July 15, 2009 11:09AM

Why Taxing the Rich Is Not Enough to Fund Big Government

Appearing on Fox News on Monday, Cato's Daniel J. Mitchell explained why taxing the rich to pay for big government programs may make for a good sound bite on the campaign trail, but when there aren't enough wealthy people to tax, the middle class ends up footing the bill.

"When politicians are aiming at the rich, it's the middle class that winds up getting hit in the crossfire," Mitchell said. "They use 'tax the rich' as the rhetoric, but they always go after the ordinary people to get more money to fund their big government schemes."

Watch the whole thing:

July 14, 2009 10:47AM

Can a Story about Government‐​Run Health Care Have a Happy Ending?

Fox News recently reported about how Oregon's government-run health system gives people advice on how to kill themselves. The statist system in the United Kingdom has a different approach, relying instead on people dying as they languish on waiting lists. But the bureaucrats across the pond are not a bunch of joyless robots. They managed to divert some of their budget to produce leaflets telling kids about the cardiovascular benefits of orgasms. The Telegraph reports on this innovative use of taxpayer funds:

NHS guidance is advising school pupils that they have a "right" to an enjoyable sex life and that regular sex can be good for their cardiovascular health. The advice appears in leaflets circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers and is meant to update sex education by telling students about the benefits of enjoyable sex. The authors of the guidance say that for too long, experts have concentrated on the need for "safe sex" and committed relationships while ignoring the principle reason that many people have sex. ...The leaflet carries the slogan "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". It also says: "Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes' physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?"

June 2, 2009 4:52PM

McCarthy Does Petraeus a Disservice

General Petraeus recently gave an interview to Fox News. Petraeus speaks approvingly of the decision to close Guantanamo, limiting interrogation to the techniques in the Army Field Manual, and how adherence to the Geneva Conventions takes propaganda fodder out of the hands of our enemies.

Andy McCarthy attacks Petraeus over at National Review Online's The Corner:

With due respect to Gen. Petraeus, this is just vapid. To begin with, he doesn't identify any provision of the Geneva Conventions that we have actually violated - he just repeats the standard talking-point of his current commander-in-chief that we took "steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions" during those bad old Bush days. What steps is he talking about? How about naming one?

McCarthy then uses the brief reference to the Geneva Conventions to attack strawman arguments as if Petraeus wanted to give full Prisoner of War status to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters and had just proposed ending military detention of combatants picked up on the battlefield.

I'm pretty sure that Petraeus is not squeamish about keeping detainees in custody. As CENTCOM Commander, he's got over 600 of them in Bagram.

When you watch the video it's pretty clear that Petraeus was referring to the treatment of detainees and the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" as violating the Geneva Conventions, a position consistent with his previous statements. Petraeus doesn't supply a specific provision to satisfy McCarthy, but he is likely thinking about Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.  This provision bans, even in a conflict of a non-international nature (read: counterinsurgency and counterterrorism), cruelty, torture, and humiliating and degrading treatment.

McCarthy is also broadly dismissive of the propaganda effect that Guantanamo has had in encouraging people to take up arms against US forces. This sentiment is counter to the doctrine that I learned in the Special Forces Detachment Commander's Qualification Course. Low-level insurgencies and terrorism are driven by propaganda.

To build an insurgency, you don't need to win battles. You need to take a few shots at your enemy and tell stories about how successful you were, even when you weren't. Over time you get sympathetic parties to join your struggle and gain critical mass to move into outright guerrilla warfare.

To sustain a worldwide terrorist organization, you don't need to actually pose an existential threat. You need to prod a superpower into deploying large troop formations into the Muslim world, where they can be entangled in local disputes over local grievances. Usama bin Laden is not the commander-in-chief of any significant armed force, but he can be the inciter-in-chief who makes broad claims about opposition to America. He tries to link local insurgencies to his global caliphate narrative even where they are not supportive of his broader goals. Check out David Kilcullen's book, The Accidental Guerrilla, for a detailed discussion. Incidentally, Kilcullen worked for Petraeus as a senior counterinsurgency advisor in Iraq.

This is the propaganda war we are fighting, and most everyone agrees that we have not been doing it very well. Every time we drop a bomb in Afghanistan, the Taliban beat us to the punch with exaggerated (and mostly false) claims of civilian casualties. US forces are now reviving body count reports to counter Taliban propaganda. While I don't think that body counts are a good metric for success in the long run, trying to be an honest broker of good and bad information blunts enemy propaganda.

McCarthy is wrong to mischaracterize Petraeus' words and dismiss the propaganda war where we have largely been a punching bag. Cheerleading our military leaders who produce gains on the ground but dismissing the fundamental insights that produced their success is willful blindness.

May 29, 2009 5:07PM

Week in Review: Sotomayor, North Korean Nukes and The Fairness Doctrine

Obama Picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court

sotomayor

President Obama chose federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, the first Hispanic Latina to serve on the bench.

On Cato’s blog, constitutional law scholar Roger Pilon wrote, “President Obama chose the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.”

Cato Supreme Court Review editor and senior fellow Ilya Shapiro weighed in, saying, "In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic."

Shapiro expands his claim that Sotomayor was not chosen based on merit at CNN.com:

In over 10 years on the Second Circuit, she has not issued any important decisions or made a name for herself as a legal scholar or particularly respected jurist. In picking a case to highlight during his introduction of the nominee, President Obama had to go back to her days as a trial judge and a technical ruling that ended the 1994-95 baseball strike.

Pilon led a live-chat on The Politico’s Web site, answering questions from readers about Sotomayor’s record and history.

And at The Wall Street Journal, Cato senior fellow John Hasnas asks whether "compassion and empathy" are really characteristics we want in a judge:

Paraphrasing Bastiat, if the difference between the bad judge and the good judge is that the bad judge focuses on the visible effects of his or her decisions while the good judge takes into account both the effects that can be seen and those that are unseen, then the compassionate, empathetic judge is very likely to be a bad judge. For this reason, let us hope that Judge Sotomayor proves to be a disappointment to her sponsor.

North Korea Tests Nukes

The Washington Post reports, “North Korea reportedly fired two more short-range missiles into waters off its east coast Tuesday, undeterred by the strong international condemnation that followed its detonation of a nuclear device and test-firing of three missiles a day earlier.”

Writing in the National Interest online, Cato scholar Doug Bandow discusses how the United States should react:

Washington has few options. The U.S. military could flatten every building in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), but even a short war would be a humanitarian catastrophe and likely would wreck Seoul, South Korea's industrial and political heart. America's top objective should be to avoid, not trigger, a conflict. Today's North Korean regime seems bound to disappear eventually. Better to wait it out, if possible.

On Cato’s blog, Bandow expands on his analysis on the best way to handle North Korea:

The U.S. should not reward “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-Il with a plethora of statements beseeching the regime to cooperate and threatening dire consequences for its bad behavior. Rather, the Obama administration should explain, perhaps through China, that the U.S. is interested in forging a more positive relationship with [the] North, but that no improvement will be possible so long as North Korea acts provocatively. Washington should encourage South Korea and Japan to take a similar stance.

Moreover, the U.S. should step back and suggest that China, Seoul, and Tokyo take the lead in dealing with Pyongyang. North Korea’s activities more threaten its neighbors than America. Even Beijing, the North’s long-time ally, long ago lost patience with Kim’s belligerent behavior and might be willing to support tougher sanctions.

Cato Media Quick Hits

Here are a few highlights of Cato media appearances now up on Cato's YouTube channel:

April 15, 2009 11:16AM

Juan Williams Blasts Obama, Duncan on Vouchers

juan-williams

Yesterday on Fox News' Special Report, Juan Williams had this to say about Obama's silence and Duncan's hostility to the DC voucher program, recently put on the chopping block by Democrats in Congress:

This is an outrage to me. ... This is so important that you give young people a chance to have an education in America and especially in a failing public school system like you have in the District of Columbia. This voucher system is a direct threat to the unions. And so I think everybody on Capitol Hill, that's getting money from the NEA or AFT, they should be called on the table. They should ask them, 'where do you send your kids to school? And are you willing to say these kids getting the vouchers...and doing better than the rest of the kids, that these kids aren't deserving of an opportunity to succeed in America?' You just want to scream. Why Duncan and Obama aren't in the forefront of education reform is an outrage and an insult to the very base that voted for them.

But we don't have to ask President Obama where he sends his kids to school, do we? We already know he sends them to the prestigious private Sidwell Friends school also attended by several of the poor DC voucher students. But those voucher students will only remain classmates of Sasha and Malia for another year or so. After that, they're out... because Barack Obama lacks the courage, the wisdom, or both to get his own party behind this program -- a program that his own education department has shown is a success. Better results at a quarter the cost, and the reaction of our unified Democratic government ranges from outright opposition to malign neglect.

Future generations will look back on these politicians and bureaucrats as the Oral Faubuses of the 21st century. Like Faubus, they will ultimately fail.

Like Faubus, their names will live in infamy.

April 15, 2009 10:00AM

Tax Day

Fox News and MSNBC are having fun with the taxpayer tea party protests today. Fox News is playing up the protests, while MSNBC hosts are making jokes about "tea-bagging," while pretending that the protests were all orchestrated by Sean Hannity. I'll be attending the protests in D.C. today, and I'm hoping that the message isn't just anti-Obama because the Republicans are every bit as guilty as the Democrats for the government's fiscal mess.

MSNBC hosts who think that the colonists didn't mind taxes, but were just upset about the "without representation" part, should read Alvin Rabushka's massive tax history leading up to 1776, Taxation in Colonial America.

Doing my taxes last night, I asked my twins (age 5 1/2): "If Mommy and Daddy had $100, how much should we give to the government?" One twin said "5" and the other said "10," so they are off to good start on understanding limited government. Mommy reminded the kids that the government provides useful services such as fire and police, but the kids were comfortable with their answers.

I would footnote that state/local fire, police, and corrections spending amounts to just 4 percent of total government spending in the United States.