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.

Can we Take the Easy Way Out by Assuming that Torture is Both Morally Wrong and Ineffective?

Medical ethicist M. Gregg Bloche argues “no” (May 29 Washington Post). Those who decry torture can’t have it both ways. His review of the available information argues that torture can, indeed, be effective—but not through the commonly accepted mechanism. Enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding can initially stiffen resistance, as many suppose. The underlying theory, however, is that harsh measures can lead to truth-telling by inducing hopelessness, which allows interrogators to “shape behavior through small rewards” such as bathroom breaks and an occasional kind word (known in other contexts as the “good cop, bad cop” strategy). Bloche therefore concludes that we must make the difficult choice between the moral repugnance of torture and its potential efficacy.

Contrary to Bloche’s view, however, only those who fool themselves on the moral issue face a difficult choice. Would those who say that waterboarding and similar methods are morally wrong refuse to use them if there were the slightest chance they might produce information that could actually -- actually -- save the life of their spouse or one of their children? Would they argue, as they now do, that critical information might be obtained through less-harsh methods? Wouldn’t they take the opposite view: “I don’t care; I would do whatever I could if there were some chance of saving my family’s life. It cannot be morally wrong to take action to protect my family.” Wouldn’t that be the common thought of people who do not fool themselves about the reality of the matter?

Can God and science coexist? from Washington Post On Faith panel

According to The Washington Post for May 21 (page B2, "On Faith"), the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England says yes. Heaven isn't where peole go when they die. Heaven is God's space while Earth is our space. Seems pretty clear so far. But he also says, "And the Bible makes it clear that the two overlap and interlock." So if the spaces overlap, why can't you get from Earth-space into Heaven-space when you die? Curious.

The rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles shows that no religion has a monopoy on epistemological confusion. He says that science discovers truths about physical reality, but it's a mistaken leap of logic to assume that physical reality is the only thing that really exists. So what else is there? Do things like justice, beauty, morality and the soul exist? Certainly; but only as concepts that help us describe the behavior of physical beings—people.

Nor is the East under-represented. A former Hindu monk says that nothing scientists and religionists believe can be known with absolute certainty. They both deal in beliefs, which are not proven certainties. Completely misses the crucial distinction. Scientific theories are hypotheses that have held up under empirical testing, a procedure that's completely missing from religious beliefs.
Posted by Dan Levine at 11:30 AM

Although it's infuriating that the $38 billion of obligational authority turned out to be only $352 million of 2011 spending, it's popular to claim that this was the best the Republicans could do under the circumstances. You can't know what's "best under the circumstances" unless you try and fail, and the Republicans could have simply refused to approve the temporary budget resoluation without more cuts.

Federal Money for Planned Parenthood CAN Lead to More Abortions

Clare Coleman, writing in the April 17 Washington Post Outlook section, defends Planned Parenthood against claims that since money is fungible, giving the organization federal money allows it to spend other money on abortions. Coleman says that such shifting is impossible by law. Title X, the federal money, exists only to provide contraceptives and sexual health care to the poor. And it is never enough to satisfy total demand, so Planned Parenthood has to find other money to support the Title X project—not using Title X money to fund abortions.

Coleman's argument makes clear that she doesn't understand the point about fungibility. Suppose Title X funding and private contributions allow Planned Parenthood to cover 50 percent of demand by the poor. If Title X funding were now to increase by $10 million, Planned Parenthood could decide to maintain total coverage at 50 percent and shift $10 million of the private contributions to cover abortions. Planned Parenthood might not choose to do so, but there would be no legal constraint against it.

In the United States at present, if a problem involves more than 2 people it's called a social problem—and if it's a social problem, it's a national problem—and if it's a national problem, it is a federal government problem. Individual responsibility and initiative are relics of the past.