Month: August 2007

Eddie Van Halen’s “Eruption” performed on the violin:

"What hump?" Young Frankenstein.

As Ames approaches, I’m getting inundated with emails about, er, a certain candidate– and other stuff. So, I’m just going to do a run-down of what I’ve been sent that is of interest.

1. A reader from up in New England thinks this Boston Globe piece on Romney is interesting. Personally, it looks like much of the same old, same old, to me, but the points raised in it are as valid now as they were when raised months ago to people who are deeply concerned about Mitt’s movement on abortion.

2. Sam Brownback, who I really deeply disagree with on social issues, has posted a video response to Romney again on the subject of abortion. It’s a bit long for my tastes, but evidently has been seen by a lot of people in Iowa, given the number of emails I’ve had about it. Will it affect Ames? If 10,000 of the 11,000 or so people who have watched it on YouTube are going to the straw poll, maybe. But I’m a little dubious of that. Anyway…

3. Tommy Thompson hopes to pull 20% at Ames. Somehow, I am doubting that will happen.

This morning, I’ve been watching the Logo LGBT Issues Forum (which, if you missed it, can be seen here).  I’d encourage anyone who didn’t watch this to do so– the forum was extremely interesting. Here were some of the more standout bits for me (and note that I’m going to skip Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich in my summary– Ryan Sager succinctly summarizes what they had to say, so check that out if you’re interested).

www.lizmair.com

1. Barack Obama: Obama took a little heat for supporting civil unions, but saying what I felt amounted to, civil unions for everyone, marriage at the discretion of churches.  Personally, I found this an interesting answer and one that smacked of having a slight undertone of "get the state out of marriage, let the state only be involved in ratifying/notarizing contracts"– which I will admit is pretty close to my view.  Note that I did not have a religious marriage, thus making my marriage more civil union-like– and maybe making me less convinced that what (depending on the route a state takes) may amount really to a linguistic difference, as opposed to an inherent one impacting on rights– particularly where the separation of church and state is preserved– results in "unequal" treatment (and maybe making me less wistful, for lack of a better word, about "marriage," generally).

Is it unfair that, if we define marriage as a religious institution, gay couples cannot necessarily get married, depending on what their church says?  Yes, but then perhaps so are rules within the Catholic Church that a Catholic and Non-Catholic cannot marry, unless certain promises are made (which non-Catholics, like for example my husband, would simply not make).  Churches are private entities and their beliefs and practices, I think, should not be subject to dictation by the state– regardless of how distasteful we may find particular churches’ views.

Another note on Obama’s performance: I absolutely agree with him that there are a ton of issues beyond gay marriage that are very important, and that a candidate’s record should be assessed by reference to those issues (which I would suggest encompass non-discrimination, as a direct issue, and issues relevant to economic policy and problems that the gay community faces with taxation, Social Security, and so on), also.

2. John Edwards: I loved the fact that Melissa Etheridge made the point about gay people having to pay extra taxes on health insurance they get through their partners.  Easing the tax burden where domestic partner benefits are concerned is something that Sen. Gordon Smith tried earlier this year, and it’s an important issue– both for those of us who want the tax burden reduced, and for the gay community, which gets hit inordinately hard where benefits are concerned.

I did not love the fact that Edwards seemed keen to use the question– which I thought was quite specific– to talk more generally about poverty, instead of answering the question.  I also thought it was pretty lame that he went off about Ann Coulter in this particular context, instead of sticking more narrowly to the issues at hand (sure, I don’t like Ann Coulter, but what exactly does she have to do with a discussion of how Democrats did a crap job of defending gays in 2004, when some people in my party were going all-out on what certainly looked in a lot of cases like gay-bashing?).  The audience may have liked it, but I thought it was a waste of time.

Final note on Edwards: I don’t think that the "on a journey thing" is really going to work out for Edwards.  But I do think the "I won’t impose my faith on the American people" thing will be a winner for him with the gay community– and I daresay others, too.  Still, the interviewers didn’t look very enthused during Edwards’ wrap-up.

3. Bill Richardson: Richardson started off in a difficult place, with the first question focusing on Richardson’s prior comments about what is "achievable"– which sounds a lot like "what I can get away with."  He did well by switching the topic to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and sounded very Barry Goldwater on that point.  Him apologizing for his vote on DOMA probably also was a good move, and I enjoyed what looked like not very-well-concealed ripping of Bill Clinton and political expediency where DOMA was concerned.  But, once Richardson was done, he was back in hot water over his use of a certain term in Spanish.  It kind of seemed like Jonathan Capehart was giving him a deliberately rough ride, though Richardson did cover a lot more ground where it came to his record than either Obama or Edwards, so maybe it won’t have hurt him much.  What did hurt Richardson was his continued mention of what was "achievable" and the country moving along but not being "there" yet– as well as his selection of the word "choice" in relation to homosexuality.  It sure didn’t sit well with Melissa Etheridge, that much is for sure– though an interchange about bark beetles did seem to cure that.  Tough night for Richardson, I think.

4. Hillary: Hillary was saved for last, and got a LOT of applause.  The gay community just seems to love her (something I’m not sure I get)– crazy jackets and all.

Hillary did a great job of blaming non-repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell entirely on the GOP and the President– an explanation for inaction that I’m not sure I buy, given the Clinton administration’s movement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the first place.  Hillary was right to point out what the consequences of being discovered to be gay were before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell– and I totally agree with her that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was an improvement over that situation (even if I’m dubious about her saying that the problem was with the implementation, rather than the policy itself).  But what I found most interesting was simply what looked like very deft and crafty maneuvering on her part in relation to the issue.

Hillary also did well because compared to the other candidates (maybe with the exception of Richardson), she demonstrated a greater depth of knowledge of the issues being discussed, and spoke in more detailed terms– even if she said quite frankly that she still opposes gay marriage (which did not seem to work out for John Edwards).  She also demonstrated more crafty argumentation on the question of marriage, by hammering Karl Rove, and then praising DOMA for helping stop the FMA (so on the one hand, she said she doesn’t like DOMA, or at least part of it, yet she doesn’t like gay marriage and thinks DOMA is a handy tool– clever contortioning– ditto that with regard to her defense of her husband’s term, which a lot of gay people I know see as a period of major let-down, and her explanation of how in spite of her views and certain statements she has made, she can be a "leader").

Overall conclusion: this was a big win for Hillary– as odd as I think that is.

Since Stephen and I have been discussing the issue of civil unions and gay marriage, I thought I would pass along this useful analysis by FactCheck.org. It explains that a big barrier for my proposal to separate the issue of "marriage" from civil unions is that gays are heavily invested in the idea of "marriage." In other words, civil unions are not enough.

I think this is unwise as a political strategy. Civil unions are achievable, but I think full marriage rights for gays will probably not happen any time soon. In my opinion, it is silly to allow the semantics of a word stand in the way of getting what is important for gays: the right for their partners to have the material rights of married couples in areas such as health benefits, inheritance rights, and so on. I think this is a case of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

It’s a perfectly good position, Stephen, to say we should cut transportation pork before resorting to a tax increase. On the other hand, Bush doesn’t have any credibility on this issue. If he had ever vetoed a previous transportation bill, or even endorsed efforts by anti-pork members of Congress to get rid of stuff like the Bridge to Nowhere, then we might have some reason to believe what he says.

Instead, it just comes across as a dishonest, dogmatic opposition to tax increases. Although in his defense, it probably has a lot to do with incompetence and the lack of real leadership qualities, as well.

Another shameless self-plug, I’m afraid. I have a column up at Reason on the subject of agricultural subsidies and the new Farm Bill. As you’d expect, I don’t exactly give the 2007 bill a glowing review…

Everybody’s picking on corporations lately. In an earlier post, Labor good, gays and corporates bad, Liz noted polling data suggesting that being endorsed by business groups is a major negative for politicians this election cycle. A Firedoglake blogger complains (erroneously) about a supposed corporate tax cut:

Wow, it’s been — what? — two nanoseconds since BushCheneyCo did something nice for corporations! Wouldn’t want corporations to feel overlooked.

As someone whose vocation is the study of corporate governance, this sort of thing no longer surprises me, but it nevertheless still pains me. In their wonderful book, The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea, which I reviewed here, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge persuasively argue not only that the corporation is one of the West’s great competitive advantages, but also that the number of private-sector corporations a country boasts is a relatively good guide to the degree of political freedom it provides its citizens. Indeed, they make the strong claim that the corporate form is “the basis of the prosperity of the West and the best hope for the future of the rest of the world.” (at p. xv) After 20 years of studying the corporation, I’ve come to agree.

I’ve addressed the corporation’s social role in a number of papers, all of which are available free from SSRN.com (although some readers may need to register). In Catholic Social Thought and the Corporation, for example, I explored "Catholic social thought on corporate governance. Human dignity and freedom are central principles of Catholic social thought." I argued "that preserving the economic freedom of corporations to pursue wealth is an essential part of effective means for achieving human freedom. To the extent prudential judgments about corporate regulation are required, the Church and civil society should strive towards a nuanced balancing of freedom and virtue."

In The Bishops and the Corporate Stakeholder Debate, I again critiqued "Catholic social teaching on corporate social responsibility. Specifically, the essay focuses on one of the policy recommendations made by the U.S. Bishops in their pastoral letter on economic justice, Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy. In that letter, the Bishops addressed the so-called stakeholder debate; i.e., whether decisionmaking by directors of public corporations should take into account the interests of corporate constituencies other than shareholders. This essay focuses on the Bishops’ position as matter of public policy rather than as a matter of theology. The essay evaluates three ways in which the Bishops’ position might be translated into public policy: (1) directors could be given nonreviewable discretion to make trade-offs between shareholder and stakeholder interests; (2) directors could be given reviewable discretion to make such trade-offs; or (3) directors could be required to make such trade-offs subject to judicial (or regulatory) oversight. None of these approaches is an improvement on current law; to the contrary, all are worse. The first approach would be toothless, the second would increase agency costs, and the third would either prove unworkable or pose an unwarranted threat to economic liberty (or both)."

In Community and Statism: A Conservative Contractarian Critique of Progressive Corporate Law Scholarship, which nominally was a review of Progressive Corporate Law (Lawrence E. Mitchell ed. 1995), I used that book "principally as a jumping off point for a critique of the strain of left communitarianism that has recently emerged in corporate law scholarship. The essay begins with a review of left communitarian critique of the nexus of contracts model of the firm and of rational choice. Because the arguments on both sides are well-developed in the literature, the essay focuses on the specific spin given the debate by Progressive Corporate Law’s authors. The remainder of the essay is devoted to exploring the emerging communitarian theory of the firm. In the course of doing so, however, I also begin developing an explicitly conservative version of the law & economics account of corporate law. The essay looks to the intellectual tradition that runs from Edmund Burke to Russell Kirk to articulate an alternative to both the left communitarianism of progressive corporate law scholars and the classical liberalism embraced by many practitioners of law and economics."

I’m no fan of George Bush, but lots of folks seem to be bashing him unfairly today (although, one might ask, what makes today any different than any other day)? For example, the New York Times says:

President Bush spoke out today against an increase in the gasoline tax, an idea that is being discussed as a potential part of a new Congressional plan to shore up the nation’s bridges after last week’s deadly collapse in Minneapolis.

Evil old anti-government conservative thinking that kills innocents, right? Wrong. Here’s what Bush actually said:

You know, it’s an interesting question about how Congress spends and prioritizes highway money. My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place.

As you probably know, the Public Works Committee is the largest committee — one of the largest committees in the House of Representatives. From my perspective, the way it seems to have worked is that each member on that committee gets to set his or her own priority first, and then whatever is left over is spent through a funding formula. That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. So before we raise taxes which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities. And if bridges are a priority, let’s make sure we set that priority first and foremost before we raise taxes.

In other words, what Bush said was, "let’s get rid of earmarks like the one for the bridge to nowhere that waste highway spending before jacking up taxes." Which makes total sense. Back in 2000, a Heritage Foundation report stated that:

House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) claims that a $4.3 cent reduction in the gas tax will result in more than $7 billion in lost revenue that would otherwise go to states and local communities for planned infrastructure projects. But Congress and the President have wasted billions on questionable pork-barrel projects. In 1998, The Washington Post reported that Representative Shuster contributed to this waste with more than 130 projects worth $640 million for Pennsylvania, including $800,000 for renovating a train station in Gettysburg, and $7 million for a transportation museum as part of a proposed Allentown redevelopment project. In addition, Citizens Against Government Waste identified other pork projects, including $2.6 million to rehabilitate an historic train depot in San Bernadino, California, and $3 million for a parking garage in Peoria, Illinois. Washington wants to hold on to its billion-dollar golden goose called the gas tax so that a few powerful politicians can redistribute money from the pockets of the nation’s hard-working motorists to support their own special interests.

If anything, it’s worse now than ever. Yet, you don’t get even a hint that this is what Bush was talking about until paragraph 6 and then it’s largely obfuscated.

Second, Firedoglake is saying Bush wants to give corporations a new tax cut: "Yay! More Tax Cuts! This time — for corporations!"

Wrong. Here’s what Bush said today:

I also made it clear that we’re at the very early stages of discussion and that in my own judgment, anything that would be submitted to Congress — if submitted at all — would have to be revenue neutral. And therefore, what we’d really be talking about is a simplification of a very complex tax code that might be able to lower rates and at the same time simplify the code, which is like shorthand for certain deductions would be taken away — in other words, certain tax preferences in the code.

And here’s what WaPo’s Peter Baker reports Bush said on the same subject yesterday:

A "determinant factor" in deciding whether to go forward, he said, will be whether advisers can craft a revenue-neutral plan, neither raising nor decreasing overall taxes.

If the bill’s revenue neutral, there is no net tax cut. What’s puzzling is that Firedoglake blogger TeddySanFran linked Baker’s story but failed to note the revenue neutrality point (although Baker admittedly buried the point deep in the article). C’mon people. Fight fair.