The State: Charities Not Welcome

In his Tuesday (March 24th) evening press conference, President Barack Obama discussed his tax proposal for charitable gifts. Though his defense of the proposal (excerpted below) sounded reasonable, a little historical knowledge and a dose of reality shed some light on what, exactly, is happening: a multi-billion-dollar transfer of wealth from charities to the federal government, furthering the State's continuing attempts to hijack the role of charitable organizations, and thus gain greater control over its citizens.

But first, the facts. Under current law, the tax deduction for those with annual incomes greater than $250,000 is 35 percent. (In other words, a charitable donation of $100 realizes a deduction of $35 from taxable income.) By comparison, the tax deduction for those making less than $250,000 annually is 28 percent.

Under Obama's proposal, the playing field for tax deductions for charitable contributions would be leveled at the lower 28-percent rate. In his news conference, President Obama explained his reasoning for lowering the rate for those in the upper-income bracket:

“Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.

Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.

And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years.

It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”

Sounds reasonable, right? Why, indeed, should the so-called "wealthy" let such a venal motivation as a tax deduction direct their charitable actions?

As much as Obama tries to paint the tax-deduction issue with idealistic brush strokes ("I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street"), reality begs to differ. As explained in a Washington Post editorial, Martin Feldstein (economics professor at Harvard University, president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research) explains how a "substantial body of economic research" indicates that, for every 10-percent increase in tax deductions, people donate that amount more. Therefore, Obama's proposal to decrease the tax deduction by seven percent for people in the upper-income brackets will translate to a corresponding seven-percent decrease in charitable giving.

Obama's beseeching that deductibility does not influence charitable donations aside, the reality is quite the opposite. The greater tax deduction that people receive from charitable donations, the more they donate. Period.

The motivation is not hard to understand: most people have a set percentage of their disposable income they plan to put toward their favorite charities. If their "donations fund" has shrunk (via a higher tax rate), they are unlikely to tap into other funds (e.g., vacation, entertainment, etc.) to make up the shortfall; they will just donate the reduced amount. Logical enough.

Before I shift to the larger implications of this tax proposal, I would just like to pose the following question: if people in higher-income brackets have presumably greater disposable income, and you believe that donating to charitable organizations is a worthwhile endeavor, wouldn't you want to encourage them donate more, rather than penalizing them?

Not so fast, says the State. (Or it would, if it was honest.) Because, given a choice, politicians much prefer being able to control how money is spent, so their pet projects, Statist goals, and favorite interest groups can be funded and rewarded (at taxpayer expense, of course). Leaving more money in control of those who earned it means that the government must trust the individuals to fund the "correct" (i.e., State-approved) projects.

Does anyone think that taxpayers would voluntarily donate to each of the 9,000 earmarks in the recent spending bill? Of course not, which is why coercive action is necessary to force Americans to fund these initiatives.

But this argument holds true for an increase of any tax -- whether it be a sales tax, county income tax, state income tax, federal income tax, personal property tax -- or a decrease in tax deductions (which amounts to the same).

Why, specifically, does the State hate charity? Because charity is competition to the State for providing services to the community.

Before welfare existed, churches and other local community organizations provided temporary succor to those residents who hit a stretch of bad luck. Before Medicare and Medicaid, physicians would negotiate payment rates or terms for those in financial distress.

However, relying on local charities and charitable actions is not a one-way street; accepting assistance endowed the recipient with an obligation to repay the service he or she received, even if the repayment was simply a renewed effort to escape the unpleasant circumstances.

Thus, personal responsibility is reinforced and enhanced, which leads to a better and more productive citizenry.

However, the intrusion of the State into how individuals cope with adversity diminishes the need for personal responsibility. Do welfare recipients feel a greater or lesser obligation to repay the government, compared to their local charity? Do individuals feel a greater obligation to ensure they pay Medicare in full, or their local doctor?

Thus, the State's all-encompassing need for power and control -- and any who doubt this need merely has to look at Obama's plans for the federal government to assume a dominant role in health care, the financial sector, education, etc. -- crowds out the private sector, rewards those with connections to politicians controlling the purse strings, and leads to a gradual -- but inevitable -- diminished sense of personal responsibility in its citizenry.

Al Gore for Earth Hour: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore, believed in Earth Hour's cause so much that, in the middle of that "sacred" hour, he had "a dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of [his] mansion."

So reported Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. (Thanks, A.C. Kleinheider (story) and Matthew Hurtt (story).)

Torture Does Not Work

The Washington Post reports today that the CIA's torturing of their supposed high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, not only yielded no useful intelligence, but the faulty intelligence he blurted sent hundreds of CIA officers on wild-goose chases around the world.

Additionally, U.S. officials had known within weeks that Zubaida was simply a travel agent of al-Queda -- but still insisted referring to him publicly as "al-Queda's chief of operations," a "trusted associated" of Osama bin Laden, and "a major figure in the planning of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." None of which was true. Nice. Way to be straight with the American public, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their flunkies.

To those willing to consider the issue dispassionately, this torture-providing-false-information situation is not only unsurprising, but entirely predictable. There is plenty of evidence showing exactly this: 1) captives being tortured will say anything to stop the torment, and 2) correct -- not faulty -- information, and more of it, can be obtained using standard psychological techniques.

Consider the opinion of Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 to Iraq:

Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.

There is not a shred of evidence backing the hypothesis that torture yields valuable information. In addition, many interrogators have gone on record stating unequivocally that torture does not extract useful information. Sure, the Bush Administration proclaims to anyone in earshot that it obtained intelligence that foiled horrific plots against the country -- but, when pressed for evidence, shields itself behind the "national security" curtain.

In addition to torture simply not working, the United States, by condoning it, abdicates its status as the "city on a hill" -- a proud role shouldered by the country starting in 1630. Part of our country's cultural strength lies in presenting itself as a brighter beacon of hope, opportunity, liberty, and justice than any other country.

By proclaiming itself willing to use the same barbaric tactics as the most backward people on the planet, the United States drags itself to their level, rather than rising above such inhumane behavior. Our cultural strength, as a result, withers.

Also, any chance of our captured soldiers being treated humanely has evaporated. Knowing that their captured soldiers will be treated to "harsh interrogation tactics," the enemy will doubtless resort to torture on our servicemen, for revenge if nothing else.

I think it is time to re-evaluate the country's character if it shares the most reprehensible actions of the Inquisition. It is impossible to command the high moral ground if one is wallowing in slime.

It Turns Out The Government WILL Pay For Veterans' Combat Injuries

Last week witnessed YAUOM (Yet Another Unbelievable Obama Moment). In an effort to control budget expenditures, President Barack Obama proposed billing war veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other combat-related injuries.

Just a short 48 hours later, Obama reversed his decision. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro explained the turnabout:

"While it comes as a surprise to those still entrenched in the old ways of Washington, the president carefully listened to the veterans service organizations and military service organizations' concerns, and then he decided on a course of action," Shapiro said. "Such consultation and collaboration were all too rare over the last decade -- they won't be rare in this administration, particularly when it comes to our veterans."

Let's hope, for our veterans' sake, that Shapiro is correct about the administration having "consultation and collaboration" with veterans. If not, they may not have the opportunity to prevent the president from cutting them off at the knees again, so to speak.

Let me be clear: this trial balloon, which would have only saved $540 million, would NEVER have been floated by anyone who respected and cared for our veterans, and who was humbled by their matchless sacrifices.

President Obama is perfectly content with spending trillions of taxpayers' dollars for reform measures that are guaranteed to weave the State's greasy tentacles of power into every facet of our lives, and will vacuum up an ever-greater portion of national wealth. But he, who does not have the political will to defend his campaign pledge [sic] to reform the earmark process, wants to weasel the federal government out of paying for combat-related injuries. (Injuries that were, it should be noted, initiated by presidential decisions to go to war.*)

*Unconstitutional, by the way.

I have many points of contention with the military policy of the U.S. I do not think the U.S. needs over 700 military bases around the world. I do not think the government needs U.S. taxpayers to fund military spending that is almost equal to the rest of the world combined. I do not think we need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and I definitely don't think we need 50,000 American soldiers to be in Iraq for perpetuity. I do not think we need to ratcheting up the pressure and tension on Iran and Pakistan that may very well send our troops to war in those countries.

But those are issues for other posts. What I do agree with the military about is that our soldiers are the best, most honorable national treasures we have. Many Americans say they would die for our country. These men and women risk just that -- they put their lives on the line to protect and preserve our liberty.

I cannot imagine the responsibility to send U.S. troops into battle, with absolute knowledge that some will not come back alive, while some will come back alive, but missing limbs and having injuries that will haunt them the rest of their lives, and may impair their abilities to support their families.

No, I cannot imagine the weight on someone's shoulders who has to make that decision. However, I would think it an easy decision to honor those sacrifices by agreeing to care for those injuries.

There is absolutely no other justification for Obama's budget proposal. Quite simply, he does not feel the moral obligation to provide care for injured veterans. He is more than willing to send them to battle, but recognizing and bearing the financial responsibility for those actions? Not so much.

Obama's proposal illustrates perfectly clear how the State will pursue its own goals -- control and power -- but does not share the interests of American citizens. Alfred Jay Nock's unerring indictment of the State -- the lodestone of this blog -- is as true today as it was 73 years ago:

"The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung."

Let the AIG Bonuses Stand

Update:
I think President Barack Obama is taking more correct (though decidedly unpopular) approach by directing "government lawyers to review the company's contracts to determine whether provisions guaranteeing the payments could be overturned." It remains to be seen, however, if he will be able to maintain his position in the face of public anger and Congressional meddling. His response to any bills sent to him by Congress to intervene in the AIG contracts will be telling.

Barney Frank wants to subpoena AIG for the list of employees who received bonuses. Where was his outrage when Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick left Fannie Mae in a shambles, after pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars? Oh, never mind -- they are powerful, well-connected, contributing insiders. The State rolls on.

Either the United States is governed by the rule of law, or is governed by the passions of elected officials who, after all, are supposed to have cooler heads and not be enticed into action by the whipsawing emotions of the public. That is why the United States has a republican, not direct democratic, system of government.


Original Post:
America's version of the Indonesia Tsunami struck our shores this week, in the form of insurance (former) giant AIG's revelation that it paid out bonuses to the tune of $165 million to current and former employees of its subsidiary AIG Financial Products. (The derivative-related shenanigans of AIG Financial Products, in case you've been on Mars, was responsible for the looming meltdown of AIG and its attendant need for $173 billion of taxpayer bailout funds.)

(For those interested, the Washington Post has an excellent three-part series on the genesis of AIG Financial Products, and how AIG morphed from a staid, boring insurance company into a firm that handed out credit-default swaps like Monopoly money.)

Adding fuel to the fire is that many of the bonuses were for retention purposes, yet many of the recipients no longer work for AIG. Only on Wall Street.

There is understandable public outrage at AIG, and politicians -- never ones to shrink from riding the waves of public sentiment to further their self-aggrandizing goals -- are predictably threatening a raft of efforts to "claw back" the bonus pool. Courtesy of Fox News, the proposed actions include the following:

• Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that recouping a "substantial portion" through taxation is one of several viable possibilities.
  

• Rep. Charlie Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, authored a resolution that would place a 90 percent income tax on bonuses above $250,000 for firms, like AIG, that received at least $5 billion in bailout money. Initially, Rangel said he was uncomfortable with the idea of meddling with the tax code as a solution to the AIG problem, but he told FOX News he "had an obligation to respond to the fears and anger of the people."

• Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said Tuesday that legislation being crafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent.
  

• Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it."

• Not to be outdone by anybody, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA, said, "...the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

I think it is outrageous that the very people who caused American taxpayers $173 billion (and counting) were paid millions. Does that mean I think the government should annoint itself with the power to violate private contracts, and to confiscate private property? Absolutely not. While doing so would satisfy the populist hunger for retribution, I think the long-term consequences would be horrific.

Make no mistake about it: the United States has enjoyed the greatest accummulation of wealth and prosperity due entirely to its respect for property rights. Does anyone think that, having plundered legally-gotten gains, the State would never again stoop to such a level? If so, ask yourself why ever more products and services get taxed every year, while taxation, once applied, is NEVER removed.

The Scottish philosopher David Hume described the sanctity and importance of property rights in A Treatise of Human Nature better than I can, and it bears careful consideration:

"We have now run over the three fundamental laws of nature, that of the stability of possession, of its transference by consent, and of the performance of promises. ’Tis on the strict observance of those three laws, that the peace and security of human society entirely depend; nor is there any possibility of establishing a good correspondence among men, where these are neglected. Society is absolutely necessary for the well-being of men; and these are as necessary to the support of society. Whatever restraint they may impose on the passions of men, they are the real offspring of those passions, and are only a more artful and more refin’d way of satisfying them. Nothing is more vigilant and inventive than our passions; and nothing is more obvious, than the convention for the observance of these rules."

On the bright side, I must say it is quite comical to see politicians get purple-faced with rage over having (supposedly) no knowledge of the financial details of the AIG-employee contracts. Given that the Democratic Senators presented the country with almost no time or opportunity to read through the $1 trillion stimulus bill, I must say...

"How does it feel?"

Just Because the Press is Free, Does Not Mean It Acts Like It

"I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work."

- Chris Matthews, November 8, 2008

My concerns are growing about the press being independent. I think most people would agree that the major media outlets, as do most people, have a favorable opinion of President Barack Obama. While a president liked by the people certainly doesn't bother me, a president that is fawned over by the media does not bode well for said government to be kept in check.

The Washington Post has been running profiles of Barack Obama, his family, Cabinet members, and his staff seemingly every day. Not surprisingly, the stories tend to treat their subjects somewhere in the range between positive and fawning.

The March 13, 2009 edition, however, struck me as particularly "non-independent." The picture below shows the above-the-fold, front page of the Washington Post that Friday:

Above the fold -- the most coveted real estate on a newspaper -- were only two stories: 1) an article about the economy, and 2) an article about President Obama's ethics adviser, Norm Eisen.

The Eisen article was a puff piece, to be sure, but what was even more frustrating was the 8" by 5" photo of Eisen's office, with Mr. Eisen -- the object of the story -- only comprising a tiny fraction of the photo.

To put it more clearly: there is approximately 100 square inches of newspaper space available above the fold on the front page. Of that 100 square inches, the picture of Eisen's office took up 40, and the article an additional 25 square inches or so. And Mr. Eisen's appearance in the picture? One square inch (and that's generous).

What stories did the bio press release article about Mr. Eisen bump?

• A pattern of D.C. teachers allegedly being attacked by students.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denying that a second stimulus bill will be prepared soon.
• Pope Benedict XVI issuing an unusual letter acknowledging his mistakes over embracing an excommunicated bishop who denied that Nazis killed Jews in gas chambers.

All news events worthy of above-the-fold treatment.

I recognize that the Washington Post is a business, and wants to provide content (i.e., anything Obama-related) in which its readership will be interested, and be willing to purchase. That being said, the Post is going a little overboard by having fully 40% of print space taken up by a nondescript picture of a nondescript office (bringing attention to a nondescript article).

Of course, complaining about the media being essentially public-relations outlets for the government (as well as for big business) is well-trod ground, with Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent one of the better-known depictions of the propagandizing role the press has assumed.

Having the press NOT be "independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth" (as Herman and Chomsky portray quite convincingly) is the price we pay for two qualities of the modern press: the supremacy of advertising revenue, and the concentration of media ownership.

The consequence of advertising dollars being the dominant revenue stream for newspapers is that the interests of the advertisers take precedence over the interests of the subscribers. As a result, the newspaper cannot afford to take too many controversial stances, or turn over too many rocks, because that may scare away any staid, don't-rock-the-boat advertisers.

The second feature of the modern press -- concentration of media ownership -- also causes it to shy away from its traditional role of exposing malfeasance. The behemoth corporations that own many of the media outlets -- GE being a perfect example -- frequently have large contracts with government along their other lines of business. (Many subsidiaries of GE, for example, have government contracts in the fields of aviation, energy, healthcare, electrical distribution, and security.)

These corporations do not want to jeopardize any of their ongoing and potential government contracts by taking hard-hitting stances that might expose malperforming (or worse) government elements.

Not that I am only pointing blame at the Washington Post for its performance during the Obama Presidency. As Amanda Terkel itemizes in a scathing post, the Washington Post banged the loudest war drums during the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, despite convincing evidence that Iraq had no WMD.

Much like it will be difficult to roll back the government's intrusion in our lives, expecting the press to get religion and start playing its traditional idealized role will be a long shot.

Signing Statements = Unlimited Authority. Any Problems?

As reported in the Washington Post yesterday, President Obama seems set on continuing one of the more odious power-grabbing actions perpetrated by presidents: signing statements.

Presidential signing statements are, as stated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),

"...[O]fficial pronouncements issued by the President contemporaneously to the signing of a bill into law that, in addition to commenting on the law generally, have been used to forward the President’s interpretation of the statutory language; to assert constitutional objections to the provisions contained therein; and, concordantly, to announce that the provisions of the law will be administered in a manner that comports with the Administration’s conception of the President’s constitutional prerogatives."

In other words, when Congress passes a law with which the president disagrees, he can simply issue a "signing statement" which will outline just how (or, alternatively, whether) he intends to execute the law.

Or, in other, other words, if the president doesn't like a law, he doesn't bother with it.

For some reason, I do not think our Founding Fathers intended for anyone to flout the law with little, if any, repercussions.

According to the same CRS report, presidents have used signing statements since the 19th century, but George W. Bush accelerated their use to warp speed. By contrast, the popular view of President Obama is that he will refuse to issue any signing statements, as one of his many (loudly proclaimed) drastic changes from the previous administration.

Not so. Although Obama deplored the use of Bush's signing statements while he was campaigning, he certainly did not shrink -- when pressed -- from the potential use of signing statements, as evidenced by his campaign's response to a survey issued in 2007:

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

As it turns out, in 2007, all 12 presidential candidates (Republican and Democratic) were surveyed about this very issue. Not surprisingly, Rudy Guiliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson -- the most hawkish of the candidates -- refused declined to answer the question.

With the exception of those three, Barack Obama's response was -- far and away -- the most aggressive in favor of signing statements. (Not quite the ranking expected by his fervent, slavish followers who, lulled by his melodic voice, don't bother to analyze his words?)

When considering his response, one could take the position that Obama, who was a senior lecturer (not "professor," his self-promotion aside) in constitutional law, either understands the "proper" role of signing statements, or was in no way going to hobble himself if and when he became president. Since he's been a politician all of his life, and a lecturer only a small part of it, I think the Politician threw the Lecturer to the side of the road like one of his used cigarette butts.

This is not to cast aspersions on only Obama for his attitude toward signing statements. Former President Bush took that fairly narrowly-defined concept, and twisted it beyond recognition so that he was, literally, operating above the law. Many laws.

Signing statements are a corruption of power, and an example of how the Executive Branch now dwarfs the other two. If a president disagrees with a bill Congress sends his way to sign into law, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives him authority to disagree.

(Yes, Mr. Bush, it's called a "veto" -- of course, that means that Congress could still overrule you. Nope, can't have that? How about you just sign every bill into "law," and then inform the lawmakers that their so-called "laws" matter to everyone in the country except your office. Nice and neat ... except for the troubling fact that our forefathers left England to escape people who did not believe that all men are created equal.)

And, if pesky Congress overrides the veto, you can always petition the Supreme Court as a citizen. (Article III, Section 2, in case you're wondering, Mr. President.)

We shall see if Obama starts to rachet down the over-reaching authority of the State, or if he tries the Imperial Presidency on for size, and finds he likes it.

Trickle-Down Stimulus Funds

The Washington Post has a lengthy article today about how, "as tens of billions of dollars in stimulus funds begin to flow across the country, states and federal agencies are gripped by disputes over whether the money is being used in ways that violate the letter or spirit of the legislation."

For example, Kansas is considering saving some of the state funds, even though such a use may not stimulate the economy. Texas is spending a tenth of its transportation funding on a highway loop around Houston, "despite criticism that the project goes against President Obama's call to move away from oil dependence."

Kentucky is planning to use the money to balance its budget. However, critics in Kentucky are (amusingly) angry that the funds won't be used for projects near and dear to their hearts. (As if the money the state spent this year THAT IT DID NOT HAVE isn't sufficient.)

The Washington Post article, predictably, leans towards chastising the state officials for potentially straying the slightest iota from the intent of the nonspecific block grants in the legislation. I'm sure many people will agree, and declare that any deviation from what the master architects created will dilute the impact of the stimulus.

I have a different take -- that federalism might actually be functioning as intended. Though most people remember the powers separated in the federal government (executive, legislative, and judicial branches), the Constitution includes another separation-of-powers division that, sadly, is becoming more of an unfair contest every year: the separation of powers between the national and state governments, as specifically articulated in Article I, Section 10 and the Tenth Amendment (my favorite amendment, by the way).

There is an organizing principle in Catholic social thought called "subsidiarity," which states that, in the words of David A. Bosnich, "Nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization."

In the context of political science, the smaller unit of government, the more closely it approximates a group of people acting consensually. For President Obama's stimulus bill, state officials -- who are more intimately familiar with their ballooning budgets and local needs than the cast of characters in Washington, DC who are determined to control the means of production -- are choosing to disburse the federal funds to best effect. Perhaps their decisions will be better than the feds', perhaps they won't.

I have zero sympathy for the states, which, due to the legal requirement to balance their budgets each year accords them barely more fiscal discipline than the federal government. However, I must confess a sneaking suspicion that any actions which pester those greedily snapping at stimulus funds must be doing something right.

Because what is really infuriating those in the federal government is that they no longer have complete control over who gets the money.

Obama: For Health Reform, "Every Voice Will [Not] Be Heard"

Yesterday, President Obama hosted a healthcare summit, with over 150 elected officials and participants from representative groups. (Attendee list.) The purpose of the summit? In Obama's words, to "...lower costs for everyone, improve quality for everyone, and expand coverage to all Americans."

Because healthcare costs threaten to overwhelm the country's fiscal capacity, Obama appeared to welcome a range of viewpoints regarding reform:

"In this effort, every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table."

Well, Mr. Obama, you're obviously willing to listen to the following voices:

• Big Union (AFL-CIO, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, Building and Construction Trades Department, Communications Workers of America, National Education Association, Service Employees International Union, Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers)

• Liberal Think Tanks and Advocacy Organizations (AIDS Action, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Change To Win, Families USA, Health Care for America Now, Human Rights Campaign, Physicians for a National Health Plan, People Improving Communities Through Organizing)

None of which are supportive of free markets, and free-market solutions to social problems. A sampling of respected organizations promoting health reform through private enterprise includes the following:

• Cato Institute
  
• Galen Institute
  
• Heartland Institute
  
• Manhattan Institute
  
• National Center for Policy Analysis
  
• Pacific Research Institute
  
• Pioneer Institute

All of the above organizations have developed scholarship for healthcare reform with goals that parallel Obama's -- improving quality, lowering costs, increasing choice, and increasing coverage.

None were included. So much for listening to "every voice"and considering "every idea." I will be tracking the development of Obama's healthcare reform, but am highly, highly doubtful that the paper-thin range of ideas he will hear can meet any of his goals.

What do these developments have to do with shining a light on the encroaching, smothering influence of the State? To put it simply, as future posts will develop the reasoning, healthcare reform in this pro-government climate will only result in a patchwork of expensive (politician-demanded) mandates, higher costs, lower quality, and sufficient compliance requirements that Sarbanes-Oxley will look refreshing.

And make no mistake about the ideological tilt of any healthcare-reform plans or programs that will eventually emerge. If you have a seesaw with a sumo wrestler on one end, and an infant on the other end, the outcome is already decided.

Prince George's County Police Dept is Unbelievable

Prince George's County (Maryland) Police Department is at it again. Not two days after I wrote about a police brutality case caught on video, the Washington Post reported today about actions (or, rather, inaction) by a Prince George's police officer that led directly to at least a dozen suspects in armed carjackings and robberies going free, or receiving vastly reduced sentences.

And, what did the police officer not do? As reported in the Post, Alphonso Hayes "routinely failed to follow up on leads, interview witnesses, file court paperwork, or appear at trials." And when Hayes became aware that his former supervisor, Gerard Hanley, was building a case against him, "cabinets full of his files disappeared."

Dereliction of duty has consequences. A suspect in a carjacking, who allegedly beat the victim with a lead pipe, was convicted in a string of later carjackings. (He was suspected in at least 30 subsequent carjackings, most while armed.)

We either have a grossly negligent police officer, or an officer who purposely hampered efforts to investigate crimes. The citizens of Prince George's County, after reading about their less-than-crack police force, are (understandably) probably nervous about what they should do if they need police assistance: they risk being abused, or the responding officer may LITERALLY IGNORE the crime.

Given the massive injustice subjected to the residents of Prince George's County, what are the alternatives, if any? (Keep in mind that the county has "one of the highest concentrations of violent crime in the Washington area.")

People of most ideological persuasions would agree that protection of the citizenry is a duty for the State. This concept was described by the English philosopher John Locke, in his discussion of the purpose of government in his Two Treatises of Government:

§. 92....government being for the preservation of every man’s right and property, by preserving him from the violence or injury of others, is for the good of the governed...

However, entrusting such power -- the legalized use of violence -- is enough to give anyone pause. Therefore, the general approach has been to "localize" State authority; in other words, giving such power to the smallest possible quantum of State organization that can fulfill the duties. (If a town can provide a police force, then no need for the state to have the authority; states will be involved in multi-town crimes. If a state can provide a militia to protect itself, then no need for the national government to have a National Guard.)

Localizing State authority serves two purposes: 1) It ensures that State officials are as close as possible to the community, rather than having too many faceless bureaucrats making decisions; and 2) should the authority become too overbearing, citizens can simply leave that jurisdiction.

Because possessing the legalized use of violence is such an awesome power, with tremendous temptation, anyone in that position must have extraordinary restraint, patience, discipline, and self-control. (Qualities quite possibly drummed out of recruits at the police academy for this department.)

A problem with State control and oversight of a community's police department is that the citizenry does not, really, have much ability to have their voices heard. Additionally, the police may not necessarily have a vested interest in furthering the safety goals of the community, in much the same way that executives of publicly-traded firms may not have the shareholders' best interests in mind. (Referred to as the agency dilemma.)

If the implicit social contract is broken between a police department and its jurisdiction, what are the citizens to do? Are the residents of Prince George's County going to move because their police officers have an annoying habit of abusing them, or safeguard serial violent criminals (see, possibly: Hayes, Alphonso)? No -- it's too impractical, too expensive, and they are too invested in their communities.

Murray Rothbard explored an alternative in For a New Liberty: private enterprise to the rescue. It seems completely counter intuitive, but that concept is just because we have only known State-supported protection. The chapter should be read in full to understand the various threads of Rothbard's thinking, but he addresses police protection for the poor, assurance of efficient and effective police, and the fact that we are already paying for police protection as taxpayers with little input.

There is another feature of a privately-funded police force that would especially appeal to residents of Prince George's County:

"Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients' friends or customers."

YAPBCIPGC (Yet Another Police Brutality Case in Prince Georges County)

Poor Prince Georges County Police Department. Just when the department frees itself from its nanny, some clowns manage to besmirch its shiny corroded image.

Perhaps some explanation is due to those who do not follow news in the Washington Metro area, or are on overload from reading the latest in a string of police brutality incidents in that region. To set the stage: As reported by the Washington Post,

After a series of shootings early in the decade drew the attention of federal investigators, the county agreed to make the improvements under the watch of an independent monitor in 2004 to avoid legal action. At the time, FBI agents were also investigating four incidents in which suspects died after being injured in struggles with county police.

However, on February 10, the police department reported that it had improved to the point that it no longer requires federal oversight, and announced "...the end of nearly a decade of scrutiny by the Justice Department over allegations of excessive force." Prince Georges County Executive Jack B. Johnson was quoted as saying that the police department is "now ... considered a model for law enforcement."

Don't speak too soon, Jack. Barely three weeks later, Police Chief Roberto L. Hylton announced the suspension of two officers, John Wynkoop and Scott Wilson, who are seen on a police videotape beating and pepper-spraying a Latino motorist, Rafael Rodriguez, during a traffic stop in October 2008.

Wynkoop had charged Rodriguez with two counts of assault, consisting of Rodriguez punching him in the stomach, and then assaulting the two police officers even after Wilson pepper-sprayed him.

Thank goodness for police videotape. The videotape, subpoenaed by the defense attorney, shows Rodriguez questioning the citation. The tape shows Wynkoop ordering Rodriguez to turn off the car's engine and get out. Rodriguez does not immediately do so, and Wynkoop opens the door and pulls him out. Rodriguez does not punch or attempt to strike either officer on the tape.

The officers proceed to slam Rodriguez against the car, pepper-spray him, and beat him with a police baton. At some point, one of the officers manages to catch his breath enough to mock Rodriguez's accent.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see what happens in this case. The evidence certainly does not look good for Messrs. Wynkoop and Wilson. If they are found guilty, justice had better be meted out swiftly and severely.

The extreme abuse of p0wer -- of which police brutality is at the apex -- is infuriating because the victims are, correlatively, powerless. Powerless, I might add, due to dictates of the State, which is quick to disarm "ordinary" citizens, but loathe to do so to itself.

And the public's mistrust of State functionaries policing themselves is justified. As only one example of many, a 2007 study of the Chicago Police Department found that, out of over 10,000 complaints of alleged police abuse, only 19 resulted in "meaningful discipline."

Looks like Jack Johnson has found his model for law enforcement.