BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Ezra Klein Archive

Thursday

30

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

WaPo’s Boy Wonder “Confused” by Constitution Written “Over 100 Years Ago”

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

NewsBusters recounts the forehead-slapping  encounter on MSNBC:

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein appeared on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, Thursday, to mock the incoming Republicans for their stated fixation on the Constitution, asserting that the document is rather old and “confusing.” MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell dismissed the GOP effort as “lip service” and wondered if it was a “gimmick.”

After playing clips of Republicans claiming they would reject legislation that couldn’t be justified constitutionally, Klein complained, “The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done.

“More than 100 years ago,” says the Washington Post savant who is at least 5 years old.

Debates over what the Constitution says really don’t differ all that much between people who actually bother to read or take its history seriously. What differs from person to person is how much they even care what it says.

The document itself isn’t particularly confusing. Sure, there are always debatable details and interpretations of particular phrases, but the answers to the big questions are all well known, if not as acceptable. We know, for instance, that the Constitution gives government certain enumerated powers, and reserves the rest for the people and the States. If the power isn’t listed, the federal government can’t do it. Ezra Klein and other statists don’t like this constraint, so they simply wave their hands over how “confusing” the whole mess is and proceed as if it doesn’t exist.

As we saw repeatedly in the last Congress, Democrats were open about their disdain for Constitutional restrictions on the power of Congress (“Are you serious? Are you serious?”). They didn’t bother debating what it says or meant, but contested the very idea that it mattered at all. Working to change this Congressional attitude is no gimmick; it’s just long overdue.

Tuesday

10

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

When Soaking The Rich Doesn’t Sell, Soak The Super-Rich Instead

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

With the public unconvinced of the wisdom of soaking the rich, the latest hot idea floating around in statist circles is not to soak the rich, but rather the really, super-duper, ultra rich.

In a class-warfare filled screed, James Surowiecki wrote in the New Yorker on the need to “Soak the Very, Very Rich.”

A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates. (The most obvious bracket to add would be a higher rate at a million dollars a year, but there’s no reason to stop there.) This would make the system fairer, since it would reflect the real stratification among high-income earners…

Ezra Klein then blogged at the Washington Post that he is “very sympathetic to the idea that there should be more tax brackets,” reasoning that  “It would be a lot easier to fight the super-rich than to fight the super-rich, the really rich, the pretty rich, and well-off.” If there was a bracket just for the super-duper-really rich, you see, it could be more easily raised to unconscionable and economy killing levels without public objection.

Adding more tax brackets would complicate an already inexcusably incomprehensible tax code, resulting in increased economic waste and compliance costs, more expenditures on lobbying and even greater uncertainty than is currently holding down economic growth.

Furthermore, tax policy should not be decided based on which group is easiest to demagogue and demonize. Nor is it the purpose of the tax code to enshrine into law a particular view of economic fairness, which in the case of Surowiecki and Klein, means redistribution.

There is one legitimate reason and one legitimate reason only for taxes, and that’s to raise the funds necessary for the limited functions of constitutional government and rule of law. There is no honest assessment of those functions as enshrined in the US Constitution which can find that the present revenues received by the state are insufficient to provide for those functions.

I’m sure it’s too much to ask, but rather than ruminate on which of its citizens the government and its statist boosters should declare war on next, the Ezra Klein’s of the world should think about how government spending can be reduced, and our federal government brought back into the bounds of legitimate, constitutional governance.