Government – Page 74 – artdiamondblog.com

Charles II Took a Gamble on Toleration

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

(p. A19) Early in “A Gambling Man,” a detailed and thoroughly engrossing examination of the Restoration’s first decade, Jenny Uglow notes that Charles Stuart, upon his ascension, “wanted passionately to be seen as the healer of his people’s woes and the glory of his nation.” Cromwell’s regime had featured constant war and constant taxes. The population was bitterly divided among Anglicans, Catholics and dissenting Protestants–Presbyterians, Puritans, Quakers, Baptists. A huge standing army had burdened the people financially and frightened them; such an army, it was not unreasonably thought, could be used to impose a tyranny.
. . .
As a result of such divisions, Charles became a “gambler,” as Ms. Uglow puts it–not at cards or gaming tables but at affairs of state. His biggest gamble was on something he fervently wanted to achieve: religious toleration for all sects and the freedom for Englishmen to follow their own “tender consciences” in individual worship. He forwarded this policy in Parliament only to receive his first major defeat with the passage of the Corporation Act, a law that took the power of corporations (governing towns and businesses) away from Nonconformists and handed it back to the Church of England. Charles had gambled on “the force of reasonable argument,” Ms. Uglow says, but was ultimately defeated “by the entrenched interests of the [Anglican] Church” and “the deep-held suspicions” of Parliament, which believed that England’s dissenting sects posed a persistent threat. That Charles was willing to go head-to-head with Parliament for such a cause, even in failure, was especially audacious, considering his father’s fate.
. . .
In his desire to be a monarch of the people, Charles was determined to make himself accessible–in the early days of his reign he threw open the palace of Whitehall to all comers. He gambled, with some success, that (in Ms. Uglow’s words) “easy access would make people of all views feel they might reach him, preventing conspiracies.” During the 1666 Great Fire of London he and his brother, James, duke of York, went out into the streets and put themselves alongside soldiers and workmen. They could be seen “filthy, smoke-blackened and tired,” frantically creating a firebreak as the blaze consumed London like a monstrous beast.

For the full review, see:
NED CRABB. “BOOKSHELF; Risky Business; A bitterly divided nation, a monarchy splendiferously restored..” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., NOVEMBER 27, 2009): A19.
(Note: ellipses added; bracketed word in original.)
(Note: the online version of the review is dated NOVEMBER 26, 2009.)

Book being reviewed:
Uglow, Jenny. A Gambling Man: Charles II’s Restoration Game. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

Tax Hike Would Hurt Entrepreneurs

(p. A17) When Congress returns from its summer recess, members will face a pivotal decision about the expiring Bush tax cuts. President Barack Obama has called for their permanent extension for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.
. . .
The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.
. . .
Economic research supports a large impact. A pair of papers by economists Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Harvey Rosen and Mark Rider that were published in 1998 and 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed tax return data and uncovered high responsiveness of sole proprietors’ business activity to tax rates. Their estimates imply that increasing the top rate to 40.8% from 35% (an official rate of 39.6% plus another 1.2 percentage points from the restoration of a stealth provision that phases out deductions), as in Mr. Obama’s plan, would reduce gross receipts by more than 7% for sole proprietors subject to the higher rate.
These results imply a similar effect on proprietors’ investment expenditures. A paper published by R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and William M. Gentry of Williams College in the American Economic Review in 2000 also found that increasing progressivity of the tax code discourages entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.

For the full commentary, see:
KEVIN A. HASSETT and ALAN D. VIARD. “The Small Business Tax Hike and the 97% Fallacy; The president’s plan to raise top marginal rates is holding back the very people who should be leading the economic recovery.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., SEPTEMBER 3, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)

One of the papers by Carroll et al, is:
Carroll, Robert, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mark Rider, and Harvey S. Rosen. “Income Taxes and Entrepreneurs’ Use of Labor.” Journal of Labor Economics 18, no. 2 (April 2000): 324-51.

The Hubbard paper is:
Gentry, William M., and R. Glenn Hubbard. “Tax Policy and Entrepreneurial Entry.” The American Economic Review 90, no. 2 (May 2000): 283-87.

Brit Papers Survived Due to “the Gratifying Defeat of the Luddite Unions by Rupert Murdoch”

“Evans says: “Ultimately, Mrs Thatcher was the reason I was fired, because I attacked her so much.” Source of caption and photo: online version of The Independent on Sunday article quoted and cited below.

(p. 12) As a condition of acquiring both The Times and The Sunday Times in early 1981, Murdoch promised that the independence of each would be protected by a board of directors, and made other solemn guarantees.

“On this basis,” Evans wrote in Good Times, Bad Times, “I accepted Rupert Murdoch’s invitation to edit The Times on February 17 1981. My ambition,” he admitted, “got the better of my judgement.” Every assurance regarding editorial independence, he added, was blithely disregarded.
On 9 March 1982, the day after he’d come back from burying his father at Bluebell Wood cemetery in Prestatyn, Harold Evans was sacked.
“Ultimately,” he says, “Mrs Thatcher was the reason I was fired. Because I was attacking her so much. When she started to dismantle the British economy, the most cogent critic of that policy which led, OK, to… a lot of things… was The Sunday Times. I wrote 70 per cent of that criticism myself. When I became editor of The Times, I continued to criticise monetarism. But I could still see some of the good things about her.”
“Just remind us?”
“I’m thinking – and you probably won’t agree with this because I sense that you’re a firm supporter of the NUJ [National Union of Journalists] – mainly of her dealings with the unions.”
“How do you feel about her now?”
“I think she is a very brave woman.”
“Hitler was brave.”
“Yes, but… she was right about terrorism. She was right about the IRA.”
“Do you think Britain would be a better place if she’d never existed?”
“No. I think Britain benefited from her having been there. Britain was becoming so arthritic with labour restrictions.”
“Good Times, Bad Times is an unforgiving portrait of Rupert Murdoch.”
. . .
(p. 13) [Evans] has called Rupert Murdoch elitist, anti-democratic, and asserted that the Australian cares nothing about the opinion of others, so long as his business expands. This is the same man who refers to “the gratifying defeat of the Luddite unions by Rupert Murdoch”.
. . .
“So how do you feel about the Murdoch empire now?”
Evans pauses. “I’m not that familiar with the British… OK. Let’s take an alternative scenario. Murdoch never arrives. I manage to take control of The Sunday Times with the management buyout. Then I get defeated by the unions. The Independent wouldn’t be here. Rival papers survived because they got the technology. Thanks to Murdoch.”

For the full interview, see:
Robert Chalmers, Interviewer. “Harold Evans: ‘All I tried to do was shed a little light’.” The Independent on Sunday (Sun., June 13, 2010): 8 & 10-13.
(Note: free-standing ellipsis, between paragraphs, added; internal ellipses in original; italics in original; bracketed name added in place of “he.”)

Post-War Freedom, Not FDR’s New Deal or War, Ended Great Depression

(p. A17) Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR’s ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war.

Congress–both chambers with Democratic majorities–responded by just saying “no.” No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits.
Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR’s top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely.
. . .
Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR’s New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.
The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR’s programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

For the full commentary, see:
BURTON FOLSOM JR. AND ANITA FOLSOM. “Did FDR End the Depression?
The economy took off after the postwar Congress cut taxes.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., APRIL 12, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

“Disrespectful to Take Money from One Man’s Pocket and Put It in Another’s”

“A March fair to raise private funding for community centers, held at Westside Community Center, was sparsely attended.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.–Like many American cities, this one is strapped for cash. Tax collections here have fallen so far that the city has turned off one-third of its 24,512 street lights.

But unlike many cities, this one is full of people who are eager for more government cutbacks.
The town council has been bombarded with emails telling it to close community centers. Letters to the local newspaper call for shrinking the police department and putting the city-owned utility up for sale. A commission is studying whether to sell the municipal hospital. Another, made up of local businessmen, will opine on whether to slash the salaries and benefits of city employees.
“Let’s start cutting stupid programs that cost taxpayers a pot of money,” says Tim Austin, a 48-year-old former home builder now looking for a new line of work. “It’s so bullying and disrespectful to take money from one man’s pocket and put it in another’s.”

For the full story, see:

LESLIE EATON. “Strapped City Cuts and Cuts and Cuts.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., APRIL 13, 2010): A1 & A16.

Energy Department Wastes Energy

(p. A17) WASHINGTON — Like flossing or losing weight, saving energy is easier to promise than to actually do — even if you are the Department of Energy.

Its Web site advises that choosing new lighting technologies can slash energy use by 50 to 75 percent. But the department is having trouble taking its own advice, according to an internal audit released on Wednesday; many of its offices are still installing obsolete fluorescent bulbs.
And very few have switched to the most promising technology, light-emitting diodes, which the department spent millions of dollars to help commercialize.
Many of the changes would generate savings that would pay back the investment in two years or so, according to the report, by the department’s inspector general.
In one case, the Department of Energy made most of the investment by installing timers to shut off lights at night when it moved into a new building in 1997. But it got no benefit: as of March of this year, it had not bought the central control unit needed to run the system.

For the full story, see:
MATTHEW L. WALD. “Energy Department: Make Thyself Fuel Efficient.” The New York Times (Thurs., July 8, 2010): A17.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated July 7, 2010, and has the title “Energy Department Lags in Saving Energy.”)

Districts with More Government Pork Have Less Private Hiring

(p. A19) You can’t read models, but you do talk to entrepreneurs in Racine and Yakima. Higher deficits will make them more insecure and more risk-averse, not less. They’re afraid of a fiscal crisis. They’re afraid of future tax increases. They don’t believe government-stimulated growth is real and lasting. Maybe they are wrong to feel this way, but they do. And they are the ones who invest and hire, not the theorists.

The Demand Siders are brilliant, but they write as if changing fiscal policy were as easy as adjusting the knob on your stove. In fact, it’s very hard to get money out the door and impossible to do it quickly. It’s hard to find worthwhile programs to pour money into. Once programs exist, it’s nearly impossible to kill them. Spending now creates debt forever and ever.
Moreover, public spending seems to have odd knock-off effects. Professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher Malloy of Harvard surveyed 42 years of government spending increases in certain Congressional districts. They found that federal spending increases dampened corporate hiring and investment in those districts.

For the full commentary, see:

DAVID BROOKS. “A Little Economic Realism.” The New York Times (Tues., July 6, 2010): A19.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated July 5, 2010.)

The research referenced is:
Cohen, Lauren, Joshua D. Coval, and Christopher J. Malloy. “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?” NBER Working Paper No.15839, March 2010.

Cuban Health Care Checkup

(p. A17) . . . it’s a good time to check in on the state of the Cuban health-care system. That’s just what Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, does in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
. . .
Slightly more than half of all Cuban physicians work overseas; taxed by the Cuban state at a 66% rate, many of them wind up defecting. Doctors who remain in the country earn about $25 a month. As a result, Ms. Garrett writes, they often take “jobs as taxi drivers or in hotels,” where they can make better money. As for the quality of the doctors, she notes that very few of those who manage to reach the U.S. can gain accreditation here, partly because of the language barrier, partly because of the “stark differences” in medical training. Typically, they wind up working as nurses.
As for the quality of medical treatment in Cuba, Ms. Garrett reports that hospital patients must arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets. Women avoid gynecological exams “because they fear infection from unhygienic equipment and practices.” Rates of cervical cancer have doubled in the past 25 years as the use of Pap tests has fallen by 30%.
And while Cuba’s admirers love to advertise the country’s low infant mortality rate (at least according to the Castro regime’s dubious self-reporting) the flip-side has been a high rate of maternal mortality. “Most deaths,” Ms. Garrett writes, “occur during delivery or within the next 48 hours and are caused by uterine hemorrhage or postpartum sepsis.”

For the full commentary, see:
BRET STEPHENS. “Dr. Berwick and That Fabulous Cuban Health Care; The death march of progressive medicine.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., JULY 13, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Reference to the Garrett article:
Garrett, Laurie A. “Castrocare in Crisis; Will Lifting the Embargo Make Things Worse?” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 4 (July/August 2010): 61-73.

Government Protects Us from Julie Murphy’s Lemonade Stand

Julie Murphy and her lemonade stand. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

When health inspectors cite you for it, get famous.
Julie Murphy, a 7-year-old Oregonian, set up a lemonade stand on July 29 at an art fair in northeast Portland. County health inspectors shut her down, however, telling Julie and her mother, Maria Fife, that they needed a temporary restaurant license, which costs $120. The penalty for selling food without a permit, they warned, was $500. At 50 cents a cup, that’s a lot of lemonade.
Others at the fair urged the family to give away the lemonade, and they wrote “free” and “suggested donation” on Julie’s sign with a marker. But the inspectors were unmoved.
Julie left the fair in tears.

For the full story, see:
JOHN SCHWARTZ. “Sorry, Kid: No License, No Lemonade.” The New York Times (Sat., August 7, 2010): A8.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated August 6, 2010.)

“The Survival of Freedom and Accountable, Limited Government Is an Enormously Important Value”

“Ernest Gellner in his office at the London School of Economics in 1979.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. W8) ‘I am sorry, I have written another,” Ernest Gellner used to say in his later years before publishing a new book. “I just couldn’t help it.” Not even his death in 1995 stopped the flow. The last of his posthumous works, “Language and Solitude,” appeared in the late 1990s. Now Gellner has been brought back to life–alongside his combative ideas and his maverick approach to intellectual combat–in a sympathetic but by no means reverential biography by his former pupil John A. Hall.
. . .
Many of the problems that Gellner addressed during his long intellectual career–such as the roots of nationalism and the role of contemporary Islam–are obviously of direct relevance today. But the most pertinent part of his legacy lies in his fearless endorsement of Western modernity at a time when it was becoming increasingly embattled in the academy and elsewhere.
As Mr. Hall demonstrates, Gellner believed that there really was a clash between “liberty and pluralism,” on the one hand, and “authoritarianism and oppressiveness” on the other. In a passionate riposte to Noam Chomsky, who had accused him of ignoring Western crimes, Gellner charged that his critic had “obscured” the fact that “the survival of freedom and accountable, limited government is an enormously important value even when some of its defenders are occasionally tarnished.”
This was the authentic voice of Ernest Gellner: honest, cool and reasonable. Mr. Hall is to be congratulated for reminding us of how much we miss it today.

For the full review, see:
BRENDAN SIMMS. “A Combatant in the Battle of Ideas; A defender of the West when it was most embattled, a defender of reason at a time of dangerous irrationality.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., JULY 23, 2010): W8.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated July 30 (sic), 2010.)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

The book under review, is:
Hall, John A. Ernest Gellner: An Intellectual Biography. London, UK: Verso, 2010.

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited above.