The Pinal County Sheriff demands to know why the U.S. has more troops protecting South Korea’s border with North Korea than we do to protect the U.S. border with Mexico.
I kind of thought this was a no-brainer. The North Koreans have nukes and their leaders are eccentric (to say the least). The people sneaking across the U.S. borders aren’t carrying nukes, but are coming to the U.S. to find better paying work.
Today I was interested in understanding what law prof Jack Balkin’s new book Constitutional Redemption is about. On the Amazon page for the book, one of the blurbs is awfully facile. Here’s the blurb:
A wonderful meditation on the American constitutional story. Balkin’s living originalism challenges both those who would unmoor constitutionalism completely from the past, and those who would have us ruled by long-dead white men in hideous wigs.
–Mark Graber, Professor of Law and Government, University of Maryland
There may be good reasons to support Balkin’s living originalism, but the left’s claim that constitutional originalism is being “ruled by long-dead white men in hideous wigs” is an unserious and dishonest critique. After all, these “long-dead white men in hideous wigs” included in the Constitution Article V which provides the authority and procedures to amend the Constitution.
We are free to amendment the Constitution at any time. That is the right way to update the Constitution for our times—not ad hoc judicial reinterpretation.
If we don’t like what the Constitution says, the fault is not in long-dead white men in hideous wigs, but in ourselves.
I knew that Obama didn’t agree with me on any economic issues. That’s fine. I can’t complain that he is who his voting record said he was. But I’m disappointed that he hasn’t done much, if anything, to end the wars the U.S. is involved in. Instead, he has now gotten us involved in Libya. It would have been nice if he, and his predecessor, had listened to arch-conservative Russell Kirk:
Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? … Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness — that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that "God is on our side," and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.
Today Magna Carta turns 796 years old. Roger Pilon at Cato has a few words about Manga Carta on its special day.
It would be nice to live in the fantasy-land world envisioned by the New York Times editorial board. They are sad that a year after the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill was passed that, the new regulatory body isn’t properly staffed. This shows two flaws in relying on regulations to control misbehavior.
First, if your regulations rely on getting the “right people” or “tough and experienced regulators” as the NY Times wants, then the regulations are destined to fail or fall short. The reason is simple. If you are a “tough and experienced” regulator, would you make $150,000 at most working as a federal bureaucrat, or would you many multiples of that working for big Wall Street firms figuring out how to game the regulations.
Second, your regulations are destined to fail if they can’t be implemented within a year. This means they are too complex and therefore possible to be gamed.
Rather that relying on getting the right people, the federal government should be in the business of transparency, information, and being the sheriff for disputes. Instead of rushing to save big banks and their investors from their bad decisions, banks need to fail as a result of their mistakes and misdeeds instead of being bailed out by the average Joe. Dodd-Frank was created because President Bush and Obama wanted to help their friends on Wall Street. It would have been far better to practice tough love.
There are many more problems with Dodd-Frank. If you want to know why here’s a primer on how its quack federal corporate governance.
At first I thought this was a hoax, but it’s not. Gov. Kasich thought he’d have a little fun with LeBron and his “taking his talents to South Beach.”
Dodgeball, Red Rover, Wiffle Ball – those time-honored kids’ games, along with activities like Steal the Bacon and Capture the Flag – have been deemed dangerous by the state as part of an effort to tighten regulations for summer camps in the area.
Any indoor or outdoor recreational program that offers two or more organized activities, including one that falls on the “risky list” determined by state officials, will be considered a summer camp under the new rules and subject to the associated regulations.
By should kids be active if they can’t play at summer camps?
The L.A. Times today ponders whether it’s time for a “fat tax” and argue that “offering incentives for lifestyle choices likely to cut medical costs is an idea worth considering.” The problem is that this is exactly why the market is far superior to government control. Markets generally provide the proper incentives, such as those that the L.A. Times argues for in their conclusion:
There’s the inevitable complaint that some smokers and overeaters live long and healthy lives and yet would have to pay the surcharge. That’s true enough, but the statistics are against them, and that should be reflected in insurance costs. Smoking and obesity greatly increase the risk of chronic and life-threatening health problems that in many cases are preventable, including stroke, cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It makes sense to tie higher preventable risk to higher premiums. Not all rock climbers have serious accidents, either, but they still pay more for life insurance, when they can find it.
This approach is far more appealing than taxing soda and is more likely to improve America’s health. It provides a direct link between unhealthy ways of living and the consequences. Americans need information, through labeling, nutrition education and medical advice, to make smart diet decisions. Then they should be free to eat what they want — as long as they bear the cost of their personal choices.
Governments consistently divorce people from the consequences of their actions, which is one of the serious problems with more and more government control of health care. It is sometimes illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate as the L.A. Times is advocating in this piece, but proper incentives are critical to good outcomes. Sadly the government does not provide good incentives because that’s not the job of politicians. The job of politicans is to do what they think will get them elected and tough love is frequently not popular.
There is a silly group asking for more taxes—the Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength. These guys are campaigning for higher taxes on the rich saying that they wouldn’t mind paying higher taxes. The problem is that there is nothing stopping them from paying more money to the federal government—just go here and give the feds a gift. But of course, that’s not what they want. They want other people to pay more taxes. Here’s one response from a member of the group:
Garrett Gruener, California-based venture capitalist and founder of Ask.Com
“I think it’s silly to say we should just write our own checks. Taxes are the price we pay for democracy. We make policy choices because it’s the right thing to do for society. In this case we have a real deficit problem and a real inequality problem and those in the upper tax brackets like myself have benefited enormously from a whole set of policies.”
“The U.S. government is not a charity. It’s a collective enterprise that we do together. Nobody loves to pay taxes. I’m as profit-oriented as any other businessman. But I have no desire to carry a burden that should be carried by others. I shouldn’t be covering costs that should be shared by other people with means. But I am willing to do my fair share.”
Unsurprisingly, this misses the point. Taxes are not the price we pay for democracy. People pay taxes in dictatorships as well. If you think there’s an equity problem, show people you are serious and give your money away. Until that happens, you aren’t serious. Lead by example and I’ll believe you mean it.
