Gun Control Enables Despotism....

I've been going on a bit lately about how a disarmed populace is in danger of being dominated by a relatively few people who aren't. The current situation in Burma illustrates once again that those that control the firepower control the situation. No matter how right your cause, how non-violently you espouse it or how numerous your side is, a relatively few men with guns trumps all your noble intentions. Paul Marks at Samizdata says it well.

Update: The government has guns. You don't. This is what happens.

Another good point.

Iran/Syria - In A State of Panic?

Depite all their crazy bluster and "we'll wipe Israel off the map" posturing, could it be that Iran and Syria are really just paper tigers? (via Instapundit)

FairTax, Flawed Tax. A Fisking

On August 25, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by former deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury, Bruce Bartlett. The piece, entitled "FairTax, Flawed Tax," was absolutely stunning in how utterly wrong it was about nearly every point it made about the FairTax. I've seen a few people offer corrections to parts of it here and there in the blogosphere and in the letters to the editor of the WSJ but no comprehensive point-by-point rebuttal, otherwise known as a fisking. If anything cries out for a thorough fisking, this is it and seeing as nobody else seems to be getting around to it and I've never done one before, I thought I'd have a go. So, here is my attempt. The article's original text is in block-quoted text. My rebuttal is in normal text.

"Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's unexpectedly strong second-place showing in the recent Iowa Republican straw poll is widely attributed to his support for the FairTax.

For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS."

No quibbles about the first paragraph. He's just setting up the argument to follow. As we will see, it is largely a series of straw man arguments.

The FairTax has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church of Scientology. As Neal Boortz, co-author of The FairTax Book explains, Mr. Bartlett is confusing the group that has championed the FairTax, Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) with another group, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, which actually was a Scientology front group. Neal has plenty of supporting links and background in his post that I won't reiterate here (a fisking should be succinct!). On with the op-ed:

"Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) have introduced legislation (H.R. 25/S. 1025) to implement the FairTax. They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder's Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%."

So far so good, this is just a recitation of claims the sponsors of the FairTax Bill are making for it.

"In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.) Calculating it the conventional way that every other sales tax is calculated, with the tax on top of the price, yields a rate of 30%. (This is called the tax-exclusive rate.)"

Now he's setting himself up to completely misconstrue how to compare how pricing and taxes work under the FairTax to how things work under our present tax system by making an apples to rocks comparison between an income tax and a consumption tax system.

"The distinction is confusing, but think of it this way. If a product costs $1 at retail, the FairTax adds 30%, for a total of $1.30. Since the 30-cent tax is 23% of $1.30, FairTax supporters say the rate is 23% rather than 30%."

He's right. It is confusing and he demonstrated as much by getting confused himself. AFFT tries to uses the common denominator of the dollar spent as a baseline. He is missing a critical step in the process of understanding this (did he actually do any homework on it?). In mathematics, in order to compare two fractions you must first find the lowest common denominator. In this case, Mr. Bartlett fails to do that by comparing $1 at retail now with $1 at retail after enactment of the FairTax. To make a valid comparison you first have to account for the effect of income taxes on the $1 under the current system and how and when you apply it. AFFT claims a 23% tax rate and Mr. Bartlett and the other critics claim a 30% rate. AFFT is using the $1 of spending as the measurement baseline. The critics move the goal post. Under AFFT's example, the $1 spent includes the tax. The real price of the good is $0.77 and the tax is $0.23. This is 30% of the $0.77, and where the critics come up with that figure, but 23% of the total $1 spent. As 23%, it's an inclusive rate (included in the $1) but as 30% it's an exclusive rate (added to the $0.77). In a sense, both sides are right but are measuring against a different denominator. I don't know that AFFT necessarily helps its case by doing it this way. But as proposed, the FairTax will be adminsitered as an inclusive 23% tax. I prefer to look at the impact of the removal of embedded taxes on prices. i.e., more in the tax-exclusive mode, as easier to understand.

Currently, the corporate tax rate averages 34%, which is embedded in that $1 retail price and levied on the profit left after deducting costs. As a percentage of the retail price, it varies between about 15% and 26%, averaging out to around 22%. When a company works out the retail price of a good, it doesn't start at the $1, start deducting costs and hope there's something left when it's done. It starts with the profit (the shareholder's compensation for putting their capital at risk) it wants to make after all costs, including taxes, are accounted for. From there it starts adding back the cost of labor, materials, etc., and when all of that is accounted for then you have your $1 retail price. All those other costs, by the way, have taxes on the suppliers of the material and labor embedded in them too. I realize that competition in the market affects the ability of the company to actually get either the $1 price or the profit the shareholders desire but for purposes of this exercise, we'll let that go for the time being. The central point is that we need to be able to make an apples-to-apples comparison and Mr. Bartlett isn't doing it.

AFFT and the FairTax sponsors in Congress assert that with elimination of this embedded income tax, retail prices for goods and services will decrease. You may ask why retailers and service providers wouldn't just hold prices where they are and pocket the amount they no longer have to fork over to the government. The answer is that the marketplace, aka competition, will see to that. So how does it work then you ask? I'll borrow the comparison table from the AFFT article linked above:

	Income Tax System		Spending Tax System
	Joe	Government	Joe	Government
Receives Gross Pay	$125		$125
Pays Tax On Income	-$25	+$25	$0	$0
Has Left To Spend	$100		$125
Pays Tax On Spending	$0		-$25	+$25
Amount of Goods Purchased	$100		$100*
Taxes As % of Pay	20%		20%
Taxes As % of Spending	25%		25%

*includes the $25 tax.

In this example, Citizen Joe earns $125. Under the income tax system, he pays $25 on that income right off the top (This represents 20% of his income and is a tax-inclusive rate). In fact it's withheld from his paycheck and he never even gets his hands on it. He has $100 left to spend and if he spends all of it then the $25 tax represents 25% of his spending but 20% of his gross pay. Under the FairTax, Citizen Joe earns $125 in income and keeps all of it. He doesn't even file a tax return. If he goes and buys $100 worth of goods and services, he still pays $25 tax but it's based on the value of the goods and services purchased and paid only when he makes that purchase. If he decides he doesn't really need that HDTV right now, he doesn't pay it. The $25 is still 20% when compared to income but 25% when compared to spending. In other words, it's the same thing, a wash and it doesn't matter whether you call it inclusive or exclusive. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison, AFFT quotes it both ways.

The difference this table does not take into account is that under the FairTax, the $100 will buy a lot more goods and services because the retail price will have come down by the amount of embedded income tax the retailer/service provider no longer has to account for. Let us proceed.

We get into a series of misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations here, basically all variations on the same basic error:

"This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax. Under the Linder-Chambliss bill, the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself on all of its purchases of goods and services. Thus if the Defense Department buys a tank that now costs $1 million, the manufacturer would have to add the FairTax and send it to the Treasury Department. The tank would then cost the federal government $300,000 more than it does today, but its tax collection will also be $300,000 higher.

This legerdemain is done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are, so that its supporters can claim that it is revenue-neutral. But for the government to afford to purchase the same goods and services, it would have to raise spending by the amount of the tax it pays to itself. The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes. Therefore the proposal only works if federal purchases are cut by 30%, close to $300 billion -- the increased cost imposed by the FairTax."

The tank that now costs $1 million doesn't cost $1 million any more because the manufacturer no longer has to include the income taxes he'd pay in its pricing calculations. The price comes down accordingly and the government ends up paying the same $1 million. Uncle Sam pays the 30% now and it comes right back to his own pocket. It will be no different after the FairTax is enacted. The difference is transparency.

"Similarly, state and local governments would have to pay the FairTax on most of their purchases. This means that it is partly financed by higher state and local taxes. It's also worth remembering that state sales taxes now average 6%, which means that the total tax rate will be 36% on retail sales."

Most states will probably want to revise their tax rules but if they follow the FairTax lead and tax all goods and services, they will probably end up reducing rates because they will have a broader base of taxable items. Even if they don't, let's remember that Mr. Bartlett keeps trying to tell us that after the Fairtax the $1 spent will be $1.30, i.e., tax exclusive. Wrong, it will still be $1 spent, inclusive of the FairTax. So, even if the states do nothing and levy taxes on the $1 spent as they do now, nothing changes.

"State sales taxes have long exempted all but a few services because of the enormous difficulty in taxing intangibles. But the FairTax would apply to 100% of services, including medical care, thus increasing their cost by 30%. No state comes close to taxing services so broadly."

Service providers set their prices in the same way as any other business, as described above. Your doctor figures in her estimated taxes when setting her service rates so that when those and all her other costs (like office staff and malpractice insurance premiums) are taken into account she gets the return she needs to make all the agro of putting up with health insurance companies, patients who won't do as they're told, lawyers, etc., worth it. Under the FairTax, she just figures out her fees without having to account for the income tax (or the cost of figuring it out), tacks on the FairTax and sends it on in. Whether the tax is embedded in the fee, as it is with the income tax, or transparent, as it is with the FairTax the result is neutral.

"Consumers would also find themselves taxed on newly constructed homes. Imagine paying 30% to the federal government on top of the purchase price of your next house."

He's just compounding his previous error here. One more time; with the embedded tax taken out of the price, the price quoted for a given size of home will decrease by the amount of the embedded tax. Paying the FairTax on top of the newly lowered cost of the home gets you right back to the price you would have paid under the current system.

"Since sales taxes are regressive -- taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich -- some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income."

The regressivity is dealt with by exempting everyone on the estimated expenditures for the basic necessities of every family up to the poverty level.

"Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income -- and creating a de facto national welfare program -- the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate. As noted earlier, the FairTax is designed only to match current revenues and does not cover any increased spending that it may require. Since the rebate will cost at least $600 billion the first year, either federal discretionary spending would have to be cut by 60% or the rate would have to be five percentage points higher than advertised."

Once again Mr. Bartlett shows every indication of never laid eyes on the FairTax Bill. The FairTax rebate feature, (actually a "prebate", it comes in advance) does not rely on tracking anybody's income. It is paid to everyone, regardless of income, based on a formula taking into account the number of persons in the household and the current poverty level. Every head of household will receive a check based on the sales tax that would be payable on what the family is estimated to spend on goods and services. When they buy those goods and services, the Treasury just gets it back. The family must send in an annual registration with the names and social security numbers of each family member, information they already provide on their tax return anyway. There is no income reporting and no income test. As to the second paragraph, wrong again Mr. Bartlett. The 23% FairTax rate AFFT has put forward accounts for all of this. It is revenue neutral even after the rebate.

"Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly -- by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed -- professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%."

I think we've pretty well established by now that the FairTax would not drive higher spending at all. Mr. Bartlett never did catch on to the concept that without income taxes embedded in the price of everything, prices would go down.

"A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion)."

Now he's just throwing out large random numbers to scare you, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) if you prefer. This is a similar tactic to his assertion in the second paragraph of the article that the whole thing is a devious Scientologist plot. He's trying to discredit the FairTax by associating it with some, to put it mildly, out-of-the-mainstream cult religion. Evasion will be pretty difficult because any business selling to a consumer is responsible for remitting the tax, even if it fails to collect it. Also, evasion is high now due to somewhat elastic definitions of what constitutes income and a nearly impossible to understand tax code. There's nowhere to hide under the FairTax.

"I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%. But there are also massive technical and administrative problems with collecting all federal taxes at the checkout counter and relying entirely on state governments to collect the federal government's revenue."

Nonsense. Retailers deal with this everyday right now. In my neck of the woods, there are as many different sales tax rates as there are towns. There is a basic state sales tax rate then various local option add-ons. Program it into the POS system like you do every other tax, or temporary on-sale discount price. Done. Let's move on.

"Among the problems: What possible incentive would the states have to be vigorous in their federal tax collections? What is to stop them from slacking off and giving their citizens a tax cut at federal expense? What about states with no sales taxes? What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free?"

Taking the last point first, retailers already report gross receipts to the states that have an income tax on a monthly basis and remit the sales taxes collected. States that don't have a sales tax (there are only five) may either contract with another state to collect it on their behalf or they may contract with the federal government to do it or they can do nothing and the federal government will administer it directly.

Slacking off? States levy their own taxes because they need to pay for things their citizens want that the federal government doesn't provide. Mr. Bartlett seems to be implying that the federal government will automatically pick up the slack if the states reduce their taxes. If the states reduce their own taxes it will mean they can't provide the services those taxes were funding. That is a matter between the state government and the citizens of that state. The federal government doesn't come into it at all.

"Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal."

The only information an individual or family would need to provide is the names and social security numbers of the family members so that the Social Security Administration knows a) who to send the prebate check to and b) how much it should be made out for. The only consequence for not doing this is that you wouldn't get a check.

"Yet all but six states now have state income taxes. So unless one lives in one of those states, this promise is an empty one indeed. In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it."

The person that should not be taken seriously is the person who either didn't do his homework or is intentionally misrepresenting the FairTax and how it would work. I'd say Mr. Bartlett's op-ed bears all the hallmarks of having been written for him by someone else, someone with a vested interest in preventing the FairTax from ever being enacted, which would be just about anyone in Washington DC who benefits from the current system where the tax code is used to pick winners and losers, and makes possible the incredible corruption rampant in the US Congress today. If it were my name going in the byline of this article, I'd have made very sure that what was being put forth in my name was accurate and true. Almost none of this article is.

What Our Healthcare System Should Look Like

A couple of weeks ago I posted on what our future healthcare system might look like if the socialized medicne crowd get their way. Today Neal Boortz has the prescription for the way it should be. Take a look.

Update: More on what's ailing healthcare from John Stossel:

"America's health-care problem is not that some people lack insurance, it is that 250 million Americans do have it."

Another Update: Mark Steyn weighs in on HIllarycare Mk. II:

"So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, nine million aren't American, nine million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy. And the rest of these poor helpless waifs trapped in Uninsured Hell waiting for Hillary to rescue them are, in fact, wealthier than the general population. According to the Census Bureau's August 2006 report on "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage, "37% of those without health insurance — that's 17 million people — come from households earning more than $50,000. Nineteen percent — 8.7 million people — of those downtrodden paupers crushed by the brutal inequities of capitalism come from households earning more than $75,000.

In other words, if they fall off the roof, they can write a check."

Yup. Sounds like a crisis to me.

An Encounter With OJ

OJ Simpson is back in the news again. Roger L Simon posted an article at Pajamas Media today how the OJ Simpson murder trial was the catalyst for a change in his political outlook and how he had encountered OJ in person in the courtroom.

I had my own encounter with OJ several years ago and it made my flesh crawl. I was on my way back from a business trip to SE Asia in the spring of 1998. I had returned via LAX and had several hours layover before catching a red-eye to Chicago and thence on home. It was far enough ahead of my flight that a gate wasn't assigned yet so I was sitting just inside the security checkpoint trying to read.

I heard a bit of a commotion at the checkpoint, nothing alarming, just some guy whistling some tune or other and trying to engage the security personnel in conversation. As he passed through and came into clear view I recognized him immediately. He was still whistling and carrying on somewhat and I realized at that point that we was trying to draw attention to himself and make eye contact with as many people as he could. Now I don't encounter celebrities (or notorieties in this case) every day but I thought that his behavior was kind of odd. I generally think of celebrities trying to blend in and not draw attention to themselves in settings like that. This guy had a kind of a sneer on his face, which I couldn't quite figure out at first. As he passed by where I was sitting our eyes met very briefly and it hit me that he didn't want attention just for attention's sake. He was laughing at everybody. In the brief few seconds I met his eyes, I had the feeling I was looking at a window into pure evil. This was a man who had gotten away with killing two human beings in cold-blood and he knew we knew it. He was revelling in it and practically daring us to say anything to him and enjoying that he had this power to creep people out. I have to say I was and I quickly looked away, partly because I was a little unnerved but also because I didn't want to give him the pleasure of being acknowledged.

The encounter was over in a few seconds and he continued on his way. I've thought about the incident and how it made me feel many times since it happened. It's a feeling I hope never to have again.

Draft Bush Iraq Report Speech...

......as leaked to Scrappleface. This is not satire this time.

Blame Anybody - Just Not the Actual Perps

Mark Steyn has (yet another) good column today on the perversity of Americans suing each other trying to assign blame for 9/11 rather than actually blame those responsible. If that spectacle doesn't make the terrorists' little towelled noggins spin (a la Linda Blair), I don't know what will.

"... You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.

But that's the American way:...."

What Your Future Healthcare Might Look Like

In the wake of Michael Moore's latest highly dishonest (but I repeat myself) propaganda piece on the healthcare industry, "Sicko," ably taken apart by Michael C. Moynihan at Reason Online. It might be a good thing for us to take a look at the reality of socialized healthcare.


We'll start with a short video that deals with a Canadian man and what started as a series of headaches. Had he passively accepted what the Canadian healthcare system was offering in the way of care, he'd be dead now.


My sister just returned from a visit to the UK where she discussed the subjectof "free" healthcare with several people, including some of our own relations. Here is what she had to say when she came back:

"We heard enough in two weeks, even from people defending the NHS, to solidify opposition. eg. The NHS is closing the Airedale oncology unit. Not for lack of custom, but for budgetary reasons. People in the dales and well beyond will have to find some way to get into Bradford [roughly 40 miles of country "A" roads] for their chemo.

e.g.: They're closing a hospital near Scarborough. Again, not for lack of custom. In fact, given the number of out of town visitors they have, they actually have far too few beds available already.

e.g.: [a male relative], who has recently had cancer, was forced to make a 90 minute drive for his chemo treatments. Friends from church helped out by taking turns driving him. I don't know what would have been done if he had not had friends...or was too depressed to bother. [he lives in a South Coast town of some size]

e.g.: [female relative]'s husband [G---], a diabetic, dropped a knife on his foot and got a nasty cut. The NHS bandaged it up nicely. A week later, he was in hospital with a line drawn around his ankle, marking the spot where they were going to amputate if his gangrene didn't clear up. Luckily, it did. He shared a 4-man room with a very loud-mouthed expat Brit who had broken his ankle in the US and somehow hobbled onto a plane so he could get his "free" treatment in Britain.

e.g.: [G---], by the way, is only allowed to see a diabetes specialist once a year. His local GP/gatekeeper, (who is mainly occupied by his other job as chief doctor for the British Sculling Team), won't approve him for any other visits. Period. No matter what.

..........................."

About 3-4 years ago, another relative's husband had a mild heart attack. He went to the hospital they stabilized him but it was determined that he needed bypass surgery. In the US, if you are found to need bypass surgery, you need it RIGHT NOW and you will be in surgery in a matter of hours. In this case, he was put on a waiting list and had to wait over 19 weeks before finally getting the surgery.


The above are just examples from my own family of what socialized medicine delivers compared to what it promises. Americans would never put up with that.


Of course we've all heard the arguments about 47 million uninsured Americans but the reality is, nobody goes without treatment. If you show up at a hospital, you must be treated. I have underwritten some hospital transactions for medical equipment financing. If you know anything about the presentation of profit and loss statements, you have seen that companies will show a gross sales line and a net sales line. The latter is gross adjusted for returns and discounts. For most companies in non-health related fields, this adjustment is relatively trivial. Not in healthcare. I have seen hospital profit & loss statements where the gross to net adjustment is as much as 50%, occasionally more. The hospitals have to write off enormous amounts for unreimbursed care, either indigent care or the difference between the price of treatment and what insurance will reimburse. Then you start the deductions for cost of treatment, administrative costs, salaries, etc.


Is our system perfect? No. But it isn't irretrievably broken either and the way to make it better is with free market solutions and less interference therein by various governments. Health insurance mandates that differ by state, mandates for coverage that people don't want or need (e.g., maternity coverage for single men) all interfere with efficient service delivery. People need to get over the idea that someone else, whether it be government or an employer, should be responsible for their healthcare. As things stand now, we don't really know what our healthcare costs because we don't pay for it directly. If we did and if we werre free to purchse only the insurance we need, we'd see costs coming into line pretty quickly.

Update 9/8: I wrote the bulk of this last weekend. An interesting article was posted at TCS Daily two days ago. Michael Cannon argues that socialized medicine is closer than we may think.

Gun Control, Free People, and the Threat to Britain

A month or so back I commented on a column by Theodore Dalrymple on Tony Blair's departure from the office of Prime Minister of Great Britain. I expressed a concern at the end of that post about how easy it would be for an organized minority to take over the country with the law-abiding populace disarmed.


Yesterday the Instapundit linked to a post by Michael Moynihan at Reason Online's Hit & Run blog. It is mostly concerned with the effects of gun control in Britain on gun crime (it's been counterproductive) and links to a much more extensive 2002 article by Joyce Lee Malcolm that details the chronology of the gradual disarming of the law-abiding British populace, starting in the1920's and continuing to the present day.

In the 1950's, while he was at medical school in the UK, my father was introduced to the sport of marksmanship by a friend. He decided to acquire his friend's .22 caliber bolt-action sport rifle (said friend probably wanted to get a better/fancier one for himself), the kind I could walk into any Wal Mart and buy without any problem today. Before he could complete his acquisition, he had to get the permission of the Chief of Police and so he dutifully went down to the police station where he spent several hours being questioned by a detective about why he needed a firearm, what he would do with it, etc. Eventually he convinced the detective that he wasn't about to stage a coup and he was allowed to complete his purchase. This was around 1954/5. In 1957 he emigrated to the US, making the trip on the ocean liner Ile de France. He disembarked the ship in lower Manhattan, carrying the same rifle, slung over his back and no one even questioned him about it. I still have the rifle.

As the Malcolm article points out, not content with disarming the people, the British Government has not only disarmed them, it has steadily eroded the people's rights to any meaningful right of self-defense. She presents this mostly in terms of its effects on crime. What she doesn't talk about though, and to be fair it's a subject for another article, is the potential for an armed uprising by an organized minority that could stockpile guns and use them to take control. It takes relatively few armed men to control a large number of disarmed people. And if those people have been conditioned to wait for someone else to help them, it is easier still because they have lost the basic instinct hard-wired into the brains of every creature on the planet to fight back when threatened.

Going back to 2002 again, perhaps Bill Whittle said it best in one of his epic essays, "Freedom":

"Ask yourselves why intellectual elites so love totalitarian states where people are unarmed and dependent sheep. Look at the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam, and the horrors they have inflicted at will on their own people. And when contemplating your ever-so-sophisticated foreign policy, ask yourselves what compassionate and non-violent options you are left with when facing a determined, heartless bastard like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan or Attila.

Some say that the time for real evil like that has finally gone. I hope you are right, I really do. I don't want to go fight those bastards; I'd rather barbeque and watch the Gators. I'm sure the Jews in 1930 Germany thought such things could never happen again, not in the heart of European culture and civilization. I'm sure every bound and beaten musician, surgeon, philosopher and painter being lined up at the side of a ditch thought exactly that.

Freedom is preserved by free people. Our 40th President wrote that “no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”

I believe gun ownership is the truest form of freedom, and here's why: It says you are your own person, responsible for your own actions. You are, in other words, expected to behave as an adult. It says, furthermore, that you should not be collectively punished for the misdeeds of others. In fact, those that abuse this freedom by committing crimes are thought of and dealt with much more harshly by gun owners, as a rule, than Hollywood celebrities, precisely because a free person understands the responsibility that comes with freedom.

This, to my mind, is the fundamental difference between the Europeans and the U.S.: We trust the people. We fought wars and lost untold husbands and brothers and sons because of this single most basic belief: Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves. To the degree that government can help, great -- but TRUST THE PEOPLE. "

I only hope that the British people will find again their collective will to live as free people before it's too late.

Update 9/9: Glenn Reynolds links to an article in The Times that reinforces the point that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them:

".....Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects......"

Maybe it's not too late for Britain to wake up after all?

Mark Steyn On The True Lessons of Vietnam

I can't add much anything to this. So just go and read it.

"Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Aug. 22. "Many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people … . A columnist for the New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: 'It's difficult to imagine,' he said, 'how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.' A headline on that story, dateline Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: 'Indochina Without Americans: For Most a Better Life.' The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."

Forget Big Oil - What About "Big Corn"?

Here is more evidence (via Instapundit) that the drive to increase the use of biofuels, particularly corn-derived ethanol, may be counter productive. In fact, the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) in producing a gallon of ethanol may be as low as 59% or, turning that around, the energy required to produce the gallon of ethanol is 170% of the energy yielded. That doesn't seem like a particularly sound investment.

"The reason is that producing biofuel is not a "green process". It requires tractors and fertilisers and land, all of which means burning fossil fuels to make "green" fuel. In the case of bioethanol produced from corn – an alternative to oil – "it's essentially a zero-sums game," says Ghislaine Kieffer, programme manager for Latin America at the International Energy Agency in Paris, France."

The push towards producing more energy from renewable sources is really just more rent seeking behavior on the part of the big agricultural conglomerates.

"It is difficult to discuss rent seeking without mentioning the ethanol lobby, in particular the agricultural powerhouse Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). As documented in a Cato Institute Policy Analysis by James Bovard, ADM has perfected the art of rent seeking as well as, if not better than, any other company in America. The agricultural conglomerate has benefited from a range of subsidies, agricultural and otherwise. ADM is "totally immersed" in government programs, according to Archer Daniels Midland’s CEO Dwayne Andreas.

A key component of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments was a set of provisions governing the content of automotive fuels. The amendments required that oxygenates be added to gasoline in cities with high carbon monoxide (CO) levels and that reformulated gasoline be used in cities with high ground-level ozone (smog) levels. Both provisions created opportunities for the use of ethanol, a corn-based alcohol fuel. Ethanol is an oxygenate that can be added to gasoline to reduce CO emissions.

The ethanol lobby, politically supported by midwestern agricultural interests, swung into action. The lobby wanted both provisions to require the maximum amount of oxygenates possible, in order to increase the demand for ethanol. In particular, ethanol interests lobbied for a minimum oxygen content that could not be met by non-ethanol oxygenates. Reducing air pollution quickly became a secondary concern. As one Senate committee report noted, "In the absence of other avenues through which to encourage domestically produced ethanol to enter the fuel stream, this [requirement] is
necessary."

It has been a long time since I took any classes in physics but I seem to recall that the energy required to accelerate a mass X from zero to velocity Y and move it over the distance from A to B is going to be the same, regardless of which fuel you use to provide the energy. If ethanol contains less energy per gallon than straight gasoline, wouldn't you need to burn more of it to provide the necessary energy? If so, where is the energy savings and where is the reduction in carbon emissions? It seems to me that a zero-sum game may be the optimistic case and the authors of the study quoted in the article linked at the top are correct. We would do better to increase the efficiency of fossil fuel use than the false economy of promoting more bio-fuels use.

Related reading here.

Sixty-Two More Reasons to Distrust the MSM

From the American Thinker (via Instapundit). How many more do you need?

It's a Tax Trap, Not a Two Income Trap

Earlier this week Glenn Reynolds posted a link to a lengthy post by Todd Zywicki at The Volokh Conspiracy. He refers back to a book I read a couple of years back, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke. The authors (a mother/daughter team, Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi) put it down to a bidding war for houses in neighborhoods with good schools. I was kind of bothered by the authors' propensity for not using apples to apples comparisons, something that struck Mr. Zywicki also:

"Reading that excerpt, I thought, "Hmm, that's confusing. I wonder why they listed the actual dollar values for all of the other expenses, but the 'percentage' of income spent on taxes. That makes it difficult to compare to make an apples to apples comparison of the actual tax burdens between the two periods." Presenting it in this manner is even more confusing because the authors then go on to implicitly convert tax obligations to dollar values in order to calculate the total amount of the families' budgets dedicated to aggregate "fixed costs" versus "discretionary spending," concluding that the 2000s couple has less left over for discretionary spending than the prior generation. Yet, although they report the actual dollar values for everything else, in an apparent oversight, [Ahem. Right. emphasis mine Brother J] they never actually report the actual dollar figures for the tax expenditures in the two periods."

Whipping out his handy-dandy calculator he quickly ascertained what the real issue is: taxes.

"So I got out my handy calculator and calculated what the indicated percentage of taxes translates into in terms of actual dollars paid in taxes. In turns out that for the 1970s family, paying 24% of its income in taxes works out to be $9,288. And for the 2000s family, paying 33% of its income (a higher rate presumably because of progressivity hitting the second wage-earners income) in taxes works out to be $22,374.

Thus, taxes increase in the example by $13,086. By contrast, annual mortgage obligations increased by only $3690 and automobile obligations by $2860 and health insurance $620. Those increases are not trivial, but they are swamped by the increase in tax obligations. Too put this in perspective, the increase in tax obligations is over three times as large as the increase in the mortgage (the supposed driver of the "two income trap") and about double the increase in the combined obligations of mortgage and automobile payments. This also leaves aside the peculiarity that the 2000s family is paying $9670 in new child care and $2860 in new automobile expenses supposedly to meet a $3690 increase in mortgage expenses, the supposed driver of the model."

It's a lengthy post but the whole thing is worth reading. It certainly does seem to make for another good argument in favor of the FairTax.

Phoenix News Helicopter Tragedy

There was a terrible accident in the skies over Phoenix yesterday. Two TV news helicopters collided while trying to keep up with a police pursuit of a car theft suspect on the ground. Walter Owens at Overlawyered picked up on the story , noting something I also heard yesterday. The county attorney, Andrew Thomas, is considering trying to hold the car chase suspect the helicopters were trying to follow respsonsible for the deaths of the two helicopter crews.

As tempting as it is to try to find some other party to blame for this tragedy, I agree with one of Walter's commenters that this is stretching the chain of culpability too far. The fact is that the pilots of those two helicopters failed in one of the most basic responsibilities they had under Visual Flight Rules, that is to see, be seen by and maintain safe separation from other aircraft. I hold a commercial pilot's license myself (fixed wing) and this fact as well as the fact that it is the Pilot-In-Command of the aircraft that is completely and solely responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft were drilled into me from the very outset of my training.

Here we had at least three helicopters (I've heard there may have been as many as five), the two accident aircraft from Chanels 15 and 3, and the Fox 10 helicopter all in close proximity to each other and all trying to simultaneously keep track not only of each other but of the random twists and turns of the car chase they were tracking on the ground. With attention divided like that it only takes a second or two to lose sight of each other and one wrong move can result in a tragedy like this.

This was an entirely preventable accident but these crews chose to put themselves at risk to capture a few more minutes of the kind of car chase footage that seems to be a staple of the 10:00 o'clock news nowadays. They took a gamble and lost. As irresponsible as that car thief was, I don't think he can be held responsible for what happened in the sky above him.

Update: There were six helos in total, five news, one police. I see that a lot around here when something is happening. It's a wonder something like this hasn't happened before. This one could have been much worse though. The helicopters came down in the only open space for a long way around and just a little west of the VA hospital.

The Legacy of Tony Blair

I've been meaning to comment on a column this week by Theodore Dalrymple, the nom de plume of Anthony Daniels, a British psychiatrist who worked for a long time in the British prison system. He is highly critical, and I think rightly so, of Mr. Blair. It's a lengthy article but perhaps these two paragraphs best sum up the man:

Tony Blair was the perfect politician for an age of short attention spans. What he said on one day had no necessary connection with what he said on the following day: and if someone pointed out the contradiction, he would use his favorite phrase, "It's time to move on," as if detecting contradictions in what he said were some kind of curious psychological symptom in the person detecting them.

Many have surmised that there was an essential flaw in Mr. Blair's makeup that turned him gradually from the most popular to the most unpopular prime minister of recent history. The problem is to name that essential flaw. As a psychiatrist, I found this problem peculiarly irritating (bearing in mind that it is always highly speculative to make a diagnosis at a distance). But finally, a possible solution arrived in a flash of illumination. Mr. Blair suffered from a condition previously unknown to me: delusions of honesty.

I'll give Tony Blair credit for recognizing the threat of Islamist terror and on supporting the war in Iraq despite its unpopularity but on scores of other issues such as British civil liberties and what the Samizdatistas might call the panopticon state, the right of self defense (even in one's own home), growth of the nanny state, political correctness, etc., I have to give him failing marks. Dalrymple chronicles much of it. My only worry is whether the British people will wake up in time to save themselves. A disarmed populace with an increasingly militant Islamist population could very well find itself taken over from within. I hope it never comes to that. Anyway, read the whole thing.