Category Archives: ethics

Obama on Israel

Posted on by
Reply

Ann Bayefsky, writing for Fox News, has some thoughts on this.

President Obama told Jewish leaders in July 2009 that he was deliberately adopting a policy of putting daylight between America and Israel.

President Obama made Israeli settlements the key stumbling block in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Starting in 2009 he chose to castigate Israel publicly, often, and in extreme terms at the General Assembly and the Security Council.

President Obama treated Israel’s Prime Minister to a series of insulting snubs during his visit to the White House in March 2010.

President Obama cut a deal with Islamic states at a May 2010 meeting of parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty…agreed to help convene a 2012 international conference intended to pivot attention towards disarming Israel….

President Obama suggested in May 2011 that Israel use the 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations—knowing full well that Israel considers those borders to be indefensible, and that agreements require the border issue to be determined by the parties themselves.

President Obama created a “global counter-terrorism forum” in September 2011 and invited eleven Muslim states to join—on the grounds that they were “on the front lines in the struggle against terrorism.”  At the insistence of Turkey, he then denied entry to Israel.

President Obama told French President Nicolas Sarkozy in November 2011—when he thought he was off-mike—that he regretted having to deal with Israel’s Prime Minister.

In August, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey said: “our clocks are ticking at different paces” and he wouldn’t be “complicit” in an Israeli effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s] words, the Iranian threat is “existential” only for Israel;  only Israel is “right in the bull’s eye.”   President Obama’s “pro-Israel” policy, therefore, is to wait past the point that the intended victim of the planned genocide believes is safe.

President Obama denied Prime Minister Netanyahu’s request to meet with him in September, despite the Iranian peril.

[O]n Monday night, at the final debate, Governor Romney answered the question he was asked about what poses the greatest threat to our national security with “a nuclear Iran,” while President Obama responded “terrorist networks.”

RTWT.

Romney’s Tax Plan and Obama’s Tax Plan

Posted on by
Reply

It’s interesting, at this juncture just after the third debate—on foreign policy—to look at the proposals the two Presidential candidates have for personal taxes and personal tax reform (yes, yesterday’s debate and tax policy have little to do with each other, but never mind about that).

The Wall Street Journal provided a description of Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s proposal.  Against a backdrop of an across the board rate cut of 20% (along with a reduction in the top business tax rate from the current 35% to 25%), Romney is proposing a cap on the total value of the deductions and credits an individual or family might take.

During the first Presidential debate, Romney proposed

What are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance?  One way, for instance, would be to have a single number.  Make up a number—$25,000, $50,000.  Anybody can have deductions up to that amount.  And then that number disappears for high-income people.

He repeated the concept in early October, suggesting a $17,000 cap with higher income people perhaps having a lower cap.

In the second debate, Romney again put forward his concept.

I’ll pick a number—$25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use.  Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.

Of course Progressives and the NLMSM want yet more specificity, and Romney declines to provide it.  In the first place, it doesn’t get much more specific than a cap—no particular deductions or credits are on the table for elimination, so there’s nothing about which to be specific there.  In the second place, Romney acknowledges that there are, also, other

ways to reduce deductions that in any case would have to be negotiated with Congress.

This is quite a different approach to Obama’s concept of negotiation.

Why a cap, rather than eliminating outright several of these market distorting deductions and/or credits?  Each taxpayer would pick and choose the deductions and credits that are of value to him in his particular circumstance, in a particular year.  Thus, these deductions and credits would compete with each other for inclusion.  What a concept: competition and individual choice.  And we’d be accumulating empirical data about which deductions and credits really do have value for us taxpayers.  But those are anathema to Progressives, whose raison d’être would disappear the moment their dependents don’t need them anymore.

Moreover, this competition, coupled with the generally lower tax rates, would reduce the degree of market distortion that each deduction causes.

The cap also preserves, for now, the degree of progressivity in our tax code that in itself is market distorting, yet is politically necessary to get any reform be passed in today’s DC environment.  See the table below.

Notice how, under the current system, the average total of deductions and credits rises with income.  The Progressives’ evil rich would bear the brunt of the effect a deduction cap.  And middle income Americans wouldn’t feel the cap at all.

Set in apposition to Romney’s proposal is Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s tax plan.  We’ve seen his idea at the link above: raise taxes on those Americans whom he despises.  And for what purpose?  Not to pay down our national debt or even to reduce the Federal budget deficit.  No, Obama intends to use his tax increase to transfer funds to his favored Americans—union, and so-called green energy, cronies who will then fund his political power.  And he’ll use the monies to fund the rapidly increasing spending for which he called in the last two budget proposals he sent to Congress.

Hmm….

Another Thought on Racism in Education

Posted on by
Reply

Florida’s Department of Education has set race-based goals for its K-12 students (the Florida’s DoE Strategic Plan can be found here and here.  For reading, these goals are

  • Asian students: 90% reading at or above grade level
  • White students: 88% reading at or above grade level of white students,
  • Hispanic students: 81% reading at or above grade level
  • Black students: 74% reading at or above grade level
  • American Indian students: 82% at or above grade level

The math goals are

  • Asian students: 92% at or above grade level
  • White students: 86% at or above grade level
  • Hispanic students: 80% at or above grade level
  • Black students: 74% at or above grade level
  • American Indian students: 81% at or above grade level

These are not trivial differences.  Education Sector’s Director of Strategic Communications, Kristen Amundson, notes

I understand that this is recognition that students are beginning at different places—and that’s honest—but I think it is, at best, ill-advised to set different learning standards for students based on the color of their skin.

She’s being generous.  This is a blatantly racist program, and it harkens back to Woodrow Wilson’s paternalistic racism.  Some races, the Florida DoE seems to be suggesting, are just inherently inferior to others, and so they should not be held to the same standards.

Adding failure to injury, while this…policy…correctly recognizes that some groups of children start from different—lower—bases than others, it does absolutely nothing to correct those differences—which are educational, not innate capability.  Recognizing that these kids start out at different levels of preparation for school, and that much of these differences correlate with race (they also correlate with a host of socioeconomic factors—family income, family stability, and so on; these factors subsume race into them, so there’s a bit of double-counting here), makes for a useful start point.  But the Florida DoE is telling these kids that nothing will be done to help them finish school on a more-or-less equal footing with their peers.  “There’s no point in teaching you to do better.  You just can’t catch up.”

Yet the Florida School Board Association Executive Director, Dr Wayne Blanton, said this—and he was serious:

The message could have been portrayed a little clearer, but as far as racism, I see nothing in wanting to raise test scores that would be racist.  You’re trying to raise all test scores, not just in one particular group.

No, doctor, the message was portrayed quite clearly.  As clearly as your own disingenuousness.  No one is suggesting Florida is trying to raise test scores only in “one particular group.”  That’s just a cynical red herring.  What Florida is doing is providing drinking fountains, or bathrooms, to all groups—but some will be better maintained than others.

Solar and Wind Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

There was sort of a debate presented in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago concerning the efficacy of Federal subsidies for solar and wind energy companies.  I say “sort of” because the Mark Muro’s arguments in favor of the subsidies demonstrate an utter cluelessness of the basics of economics as well as of how well the subsidies have already performed.

For instance, the WSJ‘s lede cites generic proponents as saying in all seriousness,

There is widespread agreement that pulling the plug on the subsidy at this point could hobble the wind-power industry.  Meanwhile, the biggest federal subsidy for solar power, a tax credit for 30% of the cost of installed equipment, is set to drop to 10% at the end of 2016.  A cash grant for up to 30% of solar equipment costs expired at the end of last year.

Proponents say wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop to the point where they can compete on price with electricity produced from coal and natural gas.

Yet, if the technology can’t compete in a free market on its own, if it needs the subsidy to survive, the technology is not ready for commercial use or sale.  Spending taxpayer money—private citizen money—on such a thing is a textbook example of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.  As the proponents admit without realizing it in that second paragraph: “…wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop….”

Muro then says in his argument,

Let’s remember the point of these temporary subsidies: to help emerging clean-energy technologies gain toeholds in challenging markets and advance toward unsubsidized price-competitiveness.

And

The ultimate reward is cheaper, cleaner energy and greater energy diversity, which will help guard against price shocks, keep energy costs down through competition and lessen the damage our energy consumption does to the environment….

Except that it isn’t cheaper if it needs subsidies coupled with coal, oil, gas (hydrocarbon) prices that are artificially elevated by government mandates to include “green” additives as the Feds do, or to buy electric power from solar and wind generators, as California does, in order to compete.  Moreover, diversity is reduced, not expanded by limiting us to solar and wind—or even by demanding that we buy a certain amount of solar and wind, regardless of market forces—and actively blocking access to hydrocarbon energy.  And finally, if these really are viable technologies that will deliver cheap energy easily, private investors will flock to invest, and no taxpayer subsidy will be even in the picture.

On top of that, there’s no case for environmental “damage,” given the great amount of cleanup already done, and the falsified “damage” attributed, for instance, to fracking by the EPA.

Muro goes on:

Wind and solar need the help because the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry are tougher than those in any other industry in this country.  Fossil fuels, with the help of their own government subsidies over the years, are thoroughly entrenched, with trillions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure in place.

Never mind that that entrenched infrastructure sits on top of centuries’ worth of economical, unsubsidized hydrocarbon deposits in the ground right here in the US and Canada, and the infrastructure easily can be extended to reach into the deposits in our respective territorial and economic zone waters, as the People’s Republic of China already is doing, filling the vacuum left by the present administration’s slow-walking of drilling permits for American companies.

Additionally, the beef that “the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry” are tough is just a cynical red herring.  Those technical barriers existed for the hydrocarbon industries, also, as they were developing.  Why should solar and wind get special treatment?  Muro has no answer; he merely asserts the “need.”

Muro concludes with this long-standing “promise:”

In sum, onshore wind is likely just a few years away from true subsidy independence, while several forms of solar aren’t far beyond.

Like commercial fusion, we’ve been “just a few years away” for decades.  It’s an empty promise.

As Dr David Kreutzer points out in his argument against these subsidies, though,

Surely some alternatives to fossil fuels will be developed, but they will only work if they are affordable.  Wind and solar aren’t, and that isn’t changed by shifting the costs from consumers and producers to the taxpayers.

Bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be the ones deciding which technologies are the most promising or what timeline is too long or what losses are too deep.  The market will do a much better job of answering the question: are wind and solar power really viable?

Let’s get rid of the subsidies and find out.

When Greed Meets Tinker Bell

Posted on by
Reply

State pension funds are another time bomb of malaise (to the tune of a $1.4 trillion shortfall) waiting to explode, and Rhode Island provides an example of the difficulty we each, in our own state, face in defusing it.

Rhode Island passed a massive overhaul (as such things go; they have a long way, yet, before they’ve completely cured their problem) of their state retirement system last year, including such unheard-ofs as raising the retirement age, suspending pension increases for several years, and generating a hybrid retirement plan that combines traditional pensions with 401(k)-like accounts.  Rhode Island’s General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, says that this reform will save Rhode Islanders $4 billion over the next 20 years (compared to a 2013 budget that proposes spending $8 billion in that year alone, small potatoes, indeed, but a critical start).  This minor reform also seeks to redress astonishing conditions that include 58 percent of retired teachers and 48 percent of state retirees receiving more in their pensions than in their final years of work.

But it’s too much change for some.  The public “service” unions (service: you service me) object: it’s somehow wrong for their members to be responsible for their own retirement funding.  Even a little bit.  Instead, these public “service” unions protest that it’s all unfair.  Rhode Island is reneging on promises to workers, they say.  Bob Walsh, Executive Director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, goes so far as to insist

What they did was illegal.  We’re deep into a real assault on labor.  It worries me that people who purport themselves as Democrats do this.

Never mind that there’s nothing at all illegal about these changes.  It’s a well-established principle in American jurisprudence that when the conditions extant when a contract was agreed (stipulating arguendo that the agreement was made in good faith by all parties) no longer exist, or have so radically changed that the terms can no longer be met, the contract can be abrogated and either a new one negotiated or the parties involved go their separate ways.  In extreme cases, this is what bankruptcy achieves; although, when the conditions have changed as radically as these have, bankruptcy isn’t necessary.

Never mind, also, these are promises that couldn’t be kept in any event, and both the state government and the public “service” unions at the time knew they could not be kept.  Or they blindly believed real hard in government’s ability to keep collecting funds from…somewhere.  Tinker Bell is alive and well in Public Service Land.

Never mind, finally, that this public “service” union greed at the expense of taxpayers makes “labor” a valid target.

One tear-jerker that the unions are trotting out is this:

North Providence retiree Jamie Reilly left her job as a secretary at age 50 [remember that raising of the retirement age?], thinking her 30 years of state employment would mean good benefits during her later years.  But now she said she may be forced to re-enter the workforce at age 55 because the state has put off pension increases.

“I counted on that money,” Reilly said….  “You work all your life and you plan, and they take it away from you.”

Worked all her life?  She worked 30 years and wanted to be retired for 40.  Workers in the private sector don’t get it that easy; they work until they’re in their mid-60s—a working life 50% longer.

And this one:

Cranston firefighter Dean Brockway said higher retirement ages mean he will have to work several years longer than he expected, and he wonders how he’ll climb stairs in heavy gear in his 60s.

“Could I do something else? I don’t know,” he said. “A lot of us chose to dedicate our lives to public service because to us it’s an honor.  Could I be a carpenter?  I don’t think so. This is what I do.”

Brockway has a legitimate concern, but it’s no different from the concerns of a private sector employee whose work is primarily physical labor.  But if he’s not going to look for alternatives, if he’s not going to try to retrain into something less physically demanding (certainly no stroll in the park for a middle-aged or older person, but assuredly not impossible), he loses sympathy for his plight, which begins to be self-imposed.  Certainly, there’s no more obligation for Rhode Island’s citizens to indemnify him against the outcomes of his choices than there is for them to indemnify similarly situated private sector employees.

Raimondo understands this in all its practicalities—how affordable are the existing programs:

These problems won’t go away.  The longer you wait, the bigger the problems get.  People looking for easy, short-term solutions. … Well, there are none.

Raimondo doesn’t believe in Tinker Bell.