Free Republic

"Schools are for preparing our kids to become adults and that includes being able to earn a decent living."

Actually, the original purpose and justification for tax funding for universal public schools was to educate children in citizenship in preparation for their participation in a self-governing society. The employment purpose was not a major concern in a primarily agricultural economy of independent farmers.

A republican society requires citizens who can "rule and be ruled in turn" as Aristotle first described. This was the concern of the founders and of those who proposed universal tax supported public education. Trust between citizens and observance of basic ethical principles are preconditions for a free and self-governing society to function, both in the economic sphere and as participants in self-governance.

I still believe that education for citizenship, not preparation for employment, is the best justification for taxation to support public schools in a republican society. This article indicates that our public schools, as well as the larger society, are failing in their primary responsibility of preparation for citizenship and that we, as self-governing citizens, have responsibility for allowing this to happen.

When the government won’t enforce its laws, the individual must turn his or her back on those who hire and harbor illegals.

The government is not refusing to enforce its (the government's) laws, it is refusing to enforce our (the people's) laws. In a self-governing republic, all legislative authority is vested in the people which we exercise through our elected representatives. While shunning those who employ or assist illegal immigrants is fine, it is not a solution to the problem of the people's representatives refusing to enforce our duly enacted laws. This constitutes a direct assault on the entire American project of republican self-government and can only be addressed by throwing out of office all the elected officials (including the President) who neither believe in nor support the people's right to make their own laws and to have them enforced by government.

The problem, which most of us have long realized, is that neither major party has restoring the fundamental legislative authority of the people on its agenda and our campaigns and elections in which a citizens' choice is between the lesser of two evils, neither of whom believes in this fundamental principle of republican self-government, are essentially meaningless.

It is not in the interest of the ruling political class of either party to restore the legislative sovereignty of the people and they are happy to exchange political power from time to time knowing full well that their ultimate agenda of gathering and retaining political power within their ruling elite class is achieved no matter who wins individual elections. The people will have to organize and put forward their own candidates who are not beholden to the media, business or political elites and who will make their priority the restoration of republican self-governance as they promise to do in their oaths of office and as they are required to do by the US constitution which guarantees a "republican" form of governance. The question is: do "we the people" care enough to make this happen?

"In Texas, under 18 are not subject to common law marriage. In fact under 16 require permission from a judge, as well as parents. Common law statutes are not going to help the FLDS overmuch."

No, the concern I express is the need to enforce the state's laws against polygamy for women and men of all ages. I am not just concerned with the "under 18" polygamist marriages but all of them since it is the practice of polygamy itself that is the root cause of all the other abuses in the polygamist communities and polygamy is illegal in Texas for people of any age.

Obviously, those underage girls involved in polygamous marriages will be treated as victims of sexual abuse and their "spouses" will face prosecutions for those crimes as well as being prosecuted for polygamy for having multiple spouses.

That is against the Constitution you cannot pass or change a law then charge someone for what they did when it was legal.

Obviously, a state legislature makes or changes the law and THEN prosecutes those people who continue such acts AFTER they have been made illegal. This is how all law is made and enforced. Otherwise, we would never be able to change or enforce any new laws! I think it is clear, however, that polygamy is already illegal in Texas and was when these people moved to Texas in 2003 as noted by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott when he "hinted" at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from the Eldorado polygamist commune (see article online Arizona Daily Star, April 17, 2008, http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/234802.php)

"Polygamy, in the technical sense is not the issue. It is illegal, but these are not legally marriages, so they are not punishable."

I'm not so sure it is not punishable because Texas has a common law marriage statute and I believe these FLDS situations could be interpreted as common law marriages. I hope the Texas attorney general is examining this closely and does not wimp out on prosecuting the polygamy itself as they have done in Utah and Arizona (shame on them!). If for any reason Texas' current common law marriage statute is deemed inadequate to cover these situations it should be amended to include them in the definition of polygamy.

Americans once understood that no civilized society could tolerate polygamy due to all the abuses of women and children that inevitably follow in its wake. Examine any society in which polygamy is practiced and tolerated and you will see the barbarous consequences. Have Americans become so addled by relativism and so besotted with individual rights at any and all costs that we are no longer able to sustain a societal consensus against such a disastrous practice as polygamy?

That is not true and hasn't been for 100 years. Congress just spends money they do not have -- deficit spending -- regardless of the amount of revenues. Government always tends to grow faster than the underlining economy. I agree with the other poster. No tax system can change that.

I totally agree. Deficit spending is a political decision that has nothing to do with the normal operation of a taxing system. One can only compare taxing schemes on the basis of how they are supposed to work without political tinkering. But fair tax supporters are making arguments that the fair tax revenues will raise and fall with decisions made by consumers (see discussion of Hamilton's analysis of consumption taxes in previous posts). Obviously, the revenue neutral policy means that fair tax revenues will not be allowed to fall no matter how much citizens cut back on consumption and of course there is nothing to prevent Congress from deficit spending even after converting to a fair tax.

I must correct a statement in my response above #145: it was Hamilton, not Madison, who is credited with writing Federalist 21.

There are some points as to how The Fair Tax will reduce the bureaucracy you need to consider…. Another factor that will reduce bureaucracy is The Fair Tax and it's 133 page tax code will replace the 67,000+ page tax code by abolishing the IRS. The existing Treasury Department will administer the consumption tax.

No tax code is designed or can be designed specifically to address spending. However The Fair Tax does reduce spending to some extent by abolishing the IRS and its $11 billion dollar price tag.

Well, I have considered these “points” (perhaps more accurately termed “claims”) and, as desperate as I am to enact significant federal tax reform, I am still not convinced. Overall, the problem I have with your response to my post is that it does not even recognize the revenue neutrality assumption embedded in the proposal and what that means for how the tax must operate in the real world. Your answers presume a feature of the fair tax that is ruled out from the beginning, that changes in consumption will be allowed to influence tax revenues.

While I focused on the need for any tax reform proposal to reduce spending you focused on the claim that it would reduce the IRS bureaucracy. But, according to the “revenue neutrality“ pledge it doesn’t matter how much bureaucracy is reduced in the IRS, the fair tax must still raise the same amount of revenue as before reform. So even if we spend less on the taxing bureaucracy, which I am not ready to admit will likely happen, it will not matter overall because the government will get the same amount of tax money as before which it will just spend on some other government programs which will be administered with another governmental bureaucracy. It is not the total number of people employed by the IRS that is the central problem, it is the total amount of money spent by the government.

I’m not sure what you mean by “No tax code is designed or can be designed specifically to address spending.” They are inextricably linked. Governmental spending is necessarily limited by the tax revenues raised and taxing schemes are designed with that in mind. Right now federal revenues depend on peoples’ incomes. When incomes go down the federal tax revenues are decreased and governmental spending must either be cut or income tax rates must be raised to meet spending demands. With the fair tax revenue neutrality pledge, if individuals consume less to avoid the fair tax, the fair tax rates must be raised until revenue neutrality is reached. It won’t matter that you quit buying some things to avoid the fair tax, rates on everything else you do buy will be raised to make up the difference. Without this happening there can be no “revenue neutrality.”

I appreciate your quote from James Madison, my favorite founder, but I believe his analysis of how a consumption tax would work was based on the assumption that people could determine with their consumption behavior how much tax they would pay. He says in Federalist 21: “The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal’ and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions.” Under Madison’s example, if the consumption tax was too high, people would not buy the goods and tax receipts would go down. Allowing tax revenues to go down in response to lowered consumption is a necessary component if a consumption tax is to work as you (and Madison) claim. But this simply can’t happen under the fair tax because revenues by definition will not be allowed to decrease due to the revenue neutrality assumption.

Lastly, I also do not accept the argument that because the IRS is already extremely intrusive that we should accept an equally intrusive “fair tax” bureaucracy and no one will convince me that a government agency that hands out money every month to a large portion of the population will not be extremely intrusive. One signal advantage of the sales tax is that it is administered more or less automatically and without the need to identify individuals. The “prebate” part of the fair tax negates that benefit and opens the door for what is supposed to be essentially a sales tax to be administered as a welfare program with all the concomitant lobbying, need for personal identifying information and politically correct posturing by politicians.

If the fair tax prebate is truly not determined by income, spending or any other factor other than family size, as I understand you to claim, then it also has no connection to the amount of sales taxes that have been (or will be) paid. If there is no connection to actual taxes paid then the governmental payment is not a rebate at all, it is merely a transfer payment made by head count. I really do not see any advantage at all and many serious problems this with this “prebate” concept. In my view we have enough people getting transfer payments from the government right now and expanding this to a greater portion of the citizenry just further impairs our ability to maintain our system of republican self-governance.

I am a true believer in tax reform but the fair tax does not appeal to me as reform for two reasons: first it has as its main assumption that it will be revenue neutral and second it will require a massive federal bureauracy to run its monthly rebate program to taxpayers.

For me the purpose of federal tax reform is to reduce the power the federal government wields over our economy and our lives. Their power stems largely from how much money overall they take away from people through taxes and how they spend that money and this is the factor that is specifically not reformed through the fair tax "revenue neutrality" assumption. Yes I know they also wield power through tax incentives, etc but I believe that is insignificant compared to what they spend on entitlements and everything else. To me, any reform that does not reduce overall revenue to the federal government as part of its primary aim is not reform.

Second, I fear that the federal bureaucracy that would be needed to calculate, disburse and adminster a monthly "prebate" of sales taxes to citizens could well dwarf the IRS in intrusiveness, size and control. It seems to me, to be fair, the government would have to have detailed information about people's incomes and purchases and life circumstances such as illnesses to correctly figure out how much each citizen deserved to be prebated. Such intensive and personal monitoring of individuals would be no improvement over the IRS which most people now only deal with once a year. Any reform needs to simplify and reduce the need for government to have detailed, personal information about each of us and it needs to reduce the government's monitoring of our lives. I do not see how the fair tax meets that test.

Free trade is about freedom. Conservatives should believe in more of it and not less of it, especially when it comes to the economy. Without economic freedom you cannot have individual liberty. This is not about political consensus and globalization; however you define that term, it's about the freedom of the individual to make decisions that benefit his rational self-interest without interference from government bureaucrats.

Actually I agree that this debate is about freedom, we probably just disagree about the nature and definition of "freedom." I defer to the traditional definition of freedom, or more appropriately as the founders termed it "liberty," as being rooted in and defended by the American project of popular (republican) self-government. And it is this project of republican self-governance that is being destroyed by what you call "free trade." Not only is it destroying our ability as citizens to have a say in an increasing number of environmental, immigration and trade policy issues, it is also destroying the very conditions that are required for our republican form of self-governance to remain viable -- an independent, self-reliant populace with a large middle class.

You talk about "the freedom of the individual to make decisions that benefit his rational self-interest without interference from government bureaucrats," and I agree that pursuing one's personal self-interest is an important liberty. This "freedom" comes, however, along with the obligation to respect and defend that same "freedom" for every one else in society. Self-interest, when it comes to public policy, was considered illegitimate by our founders who considered it the primary obstacle that had to be overcome for popular (republican) government to succeed, thus the necessity for an independent and self-reliant (disinterested) citizenry. Citizens in a self-governing society are not entitled to pursue their "rational self-interest" without regard to how it affects other people or the common good.

If only an elite have access to this "freedom" to pursue their self interest then our empire of liberty (Jefferson's term) is a sham. I believe this is where globalization is taking us -- to a world presided over by a ruling, corporate elite who do not recognize national borders or sovereignties; nor do they care whether your or my children have the power or the freedom to govern themselves. Their wealth and power insulate them from the political and physical dangers that their policies cause and from the need to show allegiance to any particular nation state or belief system. They truly are citizens of the would and their religion is profit and power. (For more analysis along these line read: "Conservatism of the Future" by John O'Sullivan in the New Criterion magazine which is available online at http://www.newcriterion.com:81/archives/26/01/the-conservatism-of-the-future ).

To me it is not the right to "choose" to purchase a commodity at the lowest price in the would that defines individual freedom nor is it the right for a corporation to go anywhere in the would to produce goods for the American market. For me what you call freedom is the liberty (or the right) to govern myself together with my fellow citizens according to principles of justice and under a constitutional regime that limits governmental power and respects individual rights. This is what protects individual rights, not the market.

It is common for people today to mistake the market and market values for all societal values and to see the market and commerce as the ultimate end of all human effort. The ultimate end or purpose of government, however, is justice as James Madison explained in the federalist papers. If you believe in conservative values, then the protection of our republican form of self government should be our first priority.

"Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong are "top tier" orthodox economists? Good grief. They are nothing more than rabid anti-Bush, anti-conservative loud mouths who will say anything to score political points. Conservatives should run fast and far from anything these two say."

The designation as "top tier" was made by the author of the article who, by the way, is a radical free trader like yourself. His whole point in the article was to highlight the danger that with so many mainstream and prominent economists changing their mind about comparative advantage and publicly warning that globalization may be a net negative for our economy, the political consensus in support of so-called "free trade" and globalism would evaporate.

These economists, including Samuelson who I guess you admit as being "top tier," were on your side for decades and provided the economic rationale for the support of the radical globalization of our economy. Now that they have second thoughts and are admitting the possibility that the current dogma about the universal benefits of globalization is "simplistic" and possibly just wrong by offering traditional economic "proofs" of the defects of the comparative advantage theory you say they must be dismissed?

The real world effects of globalization on the American economy have made even leading economists like Paul Samuelson question the benefits of so-called "free trade." An article in the October Atlantic magazine titled "Beyond Belief" by Clive Crook notes the breakdown of the former rock solid consensus on the theory of comparative advantage. This is the theory that all claims of the universal benefits of "free trade," are based on. The article notes:

"For nearly 200 years, the principle of comparative advantage, and the ideas about economic policy that flowed from it, divided the world into two camps: those with basic economic literacy, and the rest. Understanding this idea, and advocating it to the world, was part of what it meant to be an economist—especially an American economist. Lately things have changed. Some of America’s most eminent economists, including Samuelson himself, have edged away from that earlier consensus.

The article doesn't mention the major variable that has changed since Ricardo published his comparative advantage theory -- the new mobility of capitol and labor -- factors that were assumed fixed (not easily able to move across national bounderies) by Ricardo and Adam Smith. In essence, what we now call "free trade" is not really trade in the classical sense at all, it is merely international substitution of labor. When the difference in labor costs is so high between China and America and the ability to substitute labor is easy through outsourcing or simply by using the internet, then we are in a situation where labor is being globalized and therefore wages and living standards are being leveled on a global basis. That is good for India and China and a disaster for America.

Evidently this rethinking of the theory of comparative advantage among economists was started by Samuelson himself in a 2004 article in the Journal of Economic perspectives in which, the author notes, Samuelson attacked the "conventional defenses of globalization" as "simplistic." The article further quotes Samuelson as saying that under certain circumstances the losses from trade could exceed the benefits, not just for particular industries but for the economy as a whole.

Reality is beginning to set in, even with economists. The article notes other "top-tier" orthodox economists such as William Baumol, Alan Blinder, Paul Krugman, Lawrence Sommers and Brad DeLong as questioning the effects of globalization and what imports and offshoring are doing to living standards. Lawrence Summers is quoted as saying in a July Financial Times forum that “It is not even altogether clear that [globalization] benefits America in aggregate.”

This article is available on the Atlantic website archives (only for subscribers) at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200710/free-trade.

The “family farm” is a lifestyle more than it is a career choice

Every tax or policy decision is a "choice" and has its own set of consequences -- good and bad. The current system that favors big Agriculture with just a few firms specializing in food production creates a very centralized, and thus very vulnerable, food supply system that is very dependent on fuel for the high transportation costs. Any problems, either in production like plant or animal diseases, product contamination (accidental or intentional) or even supply disruptions as would happen during natural or man made disasters, are magnified and made worse by this system.

A more diversified and localized food production system with more variety in plant and animal hybrids would probably be safer for the country as a whole and reduce our vulnerability to high fuel costs, to intentional attacks on our food supplies by terrorists as well as reduce our reliance on foreign food supplies making us more self-reliant as a nation. During wartime, as England found out during WWII, it is important to be able to feed oneself. Also, if one cares about the future of our system of republican self-government, there are many advantages to having more of our population engaged in agriculture.

Big agriculture has driven our food production system toward highly refined and highly processed foods because these are the most profitable for them, but this change in our food supply has ultimately led to poorer health for Americans. It is probably time for us as a people to rethink what we want and need from our agricultureal and food production sectors and develop the necessary public policies toward that end.

That vaccines can 'never' be tainted. . .impure or just a 'bad batch'; and that those who receive them; are physically equal is unrealistic.

Immunizations, and all medications and medical treatments for that matter, involve risks as well as benefits and we can never be sure when we have to make the decision for ourselves or our children that we know all of these tradeoffs. I remember standing in line for the sugar cube polio vaccine in the 1950's and now it has been proven that that vaccine was tainted with a monkey virus from the monkey tissue it was grown on. That monkey virus has now been implicated in the rise of a certain kind of brain cancer in children and it is thought that mothers can pass this virus on to their children during pregnancy.

If you don't believe this then go to the Atlantic magazine website and search for articles on polio. This article details the entire story including how much obstructionism and disdain the Italian researcher had to endure from the US medical establishment. He eventually found a vial of the old vaccine in a GP's office and was able to prove the existance of the monkey virus.

The point of my comments is not to encourage people not to get vaccines, I have had my own children vaccinated (MMR, DPT and menningitus for a college age child), but to warn that we will never be able to know all the potential risks. To believe that medical science understands the human immune system and its interaction with the environment sufficiently to provide all the answers about the risks and benefits of vaccines is to exhibit supreme human arrogance. Given the real threat of polio in the 50's, I do not blame my parents for giving me the vaccine. I do blame the medical/public health industry in this country for trying to thwart research and intimidate individuals who are doing research on possible risks of immunizations.

What would my parents have done if they knew then the vaccine was tainted with a monkey virus? Probably the same thing because polio was a clear and present danger at that time and the risks of the monkey virus was an unknown future possibility. We can never be sure that what we are being told by medical authorities about immunizations is the full and complete truth and to be honest they can not know this themselves. We have to make decisions, including public policy decisions, within this area of doubt and of unknown possible harm and for me this implies the least coercive policy on mandating immunizations and maximum freedom for individual choice is called for.

What would make more sense would be subsidized catastrophic health care coverage, dropping all other government programs and phasing out medicare.

I have been saying this since the late seventies when I studied health policy in graduate school. Third party payment for ordinary medical care costs, including most especially governmental payers, has ruined the relationship between patient and doctors (doctors now work for the insurance company or government not the patient), has caused the cost of health care to skyrocked and become unaffordable for many people, has skewed the medical and drug treatment decisions of doctors as well as the employment decisions of people, and has prompted entire groups of Americans to abandon their responsibility of citizenship by shamelessly promoting their own self interest at the expense of the rest of society (think AARP and Medicare).

Affordable catastrophic health insurance coverage with premiums based on income is the first step, separating this coverage from employment is the second and developing a public safety net system for those who will inevitably not have resources for health care is the third and most difficult part of reforming health care.

I would think that moving away from insured and entitlement programs entirely and allowing local communities to fund their own indigent health care on a sliding fee basis is the better way to go although not perfect by any means. Existing public health clinics could be expanded and I also believe doctors (and hospitals) will do more charity care on their own when they are relieved of all the burden, expense and control imposed by insurance systems.

This is going to hit the old people particularly.

Yes, and perhaps in more ways than financially. While doing research on cigarette smoking and and weight loss I discovered that cigarette smoking is strongly protective against Parkinson's disease and possibly also Alzheimer's disease. Smoking also has a very effective MAO inhibition effect in the brain that improves mood (combats depression) and works like anti-depressant psychoactive drugs. Many smokers, it is concluded, are self-medicating for depression and that is why they have a harder time quitting statistically.

Gary Taube in his new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" reports that nicotine may be the most sucessful weight-loss drug in history. He says that "nicotine appears to induce weight loss and fat loss not by suppressing appetite but by freeing up fatty acids from the fat cells and then directing them to the muscle cells, where they are taken up and oxidized." This helps to combat the central problem in obesity which he hypothesizes (based on much scientific evidence which he cites in his book) is a faulty mechanism of carbohydrate metabolism in some people which, when faced with a diet high in refined carbohydrates, causes high insulin levels in the blood which "traps" fat in the fat cells making it unavailable to the body as fuel. There is a lot more involved in his explanation of how this might work and why smokers who quit gain weight due to the reversal of this process.

None of this has caused me, a life long non-smoker, to start smoking but it has given me pause as to what public policy, especially tax policy, should be toward smoking. Everything in life, every choice we make, involves both costs and benefits and to pretend that we have total knowledge sufficient to decide that no one should ever smoke and that there are no possible benefits to smoking is to display massive arrogance.

Interestingly, some of the medical researchers working in these areas suspect that drug companies are not interested in pursuing the treatment possibilities of nicotine in Parkinson's and Alzheimers disease because nicotine, a natural substance, cannot be patented. I did read, however, of medical trials using nicotine patches for some of these patients. Nicotine is not the only active substance in tobacco smoke (I have read that there are over 4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke) and apparently researchers believe that nicotine is not the responsible agent for the MAO inhibition effect in the brain. It seems to me that much research is needed in these areas on a substance which has been used for thousands of years by human beings and which has a well know side effect profile (unlike newly developed drugs). I fear however, that the current politically correct jihad against smoking will prevent such research.

Never saw her again ... this was in ... um ... '60? .. '61? .. '62?

Yes, this was how it worked back then because of the STIGMA of pregnancy outside of marriage and the lack of economic assistance available to unwed mothers. Current efforts to reduce teen pregnancy don't work because there are no longer any social costs (stigma) attached to the behavior and government has made it economically feasible through Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc. for irresponsible teens to actually parent their babies. Back in the 60's the choices were marriage (for the older ones), adoption through private agencies (remember homes for unwed mothers) in which the medical costs of pregnancy were paid for by adoptive parents, or keeping the baby and living with the mother's parents.

All of those 60's options were better for society, the teenage unwed mother, and most importantly the child. What we have accomplished today, mostly through government programs and the removal of the social stigma against unwed parenting, is to financially enable irresponsible girls to parent their out of wedlock babies resulting in increasing rates of child abuse and skyrocketing numbers of kids being removed from these irresponsible mothers at ages 3, 4, 5 and being placed in a poorly functioning foster care system. It has been a true public policy disaster the negative consequences of which are incalculable, both for the inviduals personally affected and society at large.

What is needed is for government to remove itself from the picture entirely which will restore the normal and necessary economic consequences and incentives for teenage girls to place their babies for adoption (or get married if feasible) rather than parenting these children themselves. Restoring the stigma attached to unwed teenage parenting will also help. For example, no more day care centers in high schools! Once one has chosen to have a baby and to parent that child then one has chosen to become an adult with all the responsibilities that entails and they no longer belong in public high schools. Local community colleges are the appropriate educational setting for these adult parents.

The most important reason not to foster or enable multiple languages in America is that we are a self-governing nation. Citizens need to be able to understand and speak with each other in order to deliberate together about public issues. That is our job (our duty) as citizens and to do it effectively we must have a common language.

The ruling elites in government are busily undermining this American project of self-government in every way they can -- this is just the latest effort to deal citizens out of the process of governing. They want all the power for themselves.

"The study was supported by the U.S. Canola Association."

You are correct about the toll road moratorium bill. It was the eminent domain bill (HB 2006) that Perry vetoed after the session ended. The bill was in response to broad support for legislation to protect private property in Texas and it passed the House by a vote of 125 to 25 and the Senate unanimously. In my opinion it was a weasely act, as well as a betrayal of the principles of self-government, for Perry to single-handedly overturn the legislature’s and people’s will on this issue.