Elemental Zoo

Books Received at Elemental Zoo (April 2012)

Codevilla, Advice to War Presidents (Basic Books 2009)

Follett, Modern American Usage (edited by Jacques Barzun) (Hill & Wang 1966)

Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom (Maurer translation) (Doubleday 1992)

Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom (Jacobs translation) (Dover 2005)

Lindner, Rebel Without a Cause … The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath (Gruen & Stratton 1944)

Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. I (Dryden translation) (Modern Library 2001)

Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. II (Dryden translation) (Modern Library 2001)

Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1, Plato (1944, Princeton 1971)

Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2, Hegel and Marx (1944, Princeton 1971)

Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (Routledge 1957, Routledge Classics 2002)

Pyle, Getting Away with Torture (Potomac 2009)

Scott, Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft, Addressed to J.G. Lockhart (1830, Cambridge 2010)

What the Cats Know

[Phil called the other day, and said that, if I had the space, he would like to post some words on another philosophical question. He promises that they will have nothing to do with Marx or Engels. Instead he wants to talk briefly about a different subject where, this time, he has some expertise.

What subject? Well, cats. He has several and, he tells me, they’re all opinionated. So here we go.]

Consider the common house cat. Zoologists call him felis domesticus, but apparently they’re the only ones who do. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the word cat is common to most European languages and is of “unknown origin.” The cat was well known in ancient Latin and Greek, and there’s been a name for him in modern languages “generally as far back as their records go.” [1] So, just about everywhere, a cat is a cat.

People say a lot of things about cats, some of them justified and some of them not. Cats are imperturbable, unless confronted with a direct threat. If you come upon a cat sitting on a plate … What? Well, it does happen. My cats will sit anywhere. Anyway, if you find a cat on a plate, often you can spin the plate without frightening the cat. In fact, if you do it slowly kitty won’t turn a hair as you rotate him (or her) 180 degrees, to face the opposite direction.

In the old days people called this “turn[ing] the cat in the pan.” [2] It meant (i) to cleverly reverse things so that they appeared the opposite of what they were; or, (ii) ‘to turn a thing right about.’[3] The expression was used in politics to describe people who changed direction without changing anything else. Come to think of it, we see a lot of that kind even today.

Take, for example, the Conservatives who in previous years never met a Middle Eastern war they didn’t like; today, and for the purposes of the next election, they’re anti-war, at least with respect to the old ones. But otherwise nothing changes; they’re still always right.

Then there’s the expression that “[a] cat may look at a king.[4]” This is commonly taken to mean that there “are certain things which an inferior may do in the presence of a superior.”[5] But here’s a case where the popular definition is either confusing or wrong. Winston Churchill knew better; he said that dogs look up at people, cats look down on them, and only pigs treated people as equals. (Churchill said he preferred the pigs.[6]) As far as the cat is concerned, a cat needs no permission to look at a king, and only permits the king to look back.

While Churchill was on the right track, the author H.P. Lovecraft came closest to understanding the real nature of cats. He’s the one who said that “the cat is cryptic, and close to strange things that men cannot see.”[7] Other people agree. A Native American friend, for example, argues that cats have more than five senses, and that the extra ones allow cats to “see” the spirits and forces that animate nature. Others think the cat’s senses go beyond nature.

Why is this? Did cats develop these abilities on their own, or do they come from some other place – another plane, another planet, whatever – where such abilities are common? I don’t know the answer, but I have suspicions.

In any case, it’s clear to anybody who deals with them that cats have private lives, and some of them are really deep. If you ever needed proof of that, there’s new evidence on the internet. Before we go further, click on the link below and watch the video:

http://now.msn.com/now/0411-henri-existential-housecat.aspx

Now, if you didn’t cheat, and did watch, it should be obvious to you that this cat is a philosopher. More precisely, the cat’s an Existentialist; he (or she) understands a basic truth of Existentialism, that is:

… that Nothingness can be conceived neither outside of being, nor as a complementary, abstract notion, nor as an infinite milieu where Being is suspended. Nothingness must be given at the heart of Being …[8]

Nothingness is everywhere, in our private lives and in foreign relations; so existential threats are everywhere as well. Foreign wars are existential threats, and so are closed cat doors.

There you go: Some principles to live by. If you don’t like them, have a cheeseburger and move on to something else. The rest of us will wait for the next class, taught by a cat, which pops up in the cloud.

---

[1] See The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically (Oxford, 1971) at cat, Vol. I, p. 352, introduction. Hereafter, the Dictionary will be cited as OED at ___.

[2] See OED at cat, p. 352, note 12.

[3] See OED at cat, p. 352, note 12.

[4] See the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (6^th Edition) (Oxford 2004) at Proverbs, p. 616.

[5] See OED at cat, p. 352, note 13.

[6] He’s supposed to have said: “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” See ODQ at Churchill, p. 222

[7] This is from The Cats of Ulthar, a short story by H.P. Lovecraft. Currently there are two good and readily available collections of Lovecraft’s work. The first has all the fiction, in the version edited by S.T. Joshi. See Lovecraft, The Complete Fiction (Barnes & Noble 2008.) The Cats of Ulthar appears at p. 88 of this volume. The second is Lovecraft, Tales (selected by and notes by Peter Straub) (Library of America 2005)

[8] Sartre, Being and Nothingness (Barnes translation) (Philosophical Library 1956) at p. 22.

What Did Marx and Engels Really Say?

[Every now and then, the twin subjects of class warfare and Communism insert themselves into our political discourse. You don’t hear the candidates talk about this kind of thing, but the Conservative media are quite another matter. So I thought this would be a good time to do a brief review of Marxism, and clarify some terms for the benefit of all.

At Elemental Zoo we try to stay close to the original material, rather than secondary sources, when we do something like this. This has an advantage: by going to the originals, we avoid the biases of previous commentators, and their mistakes. The disadvantage is that any bias or mistake in our discussion will clearly be our own, and we won’t have anyone to blame.

Another disadvantage is that the original materials can be quite wordy and long. (If you don’t believe me, take a look at some of our earlier blogs on Jeremy Bentham.) So, whenever I have a task like this I ask Phil to step in to do the heavy lifting. He has a lot of patience with this stuff.

Phil says that the best way to treat Communism in a short blog is to work from the Communist Manifesto, published by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in 1848. Note that this was well after our Constitution was written, so our Founding Fathers quite likely were not Communists. No matter what you might think of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and their attitude toward the rich and tax evaders.

So, it’s time to get on with the discussion, but first I have to ask a key question that I learned back in the 1950s. “Phil, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

What? Don’t mumble. Oh, Phil says probably not, but his memory is not as good as it used to be. I guess that will have to do. Let’s get into the subject matter.]

“It’s about time,” said Phil. “By the way, I thought we had a copy of the Communist Manifesto in the Elemental Zoo library, but apparently that’s not true.”

“Sorry about that. Do you want us to find one?”

“It’s not necessary, G; the Manifesto is available on the internet, along with a lot of other works by Marx.[1] Of course, I’m working from an English translation. The internet text is taken from the semi-official version published in Moscow in 1969. There are also numerous documents appended, including a letter from Engels to Marx, the draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, and a FAQ[2] entitled Principles of Communism.”

“Semi-official?”

“Yes, of course. We’re talking about the old Soviet Union. In those days nothing was published in Moscow about Communism without some sort of approval by the State. The book was put out by Progress Publishers.[3]”

“Oh, I remember that outfit. Back in college I knew a Russian Studies major who used their translations quite a bit. He called their line of books the ‘Little Lenin Library.’ But he was mostly looking at Russian literature. Dostoyevsky[4], Turgenev[5], that kind of author.”

“Whatever,” he said; “anyway, I’m convinced that this is an accurate version of the Manifesto, and its English translation. Now can we get on with the discussion?”

“Please do.”

Remember, the Manifesto was published in 1848. By that time Europe had undergone a couple of centuries of spectacular economic growth. This happened in large part because of industrialization in the West and rapid development of new technologies. The result, Marx and Engels said, was that “big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all local markets into one world market [and] has spread civilization and progress everywhere….’”[6]

“Phil, isn’t that a positive? Today aren’t we celebrating the development of a world economy? Isn’t the new world economy supposed to lead to democracy everywhere?”

“No, Marx and Engels didn’t see it that way. They said that, with industrialization the old elites, the nobility, the guild-masters and journeymen, and so forth were pushed aside and replaced by a new economic system. It consisted of (i) the people who owned capital – i.e., the means to produce goods, and (ii) the people who worked for them.[7]”

“Well, that seems simple,” I said; “only two classes. Tell me more.”

“Marx and Engels included all capitalists in the same class, i.e., the class of people who controlled the means to produce goods. But the capitalists came in different sizes. There were the big-time industrialists, the bourgeoisie; and the small-timers, like shop-keepers, professionals and other small business owners. They were called the petit bourgeoisie.[8]

“And the working class; what were they called?”

“The proletarians, of course; the ones without any capital, i.e., without the means to produce goods. They were the people who ‘live only so long as they find work, and who work only so long as their [labor] increases capital. These [laborers], who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.[9]’

The working class also could include former members of the petit bourgeoisie, whose capital was destroyed by fluctuations in the economy. The petit bourgeoisie come and go or, in the language of the Manifesto, ‘are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition …[10]’

And finally, the proletariat also could include the so-called dangerous class, technically known as the lumpenproletariat.[11] These were the ‘social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society…’[12] I’m not sure who these people were, but clearly the authors didn’t like them. Anyway, the dangerous class might support the proletariat, or they might side with reactionaries (i.e., anti-communists).”

“My guess,” I said, “is that lumpenproletariat was merely an epithet thrown at opponents. It included any lower income person who disagreed with the Communists. But I really don’t know. Anyway, the Manifesto gives a powerful description of a social system under great stress. Do you agree?”

“Yes, social stress is the basic premise of the Manifesto. Marx and Engels said that capitalists could not exist without ‘constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production;’ this in turn produces ‘uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation….’[13] They said ‘[w]e have come to the point where a new machine invented in England deprives millions of Chinese workers of their livelihood within a year’s time.’[14] In short, by 1848 the problems were not confine to one country or a combination of Western countries; they were spreading to the whole world. ”

“So what was their solution?”

“I guess you could say that they had a prediction, and a set of solutions. First, the prediction. They said that the modern laborer “instead of rising with the process of industry, [would sink] deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class.”[15] Why? Because of fluctuations in the markets, the elimination of jobs by machinery, and foreign wage competition.

Jobs come and go with the markets, and employees come and go with the jobs. In reality, they said, the laborer is a slave to the markets. The bourgeoisie “is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within its slavery…”[16] In today’s parlance, I guess, labor is a stakeholder in the economy, and gets nothing but uncertainty, declining wages and/or joblessness. So the bourgeoisie needed to be replaced, and would be.”

“All right,” I said, “I get the idea. Assuming the prediction is correct, and the bourgeoisie is overthrown, what reforms would Marx and Engels suggest?”

“Their solutions are well known, but I’ll touch on some of the highlights.

First, they would abolish private property. Private property was the source of the power of the bourgeoisie, and needed to be taken from them and given to the proletariat.[17] Initially the State would take control[18], but after a time the classes would disappear, the State would wither away and the people would be directly in charge. There would be a society where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” [19]

Second, they would institute a system of free public education. ‘Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost.’[20]

Third, they would abolish marriage and the family as institutions. Here again they were focused on private property. The working class family already had been “torn asunder” by economic conditions, and children had been ‘transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of [labor].’[21] Also, marriage as a monogamous relationship didn’t really exist with the upper class; instead the bourgeoisie had supplemented marriage by seducing the wives and daughters of their workers, retaining common prostitutes, and seducing each other’s wives.[22]”

“Wow! Phil, your list of ‘highlights’ may be a small part of the agenda, but it’s potent! Don’t you think Marx and Engels went a little overboard? They started by complaining about the dislocations caused by industrialization, and jumped directly to a plan to reorganize everything and everybody. But I guess that’s the definition of an extremist, isn’t it?”

“I think so,” he said. “And you’re right; they didn’t stop with just three points. I picked these because they seemed to be central to the whole thing.

More importantly, it’s clear that Marx and Engels were ideologues in the modern sense. They started with their own preconceived notions, and edited the facts to conform to their own theory. In their case, they believed that all human history was the ‘history of class struggles.’[23] In the modern age (i.e., in 1848) there were only two classes, and the struggle could be resolved only if one of them were eliminated.

Marx and Engels had absolutely no respect for efforts to compromise. People – and governments – who planned to redress social grievances did so only to short circuit the class struggle. They were bourgeoisie socialists, and would keep the working class confined within ‘the bounds of existing society.’[24] They would not transfer the means of production to the proletariat.”

“So Phil, I take it that Marx and Engels would not approve of the numerous social programs of the New Deal, or the social safety net that now exists in this country. Yes?”

“Most likely, yes. They would see such programs as an impediment to revolution. And no doubt they would oppose any extensions of them, such as President Obama’s health care initiative. So I guess you might say that, if Marx and Engels had a vote, they would vote with today’s Conservatives to scale back or eliminate the safety net.”

“Ouch! I’m sure we’ll hear about that one of these days. Is there anything else you’d like to say about class warfare before we wind up this blog?”

“Well, G, you don’t hear very much about class warfare today, or at least I don’t. Except, of course, from the Conservatives; some of them seem to be obsessed by it. They consider any attempt to raise taxes on the rich to be class warfare. On the other hand, attempts to scope back the safety net are not the same thing. I wonder why?”

“Phil, you’ve had almost the last word. But before we go, I think we should acknowledge that all this talk about the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and revolution might make some of our readers a bit paranoid. Relax, dear reader, that wasn’t our intent; and, in any case, nowadays Communists don’t seem to be a threat to our Republic. They’re quite out of fashion, you know, except perhaps with nitwits in the Conservative media. Nobody really follows that stuff anymore.

And, in reality, the same was true decades ago. I’m reminded of a comment made by George Orwell[25], the author of Animal Farm, 1984 and numerous other good works. Apparently he was a Socialist, and not a Communist, but that really doesn’t matter in this context. He said: ‘To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet at any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about.[26]’ So lighten up, and have a good week.”

---

[1] See Marx and Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848, English Edition, 1888, Progress Publishers 1969), currently available at http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ The internet version is paginated, so in the future we will cite it as Manifesto at ___.

[2] That’s FAQ, as in “Frequently Asked Questions.” Phil is being up-to-date here.

[3] There’s a Wikipedia entry on Progress Publishers, but it’s only a stub. You can find it by going to the Wikipedia website and searching “Progress Publishers,” or simply by clicking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Publishers

[4] That’s Fyodor Dostoyevsky. There’s an incomplete article on him in Wikipedia; just go to the Wikipedia web site and search “Dostoyevsky,” or simply click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dostoyevsky

[5] That’s Ivan Turgenev. There’s an incomplete article on him in Wikipedia; just go to the Wikipedia web site and search “Turgenev,” or simply click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Turgenev

[6] See Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Question 11, p. 45

[7] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 14. Bourgeois is also spelled bourgeoisie.

[8] See Manifesto at Ch. III (1) (B), Petty Bourgeois Socialism, p. 29

[9] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 18.

[10] See Manifesto at Ch. III (1) (B), Petty Bourgeois Socialism, p. 29

[11] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 20.

[12] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 20.

[13] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 16.

[14] See Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Question 11, p. 45

[15] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 20.

[16] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 21. See also Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Question 11, p. 45.

[17] See Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Questions 14, 15 & 16, p. 47-49.

[18] See Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Question 20, p. 50 – 51.

[19] See Manifesto at Ch. II, Proletarians and Communists, p. 27-28.

[20] See Manifesto at The Principles of Communism, Question 18, p. 49.

[21] See Manifesto at Ch. II, Proletarians and Communists, p. 24-25.

[22] See Manifesto at Ch. II, Proletarians and Communists, p. 25. Phil doesn’t know what specific cases, if any, that Marx and Engels are describing here in their tirade against the sexually active bourgeoisie. I suspect that an historian who did a little research could write a good and popular book on the subject.

[23] See Manifesto at Ch. I, Bourgeois and Proletarians, p. 14.

[24] See Manifesto at Ch. III, Socialist and Communist Literature, p. 31.

[25] There’s a pretty good biography of him in Wikipedia. If you want to know more, just go to the Wikipedia web site and search “George Orwell,” or simply click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell,_George

[26] See The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Oxford, 6^th Edition, 2004) at George Orwell, p.577.

On Politics, Economics and Humility

[I was wandering aimlessly the other day, wondering what I should write about this time, when I noticed a cryptic sign outside a stretch of grass. It said, “Pets and animals not allowed in flea market;” and, sure enough, behind it was a collection of tables and chairs, all unoccupied. Obviously private enterprise was coming, but it hadn’t arrived quite yet.

OK, so what? Well, the sign – and the empty tables, etc. – set me to pondering. (It’s dangerous to ponder, especially if you spend too much time at it.) Pets and animals aren’t allowed? What does that mean? Pets are animals! Or is the sign intended to warn the folks who think their pets are people? There are lots of them around, probably because pets tend to treat their humans better than other humans do. Ask any group of senior citizens.

But what about the other animals, the non-pets? Does the sign also warn farmers, for example, to leave their cows at home? I think so, but it hardly seems necessary. And what about the animals who don’t have humans and can’t read? You know, the bear, deer, and raccoons; the coyotes and wild dogs; and the opossums, rats, mice and so forth? They’re all over the place, and could disobey the sign out of simple ignorance.

For that matter, humans are animals too! Are humans supposed to stay out as well? Obviously not; we’re talking about a flea market, and the object of it is to sell stuff. Presumably to humans, because bear, etc. don’t have any money. And if humans without money are supposed to stay out, that sign won’t do the job. The sign makers need something more specific; you know, something like “No Cash, Go Away.” Now there’s a sign we could use in lots of places.

Now, for the final imponderable. Why do they call it a flea market? Actually, I don’t think the proprietors of the market want anything to do with fleas. That could explain why they want to keep pets off the premises. They’re afraid that pet owners might get tired at some point and take a nap with their pets. You know the old saying, “[i]f you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.”[1]

So it they’re going to run a non-flea market, they should just say so. And while they’re at it, they should stop picking on just the fleas. There are lots of other bugs – lice, ticks, mosquitos, etc. - they should avoid. Where public health is concerned, “there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.”[2] Why not just spray the premises and try to get rid of all of them?]

I told you it was dangerous to ponder too much. Anyway, why am I discussing this? Well, we’re in a political season now, and semi-meaningless signs and slogans are all over the place. Just the other day I heard that President Obama caused the last recession simply by running for office in 2008. The idea is that once he announced the markets “knew” he would win, and had a fainting spell from which they have yet to fully recover. Oh, our poor economy! It was so delicate that even the threat of Obama could send it into decline!

But how could that happen? After all, for the eight years prior to Obama our economy had been in the hands of capable Republicans, who resolutely opposed most forms of regulation and market intervention. The economy was on steroids during their tenure. It should have been an all-star athlete; so strong that no threats and no amount of bad news could undermine it. But instead it collapsed, and did so while the Republicans were still in control! This is a conundrum for sure.

It’s pretty clear that the economists of 2007-2008, or at least the ones favored by the Republicans, had no clue that a recession was coming.[3] Besides, there was an approaching election, and that kind of discussion was pretty much off the table. But once the election was over, and there was no denying that we had a really big recession, it was time to blame the Democrats for everything. The previous administration could not be at fault; not even a little bit.

I’m sorry, I can’t help but think of the Marxists of the 1950’s and 60’s when I listen to today’s rhetoric. You all remember the Marxists, don’t you?[4] They’re the ones who thought that all history could be analyzed in terms of class struggle, the workers against everybody else. Ultimately the working classes would triumph, and society would become classless. But in the interim there would be a lot of bumps along the road. There would be revolutions, led by the working classes; and counterrevolutions, led by entrenched special interests (the upper classes).

Really, back in those days that’s all a Marxist needed to know to comment on foreign affairs. The news was all about wars and insurrections; if a movement was successful, and pledged allegiance to Marxism, then it was revolutionary; if it deposed a government that leaned toward Marxism, then it was counter-revolutionary. In either case, it didn’t really matter; ultimately Marxism would triumph.

In many ways this was an ideal political philosophy, well-suited to its time: easy to remember, easy to say and easy to write on bumper stickers, placards and banners. But the whole Marxist enterprise began to collapse in the 1980’s. The old Soviet Union fell apart, the European satellite countries went their separate ways, and China, the Marxist stalwart of the East, embarked on a decidedly non-Marxist program of economic reform. Nevertheless, if you talk to a committed Marxist today, he (or she) quite likely will tell you that these failures do not disprove their pet theories. The Soviet Union, etc., failed simply because they didn’t implement Marxism correctly.

So what’s the similarity between the Right and the Marxists? Well, for openers[5] they both seem to be impervious to bad facts and contrary results. Their failures don’t lead them to reexamine fundamental beliefs and assumptions. Instead, they rationalize and blame other people. This is what happens with ideologues; first they take a position, then they edit actual events to comply with their preconceptions.[6]

Ideologues are not scientific. As Karl Popper once said, “it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.”[7] That doesn’t happen if you’re blind to experience. He calls that attitude pre-scientific. “On the pre-scientific level we hate the very idea that we may be mistaken. So we cling dogmatically to our conjectures, as long as possible.”[8]

If we put all of the scientists at one end of a football field, and all of the religious leaders at the other, where should we put the Conservatives and their economists? When they talk about the economy, are they giving us scientific opinions, or are they preaching theology? Are they giving us facts or revealed truths?

I won’t bother you with what some of the Founding Fathers thought about religion; I’ll just say that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson had some interesting views on the subject. Perhaps we’ll discuss them on another day.[9]

But some economists, at least, are concerned about performance. One of them said, for example, that after 2008 economists as a group were acting like a drunk searching for his keys under a lamppost because the light was better there, instead of searching where the keys were more likely to be.[10] They were sticking with familiar theories, and tweaking them, rather than attempting to build new tools that would improve their chances of predicting outcomes.

So I would say that economists, as a profession, probably lean more in the direction of the science, rather than religion. That is, some of them are willing to entertain the notion that they might be wrong, and even look into the possibilities.

On the other hand, Conservative politicians, and their support groups, are quite a different matter. They deal in eternal verities, and tell you to follow them, even if their solutions are quite similar to the tactics that preceded the near-crash of 2008. Don’t worry, little voter; just come back with me into the sacred grove, where all will be explained.

You know, I think the Conservatives would profit over the next few months if they just showed a little humility. After all, even if they’re sincere, if they’re wrong they can cause a great deal of damage. People notice that kind of thing. “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.[11]”

So Conservatives really ought to meditate a bit before talking, and even recite a prayer or two, perhaps like this one:

I expect to pass through this world but once; any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow-creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.[12]

Come to think of it, probably all of us should do the same.

---

[1] See The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Oxford, 6^th Edition, 2004) at Proverbs, p. 622. Henceforth, the Dictionary will be cited as ODQ at ___.

[2] See Samuel Johnson (English poet, lexicographer, etc., 1709-1784) in ODQ p. 432.

[3] See Quiggin, Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us (Princeton, 2010) at 115-116. Henceforth, Quiggin’s book will be cited as Zombie Economics at __.

[4] If you don’t, Wikipedia has a general introduction on the subject. Go to the Wikipedia website and search “Marxism,” or simply click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

[5] It’s not my intention to analyze all of the similarities at this time. But that would be an interesting topic for a future blog.

[6] We’ve blogged on this many times before. My favorite one is still the blog of 03/08/2010, A Business Plan for the 21^st Century.

[7] See Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 1^st English Edition 1959, reprint 2007) at Ch. 1, §6, p. 18.

[8] See ODQ at Popper, p. 607.

[9] If you want to follow up on your own, see, for example, Paine, Collected Writings (1955, LOA 1984) at The Age of Reason, Parts I & II, p. 666 – 830; Franklin, Autobiography, Poor Richard, and Later Writings (LOA 1987) at Autobiography, Part I, p. 619-620); and Jefferson, Writings (LOA 1984) at Letters 1803, p. 1120 -1126.

[10] See Zombie Economics at p. 123.

[11] This is from Graham Greene, an English novelist who died in 1991. See ODQ at p. 362.

[12] This is attributed to Stephen Grellet (1773-1855), a French Quaker and missionary. See ODQ at p. 363.

On Death and Taxes: A Satire

[Tax season rolled around again, and most of us here at the Zoo were absent on leave while dealing with that. If any of you missed our blogs, blame Uncle Sam. But the worst is over for us, at least for this year, and it’s time to blog again. We’ll start with a few short remarks to commemorate the national agony that ends, for most of us, on April 17.

Of course, not everyone agrees that paying taxes is agonizing; some of the political adepts who visit West Coast leather bars[1], for example, might argue that pain and suffering are spiritual and should be appreciated as such. But those folks are not really in the mainstream, at least not yet. When the rest of us think about taxes, we do so with quite a bit of fear and loathing.]

This is not a new attitude in America. John Marshall[2], the most famous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said long ago that “[t]he power to tax involves the power to destroy.”[3] Of course, Marshall was talking about whether the states could tax the federal government. (State citizens probably wouldn’t object; after all, they wouldn’t be taxed.) Marshall reasoned that if a state could tax federal instrumentalities, the state would control them. But under our Constitution the federal government’s powers are denied to the states. So the states can’t use taxes to control federal powers that they don’t have.[4]

What about federal taxes? Can the federal government really tax its citizens? Sadly, yes. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically provides that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises …”[5] And, as we noted in an earlier blog,[6] this also includes the power to tax incomes.[7]

Is anybody surprised? All governments need money to operate, and it must come from somewhere. In our system, the Government raises funds principally by taxing its citizens.[8] And it’s been that way with capitalist societies for a long time. As the old proverb goes, nothing is certain in an uncertain world “but death and taxes.” [9] Even Benjamin Franklin knew that. [10]

Today we still debate taxes, but the focus has shifted. There are a few outliers who think that, in the name of liberty, there should be no taxes at all; but most people are more concerned with tax equity. Let me give an example. Fred called last week, and said that he had good news on a number of fronts. His recent physical turned out well – he’s healthier than Dick Cheney; and his tax rate is now lower than Warren Buffet’s.

What? Well, sometimes Fred needs a bit of interpretation. He’s not saying that he’s permanently cheated death. So far as we know, nobody has. He’s saying only that, based on current information, he won’t need any major medical work in the near future. So the first part of the old proverb remains in force: No doubt the Grim Reaper will appear someday, but his visit has been deferred.

What about taxes? What magic did Fred use to lower his tax rate below Warren Buffet’s? Fred says that was the easy part. Mr. Buffett needs clever accountants to get to his level, plus numerous tax breaks provided to wealthy people by a solicitous Congress. Fred avoided all of that simply by not earning very much. His income last year was pitiful.

So here we are, back at the issue of tax equity. Is it really fair for poor people to pay so little, and the rich so much, to support our country? This seems to turn the natural order of things on its head. As Leona Helmsley knew, “[o]nly the little people pay taxes.”[11] The rich are, or should be exempt. They are the ones who create the jobs.[12] The poor are consumers of jobs, and create nothing.

So, if you believe – like our forefathers did - that taxes are inevitable, why let the poor escape paying them simply because they have no money? It’s counterintuitive, unfair to the rich and, more to the point, probably against the natural law.

How do we redress the balance? Well, it doesn’t really make sense to subsidize the poor so that they can pay higher taxes. The Government would simply be giving money to the poor so that they could give it back again. Besides, that would be a government program, and government programs never work.

No, we need to keep the Government out of it. The people who are really aggrieved are the rich, who pay too much to support our Government. Perhaps the poor, who don’t pay enough, should simply report to their nearest rich person and offer to work for food, or for some nominal amount, at any tasks the rich person might designate. If the rich don’t have any work at the moment, they could simply take IOUs from the poor and save them for later.

Or, if there are enough unused IOUs, the rich could pool them and sell the consolidated package as bonds or other types of derivative securities. There are plenty of banks who are skilled in creating such pools, plenty of brokers who know how to sell them, and plenty of traders who know how to trade them. The rich and their minions could make a tidy profit in this new market. That should make them feel better about their high taxes.

Of course, there is an underlying problem with this sort of security. Poor people don’t have any money, so it’s difficult to collect damages from them if they default. And they probably can’t be forced to work. The 13^th Amendment to our Constitution says:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.[13]

But in the law there is a solution for every problem. The 13^th Amendment does not apply to people who “shall have been duly convicted” of a crime. Perhaps, if failing to honor an IOU became a crime, the defaulters could be sent to jail. Then their services might be leased out at a nominal rate to the holders of the IOUs.

Alternatively, the Government could simply guarantee the IOUs, so that no one who accepted them would lose by it. Strictly speaking this would be Government interference with the market, but the Government would be limited to its traditional role of insuring the rich against loss.

Do I think any of these proposals are a good idea? Of course not. In case you didn’t notice, they’re offered in the spirit of satire. But the proposals do illustrate a serious point: There are people out there who think that the rich should pay less, and not more in taxes, and that all other Government programs should be modified (i.e., reduced) to make it possible. Remember this in the next election.

---

[1] What am I talking about? Take a look at Bazinet & Saltonstall, Republican National Committee spent nearly $2000 at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur (NYDailyNews.com) (March 29, 2010), at http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-29/news/27060398_1_rnc-michael-steele-west-hollywood

[2] Wikipedia has a pretty good biography of him. Just go to the Wikipedia web site and search John Marshall, or click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

[3] In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819). You can find an online version of the opinion at the Justia.com web site: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html The text of the opinion also appears in Marshall, Writings (LOA 2010) at McCulloch v. Maryland, p. 412.

[4] If you don’t like my summary, take a look at Marshall, Writings (LOA 2010) at McCulloch v. Maryland, p. 432. This is what he really said: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to [control] the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the [control], are propositions not to be denied.”

[5] See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8. As always, we prefer the online version of the Constitution maintained by the National Archives. Go to http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[6] See the blog of 02/13/2012, Taxing and Spending for the General Welfare.

[7] This authority was provided by the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution, which says: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” You can find the 16^th Amendment at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

[8] Unless, of course, the Federal Reserve creates it out of thin air. But that’s a topic for another day.

[9] See The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Oxford, 6^th Edition, 2004) at Proverbs, p. 628. Henceforth, the Dictionary will be cited as ODQ at __.

[10] This is from Benjamin Franklin in 1789, or, more specifically, from a letter of his to Jean Baptiste Le Roy on November 11, 1789. See ODQ at p. 332: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

[11] This is a comment from Leona Helmsley, supposedly made to her housekeeper in 1983, and reported during her trial for tax evasion. See ODQ at p. 380.

[12] Actually, this is not our view, but it is one of the myths and overstatements common to AM Talk Radio. For our view on who creates what, see the blog of 09/23/2010, The Rich and the Poor.

[13] You can find the 13^th Amendment at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Asteroid 2011 DA 14

[Fred’s taking over today, with a news flash from outer space. Read carefully and be warned! There are potential disasters out there that even the Maya didn’t predict.]

Well, it has happened again. A week or so ago at least one broadcast news program reported that next year we might have a visitor from outer space. Not the intelligent kind, but an asteroid, a chunk of rock that orbits our sun, that will pass uncomfortably close to us in February. Its name is Asteroid 2011 DA 14. If it hits the Earth it could make a big mess!

How big? Well, you ought to know that outer space is swarming with debris, and our Earth routinely plows through them. It’s estimated that about 40 tons of stuff hit our planet every day![1] Most of it, however, burns up in the atmosphere. Occasionally pieces hit the ground, and some folks actually prospect for that kind of thing;[2] there’s quite a collectors market for space debris.[3]

So why worry? This is all small stuff. It sounds like we’re in more danger from our own falling satellites,[4] rather than from the natural stuff. Well, that’s true, more or less; but bigger natural impacts are possible. Take, for example, the events near the Tunguska River in Siberia, about 100 years ago.[5]

On June 30, 1908, at about 7:14 A.M. there was a massive explosion in that area, estimated to be the equivalent of 5 to 30 megatons of TNT. If you remember our earlier blog on nuclear weapons,[6] you’ll recall that explosions that big are many, many times more powerful than the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.[7] The Tunguska explosion knocked over an estimated 80,000 trees spread over about 830 square miles. Luckily there were no major cities nearby. But there were witnesses. Some of them saw a column of bluish light, moving across the sky, followed by a flash and a shock wave that knocked people off their feet.

The current theory is that all this commotion was due to a really big chunk of space debris that fell in the Tunguska area. That is, a large “meteoroid or comet fragment” entered Earth’s atmosphere on that day, superheated, and exploded about 3 to 6 miles above the surface.[8] That kind of event is consistent with the witness testimony and the evidence at the Tunguska site; and it could produce the kind of explosion hypothesized by the scientists.

Asteroid 2011 DA 14 may be roughly the same size as the thing that exploded above Tunguska. Why do I say “may be?” Don’t we know? No we don’t. But we have estimates, and one of them is that the Tunguska meteoroid was about 70 yards across.[9] Press reports of Asteroid 2011 DA 14 estimate its size as 50[10] to about 65yards.[11] So, we’re talking about something that could be dangerous.

People in authority say that we don’t have to worry.[12] Asteroid 2011 DA 14 is big; but it will only pass close to us in astronomical terms; it will miss us by 12,680 miles.

Anyway, those are the press reports, based on unidentified sources at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the spirit of due diligence, I decided to look further. When I checked the NASA headquarters website, I wasn’t able to confirm the story. Oh, oh! But it turned out that the Near Earth Object Program, at JPL, did publish a news release to this effect.[13]

The good folks at the Bad Astronomy blog agree. They say that the odds of a collision in February, 2013 are so low as to be “essentially zero.” But we don’t know enough about the asteroid’s orbit to rule out the possibility of a collision during some later close encounter.[14] We have seen that asteroid before, and will see it again.

So there you have it: Disaster averted, at least for now. But you can see why people are concerned. Folks don’t want Mother Nature to detonate H-Bomb sized explosions over their heads without some advance notice. Besides, that’s a job for the world’s politicians, not Mom.

Of course, if we’re to believe the good news, we have to assume that (a) no person or machine at JPL has made a math error, (b) the scientists have enough data to plot an accurate course, and (c) no exogenous events (i.e., collisions with other asteroids, etc.) will alter that course.

For now these assumptions seem to be justified, but some people on the fringe still worry. I think we should all agree not to make fun of them. After all, only 65 million years ago a much larger object collided with Earth, and wiped out the dinosaurs and most other life on the planet.[15] Probably the dinosaurs didn’t know what was going to happen. But it happened anyway... Ignorance is dangerous.

---

[1] See Plait, Death From the Skies (Viking, 2008) at Ch. 1, Target Earth: Asteroid and Comet Impacts, p. 9.

[2] This is a social phenomenon that may be growing into a subculture: to see it in action, take a look at Meteorite Men, http://meteoritemen.com/

[3] See Meteorites for Sale at http://www.aerolite.org/meteorites-for-sale.htm

[4] See, for example, SPACE.com, Chow, Hugh NASA Satellite Falling to Earth Is Largest in 30 Years, at http://news.yahoo.com/huge-nasa-satellite-falling-earth-largest-30-years-113602972.html

[5] You can find a pretty good discussion of this in Wikipedia. Just go to the Wikipedia website and search “Tunguska event,” or simply click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event

[6] See the blog of 01/11/2012, Radiation and Us (You and Me).

[7] Wikipedia makes this point near the beginning of its article on the Tunguska event. It says that if the blast was at the midpoint of estimates, say 10 to 15 megatons, it would equal our Castle Bravo H-Bomb test in 1954. That would be about 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

[8] I guess this is as good a place as any to get into terminology. A “meteor” is the bright track you see in the sky. A “meteoroid” is the thing that heats up and leaves the bright track. A meteorite is any part of the meteoroid that survives to reach the ground. For a better explanation than mine, see Plait, Death From the Skies (Viking, 2008) at Ch. 1, Target Earth: Asteroid and Comet Impacts, p. 9 - 11.

[9] See Plait, Death From the Skies (Viking, 2008) at Ch. 1, Target Earth: Asteroid and Comet Impacts, p. 13 - 14.

[10] See SPACE.com, Wolchover, Why Asteroid Panic Is On the Rise, at http://news.yahoo.com/why-asteroid-panic-rise-152003260.html Actually, the article estimates the asteroid’s size as 150 feet which, of course, is 50 yards.

[11] See Sewell, Asteroid 2012 DA 14 heads for Earth next year, at http://digitaljournal.com/article/320607 Actually, she says that it’s 60 meters, or 197 feet, which translates roughly as 65+ yards.

[12] See SPACE.com, Wall, Mid Size Asteroid Won’t Hit Earth, NASA Says, at http://www.space.com/14810-asteroid-earth-impact-risk-2012da14.html

[13] See Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Near Earth Object Program, Near-Earth Asteroid 2012 DA14 to Miss Earth on February 15, 2013 (March 6, 2012) at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news174.html

[14] See Bad Astronomy, No, asteroid 2012 DA14 will not hit us next year, at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/04/no-asteroid-2012-da14-will-not-hit-us-next-year/

[15] See the graphic description of the process in Plait, Death From the Skies (Viking, 2008) at Ch. 1, Target Earth: Asteroid and Comet Impacts, p. 14 – 19.

The Iraq War and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Some of you questioned the comments I made in note 13 to the last blog, i.e., that the previous Administration justified invading Iraq principally by saying weapons of mass destruction were being produced over there. Well, I think it’s pretty clear that’s the excuse that they used.Wikipedia, for one, recites a lot of public statements made by the Bush people, including the President.[1] And, if you think about it, you might conclude that politicians had some justification for thinking that Iraq was a threat to somebody. The Director of the CIA at the time opined that it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had “unconventional weapons.”[2]

However, after we had conquered Iraq, we didn’t find any WMD! How do I know? Because the administration published its findings! The findings were set out in a lengthy series of documents issued by the Iraq Study Group, an advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence. I’m talking about The Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, dated 30 September 2004.[3]

So, what did the Report say? Well, if you look at the Key Findings, you’ll find that Iraq’s leader wanted to develop WMD after the sanctions on his regime were lifted[4]; but they hadn’t been lifted at the time of our invasion, and Iraq had no capacity to produce WMD. It had no missile delivery systems of the SCUD variety, even though the UN permitted it to develop and possess short-range (150 km) missiles.[5] It ended its nuclear program after the Gulf War in 1991, and did not attempt to restart it.[6] It also destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and there were “no credible indications that [it] resumed production … thereafter.”[7] And, last but not least, in 1996 Iraq abandoned its program to obtain biological warfare (BW) weapons quickly, and there was "no direct evidence" that Iraq had plans for a new program or was “conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.”[8]

Isn’t it interesting to look at the facts even if we already have an opinion? We can find all kinds of things we didn’t expect. Anyway, a lot of pundits and other armchair analysts took exception to the Report on the grounds that, if we didn’t find weapons in Iraq, the Iraqis must have moved them to Syria! And what was the evidence for that? Well, mostly that we didn’t find the weapons in Iraq. The proof was that there wasn’t any proof.

This issue was addressed in the Addendums to the Comprehensive Report dated March 2005.[9] Although the ISG didn’t give a final opinion of the matter, it did say:

Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.[10]

So, if there are Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction in Syria, will they pop up in the current unrest? I doubt it, because I don’t think any were transferred. I’m willing to take the Iraq Study Group’s word for that.

But for those of you who don’t believe the ISG, you can always argue that if the weapons don't show up today in Syria, it's only because the Syrians transferred them to Iran. After all, there are lots of Shi’a in Syria.

---

[1] For a good general discussion of that time, and the issues, take a look at the Wikipedia entry entitled Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. You can find it by going to the Wikipedia website and searching that title, or by simply clicking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[2] See CNN Politics, Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a “slam dunk,” at http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-18/politics/woodward.book_1_woodward-reports-slam-dunk-war-plan?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

[3] The 2004 Report is in three volumes, plus a 2005 Note and Addenda. We’ll cite the Report by Volume, you know, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, etc. If you do a search, you’ll probably find several places where you can buy a copy of all or part of the Report. But I recommend that you download it for free from the CIA Library. Just go to https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

[4] See Vol. 1, Key Findings, at Regime Strategic Intent, p. 1. Eventually he wanted to focus on ballistic missile and chemical warfare capabilities, but he hadn’t done so prior to our invasion.

[5] See Vol. 1, Key Findings, at Delivery Systems, p. 1.

[6] See Vol. 1, Key Findings, at Nuclear, p. 1.

[7] See Vol. 1, Key Findings, at Chemical, p. 1.

[8] See Vol. 1, Key Findings, at Biological, p. 1.

[9] This is also available from the CIA Library, at the link given above. It will be cited as Addendums at __.

[10] See Addendums, at Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, p. 1.

Political Conversations on the Right

This must be a suburb of Purgatory; it’s not Hell, because there’s an end to it, but otherwise there’s no difference.

Remark overheard at a recent 4-day conference.

All right, you caught me! I didn’t overhear that quote; I’m the one who said it. And I won’t take it back! Most people have limits, including me; but instructors at the kind of events I go to often have none. They drone on and on, without any apparent purpose other than, perhaps, to hypnotize the audience, until the crowd is driven to distraction, or put to sleep, or both. But not to violence; usually the audience is reasonably passive, the attendees manifesting their aggressions, if they have them, with blank stares, frowns, and occasional acid comments. Like these.

Talk about creative juxtaposition! The Republicans had their 20^th Presidential Debate right smack in the middle of my conference.[1] Of course, it was at night, and not during the day, so the two events really didn’t collide. But even so the differences were spectacular. The Republicans cheered, shouted, booed and applauded at the drop of a hat, and weren’t shy about it, either. Obviously they really liked the red meat served up by their candidates. Nobody fell asleep.

Fine, but why am I going on about this? It’s all old news. Tuesday the Republicans had primaries in Arizona and Michigan, and the results are in. Mitt Romney won both, and Rick Santorum came in second. The moving finger has written and moved on. Why not concentrate on the future? That’s where the news is.

Perhaps. But the 20^th debate may have been the last one for the Republicans. The candidates had 19 earlier debates to hone and shape their arguments. Presumably by the 20th they had crystalized their thoughts about each other, and about their policies. What would be the purpose of more debates, except possibly to backtrack on positions already defined, or arguments already made? Why would any honest candidate want to do that?

Who knows? If you believe that serious conservatism is what Republicans need to win a general election, there’s no real reason to modify genuine conservative positions. In fact, a successful politician should double down on them, not back away. So, I would argue that, during the previous 19 debates, we’ve seen the Republican campaign platform develop before our eyes; there will be no major changes during the Republican convention in Tampa, FL.[2]

I’ll admit that my prediction doesn’t come with a guarantee. Even so, let’s take it as an operating assumption for now. So what did the candidates say in the 20^th debate[3] that will appear in the Republican platform for next November? I see three possibilities, although you might find more.

Who’s a Pure Conservative?

The candidates went on and on about this in the 20^th debate. Ron Paul, for example, called Rick Santorum a “fake” conservative, who would talk one way in a campaign and act another when elected. Paul was concerned about spending, and more particularly, deficit spending to fund programs that we might not be able to afford. He said that Santorum had voted for a lot of wasteful stuff in the Senate.[4]

Rick Santorum didn’t agree. He bragged that he was really conservative, and had high marks to prove it from all the conservative rating agencies.[5] And it wasn’t easy to be conservative, because he represented a state whose people were not.

After that, the conversation turned into a cat fight about earmarks. For those of you who don’t know, an earmark is a bit of legislation, or legislative history, that Congress-people stick on their Bills from time to time to fund something special for the home folks. It works this way: If you’re a Member of Congress, just hail a passing Congress-person and say, “Hey, Fred (for example), you vote for mine and I’ll vote for yours.” But don’t do this on the street. Use a Conference Committee, or some other equally clandestine venue.

Mitt Romney said that he’s against earmarks. They’re wasteful and simply represent concessions to special interests. And Rick Santorum is bad because he voted for them from time to time. Santorum responded that Romney was a hypocrite. When he chaired the Olympics he campaigned for a special earmark to fund its operations.

The upshot of all that seems to be that there are good earmarks and bad earmarks: Mine are good and yours are bad, or vice-versa, depending on your viewpoint. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney says that he opposes earmarks, and will do something about them once he’s President. Frankly, I’m not quite sure what that could be. Congress makes the laws, and not the President.[6] And, equally important, Congress has a lot of discretion in how it does that. Congress determines its own internal procedural rules; not the President.[7] So the President can veto legislation, but he can’t tell Congress how to pass it or what to put in it. He can ask, but he can’t order.

Securing Our Borders

Now here’s an issue where the candidates were unanimous. Our southern border is not secure, they say, and needs to be made so; otherwise we will be inundated with a rising tide of illegal immigrants. Of course, there is evidence that with the economic slump the tide is reversing, with immigrants leaving rather than coming in.[8] But those are inconvenient facts; they don’t need to be discussed here.

The question put to the candidates was, “Is a border fence a good investment?” Ron Paul said, probably not. He would rather redeploy our troops from the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to our southern border with Mexico. Gingrich, on the other hand, was all in favor of a fence; he would finish it by January 1, 2014 by, among other things, proposing legislation to waive “all federal regulations, requirements and studies” that obstructed the work. If necessary, he would move part or all of the 23 thousand Homeland Security personnel in the DC area to the border to help.

Mitt Romney said that the states ought to take a more active role in enforcing the immigration rules. He liked the Arizona approach which, of course, the Obama Administration is challenging. Before you employ someone in Arizona, you have to check him (or her) with E-Verify.[9] Rick Santorum agreed in general, but wouldn’t require homeowners to use E-Verify before they hired someone to do chores around the house. Santorum also said that the states ought to take a more active role in enforcing the immigration laws.

So there you have it: Not a lot of disagreements on the Right with respect to this issue. Except, of course, that only Ron Paul wants to move troops out of Afghanistan. But more about that in the next section.

War with Iran

Some of you may remember that back in 2007 there was quite a brouhaha when John McCain was caught singing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” on the campaign trail.[10] I pulled the video last week and, admittedly, it’s more ambiguous than I remembered. For one thing, he wasn’t singing gleefully; and the film clip leaves out most of his answer. So there’s no context. He could have been making fun of Iran, or of the questioner. Check for yourself, and see what you think.

What was the question? Well, it was kind of typical for that time. Iran is blowing people up and it’s part of the Axis of Evil; when do we send them an airmail message [i.e., bomb them]?[11] Wait a minute! That’s the same question we get today. So what do today’s Republican candidates think about it?

First I guess we need to look at the terms of the debate. The moderator asked all candidates, suppose the prime minister of Israel called, and said that he wanted to attack Iran; what would you tell him? It’s an interesting question. Israel is another country, and will pursue its national interests in any way it sees fit. If it doesn’t like our advice, it doesn’t have to follow it. Also, if we don’t agree with an Israeli intelligence assessment, we don’t have to accept it.

Newt Gingrich said, simply, that three nuclear weapons, dropped on Israel, would amount to a Holocaust. If Israel believes that “a madman [in Iran] is about to have nuclear weapons and … is going to use [them],” then it has an “absolute moral obligation” to defend itself by eliminating Iran’s weapons capacity. Mitt Romney pretty much agreed. He favored sanctions to stop Iran from developing nukes and, in addition, informing Iran "that we are considering military options.” Also, “We must [not] allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. If they do, the world changes. America will be at risk.”[12] Rick Santorum agreed with Romney, but said that he – Santorum – was the best person to make the country safe.

So did anyone disagree? Yes indeed; there was Ron Paul, and he had a lot to say about war. First, he said that only in the last ten years have we gone from defending ourselves to starting wars. Previously we fought when we were attacked; now we fight because we think somebody might attack us. We call it preventive war. Second, we worry a lot about Iran’s nuclear weapons, but we really don’t know if they have any. “As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence that they have [one].”[13] Third, during the Cold War the old Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear warheads, not one. We didn’t attack them; we talked to them. Fourth, Iran isn’t in a position to attack anybody. We have “bases around their country, plus our submarines.” Fifth, if we start fighting with Iran, we’ll enhance the power of their leadership. When people are attacked, they naturally come together, and the same will be true of the Iranians.

And finally, we can’t afford another big, expensive war in the Middle East.

As a matter of fact, Al Qaida has a plan to bog us down in the Middle East and bankrupt this country. That’s exactly what they’re doing. We’ve spent $4 trillion of debt in the last 10 years being bogged down in the Middle East.

The neoconservatives who now want us to be in Syria, and want us to go to Iran, have another war, and we don’t have the money. We’re already – today gasoline hit $6 a gallon in Florida. And we don’t have the money.[14]

In short, another war will help destroy our currency.

So there you have it: Some differences in Republican ranks about whether the United States should go to war again in the Middle East. The minority position, espoused by Ron Paul, is that a war is unnecessary, and would be counterproductive and ruinously expensive. The majority position, on the other hand, seems to be that war is a good idea, or at least necessary.

Conclusion

I hope the investors amongst you are paying attention. There’s money to be made if the Republicans win the next election. Not from the purity of anybody’s conservatism; purity’s difficult to monetize because it exists only in the eye of the beholder. But it’s obvious that there will be a construction boom along the Southern border for a time, at least until the proper fortifications are built. Hopefully all of the contractors and subcontractors on that project will use E -Verify before putting anybody to work digging trenches or stringing barbed wire. The Government will want a strictly legal workforce.

Also, there’s money to be made in oil futures. They’ll go up as the war drums beat louder and louder; and they’ll go down if the war fever recedes. A clever investor can make money in either direction. All you need is a little inside information about what politicians around the world will do, and when they’ll do it. I’ll bet some of you know how to get that.

For the rest of us, I guess it’s our lot to simply look and wonder at the gyrations and contortions of our election season. But be comforted: There’s no truth to the rumor that the Mayan Calendar selected one of these guys as our next President. But apparently it didn’t rule any of them out, either.

---

[1] It was held on February 22, 2012, a Wednesday.

[2] The Republican Convention will be held on the week of August 27. See CBS News, Political Hotsheet, Dickerson, What Will the GOP Convention Look Like? at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384652-503544/what-will-the-gop-convention-look-like/

[3] I watched the whole debate the night of February 22, but didn’t take notes. Instead, I went to CNN and pulled a full transcript. Good thing, too; otherwise I might have missed some important points. You can find the debate transcript on the CNN website. Go to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/22/se.05.html

[4] Ron Paul said: “No, I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they’re really fiscally conservative. When they’re in office they do something different. And then when they explain themselves, they say: ‘Oh, I want to repeal that.’” All quotes are from the transcript.

[5] Principally he was talking about the American Conservative Union, the National Taxpayers Union, and one publication, the Weekly Standard.

[6] See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” As in previous blogs, we are using the text of the Constitution available from the National Archives. You can find it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[7] See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 5, Clause 2: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

[8] See, for example, The Washington Post, Editorial, Illegal immigration is way down and falling fast (July 25, 2011) at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/illegal-immigration-is-way-down-and-falling-fast/2011/07/07/gIQAgMbLXI_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/illegal-immigration-is-way-down-and-falling-fast/2011/07/07/gIQAgMbLXI_story.html

[9] For the E-Verify website, go to http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD

[10] See NPR, Gonyea, Jesting, McCain Sings: ‘Bomb, Bomb, Bomb’ Iran (April 20, 2007), at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222 You can also see the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&feature=channel

[11] I’ve edited this down a bit. The original is on the video. See note 10.

[12] These are all quotes from the transcript, near the end.

[13] For the most part I’m paraphrasing, but this is a direct quote from the transcript. It’s also worth noting that Paul has a valid historical point here. We attacked Iraq partly on the suspicion that it had weapons of mass destruction. There were supposed to be 700 sites in the country where development work might or could be done. After the battle was won, we checked all 700 and found basically nothing. No WMD. I’ll give the Bush Administration credit for this: Once they got the results, they made them public. It is unusual for any Administration to admit an error of that magnitude.

[14] Again, this is from the transcript, near the end.

Now It's Contraception: Here We Go Again!

We kicked off our blog last week with a few thoughts about contraception. As we all know, the Catholic Church and some other religious institutions oppose it. That’s fine; we have religious freedom in this country. People don’t have to agree on everything. But the Government decided that, notwithstanding any contrary beliefs, religious institutions had to pay for contraception if they had employees. That is, they had to offer contraception as a part of any health insurance they provided to their workforce. Why? Because it was necessary; the greater good required it.

This led to a firestorm, with lots of politics, headlines and acrimony. And the apparent damage was so bad that the President intervened near the end of the week with a compromise. He said that “if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company” will bear the cost.[1] Not the religious institution. Issue resolved.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Our thought at the time was that, even though the President intervened, the political repercussions would echo on for a while. And so they have. People are still talking about religious liberty, and the Administration’s attitude toward it. This week a Washington Post columnist called the whole affair an “epic blunder.”[2] Not to be outdone, the Wall Street Journal followed with a legal analysis of the protections religious institutions have in this country.[3] And, of course, the Congress is taking an interest in the whole affair.[4]

For my own part, I was confused when contraception popped up as a major political issue. How did this get to be such a big deal? Well, because our Constitution guarantees that the Government will not inhibit the free exercise of religion.[5] So didn’t the Administration know that there would be objections? Why weren’t they resolved sooner?

I’m not so much interested in the Constitutional issues – other people are handling them quite well, thank you – but in the decision-making process. What was the public told, how did they respond, and how did the Administration deal with conflicts?

These are relevant questions because the Obama people did manage to touch off a firestorm. To proceed, however, we had to first identify and analyze the key administration paperwork. Larry had some free time, so he volunteered to spearhead the effort.

He called me yesterday, and said he had read all of the stuff he could find, and had drawn some preliminary conclusions. He worried that, so far, his work product is incomplete; but frankly at this point I’ll take anything I can get. Time's flying, and we all have other projects.

“So, take it away, Larry. How did the Administration manage to get itself into this fix?”

“You’re asking a philosophical question, G. I don’t think I’m equipped to answer it. Why don’t I just tell you what happened, so we can move on from there?”

“Fine, it’s always wise to start with the facts. We’ll speculate later. But let’s keep the fact part short, if we can.”

“OK, here’s the short version. On August 3 of last year the Administration published an interim final rule[6] to cover ‘preventive services’ to women under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[7]”

“That’s the statute that Republicans today call ‘Obama-Care,’ right?

“Yes.”

“And what does the rule say about ‘preventive services’?”

“Let’s back up for a minute. The law contemplates that medical coverage under it will be provided through private insurance, self-insurance, or possibly under some other state or federal plan. This rule dealt with some of the minimum requirements that insured and self-insured group health plans[8] had to meet and, more specifically, with the minimum coverage they had to provide to women.”

“Fine. But you didn’t answer my question. Obviously women are entitled to preventive health care services. What kind of services are we talking about?”

“The ‘interim final’ rule didn’t say. It simply referred to ‘preventive care and screenings provided for in binding comprehensive health plan coverage guidelines’ issued by another group, the Health Resources and Services Administration.[9] Whatever HRSA identified, had to be provided. We’ll get into that later.

Anyway, the rule also said that it superseded state rules that contradicted it, except that if state provisions ‘impose[d] requirements on health insurance issuers that are stricter than the requirements’ of the federal rule, they could continue.[10]”

“So let’s see if I understand you so far. If an employer has a group health plan, derived from private insurance or self-insurance, the plan must offer preventive health care services to women. But the ‘interim final’ rule didn’t define the nature and extent of those services.”

“Right. That’s what I said.”

“OK, what happened next?”

“There was a furor. The ‘Interim Final Rule’ appeared in the Federal Register on August 3, 2011, and allowed public comments up to September 30 of that year. By one report, over 200 thousand were received.[11] I haven’t looked at most of them, but apparently lots were negative.

If we want to understand the objections, we have to look at what the opposition had to say. I think the position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is instructive in this regard, and they are very much on the record in the matter. They issued a statement on August 31 calling for rescission of the rule.[12] But more importantly for our purposes, on that same date the Bishops’ General Counsel filed detailed comments with HHS.[13]

The comments are quite informative. Basically, the General Counsel argued that (1) prescriptions, contraceptives, … and related patient education, etc. are not ‘health services,’ because they do not prevent an illness or disease; pregnancy is not a ‘disease;’ and (2) the ‘religious exemption’ provided in the rule was too narrow, because it covered only a small subset of faith-based institutions.[14]”

“Larry, you’ve already said that the rule is silent on the nature of the preventive services that will be required. How can the Catholic Bishops, or anybody for that matter, say that it requires contraceptives?”

“Good question. The actual rule simply changes an existing section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The change spoke only of ‘preventive care and screenings,’ not contraception. The actual guidelines for women’s health care are being developed by the HRSA. They’re not stated in the rule.

The supplementary information that came with the rule, however, discussed contraception. It said that, in a prior round of comments, many commenters recommended:

HRSA Guidelines include contraceptive services for all women and that this requirement be binding on all group health plans and health insurance issuers with no religious exemption.[15]

So the explanation pretty much hinted that HRSA would recommend contraception at some point. And once contraception was included in the list, the employer – religious or secular – would have to pay for it.”

“So, you’re saying that the Bishops objected to contraception because they saw it coming down the road, even though it hadn’t arrived yet. Yes?”

“Yes, sort of. I’m not sure what guidelines had come out from HRSA at the time the Bishops made their comments. In fact, I haven’t seen any of the guidelines. Apparently they aren’t a part of any formal rulemaking. But clearly the Bishops expected that at some point HRSA would include contraception as a required service.”

“All right, let’s move on to the Bishops’ second objection, that the so-called ‘religious exemption’ is too narrow. How did that come about?”

“Well, according to the supplementary information, HHS felt that it was appropriate to make an accommodation to exempt some religious organizations from the need to provide contraceptive services. Specifically, they said that they intended to respect ‘the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions.’[16]”

“This part of the ‘interim final’ rule specifically mentioned contraceptive services? Although they weren't at the moment required?”

“Yes. And it applied only to HRSA. It said that (a) if HRSA guidelines require contraceptive services, (b) HRSA may exempt some religious employers from that requirement.”

“So, I guess the Bishops were right; HHS did expect the HRSA to mandate contraception at some point or another. Otherwise why provide for an exemption? Did the Bishops say ‘thank you’ for the exemption?”

“Not likely. They said that the exemption was far too narrow. It exempts only ‘religious employers’ who, by definition, are those who (a) intend to inculcate religious values, (b) ‘primarily’ employ only people who share the same religious tenets, and (c) primarily serve only persons who share the same religious tenets.[17]

According to the Bishops, this provided ‘no protection at all for individuals or insurers with moral objections to contraceptives … who will experience burdens to conscience under this new mandate.’[18] By definition they are not ‘religious employers.’

Moreover, the definition of ‘religious employer’ was so narrow that it also excluded many of the charitable activities of religious organizations, such as running hospitals, group homes, soup kitchens and the like. Typically those services are offered to anyone who needs them; the poor are not excluded based on their religion.”

“All right, Larry, I see the issues. If a church decides to offer services to the poor, without restricting the services to people within their own religious group, the church also will have to provide contraceptive services to their employees, whether the church wants to or not. That does seem a bit strange. What happened next?”

“For several months, not very much happened. Comments were submitted, the deadline to submit more comments passed, and for a time HHS took no apparent action. But the pot began to boil again in late 2011.

In early December some in the media reported that HHS intended to require health plans to cover ‘contraception, sterilization and drugs known to induce abortion.’[19] Other sources indicated that the Secretary of HHS had decided to declare contraception a ‘preventative service’ under Obama-Care, and require providers to cover 100% of the cost.[20]

As we all know, this started a political firestorm. Major candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination denounced HHS, and that agency defended itself. Interestingly, it didn’t say that ‘no decision had been made.’ Instead, the HHS Secretary argued that ‘virtually all American women used contraception at some point in their lives,’ and ‘the public health case for making sure insurance covers contraception is clear.’[21] So basically HHS admitted that it would add contraception to the list of things required under the health care law.

In the midst of the controversy, and after conferences at the White House, the Administration modified the HHS approach. President Obama said:

…if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company – not the hospital, not the charity – will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge without co-pays and without hassle.[22]

So there you have it. The Administration developed a compromise that it thought should satisfy all parties, but, by the way, didn’t consult the Catholic bishops while doing it.[23]”

“Good summary, Larry; I assume that the compromise will be included in the final rule that HHS intends to issue someday. You know, pursuant to the rule making it started back on August 3, 2011?”

“Not really,” He said. “HHS issued its final rule on February 15.[24] The final rule is the same as the one proposed on August 3, 2011; no changes were made to it.[25]”

“No changes? Not even to the religious exemption? After all this controversy and a Presidential compromise? You know, one of the advantages of writing rules is that, if you have one, both the Government and the public know where they stand. If not in the rule that started all of this, just where will the President’s compromise be written down?”

“I don’t know, G. Perhaps HHS staff don’t want to formalize the compromise in a rule because they’re hoping that, it time, the public will forget about it. Then staff will be free to do whatever they think they need to do.”

“Good speculation, Larry. The President can’t control his bureaucracy. Not an unusual state of affairs for Presidents. I think we’ll close on that note. Perhaps next time I can come up with a less confusing topic.

By the way, Elemental Zoo will be on vacation next week, so our next post probably will be in early March.”

---

[1] See PBS Newshour, Newsmaker Interview (transcript), Sebelius Explains White House’s Contraception Compromise (February 10, 2012) at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/contraception_02-10.html

[2] See The Washington Post, Gerson, Obama’s epic blunder (Tuesday, February 14, 2012) at p. A17. See also, The Wall Street Journal, Politics, Adamy, Contraceptive Plan Still Draws Heat (February 13, 2012) at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577219551345952394.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird ; Politico, Nather, Why Dems keep stepping on healthcare landmines (February 10. 2012) at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72741.html

[3] See The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, Rivkin & Whelan, Birth Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal (February 15, 2012) at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223003824714664.html

[4] See ABC News, Blogs, Parkinson, Boehner Calls HHS Contraception Mandate an ‘Attack on Religious Freedom,’ Pledges Congressional Action (Feb. 8, 2012) at http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/boehner-calls-contraception-rule-an-attack-on-religious-freedom-pledges-congressional-action/

[5] We’re talking about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says a number of important things, one of them being that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” You can find the text of the Constitution, and its Amendments, at the web site of the National Archives. Go to http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[6] You can find the Interim Final Rule at 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 – 46626 (August 3, 2011). Henceforth, we’ll cite the appropriate parts of it as 76 Fed. Reg. at __

[7] Actually, its two Acts: Public Law 111-148, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (March 23, 2010), 124 Stat. 119; and Public Law 111-152, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (March 30, 2010), 124 Stat. 1029.

[8] See 76 Fed. Reg. at Supplementary Information: Background, p. 4622. “The term ‘group health plan’ includes both insured and self-insured group health plans.”

[9] See 76 Fed. Reg. at §54.9815-2713T, p. 46625, & §2590.715-2713, p. 46626.

[10] 76 Fed Reg. at Supplementary Information: Background, p. 46622.

[11] See CNS News, Cover, 154 Congressmen Send Letter to HHS Protesting HHS Contraception Mandate (Feb. 8, 2012) , at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/154-congressmen-send-letter-hhs-protesting-hhs-contraception-mandate

[12] See United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, USCCB Urges Rescission of HHS Contraceptive Mandate, Criticizes ‘Inexplicably Narrow’ Definition of Religious Freedom (August 31, 2011) at http://www.usccb.org/news/2011/11-168.cfm

[13] See Letter from United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Office of the General Counsel, re Interim Final
Rules on Preventive Services, File Code CMS-9992-IFC2, submitted electronically to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Aug. 31, 2011). You can find it at http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/rulemaking/ henceforth, this letter will be referred to as the Bishops’ OGC Letter at ___.

[14] See Bishops’ OGC Letter at p. 1, 2. The comments also addressed voluntary sterilization, which isn’t a subject of this blog.

[15] See 76 Fed. Reg. 46621, 46623.

[16] See 76 Fed. Reg. at 46623.

[17] See 76 Fed. Reg. at §147.130, p. 46626

[18] See Bishops’ OGC Letter at p. 2.

[19] See The Wall Street Journal, Main Street, McGurn, The Church of Kathleen Sebelius (December 13, 2011) at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577094631979925326.html

[20] See the blog No Place Like Home, Suprenant, The Sebelius Contraception Edict: What you need to know (2012/02/02) at http://archkckblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/the-sebelius-contraception-edict-what-you-need-to-know/

[21] See USA Today, Sebelius, Contraception rule respects religion (2/5/2012) at http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/Kathleen-Sebelius-contraception-exemption/52975092/1

[22] See PBS Newshour, Newsmaker Interview (transcript), Sebelius Explains White House’s Contraception Compromise (February 10, 2012) at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/contraception_02-10.html

[23] See The Wall Street Journal, Washington Wire, Dooren, Sebelius Didn’t Consult Bishops on Contraception Deal (February 15, 2012) at http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/15/sebelius-didnt-consult-bishops-on-contraception-deal/

[24] The new rule is at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 – 8730 (Feb. 15, 2012). We found it online. Go to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/getfrtoc.action scroll down to Health and Human Services Department, Rules, RIN 1545-BJ60, and click on PDF or Text, whichever you prefer. The new rule will be cited as 77 Fed. Reg. at ___.

[25] See 77 Fed. Reg. at Summary, p. 8725.

Taxing and Spending for the General Welfare

Well, the news media last week were full of Right-wing news. Santorum is up, Romney is down, Gingrich is extinct, Paul is steady, that kind of thing. But this is all news about the horse race, not about policy. How boring.

Except, of course, the Obama Administration did step into a large pile of you-know-what when they were out plowing an obscure part of their Health Care turnip patch. It seems that they decided to antagonize their allies in health care - the religious community – yet again; this time by mandating that said allies fund birth control, etc., for all of their employees in soup kitchens, hospitals and other charitable institutions.

Why did the Democrats do that? Probably some political genius decided that the religious were all going to vote Republican anyway, so why not show them who’s boss? This, of course, is not the way I remember politics from when I was a kid. In those days religious people typically voted Democrat, not Republican. I wonder if that’s changed, and if so, why? Could it be that the elites among the Democrats are suspicious of religious people, and want to drive them away? That sounds dangerous in an election year.

Anyway, at the end of the week the President announced a great compromise, which is supposed to make the controversy disappear. I’m not sure that will happen. There are still hurt feelings all around, and perhaps even some substantive disagreements. Also the Republicans are clearly pleased with the turn of events, and won’t want to let go of the issue for some time.

The substance part is hard to analyze, because it’s not clear exactly what was proposed, and what the solution is. So Elemental Zoo is in research mode; we’re looking for concrete documents that show the initial position and the proposed ‘compromise.’ Once we understand those – if we understand them – we might have something more to say.

For the time being, however, let’s go back to one of our least favorite subjects: The Republican primaries and the candidates’ near-universal hatred of Government intervention in the economy. Except, of course, possibly for intervention by the Federal Reserve, which some might dislike, but others might secretly approve.

I thought we might take a slightly different approach to this. We’ve all heard the current arguments – and zingers directed at the Administration – but I was surprised that, so far, nobody seems to be dragging the Founding Fathers into the debate. I wondered, why? After all, Republicans (and conservatives) are very fond of the Founders.

Not knowing the answer, I decided to call on somebody who has a keen eye for historical detail and a copy of the Constitution.[1] So I asked Larry to stop by and tell us something about what was actually going on in the early days of the Republic.

“Thanks, G, and I’ll do that for sure. But first I need to back up a bit, and talk about the Declaration of Independence.”

“Why, is it part of the Constitution?”

“Not really. The Declaration of Independence[2] was signed on July 4, 1776. The Constitution is a separate document; it was proposed in 1787, and adopted by the states in 1789. The text of the Constitution says nothing about the Declaration of Independence.

Technically, if you want to make something part of the Constitution, you have to do it by amendment. And that’s a laborious process. Two-thirds of the House and the Senate must propose an amendment, and three-quarters of the States must ratify it before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.[3] Nevertheless, we have managed to amend our Constitution 27 times since 1789. But we haven’t added the Declaration of Independence to it.”

“So why discuss the Declaration of Independence at all?”

“For two reasons: (1) the Declaration of Independence can shed some light on what people were thinking back in that time; and (2) lots of pundits today seem to think that it’s as important, or more important, than the Constitution. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.”

“All right, let’s move this along. What’s your point?”

“Well, we’ve blogged on this before.[4] The people who get so exercised about the Declaration of Independence really focus in on this: the part that says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…

Their view seems to be that (a) the Creator guarantees us an absolute right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (b) this necessarily means that we also have the right to keep to ourselves everything that we produce, otherwise we won’t be happy; and therefore (c) the Government should not tax its citizens.”

“But Larry, how can a Government operate without a stream of revenue? If you have a military, you have to pay the troops, buy weapons and other things for them, and so forth. The same is true for other Government functions as well. Anything a Government does will cost money.”

“Well, I suppose the Founders could have established a Government that went into business for itself. The Chinese, I guess, follow that model, with state-controlled corporations, etc. But we went another way in this country. We needed a Government that would help bring about the safety and happiness of the people, and we decided to fund it principally with taxes.”

“And how do you know that?”

“By looking at the Constitution. The Preamble to it says that a new constitution was needed to create a ‘more perfect union’[5] after the Founders experimented for a time with an earlier version - the Articles of Confederation.[6]

“Yes, Larry, we’ve all heard that at one time or another. But what does it have to do with taxes?”

“I’m getting to that. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[7] and general Welfare of the United States…’ Today the power to tax also includes the power to levy income taxes. There was a question about that for some time, but it was resolved in 1913 by the XVI^th Amendment.[8]”

“All right, I agree; much as we may not like it, Congress does have the authority to tax. But you haven’t answered a really important question; what can Congress spend our tax money on?”

“Defense, for sure. Both the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 make that clear. Congress also has the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining a militia, and so forth. It exercises ‘exclusive legislation’ over the District of Columbia, and over any property purchased from the States ‘for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.’ Finally, it is specifically empowered to ‘make all [l]aws which shall be necessary and proper’ to execute those powers.[9]”

“Fine,” I said, “I can see how defense was a big thing since we has just come out of a Revolution and all that. But can the Congress tax and spend money for things other than arms, etc.?”

“Yes, of course; as I said earlier, it can tax and spend to support the general welfare.”

“And what is that? Do we have a definition of “general welfare” anywhere in the document?” In fact, the only clear definition that I know of in the Constitution is the definition of Treason.[10]”

“You’re right, G, the Constitution does not define the ‘general welfare.’ And the question of what that meant came up very soon after the Constitution was ratified. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, addressed it in 1791, in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures.[11] The issue was whether our Government should have a role in fostering manufacturing in this country. We were, of course, a predominantly agricultural nation at the time.

A lot of people believed that the Government should take no role in industrial development. Industry, if left to itself, would do the right thing – i.e. go to manufacturing when it made economic sense to do so. Manufacturing would grow up ‘as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interests of the community [might] require.’[12]

Hamilton didn’t agree. He analyzed the various economic arguments, pro and con, and concluded that in many cases the Government ought to subsidize manufacturing.”

“That’s fine, Larry; but what about the legal argument? Did he conclude that Congress had the right to do this?”

“Oh, yes. He said that Congress had express authority to provide for the ‘common Defence’ and the general welfare; that there were few limitations on its power;[13] that the term ‘general welfare’ was ‘as comprehensive as any that could have been used’[14]; and that Congress had the discretion to decide ‘upon the objects…for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper.’[15] Congress’ authority in that regard was ‘plenary.’”

“Well, Larry, that seems pretty clear to me. The Congress decides what actions can best support the general welfare, and can tax and spend accordingly. I guess the only real limitations are (a) the President can veto legislation that he doesn’t like, and (b) the voters can always throw the bums out from time to time. By the way, who was President when Hamilton did his report? And did the President agree with Hamilton?”

“George Washington. And yes, he did. Or let me rephrase that. He supported Congressional efforts to encourage manufacturing in the United States, which he said they had done ‘not without success.’[16] In general, he didn’t favor manufacturing ‘for public account,’ because, I guess, he thought that goods manufactured that way were more expensive.[17]

Nevertheless, he made a clear exception for goods used by the military. He said that it was not expedient to rely on Europe for such things, because the sources of supply might be interrupted when they were most needed.[18] It was better to have our own sources to meet domestic need, because in wartime they could be ramped up to meet military ‘surge’ requirements.[19]”

“So, I guess we can imply from this that George Washington’s heart might have been with the folks who didn’t want to subsidize manufacturing, but that his head took him in the other direction. Yes?”

“I’m not sure I would put it that way. But history does show that the argument about whether and what industries Government should subsidize, has been with us since the founding of the Republic. It looks like people might have been more practical back then when developing solutions, while today we’re much more ideological.”

“Fine. And, oh, by the way, did you find anything more current on the status of Congress’ authority in this area?”

“You didn’t ask me to do that. You only wanted to know about what people thought in the early days of the Republic. I did run across a Supreme Court opinion or two from the mid-1930’s that pretty much support Alexander Hamilton’s view of Congressional authority. But I’m certainly not willing to say that they are the final word on the matter.[20] I’m sure that, even as we speak, there are lawyers on the Right trying to engineer new attacks."

---

[1] Just so you know, for the purposes of this discussion we are relying on the text of the Constitution, and its amendments, published by the National Archives. You can find the text at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[2] Our copy of the Declaration of Independence also comes from the National Archives. You can find it at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=declaration_transcript_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription

[3] See U.S. Constitution, Article V. There’s also a procedure for proposing Amendments via a Constitutional Convention.

[4] See the blog of 09/30/2010, Forming a New Government?

[5] See U.S. Constitution, Preamble, at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[6] There’s a good presentation on the Articles of Confederation, and why a new Constitution was thought necessary, at the National Archives. Among other reasons, under the Articles the central government had no power to tax. To find this, and a lengthy history of the debates on the Constitution, go to http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

[7] In case you want to know, this was not a misspelling at the time. “Defence” is the old English spelling of today’s “defense.”

[8] See Amendments 11 through 27 at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

[9] These powers are all provided for in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The President, of course, is the Commander in Chief of the military. See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

[10] See U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3.

[11] See Hamilton, Writings (LOA, 2001) at Report on the Subject of Manufactures, p. 647 – 734 (hereafter cited as Report on Manufactures at __)

[12] Report on Manufactures at 670.

[13] Basically, the limitations were (i) taxes had to be uniform through the United States; and (ii) were to be apportioned among the states in accordance with Article I, Section2 of the Constitution. See Report on Manufactures at 702.

[14] See Report on Manufactures at 702.

[15] I’ve edited this quote quite a bit. You may want to look at the original. See Report on Manufactures at p. 702.

[16] See Washington, Writings (LOA, 1997), at Eighth Annual Message to Congress, p. 978, 981.

[17] That was one of the arguments Hamilton addressed. So you see, even in the early days of the Republic, economists couldn’t agree.

[18] See Washington, Writings (LOA, 1997), at Eighth Annual Message to Congress, p. 978, 981.

[19] “Surge” is my word, not George Washington’s. And I am paraphrasing quite a bit, so you might want to take a look at the original.

[20] See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936); Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937). The second case held that Social Security is constitutional.