Friday's interesting reads - 5/16/08

"Cap-And-Trade Folly" IBD editorial:

"Much of the pain would be caused by increases in gasoline and electricity prices. The Science Applications International Corporation calculates that Lieberman-Warner by 2030 would boost gasoline prices from 60% to 144% while electricity prices would be up 77% to 129%.

Hit hardest by higher energy prices: The poor. The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that energy costs consume 15% of the poorest households' income while the average household spends 3% on energy. Who is going to feel the pinch more?"

This is one of the hardest for me to understand. The thing people talk the most about is high prices of energy, and cap-and-trade will only make them more expensive. Not only that, and probably more important, is the impact it will have on the poor. But this won't just hurt our own poor, but the poor throughout the world.

"Broder Unwittingly Helps to Expose the Beast" by Don Boudreaux:

"Second, successful politicians must behave duplicitously. Here's Broader: 'Since McCain effectively cinched his nomination in February and mostly fell out of the news, he has accomplished a lot. He has targeted potential constituencies with appearances and messages tailored for them, knowing that other voters probably are not paying attention.' Broder casually adds that 'Obama needs to do similar work.'

This isn't leadership; it's cowardly con-artistry."

The key to winning elections seems to be throw enough cookies to special interests to build a coalition. Not that McCain will be any different, but I've thought for awhile that the only thing Obama will unify is a majority that will get him elected. That's just the truth of presidential elections. We're too diverse of a nation to hope for much more.

"Subsidized farmers: little house on the prairie or gone with the wind?" by Megan McArdle:

I've left a couple comments on this post that talks about, although briefly, the income limits on the farm bill. This one explains why I favor no limits and a lower per-unit subsidy?:

"My point is that, like a progressive tax, with income limits, you end up discriminating between big and small farmers, between the wealthy and the not. This is one reason why conservatives support tax reform because the progressive tax punishes people's success. With income limits, you ultimately punish a farmer's success. If he goes out and buys a lot of land and invests in ultra-efficient machinery, why is he less deserving? Just like high marginal tax rates, doesn't this make him less likely to invest, because he knows that the extra income gained by the bigger farm or more efficient machine might be offset by the loss of a per-bushel or per-acre subsidy?

What's the point of a progressive income tax? Isn't it fairness? Maybe it doesn't work like this explicitly, but I believe there is a max amount of subsidies congress is willing to distribute. If you limit the amount the wealthy farmers get, it means more to the smaller guys. Why are the small farms more deserving? Do we need to protect the small farms from becoming extinct? I don't feel some romantic desire to preserve the family farm. I won't miss the family farm any more than I miss 1960's Ford. Sure they looked cool and all, but I'd rather have a cheaper, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, etc car of today. They may be of value to some, and think that's fine, but don't ask me to subsidize it for you.

Again, I don't like subsidies; I wish we'd get rid of them altogether. But if we're going to have them, I'd rather distribute them fairly (or in other words irrespective of income). If it means lowering per-unit subsidies to small farms, so be it. If we end up with a bunch of large corporate farms that can do things cheaper than their smaller brethren, then maybe people will feel better about ending subsidies entirely, given the current populist hatred of big business."

"Gay Marriage Returns" WSJ editorial:

"In other words, the American people, rather than simply shunning the desire of gays to form permanent unions, are clearly willing to take up the matter and work it through their legislatures. California's legislature has passed bills twice to authorize gay marriage; both were vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. If California can find a Governor willing to sign off, so be it. It is preposterous, though, to let four judges decide this for a state of more than 36 million diverse individuals."

"Why We Need a Market for Human Organs" WSJ op-ed by Sally Satel:

"Because of the global organ shortage, thousands of patients die unnecessarily each year for want of a kidney. (In my case, I was lucky to have received a kidney from a friend.) And because organ sales are illicit, corrupt brokers may deceive indigent donors about the nature of transplant surgery, cheat them of payment, and ignore their postsurgical needs and long-term complications. The only way out is to increase the supply of available kidneys – whether by a cash payment to potential donors or through some other form of compensation."

I understand a lot of the concerns of those who may be against the sale of organs, but I disagree. Ever since I heard this podcast (as well as this one to a lesser degree), I've been much more comfortable with kidney sales. It's kind of the Type I/Type II error risk: does denying people access to kidneys obtained on a market kill more people (or do more social harm) than giving them on opportunity to buy them? My thought is yes, especially considering I think a lot of the risks of letting people buy them are overblown.

"A Welcome, Not a Wall" WSJ book review of Jason Riley's Let Them In by the Editorial Board [an excerpt from the book]:

"Reasonable people agree that illegal immigration should be reduced. The question isn't whether it's a problem but how to solve it. Historically, the best results have come from providing more legal ways for immigrants to enter the country. Most of these people are not predisposed to crime or terrorists in waiting. They are economic migrants who would gladly use the front door if it were open to them. Post 9/11, knowing who's in the country has rightly taken on an urgency. But painting Latino immigrants as violent criminals or Islamofascists won't make us any safer. Nor will enforcing bad laws and policies, as opposed to reforming them. On the whole, immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability. We benefit from the labor, they benefit from the jobs. Our laws should acknowledge and reflect this reality, not deny it."