Category Archives: ethics

Voting as a Teaching Tool

Posted on by
Reply

The Boston City Council has approved a petition to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in city elections. The city council’s next move is to submit its petition to the Massachusetts legislature for enactment. It’s the council’s rationalization for the move that’s instructive.

Progressive members of the City Council argued that lowering the voting age would help young people build a habit of voting and make them more likely to continue being politically engaged later in life.

And this:

When it comes to making a decision as to who’s going to represent them [16- and 17-year-olds], that has been denied to them.

This, especially, is egregiously misleading. Those children have parents representing them. Those parents vote. Those parents are the source of instruction.

Never mind, though. Voting isn’t important in choosing our political leaders. Nobody teaches American history in grade school anymore, apparently, or Civics in junior high, or Western Civilization at any age. No, voting has no importance beyond teaching children a measure of responsibility, because schools also seem to lack any other tools for teaching them ethics (Aristotle, anyone?) or morality (Aesop, or religion, maybe?).

Sure.

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) has his gun control panties all knotted up because lots of county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce intrinsically unconstitutional gun control laws.

I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws[.]

I’ve addressed whether local and county jurisdictions should accept State funding for this or that purpose or whether they, instead, should decline the funds and free themselves from higher government’s controlling strings.

At the national level, Murphy’s terms are acceptable.

Child Tax Credit

Posted on by
Reply

And other tax credits. Scott Hodge was one of the developers of the Child Tax Credit more than 25 years ago, and today he thinks the idea—well intended as it was—turns out to be bad tax and social policy (did I hear a sotto voce “unintended consequences?”).

His Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed went into detail on how the child tax credit, along with the subsequent proliferation of tax credits, turned out to be heavily counterproductive, reducing family prosperity through reducing the number of workers—who are family members—in the work force and thereby reducing overall GDP.

But the kicker of his piece was his closer.

No wonder the IRS is dysfunctional—it’s not equipped to be a social-service agency.
The “put money in people’s pockets” approach of the child tax credit might have been good politics, but 25 years’ experience shows it was bad policy. The country needs a tax agenda that promotes growth and opportunity, not handouts and redistribution.

Indeed.

The best tax agenda for growth and opportunity promotion begins with taking our tax code, and so the IRS, out of the social engineering milieu altogether. Tax collections should be limited (at the Federal level at least; although State tax codes would benefit from similar changes) to the Constitutionally mandated purposes of pay[ing] the Debts and provid[ing] for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Keeping in mind, too, that the general Welfare of the United States is itself limited to the items enumerated in our Constitution’s Article I, Section 8.

That tax agenda concludes with enacting a tax code that eliminates business income taxes altogether (keeping in mind that it’s the business’ customers who pay the lion’s share of those taxes, anyway, in the form of higher prices, while the rest of us pay in the form of reduced innovation and fewer jobs). That adjustment needs to go along with setting a single flat tax rate on all personal income from any source, with no deductions, credits, subsidies, surcharges, or any of the other froo-froo currently extant in our existing byzantine and mendacious tax code.

Whose Choice Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

And whose property is it?

A new law being seriously considered by lawmakers in New York City could strip landlords of the ability to perform criminal background checks on prospective tenants.

Because landlords shouldn’t be able to control who rents their property, shouldn’t be able to protect the interests of their existing tenants—who have, by dint of their rent agreements, have some property of their own in the landlord’s buildings.

This law means it’s city government property; landlords possess the buildings only in fee from the city lords.

Republican Councilwoman Inna Vernikov has the right of it:

A bill which would prohibit landlords from conducting criminal background checks of potential tenants. Murdered someone? Beat up your girlfriend? Robbed? Stabbed your neighbor? No problem. Come live among us!

Certainly felons, even violent felons, shouldn’t be blanketly denied a second chance, shouldn’t be blanketly denied an opportunity to demonstrate that they’ve rehabilitated themselves, shouldn’t be blanketly denied an opportunity at redemption.

But that should be the choice of the property owner, the landlord; it cannot be, legitimately, a choice forced upon the property owner, in a one-size-fits-all diktat by the Lords of the city.

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported to Congress at the end of October that

for the first time in its history [SIGAR was] unable this quarter to provide Congress and the American people with a full accounting of this US government spending [in Afghanistan] due to the noncooperation of several US government agencies.
The United States Agency for International Development, which administers the majority of US government spending for Afghanistan, and the Treasury Department refused to cooperate with SIGAR in any capacity while the State Department was selective in the information it provided pursuant to SIGAR’s audit and quarterly data requests.

These refusals directly violate current law regarding fund expenditure reporting requirements and are yet further examples of the disdain for inconvenient law held by members and supporters of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Maybe it’s time to defund entirely the USAID and to drastically reduce funding for Treasury and State. That would significantly reduce the amount of government spending that would go unreported.

It’ll be difficult and noisy to do, though, since the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians controlling the Senate and White House agree that this badly needed information should be covered up.