December 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

On January 1, 2008, the state of Illinois will ban almost all smoking in enclosed public spaces, including private restaurants and bars. Moreover, it will be illegal to smoke a cigarette in a car in which children less than 18 years of age are riding.

My state of Tennessee has already done so.

(HT: Division of Labour)

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Looks like I’ll have to teach summer school this year to be able to afford my dream car, which will come with a projected 620hp. Given the new CAFE standards, American-built cars like these won’t be around much longer.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

The church finally sees a connection between socialism and the loss of freedom (WSJ). WOW! Nothing gets past those guys.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 31, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Becker and Posner take on the liberal bias in universities. They discuss why teachers in college tend to be liberal. Notable:

Admittedly, it is difficult to see the connection between the political attitudes of professors in various other fields and the nature of these fields. For example, why do less than 4 percent of historian, according to Gross and Simmons, consider themselves Republicans, whereas 23 percent of nurses do? Perhaps one important factor is that teachers in practical fields, like engineering, nursing, and medicine, see the limitations of what can be accomplished by various types of interventions, whereas those in theoretical fields, like mathematics and literature, can dream of more utopian solutions. Still, the dichotomy between the theoretical and the practical has trouble explaining why a field like history has such liberal academics since many historians deal with various disasters brought about by government ventures.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 30, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Tourists record a battle between lions, buffalo, and crocs. It’s great! It has around 23 million hits, making it one of the most popular videos on youtube.com. It starts a little slow, but it picks up.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

December 30, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A very young Governor Schwarzenegger.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A top-ten tax wish list from The Tax Foundation.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Can you save Al Gore video.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

More on the Sun’s impact on global warming at foxnew.com.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 29, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Good article at foxnews.com on global warming. It begins:

“I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd.

As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction.

The article lists 10 reasons why the global warming crowd may be on the wrong track (assuming they desire to slow the effects of global warming instead of pursuing some anti-capitalist agenda). I’ve read much more about the sun’s impact on global warming, so I was glad to see this:

The big yellow ball in the sky. The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought.

The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.”

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

December 28, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Everyone is linking to this story today, so I will too. Paul Krugman, writing in today’s NY Times, asserts that free trade benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, although he still believes trade is on net a benefit for America.  Don at Cafe Hayek does a good job responding to it with his “Krugman vs. Krugman, Again” post.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

 In today’s WSJ:

In the final paragraph of your editorial “Dim Bulbs,” (Dec. 21) you say that Congress has now dictated phasing out the incandescent bulb starting in 2012. Think of the hardships and costs that law will force on the public. Ponder your current incandescent bulb usages that do not readily adapt to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) or others.

Incandescent bulbs can operate on low voltages such as three volts (flashlights) and 12 volts (autos) but compact CFLs cannot. No more flashlights for emergency or convenience use. When the bulb burns out in the ones you have, throw it away! How about no more power-on and indicator lights on your auto dashboard and your large and small (coffeemaker, iron) home appliances? Consider no more holiday lights such as on Christmas trees and outdoor decorations. What would you use for bicycle head and tail-lights? How about roadside distress and warning lights that plug into cigarette lighters or dashboard power sockets? Also mood lighting for parts of your home and some commercial establishments, since CFLs do not readily adapt to dimming. We could add to this list.

While some of the above uses are for convenience, others are for safety and life-saving reasons. Although decades in the future scientists may develop other sources of light, in the near term we do not have reasonable replacements for most of the above uses.

(HT: Don Boudreaux)

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 27, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

If you enjoy lowbrow humor, you’ll enjoy this. Not a Family Guy fan, you say. Well, maybe you’ll enjoy this short clip.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Becker and Posner opine on the subprime housing crisis. It is well worth the time.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

New York is bringing back indentured servants.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

This opinion discusses the attempt by some in Congress to tax Internet commerce. This opinion on the Fair Tax is also worth reading.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Nice little article in today’s WSJ on who wins and who losses in the credit crunch.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 26, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

The IRS last month published this 70-page document explaining the truth about frivolous tax arguments. It’s organized well and worth a look. Here’s one gem of advice:

Some assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because
the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the
IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax
system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v.
United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the
proposition that “[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary
assessment and payment, not upon distraint.”

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct
amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the
government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to
file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in
sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg.
§ 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return
could subject the non-complying individual to criminal penalties, including
fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties. In United States v.
Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1986), the court clearly states,
“although Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the
general method of income tax collection, Congress gave the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary
collection . . . . The IRS’ efforts to obtain compliance with the tax laws are
entirely proper.” The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B.
863, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous
argument.

So, voluntary = involuntary. How Orwellian.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

The 2007 energy bill signed by Bush has really got me worried. Here’s why:

President Bush has now signed an energy bill that will phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs in the United States, because he and others believe LED and fluorescent bulbs are more efficient and longer lasting; so, in the name of curbing global warming, he and Congress propose to save us from ourselves.

This particular categorical ban is predicated exclusively on its intended benefits to society, without regard to its marginal costs and benefits, not to mention its questionable constitutionality. These bans are always justified in protecting the public interest—in this case, mitigating the impact of global warming; economists might say the government is trying to limit negative externalities (external costs imposed on an individual outside of a market transaction).

The negative externality, or external cost, argument is today’s most prevalent justification to subvert the individual’s implied constitutional right to privacy, but, after all, these bans are implemented for the benefit of mankind. But are the legislators carefully considering all the marginal economic costs and benefits?

We’re told that LED and fluorescent bulbs are more environmentally friendly than incandescent bulbs, but even granting that as fact does not mean we should not weigh the costs against the benefits of this legislation.

On the cost side of the equation, we discover a considerable price tag both to individuals and society, and we need look no further than the income effect (a change in real income resulting from a price fluctuation). The cost of LED and fluorescent bulbs is significantly greater than incandescent bulbs, although, in a marketing plea to attract buyers, sellers emphasize the durability and energy efficiency of LED and fluorescent bulbs; this argument is questionable, however, given that an outright ban is needed to coerce rational consumers to abstain from purchasing incandescent bulbs. 

So, these bans can harm individuals by reducing their real incomes by replacing cheap goods available for consumption with higher-priced substitutes, thereby lowering living standards. Unfortunately, these forgone savings not only reduce the standard of living for individuals and society in general, they may contribute to considerable external costs themselves. For instance, because one’s real income has been reduced due to the ban, since only a high-priced option is available, one may forgo car maintenance or purchase of a new, “greener” automobile, rendering negative environmental external costs even greater than would have existed with the consumption of the forbidden good. (Of course, the income effect can work both ways. For example, people may economize by purchasing less gasoline for their cars, thereby creating an external benefit to society. It can work both ways, but I choose to err on the side that protects the individual’s choices. )

Furthermore, legislative bans, such as the one just signed by President Bush, restrict capital available for market-driven investments in green technologies, which would, since they are market-tested, likely yield greater marginal environmental benefits. How exactly? Individuals, given the income effect, would have less real income to commit to alternative green technologies, and businesses, since they presumably would also have to comply with the legislation, would have to forgo investment in alternative environmental technologies, at least equal to the cost of complying with the ban.

Economists are fond of saying that the cost of anything is the forgone opportunity of using that same resource elsewhere; that is, everything has an opportunity cost, which is often lost in the political process that prefers categorical decisions to marginal decisions.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 23, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

 Huckabee panders:

“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.

Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.

In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.

“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.

Fred Thompson refuses to pander:

AKD: What will you do for the farmers of Bremer County?

FT: (laughs)

AKD: You knew this was coming, right?

FT: I would continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I’ve been looking all over Iowa for a bad steak and I can’t find it. Been trying my best. It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something. Farmers want fair treatment and a chance to prosper in a free economy and that’s what I would help ensure. There’s a lot of programs we’ve got out there, some of which are good programs, some of which are not. And I think that we need to work our way through that and make sure we’re doing what’s good for the country, not just the farmers, not just the people of Iowa, not just the people of Tennessee. But good for the country. A sound policy that makes sense. I think there’s a lot more that we could do for the working farmer in terms of ecological programs and environmental programs - land conservation, soil conservation - that would be fair and it would be beneficial to the nation and to Iowa and to our country. We’re going to have to phase out the corporate welfare system we’ve got, however. There are extremely rich people living in skyscrapers in Manhattan that are receiving subsidy payments. I think that’s wrong. I’d put a stop to that if it was within my power. That still continues in this latest Farm Bill and it’s not right. There ought to be a cutoff at some level and it’s not right ot have millionaires receiving farm subsidies.

(HT: Glenn Reynolds)

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 22, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

I might have missed this August 2007 Current Population Report: Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. It contains a wealth of useful data. For example, on page 29 you’ll learn that 8.5 million people in households earning between $50,000 and $74,999 decided to forgo the purchase of health insurance. It gets better. 9.2 million people in households earning more than $75,000 decided to forgo the purchase of health insurance. (That makes 17.7 million people who could probably afford health insurance that decide to forgo the expenditure). They excercised their right to spend their money–good money in most parts of the country–on other goods and services. So, I have a hard time believing 47 million people do not have access to health care, even health insurance. In the United States, we all have access to health care, and many more of us have access to health insurance than is reported.

Some people will take the above numbers as a good argument for a universal health care system, one that would force all people to pay–the sick and healthy. After all, they might argue, forcing everyone to purchase insurance could help alleviate the adverse selection problem. There are, of course, many more arguments for a universal system, but I believe the benefits of such a system are exaggerated.

Sticking with the above numbers from the Census report, I see the problem not lying with the people, but with the welfare state in America, although the adverse selection problem is indeed real and significant. I’m not going to list all the benefits of our current system over a universal system, but I can confidently say our system, although not perfect, is working quite well. This system insures 85% of all people, so I’d prefer to look for fixes in this imperfect system before scraping it for a univeral plan that has proven to be disastrous elsewhere.

One last thought. We often forget that the uninsured includes people without insurance due to frictional unemployment; that is, they are temporarily between jobs. Frictional unemployment is voluntary; most of us have had health insurance through our employer and quit to pursue other opportunities. In this we lose our insurance and become part of the uninsured in the statistics. This is temporary, but the statistics don’t differentiate between long-term and short-term uninsured. I was also temporarily uninsured when I was obtaining my graduate degree, but this would still be reported as my being uninsured, even though I was quickly insured again upon taking a job after graduation. In other words, our system is not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

Posted in General post | 1 Comment »

December 22, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

For anyone interested in the draft debate, I would encourage you to read the “pro-draft” comments from Ned; he makes good points, as usual. In part, he says:

The United States had the military personnel available to invade Afghanistan, the single nation willing to harbor our sworn enemy. This, we did, and it was probably the proper action. But we still had sufficient forces available for more dubious adventures. If we had needed to instigate a draft in order to launch an invasion of Iraq, would the members of the United States congress have been so quick to commit to the probable maiming and death of many of their constituent’s sons and daughters? It is one thing to commit a mercenary army to do what they are paid to do. It is quite another to take citizens from their homes and send them to war.

The mere existence of this “volunteer” military leads our nation’s leaders into unnecessary international commitments of force that leave our nation divided and in debt. This is why those of us who mistrust government find the existence of a large “volunteer” military to be basically unwholesome.

I understand this argument, and I even sympathize with it to some degree. What troubles me is that you would want to give the state more power in hopes that that would encourage it to exercise less of it. That is, if the state had more power over its citizens (power to draft), it would better protect them by keeping them out of unnecessary wars. This sounds great in theory, but I keep thinking of Vietnam, when we were still drafting soldiers. The theory above did not work out in practice. There is truth in your ideas; Congressman Charlie Rangell feels the same way. I, however, will never advocate relinquishing more of our civil liberties to the state in the hope that doing so would somehow make the state more likely to exercise good judgement and restraint.

Thanks for the ideas. I always enjoy receiving feedback, particularly contrarian feedback.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 22, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Here is a short version on my idea for a remoteness test on neg. externality claims, and, yes, maybe I’m way off base. But the negative externality logic is being used to justify anything the state wants (in the name of the public’s interest), much like the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to do much the same thing. Explanation appears below:

President Bush signed an energy bill on Wednesday that will phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs in the United States, because, he believes (and others believe), LED and fluorescent bulbs are more efficient and longer-lasting; such a ban, he and others hope, will curb global warming and protect “green” individuals from the energy hogs who consume our resources and wreck our planet.

We witness this nanny-state mentality in legislatures across the country, with one legislative body after another banning smoking in public areas to forbidding trans fats in restaurant cuisine, which are affronts on the civil liberties of individuals. But governments justify their preemptions of individual choice by claiming their acts are in the public’s interest, protecting both the individual from himself and protecting his responsible neighbor from his actions, as well.

Protecting innocent third parties from negative external costs of a market transaction is what economists refer to as limiting negative externalities. The classic example of a negative externality involves a company, in the normal course of production, polluting the drinking water of an individual who is downstream. Left-leaning intellectuals and politicians have picked up this argument and carried it to absurd lengths.

Of course, these bans come at the expense of personal autonomy and property rights, which are other external costs borne by innocent third parties, but they are rarely ever considered.  But, the question remains, how are some stretching the external-costs logic to absurd proportions to justify their desired political ends, typically some romanticized egalitarian society?

Examples abound, but one need look no further than Robert H. Frank, Cornell University economics professor and Ben Bernanke’s coauthor of an introductory textbook on economics, to find an answer; in fact, Mr. Frank is at the forefront of this scheme.

Robert Frank sums up his position in a 2000 paper entitled, “Why Living in a Rich Society Makes Us Feel Poorer.”  According to Mr. Frank, and others like him, after income is above a subsistence level, people are more concerned with their relative financial position than with their absolute financial position; that is, competing to keep up with the Joneses makes us unhappy, because someone always has more than you. This is his justification for income redistribution.

So, Mr. Frank asserts, confiscating income from wealthier people and reallocating it to those with lower incomes can facilitate utility optimization, which is his rationalization for stealing from the rich to provide for the poor. In other words, he is making the argument that an individual’s wealth imposes external costs (reduced happiness) on others, and these external costs will persist as long as there is income inequality.

But Mr. Frank and others can use this same reasoning to justify any measure that might alter society more to their liking. For instance, assuming formal education is more than a mere signaling device, it improves the lot of the educated and the lot of society, through increased productivity, which, in turn, yields a higher standard of living for all. Yet using the logic of Robert Frank, we would only consider the harm education produces; after all, not everyone goes to college and earns a wage premium and, perhaps, a higher sense of self-worth. To stay true to his logic, Mr. Frank, a Ph.D, could only deem a person’s education as a detriment to the happiness of an uneducated person, so the negative cost to others could justify banning the improvement in another’s life, which also would ban accompanying external benefits of an educated populace.

The central flaw that Dr. Frank and others have in their line of argument is that it contains no proximity limitation, so the logic can be stretched indefinitely. A proximity limitation, or remoteness test, is common elsewhere.

For instance, tort law imposes a remoteness test; that is, a person cannot be compelled to compensate a harmed individual in a tort case when that person’s harm is deemed to be too remote from the alleged tort. This proximity limitation places reasonable limitations on what third parties can collect for harms imposed on them by others. This restriction places sensible limits on external costs claims, thereby reducing frivolous third-party claims.

Even the U.S. government has adopted a reasonable “remoteness” standard after the 1942 Wickard Vs Filburn case that justified state punitive action against a small farmer who harvested wheat above his allotment set by the Dept. of Agriculture. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court stretched the logic of the Interstate Commerce Clause, saying additional wheat production would marginally increase the aggregate supply of wheat on the world market, in order to rationalize state corrective action. The Supreme Court, in the 1995 U.S. Vs Lopez case, adopted limits to the Interstate Commerce Clause to actions that substantially impact Interstate Commerce, although more recent decisions are threatening to undermine this limitation on state power.

So, in law, both civil and criminal, we find proximity limitations on external costs arguments. Not until the leftist intellectuals and power-hungry political types adopt a remoteness test on negative externality claims will their arguments become valid in the minds of the mainstream. Unreasonable limitations, after all, can be used to rationalize any end one desires see come to fruition.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 21, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) feels the same way about the new energy bill as I do. Thank God someone else is blogging about it now. Here is what the professor of law says (notice he makes the same suggestion I did in my letter to the WSJ editor today):

But the gradual ban on incandescent bulbs in the new energy bill is just asinine: “Incandescent light bulbs will begin to be phased out in 2012, with a complete ban finalized in 2014. Manufacturers will be forced to switch to compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, which can cost more than six times as much as the common incandescent bulb.”

Let’s show we’re serious about energy conservation, by forcing members of Congress to fly commercial instead of on government executive jets. . . .

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 21, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

WSJ opinion on the new energy bill signed by the president this week.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 21, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Letter to the WSJ that I just sent:

Fervent environmentalists must be gleaming with joy; they’ve succeeded once again in forcing their preferences on everyone else through the political process. Just last Wednesday President Bush signed into law an energy bill that will phase out the incandescent light bulb in America and impose stringent new fuel efficiency requirements on the nation’s automobiles. The end result—a cleaner environment—is fine with me; the means to obtain this end, however, is questionable.

Instead of a carbon tax that would decrease the demand for gas hogs (i.e. Corvettes and Dodge Vipers) and compensate third-parties for the harms imposed on them by egregious  polluters (by investing the tax revenue in “offsets”), a categorical ban was imposed that pre-empts the preferences of all others. So, the sports cars available for car enthusiasts today may soon be a thing of the past.

I believe I’ll write my congressman to demand a ban on all private jet travel, since I and everyone else must bear the external costs of such travel. I’m sure Al Gore will understand that I need more from him than his privately purchased “offsets” for all his polluting he does to save the world from polluters.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 20, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Below is a letter I just wrote to the editor of my local newspaper. It will be my last on the draft.

Letter to the editor

Royal Sargent once again took the morally repugnant path and resorted to putting words in my mouth and personally attacking me in his December 20, 2007, letter, but it’s Royal Sargent, so I’ve come to expect it; we all have. I will take the moral high ground with this opportunity, in what will be my last letter on the draft, and explain the draft debate in a civilized manner.

We all debate the draft from different knowledge levels and varying value systems. The debate in some regards depends on your faith in government; after all, some people believe government programs are the solutions to all mankind’s problems, and others, for instance, Ronald Reagan, would argue government is the problem.

Count me on the side of the Ole Gipper. Those opposed to conscription typically place less faith in government, are concerned about our diminishing civil liberties, worry about resulting deadweight losses, and they acknowledge the opportunity costs resulting from a draft.

Those who advocate a draft typically place more faith in government, are more concerned about security than personal liberties, and they usually refer to some social value that results from young men and women working together on one unifying “national project.” I have come to believe, through debates on military conscription over the years, that some people also see the draft as a way to bring “rich kids” down a peg or two by forcing them to participate in what, in times peace, could be called a community project.  I entirely understand these pro-draft arguments and sentiments, but I respectfully disagree.

I disagree because, like every other public policy initiative, costs and benefits exist and must be weighed. I personally believe the costs of a draft far exceed the benefits, and apparently so do the majority of Americans, considering we have not had a draft since the 1970s.

I would like to briefly respond to two of the more outrageous claims by Mr. Sargent in his last letter. They were: “Tax monies spent on our military are not a waste of money” and a “draft did not affect our economy in any way.”

Mr. Sargent is right about taxes spent on the military not being a waste of money, but that’s true only when the money is spent defending our nation. Tax money spent on the military for some vaguely described social value or to create employment is a waste of money.

How can a military spending be wasteful, you ask? Well, to answer that we will see that a draft does “affect our economy,” regardless of what Mr. Sargent believes. Everything in life has an opportunity cost. That is, by doing one thing you can’t do another. You can’t do everything you want because we live in a world of scarce resources, not the Garden of Eden where resources were unlimited. Every dollar we spend to increase military employment has to be paid by the private sector or taken from another government program, resulting in less employment in the private sector or that other government agency. There is no real net gain in employment. But it gets worse.

As I’ve mentioned before, every penny we spend on materials for war is money we can’t spend to feed the hungry and heal the sick. Also, the conscripted labor must forgo other opportunities, which also imposes costs on our economy. For example, the drafted soldiers must start their careers later in life, which is a tax on their time; even worse, some soldiers—those drafted and volunteers– do not return home, and our economy must entirely forgo the benefits of their labor. By advocating a draft, which would increase the size of our military, Mr. Sargent is suggesting his desire for a larger military is somehow more important than spending that money on finding treatments for the ill, feeding hungry people, aiding the needy, because, remember, our resources are limited, so spending money on the military means diverting money from somewhere else. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general, said it best: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocker fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.

My space is limited, so let me conclude by offering places to find additional information on the ideas above. Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker runs a blog (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/index.html), and he wrote an excellent post on the draft in September 2007. Also, on the idea of opportunity costs, please consider reading Frederic Bastiat’s What is Seen and What is Not Seen; it is free on the Internet at http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html. Finally, thanks to all those who sent me letters of support and appreciation; I value them all.

Posted in General post | 2 Comments »

December 20, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

A couple writes to the editor of my local paper and says: I would like to give a big thank you to Tom Armstrong, a true patriot in my eyes…. Notice that the couple seems to think my anti-draft letters are anti-Iraqi war. That is not necessarily true–maybe, maybe not; I’m not going there.

That’s the kind of letter I like to see in the paper. Unfortunately, I also get letters like this one. I mention deadweight losses and opportunity costs in my letters, and I do so without explaination assuming everyone understands; I might be giving some people too much credit. Consider this from today’s letter that attacks me:

Tax monies spent on our military are not a waste of money…. Our previous draft discriminated for - not against, the most capable workers (a deferment for college enrollment) and it did not affect our economy in any way.

Bless his dim-witted little heart. I’m pretty sure he does not understand the concept of an opportunity cost, not with those remarks. I’m not sure I’ll even waste time with a response.

 Oh, read what Bastiat wrote on the subject (think opportunity cost).

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 19, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Anybody interested in education will likely find this just-released study interesting.

Posted in General post | No Comments »

December 19, 2007 by Tom Armstrong.

Tennessee and residents in several others states are facing a large tax increase. It never ends. Notable:

Some people say “there’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” They are right, because for Tennessee taxpayers the difference is actually over $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS!

In 2004, thanks to the efforts of Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, taxpayers in Tennessee were put on equal footing with taxpayers in states that rely on a state income tax to fund their state’s operations. But the deductibility of state and local sales tax on federal income tax forms expires this year…unless the Democratic Party-controlled Congress does something immediately.

Posted in General post | No Comments »