average vs average
Atrios points out that Sotomayor is neither rich nor
average. Indeed, it seems like just
yesterday that we learned $20k-$30K medical bills sent lots of people into bankruptcy.
we must not waste our precious bodily fluids
As
Paul Krugman points out, the people in government working on today's problems wouldn't really be distracted by trials or investigations into torture. In the same paper,
Roger Cohen whines that everyone got it wrong, so there's no point in dwelling on the past. Krugman is, of course, as right as Cohen is wrong. It should be remarkable to see words like
The press failed... Scrutiny gave way to acquiescence. Words were spun in feckless patterns.
opposite a column written by someone who did not fail, who did not fail to scrutinize, who did not spin words in feckless patterns, but it's so common, it's trite. Somewhere in the Village rulebook, there's a provision that requires such counterpoint, and requires that the one who writes of a world that didn't exist to be treated as serious, while the one who describes the world as it was is derided as destructive of the normal order.
But I digress. I was supposed to be discussing the wasting of precious bodily fluids.
Who would be distracted, who would be mired in the past and unable to move forward by serious investigations and prosecutions of those who committed crimes and blackened our national soul over the past eight years? Not those on the
hard left, not those trying to solve the problems of today, not those who were right. The Cohens, the Hannitys, the Becks, and Limbaughs of the world, however, would be forced to explain and defend themselves endlessly. Democratic fellow travelers, those who enabled and abetted the crimes of Bush administration, would be put on the defensive. The punditocracy who cheered them on and rationalized them would be forced to confront time and again how empty and (yes) feckless they were and continue to be.
In short, those who would be distracted and forced to waste their precious bodily fluids are exactly those who, lacking backbone and any semblance of moral fiber, shouldn't be contributing to discussions about the future, anyway. That investigations and prosecutions would distract them and waste their energy is a feature, not a bug.
those in authority should always feel safe
Several blogs have noted the new Supreme Case in the war on everyone. Most of us feel revulsion over the facts of the case, but apparently not everyone. From the
NYT article:
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways “a close call...”
“Do we really want to encourage cases,” Professor Arum asked, “where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?”
Of course not. The last thing we need are people in authority who have to worry about the consequences of their actions. Administrators shouldn't have to worry about either the effects of a search on its target or the possible future effects on themselves should they be sued. Phone companies shouldn't have to worry about the effects on the privacy of their customers if they allow the government to proceed with unlawful searches, and they certainly shouldn't have to worry about effects on their future bottom lines if they're assessed damages. Interrogators shouldn't have to worry about the pain they subject their subjects to, neither should they worry that they'll be held accountable. Police shouldn't have to worry about the health of those they shoot or tase, and shouldn't fear prosecution if their actions kill someone.
No one in authority should ever have to worry about the consequences of their actions. Such concerns are only for the little people. What's the point of having a position of authority if your use of power can be questioned? Where's the fun in that?
Labels: authority, responsibility, search
Standing up for workers' rights
The US Chamber of Commerce President has our backs:
"You've got to go up and tell them what will happen [if the bill passes], that no one is going to add a single job in the United States," Chamber president Thomas Donahue told the assembled. "Will I put a job here where it'll get unionized in an illegal way? No, I'll put it somewhere else."
He loves workers so much that rather than see them deprived of the right to a secret ballot, he'll ship their jobs overseas, where workers' right to work without representation is properly respected.
corporate taxes and overall progressivity
In case you haven't seen this yet, the
CBO has released a report showing that our tax system is, in fact, progressive.
This analysis rests on Table 1, where one sub-table assigns an "Effective Corporate Income Tax Rate" for each income group, by assigning all such corporate taxes proportionally to non-wage income. Since higher income groups have more non-wage income, they bear a disproportionate share of such taxes (40% of the entire tax burden for the top 0.01%).
That assignment only makes sense if you assume the economy to be uncompetitive. In an uncompetitive economy, a lower corporate tax would translate immediately into profits. In a competitive one, it seems that income tax is a corporate cost like any other, and that lowering the cost would lower prices, increase revenue, increase labor demand (and therefore wages), etc. I'm not sure how much of the tax should be assigned to each group (I can make a naive case that if 10% of corporate revenue is profit, 10% of the taxes should be assigned to owners, but don't have much confidence in it), but it's unreasonable to assign all of it to owners.
By assigning all the costs of corporate taxes to owners, the report is implicitly arguing that the economy is uncompetitive, and that raising corporate taxes would only affect the rich. This may be the first time I've heard conservatives make that argument.
the rule of law
Digby has written extensively lately of the Administration's expansive view of executive power and disdain for both the Congress and the American people, and how those views suggest they will ignore any attempt by Congress to constrain their behavior. There's almost nothing in the record of this Administration that would contradict that view.
At the root of the problem is the fact that while Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court interprets them, the President has sole executive power. Everyone in the Federal government who would actually enforce a law or a judgement works for the President, and after six years of this administration, there's almost no one left in a position of authority who hasn't been tested for either ideological purity or extraordinary compliance.
If, as appears possible, we're on the verge of a Constitutional collision between branches of historic proportion, it might be time to ask ourselves what limits this Administration does perceive. If it can ignore Congressional authority over its ability to wage war or to conduct domestic surveillance without warrants, for example, what else can it ignore? If it can ignore the courts on treatment of prisoners, what else can it ignore? What are the limits of an executive unconstrained by concern for public opinion, convinced that he is divinely inspired and led, supported by a cadre of like fanatics? Is the rule of law--any rule of law--protection against an executive convinced he serves a higher authority?
I've written before that I am less concerned with whether a politician follows the letter of the law than I am with who he serves. I prefer a personally corrupt politician who advances the public good to a paragon of personal virtue who destroys it. In this case, I'd certainly prefer a politician who respected our Constitution more and his own judgement less. Is that a contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not.
In the end, our laws are only as good as the people we elect to enforce them. It's important to elect people with enough humility to realize that they are not us, they only represent us. Respect for law is one marker of that humility. Respect for the opinions of those who disagree with you is another.
If we elect people who lack that humility--and who have repeatedly demonstrated that lack--no body of law will protect us.
Mercy for our friends, vengeance for our enemies
It has been amusing over the past few days to watch the same people who claim that executions are necessary for "closure," who cheered the hanging of Saddam Hussein and regretted only that it was not more thuggish than it actually was, eulogize President Ford for his wisdom in sparing the country a full accounting of Nixon's crimes.
