Maria caused a tremendous amount of economic damage.
That leads to an important discussion about the role of government – particularly the federal government – when there is a natural disaster (and a secondary discussion about the silly Keynesian argument that disasters are good for prosperity).
But let’s focus today on a man-made disaster. Puerto Rico is the Greece of America, and it was a fiscal mess well before the hurricane hit. Indeed, there’s already been partial-bailout legislation from Washington.
The Wall Street Journal opined wisely on the topic, starting with the observation that we shouldn’t feel too much sympathy for investors who purchased bonds from the island’s profligate government.
"they knew what they were getting into. Lenders piled into Puerto Rican bonds that paid high yields that are “triple tax-exempt”—they can’t be taxed by federal, state or local governments in the U.S. Yet lenders also knew that the Puerto Rican government was heading toward a debt crisis. The economy has been contracting for a decade, and the commonwealth has $48 billion in unfunded pensions on top of $72 billion in bond debt. Creditors bet that the high yield was worth the political risk, but the music was bound to stop. One lesson of the last decade that creditors don’t want to learn, even after Detroit and Greece, is that sovereign debt to lousy governments is high risk. The abrogation of debt contracts that will now take place is regrettable, but there is a price for betting on politicians."It would be a nice lesson if investors learned not to trust governments, especially the ones most prone to destructive statist policies.
But that doesn’t address the underlying problem of how to generate growth in Puerto Rico. The answer, needless to say, is free markets and small government.
"the territory will have to grow faster. This is where bankruptcy alone is inadequate. Puerto Rico will have to cut taxes on investment, rationalize welfare programs that deter working, and pare back labor protections that make France look like Hong Kong. If Mr. Rossello won’t do it, then the control board will have to. Puerto Rico will continue to flounder even with reduced debt if labor participation remains stuck at 40% and unemployment is in the double digits."Unfortunately, the government has been doubling down on bad policy.
Investor’s Business Daily delves deeper into the issue of how big government is strangling prosperity.
"The key is to create the correct incentives for the island’s people to encourage — rather than discourage — their policymakers to implement necessary and difficult reforms. This is particularly true with regard to pension reform. …Emphasis should instead be put on the many necessary changes to Puerto Rican labor laws, welfare programs and business and tax regulations which could spur more private sector business and job creation, encourage more people to work, and allow economic growth to resume. …Changes to U.S. laws and regulations discouraging labor force participation in Puerto Rico, such as the high minimum wage and easier eligibility for Social Security disability benefits for Spanish speakers, would also help greatly. And most importantly, Puerto Rico’s lingering pension crisis must be solved, both because of its fiscal significance and because it illustrates the lack of political courage and imagination by the government and the oversight board. …economic activity in Puerto Rico is now so severely depressed by a heavy government presence."
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Climate change: Fitting an Elephant
From Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com.
Climate alarmists are not credible. Also see Henrik Svensmark for a more credible theory of climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------
We have all grown used to seeing graphs like the one at above from NASA, showing nearly continuous global warming over the last 135 years – with a flat period between 1940 and 1980, and 1.2C warming from 1880 through 2000.
Much of climate science, journalism and public policy is based around the belief that these NASA graphs are an accurate representation of the temperature record, and that the apparent warming which is shown in the graphs is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. It is therefore very important to understand the accuracy, consistency and integrity of these graphs.
However, if we look at earlier versions of the same graph, we see something very different. The graph below was published by NASA in 2001, and showed 1975 as barely warmer than 1880 – with less than 0.6C warming from 1880 to 2000. The 2001 version showed only half as much warming from 1880 to 2000 as the 2016 version of the same graph above.
The recent increase of 0.6C in NASA’s reported warming over the 1880-2000 time period, is particularly troubling because the recent alterations extend far outside of their own error bars. The graph at right shows the 2001 version and the 2016 versions at the same scale, normalized to the most recent common decade. The blue lines represent the 2001 error bars, and the green lines represent the 2016 error bars. Note how the alterations are about three times as large as NASA’s reported error. This indicates a scientific process which is completely broken.
Climate alarmists are not credible. Also see Henrik Svensmark for a more credible theory of climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”Einstein was just joking, but that is exactly what the Climategate team has done to the surface temperature record.
- Albert Einstein
Much of climate science, journalism and public policy is based around the belief that these NASA graphs are an accurate representation of the temperature record, and that the apparent warming which is shown in the graphs is due to an increase in atmospheric CO2. It is therefore very important to understand the accuracy, consistency and integrity of these graphs.
However, if we look at earlier versions of the same graph, we see something very different. The graph below was published by NASA in 2001, and showed 1975 as barely warmer than 1880 – with less than 0.6C warming from 1880 to 2000. The 2001 version showed only half as much warming from 1880 to 2000 as the 2016 version of the same graph above.
The recent increase of 0.6C in NASA’s reported warming over the 1880-2000 time period, is particularly troubling because the recent alterations extend far outside of their own error bars. The graph at right shows the 2001 version and the 2016 versions at the same scale, normalized to the most recent common decade. The blue lines represent the 2001 error bars, and the green lines represent the 2016 error bars. Note how the alterations are about three times as large as NASA’s reported error. This indicates a scientific process which is completely broken.
The graph below shows the changes which have been made to the NASA 1880-2000 temperature trend since 2001, a total of more than half a degree. The alterations have been almost as large as the entire trend reported in 2001, indicating a signal to noise ratio of close to zero. In other words, the NASA temperature graph is meaningless from a scientific point of view.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Walter Williams: Our Broken Moral Compasses
Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
During the Cold War, academic leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. Worse is the fact that they exempted communist leaders from the type of harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China’s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.
On college campuses, the same sort of equivalency is made between capitalism and communism, but if one looks at the real world, there’s a stark difference. Just ask yourself: In which societies is the average citizen richer — societies toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum or those toward the communist end? In which societies do ordinary citizens have their human rights protected the most — those toward the capitalist end or those toward the communist end? Finally, which societies do people around the world flee from — capitalist or communist? And where do they flee to — capitalist or communist societies?
More recent nonsense taught on college campuses, under the name of multiculturalism, is that one culture is as good as another. Identity worship, diversity and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturalist and diversity crowd seems to suggest that race or sex is an achievement. That’s just plain nonsense. In my book, race or sex might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, if a person were born a white male and through his effort and diligence became a black female.
Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based upon those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities. Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.
Then there’s the issue of campus rape and sexual assault. Before addressing that, let me ask you a question. Do I have a right to place my wallet on the roof of my car, go into my house, have lunch, take a nap and return to my car and find my wallet just where I placed it? I think I have every right to do so, but the real question is whether it would be a wise decision. Some college women get stoned, use foul language and dance suggestively. I think they have a right to behave that way and not be raped or sexually assaulted. But just as in the example of my placing my wallet on the roof of my car, I’d ask whether it is wise behavior.
Many of our problems, both at our institutions of higher learning and in the nation at large, stem from the fact that we’ve lost our moral compasses and there’s not a lot of interest in reclaiming them. As a matter of fact, most people don’t see our major problems as having anything to do with morality.
As usual, WW is on target. Here is his column.
--------------------------------------------------
As George Orwell said, “some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” Many stupid ideas originate with academics on college campuses. If they remained there and didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment, much in the way a circus is. Let’s look at a few stupid ideas peddled by intellectuals.During the Cold War, academic leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. Worse is the fact that they exempted communist leaders from the type of harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China’s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.
On college campuses, the same sort of equivalency is made between capitalism and communism, but if one looks at the real world, there’s a stark difference. Just ask yourself: In which societies is the average citizen richer — societies toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum or those toward the communist end? In which societies do ordinary citizens have their human rights protected the most — those toward the capitalist end or those toward the communist end? Finally, which societies do people around the world flee from — capitalist or communist? And where do they flee to — capitalist or communist societies?
More recent nonsense taught on college campuses, under the name of multiculturalism, is that one culture is as good as another. Identity worship, diversity and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturalist and diversity crowd seems to suggest that race or sex is an achievement. That’s just plain nonsense. In my book, race or sex might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, if a person were born a white male and through his effort and diligence became a black female.
Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based upon those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities. Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.
Then there’s the issue of campus rape and sexual assault. Before addressing that, let me ask you a question. Do I have a right to place my wallet on the roof of my car, go into my house, have lunch, take a nap and return to my car and find my wallet just where I placed it? I think I have every right to do so, but the real question is whether it would be a wise decision. Some college women get stoned, use foul language and dance suggestively. I think they have a right to behave that way and not be raped or sexually assaulted. But just as in the example of my placing my wallet on the roof of my car, I’d ask whether it is wise behavior.
Many of our problems, both at our institutions of higher learning and in the nation at large, stem from the fact that we’ve lost our moral compasses and there’s not a lot of interest in reclaiming them. As a matter of fact, most people don’t see our major problems as having anything to do with morality.
Monday, October 09, 2017
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change
The climate alarmists are very confident that they are right. Not likely.
HENRIK SVENSMARK: COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS ANNO 2016
Date: 30/10/16
Henrik Svensmark, DTU Space, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark
This type of numerical modeling is by no means new, and neither is the result that ions in these models apparently do not affect cloud formation. We have known this for about 7 years. For example the CLOUD results, with respect to cosmic rays and clouds, are very similar to the conclusions of Pierce and Adams from 2009 [2] where they also use a numerical model to grow small nucleated aerosols to CCN, and also find only a small change in CCN as a function of ion changes. In fact this result has been found a number of times in similar models. The argument for the lack of response to ions is the following: In the presence of ions additional small aerosols are formed, but with an increase in the number of aerosols, there is less gas to each particle, and they therefore grow slower. This means that the probability of being lost to larger particles increases, and fewer survive.
So why, in contrast to the above, do I think that the cosmic rays cloud idea is still viable? The reason is that we have tried to answer the same question (do ion-nucleated aerosols grow to CCN) without using models — and get very different results.
In 2012 we tested the growth of nucleated aerosols to CCN in our laboratory and found that when no ions were present the response to increased nucleation was severely damped, in accordance with the above mentioned models; but with ions present, all the extra nucleated particles grew to CCN sizes, in contrast to the numerical model results [3]. Now it may be that the conditions we have in the experiment are not as in the real atmosphere. There are complex processes in the real atmosphere that that we cannot include, whose effect may change the experimental result, as we have been told many times.
It is therefore fortunate that our Sun makes natural experiments with the whole Earth. On rare occasions “explosions” on the Sun called coronal mass ejections, results in a plasma cloud passing the Earth, with the effect that cosmic rays flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and are ideal to test the link between cosmic rays and clouds. Finding the strongest Forbush decreases and using 3 independent cloud satellite data sets (ISCCP, MODIS, and SSM/I) and one dataset for aerosols (AERONET), we clearly see a response to Forbush decreases. These results suggest that the whole chain from solar activity, to cosmic rays, to aerosols (CCN), to clouds, is active in the Earths atmosphere. From the MODIS data we even see that the cloud microphysics is changing according to expectations.
Figure 1 display the superposed signal in clouds (blue curve), based on the above three satellite datasets, in the days following the minimum in cosmic rays of the 5 strongest Forbush decreases (red curve). The delay in the minimum of the two curves is due to the time it takes aerosols to grow into CCN. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the significance of the signal, and none of 104 random realizations gave a signal of similar size. Please see our latest paper from 2016 for further evidence [4].
Figure 1: Statistical common disturbance in clouds (1 Principal component) based on three cloud satellite data sets (ISCCP, MODIS and SSM/I) superposed for the five strongest Forbush decreases (blue) curve. Red curve is the change in (%) of cosmic rays superposed for the same five events. The thin lines are 1-3 standard deviations. Adapted from [4].
Finally, there are a large number of studies showing that past climate changes are closely correlated to variations in cosmic rays. For example, the energy that goes into the oceans over 11 years solar cycle is of the order 1-1.5 W/m2, which is 5-7 times too large to be explained by solar irradiance variations [5]. Therefore something is amplifying the solar cycle, and “cosmic rays and clouds” is a good candidate to explain the observed forcing.
In conclusion, observations and experiments go against the above mentioned numerical model result. As I see it, something is missing in the prevailing theory. A solution to this problem is still worth pursuing.
References
[1] E. M. Dunne et al., Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, (2016), DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2649
[2] J. R. Pierce, P. J. Adams, Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L09820 (2009).
[3] H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, and J. O. P. Pedersen, Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation, Physics Letters A, 377, 2343–2347, (2012). https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/CCN_Svensmark_PhysicsLettersA.pdf
[4] J. Svensmark,M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and H. Svensmark, The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases, J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 121, 8152–8181, (2016), doi:10.1002/2016JA022689. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/Forbush_long_JGR_rev3_nored.pdf
[5] N. J. Shaviv, ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing’ J. Geophys.Res., 113, 2156 (2008)
HENRIK SVENSMARK: COSMIC RAYS AND CLOUDS ANNO 2016
Date: 30/10/16
Henrik Svensmark, DTU Space, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark
Now and then new results appear that suggest that the idea of cosmic ray influence on clouds and terrestrial climate does not work. “Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN” is the latest news story which is based on a new paper from the CLOUD collaboration at CERN [1].
It is important to note that the new CLOUD paper is not presenting an experimental result, with respect to the effect of cosmic ray generated ions on clouds, but a result of numerical modeling. CLOUD is using their experimental measurements to estimate the typical nucleation of various aerosols of small size (1-3 nm). However, for an aerosol to affect clouds (and climate) it must first grow to 50-100 nm, to become cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). CLOUD then uses a numerical model to estimate the effect of cosmic rays on the growth process, and finds that the response of cosmic rays on the number of CCN over a solar cycle is insignificant.
This type of numerical modeling is by no means new, and neither is the result that ions in these models apparently do not affect cloud formation. We have known this for about 7 years. For example the CLOUD results, with respect to cosmic rays and clouds, are very similar to the conclusions of Pierce and Adams from 2009 [2] where they also use a numerical model to grow small nucleated aerosols to CCN, and also find only a small change in CCN as a function of ion changes. In fact this result has been found a number of times in similar models. The argument for the lack of response to ions is the following: In the presence of ions additional small aerosols are formed, but with an increase in the number of aerosols, there is less gas to each particle, and they therefore grow slower. This means that the probability of being lost to larger particles increases, and fewer survive.
So why, in contrast to the above, do I think that the cosmic rays cloud idea is still viable? The reason is that we have tried to answer the same question (do ion-nucleated aerosols grow to CCN) without using models — and get very different results.
In 2012 we tested the growth of nucleated aerosols to CCN in our laboratory and found that when no ions were present the response to increased nucleation was severely damped, in accordance with the above mentioned models; but with ions present, all the extra nucleated particles grew to CCN sizes, in contrast to the numerical model results [3]. Now it may be that the conditions we have in the experiment are not as in the real atmosphere. There are complex processes in the real atmosphere that that we cannot include, whose effect may change the experimental result, as we have been told many times.
It is therefore fortunate that our Sun makes natural experiments with the whole Earth. On rare occasions “explosions” on the Sun called coronal mass ejections, results in a plasma cloud passing the Earth, with the effect that cosmic rays flux decreases suddenly and stays low for a week or two. Such events, with a significant reduction in the cosmic rays flux, are called Forbush decreases, and are ideal to test the link between cosmic rays and clouds. Finding the strongest Forbush decreases and using 3 independent cloud satellite data sets (ISCCP, MODIS, and SSM/I) and one dataset for aerosols (AERONET), we clearly see a response to Forbush decreases. These results suggest that the whole chain from solar activity, to cosmic rays, to aerosols (CCN), to clouds, is active in the Earths atmosphere. From the MODIS data we even see that the cloud microphysics is changing according to expectations.
Figure 1 display the superposed signal in clouds (blue curve), based on the above three satellite datasets, in the days following the minimum in cosmic rays of the 5 strongest Forbush decreases (red curve). The delay in the minimum of the two curves is due to the time it takes aerosols to grow into CCN. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the significance of the signal, and none of 104 random realizations gave a signal of similar size. Please see our latest paper from 2016 for further evidence [4].
Finally, there are a large number of studies showing that past climate changes are closely correlated to variations in cosmic rays. For example, the energy that goes into the oceans over 11 years solar cycle is of the order 1-1.5 W/m2, which is 5-7 times too large to be explained by solar irradiance variations [5]. Therefore something is amplifying the solar cycle, and “cosmic rays and clouds” is a good candidate to explain the observed forcing.
In conclusion, observations and experiments go against the above mentioned numerical model result. As I see it, something is missing in the prevailing theory. A solution to this problem is still worth pursuing.
References
[1] E. M. Dunne et al., Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements, (2016), DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2649
[2] J. R. Pierce, P. J. Adams, Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L09820 (2009).
[3] H. Svensmark, M. B. Enghoff, and J. O. P. Pedersen, Response of Cloud Condensation Nuclei (> 50 nm) to changes in ion-nucleation, Physics Letters A, 377, 2343–2347, (2012). https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/CCN_Svensmark_PhysicsLettersA.pdf
[4] J. Svensmark,M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and H. Svensmark, The response of clouds and aerosols to cosmic ray decreases, J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 121, 8152–8181, (2016), doi:10.1002/2016JA022689. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/Forbush_long_JGR_rev3_nored.pdf
[5] N. J. Shaviv, ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing’ J. Geophys.Res., 113, 2156 (2008)
Saturday, October 07, 2017
John Cochrane on Taxes
Here is John Cochrane's Wall Street Journal oped.
JC is on target.
-------------------------------------------
Soon the Trump administration and congressional leaders will unveil their tax-reform proposal. Reports indicate the proposal will include some reductions in corporate and personal rates and the end of some tax deductions. But true reform is likely to be stymied by the usual interests, by those who see the tax code primarily as a way to transfer income to or from favored or disfavored groups, and by politicians who dole out deductions, exemptions and subsidies to supporters.
So if the process stays its normal course, don’t expect the complex and dysfunctional U.S. tax code to change much. But if our leaders were to attempt a really fundamental reform, they could break the political logjam. Changes must be simple, understandable and attractive to voters. And only fundamental reform paired with deregulation can hope to raise economic growth to 3% or more.
The best way to do this is to eliminate entirely the personal and corporate income tax, estate tax and all other federal taxes, and to implement instead a national value-added tax—essentially a national sales tax.
Much of the current tax mess results from taxing income. Once the government taxes income, it must tax corporate income or people would incorporate to avoid paying taxes. Yet the right corporate tax rate is zero. Every cent of corporate tax comes from people via higher prices, lower wages, or lower payments to shareholders. And a corporate tax produces an army of lawyers and lobbyists demanding exemptions.
An income tax also leads to taxes on capital income. Capital income taxes discourage saving and investment. But the government is forced to tax capital income because otherwise people can hide wages by getting paid in stock options or “carried interest.”
The estate tax can take close to half a marginal dollar of wealth. This creates a strong incentive to blow the family money on a round-the-world cruise, to spend lavishly on lawyers, or to invest inefficiently to avoid the tax.
Today’s tax code tries to limit this damage with a welter of complex shelters: 401(k), 526(b), IRA, HSA, deductions for corporate investment, and complex real-estate and estate-tax shelters. Taxing something and then offering complex shelters is a sure sign of pathology. But by taxing cars, houses and boats when people or companies buy them, all this complexity can be thrown out. With a VAT, money coming from every source—wages, dividends, capital gains, inheritances, stock options and carried interest—is taxed when it’s spent.
A reformed tax code should involve no deductions—including the holy trinity of mortgage interest, employer-provided health insurance, and charitable deductions. The interest groups for each of these deductions are strong. But if the government doesn’t tax income in the first place, these deductions vanish without a fight.
In these and other ways, if Congress and the president drop the income tax in favor of a VAT, or another simple consumption tax, they can break the political logjam and achieve a dramatic pro-growth reform.
It is essential that the VAT be uniform, and it is best to carve that in stone at the outset. Trying to transfer income or subsidize people and businesses by charging different rates for different goods or organizations will again muck up the tax system. And it is essential that the VAT replace rather than add to the current tax system, as it does in Europe.
What about progressivity? It is easy to make a value-added tax progressive: In place of current exemptions, send everyone a $10,000 check. Or people could receive a refund according to how much they spend, similar to income-tax refunds. Taxpayers could get a full refund for the first $10,000, half for the next $10,000, and so forth. Electronic record-keeping makes this straightforward—it’s just a big debit or credit card reward—and everyone would have an incentive to report purchases rather than to hide income.
But the chaos in U.S. income redistribution is as great as the anarchy in the tax code. Tax discussions fall apart because the redistributive influence of each change is assessed in isolation. By measuring how the tax and transfer system work together, politicians could get better taxes and more effective redistribution.
The U.S. also needs an integrated social-insurance program: Send checks to needy people, yes, but also monitor the amount they get from all government sources, including college financial aid, health insurance, energy assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, farm programs, housing and so on. Even without reforming the programs, it is necessary at least to measure their total effect to calibrate accurately any tax-based redistribution.
What about the tax rate? Well, if the federal government is going to spend 20% of gross domestic product, the VAT will sooner or later have to be about 20%. Tax reform is stymied because politicians mix arguments over the rates with arguments over the structure of taxes. This is a mistake. They should first agree to fix the structure of the tax code, and later argue about rates—and the spending those rates must support.
Is all of this unrealistic? No. Sometimes when little steps are impossible, big jumps are feasible. It is unrealistic to think that tweaks to the current system will produce a big change from the status quo.
Now is the time. If American democracy cannot fix this tax code, economic stagnation and debt crisis or massive spending cuts await.
JC is on target.
-------------------------------------------
Soon the Trump administration and congressional leaders will unveil their tax-reform proposal. Reports indicate the proposal will include some reductions in corporate and personal rates and the end of some tax deductions. But true reform is likely to be stymied by the usual interests, by those who see the tax code primarily as a way to transfer income to or from favored or disfavored groups, and by politicians who dole out deductions, exemptions and subsidies to supporters.
So if the process stays its normal course, don’t expect the complex and dysfunctional U.S. tax code to change much. But if our leaders were to attempt a really fundamental reform, they could break the political logjam. Changes must be simple, understandable and attractive to voters. And only fundamental reform paired with deregulation can hope to raise economic growth to 3% or more.
The best way to do this is to eliminate entirely the personal and corporate income tax, estate tax and all other federal taxes, and to implement instead a national value-added tax—essentially a national sales tax.
Much of the current tax mess results from taxing income. Once the government taxes income, it must tax corporate income or people would incorporate to avoid paying taxes. Yet the right corporate tax rate is zero. Every cent of corporate tax comes from people via higher prices, lower wages, or lower payments to shareholders. And a corporate tax produces an army of lawyers and lobbyists demanding exemptions.
An income tax also leads to taxes on capital income. Capital income taxes discourage saving and investment. But the government is forced to tax capital income because otherwise people can hide wages by getting paid in stock options or “carried interest.”
The estate tax can take close to half a marginal dollar of wealth. This creates a strong incentive to blow the family money on a round-the-world cruise, to spend lavishly on lawyers, or to invest inefficiently to avoid the tax.
Today’s tax code tries to limit this damage with a welter of complex shelters: 401(k), 526(b), IRA, HSA, deductions for corporate investment, and complex real-estate and estate-tax shelters. Taxing something and then offering complex shelters is a sure sign of pathology. But by taxing cars, houses and boats when people or companies buy them, all this complexity can be thrown out. With a VAT, money coming from every source—wages, dividends, capital gains, inheritances, stock options and carried interest—is taxed when it’s spent.
A reformed tax code should involve no deductions—including the holy trinity of mortgage interest, employer-provided health insurance, and charitable deductions. The interest groups for each of these deductions are strong. But if the government doesn’t tax income in the first place, these deductions vanish without a fight.
In these and other ways, if Congress and the president drop the income tax in favor of a VAT, or another simple consumption tax, they can break the political logjam and achieve a dramatic pro-growth reform.
It is essential that the VAT be uniform, and it is best to carve that in stone at the outset. Trying to transfer income or subsidize people and businesses by charging different rates for different goods or organizations will again muck up the tax system. And it is essential that the VAT replace rather than add to the current tax system, as it does in Europe.
What about progressivity? It is easy to make a value-added tax progressive: In place of current exemptions, send everyone a $10,000 check. Or people could receive a refund according to how much they spend, similar to income-tax refunds. Taxpayers could get a full refund for the first $10,000, half for the next $10,000, and so forth. Electronic record-keeping makes this straightforward—it’s just a big debit or credit card reward—and everyone would have an incentive to report purchases rather than to hide income.
But the chaos in U.S. income redistribution is as great as the anarchy in the tax code. Tax discussions fall apart because the redistributive influence of each change is assessed in isolation. By measuring how the tax and transfer system work together, politicians could get better taxes and more effective redistribution.
The U.S. also needs an integrated social-insurance program: Send checks to needy people, yes, but also monitor the amount they get from all government sources, including college financial aid, health insurance, energy assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, farm programs, housing and so on. Even without reforming the programs, it is necessary at least to measure their total effect to calibrate accurately any tax-based redistribution.
What about the tax rate? Well, if the federal government is going to spend 20% of gross domestic product, the VAT will sooner or later have to be about 20%. Tax reform is stymied because politicians mix arguments over the rates with arguments over the structure of taxes. This is a mistake. They should first agree to fix the structure of the tax code, and later argue about rates—and the spending those rates must support.
Is all of this unrealistic? No. Sometimes when little steps are impossible, big jumps are feasible. It is unrealistic to think that tweaks to the current system will produce a big change from the status quo.
Now is the time. If American democracy cannot fix this tax code, economic stagnation and debt crisis or massive spending cuts await.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)