Cafe Hayek’s Don Boudreaux reprints his letter to the LA Times:
You write that “Washington’s compromise on estate taxes provides an unnecessary handout to a few thousand wealthy families” (“The state of estates,” Dec. 9).
Whatever are the merits, or lack thereof, of a tax on estates, you are deceptively wrong to call a decision not to raise that tax a “handout.” Because taxes are paid from resources created and earned by private citizens, resources that are not taxed are not “handed out” to the people who created or earned them; these people already rightfully own these resources.
It makes no more sense to describe government’s (non-)act of not raising taxes as a “handout” than it does to describe my (non-)act of not stealing your purse as a “handout.” Failure to understand this fact creates the mirage that government is the source and original owner of all wealth. Not only is such a notion of the state utterly false empirically, it is also – because it is a close cousin of the notion of the divine right of kings – the seed of tyranny.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Well. Clearly Mr Boudreaux hasn’t understood the Commerce Clause, which, when held up to the light just so, would clearly state that such a (non-)act is, in fact, an act — one that guarantees some other act will have to occur in the absence of his original (non-)act.
A butterfly flaps his wings in Thailand, and in Camden, NJ, a man is shot for not handing over his ATM card: Commerce Clause and Effect!
But I digress.
How we allow a debate to be framed, as I’ve consistently argued, is of paramount importance to the maintenance of our freedoms, not least because on one side of the national / ideological debate is a faction that is seeking to overthrow classical liberalism and the Enlightenment foundation upon which our framers based their ideals by way of taking over language itself — both by specific attempts at framing issues and by institutionalizing how we are supposed to think about meaning and interpretation, and to what linguistic notions those things come to be (supposedly) tethered.
So, for instance, are we having a discussion about tax cuts, or are we speaking about keeping tax rates the same as they’ve been for a decade? Do we mean by “tolerance” that the government will police speech to make sure no one is offended, or do we mean that we have to learn to tolerate unpopular speech and let the marketplace of ideas sort out public opinion? Do we mean by “fairness” an equality of outcome (even if reaching that goal means we have to micromanage every engagement, stack the deck for certain constituencies, and create artificial impediments to assure certain constituencies fail), or are we concerned with equality of opportunity and the rule of law that protects such a vehicle for fairness as we prefer to define it under a classical liberal description? And most importantly, are we allowing a manufactured consensus dictate to us the terms of these debates? That is, are we allowing that meaning is a function of the will to power — and no more?
I’ve detailed how such an acceptance — a kind of political existentialism — is deleterious to the ideology we as conservatives and classical liberals claim to embrace and defend.
To the classical liberal, the existentialist is just some pouty asshole always pushing his rock up the hill, and gauging his worth in his ability to find meaning in bearing that burden.
While what he should be doing is looking for ways to break the rock, then building from it some tools so that he can tunnel the hell out of his predicament.
Nice to see Don using the same reductio as I advocate here.
In related news, I haven’t blown up any factories today, so I created millions of jobs!
I have nothing to add other than this post brought a smile to my face, warmed my cold dark evil capitalist heart.
The head of TEA Party Patriots said the other day (paraphrasing), among other things deadly wrong with the “tax deal”, why the hell are Republicans calling it an extension of “Bush Tax Cuts”? These rates have existed for ten years … at what point do they stop being “cuts” and are just “tax rates”?
Fiscally sane people cannot give up the rhetorical ground to the covetous cadre.
People who build factories would beg to differ, Monster.
Heard from Donald and he thinks that Bmoe is having computer issues. He is going to call him, though, to make sure.
As to the tax bill, I’m sorta coming around to the JG position albeit I think that forcing the untold extra work onto software packagers and HR departments necessitated by the delay til after the first of the year is bad. Plus, if the delay til the new congress causes delays in filing and getting refunds, that is another opportunity for the dems to bash the Republicans over the head. The cheaper alternative is to do the bill with the shit in it now and defund the shit in 2011. But the poison pills are pushing me into the fuckitol stash in the back of the med drawer. The new congress comes in with a mandate to cut and the easiest place to start is stuff that was just voted in. Bachmann and the TPC are not being too loud about this bill for this reason. They are looking forward to stiffing the dems on the stuff that it took to get them on board and being very loud about these being the same as the Cornhusker kickback and needing to go.
Most of the posturing right now is kabuki, but I don’t think the dems will be in a position to fight the defundings when they are exposed to the light of day. And letting them lard it up provides more clarity to the masses on just what is being bandied about in the name of “helping” the little people. It’s the lardings that are what the TPC is after and they are taking notes.
Not to mention all the people who build the equipment that fills factories.
What do you have against factory workers, Monster?
That problem is solved by granting everyone a three to four month extension for their paper work. W-2s out by end of March, tax returns filed by June 15. Dems are going to bash Republicans over the head anyways, so fuck ’em.
How’s that going to work if the appropriation’s already been approved? Especially if the leadership is afraid of getting into a fight for fear they might lose it.
Is fuckitol like quinine water? Does it make a good mixer?
Ace weighs in:
First of all, Krauthammer proceeds from the assumption that reducing the deficit is the highest priority among conservatives and Republicans. It isn’t and never has been — the highest priority is keeping taxes low, or as low as possible given the political situation. The deficit is and always will be the number two priority, and sometimes it will be number two by a wide margin. I hope that number two is now very close to the top, just behind number one.
But this has always been the case. It has always been conservative/Republican doctrine that lower taxes yield any number of desirable economic effects, such as increased economic activity which in turn leads to greater revenues which partly offset the costs of the tax relief.
The other part of his argument is a bit odd. He notes that the tax cuts will lead to a 1% gain in GDP and a lowering of the unemployment rate by 1.5% — and this is a bad thing? Yes, it will help Obama, certainly, but we always knew that. Republicans taking over Congress and forcing him, against his radical will and socialist conscience, to take measures to improve the economy rather than undermining it would perversely wind up helping him politically.
But what was the alternative? Deliberately lose Congress in 2010 again so that Obama and the Democrats could pursue their economy-destroying plans? Sure, we’d be in a better position in 2012 if the economy went into a second dip; but are we really prepared to say “the more misery for the American people, the better for us”?
Krauthammer probably doesn’t mean that (ironically, that has the ring of “I want him to fail,” a line of Limbaugh’s I’m sure he railed against), but that is an implication of his column. The American public voted Republicans into Congress largely to rescue the economy — and rescuing the economy inevitably helps rescue Barack Obama.
That’s a politically unappealing proposition, but there is in the end no way to do right by America without coincidentally aiding Obama too.
And as for the deficit– Republicans have claimed over and over it would be reduced through reduced spending, not through keeping tax rates high. They have not sold out that principle out yet…
He then goes on to highlight that some Reps are wobbling about defining exactly what an earmark is, but I think a quick flooding of congressional offices by tea party folks should nix a good many of the strayer’s strayings. The earmarks are the low hanging fruit. The biggest cuts will have to come in paring down entire programs and eliminating others.
That this bill forces them into a lower income number to begin with, is not a bad thing. It means the reducings will be offsetting a lower budget baseline of revenue.
TEA party… taxed enough already.
Much of the shit in the upcoming congress that needs to be cut will be shit that is going to have already been appropriated, too. Or is that the new baseline of where the cuttings should come from… only stuff that is not “already appropriated.” Not my definition of where the axe should fall. That way leads to cuttings that are reductions in future spending cuts – same as we have now. Wimpy burgers.
I think Krauthammer’s point (assuming here that Ace’s take is the correct one) is that if the Republicans are going to save Obama from himself, they ought to 1) get something in return and 2) not beclown themselves in the process.
The problem with this bill, seems to me is the same as the border fence. We’re cutting taxes first (amnesty) and hoping like hell the fence (reductions) gets built.
The only difference between the prior fights and this one is that the TEA party is out there lurking to drop onto congresscritters front porches with brooms, pitchforks and ammo.
As I said the other day, we are fighting for the amnesty-tax side with the players in place now. The tea party folks are where we have bet the farm on getting the fence-reductions built. And they are not on the board yet.
What makes you think that the current crop of critters (many of the ones that didn’t listen before) would do anything other than they are now?
These aren’t the ones we were waiting for.
I don’t think the GOP can be seen to go back on a “compromise” they agreed to, Stephanie.
Best to just nix this now, use the new majority status in the House to make the case that we want cuts for middle class taxpayers and a “permanent” tax rate freeze to stimulate the economy (and shrink the “revenue” that goes to the government by keeping it with those who earned it), and let the Dems then have to answer for blocking an actual tax relief for the middle class.
Obama knows this deal is a winner. He’s pissed because the lefties in Congress are blind to his gambit, which is a long-view approach to turning us into a democratic socialist client state.
But given that we’ve already seen the GOP leadership, fresh off of “getting the message” of the November elections, steer the pork king and the light bulb banner to important committee chair positions, I have no faith that these assholes are ever going to do what’s right.
Business as usual.
I say we don’t give them any cover. If we are going to argue on principle, we shouldn’t abandon those principles because it could inconvenience us by delaying our tax returns….
Or is that the new baseline of where the cuttings should come from… only stuff that is not “already appropriated.” Not my definition of where the axe should fall.
Good point. Obviously I hadn’t thought that all the way through. All the more reason then that this be seen as a Democrat tax bill on the House side. If Boehner and company deliver more votes for the President than Nancy, they’re going to look ridiculous.
I think that the Senate Dems have tarted up the deal enough with new carp that the Rs can vote it down with cover. However, I’d prefer Pelosi to kill it outright.
Rick Ballard over at JOM enforces my points:
Since I don’t regard money remaining in my checking account rather than in Tax Cheat Timmy’s Plunder Account to be a “cost” to the economy, I fail to find a factual basis for Dr. Krauthammer’s assertion.
I will also note two things:
1. There is no budget.
2. The 111th Congress has no power to bind the 112th Congress.
Speaker Boehner will have two years in which to reiterate the heartfelt remark made yesterday by a Democrat House member – and the full support while doing so of the 56% of the electorate responsible for placing him in his position.
And Jeff, I have no problem AT ALL with reneging on anything that we get Obama and the democrats to agree to. The problem with the reneggings isn’t that they won’t come back to the table, but that we can hold another renegging over their nappy heads. ‘) Play by their rules, remember?
If we’re not going to be bound by it, why support it in the first place?
Stephanie where is B Moe he is goned away
HF> I talked to Donald and he’s gonna check on Bmoe. He thinks that Bmoe’s having computer issues. He’s gonna call him though to be sure.
thank you that seems like a good plan
I just heard Limbaugh play a cut of Obama mentioning tax reform. Which, tax reform is itself a good thing I think. Obama pushing it though? In much the same way an improving economy helps his political prospects, so also it appears he gets purchase on a winning issue here. Just yesterday Matt and I were ruing the day. Came fast, didn’t it?
If we’re not going to be bound by it, why support it in the first place?
Serially?
The republicans better be bound to the TEA party, not to ANY promisings to the socialists. I know where I fall on that scale. I’d hate to see Boehner come back to the TEA party and say “we tried to do x, but we promised the socialists…”
Seriously?
You and Krauthammer aren’t as far apart as you think you are, sdferr.
putting tax reform ahead of fighting childhood obesity is a very bold plan
bold and unexpected
You may be right Ernst, I don’t know, but if you are correct, dollars to doughnuts the misunderstanding is my fault and not his.
I’m asking if we’re going to be bound by TEA party principles, why go along with this tax “cut” charade, particularly with all the additional spending that’s been tied to it?
I think Krauthammer is trying to explain the deal as Obama understands the deal to be.
From Obama’s perspective, it’s a heads I win (I get some new “stimulus” spending and get to call an extension of existing rates a “cut”) tales you lose (if the economy doesn’t improve, I get to say we did what the Republicans wanted and it didn’t work –time to really stick it to the rich!)
Remind me again: just what is it that we get from this “compromise?”
Team R likes the temporaryness of the measures is the takeaway I think Mr. Ernst. That’s what they get from the deal. They’re altogether complicit in the lack of certainty what is hobbling our failshit economy.
As long as the goodies what are in the deal for the socialists are equally temporary then Team R is happy as a pig in mud.
I don’t suppose you’re in need of reminding E, but e’enso, the only thing I can see that can be remotely figured as a “get” is the absence of a presumed negative event, i.e., the worsening economy predicted to follow higher rates on whichever portion of the electorate on which higher rates might fall, whether the higher income group or the higher and the middlers. I’ve said elsewhere though, this is not what I want, nor what I think the majority of the people have shown they want in the last election, nor, for that matter, what I’ve come to believe will be necessary for an actual improvement in the macro-economic outlook. Namely, substantial cuts in the size and scope of the federal government, cuts sufficient to bring the longer term prospects of our national debt back into better balance.
What this deal is comprised of is policies what point to both Team R and Team Dirty Socialists thinking that they’ve been elected to manage the economy.
This mentality is how America got to be such an egregiously failshit international laughingstock, and this is why it will continue to be an egregiously failshit international laughingstock.
i like when rappers rap
about and at the end..
pause-and say ‘word’
cuz i understand ‘word’, the other stuff
not so much
it’s not just raps it’s lots of for reals songs too like for example
I simply do not understand
Focused like a laser on jobs he ain’t…
‘I’ve been keeping the first lady waiting so I’m going to take off’.. and heads to the WH Christmas Party leaving Clinton to handle the presser.
Remind me again that he has any care for the actual job and not just the perks.
Kinda like that dog panting “bacon, bacon bacon.” So much for complaining that everyone treats him like a dog. He acts like one. Dangle a treat in front of him and that laser like focus on the economy is poof.
And I thought the whole point of voting for Barry in the primaries was to keep Bill Clinton away from the White House press corps[e]!
From Stephanie @#8
This I find troubling. Priority 1 and 2?
Well, maybe to a pandering politician. To a principled Republican, the two go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin.
File them both under “limited government”.
Levin has hit on what needs to happen I think. A Constitutional Amendment limiting government expenditure to 18% of GNP (actually I think Levin credits Friedman). Including a percentage for debt pay down.
That’s “limited” government, and that’s what this new Congress needs to sell.
Don’t hold your breath. They’ll just argue over whether it’s a tax cut or not. Likely form a commission to study the question.
Stephanie, I cannot imagine anything associated with the First Clydesdale being a treat…..
SDN… LOL.