Policy Spotlight: Flat Tax

"The wealthy need to start paying their fair share." One of the most common refrains of liberal Democrats, no matter the subject, implying that it is inherently unfair for the wealthy to not be giving more of their money to support the government--and is, for many Americans who can only dream of being as rich as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, an appealing argument. It reframes the entire debate away from the boring details of economic policy. How according to one figure, the top 10% of income earners contribute 70% of federal tax revenue. Or how, as John Stossel wrote, "[i]f the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion." Not even a drop in the bucket compared to $18.4 trillion in national debt, and just enough to pay for the current budget deficit--for one year. Good luck getting the millionaires and billionaires to stay in the country and work just as hard for that wealth next year.

But fairness is inherently a much more appealing concept, and not just because of the lack of numbers. America since its founding has been known as a fair and just nation, and the idea that a few people can have expensive cars and multimillion-dollar mansions, while many people are struggling just to scrape by, just feels on its face to not be right. Why shouldn't the government step in and do something about the imbalance?

The reason is twofold. For one thing, proponents of this approach can easily lose sight of the fact that the tax system, stretching back to ancient times, and as expressed both by Article I of the original Constitution and the 16th Amendment, was never designed to be some arbitrary vehicle for government redistribution, but rather the primary method of raising money to fund the government. Citizens living under any government's protection are entitled to basic services, such as a military to provide for defense against foreign, hostile incursions; transportation and infrastructure, for the exchange of individuals, ideas, and products; and police and fire departments (in America, at the state and local levels). Taxes are an integral component of the funding of these services, which everyone enjoys. What taxes are not for is taking from some the government deems to have "too much", not for funding reasons but simply because the government deems it necessary to ensure equality of outcome (rather than opportunity).

As important as this distinction is, however, it is the second point that truly undermines the argument about paying a "fair share". Taking more money from some citizens, not merely in dollar amounts but in percentages, is in fact the height of unfairness, taking as it does ever-larger shares from people who, in many cases, worked their entire lives to get to where they are today in terms of wealth. The truly fair method of taxation, the only way to ensure a respect for both fairness and the entire intent of taxation, is to tax everyone at the same rate. Not the same dollar amount--10% or 15% of $30,000 is of course much less than of $1 million--but a single percentage of income for every American, of course exempting those at the very bottom of the income ladder. This method respects justice, fairness, and fiscal necessity, while (through low tax rates) promoting strong economic growth.

American Exceptionalism

While the Founders of America, 240 years ago, could not have dreamed that their creation would one day become a global superpower, in hindsight it seems almost preordained. The Founders were concerned mainly that America would not long survive independence, and as late as the War of 1812 there were fears that the new country would dissolve or be reabsorbed into the British Empire, still the most powerful nation on Earth at the time.

How times have changed.

While certainly not at peak strength, the United States today is still the unrivaled sole global superpower, boasting both the largest economy and most powerful military in the world. But more important is the way we've used that power and influence over the course of our country's history. America may be the first nation in history to successfully declare independence and forge its own path, but it remains the only nation in history to be founded on an idea, rather than merely a shared loyalty to ancestral land. An idea of liberty and freedom, which gave birth to an experiment in which all men were truly, eventually recognized as being created equal.

And the legacy of that founding and that idea has continued to make America exceptional, in how it serves as a universal symbol of hope and freedom. Throughout our history, we've recognized the importance of being that symbol, which is why so many of our wars have been fought not for land or resources, but for the preservation of liberty, either for ourselves or for others. Whether in the Revolution, Civil War, World Wars One and Two, Vietnam, or Afghanistan and Iraq, millions of American soldiers have given their lives in the defense of liberty around the world. We've sought not to occupy and permanently conquer countries liberated from empires and dictators, but to rebuild them and set them on a path to true independence, as with Cuba, Japan, Iraq, and others. And while America has occasionally made mistakes, just as anything created by mortals sometimes does, we've always carried on the larger goal of advancing liberty and freedom with renewed determination.

It is not hyperbole to say that we truly live in the greatest nation in human history.

Political Effects of Puerto Rican Statehood

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the results of Puerto Rico’s latest statehood referendum, and how residents of the island should have the final say on whether or not they become the fifty-first state. It was outside the scope of that post to discuss the effects that a bid for statehood would have on national politics, but I wanted to briefly address some of those political considerations here.

The greatest effect that Puerto Rican statehood would have on national politics would be in two areas—Congressional representation and the number of votes in the Electoral College. The population of the island, which currently stands at a little over 3.4 million according to the latest Census Bureau estimates, would presumably entitle the hypothetical state to either four or five U.S. representatives (when all states are ranked by population, Puerto Rico lands between Iowa, with four representatives, and Connecticut, with five). It would also receive two U.S. senators and, depending on the exact size of its congressional delegation, either six or seven electoral votes.

The most immediate result of statehood would be the reallocation of congressional seats. Whereas there is no statutory limit on the total membership of the U.S. Senate (or, for that matter, the number of votes in the Electoral College, which currently stands at 538), there is currently a cap on voting members of the House, set at 435. Unless Congress decided to raise that limit, or do away with it altogether (which wouldn’t be advisable, for practical reasons), several states would automatically lose a member of Congress to make way for Puerto Rico. As noted by the author of the Hill article linked above, the states most at risk, based on the 2010 redistricting process, would be California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington.

Of course, which specific districts in those states would be consolidated, and how the maps would be redrawn, would be anyone’s guess until the process actually occurred. But it is a certainty that none of those states would take the prospect of losing congressional representation particularly well.

The partisan makeup of the new state’s congressional delegation—as well as the island’s partisan tendencies in presidential elections—would be the other major question with regard to the political effects of statehood. Here as well, those effects are difficult to predict. Puerto Ricans in the United States are known for their tendency to vote Democratic, but island politics are more often based around local parties such as the PNP and PPD. Many politicians also choose to affiliate themselves with the mainline Democratic and Republican parties, and based on this Democrats would start out with a significant advantage in island-wide elections, as well as in many of the new congressional districts (currently, the governor and all three nonvoting representatives in Congress are Democrats). But several Republican-affiliated candidates have also found success in recent years, at both the gubernatorial level and in races for the several at-large seats in the legislature, indicating that the island would couldn’t be counted on to vote as a heavily partisan block.

In short, none of the very real effects of admitting Puerto Rico as the fifty-first state can be known for sure, until that day comes (if it ever does). But two things are a certainty: the substantive impact on national politics will be both noticeable and permanent, and that impact will be sure to become a key factor in any debate over the formal admittance of Puerto Rico into the Union.

Policy Spotlight: Redistricting

The political gerrymandering of congressional districts has been in the news in a big way recently, as the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear arguments in a case concerning whether Wisconsin’s legislative map unconstitutionally deprives Democratic voters of equal representation, dividing them into various majority-Republican districts and weakening their clout in federal elections.

National Democrats are understandably hoping that a Supreme Court decision holding that Democratic voters have been disenfranchised will lead to Republican-drawn congressional maps across the country being overturned and redrawn. If that were to happen in time for the 2018 elections, Democrats could then become more competitive in congressional races across the country, increasing their chances of retaking a majority in the House without having to do the heavy lifting of campaigning for votes or convincing the voters to support their policy goals.

But some state Democrats in liberal strongholds are hoping for a different outcome. Nationwide, the vast majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, meaning that arguments against gerrymandering are more likely to affect maps favorable to the GOP. But in states such as Maryland, the reverse is true, with blatantly partisan maps serving to shut out Republican candidates for congressional seats. If you thought the Wisconsin district map was gerrymandered, take a look at the Maryland map adopted by state Democrats.

It is obvious, and should be expected, that partisan state legislatures will attempt to draw maps favorable to one political party over the other. Neither party is inherently more honest on the subject, which is why an alternative to the partisan maps must be found and adopted across the country. A few states use independent commissions to redraw congressional boundaries after each census, but since both parties are reluctant to give up one of the great benefits of controlling state legislatures, the practice is far from widespread. Another possibility would be an automatic referendum on proposed maps, which would in theory encourage legislatures to keep the influence of partisan politics to a minimum.

Whatever the answer, it is clear that something must change in how we draw congressional boundaries. What should be a nonpartisan and fairly technical task has become increasingly infused with the worst of party politics, and both sides bear some responsibility.

On The Push For Paid Sick Leave

Democrats, nearly as powerless in Washington these days as conservatives, have taken to pushing their liberal agenda in the few remaining states over which they still have some control. One of the more recent examples of this trend is the renewed push for state-level requirements for paid sick leave in several states, including Maryland.

The issue of requiring employers to provide sick leave is one of many which can be hard to understand for many voters not reflexively opposed to government intervention. On this issue, among others, the Democrats have done a good job of portraying themselves as the defenders of the working class, thereby casting Republicans as only concerned with helping big business. The narrative is compelling and can be hard to break.

But requiring employers to provide paid sick leave is a manifestly bad idea. This extends from broader arguments about liberty and the role of government in the private sector economy, to the point that requiring paid sick leave is simply bad policy. Like proposals to increase the minimum wage, it hurts employers of all stripes, particularly small businesses, and ultimately hurts the very employees Democrats claim to be trying to help.

By requiring paid sick leave or other benefits, Democrats would force small businesses to expend greater resources for the same number of employees. Ultimately, those businesses would be forced to choose one of two options, in order to absorb rising costs: lay off some employees, or pass the added costs on to the consumer—or both. In the first scenario, employees, many of whom are likely low-income workers, would lose their jobs. In the second, everyone who patronizes a particular business would be forced to pay more—likely including at least a few workers who lost their jobs due to the same policy of mandatory paid sick leave.

When the government attempts to mandate employee benefits, whether in the form of an elevated minimum wage, paid sick leave, or the employer mandate in Obamacare, it is ultimately small businesses and workers who must pay for it. Higher wages and paid leave are great—but let businesses reach those decisions on their own, with the help of natural market forces and without government interference.

In Support of an Independent Kurdistan

The ethnic Kurdish minority in Iraq has long been both one of the most neglected as scorned factions in the country, and one of the most steadfast American allies in the Middle East. No friends of Saddam Hussein after years of mistreatment and attempted suppression by the main Iraqi government, the Kurds aided coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and more recently have proven invaluable in driving back the forces of ISIS in northern Iraq.

But for all their help, the Kurds are somewhat limited by diplomatic constraints. Kurdistan is an autonomous region within Iraq, and though in practice they have wide latitude in conducting their own internal affairs, they are still ultimately answerable to Baghdad, holding none of the benefits of true independence. They cannot formally represent themselves on the world stage, and are therefore needlessly reliant on other countries.

There is also little doubt that the Kurds as a group have long desired an independent country to call their own. The borders of the modern Iraqi state were drawn in the aftermath of World War One by the League of Nations, with little to no input from native Iraqis. As such, the current borders do not necessarily represent the needs or desires of the Iraqi people, whether Kurd, Shia, or Sunni.

The Kurdish people have been loyal American allies who want a country to call their own. The United States should act as a mediator between the Kurdish regional government and the main Iraqi government in Baghdad to help them achieve that goal. If successful, Kurdistan, the United States, and Iraq, along with the elusive goal of Middle Eastern peace, would benefit.

Lasting Peace In Israel: The Ultimate Deal

So far, and largely in keeping with the premise of his “America First” campaign, the Trump presidency has been focused on domestic issues. Foreign policy has of course played a significant role—no president can focus exclusively on one or the other—but apart from military decisions in Syria (which Trump has for the most part outsourced to the Pentagon), crisis-management responses to the latest provocations of North Korea, and some antagonistic dealings with NATO and the G-7, domestic policy has been the centerpiece of the administration to this point. Foreign dealings have focused on a direct relationship to core American interests.

But I fully expect the administration to take on a more active role in world affairs, for the simple reason that America is still the most powerful nation and will inevitably be drawn into any major international dispute. And in the most well-known international dispute in modern times—the ongoing clashes between Israel and the Palestinians—expect Trump to get personally involved and make a strong push for a successful resolution. Contingent, as always, on domestic politics, I think Trump will be unable to resist making an Israeli-Palestinian deal a major focal point of his presidency.

For the man who campaigned on making deals, the author of The Art of the Deal who blasted “stupid politicians” making “bad deals”, the chance to solve the centerpoint of so much violence in the Middle East will be nearly impossible to resist. It would be the ultimate chance to prove himself on the world stage.

Whether anything would come of the negotiations is a different matter entirely. U.S. presidents have been trying for decades, with no permanent, satisfactory resolution to show for it. But, again contingent on the realities of domestic politics, look for Trump to make a significant push on the issue, perhaps after the midterms next year.

It is hard to imagine a man with the ego and love of deal-making such as Trump, given the power and influence of the office of the American Presidency, attempting anything less.