Monthly Archives: November 2011

Texas Redistricting

Posted on by
Reply

As a result of the 2010 census, Texas picked up four additional Congressional districts, four House of Representatives seats in the Federal Congress.  Pursuant to this, the Texas legislature redrew the existing district map to create those four additional districts.

Of course, someone’s ox is going to be gored by such a remapping, and Texas was sued in Federal court as some groups were unhappy that they hadn’t been favored enough by the new map.

Here’s where it gets interesting.  The primary reason the Federal government has any say at all over how a State sets is Congressional districts is carried in the Voting Rights Act of 1965: this law gives the Federal government, in the form of its Federal courts, the authority to approve or disapprove Congressional district maps of certain enumerated States before those maps can take effect, and Texas is one of those enumerated.  However, and this is key, the purpose of that prior approval requirement is to prevent racial gerrymandering.

The District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the Texas Legislature-drawn district map and sent the case to the District Court for the San Antonio Division of the federal court system for trial.  The San Antonio federal court then proceeded to draw its own district map, which is far out of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.  This drew, correctly, a sharp reaction from Texas’ Attorney General Greg Abbott as he announced his emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to stay this Federal intrusion into a State’s internal affairs.

A court’s job is to apply the law, not to make policy.  A federal court lacks constitutional authority to interfere with the expressed will of the state Legislature unless it is compelled to remedy a specific, identifiable violation of law.

Beyond this, though, is what the San Antonio District Court did with its map.  The court’s own map would ensure minorities made up the majority in three of the additional four districts.  This is exactly the racial gerrymandering to which the Voting Rights Act authorized the Federal courts to object.

Even larger, though, is this: either we’re all Americans, each of whose vote is as valuable as the others’, or we’re not, and government-favored groups get louder, stronger votes than those disfavored by government.  It’s plain where one Federal judge’s sentiments lie.

Energy Consumption and Quality of Life

Posted on by
1

Power Line displays a graph that is one of several from an article by Oil Drum that shows a developing relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth, and it’s reproduced here:

Growth in world energy consumption

Growth in world energy consumption

This graph summarizes a series of national-level graphs and it indicates an increasingly tight coupling between energy growth and GDP growth.  As Power Line and Oil Drum point out, this has implications for any ability to reduce, at least in the near-term, dependency on CO2-based energy in our economies.  Aside from the fact that CO2-based energy has never been shown to be inherently bad—anthropogenic climate change, according to an increasingly deep and broad fossil record, seems a non-event—I want to talk about some other implications of this coupling, and I’ll do that with the explicit assumption that GDP is a good enough stand-in for the quality of life of the world’s inhabitants.

We have reached a point in the improvement of our quality of life where it’s no longer possible, for instance, merely to plant more acres in order to grow more food; it’s no longer possible merely to hire more calculator operators to do more calculations; it’s no longer possible to do more science simply by observing with the naked eye, or with crudely ground glass lenses, the world around us.  It’s no longer possible to increase our comforts in our homes simply by burning more wood in the fireplace.  We need more and better technologies.  It’s technology that produces the medicines that help us defeat yesterday’s killer diseases and will help us against today’s and tomorrow’s, it’s technology that produces and improves the computers underlying and controlling our infrastructure and personal activities, that manages the technologies that let us do the science that make our lives better and that underlie tomorrow’s technological and scientific advances that continue this spiraling cycle of improvement.

But each new advance in technology needs more energy to sustain it and it took more energy to develop it.  The increase in energy use shown in the graph isn’t driven only by population growth yielding more people to consume energy; that growth is driven by the increasing energy demands that an increasing quality of life represents.

We’re faced with a choice, then, as GDP increases and energy consumption increases become tied to each other: do we continue to develop our technologies and the energy to support them so that our GDP, our quality of life, can continue to improve, or do we say enough—this is as good as it gets, stop the improvement train?

I decline the Malthusian solution.  But to do otherwise requires more of that CO2-based energy, more of those fossil fuels.  Whatever we might think of alternative energy sources, they aren’t ready for market.  They can’t produce the energy in the amounts we need to supplement what we have, much less to replace much of it.  Not only are market prices not able to compete—and forcing them would damage our economy even more than it already is—the production efficiencies aren’t there, either.  The energy density of a solar cell doesn’t compare with the energy density of a unit of oil or gas, even if the cell will last longer than the unit of oil or gas.  Subsidizing the alternate energy sources doesn’t answer the problem, either; this merely shifts the price from the utility bill to the tax bill.

A partial answer, then, demands that we increase fossil fuel production, and this demands that the government get out of the way of this increase.  Travesties like the Keystone XL pipeline delay must be undone.  Off shore drilling must be allowed, dry-land drilling must be allowed, fracking must be allowed, and so on.  The government’s regulations that impede these must be withdrawn.  So, too must the regulations that enable frivolous environmental lawsuits and their delays be withdrawn.  For example, despite three years of environmental study for the Keystone XL project, despite the existence of 25,000 miles of oil and gas pipeline already criss-crossing the Oglala Aquifer, additional suits are permitted.  For example, a solar farm in the desert on the other side of the mountains from Los Angeles cannot deliver its green electricity to the city because environmentalists object to every plausible route along which the power lines needed to carry the electricity might run.  For example, a wind farm off the Martha’s Vineyard coast has been blocked by NIMBYers convincing the FAA to rule that the windmills would present a hazard to aviation.  Delays like these simply increase the importance of fossil fuel production.

So, too, must the subsidies, which only inflate the cost of the thing being subsidized, whether oil and gas or “green” energy, be withdrawn.

But the rest of the answer demands that we need energy from all sources.  We need the solar energy, the wind energy, the nuclear energy (and cheap fusion energy is just around the corner.  Still).  But these can’t be forced into the market before their time.  Solar energy remains roughly three times more expensive than fossil-fuel (CO2-based) energy for the consumer.  Permitting requirements can double the cost of building a nuclear power plant, and we still don’t have a place set up in which to store spent fuel—even though a suitable location has been identified.

When any other element of our infrastructure, a road or a bridge or a stretch of railroad line, for instance, has utility, then it can be sold on that basis.  Again, so it is with “green” energy.  When those sources have utility, when they are useful in the market place for the end users, then these can also be sold to us on that basis.  Neither energy source needs to hyped on the basis, for instance, of the jobs that will be created.  Those jobs will appear automatically from the need to produce to satisfy the market’s demand.

Income (In)equality and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

It is the view of some that the primary task of our government is to engage in wealth redistribution so as to tend to equalize income—to equalize the results of individual effort, regardless of the level or quality of that effort.  There are problems with this asserted purpose, though, historical, practical, and moral.

During the extended discussion of our nation’s blueprint, James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10, for instance [emphasis mine],

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.

But these differences must, inevitably, result in different degrees of wealth, and of different degrees of income on the path to the accumulation of that wealth.  This diversity, though, is not a failing, but one of the strengths of our nation, one of the things that makes us exceptional, as we’ll see shortly.

Madison added, perhaps in anticipation of today’s debates, this:

The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.

This is especially a propos in light of the present effort to use taxes explicitly to achieve that wealth redistribution, rather than let men effect their own redistribution through a free market, wherein they freely exchange their wealth among each other as they exchange their goods and services—and money—at freely agreed prices.  The inevitable outcome of these exchanges is that all participants are richer after them than they were before, since all participants, after the exchanges, have gained something of value to them that they had not had before.

This takes me to the practical aspects of the failure of government-driven wealth redistribution.  Our nation’s principles statement acknowledges that all men are created equal.  The only way a government can redistribute wealth is to take from the wealthier and give to the less wealthy—i.e., to tax some more heavily than others, and then to give the proceeds of those taxes to the those less taxed—or today, to those not taxed at all.  But consider what happens when this is done.  Those from whom the fruits of their labor are taken—of necessity, arbitrarily—will have less incentive to continue their labors, and to the extent they do continue, it will not be with their original zeal.  What would be the point?  Their compensation for their labor will only be arbitrarily reduced.  Similarly, those who receive the fruits of others’ labor without having labored to the same extent or quality (those differing faculties) will have a reduced incentive to continue trying with their original zeal: they’re going to receive from government those others’ wealth, in any event.

Yet if each is left to his original equality of opportunity, to use to the fullest his own skill, work ethic, innate ability—his own faculties—he will be free to achieve his fullest potential—and yes, that will be differing levels of income and of wealth.  But that freedom to satisfy one’s own full potential, without government interference, is a part of that exceptionality of the United States.

It’s easy to see how this has played out over the last few decades of ever more active government-driven wealth redistribution.  Taxes on the middle class have been steadily reduced, the yet lower income classes have had their taxes reduced to near nothingness (and often receive tax credits—the wealth that others have earned).  This has been balanced by ever-increasing taxes on the upper classes—the so-called rich, the “millionaires and billionaires.”  Over the years until the 2010 mid-term elections, for instance, the top 10% of income earners have seen their share of the nation’s total income tax rise from 66% to 70%, while the bottom 50% of income earners have seen their share of the nation’s total income tax fall from 4% to 3%.  Yet the recipients of this wealth redistribution are even worse off—as Progressives insist with their plaints about today’s “increasing” income and wealth disparities.  Wealth redistribution, income leveling, doesn’t work by their own offered evidence.

This brings me to my third point, the morality of income redistribution.

Again from our principles statement, we understand that among our natural, inalienable rights is each man’s right to pursue his own happiness.

Here, John Adams is instructive.

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Taking from some and giving to others denies to each their moral obligation.  One of the obligations resulting from all men being equal and all men having (an equal) right to pursue their own happiness is the obligation of each man to not be, routinely, a burden on other men either directly, or by imposing on each man’s obligation to help his fellows in their hour of need.  That hour cannot be allowed to last indefinitely.

Government-forced taking and giving denies the one the opportunity to satisfy his moral duty to see to his own happiness, and it denies the other the moral outcome of having seen to his happiness. Further, by routinely imposing on the obligation of the better off, the one imposing (or the government imposing in the one’s name) is, in effect, asserting a dominion over the one who is better off: he owes me because I exist, and he’s richer.  (And never mind that diversity of faculties that are spread across us all.)

In the end, equality of wealth, or of the income that contributed over time to the wealth, is not guarantor of individual freedom.  Indeed, this is quite the opposite: it is the destruction of freedom, since government, in ensuring greater “equality” must also ensure lesser freedoms through the necessary mandates and takings inherent in the redistribution.

Happy Thanksgiving

Posted on by
Reply

Today I thought I’d share some thoughts on the matter offered by other folks who are a bit more articulate than I.  In the meantime, be thankful for who we are and where we are: whatever straits we in which we find ourselves, we’re orders of magnitude better off than most everyone else in the world.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be — That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks — for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation — for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war — for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed — for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

-George Washington, 3 October 1789

 

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. … No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

-Abraham Lincoln, 3 October 1863

 

We are profoundly grateful for the blessings bestowed upon us: the preservation of our freedom, so dearly bought and so highly prized; our opportunities for human welfare and happiness, so limitless in their scope; our material prosperity, so far surpassing that of earlier years; and our private spiritual blessings, so deeply cherished by all. For these we offer fervent thanks to God.

-Harry S Truman, 22 November 1950

 

Perhaps no custom reveals our character as a Nation so clearly as our celebration of Thanksgiving Day. Rooted deeply in our Judeo-Christian heritage, the practice of offering thanksgiving underscores our unshakable belief in God as the foundation of our Nation and our firm reliance upon Him from Whom all blessings flow.

-Ronald W Reagan, 27 November 1986

 

This Thanksgiving, as we enjoy the company of family and friends, let us gratefully turn our hearts to God, the loving Source of all Life and Liberty. Let us seek His forgiveness for our shortcomings and transgressions and renew our determination to remain a people worthy of His continued favor and protection. Acknowledging our dependence on the Almighty, obeying His Commandments, and reaching out to help those who do not share fully in this Nation’s bounty is the most heartfelt and meaningful answer we can give to the timeless appeal of the Psalmist: ‘O give thanks to the Lord for He is good: for his steadfast love endures forever.’

-George H W Bush, 14 November 1990

And then enjoy yourselves; have plain, raw fun.  That’s not just allowed, it’s a Good in its own right.

Some More Thoughts on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

DoJ’s decision to sue yet another State, this time Utah, over a State-level effort to enforce immigration law, and thereby protect its people, gives rise to this post.  Eric Holder’s “Justice” Department, with this suit, is once again trotting out its tired beef that ” [T]he law mandates enforcement measures that can disrupt immigration practices by the federal government in the area.”  Holder claims, with a straight face, that

…a patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system.

Holder further insists without a trace of irony that under the law, individuals could potentially be harassed and wrongfully detained.  This, though, is nothing but prior restraint, which is not allowed in other legal contexts.  Holder needs to show the harassment and wrongful detention that’s actually occurred, not just speculate about an uncertain and unlikely future.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists that

This kind of legislation diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve.

Napolitano, however, is being wholly disingenuous on a number of grounds.  Illegal immigration by serious criminals—drug runners and “ordinary”  criminals, for instance—is a serious threat, and the Utah law requires proof of citizenship explicitly only on arrests for serious crimes; the police are only authorized, not required, to ask for proof of citizenship on lesser arrests.  Further, illegals aren’t part of the community; the “vital trust” meme is wholly irrelevant.  Finally, if such legislation “diverts critical law enforcement resources” from doing their jobs, then what is it, exactly, these “resources” are doing instead?

Others suggest that rather than harassing the States that are trying to protect their citizens with immigration enforcement measures, DoJ should go after the sanctuary counties and cities, which actively and illegally shelter illegal aliens.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL), for instance, suggested that

the Attorney General take a little timeout from his lawsuit against Arizona or Alabama or other states, and focus a little bit of his attention on a major jurisdiction such as Cook County that is willfully and deliberately acting to undermine federal law enforcement.

Even more egregious is that the administration has refused to take any action against states and localities that affirmatively, proactively and intentionally impede the immigration enforcement in the United States.  These jurisdictions include San Francisco County, Santa Clara County, Washington, D.C…..

Additionally, Senator Sessions noted that Napolitano had told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of October that she had not looked into the Cook County immigration policies.

What is, then, Holder’s and this administration’s federal government Immigration System?  It’s Open Borders, anyone can come in, no matter who they are, from terrorists to drug runners to general criminals to farm workers to factory workers.  There are some exceptions, though, that we do keep out.  If a potential immigrant, or a legal alien wannabe, has highly valuable technical skills, or is well-versed in IT or science or research, then join our lottery.  We’ll take the top 5; the rest can stay home and try again next year.  If a foreign student has graduated from one of our universities, and now wants to convert his student visa into a more permanent one so he can stay and work in the US, well, good for that student.  He should put a star on his calendar for his success.  But he needs to get out and go home.  We don’t have room for him.  That’s our federal government Immigration System, and that’s unacceptable.

In the meantime, all those drug runners and terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminals are left to the individual States to deal with—but without a State law to help them.