Archive for October, 2009
Sound Money Essay Contest
Our friends at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation are offering prizes for the best essays on sound money by students and young faculty and policy analysts:
The Atlas Economic Research Foundation invites you to participate in its Sound Money Essay Contest, which has a deadline of November 24th, 2009.
The contest is open to students, young faculty, and policy writers who are interested in the cause of sound money. It aims to engage you in thinking about sound money principles with relevance to today’s economic challenges.
The overall winner will receive a cash prize of $5000. Two additional prizes of $1000 each will be given to outstanding essays written by junior faculty, graduate students, or policy writers. And three additional prizes of $500 each will be given to outstanding essays written by undergraduate students.
Essay topics include:
· “Money and the Free Society: Can Money Exist Outside of the State?”
· “The Ethical Implications of Monetary Manipulation”
· “Monetary Policy and the Rule of Law in the United States”
To be eligible, you must be a legal resident of the U.S. or engaged as a full-time student or faculty in the U.S. You must also be no more than 35 years old on the date of the contest deadline (November 24, 2009). Atlas welcomes involvement of older and non-U.S. scholars in its discussions and ongoing work on sound money, but this essay contest is targeted to the audience described above.
For a list of reference materials and writing guidelines, please visit the Atlas website.
And for Cato research on sound money, check here.
Libertarianism on TV
I talked with Dennis McCuistion, whose interview program appears on KERA in Dallas and other public television stations, about “libertarianism and the politics of freedom.” It’s an old-fashioned public affairs program, where the host asks intelligent questions for half an hour. No shouting, no four-minute segments, a good solid conversation. Find the video here. Other McCuistion programs with such guests as Dan Mitchell, Steve Moore, and Steve Forbes can be found here.
The Improving State of New York City, circa 1800-2007
Two figures that say it all.
Death Rates (deaths per 1,000 population), New York City, c. 1800-2007. Source: NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Summary of Vital Statistics (2008). H/T to William Briggs for making me aware of this figure.
Infant Mortality Rate (deaths per 1,000 live births), New York City, 1898-2007. In 1898 IMR was estimated to be 140.9 Because of incomplete reporting of early neonatal deaths, this is almost certainly an underestimate. In 2007 IMR was 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births. Source: NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Summary of Vital Statistics (2008)
A Tax That Would Finance the Road to Serfdom
Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon are working nonstop to derail government-run health care, but they better figure out how to work more than 24 hours per day, because if they fail, it is very likely that politicians will then look for a new revenue source to finance all the new spending that inevitably will follow. Unfortunately, that means a value-added tax (VAT) will be high on the list. Indeed, the VAT recently has been discussed by powerful political figures and key Obama allies such as the Co-Chairman of his transition team and the Speaker of the House.
The VAT would be great news for the political insiders and beltway elite. A brand new source of revenue would mean more money for them to spend and a new set of loopholes to swap for campaign cash and lobbying fees. But as I explain in this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the evidence from Europe unambiguously suggests that a VAT will dramatically increase the burden of government. That’s good for Washington, but bad for America.
Even if the politicians are unsuccessful in their campaign to take over the health care system, there will be a VAT fight at some point in the next few years. This will be a Armageddon moment for proponents of limited government. Defeating a VAT is not a sufficient condition for controlling the size of government, but it surely is a necessary condition.
Tuesday Links
- How to measure the effectiveness of Obama’s stimulus plan.
- Forbes: The CBO estimate of the number of people who would stop being uninsured under the Senate Finance Committee proposal is exaggerated by at least 7 million to 10 million.
- Smoke and mirrors within the Senate Finance Committee?
- How to save democracy in Honduras.
- Video: Economist Daniel J. Mitchell discusses economic reform on CNBC.
Zero Tolerance for Difference
When both the New York Times and Fox News poke fun at a school district it’s a good guess that district has done something pretty silly. That seems to be the case in Newark, Delaware, where the Christina School District just suspended a 6-year-old boy for 45 days because he brought a dreaded knife-fork-spoon combo tool to school. District officials, in their defense, say they had no choice — the state’s “zero tolerance” law demanded the punishment.
Now, the first thing I’ll say is that I was very fortunate there were no zero-tolerance laws — at least that I knew of — when I was a kid. Like most boys, I took a pocket knife to school from time to time, and like most boys I never hurt a soul with it. (I’m pretty sure, though, that I was stabbed by a pencil at least once.) I also played a lot of games involving tackling, delivered and received countless “dead arm” punches in the shoulder, and brought in Star Wars figures armed with…brace yourself!…laser guns! I can only imagine how many suspension days I’d have received had current disciplinary regimes been in place back then.
Before completely trashing little ol’ Delaware and all the other places without tolerance, however, there is a flip side to this story: Some kids really are immediate threats to their teachers and fellow students. And as the recent stomach-wrenching violence in Chicago has vividly illustrated, there are some schools where no one is safe. In other words, there are cases and situations where zero tolerance is warranted.
So how do you balance these things? How do you have zero-tolerance for those who need it, while letting discretion and reason reign for everyone else? And how do you do that when there is no clear line dividing what is too dangerous to tolerate and what is not?
The answer is educational freedom, as it is with all of the things that diverse people are forced to fight over because they all have to support a single system of government schools! Let parents who are not especially concerned about danger, or who value freedom even if it engenders a little more risk, choose schools with discipline policies that give them what they want. Likewise, let parents who want their kids in a zero-tolerance institution do the same.
Ultimately, let parents and schools make their own decisions, and no child will be subjected to disciplinary codes with which his parents disagree; strictness will be much better correlated with the needs of individual children; and perhaps most importantly, discipline policies will make a lot more sense for everyone involved.
Twombly and Iqbal: Reality Check
In Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), the Supreme Court gave trial courts more latitude to dismiss a lawsuit at a very early stage, before the parties have had a chance to engage in discovery (the often lengthy and expensive fact-finding stage of civil litigation), if judges think the suit is not founded on “plausible” allegations of wrongdoing.
There’s a rich, angry debate about the effect the decisions will have on dismissal rates of meritorious suits in lower courts. But the consensus among academics seems to be that both decisions will trigger a sea-change in lower court practice—one deeply unfavorable to plaintiffs.
We won’t know the real effect of these decisions for many years to come. But a 2007 study by the Federal Judicial Center on the effect of a trio of similarly controversial 1986 Supreme Court decisions (known as the “Celotex trilogy”) raises questions about dire claims that Twombly or Iqbal will dramatically change lower court practice.
Federal Reserve as Cash Cow
Scheduled for consideration before the House Financial Services Committee this week is a draft bill creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
While there is a lot wrong with the bill — after all it is based on the premise that somehow consumers were tricked into not making a downpayment or re-financing thousands out of their homes, and then walking away — perhaps the most important provision, and the least discussed, is funding the agency by a transfer of cash from the Federal Reserve. Section 119 of the bill requires the Federal Reserve to transfer an amount equal to 10 percent of its expenses to the new agency’s Director.
This I believe is the first time in history that Congress is using the Federal Reserve to simply fund another agency. Why stop there, how about have the Fed just prints trillions of dollars to pay for the rest of the government? If Congress believes this agency will benefit the public, then the agency should be funded by the public, by a direct appropriations raised by taxes.
Of course after watching Ben Bernanke turn the Fed’s balance sheet into a slush fund for Wall Street, it was only going to be a matter of time before someone in Congress decided to use that slush fund for their own purposes. So much for transparency in government.
Felony Franks
The Wall Street Journal has an article today about a small businessman in Chicago, James Andrews. Mr. Andrews started a hot-dog stand and hired ex-convicts as employees. The name “Felony Franks,” came to him and he thought it was catchy. Since it was his business, Mr. Andrews didn’t think twice about the name. Enter Chicago Alderman Robert Fioretti. The alderman doesn’t like the name and will not “permit” Mr. Andrews to set up signs to attract more customers. (Btw, How many people like the name Robert Fioretti anyway? Maybe it should be changed to … eh, never mind) Neighborhood “activists” are also setting up meetings to discuss the hot-dog business and the “exploitation” of the workers. Kevin Jones, 42, an employee at Felony Franks, tells the reporter he does not feel exploited, “Working here allows me to provide for myself and my family.”
What a farcical situation. First, the politicians manufacture scores of felons. Next, the pols have their own ideas on how to “help” the ex-cons return to civil society. Those ideas entail spending taxpayer money.
What’s Wrong With Being A Renter?
A recent New York Times piece focusing on the financial health of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), offered a couple of examples of borrowers who would not have gotten mortgages, but for FHA’s low downpayment and underwriting requirements.
Take for instance a Ms. Shimon, mentioned in the piece. If she had to come up with a larger than 3.5 percent downpayment, she “would still be a renter,” in the words of the New York Times. Yes, my reaction was probably the same as yours; no, not that, not a renter, anything but being a renter. I am trying to remember at what point in our history did being a renter become a social stigma, or some sort of disease to be cured? Of course, the article does not explain why it would be bad if Ms. Shimon had stayed a renter, because apparently the New York Times assumes all decent, upstanding people own their own homes.
Now yes, there are dozens of academic studies that show owning your own home is associated with being a better citizen, better educational and health outcomes for your children, and greater savings on the part of owners. But it is important to remember that none of these studies show that homeownership causes these outcomes, just that on average, homeownership is associated with these outcomes. More importantly, the marginal homeowner, who would not have bought a home without some sort of subsidy, is likely to be quite different than the average homeowner.
Some, like my home-building friends, might justify ever-expanding homeownership because it creates construction jobs. But so does building apartments. If we had a shortage of apartments, then maybe encouraging people to buy homes would relieve pressure on the rental market. But the glut of apartments is almost as big as the glut in homes. Rental vacancy rates are near historic highs in much of the country. Even with declining home prices, in many places it still makes more financial sense to rent.
The federal government’s obsession with homeownership was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis. It is time we recognized renting as a viable option for many households, and starting treating renters as if they were as equal citizens as anyone else.
Three Irrefutable Facts About the Baucus Bill
The Senate Finance Committee votes today on Senator Max Baucus’ version of the health care bill. Cato health care experts have analyzed the bill thoroughly, and point out three vital components to the cost and reach of the legislation:
1) The real cost of the bill is in excess of $2 trillion.
Chairman Max Baucus hoodwinked the CBO with a number of clever budgetary gimmicks, most notably by keeping about half of the cost off the federal books. The bill also assumes Congress will make cuts to Medicare payments, which has never once happened before.
2) The bill contains an enormous middle-class tax hike.
The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families will find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.
3) The bill creates a national ID program.
The bill contains a paragraph explicitly addressing “eligibility verification.” You must prove who you are to federal entitlement agencies in order to qualify for the bill’s “state exchanges” and tax credits. No ID, no benefits.
New at Cato Unbound: Will Wilkinson Discusses Inequality and Justice
American income inequality is rising, we are told. By some measures, this is true — but what should we do about it? In this month’s Cato Unbound, Will Wilkinson discusses the politics of inequality. He asks a question that in my (perhaps biased) opinion deserves more attention: If income inequality is bad, and if it’s rising, why is income redistribution the answer? Shouldn’t we correct the underlying problem, rather than just one of its symptoms?
This underlying problem could be anything from high imprisonment rates, to inadequate schools, to corrupt CEOs — or a combination of these and other factors. It may be harder to fix these things than it would be to tax the rich more heavily. But correcting income inequality with redistribution may only mask an underlying injustice, or several of them, each with other bad effects on our society.
All through this week, we will have response essays by thoughtful commentators — sociologist Lane Kenworthy, economist John V. C. Nye, and philosopher Elizabeth Anderson. Be sure to stop by and see what they have to say about inequality in America, why it matters, and what we should do about it.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
