Happy Birthday to Me

In lieu of presents, donate your time or money to a good charity. You’ll feel much better!

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

Generally speaking, political parties are comprised of two somewhat distinct groups of voters. There is an activist group, which will not only support the party’s candidates but will volunteer, donate and organize. The other group consists of the universe of party registrants who are not, at least at that moment, part of the activist base. There is movement between the two groups, driven by factors such as particular candidates or causes or (for the activist base) fatigue.

The core group of activists tend to be more committed to not only the party, but to the ideology to which the party is linked. However, I would argue that within the universe of activists there is a further distinction. There is a party’s base that may or not be activist, but generally the former, and then there are less ideological partisans. This is where I find a lot of political reporting and punditry to be lacking. In my years as a politician and a consultant, I came across a fairly sizable number of partisan Republicans who were neither conservative nor ideological. They were simply partisan Republicans. (For the Democratic side, see Markos’ many non-ideological Democrat, but partisan Democrat writings.)

In a well-functioning political party the partisan not base group, along with the party registrants who are not activists, serve as a moderating influence on the activist base. For most of the 20th century, both parties fit this description. Prior to the past couple of decades, the Republican Party had a sizable number of moderate (Rockefeller) Republicans while the Democratic Party included its share of conservative (Southern) Democrats. The broadness of each party ensured that its activist base would not come to dominate either party.

During the 1980’s and into the 1990’s the Democratic Party came to be controlled, by and large, by its liberal base. It was unable to win presidential elections, but maintained its grip on the House and (sometimes) the Senate. The DLC and one of its stars, Bill Clinton, pulled the Democrats back from the brink and broadened the party to include moderates and conservatives again.  In a way, the party apparatus under Clinton was able to push aside some of the crazier elements of the Democratic Party and assert adult leadership.

And while pundits now portray the netroots of the Democratic Party as some sort of bastion of dirty f*cking hippies, the reality is that many are partisan Democrats, not activist base (liberal). Just look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into moderate and conservative Democratic campaigns by the netroots and the mantra of more and better Democrats. I also think the political reporters miss something crucial when they portray the current fight against Blue Dogs and Senate “centrists” as some sort of ideological purge. Of course, there are some elements of that out there, but the majority of those calling for some backbone, especially on health care reform, believe that support for HCR and a public option is actually part of a winning strategy for 2010, not just good policy.

In many ways today’s GOP is where the Democrats were before Bill Clinton. Their activist base has not only exerted control of the party, but has managed to elect more than a few of its members into positions of power (Senate, House). While there were fringe elements of the Democratic Party in Congress in the past (some would say now, as well), they never held the sort of power now in the hands of the teabaggers and their supporters. Certainly, some of those espousing crazy Beck/Palin/Limbaugh talking points in the halls of Congress are not true believers, but are political opportunists. However, it’s fairly easy to come up with a list of those who are not only parroting the crazy, but believe the crazy. In short, the inmates are running the GOP asylum.

There is simply no adult supervision of the current Republican Party. And rather than resisting the calls for even more ideological purity, GOP leaders are echoing it. This goes beyond silly loyalty tests and chants of RINO to leading Republicans literally saying their party has no place for anyone but far right base activists. How bizarre is it to see someone with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating over 75 being raked over the coals for not being pure enough?

Way back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s there was an acknowledgment by many in the Democratic Party that things had to change. That the party had to distance itself from some of its fringe elements, as represented by some of its base. Not everyone agreed with this assessment, but it was not some radical idea either. Just look at the 1992 primary field and its coterie of moderates- Clinton, Wilder, Tsongas, and Kerrey.

Fast forward to 2012 and the Republican field. Where are there moderates? Pawlenty was the closest thing, but he’s gone full wingnut lately. Heck, we’re even now hearing rumors of Dick Cheney running!  It’s the perfect storm of ideological rigidity, hubris and stupidity. And it spells a long time in the wilderness for the GOP.

Please, God, Make It Stop

Some days I just want the media to cease to exist. Today is one of those days.  MSNBC has already shown it loves them some disgraced pol’s kids (see, for example Liz Cheney, aka She-Ra the Torturer), but now they have gone so far as to put Luke Russert on, too. I’m not sure just what Luke’s credentials are for pontificating about current events, aside from the fact that he sprang from the loins of Tim Russert. But in the Beltway media that is apparently sufficient.

And don’t even get me started on Andrea Mitchell using Sarah Palin’s Facebook page as a source of climate questions for Al Gore. Or Fred Hiatt putting her fact-free scribbles on the WaPo op-ed page.

And that idiot Stossel debuts his program on Fox Business tonight. Apparently it will be all about how Ayn Rand got it right. Ugh. Why can’t we have a better media?

Tax Salience and Human Capital Investments

A new paper by Guvenen, Kurusku and Ozkan on income inequality and progressive taxation makes some interesting, though far from novel in the economic literature, claims about the effects of progressive taxation on human capital investment decisions. The theory is that progressive taxation distorts people’s incentives to invest in human capital, whether that be on the job training or returning to school for further education. The authors claim that this underinvestment in human capital is what lies beneath the slower wage inequality growth in the Continental European countries than in the United States. And, while their model is a sound one, I have vigorous objections to this particular conclusion.

Leaving aside a more general indictment of rationality in economics, I would like to make an argument about salience and then circle back to the issue of rationality, where I will claim that factors completely removed from taxation underlie much individual decision making with regards to human capital investments.

It’s no real surprise, or it ought not be, that tax salience will affect people’s response to a particular tax. The more visible the tax is, the more impact it will have on individual’s decisions to spend or invest. In this important paper, Chetty, Looney and Kroft provide experimental support to the notion that tax salience matters. Though this particular paper focuses on the effects of sales taxes and consumer purchasing decisions, it is reasonable to believe that its conclusions apply also to the impacts of other taxes.  (More evidence is provided in the field of public finance- there is a reason why governments are more willing to raise fees than to raise taxes, and that is salience.)

What does this mean to the effects of progressive taxation on human capital investment? Certainly income taxes are relatively visible; people are obviously aware of them. So it would seem to follow that they have a high degree of salience. However, I would argue that their salience is actually fairly low. Generally speaking, people are unaware of their marginal tax bracket, let alone fully understand how marginal taxation works. How many people, if asked, could say what their total income tax had been in the previous year? Very few, indeed.

Thus, income taxes, while very well known, have a small amount of salience. It is almost as if they exist in the ether. And, as has been shown by Chetty et al, low levels of salience will not distort decisions in the same way more salient ones will. It is therefore difficult to believe that a vague understanding of possibly higher taxes in the future accounts for much underinvestment in human capital.

Then what does drive individuals’ decision to invest in human capital? I would argue that there are a host of factors at play, and that they vary among individuals. For some the decision to invest is motivated by an inherent value placed on learning. Others value learning and education, but only as an instrumental value toward furthering their prestige, status or future income.

There are an almost infinite number of factors that influence the decision to invest in human capital. And, for some people (the super-rational), that may include weighing the costs of progressive taxation of future income streams that could be gained by such an investment. But for the vast majority of people, future rates of income taxation are just not salient enough to affect their decision one way or the other.

At Least They Read

Years ago, after I had dropped out of law school for the first time, I worked at Barnes and Noble. And so every day I watched as scores of people purchased dull, vapid or ridiculous books. Fortunately for my delicate sensibilities, I did some of the merchandising, along with book ordering. This gave me an opportunity, however small, to influence (hopefully) at least some book purchasers. In fact, I had several regulars who would seek me out for my latest recommendations. Nevertheless, a tiny part of me died every day there.

My friends and coworkers were not oblivious to my struggles. And more than one of them said to me, “at least they’re reading, Justin.” But I was not convinced then, nor am I now, that reading alone is enough. Sure, it has its benefits, among them a greater understanding of others, increased vocabulary skills, and some nonfiction books might even teach you something. But the mere act of reading itself is not an elixir for our societal shortcomings with respect to knowledge or language use.

And that brings me to another thought. Spend any time in the nonfiction sections of any non-academic bookstore and you will be bombarded with what I like to call pop nonfiction or nonfiction lite. These are books that have largely dumbed down in order to appeal to a wider audience. However, some are not just made simpler, but contain outright factual inaccuracies that are beyond the general interest reader’s ability to detect.

This goes beyond the typical wingnut welfare trash from O’Reilly, Beck et al. And it touches areas of the bookstore outside of politics and current affairs. I have seen pop philosophy books, pop mathematics (which makes zero sense to me; I know of no non-math geek who would read a book about math), and the ever odious pop psychology, or as it is often called- self help.

But the past year has brought forth a bevvy of pop finance/macroeconomics tomes die to the Great Recession. Some of these are indeed well-written and informative books, like Justin Fox’s The Myth of the Rational Market. Others are hyperventilating screeds against the Stimulus and/or TARP. And some others are paeans to the mighty magical free market (I’m looking at you, Steve Forbes).

I realize that there has always been, and always will be, crappy books (Danielle Steele and most other genre fiction authors). But in the far distant past, it seemed as if most were of the bad fiction variety. Then we got inane self help pablum. And now it has spread like a virus throughout the bookstore (Regnery). With so much crap on the shelves the likelihood of finding a good book, unless one is a dedicated shopper, is approaching zero. Perhaps we would all be better off if we just stopped reading.

What’s So Funny About Understanding

Last night at the gym, a friend made a comment to me about transsexuals that struck me as symbolic of many folk’s fundamental lack of understanding. It was something to the effect of how odd or other transsexuals are, but it was made in a way that made clear odd was being used in the normative sense. And while I have heard and read very similar sentiments made in other venues about transgender people, I do not believe this lack of understanding and acceptance is unique to that particular group.

I sense that much of the negative reaction to transsexuals flows from some of the same emotions brought out by gay men (undermining notions of masculinity). Due to lack of knowledge, people assume that male to female transsexuals are all gay (by gay, I mean in the sense that as a born male they were attracted to men) and that their desire to become female is driven by their sexual attraction to men. But gender and sexuality are not inextricably linked. Gender is a social construct, while sexuality is more inherent.

The decision to undergo sexual reassignment surgery is based upon a deep-seated feeling of having been born with the wrong gender. Though many transsexuals, MTF and FTM, ultimately end up (post-surgery) in physical relationships that society would categorize as heterosexual, many others pursue romantic partnerships that would be considered homosexual. In other words, there is no one size fits all sexuality for either FTM or MTF transsexuals and the sexual act itself has little effect on one’s desire to change genders. If anything, many pre-operative transgenders view their genitalia as foreign objects that bring with them no pleasure.

But I’ve gotten somewhat sidetracked here, so let me try to reign this back in a bit.

The point I want to make here is that even in what passes for a relatively enlightened society, there is still an incredible amount of bias and negative stereotyping toward those categorized as other. It’s something that both confuses and troubles me. What I find confusing is people’s inability or unwillingness to try to understand the life experiences of others. I do not claim to know what it is like to be a black man or a FTM transsexual, simply because I believe that lived experience provides a much richer level of understanding than education can give. However, there is much to learn from others. That is why I have any sense at all for what life is like as anything other than an upper middle class white male. My life is so much richer for having been able to interact, and develop relationships, with such a varied group of people. I just cannot get my mind around the idea that a person would hermetically seal their life and refuse to engage with people unlike them.

This unwillingness to understand and value others is what I find so troubling. It has painful effects in our society and our politics. It is part of what allows political actors to divide and distract us from real issues. And ignorance often leads to hatred. One does not need to look far to find instances of prejudice or even criminal acts motivated by hate.

Promoting understanding will not eliminate hate from our society. But through understanding we can build stronger and healthier communities. Ones that welcome all people , regardless of color or sexuality or religion. And it will allow us, as a people, to focus on things that really do matter.

The Absurdity of Today’s Right

This afternoon I had the displeasure of browsing the current affairs/politics and economics section of my local Borders bookstore. It’s a displeasure because as much as I love books, I loathe the chain bookstores. I am bombarded with scores of pedestrian Dan Brown books in the fiction section and the latest screeds from the wingnut welfare circuit among the aforementioned sections. It truly is depressing.

But that brings me to my larger point- the sheer absurdity of today’s Right. I will refrain from using GOP/Republican interchangeably with Right because I do believe there are still some sane Republicans. By the Right I mean the folks who watch, listen or read Fox, talk radio and RedState.  I do not wish to imply that all conservatives are part of the Right, either. In short, I am using the term Right to refer to the base.

The mixture of ignorance, paranoia and xenophobia on the Right is a heady mix, to be sure. Every book from the Right (wingnut welfare circuit, to be sure) was about how someone to their left was destroying America or had already destroyed her. Stimulus spending to help the economy was merely Obama paying off (wait for it) unions and big business, because no two interest groups go together like labor and the Chamber of Commerce! Expanding access to health care is a socialist plot as dastardly as 9-11. People can hoard Q’s and K’s in Scrabble, at least according to Palin’s new book (not sure how anyone can hoard something of which there is only one; perhaps Scrabble is in cahoots with the liberals trying to destroy America by providing only one of each). I also learned that if we do not bomb the hell out of Mecca, the Muslims are going to kill us all!!

Then, of course, were the more generic books proclaiming the general depravity of anyone to the left of Dick Cheney. Added to that mix was one about how anything the liberals say about business is a lie. And another on how the magical market fairy was going to save us all. Perhaps the biggest laugher is the sheer number of Thomas Sowell books in the economics section. Sure, he is an economist by training, but he hasn’t taught the subject since 1980, instead plying his trade on the wingnut welfare circuit (specifically, the Hoover Institution; how’s that for unintended comedy). You’d be hard pressed to find a single mainstream economist who would consider Sowell a colleague. But there he is, with at least four books in the economics section.

The Right has been very successful in creating its own reality. It has its own media outlets, its own publishing houses and its own stars. But the past two elections have shown that being so far from actual reality has political consequences. It is hard to take seriously a group of people who so frequently cry wolf. Just look at the lack of traction the yearly War on Christmas seems to be having this time around.

But added to their breathless denunciations of czars as the end of Western civilization is the fact that when actual abuses of power were taking place, these folks were silent. Politicizing the Justice Department? Who cares! Obama used the word success instead of victory. ZOMG!! We’re going to be forced to convert to Islam!!!

Today’s Right has inherited the paranoia of Dick Nixon and married it with the authoritarianism of Dick Cheney. It speaks only to its own members and views all policy debates as some grave threat to the American way of life. This comes through in their language, which often refers to violence or indulges in threats of violence. In the Right worldview, we are constantly on the precipice of end times, teetering on the brink of ruin or sliding down some slippery slope to perdition.

Huckabee’s Horrible Decision

It’s hardly surprising that several other GOP contenders for 2012 are piling on Mike Huckabee’s clemency decision of the Washington State shooter, Maurice Clemmons. But it is unfortunate that it will set back our criminal justice conversation, yet again. Rather than having a discussion about the use (and perhaps misuse) of clemency and pardons, we will instead get silly rhetoric about locking them all up and throwing away the key.

I do not claim to know whether Governor Huckabee made the right decision, based on the facts presented to him, in 2000. On its face, the initial 108 year sentence for robbery and burglary seems excessive, especially for a 16 year old. The powers of clemency and pardon come attached with an enormous responsibility. However, if this instance causes other governors to become reticent to exercise those powers, justice will not be served.

A Thousand Little Hoffmans

The fallout from the 23rd CD (NY) continues to be felt today. Fear of a Hoffman primary led all of the NYS Senate’s GOP caucus to oppose extending marriage equality to gays and lesbians. According to many in the chamber, the votes to pass the bill were thought to be there, including several from Republicans. However, they failed to materialize.

Recent polling shows that a majority of New Yorkers support equal marriage rights. Obviously, support varies across different regions of the state. Even so, there is little reason for Republican members from moderate districts to have opposed the measure except for fear of a Hoffman riding in to challenge them next year. While the NY GOP is not a party of religious conservatives (see, Giuliani), there are enough of them in certain districts upstate to see why certain members voted no. But, I still have a hard time getting my arms around suburban and Long Island members casting no votes.

The Stupid Party

It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly stupid today’s GOP has become. But today brings news of something so preposterous that it deserves special mention.

According to Politico, several GOP Senators want Senator Franken to come to their defense. Recall that in October, Franken offered an amendment to defund any government contractors whose employment contracts prohibited their employees from pursuing civil action in cases of rape (forcing them into arbitration instead). At the time 30 Republican Senators voted against the amendment. And have, since then, been subjected to criticism and scrutiny of those votes.

Some commentators have gone so far as to say that these Senators support rape. And while that may not be factually true, those who opposed the Franken amendment have offered not a single defense of their vote. What made the matter more interesting was that these same Senators all voted to strip federal funding from ACORN after some questionable behavior was filmed. So it is not as if these Senators believe in the absolute sanctity of government contracts or that the federal government ought not to have a say over the practices of the organizations with whom it contracts.

Also, when it came to light that Blackwater, another military contractor, paid bribes to the Iraqi government, not a single of these Republican Senators offered any criticism or called for the termination of contracts with Blackwater (now Xe).

This is hypocrisy of the highest order and it serves to further discredit the Republican brand. Voters look at these situations and see GOP Senators defunding ACORN over pimps and hos, but offering tacit support for denying rape victims civil justice. To the average voter, that is just wrong. It is unfathomable that 3/4 of the Republican Caucus in the Senate voted against the Franken Amendment.

And now for these same people to expect Senator Franken to come to their defense is absurd. Even if the attacks against them are unfair or out of context, aren’t these the same people who labeled anyone who questioned President Bush’s wars as unpatriotic at best, terrorist sympathizers at worst? Now they want Al Franken to protect them from the consequences of their indefensible vote? Talk about chutzpah!