Tag: A. Barton Hinkle

Categories
ideological culture too much government

We Can Do With Less When Less Is More

With congressional approval ratings at the lowest ever, it’s evident: the sclerotic old institution needs new blood.

But note what I’m not saying — that “Congress doesn’t do enough.”

As A. Barton Hinkle points out in a column, yesterday, complaints about the 113th Congress hail from “CNN to McClatchy to NPR to the L.A. Times,” one lamentation dominating: “the 113th makes ‘the infamous “do-nothing Congress” of the late 1940s look downright prolific.’”

But, as he makes clear, the complaint is witless.

Producing more bad legislation is certainly no improvement. And, as Hinkle observed, the most talked-about recent congressional responses to apparently real problems have been widely judged worse than the problems themselves. Almost everybody was glad that SOPA — the “Stop Online Piracy Act” — didn’t pass; vast majorities opposed and now regret Obamacare.

So, why is most new legislation bad? The reasons are legion, but one stands out: Congress doesn’t even have time to read the laws it debates and passes. 

A British economist explained it like this:

[E]ven Members of Parliament find the burthen of reading through the multitudinous and mazy provisions of the Bills issued day by day . . . too heavy to be borne by mortal man.

That was over a hundred years ago. It’s worse in this new year of 2014, both in Britain and America. Today’s laws are cooked up in back rooms by legislative assistants and lobbyists. When such is “more,” less is better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy

Two Forms of Subsidy

Ronald Bailey, online at Reason.com, quotes a press release from a group of renewable energy outfits whining and moaning to keep their huge tax breaks. It’s all for the good of the country, they say.

But Bailey notes that when such tax credits go to businesses not favored by environmental activists and the New York Times, they get branded subsidies.

What is the difference?

A. Barton Hinkle, also working in the vineyards of Reason, clarified one such kerfuffle last year, showing that most of the allegedly shocking subsidies accruing to Big Oil were, in actual fact, general tax rules applicable to all sorts of companies. Hinkle readily concedes that maybe

these are dumb rules. Maybe they need changing. But in no sense can they be called subsidies—i.e., money taken from Smith and given to Jones. The failure to tax Exxon more does not increase your payment to the IRS by one red cent.

Hinkle concludes that if partisans, left or right, are going to treat tax breaks as subsidies, then they should do so across the board, without ideological cherry-picking.

And yes, there is an argument for calling all tax breaks “subsidies.” The lobbying for them looks about the same. They favor some businesses (or, more often, industries) over others. Politicians get the benefits from the special interests in the exact same way.

Perhaps we should define two broad categories of subsidy: Direct benefits and negated detriments. A tax sure is a detriment to the taxpayer. A tax credit or other break is a “negated detriment.” That is, an indirect benefit.

And those negative detriments sure can affect the bottom line.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture tax policy

A Social Contract You Can’t Refuse

Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren really worked up “progressives” with a rant about “fair taxation.”

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.”

As A. Barton Hinkle points out, no one suggests otherwise. But the real meat of her argument is worth studying . . . for a peculiar pathology in logic:

You built a factory out there? . . . You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

Upon this rests her case for ramped-up progressive tax rates.

Apparently, according to Ms. Warren, successful businessfolk are takers only. But all along the way, businesses pay for the services they hire. Indeed, they pay for roads, too. Truckers, for instance, pay special weight-rate taxes and licenses for carrying heavy loads across roadways.

Her “argument” no more justifies government taxing truckers or factories more than a similar argument, mutatis mutandis, would allow the kid who mows your lawn to reach into your wallet when you aren’t looking.

The social contract doesn’t originate the way Warren specifies. Her logic establishes only that she’s not thinking clearly about obligations and lacks an appreciation for making a business succeed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.