Changing the name of the Washington Redskins

A reader of the Washington Post makes this foolish argument for changing the name of the Washington Redskins (October 9 Letters to the Editor): "If you would feel uncomfortable saying a word to a person to whom it applies, then there's something wrong with that word." It might be unfeeling to call a native American a "redskin" to his face if he objects, but that's hardly a reason to change the name of the football team. In a nation of over 300 million people, you can find someone (if not thousands) who are uncomfortable saying most anything.

Confused policy on contraceptives

The current political debate on whether Government health insurance should cover purchase of contraceptives by employees of Catholic institutions is a confused mess. Relying on first principles provides the answer. The purpose of insurance is to cover the risks of intentional, deliberate acts, not the acts themselves. We buy car insurance to cover the risks of accident, not to reimburse us for buying the car. Medical insurance generally covers the costs of pregnancy due to the risk of contraceptive failure, but there's no reason for it to cover the cost of buying the contraceptives themselves. Why should other people pay for one family's contraceptives?

Who are the "millionaires and billionaires" Obama talks about?

What is the President driving at when he talks about "millionaires and billionaires"? He doesn't describe them, which raises the question of what mental image he's trying to call up? One familiar picture is a retired man sitting on a 100-foot yacht smoking a cigar and sipping a martini. But suppose he's the CEO of a large corporation and involved in high-value decisions like what mergers to make, what new product lines to open and whether to expand the production facilities. These decisions all have major implications for employment, so you might not want to interfere with him too much if your focus is on "jobs, jobs, jobs." You only hope he's making the decisions intelligently!

What is the "fair rate" of taxation?

The answer is, it doesn't exist! Suppose taxpayer A earns $100,000 a year. What tax rate would be "fair?" Most pols and pundits interviewed on TV hew and haw without offering a number. Others try to attack the question by saying that the taxes should approximate the benefits the taxpayer receives from the government. Sounds reasonable, but there's no discussion in the media about what those benefits might be, or even how to calculate them. Let's take a simpler tack. Suppose taxpayer A earns $100,000 and pays $20,000 in taxes, a 20% tax rate. If taxpayer B earns $200,000, or twice as much, should be pay $40,000, or twice as much? Sounds reasonable. After all, he has twice as much income protected by the police, and so on. But that would mean the same tax rate, 20%. So a flat tax means the rich pay would pay more in proportion to their income. What's the justification for our progressive tax rate? These are the types of factors we need to consider in deciding on tax rates. They're not what pols and pundits seem to have in mind when they assert that millionaires should pay their "fair share." (They generally seem to mean nothing more than that the millionaires should pay more than they are now.)

Why is presidential election reporting so confusing?

The media's reporting of the presidential election process can be extremely confusing. But it doesn't have to be. Just tune out everything that's name-calling, as opposed to providing information. Name-calling, in my terms, means not only describing ideas and people by pejorative names, but also includes making statements that are pure assertion, without any trace of objective support. When you read or hear new information, make a quick judgment about whether it's name calling, and if it is, tune it out without spending another moment on it. It will simply things greatly, since 95% of what you read and hear from pundits and politicians is name-calling!

Our children do not pay for our deficit spending

Politicians and pundits are fond of saying that deficit spending puts a burden on our children (and grandchildren): we obtain benefits that our children pay for. Not true. The government buys a $100 widget by selling a $100 Treasury bond to Sam instead of taxing Joe—deficit spending. Sam dies in 2030 and wills his estate (including the bond) to his son—who immediately cashes in the bond for money to buy a home. The government gets the $100 by taxing Joe's son $100. Has Joe's son ended up paying for today's widget? No. Society received a $100 widget (a social good) today in return for Sam's giving up $100 of consumption (a private good) today. And when the bond is retired, Joe's son gave up $100 of private consumption in 2030 and Sam's son received $100 for private consumption in 2030. A horizontal transfer in 2011 and a compensating horizontal transfer in 2030.

Media confusions

1. The next time you listen to a media item (newspaper, TV), think about whether it's about politics or policy. Politics is argument or speculation about who will win the next election. Policy is about the specific effects of what actions incumbent politicians might take. About 99% of such items are of the first type. If that's what you're looking for, fine, but don't think you're learning anything about how to make the world a better place.

2. In discussing social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion that impinge on many people's religious beliefs, a pundit recently said that we have to choose between religious freedom and discrimination (in the sense of one group circumscribing the behavior of other groups). That's true if religious freedom means that we can pass laws that conform to rules laid out in the Bible, for example. Laws forbidding same-sex marriage on such grounds certainly discriminate against those who wish to practice it. But religious freedom in the Constitution only establishes the right of a person to practice whatever religion (or no religion) he chooses. It is strictly personal, and does not involve discrimination.