Tag Archives: regulation

Bigotry in the Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

…not of the Supreme Court. I writing now about the Court’s ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case (Schuette v BAMN) concerning the state’s “decision to end affirmative action at its public universities.”

The Court ruled 6-2 to uphold Michigan’s decision, holding essentially, that such a choice should be left to the States’ citizenry and not determined by the court system.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court (mostly—there were a number of separate concurring opinions), expanded on that:

The electorate’s instruction to governmental entities not to embark upon the course of race-defined and race-based preferences was adopted, we must assume, because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this nation seeks to put behind it.

Justice Elena Kagan recused, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined the dissent.

Sadly, Sotomayor’s dissent was fundamentally racist.[1] She insisted that “race matters.” And

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

Indeed. But the Constitution, which must be applied “with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination,” must be applied as it is written—especially because, in the present context, the Constitution is color—and gender, come to that—blind, and explicitly so under the 14th Amendment. That means that there cannot be anything other than equal treatment under law; in particular, there cannot be special treatment for some groups, and there cannot be special treatment for some groups at the expense of other groups.

Applying special treatment, as Sotomayor demands because of those centuries of racial discrimination, is only to maintain that racial discrimination for centuries more.

She attempted to offer alternatives to citizens speaking their voice:

In the wake of Grutter, some voters in Michigan set out to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies. Those voters were of course free to pursue this end in any number of ways. For example, they could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through gen­eral public awareness campaigns. Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies.

This, of course, is just what the voters of Michigan did—only they did it state-wide, rather than piecemeal. There is no difference between the two, except in the mind of Sotomayor.

She buried this in a footnote:

Although the term “affirmative action” is commonly used to describe colleges’ and universities’ use of race in crafting admissions policies, I instead use the term “race-sensitive admissions policies.”

Which is nothing but the racism of preferential treatment based on race. Made blatant by her preferred term of reference.

Sotomayor concluded her dissent with this:

For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.

Because, of course, we cannot demarginalize those groups by treating them like adults and equals, we can only demarginalize them by perpetuating their status as…dependents…through continuing to single them out for special treatment.

I respectfully dissent from Sotomayor’s dissent.

 

[1] I of course do not mean to suggest that Justice Sotomayor wrote with anything like invidious intent. But the dissent at issue in this case seeks to change the rules of the political process and of the 14th Amendment to the disadvantage of members of our society disfavored by government.

Update: Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first name to the first time she’s mentioned in the post.  It’s my usual habit; I missed it this time.

Income Inequality and Blinders

Posted on by
Reply

The impact of Obamacare, still being denied in some circles:

In January, nearly half of small-business owners with at least five employees, or 45% of those polled, said they had had to curb their hiring plans because of the health law, and almost a third—29%—said they had been forced to make staff cuts, according to a U.S. Bancorp survey of 3,173 owners with less than $10 million….

And

Given how much the President talks about income inequality, it is perhaps ironic that his signature achievement is preventing people from earning incomes.
…
ObamaCare-induced phenomenon of “29ers”—employees held below 30 hours of work per week to avoid counting as full-time workers eligible for employer-provided health insurance. As a Journal editorial explained last year, “The savings from restricting hours worked can be enormous. If a company with 50 employees hires a new worker for $12 an hour for 29 hours a week, there is no health insurance requirement. But suppose that worker moves to 30 hours a week. This triggers the $2,000 federal penalty. So to get 50 more hours of work a year from that employee, the extra cost to the employer rises to about $52 an hour—the $12 salary and the ObamaCare tax of what works out to be $40 an hour.

Hmm….

Government Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

Texas EquuSearch is a drone operating company, based in a Houston suburb, that uses small drones, in their case, model aircraft equipped with cameras, in searches for missing persons. Or at least they used to, before the Federal government put a stop to their effrontery. The FAA has ordered them to cease because the FAA doesn’t have a rule that allows for such a thing.

Texas EquuSearch has an appeal before the DC Circuit court, but in the meantime, they’re barred from helping various other government agencies—like local police—conduct their searches.

The FAA has rationalized its decision with this:

The agency approves emergency Certificates of Authorization (COAs) for natural disaster relief, search and rescue operations, and other urgent circumstances, sometimes in a matter of hours.

“In a matter of hours.” When the bad man comes and seconds count, the FAA will be only hours away. Sometimes. Other times, well, sorry about that.

In addition to which, “many law enforcement agencies in rural areas being searched don’t have the authorization certificates to use drones.”

The FAA went on with this appallingly arrogant remark:

We are not aware that any government entity with an existing COA has applied for an emergency naming Texas EquuSearch as its contractor.

Because a business requires government permission, at the least in the form of a government contract, before it can go about its affairs. Aside from this small matter, what problem does the FAA think it’s solving with its…position?

Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

“How to Energize a Lackluster Economy”

Posted on by
Reply

I’m playing off Edward Lazear’s Wall Street Journal op-ed of the same title.  In his piece, he touted the benefits of a consumption tax over an income tax, but his argument flows from a number of false premises.

Lazear asserted

…over 30% of US gross domestic product is taxed away to fund federal, state, and local governments.  Tax compliance costs are also large, estimated to be around 1% of GDP.

The hidden cost of the tax system is the biggest of all—namely, the slower economic growth that results from taxing investment, which impedes the formation of capital and hinders productivity and wage growth.

So far, so good.  These taxes and their associated compliance costs are way too high (and, using 2007 data, a flat tax of 10%, with no deductions, credits, or what-have-yous that everyone pays would net the government an increase in revenue compared with the current system.  Now, whether the government needs that increase is a separate discussion).

But then he said

An easy way to remove the impediment to growth is to move toward a consumption tax by allowing the full and immediate deductibility of capital investment.

Here begins his first false premise.

The argument rests on two points.  First, consumption taxes are better for economic growth than are income taxes.

No, they’re not.  Consumption taxes are horribly regressive, and they actively hurt the poorest among us the most.

Second, allowing full expensing (immediate deductibility) of investment turns the current tax system into a consumption tax.

His second false premise is an implied one: that (income) tax structure and rates should remain essentially as high as they are, other than his deductibility of capital investment.  See above about lowering rates and eliminating deductions, credits, etc.

He went on:

Consumption taxes [his capital investment taxes] are better for economic growth because they create stronger incentives to save and invest than do income taxes.

Under an income tax, a person who consumes what he earns immediately is taxed once, specifically on the earnings that he receives in that year.  If instead he invests what he earns, the interest on that investment, which is compensation for deferring consumption, is also taxed.

This rationalization of his first false premise, though, is centered on yet a third (again implied rather than explicit) false premise: that our tax system should be used for social engineering at all—here, attempting to push money uses into this purpose instead of that—instead of solely for the three explicitly identified purposes for which taxes are permitted under our Constitution.  Those three permissible purposes are, as any grade school civics student knows, are to pay the nation’s debts, to provide for the nation’s defense, and to provide for the general welfare, which itself is explicitly defined by the next 16 clauses of Article I, Section 8.

There’s a fourth false premise (yet again, implied) that underlies all of Lazear’s argument: that businesses should be taxed at all.  Since business taxes are just another cost center for businesses, their taxes, like their other costs, are passed on to their customers—ultimately us—in the form of higher prices.  In the end, then, we pay the business’ taxes, even though it’s the company CFO who signs the check to the Treasury.

No.  Better instead to change the income tax system altogether to a flat tax (I argue for a 10% rate) that every citizen and no business pays.  No social engineering by taxation.  Full stop.

With that in place, watch how thoroughly our economy is energized.

Unionizing College Football

Posted on by
Reply

The union argument for unionizing (Northwestern) college football goes like this, according to the College Athletes Players Association:

…the hours athletes spend practicing, the rights they give up to keep their scholarships, and the possible revocation of those scholarships should they break team rules.

Let’s see how this works for students on academic scholarships:

…the hours students spend studying, the rights they give up to keep their scholarships, and the possible revocation of those scholarships should they break academic rules.

Are these students employees of the school and not students getting a college-funded break toward their college educations?

But wait, you say—what about the football team walk-ons, those who try out for the team and make it but aren’t awarded athletic scholarships?  They’re to be allowed to join the union, as they’re employees of the school, too, according to the NLRB ruling.

Let’s see how that plays out for students who are academic walk-ons, those who apply to the school and are admitted but aren’t awarded academic scholarships.  Are these folks employees of the school, too?

Hmm….