politicalcivility.com Blog

I have to admit that my thinking regarding the immigration issue has changed significantly over the past couple of years as I have spent more time reading and listening the to arguments on both sides.  One of the major shifts occured when I began to look at and study the difference between types of law: malum in se and malum prohibitum.

Here’s a quick overview from Cafe Hayek:

A critical distinction in Anglo-American law is that between actions that are malum in se and actions that are malum prohibitum.  Some actions are malum in se — wrong in themselves.  Examples are murder, rape, theft, and fraud.  These actions are now formally prohibited by legislation, but their wrongness — indeed, their very illegality — exists independently [emphasis added] of legislative prohibition.  If, say, the Virginia legislature were to repeal its statutory prohibition on murder, murder would still be wrong and criminal in Virginia.  Murderers would still be wrongdoers and criminals.  If the State government refused to punish such criminals, people would do so privately.

Other actions are malum prohibitum — “wrong” merely because the government proclaims these actions to be wrong.  One example is avoiding taxes.  If Uncle Sam tomorrow abolishes the federal income tax, failure of Americans to send money to Washington would be neither wrong nor criminal, and persons who send no money to Washington would not be regarded by their neighbors and co-workers as despicable louts whose company should be avoided.

Immigration law is clearly a malum prohibitum type law, as such it is a-moral, meaning that if we removed all immigration law people coming here would not be considered immoral.  Thus it follows that the “criminality” aspect of an immigrant not following the law is no different that a legal citizen breaking the speed limit.

Mention the word ExxonMobile and global warming and the response is pretty predictable.  “Oh those guys that are making billions and funding all the global warming deniers.”  The fact is that statement is pretty true.  Exxon has made billions and they have spent several million over the past 15 years making research grants to a few (but hardly all) university professors and think tanks.  Problem is they may have been wasting their money.  Maybe they should change their strategy and just copy “green” GE. 

The WSJ recently released a list of top spenders in Washington DC, and right behind the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association (makes you wonder about why we are having problems refoming the medical system) was not ExxonMobile but eco-friendly GE rounding out the top 3.  From 1998-2007 GE spent in excess of $160 million in lobbying efforts.  Exxon didn’t even make the top 10.

Why would GE spend so much money?  Answer: they are heavily invested in green technology (wind, solar, and those nice expensive light bulbs that are now mandated by the federal government in 2012).  GE isn’t the only one benefitting from green policy, but they sure haven’t taken any chances on not cashing in on their green investment.

So maybe Exxon should stop trying to fund science and just go straight for the golden goose: the beltway goose that is.  GE is green alright (just check out their website: www.ge.com) but the green might not have anything to do with the environment.

I’ve been busy this week with EarthWeek at Sutherland which has kept me from posting more, but I wanted to throw out this question posed by Roy Innis during the first day. 

What’s the balance?  What’s the right balance between development and conservation?  What’s the balance between the principles of stewardship and economic progress?  What’s the balance between the development of ‘alternative’ fuel sources and asking consumers to pay significantly more for life’s basic necessities (food, shelter, warmth/cooling)?

This balance question forces us to start making clear what is the principle and priority framework we are coming from rather than relying on the rhetoric or emotional hysteria that can accompany both sides of the issue.

As I look at the issue of climate change/global warming here are a few of principles/priority frameworks that guide how I look at this debate.

1. Stewardship: As I have stated on this blog before I am a firm believer in being a wise steward of the earth’s resources, but inherent in that belief system is the idea that the resources should be used. 
2. Cost: For me the balance question has to look at cost with a heavy bias toward human cost (this goes back to my post about conservationalist philosophy versus a preservationist worldview).  Human life takes highest priority.  So when millions begin to starve or die because of “green” policy then those policies must change.
3. Government Expansion: This goes back to my belief that any “war” so called on an issue (environmentalism, poverty, terrorism, you fill in the blank) leads to significant government intervention (which leads to greater inefficiency and subsuquent increase use of resources) and loss of freedom.  Also if you want to see how well the a government controlled economy handles the environment look no further than the former USSR and China.  Both stellar examples of clean air and water.
4. Cause & Effect: One of the most glaring issues of the IPCC report is the misuse or lack of use of appropriate cause and effect analysis.  Much of what the IPCC calls “cause” is actually just correlation.  There is a huge difference. So getting this right is critical if we want to really make a difference or know if we really can make a difference.
5. Everything on the Table: If we are to have a serious discussion about environmental problem solving, we must stop arbitrarily removing proven solutions and dismissing legitimate scientific research and inquiry.  Let’s put everything on the table: wind, solar, nuclear, manmade versus natural warming effects and see what is real according to the science and economics and then balance that with the cost to the environment and cost to society to see what makes the most sense.  Then we need to step back and let the market work. 

Just a few of my thoughts.  The floor is now yours.

This blog is about politics, but I’m also a sports nut and so when this came across the wire yesterday/today I about hit the roof and had to post something.

Some of you may have heard this story about Ric Bucher, but I’m just blown away that he could say something so asinine.  If you insert another faith (muslims) for example or use a racial identifier (black, hispanic) instead of mormon he’d probably be losing his job.

Bucher’s quote:

“Let’s be honest: They’re Mormon, and they’re in Salt Lake, and there’s nothing else there. You gotta smile and be happy all the time. This might be one opportunity for fans to get vicious.”

Maybe ESPN should stand for Every Sports Personality is a Nutjob.  ESPN should be ashamed to have such a commentator. 

I’m probably overreacting so sorry for the diversion, but I needed to get that off my chest.  Now back to solving the worlds problems.

[UPDATE]

Bucher has now issued an apology, which I appreciate:

“I apologize for my remarks. I knew immediately that I had made an inappropriate connection between Mormons and the harsh reception that opposing teams sometimes experience inside EnergySolutions Arena. I regret making that connection and apologize to anyone of the Mormon faith for having done so. The point I was trying to make is that the manner in which some Jazz fans get on visiting teams is counter to the general friendliness that the people of Salt Lake City are known for and have exhibited to me. I tried to revise my remarks later in the broadcast and remove any connection between that behavior and the Mormon faith, but I clearly did not go far enough. I hope that this apology will do that and that all citizens of Salt Lake City will find it in their hearts to welcome me as hospitably as they have in the past.”

For those keeping track, today is TAX day.  Hopefully you’ve already filed and will avoid a) the bad weather and b) long lines at your local post office.  I think this brief history is very informative and demonstrates the shift away from the founders intent of how government should be funded.  The table at the end shows just how far we’ve gone.

A Brief History of the Income Tax in the U.S.

1634 – The Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted an income tax (no other mention of taxing personal income is mentioned for over 200 years). 

1861 – With the advent of the Civil War, both the Union and the Confederacy instituted income taxes to finance their war efforts.  This constituted the first time the U.S. federal government levied an income tax; the federal government’s then limited operations were previously financed almost entirely from tariffs on imported goods.  Technically, the personal income tax was unconstitutional (at the time), but no challenge was made in the judicial system.  After the war, the income tax was eliminated and the federal government reverted back to its previous sources of revenue.

1894 – The federal government introduced a new tax on individual income with the passage of the Wilson-Gorman Act.  This act required that any gains, profits, and income in excess of $4,000 be taxed at a rate of 2%.  In compliance to this act, the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company of New York determined to remit payment to the U.S. Treasury on behalf of its shareholders subject to the tax.  Charles Pollock, an owner of ten shares in the company, sued Farmers’ Loan to not remit the payment.  Pollock lost at the lower court but won at the Supreme Court level.  The majority opinion of the court cited the constitutional guarantee that “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”  A “direct” tax was a tax on property, while an “indirect” tax (not barred by the constitution) was a tax on an event like receiving a gift or rendering labor for a wage.  Tax on a security’s appreciation was considered an effective tax on a property, and thus a “direct” tax.  To make the tax constitutional, congress would have to apportion the tax burden among the states according to their proportional populations.  Since the Wilson-Gorman Act did not accomplish the requisite apportionment among the states, it was ruled unconstitutional.

1909 – The federal government levied an income tax on corporations, which was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court.  The rationale was that a corporation is created by law; therefore, the authors of the law (governments) have the right to tax a corporation’s creation and operation (events that lead to “indirect” tax status).

1913 – The decision in Pollock vs. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co. was unpopular and stirred debate for several years.  In fact, the presidential candidates competing in the election of 1912 largely debated on the grounds of whether or not an amendment overturning Pollock was needed.  The sixteenth amendment to the constitution was proposed.  It would sanction a federal income tax on both individuals and corporations with no requirement for apportionment.  Sponsors of the amendment presented it as a measure that would affect the “super rich” who were portrayed as having gained too much control over the nation’s wealth.  Public opinion fell on socioeconomic lines with support coming mainly from western and southern states and opposition coming from the northeastern states.  In the end, 42 of the then 48 states ratified the amendment.  Connecticut, Florida, Rhode Island, and Utah formally rejected the amendment, and Pennsylvania and Virginia never even bothered to consider it.

Shortly after the amendment was ratified, congress passed the Revenue Act of 1913, under which taxpayers became responsible to submit their first Form 1040 on March 1, 1914.  This act allowed filers to claim personal exemptions of $3,000 for individuals and $4,000 for those “married filing jointly” persons.  Given the size of the average income at that time, only 6 percent of Americans made enough money to exceed the exemptions and, therefore, assume a tax liability.  Tax rates varied from 2 to 6 percent (the highest rate was applied to taxable income in excess of $500,000).

1943 – Congress instituted the pay-as-you-go system, which remains in force today.  This system requires employers to withhold and remit payroll taxes and also requires persons earning non-wage income to make quarterly payments to the IRS for estimated tax liability.

1945 – WWII and FDR’s New Deal introduced large financial obligations and tax law was altered accordingly.  The portion of Americans subject to a tax liability grew from 6 percent in 1939 to 74 percent in 1945 (the sixteenth amendment’s reach beyond just the “super rich” would continue to the present day).  Also the progressive rate structure applied to taxable income increased during this period.  The lowest rate structure ever enjoyed by U.S. taxpayers occurred just after the passage of the sixteenth amendment (1913); 1 to 6 percent.  The rate structure from 1944 to 1945 is still the highest ever experienced in U.S. history; 23 to 94 percent!  The highest rate was applied to income exceeding $200,000.  (How much work incentive would you have if you knew that for every additional dollar you earned, 94 cents would go to Uncle Sam?)

Today – the table below shows the sources of federal government revenue for 2007:

I am not sure how many people got an email (click here for a sample of the email text) forward about military deaths during the Clinton administration versus the death toll under the current administration.  The email caught my attention because the numbers were pretty amazing.  Turns out they were too amazing.  I went and looked at the Congressional Research Services (CRS) report that was listed as a resource for these ‘damning’ statistics and the numbers were way off. 

The truth doesn’t need to be stretched, and the person who popped out this email is doing a disservice to those really trying make a reasoned choice between Obama and Hillary. 

Perhaps the only “story” with respect to the military is that former President Clinton never gained approval for aggresive action.  President Bush did.  You may not like the reasons, but at least he followed the Constitutional channels for waging war.  President Clinton ignored them.

As reported by SLTrib, Sutherland hosted the AG during its monthly blogger briefing.  I know there are some out in the bloggosphere that have little love for our AG and there are times when I find myself in that category, but I have to say he’s one of the more interesting politicians I’ve listened to in a long time.  He definitely wears his emotions on his sleeve, but at least in person I didn’t get the “i’m highly polished and am pulling the wool over your eyes” kind of greasy feeling that I’ve experienced with some of the other republican leadership in the state.

Anyway, the AG gave out a website during the briefing that I think everybody should go sign up for: UTAH Amber Alert Registration Form.  By adding your cell number to the alert roster, we have that many more people ready to act any time a child is abducted and there are that many more eyeballs on the lookout.  As you all know, the first three hours are the most critical and give police the best chance of finding the child and finding the child alive.

Do your part: go register!

The National Taxpayers Association just released their 2007 scorecard (Full Report and Criteria):

Quick Glance:

1. Rep. Bishop: B+
2. Rep. Cannon: A
3. Rep. Matheson: D
4. Sen. Bennett: B
5. Sen. Hatch: C+

Hatch’s ranking, sadly, doesn’t surprise me.  The last 8 years or so I have watched Sen. Hatch abondon the principles and conservative platform that got him the job in the first place. He seems more concerned with power and writing songs, than showing real conservative leadership in the Senate.

Matheson’s grade may come back to hurt him if the economy continues to decline.  Frankly, I thought his record on tax policy would have been more in the ”B” range. 

A good reminder from a former president.

There are no adequate substitute for father, mother, and children bound together in a loving commitment to nurture and protect.  No government, no matter how well-intentioned, can take the place of the family in the scheme of things.  (President Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States)

I went to the Utah Foundation’s Utah Priorities lunch today, which included remarks by the Governor.  I have to say that there should be a general rule that politicians should be limited to 20 minute speaches, because that’s about the time people started tuning out the governor and started chatting quietly with their neighbor.  Anyway the length of political speeches is not the reason for this post.

A couple of takeaways for me from the Foundation’s report. 

1. Education has been subplanted by concerns over energy (gasoline, utility prices, etc.).  I found this interesting because we had the voucher debate in November and given the level of contention I would have thought that education would have held onto the top spot.  It is also interesting to note that in Southern Utah, education came in at #5.  The survey results seem to indicate that voters are most interested in what hurts the most and if the economy continues to struggle and gas & utility prices remain high, I think voters may not pay much attention to candidates running on an education platform, which does not bode well for those looking to gain momentum on the voucher defeat.
2. Economy: Our governor has a one track mind and that is “creating and growing the best economy in the country.”  I was sad and disappointed that it appears that the governor doesn’t get that more important priority for Utahns (even if it didn’t show up on the survey) is not creating the GREATEST economy on the planet but is strengthening the natural family.  When a growing number of Utah’s families are in trouble (divorce, addiction, abuse, etc.), the resulting lack of health will undermine any attempts the governor may make to build the best economy on the planet.  When families are sick it impacts almost every aspect of our society and exponentially grows the cost to maintain any semblence of a civil society.  Not only is the family, the most fundamental economic unit in an economy; it is also the best and most cost effective mechanism in creating productive citizens that add rather than subtract from the economy and the public coffers.