Category Archives: ethics

Another Alternative

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in an earlier WSJ Letters section took issue with Allysia Finley’s op-ed in which Finley favored removing sugary foods from SNAP eligibility, characterizing Finley’s position with typical Leftist exaggeration:

[U]nder Ms Finley’s principle it would be appropriate for the government to withhold such benefits for given people unless they adhere to government diktats on such lifestyle choices as individual diets, exercise habits and so forth….

In Wednesday’s Letters section, another letter writer responded:

[T]hose who support taking sugary treats off the SNAP menu aren’t suggesting that the government monitor lifestyle choices—they’re simply encouraging the government to restrict harmful foods from the program. … Given that taxpayers are paying for that food, this would help fulfill the government’s fiduciary responsibility to manage taxpayers’ money wisely in another way: the policy would also minimize food-stamp recipients’ healthcare bills, for which taxpayers are also paying.

She’s absolutely right on this. There is, though, another alternative to the earlier letter writer’s exaggeration: if a citizen doesn’t want to have to adhere to government diktats, the citizen shouldn’t take the government’s schilling in the first place. This choice often involves hard, uncomfortable tradeoffs, but in the vast majority of cases, they’re entirely possible while in the medium- and longer-run being beneficial.

A Thought Experiment

Posted on by
Reply

Our so-called “elite” universities are banding together to form a collective to resist the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold grants and contracts from those institutions that aren’t doing enough to combat antisemitic bigotry and support for terrorists, reporting what foreign money they’re receiving and in what amounts, and adequately limiting the numbers of foreign students and faculty to suit the administration.

The collective is centering its resistance on the premise that Government doesn’t get to dictate to them what their practices might be, never minding that all donors get to specify how their donations are used.

What this collective is missing is that colleges and universities have no particular right to government funds, and that government has no particular obligation to send money to colleges and universities.

Hence my thought experiment.

Consider that a large collection of private citizens get together and say to a college or university, “You can’t have any more of our money unless and until you stop doing these things and start doing these other things.”

What legal recourse would that college or university, or any collection of colleges and universities similarly addressed, have against that collection of private citizens? How is their private collective action any different from their collective action through their government? It is, after all, the same money, whether their private money given or withheld directly or their private money washed through government as tax remittances.

Finally

Posted on by
Reply

HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr, is moving to remove the Wuhan Virus vaccines from the CDC’s list of vaccines recommended for children.

Finally. Regardless of what anyone—expert or not—thinks of the efficacy of the vaccines or of their side effects, the simple fact is that children, 16 years old, or so, and younger, almost never got infected by this virus, and that number drew even closer to zero as the age dropped.

There never was a need for the vaccine for children, and injecting anything into kids who don’t need it is monumentally stupid, to say nothing about the dangers involved.

Harvard Doesn’t Need the Money

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal money transfers in the form of grants and contracts, that is.

Some thoughts on the matter:

The school’s fundraising machinery has swung into gear, sending several email blasts to alumni seeking gifts during what one solicitation called “a critical moment,” and many donors say they are stepping up their efforts.
At the same time, school leaders including President Alan Garber are focusing on conversations with the school’s heaviest-hitting donors as they seek to offset the Trump administration’s $2.26 billion federal funding freeze, according to people familiar with the efforts.

To the extent these efforts are successful, and early indications are that they are succeeding, this strongly suggests that Harvard has no intrinsic need of Federal—us taxpayers’—dollars. That’s eliding the more than $53 billion endowment with its 9.6% return on investment and roughly 5% year-on-year growth, net of disbursements from the endowment.

Some big donors…said Harvard, and not the federal government, should steer the school’s operations and priorities.

That, by itself is entirely true. However, just as private donors get to call the shots on how their donations must be used by the school, so it is with Federal dollars: the government gets to specify how its transfers are used by the school. Even more, just as those private donors have no intrinsic obligation to donate at all, so it is with the government—it has no obligation at all, intrinsic or otherwise, to send any money at all to the school.

Harvard can operate entirely freely if it does not accept Federal dollars, and Harvard has no obligation, intrinsic or otherwise, to accept those dollars.

Little donors illustrate another reason for donating to Harvard. Lawyer Jim Ehrman:

…I am convincing myself that I am making a statement in support of Harvard’s “No” to Trump.

This has nothing to do with the legitimacy, or lack, of the Federal government continuing to fiscally support, with its funding transfers, the school’s antisemitic bigotry and support for terrorist-supporters on its campus. This is, instead, centered on knee-jerk Never Trumpism.

Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican caucuses in the Senate and House are considering restrict[ing] the [provider] taxes’ use to finance state Medicaid contributions entirely, which would have the effect of putting more of a State’s expenditures under Medicaid on the State itself: overall, the restriction would save the Federal government—which is us taxpaying citizens writ nationwide—some $600 billion over 10 years.

There are objections, of course, by those whose money tree would be severely pruned. Ryan Cross, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System’s Government Affairs VP:

If you end provider taxes, you’re going to shift that burden to the state, either harming Medicaid patients and healthcare-provider reimbursement, or leading to higher state and local taxes[.]

This is disingenuous. Any harm done Medicaid patients, who as citizens of their State are the responsibility of that State, and of healthcare providers, who as operators in that State also are the responsibility of that State, is done by that State through its own decisions regarding the tax remittals of that State’s own citizens. Regarding those decisions, it apparently is inconceivable to Cross and the rest of the Leftists that the State could reallocate its spending to cover the costs rather than just knee-jerk and willy-nilly raise its taxes.

These are $600 billion dollars for which us taxpaying citizens of our nation have better use.