The Show was a Hoax, but the Organ Shortage Is Real!

It is disappointing that it takes the sensationalism of a hoax reality show to focus attention on a very real tragedy.

On Friday June 1st, as part of the Dutch “Big Donor Show,” it was revealed that the woman willing to donate a kidney to one of three lucky contestants in need of an organ was an actress. The whole show was a publicity stunt to motivate the Dutch government to reform its organ donation laws which currently only allow organ donation between family and friends.

In the U.S. organ donation is not just limited to family and friends, but the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 forbids anyone from receiving “valuable consideration” for a human organ. This provision is interpreted as prohibiting the donor from receiving any compensation beyond the good feeling of having done an altruistic deed. Medical expenses directly related to the transplant and recovery are usually paid by the transplant unit or the recipient’s insurance, but any payment of expenses beyond these initial transplant related costs are legally questionable. Both state and federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to allow organ donors to recover other more distantly related costs such as lost wages, travel expenses and future medical expenses potentially related to the donation.

Given the very real tragedy of an average of seven people dying daily in the U.S. while waiting for an organ that never comes, why not allow “valuable consideration” in order to save lives? Maybe a reality show competition isn’t the most tasteful way to proceed, but giving someone life-long medical coverage, life-insurance, or whatever other arrangement competent adults are willing to make, seems a logical way to proceed.

The common argument that receiving “valuable consideration” for human organs must be prohibited because it offends human dignity is paternalism at its worst. Only the donors themselves are in a position to judge what is or is not an affront to their dignity. It is hard to imagine how saving a life, whether someone is compensated for doing so or not, could ever be an affront to human dignity.

Sigrid Fry-Revere interview on Fox News before show was revealed as a hoax:
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/fry-revere-on-fox-news-05-31-07.html

CBS News report that “Big Donor Show” was a hoax:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/01/health/printable2876573.shtml

What RomneyCare and HillaryCare Have in Common

Jonathan Cohn has an article in the latest New Republic titled “Hillary Was Right” [$] that helpfully explains certain similarities between HillaryCare and RomneyCare:

In Washington, at least, praising HillaryCare will get you laughed off the talk shows.  But…if you look closely at the proposals experts and officials are tossing around, you may start to recognize some familiar elements…They also envision, as did HillaryCare, a government role in making sure affordable, high-quality plans are made available – typically, by creating (again, like HillaryCare) some sort of purchasing cooperative through which some, if not all, of the population would buy their coverage.  That’s true of the plan former Senator John Edwards proposed as part of his presidential campaign a few months ago.  It’s true of the plan Senator Ron Wyden introduced in Congress back in December.  It’s even true of the plan former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law before leaving office last year – even though Romney has made mocking HillaryCare a staple of his campaign rhetoric as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination.

I’ll have more to say about the RomneyCare-HillaryCare “connection” soon.

Tax Competition Creating Pressure for Lower Corporate Rate in Canada

Neil Reynolds continues his good work by explaining how tax competition is leading to better policy and that Canada better jump on the tax-cutting bandwagon:

As tax reform sweeps the world, Canada stands resolutely on guard for high rates. …the two essential principles of good government remain unchanged: (1) If you want more of something, subsidize it; (2) if you want less of something, tax it. …Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, a conservative, was the first leader in Europe to cut corporate rates. In the 1980s, she reduced them from 52 per cent to 35 per cent. This was the catalyst. As KPMG observed last year in a global review of corporate taxes, once Britain acted, “other [European] countries seemed compelled to do the same.” …In 1987, Denmark went from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. In 1991, Sweden went from 60 per cent to 28 per cent. In 1992, Norway went from 51 per cent to 28 per cent. In 1993, Finland went from 43 per cent to 25 per cent. Germany and France, bastion countries of Europe, fiercely resisted, trying to turn tax competition into a criminal conspiracy. Yet, in 2000, Social Democrat chancellor Gerhard Schroeder cut Germany’s corporate federal rate from 40 per cent to 25 per cent. (Combined with local and regional corporate taxes, the country’s rate remained one of the highest in the world at 40 per cent.) Now, finally, Germany has capitulated, surrendering unconditionally, cutting its combined rate from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. …France, in turn, will cut its corporate rate, now 33 per cent, by “a minimum of five percentage points” - assuming French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a conservative, keeps this promise. Spain’s socialist Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has announced that he will cut rates by as much as France. In the past 14 years (1992-2006), KPMG calculated that the average corporate tax rate in the world has fallen by almost one-third - from 38 per cent to 27 per cent. The economic evidence, the company said, indicates that the countries that adopted lower rates had tended to “do better” than the countries that had not.

Swiss Court Rules Against Obwalden Tax Regime

The Canton of Obwalder created a stir by voting for a tax system that rewards more productive residents with a lower income tax rate. The Swiss Federal Court has ruled against this regime, though the nation’s Finance Ministry quickly noted that the decision does not undermine Switzerland’s support for federalism and tax competition. Swissinfo.org reports:

Canton Obwalden’s degressive tax system, aimed at attracting wealthy residents, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Swiss Federal Court. The country’s highest court said on Friday that degressive income taxes ran counter to constitutional measures designed to ensure taxation according to economic performance. …Obwalden had adopted a degressive income tax system which meant that the richer you are, the less you pay. Those earning over SFr300,000 ($233,000) per year, for example, had a tax rate as low as one per cent. It was introduced in 2006 following a cantonal vote as a way of boosting the fortunes of Obwalden, one of the poorest cantons located in Switzerland’s mountainous centre. …Friday’s court ruling comes in response to a case brought by Communist parliamentarian Josef Zisyadis – who moved to Obwalden to oppose the tax charges… The Finance Ministry said that the court’s decision would neither change the system of tax competition between the cantons nor encourage tax harmonisation. It emphasised that federalism and tax competition were essential parts of Swiss identity that also made the country more attractive for foreign companies.

Bee Naturals

A home schooler, 13-year-old Evan O’Dorney, is once again the winner of the Scripps National [sic] Spelling Bee. In fact, home schoolers took fully one third of the top 15 spots in the Bee, utterly out of proportion with their share (about 1/40th) of the U.S. student population. Another two spots were taken by private school students, and three were taken by Canadian public school students (hence the “sic,” above — we’ve yet to anschluss the Canucks so far as I can recall).

That left five spots for U.S. public school students — the same number taken by home schoolers whom they outnumber by 50 million or so kids. And it isn’t as though the homeschoolers are fabulously wealthy and able to hire special tutors. The winner’s father is a subway train operator and his mother oversees his education.

Homeschoolers excel in such competitions because they enjoy more educational freedom than any other category of learner. They can pursue their interests and competitive drives (spelling isn’t even O’Dorney’s favorite subject) without being constrained by the pace of a classroom targeted at the “average” student — a pace that must be, by definition, too fast or too slow for the majority.

Private school students — whose showing was also disproportionately good for their share of the population — also have more educational freedom than those in public schools because they and their parents have chosen their schools from a minimally regulated, though currently small, private sector.

Public school students have the least educational freedom because public schools are explicitly or implicitly constrained to offer a uniform education to their charges. Even when parents “choose” a public school by choosing the neighborhood in which they live, their educational “choices” are artificially homogenized.

Imagine what heights America could achieve if every family had the freedom to choose from among homeschooling, public schooling, independent schooling, or some combination of the three, without facing a financial penalty for doing so. It would be an easy thing to accomplish through a program of personal use and scholarship donation tax credits.

Insight and Insult from National Journal

This week’s National Journal has a story (not available online) that is at once insightful and insulting. In “The Coming Storm,” Shane Harris reviews the difficulties that are anctipated when the Department of Homeland Security transitions to new leadership under a new administration. There are lots of “politicals” at DHS and not a very deep bench of talent.

Here’s the insightful: “Al Qaeda has launched attacks on the West during moments of governmental weakness: at elections and during transitions to new administrations.

The evidence for this is pretty good (if not rock solid), and it jibes with the strategy of terrorism, which is to goad a stronger opponent into self-injurious missteps. Attacking at a time of vulnerability for the political administration is more likely to induce overreaction and error.

Here’s the insulting: “A mass exodus of Homeland Security officials in late 2008 and early 2009 could leave the country vulnerable.”

This must play like the sweetest lullaby to bureaucrats in Washington — “you’re important; you’re really, really important” — but it is a bald insult to the ordinary citizens, police, firefighters, and investigators who would actually detect and prevent any attack or suffer its brunt and deal with the consequences.

The bureaucrats in Washington have very, very little to do with actual protection of the country from terrorist attack or with response to it. They are the mouthpieces who will rush to the cameras and microphones to foment hysteria. They are the FEMA directors who will bungle the response and the officials who will actively undermine restoration of services. They are not our protection, and their departure does not make us vulnerable.

In fact, their presence adds to our vulnerability. The terrorism strategy succeeds by knocking the political regime off balance. Having a large, prominent, federal protective agency gives terrorists a ripe target. If there were no prominent federal apparatus attached closely to the president — no homeland security secretary to embarass, challenge, and frighten — the strategy of terrorism would be less attractive and harder to execute.

George Will and the Ideological Switcheroo

George Will has a thoughtful column titled (in the Washington Post, at least) “The Case for Conservatism.” You might say that it demonstrates that George Will has accepted modernity, because his definitions of liberalism and conservatism are thoroughly modern, not historical. Consider:

Today conservatives tend to favor freedom…. Liberalism increasingly seeks to deliver equality in the form of equal dependence of more and more people for more and more things on government.

Traditionally, of course, it was liberals who favored freedom and minimal government. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines liberalism as a ”political doctrine that takes the abuse of power, and thus the freedom of the individual, as the central problem of government.” Wikipedia is similar: “Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty…. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights.”

Conservatism, on the other hand, according to Britannica, is a “political philosophy that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices.” In many societies, of course, freedom is not a traditional practice. George Will may be talking strictly about American conservatism, in which case it is plausible to say that a conservative should want to preserve the traditional American institutions and practice of liberty and limited government. I have often wondered, what does it mean to be a conservative in a nation founded in libertarian revolution? If it means preserving the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, then a conservative is a libertarian — or what used to be called a liberal.

But what if one wants to conserve something else? Who’s to say that the principles of 1776 are the right thing to conserve? What if you wanted to conserve Southern plantation society? Or the rights and privileges of the British monarchy? Or the institutions of the Dark Ages? Or the traditional Indian practice of suttee, in which widows are expected to immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre?

That is why Hayek said that he was not a conservative — because conservatism is essentially a philosophy of “opposition to drastic change,” but without any fundamental principles of its own other than serving as a brake on change.

But that’s not the conservatism that Will describes. In his view, conservatism is about freedom and a sober recognition of the limits of power. “Liberalism’s core conviction [is] that government’s duty is not to allow social change but to drive change in the direction the government chooses. Conservatism argues that the essence of constitutional government involves constraining the state in order to allow society ample scope to spontaneously take unplanned paths.”

If that’s the case, then there’s been almost a complete switch of the philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, it’s intriguing to switch the words in Will’s article. Try the quotation above with the words reversed: “Conservatism’s core conviction [is] that government’s duty is not to allow social change but to drive change in the direction the government chooses. Liberalism argues that the essence of constitutional government involves constraining the state in order to allow society ample scope to spontaneously take unplanned paths.” It still works, right? That’s the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and F. A. Hayek. And if it’s not the conservatism of Maistre or Shelley — who wanted government to resist change, not drive it — it might be the conservatism of those in contemporary society who want government to actively instill virtue in the citizens.

One might alternatively try substituting “liberalism” for “conservatism” in Will’s essay, and “illiberalism” for “liberalism.” Then we might get, for instance, “liberals tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Illiberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.” Or:

This reasoning is congruent with liberalism’s argument that excessively benevolent government is not a benefactor, and that capitalism does not merely make people better off, it makes them better. Illiberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Liberalism challenges illiberalism’s blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government.

Liberalism argues, as did the Founders, that self-interestedness is universal among individuals, but the dignity of individuals is bound up with the exercise of self-reliance and personal responsibility in pursuing one’s interests. Illiberalism argues that equal dependence on government minimizes social conflicts. Liberalism’s rejoinder is that the entitlement culture subverts social peace by the proliferation of rival dependencies.

Maybe I’m dreaming of a golden age of liberalism that no longer exists, an age when liberals stood for freedom and limited government, for, in the words of Wikipedia, “a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.” Maybe.

But then, maybe George Will is dreaming of a Platonic vision of conservatism, a conservatism committed to freedom and limited government, a conservatism that certainly isn’t classical conservatism and isn’t the conservatism of the contemporary conservative movement. But it was the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and of Ronald Reagan’s speeches, and often of William F. Buckley, Jr. And maybe, just maybe, if George Will and a few of his conservative soulmates prevail, the conservatism of the future. If I can dream of a liberalism that once again seeks to liberate the individual from the constraints of power, then Will can dream of a conservatism that actually favors freedom.

Also posted at the Britannica Blog.