Miscellany: 5/11/13

Quote of the Day
As to the history of the revolution, 
my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. 
What do we mean by the Revolution? 
The war? 
That was no part of the revolution;
it was only an effect and consequence of it. 
The revolution was in the minds of the people.
John Adams

Once More: The So-Called "Marketplace Fairness Act"

I subscribe to a number of emails from conservative or libertarian sources. I got an email notification from Colin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring, in conjunction with Al Cardenas of the American Conservative Union, arguing for the Internet sales tax: "As conservatives, we must:

a) ensure that all businesses and entrepreneurs are able to compete under the same rules on a level playing field,

b) that the rule of the law is upheld, and

c) affirm the principle of federalism."

I did not find the full email posted on the website or I would link to it. Among other things, Hanna cites Krauthammer, Laffer  and William Buckley--all of whom I've cited approvingly on other topics. However, they are absolutely wrong on this issue.

I'm only going to address a few points here; I may expand the discussion in a future post.

First, Hanna  makes a preposterous argument this is a federalism argument. Absolutely false. The Internet vendor has to charge any relevant sales tax if their customer is in state; the Supreme Court decision includes all states where the vendor has a physical presence like an office, store, or warehouse. Out-of-state transactions constitute interstate commerce. By the Constitution, states may not impose tariffs on goods from other states, and states cannot regulate interstate commerce. I have argued as one solution a low national sales tax with revenue sharing with states.

Second, there is nothing "fair" about forcing vendors in other states to become deputy tax collectors for every other state. They don't get services from every other state. This is an old concept in American history called "taxation without representation".

Third, Hanna confounds the distinction between pro-business and pro-free market (he is hereby sentenced to read Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek whom has written several posts on the distinction; we are not in favor of industrial policy or crony capitalism).  This is anti-competitive at its core; it favors big retailers like amazon.com over smaller shops. It would be far simpler and fairer simply to treat the Internet customer as local and charge any relevant sales tax

Finally, there are ways to fund state/local budgets without resorting to sales tax; there are 5 states that don't assess sales taxes. What conservatives should be focusing on is cutting state/local expenditures so the state/local sales taxes are low and more competitive, not getting a tax windfall, e.g., for goods not available locally and must incur a separate shipping charge that local product customers do not incur. If local businesses want to be more competitive, they should do it the old-fashioned way of supply-and-demand--cut prices. Not engage in protectionist policies.

The Best Librarian in the World

My favorite story of sister #3 is that I tried to impress some guys  in the OLL dorms by showing a picture of her (I have 4 beautiful sisters). This one guy did a double take, looked at me and said, "Dude, what the hell happened to you?"

Sibling #3 to earn a graduate degree; I did mine without raising a family and holding down a full-time job; I'm one very proud big brother.

My little sister, a gift from God, was awarded her MLS degree today. Her 5 sons are all Eagle Scouts, like my brother-in-law.

A Political Ad on the Benghazi Kerfuffle

I usually don't feature political ads in this blog, and I have differences of opinion with Karl Rove, but this is well-done and one based on facts, not a personal attack. I've written a couple of posts this week that make  an even more devastating attack.

The consulate mission in Benghazi was a priority for Clinton; it is almost inconceivable that she wasn't aware of the general security risks in making the mission a priority, short of gross incompetence and negligence. The CIA and al-Qaddafi himself before his overthrow warned Al Qaeda was part of the resistance. Consider this post as of March a year ago:

"There is no question that al Qaeda's Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition," Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi's biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. "What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al Qaeda/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group - 2% or 80%," Riedel added.

Why was the consulate a Clinton priority? Clinton doesn't precisely address that issue in a late January interview, but clearly there were military (weapons recovery) and intelligence objectives; I suspect that the administration wanted to project a return to normalcy, a show of faith in the new government. Was it a matter of funding? Nor really; Clinton basically gives every bureaucratic manager's response: I have lots of priorities and could always use more money, but when you have a limited budget you have to rank your priorities.

The point is, not only did Clinton fail to make Benghazi security a priority, it looks like some resources were redeployed. Any competent manager would weigh costs and benefits; Riedel couldn't have been the only CIA officer knowing Benghazi was a stronghold with Al Qaeda affiliates. Step 1 in establishing any foreign mission is security: anyone old enough to remember the Iran hostage crisis knows that. Just like an auditor knows the lack of documentation or standardized procedures or proper internal controls requires a more extensive audit test, a manager explicitly takes risk into account; if the costs are too great, you don't approve; you wait until the risks/costs are manageable. And you're constantly rechecking whether the facts have changed, even if/after you approve. Here's what we know: there were at least 50 security incidents in Benghazi in just over a year ending in July 2012, including an attempted assassination of the British ambassador to Libya, a bomb on the perimeter of the US consulate (over a drone attack in Pakistan killing a Libyan Al Qaeda leader, al Libi), and a terrorist attack on the Tunisian consulate. The point is, Benghazi was not secure before 9/11 for reasons other than a Youtube video. The British thought it was significant enough to evacuate their consulate weeks before 9/11. You would think that the breach of the consulate perimeter wall in early June didn't satisfy the motivated terrorists; in fact, Al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri on 9/11 called for vengeance for al Libi. Through all this the State Dept. stayed the course on Benghazi, not augmenting security or withdrawing personnel. My opinion is that Clinton was gambling with the lives of Americans at stake. And yet the State Department and the White House (including Obama in the famous Rose Garden comments that played a role in the Presidential debates; I carefully parsed the speech, where Obama is clearly referencing the video and calls for Libya to bring the "killers" (i.e., criminals vs.terrorists) to justice in the earlier portion of the address--Crowley was confused by a poorly written speech as usual for Obama where he tries to link his commitment for justice for the Benghazi attack to America's resolve after the original 9/11 events) pursued this bogus story of a video protest gone rogue.

Charles Ramsey: Everyday Hero
'
Kudos to Charles and all those whom courageously act versus saying "I don't want to get involved..."





Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Nate Beeler and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Bruce Springsteen & the E-Street Band, "The River"