A Bleeding Heart Libertarian Bill

During the Porcupine Tribune hiatus, I learned something about myself. It began with what I termed “Radical Indifference,” wherein I became so ambivalent to the wrong-headedness of all sides of debate that I
checked out entirely and angrily. After diving into a good amount of Hayek and the Anti-Federalists, some great conversations with thinkers such as Jessica Flannigan and Gary Chartier, and sufficient time away with my thoughts, I would like to suggest a new bill that is built around the reduction of invasive, leviathan government, the advancement of justice, and the sort of compromise William F. Buckley, Jr. Jr. discusses in his new love letter  to Woodrow Wilson (okay, that may be a mischaracterization of a great article).  A two-plank bill as sweeping, idealistic, and improbable as the “Green New Deal,” and even with similar aims, but without
calling for big government control and force.

Replace all federal entitlement programs with a universal basic income. Many across the conservative,
libertarian, and even anarchist spectrum more qualified than myself have been moving towards this idea from a variety of angles (see here and here for examples). This would address concerns across all ends of the political spectrum and establishes a more just system of addressing poverty. Among other merits, this would  1) eliminate the degrading and intrusive process of showing one’s underwear to the government, so to speak, in order to receive help, 2) prepare us for the coming decrease in low-skill jobs that will likely follow a more automated society, 3) drastically reduce the overall size and scope of government while offering more streamlined, efficient, and tangible help to those in need, and 4) create a system focused on investment in
the individual as opposed to the forced dependency in place now.

Replace federal income tax with revenue neutral carbon tax. The income tax is unjust. There is no compelling argument authorizing the forced taking of earned income from labor. Further, as taxation is increasingly (for better or for worse), used as a means to disincentivize specific behaviors (“sin taxes”) and to nudge other behaviors (the ACA individual mandate). If this is the accepted purpose of taxation, what, outside of revenue collection, can be inferred by the collection of income taxes? A more just and beneficial solution is replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. This would tax behavior that actually negatively impacts other individuals (you have a right to your property, but not to contaminate my air) instead of positive behavior (thereby allowing individuals to keep their earned money in their pockets). And, while my free market beliefs push me away from governmental nudges of this kind as a rule, it would attack cronyist regulations and encourage, instead, businesses to find tax savings through innovation such as 3D printing over transportation. This, along with deregulation, may also create a demand for other innovations such
self-driving uber fleets and even 3D printed meats.

What's In a Question?

President Trump views the Supreme Court decision, last week, against the addition of a controversial citizenship question to the 2020 Census as a temporary setback as opposed to an unfavorable conclusion.  While Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that after the decision the administration would be dropping the effort, tweets on Wednesday and Thursday has spurred the Justice and Commerce departments to pull out the stops and burn the midnight oil in order to come up with a new legal rationale for the inclusion of the question in time to meet the 2p.m. deadline today (Friday, 7/5/2019) set by a federal judge in Maryland to explain how it plans to proceed.  While this renewed fight may come at the ire of moderate Republicans who believe it to be fruitless and a waste of time, there is still a vocal contingent urging the president to continue the effort.  President Trump has even hinted at the potential of getting the question back on the form through use of executive order.

The tie between the Census and the formation of electoral districts makes any matter regarding the addition or subtraction of questions from the form inherently political.  Ross has stated previously that the proposed citizenship question would use the same wording as what is already in use in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.  Supporters of the addition of the question, such as The Heritage Foundation’s Senior Legal Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky, view its addition as common sense in order to attain accurate data on the US population.  While detractors, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar, suggest that such a question would discourage immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, from participating in the Census.  This would, as they argue, lead to an undercount of the U.S. population and would impact the amount of federal funds and congressional seats going to districts with larger immigrant populations.

There is no question that the ruling served as a major setback for President Trump.  But it is important to understand that the ruling does not kill the issue, it merely sends it back to lower courts to be hashed out.  In a dissent joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should have stopped its analysis when it determined that the citizenship question was both constitutional and within the authority of the Commerce Secretary, and that by doubting Secretary Ross’ motives ignored the “the presumption of regularity” the courts owe to federal agencies.  Further cementing Justice Thomas as a bright and shining example of originalism on the Court today.

Now that we’ve gotten the context portion of this piece out of the way, lets jump into the hard reality.  Politics is a zero-sum game.  What helps Republicans hurts Democrats, and vice versa.  The fact that in 2019 a federal form tasked with gathering demographic data about people living in the United States asking if people living within the United States are citizens of the United States is ridiculous.  The fearmongering being spun up on the Left is blatantly irresponsible.  Let’s just clear the air, the data gathered by the Census cannot be used by federal law enforcement agencies to rally up illegal immigrants for mass deportation.  Title 13 of the US Code (The Census Law) is very straight forward, responses to Census Bureau surveys and censuses are required to be kept confidential and used for statistical purposes only.  The Census Bureau only publishes aggregated statics which do not reveal information about particular individuals, households or businesses.

This question is not malevolent or even unique to the United States in the “Trump Age”.  The United Nations recommends that its member countries ask a citizenship question on their censuses.  The United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany all ask the question.  Only in the U.S. has this issue been considered controversial.  Former Attorney General Eric “Too Fast Too Furious” Holder claim that the question is “irresponsible” and “unconstitutional”.  I’d beg to differ.  The question traces it’s roots back to none other than Thomas Jefferson, who first proposed the question in 1800.  The question officially became part of the decennial census in 1820 and was included on every census until 1950 when it was moved to the “long form”, which was sent to one in every six households, until its discontinuation in 2000.  Since then the question has been sent with the American Community Survey.  To recap, the question traces it roots back to the father of the Declaration of Independence, has been asked for longer than it has not been asked.

Regarding Holder’s doubts of constitutionality, I’d urge him to dust off his pocket constitution (I’m positive I’m not the only one who has one) and flip to Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 wherein the power to conduct the census is given to the Congress, and in 13 U.S. Code Sec. 5, the power is delegated to the Secretary of Commerce who “shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title.”

In my time analyzing the bureaucracy I’ve found that Occam’s razor tends to apply.  When there exist multiple explanations for an occurrence, the one that requires the least speculation is usually correct.  In reality this citizenship question is nothing more than a mundane bureaucratic form change.  One which is inline with numerous other nations and allies throughout the world.  The Democrats are providing lip service stating that they are looking out for vulnerable immigrant communities, while in reality they are simply fearmongering.  They don’t care about response rates; they care about how the returns will affect future electoral maps.  The reality is that the question provides valuable data which will improve the electoral equality for all U.S. citizens by staying true to the principle, one person, one vote.

The New Abolitionist Imperative

As the drama of Virginia Governor Ralph “Coonman” Northam, abortion enthusiast and racist moonwalker, continues to unfold, the revelation of seemingly multiple incidents of past racism have entirely overshadowed his abhorrent abortion comments. While every aspect of the Northam ordeal deserves discussion (WFB Jr. Jr. does a great job doing so here), it is truly unfortunate that after a fleeting moment of national attention and discussion, the world’s leading cause of death fell yet again to the background.

Brushing aside the abortion conversation is nothing new: newly announced 2020 independent presidential candidate Howard Schultz recently did exactly that while appearing on the View, stating “I think the most important thing facing the country right now is not the issue of abortion or the cultural issues that divide us.” But relegating abortion to a “cultural” or, as is likewise common, “social” issue is about as reasonable as describing America’s history of slavery in the same terms. While many balk at drawing parallels between slavery and abortion, the similarities are often unavoidable and this case is no exception: the abysmal practice, once condoned and protected legally (the justification of which hinging on pseudoscientific arguments, such as phrenology, that denied the humanity of an entire subset of people) cannot be viewed as a minor “cultural issue” for which differences of opinion are valid and acceptable.

It was for this reason that a large portion of the Whig Party in the mid-1800’s defected and formed the Republican Party: there was a scientific and moral imperative to abolish slavery, and they recognized it. So to now with abortion. While the pro-choice movement has shamed pro-lifers into softening language and has reframed the argument into a women’s health issue, the fact that as a nation we are condoning and legally protecting the mass killing of preborn lives is every bit as morally and scientifically indefensible as slavery; as with founding father slaveholders, it is this barbarism which will plant an asterisk by the accomplishments of today’s leaders and thinkers when looked upon historically. As such, there exists now a new abolitionist imperative to end this practice.

When viewed through a lens of intellectual honesty and objectivity, the scientific arguments for where a life begins are unassailable. Conception is the earliest stage of human growth, at conception all of required characteristics of life as defined biologically are met, and conception is the point at which a unique set of human DNA is created. The science is clear: life begins at conception, regardless of how one may feel about that fact.

Though on the surface it seems paradoxical, this case has been articulated by Peter Singer, one of the best known voices for abortion rights. In an interview with the San Francisco Review of Books, Singer stated “My view of when life begins isn’t very different from that of opponents of abortion. It isn’t unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn’t, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples.” In the same interview he dismissed viability as being a suitable metric in this conversation, as it “varies with the state of medical technology, and for that reason doesn’t seem a good place to draw a line.”

Singer justifies abortion by applying the philosophical concept of “personhood” as being different than being a human being. Because Singer holds this view from an intellectually honest perspective, he cannot define an unborn human as not having achieved the standards of “personhood” and also make the claim an infant has, arguing that “the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time”.

While I profoundly disagree with Singer regarding abortion and infanticide, he is among the few that follow this “personhood” distinction to its only logical conclusion. Singer has taken much criticism for this position, but I would argue that this is the only logical pro-choice position. If you consider yourself to be pro-choice, but are uncomfortable with infanticide or even with denying that an infant is a person, you are holding an inconsistent position.

This line of thinking would seem to be the ideological origin of the recently passed bill in New York and with the proposed bill in Virginia. Polling has consistently shown that Americans overwhelmingly do not support the concept of late term abortions, and it should follow that most Americans would then be uncomfortable (to say the least) with the idea of infanticide. Most pro-choice positions, then, are rooted in ill-conceived, ill-defined, or outright intellectually dishonest logical origins. An example is the completely disingenuous nonsense abortion stance peddled by the likes of Senator and former Vice-Presidential nominee Tim Kaine, who describes himself as being personally opposed to abortion, but politically pro-choice:

If abortion were not the ending of a life, there is absolutely no reason to be “personally opposed”; in fact, I would be personally for it: I have a wife, a daughter, and five younger sisters who know and will always know well that I would never presume to be more capable or equipped of making decisions about their lives than any of them are and moreover I would never have a desire to do so.

But the science makes it clear that each abortion is the ending of a life. Singer, one of the most important ethical thinkers of our time and ardent abortion supporter, makes it clear that there is no personhood line that doesn’t likewise apply to killing infants. And it is universally agreed upon, across creed and culture, that the murder of innocent life is inherently wrong. At this time, there is no fight more worthy, no fight more necessary, than the fight to save the millions of innocent lives being taken every year in our country. This is the right side of history.

- John Dos Passos Dos

Fed's Dead Baby, Fed's Dead

In the age of the Marvel Cinematic Universe an all too common archetype is the unknown or overlooked hero emerging at the most fortuitous time to take on the villain and restore order and justice to the land.  Steve Rogers went from an altruistic and patriotic sideshow attraction to Captain America, Bruce Banner went from mild mannered introvert to the Incredible Hulk, and (one of my personal favorites) Peter Parker went from lonely outsider to the Amazing Spider Man.

What would this trope look like in the real world?  More specifically, what would it look like deep within the bowels of the Rayburn House Office Building?

That hero would have an unwavering conviction to the constitution.  The hero would fight tirelessly against the self-serving status quo to promote individual liberties and ensure government transparency.  That hero is a congressman from Kentucky and his name is Thomas Massie.

On January 3rd, Representative Massie introduced H.R.24 – Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 which, if passed, would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks.

For the long-time fed skeptics and the ardent Massie followers, this bill should seem very familiar.  Massie introduced similar bills in 2017 and 2015, Paul Broun introduced a similar bill in 2014, and the perennial liberty crusader Ron Paul introduced a similar bill in 2009.

The Federal Reserve System has long been a thorn in the side of free market evangelists.  Its fingerprints can be found on the Great Depression, the Great Inflation of 1966-1981, and the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.  These disasters are not unique to our central bank, but to central banking in general.  In 2011, the European Central Bank played a role in the Eurozone’s double-dip recession through a series of quarter point adjustments to the target interest rate.

As you read this, you may be asking yourself “Why isn’t this covered in the news and the center of a public debate?” or “Why haven’t our elected officials done anything about this?”

The answer is that as a country, we are not well educated about the role the Fed plays in developing our monetary policy, the powers it holds, or the impact it has on our day to day lives.  Our elected officials also have little recourse to reel in the Fed’s powers because Fed operations are not transparent.  In its over 100-year history it has never been fully audited by an outside source and continually resists any kind of congressional oversight.  Congress may have birthed the beast, but it has little role in monitoring or regulating it under the pretense of it being independent of politics.

In short, the Fed has entirely too much power to be left unaccountable.  The central bank independently controls and determines the money supply and it has the ability to create money without restriction.  This translates to the fate of our monetary policy being left up to seven unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats serving on the Board of Governors.

By developing our monetary policy, the Fed controls the aggregate demand, i.e. the total amount of spending in the economy.  It’s able to manipulate the aggregate demand by making adjustments to the money supply and the short-term interest rates.  In effect, the Fed plays a massive role in affecting the inflation in our economy.

These practices have led to what Dan Sanchez from the Foundation for Economic Freedom has described as the Federal Reserve’s shell game.  It is able to take on a monetary expansion policy which it uses its ability to produce FIAT money to inflate the money supply.  Alternatively, if the US government seeks to borrow from a private bank, the US Treasury creates a treasury bond note (an Uncle Sam IOU) which gives the bond holder the ability to recoup the principal plus interest.  The Fed, looking for government debt, purchases the treasury bond from the private lender (in which the private lender makes a profit).  The federal government now owes itself money and is paying itself interest.  As Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff puts it:

“The Treasury pays interest and principal to the Fed on the bonds, but the Fed hands that interest and principal back to the Treasury as profits earned by a government corporation, namely the Fed.”

While this arrangement may seem ideal (the government gets the funds required to purchase what it needs, a private lender makes a profit, and the government just ends up paying the interest back to itself), in actuality its causing inflation and growing the size of government.  The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains that as these false booms are occurring, caused by the increased money supply, misleading signals are being sent to producers.  Because interest rates are low and available money is plenty, they increase production, not necessarily tied to demand.  This increased production is a malinvestment, i.e. a poor allocation of resources.

These examples and their negative affects on our economy, and ultimately us as citizens, are precisely why a bill like H.R.24 is so necessary.  It provides the crucial first step in making the Federal Reserve System more transparent and accountable to the citizens of the United States.  I applaud Representative Massie and the twenty-five men and women co-sponsoring this bill.

In a future article I will discuss policy prescriptions, both radical and pragmatic, to adjust and reform the Federal Reserve System.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Backed Up Against the Wall: Trump's Options Moving Forward

As Nancy Pelosi regained her speakership after spending the past eight years in the minority, she gaveled in the end of Republican unified government for the foreseeable future.  One of her first acts in the role was to call a vote to reopen the government, noticeably and poignantly, lacking any funding for the border wall.  What is sure to be remembered as a Republican mishandling of a previously bi-partisan issue, the question has shifted to “Now what?” for many on the Right who have been left, unceremoniously, without closure.  Has border security become an afterthought?  Will Republicans go home and tell their constituents “we’ll get ‘em next time?”

One hopes not, there is still much to be done and fight left in the administration.  What Republicans need to be asking is what actions can President Trump take to unilaterally protect the border?  Back in November, the Center for Immigration Studies released a backgrounder by Dan Cadman which provided an overview of the President’s emergency immigration powers.  Among the many listed, use of the military, border agent force multipliers, and modifying the asylum policy show the most promise.

In late October 2018, the President deployed more than 5,000 active-duty soldiers to the US-Mexico border to assist Border Patrol agents in preparation for the arrival of the caravan of migrants making their way from Central America.  Troops were utilized for their specialized skills in setting up the logistical supply chains and infrastructure needed to handle the asylum seekers, numbering in the thousands.

With the operation set to end on Jan. 31st, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing to request that the Pentagon not only extend the deployment, but send additional troops.  One hopes the severity of this crisis will not be lost on the new Democratic majority in the House and urges them to reconsider their stance on the border wall funding.  As they have a history of ignoring the expertise of border officials in the past, it’s unlikely they will change course now.

As mentioned previously, President Trump’s options don’t solely rely on the armed forces.  Per Cadman in the backgrounder, “the president can assign as many federal law enforcement personnel as he chooses, en masse, to be temporarily assigned to border security duties.”  The federal agency most likely to be readily prepared to deal with this issue and most impact the border security goals as a force multiplier is the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).  DEA agents are already active along the US-Mexico border battling the ever present threats of drug trafficking by illegal immigrants affiliated with the cartels.  They possess the specialized training (language, logistics, terrain) to deal with the migrants, and by securing the border they also work towards their agency’s mission of reducing the flow of drugs and gangs entering the Country.

The President is also empowered by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to cross-designate and deploy local and state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws.  Section 103(a)(10) of the INA reads:

(10) IN the event the Attorney General determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General may authorize any State or Local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform an exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

Empowering local and state agencies to assist in border security has numerous positives.  Chief among them is that these local officers operating in the region are familiar with illegal immigration and are best equipped to know what solutions would work best in their jurisdiction.  Additionally since it is unlikely that the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, would condone such actions, but Doug Ducey (Governor of Arizona) or Greg Abbott (Governor of Texas) might, it would allow for the President to focus federal law enforcement resources on the California border and entrust the state/local officials in Arizona and Texas to be dedicated to the cause of protecting their communities.

The options listed above are all reactionary in nature.  To truly impact our broken immigration policies, we will need to close the loopholes in the asylum system.  Too often illegal immigrants are able to shirk a quick deportation by claiming asylum.  With a success rate of around 10% actually being granted asylum it is clear that the system is broken.  On December 20th, the Administration took steps to deal with the issue when Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen accounted that the United States will begin the process of invoking Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA, better known as the Migration Protection Protocol (MPP).

Under the MPP, individual who enter the United States from Mexico illegally may be returned to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceedings.  In the announcement Nielson said, “We will confront this crisis head on, uphold the rule of law, and strengthen our humanitarian commitments.  Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates.  Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are Mexico.  ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced by ‘catch and return.’”

The impacts of this move will serve to reduce the number of asylum claims by removing the incentive to attempt to game the system and skip their court appearance and never be seen again.  Those who actually need asylum will receive the focus they deserve and experience faster processing times since the system will not be burdened by false claimants.  Our border security personnel will be able to focus on their primary mission of keeping our borders secured instead of reducing the asylum backlog.

In an age when the Left is calling for the dissolution of ICE and CBP and refuse to fund a physical barrier along the border, this Administration must find a creative solution to surpass the barriers and ensure that the border is secure.  This is not only an immigration issue, but much broader national security issue.  Something must be done, if not a physical barrier then we must use what tools and options we have at our disposal.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.