Tuesday, April 30, 2013

What if we could choose where our taxes go?


What if we could choose where our taxes go?
By Farah Stockman

APRIL 30, 2013

This is the time of year I usually start thinking about filing my taxes. It’s late, I know. But I have a
hard time facing it. All that paperwork is enough to make the most ardent liberal fantasize about a
flat rate. The worst part is that no one ever lets you know what good your money does. You don’t
even get an itemized receipt.

According to a tax calculator by a group called Third Way, here’s what my $22,000 in federal
taxes bought last year: $4,462 worth of Social Security (not bad if it still exists when I’m old) and
$4,436 for the military (I know I’m splurging, but those fighter jets aren't going to build
themselves).

I spent $2,966 on Medicare, $2,012 on low-­income assistance, and $741 on unemployment
compensation. (Had I given that to a private charity, I’d at least get a “thank you” note telling me
how awesome I am.) Interest on the the national debt cost me $1,625. If I could just pay that
down, I’d be able to afford Medicaid, which cost almost the same amount.

My tab with the federal government, which includes $2.53 to run the White House and $96.57 for
the IRS, adds up to a hefty amount. But the truth is, I would gladly kick in a couple extra bucks
for some items: Education, which cost me $466. Or foreign aid, which cost $132.

That got me thinking: Would other Americans be willing to pay higher taxes if they had control
over where the money went?

Catherine Eckel, an economist at Texas A&M University, thinks so.She conducted an experiment that gave volunteers $20, with the option to pocket it all or to donate some to the federal government.

Eighty percent choose to donate, giving an average of $1.68 each. When Eckel allowed them to target their donation to two specific federally funded programs, people gave far more: an average of $4.04 to disaster relief and $5.52 to cancer research.

If the government allowed at least some of our taxes to go to what we care about most,
would some of us pay more?

“People are willing to give close to three times as much when they can target the money,” Eckel
said.

What would happen if Tea Party members could send their taxes to pay down the national debt? If
progressives could pay for social programs? If hawks could fund the military?

Obviously, you can’t run a government like this. But if people were allowed to direct at least a
portion of their taxes to what they care about most, wouldn't they be happier paying taxes?

Wouldn't they be willing to pay more?

That might sound crazy. But each year for the past decade, more than 1,000 people in
Massachusetts have voluntarily paid higher taxes. It started off as a joke. In 2002, after the state
dropped its state income tax rate from 5.85 percent down to 5 percent, Citizens for Limited
Taxation filed a bill to preserve the option of paying the old rate.

“We filed it to be sarcastic,” recalled Barbara Anderson, the group’s executive director. “Liberals
liked to come up and say, ‘I’m happy to pay more taxes.’ We thought it would be fun to give them
what they want.”

Anderson didn’t think anyone would actually pay it. But so far the measure has generated a total
of about $2.4 million. That’s not enough to put a dent in the state’s $35 billion annual budget. But
it ain’t zero. The Texas experiment suggests that more people would choose this option if they
could send the extra taxes to something they care about — the governor’s early education
proposal, for instance. Or to repair a specific road or bridge.

I asked Anderson, who is philosophically opposed to giving the government more than she has to,
if she likes that idea.

“I have often wondered what would happen if, when you paid your taxes, you could check off the
things that you want your taxes to go to,” she said.Anderson doesn’t trust the government to do what it says it will with her money. But she tells me she once voted for a temporary local tax increase so that the town of Marblehead could buy a piece of open land to preserve it as a park.

“When I absolutely know where the money is going, and it can’t go anywhere else, then yes,” she
said. So maybe we are onto something here. Maybe this idea really could help solve our fiscal
woes. Of course, that might mean more paperwork at tax time. But I’d feel better about filling it
out.

Farah Stockman can be reached at fstockman@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @fstockman.

Nearly Sideswiped by Another Green Car


  • The Wall Street Journal
Fisker Automotive featured in a House hearing this week, as congressmen questioned how that luxury electric-car maker—now in financial straits—ever qualified for a $529 million federal loan guarantee. The Obama Energy Department is facing some awkward questions—a la Solyndra—about what role politics played in granting that subsidy.
Perhaps we need not guess. For an excellent study in how green-energy cronyism works, look instead to the near miss (for taxpayers) of Next AutoWorks. That startup applied for a $320 million federal loan guarantee in 2009, promising a Louisiana factory that would produce cheap and fuel-efficient cars. Next didn't, ultimately, get its loans.
It wasn't from a lack of political lobbying. Emails referenced in a House Oversight subcommittee hearing this week confirm every suspicion about the degree to which powerful moneymen worked the system on behalf of their investments, pushing their political contacts to roll over Energy's credit department.
Next AutoWorks—founded in 2006 as V-Vehicle—was a green darling. It was backed by heavyweights like Google Ventures and T. Boone Pickens, though its star investor was Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins, which (back then) was making a huge green play. The venture capital firm had made an art of lining up its portfolio companies—Next, Fisker, AltaRock, Agrivida, EdenIQ—for President Obama's green handouts. It hired insiders like Al Gore, and its partners donated some $2 million to 2008 political campaigns—mostly to Democrats.
image
Bloomberg
Jonathan Silver, former director of the Energy Department's loan office.
Next had lots riding on the loan guarantees, including $67 million in grants from Louisiana. Yet by early 2010 the Energy Department had rejected the company's initial application. Kleiner Perkins partner Ray Lane stepped in as interim CEO, and Next revised its application. Yet even as an entirely new CEO took over in October 2010, the emails show it was Kleiner working the phones and offices in Washington to land Next its money.
A special object of attention was Jonathan Silver, the Obama official in charge of Energy's loan program from November 2009 to October 2011. In November 2010, an Energy official who worked with Mr. Silver sent an email to Jim McCrea, one of Energy's credit consultants, prodding him to give a judgment on the revised application. Why?
Because "Ray Lane is apparently in Washington on Monday and Tuesday and is going to be attempting to get a meeting with Jonathan . . . Is there anything that Credit feels comfortable sharing with Next that can put some general perspective on what the deal is facing in terms of challenges?" read the email.
Mr. McCrea was not thrilled about being pushed by the Silver team, and wrote back that "[Next] is moving too fast and it would be better for us to do the work as we have discussed . . . rather than for there to be a Ray Lane/Jonathan meeting." He adds: "I do think it is appropriate to confirm . . . that at the present time, we do not think that it could be approved."
A January 2011 email from an Energy employee to Mr. Silver informs him "Ray Lane . . . Would like a call with you at any point today to discuss Next Autoworks." A long email from Mr. Lane to Mr. Silver on March 24, 2011, confirms he'd snagged an in-person meeting with the Obama official the night before.
The email is Mr. Lane's "summary" of that meeting, at which "we both agreed that we're both frustrated by the lack of resources working on Next's application." Mr. Lane lays out his grievances with the credit committee's demands, and finishes: "Jonathan, most importantly, we agreed to stay in touch and drive the process top down. The first step would be a 'pizza' meeting with the Credit team (head of Credit?) next week. I'm pleased you are helping to drive this."
On Monday, May 16, 2011, Mr. McCrea receives news from a fellow Energy consultant, Stephen Fisher, that "Jonathan wants a letter back to Next, draft by Wednesday, that gives them the parameters of a deal. John Doerr buttonholed him over the weekend." [Mr. Doerr is the Kleiner Perkins partner given a slot on President Obama's Jobs Council.] Two days later, Mr. McCrea is informed by Mr. Fisher that a letter is indeed going to Next detailing a "framework." Mr. Fisher confides that he does "not believe this letter should be sent," and notes that "Mr. Doerr is visiting Jonathan next Tuesday." Mr. McCrea tersely responds: "They can do what they want but I will not let that limit my review of the transaction in the future."
Mr. McCrea follows this with a blast email to Mr. Silver and his colleagues noting that he has "not reviewed" the framework letter. "I have long stated my belief that we should not be doing anything with Next and reiterate that view at this time. I have not seen or heard anything about this transaction that makes it compelling in any way."
Yet that doesn't stop the political team or Kleiner Perkins. Mr. Fisher informs Mr. McCrea several days later that he'd spent a "very long day yesterday with Next (10 am-5.45)" and that "Jonathan talked to John Doerr and Ray Lane on the phone at the end. They agreed we need to have 2x/week calls to status." Despite the credit department's obvious disdain, the process would drag on through the September 2011 Solyndra bankruptcy. In October, Mr. Silver resigned; in November, Energy pulled the plug on Next. Kleiner Perkins did not respond to a request from the Journal for comment.
The Energy Department has long claimed that its loans were made on merit, and that in this case merit won out. Yet would that have been true if Solyndra hadn't happened? The emails show how well-connected benefactors used their political pull to go around credit officials and try to drive the process "top down." This is called "politics," and it underlines the folly of government moonlighting as an investor.
Was the process for Fisker (also backed by Kleiner Perkins) the same? The Obama Energy Department is keeping tight rein on documents, so we don't know. But the Next story shows we ought to.
Write to kim@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared April 26, 2013, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Nearly Sideswiped by Another Green Car.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Democracy May Have Had Its Day


  • The Wall Street Journal
New Haven, Conn.
Donald Kagan is engaging in one last argument. For his "farewell lecture" here at Yale on Thursday afternoon, the 80-year-old scholar of ancient Greece—whose four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War inspired comparisons to Edward Gibbon's Roman history—uncorked a biting critique of American higher education.
Universities, he proposed, are failing students and hurting American democracy. Curricula are "individualized, unfocused and scattered." On campus, he said, "I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness." Rare are "faculty with atypical views," he charged. "Still rarer is an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values." He counseled schools to adopt "a common core of studies" in the history, literature and philosophy "of our culture." By "our" he means Western.
This might once have been called incitement. In 1990, as dean of Yale College, Mr. Kagan argued for the centrality of the study of Western civilization in an "infamous" (his phrase) address to incoming freshmen. A storm followed. He was called a racist—or as the campus daily more politely editorialized, a peddler of "European cultural arrogance."
Not so now. Mr. Kagan received a long standing ovation from students and alumni in the packed auditorium. Heading into retirement, he has been feted as a beloved and popular teacher and Yale icon. The PC wars of the 1990s feel dated. Maybe, as one undergrad told me after the lecture, "the pendulum has started to swing back" toward traditional values in education.
Mr. Kagan offers another explanation. "You can't have a fight," he says one recent day at his office, "because you don't have two sides. The other side won."
image
Zina Saunders
He means across academia, but that is also true in his case. Mr. Kagan resigned the deanship in April 1992, lobbing a parting bomb at the faculty that bucked his administration. His plans to create a special Western Civilization course at Yale—funded with a $20 million gift from philanthropist and Yale alum Lee Bass, who was inspired by the 1990 lecture—blew up three years later amid a political backlash. "I still cry when I think about it," says Mr. Kagan.
As he looks at his Yale colleagues today, he says, "you can't find members of the faculty who have different opinions." I point at him. "Not anymore!" he says and laughs. The allure of "freedom" and "irresponsibility" were too strong to resist, he says.
His sharp tongue and easy sense of humor hearken to the Brooklyn of his youth. Born in 1932 in a Lithuanian shtetl, Mr. Kagan was raised in Brownsville, which was then a working-class Jewish neighborhood. He rooted for the Yankees on Brooklyn Dodgers turf—"everything you need to know about him," as his son Robert, the neoconservative writer, once said. He was a high school fullback. Mr. Kagan is personally warm, always tough and occasionally smart alecky. Imagine Robert DeNiro as an eminent conservative scholar of ancient Athens. He has no patience for "nonsense" or "wrong ideas." He's a guy who'll tell you what's what and that's that. Generations of faculty and students came away bruised from Kagan encounters.
The tussles over course offerings and campus speech of course speak to something larger. Democracy, wrote Mr. Kagan in "Pericles of Athens" (1991), is "one of the rarest, most delicate and fragile flowers in the jungle of human experience." It relies on "free, autonomous and self-reliant" citizens and "extraordinary leadership" to flourish, even survive.
These kinds of citizens aren't born—they need to be educated. "The essence of liberty, which is at the root of a liberal education, is that meaningful freedom means that you have choices to make," Mr. Kagan says. "At the university, there must be intellectual variety. If you don't have [that], it's not only that you are deprived of knowing some of the things you might know. It's that you are deprived of testing the things that you do know or do think you know or believe in, so that your knowledge is superficial."
As dean, Mr. Kagan championed hard sciences, rigorous hiring standards for faculty, and the protection of free speech. Those who see liberal education in crisis return to those ideas. "Crisis suggests it might recover," Mr. Kagan shoots back. "Maybe it's had its day. Democracy may have had its day. Concerns about the decline of liberty in our whole polity is what threatens all of the aspects of it, including democracy."
Taking a grim view of the Periclean era in Athens, Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy inevitably led to tyranny. The Founding Fathers took on their criticism and strove to balance liberty with equality under the law. Mr. Kagan, who grew up a Truman Democrat, says that when he was young the U.S. needed to redress an imbalance by emphasizing equality. The elite universities after the war opened to minorities and women, not to mention Brooklyn College grads like himself—then "it was all about merit," he says.
The 1960s brought a shift and marked his own political awakening. Teaching at Cornell, Mr. Kagan watched armed black students occupy a university building in 1969. The administration caved to their demands without asking them to give up their rifles and bandoliers. He joined Allan Bloom and other colleagues in protest. In the fall of that year, he moved to Yale. Bloom ended up at the University of Chicago and in 1987 published "The Closing of the American Mind," his best-selling attack on the shortcomings of higher education.
In the decades since, faculties have gained "extraordinary authority" over universities, Mr. Kagan says. The changes in the universities were mirrored in the society at large. "The tendency in this century and in the previous century at least has been toward equality of result and every other kind of equality that could be claimed without much regard for liberty," he says. "Right now the menace is certainly to liberty."
Over lunch at the private Mory's club last week, we marvel over the first-ever NCAA championship for Yale's hockey team, the oldest program in the country. "Unbelievable!" says Mr. Kagan with the gleam of a sports obsessive. In 1987, he stepped in for a year to direct Yale's athletic department—probably the only classics professor ever to hold the post anywhere. His first initiative was to call to disband the NCAA or take Yale out of it. "I wish I had," he says. "It's so disgusting, it's so hypocritical, it's so wicked. The NCAA is just a trade organization meant to increase profits."
Whether athletics, democracy or war are the topics of discussion, Mr. Kagan can offer examples from the ancients. His lifelong passion is Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War—the epic clash between those former allies, militaristic Sparta and democratic Athens, that closed out the fifth century B.C.
As Thucydides wrote, people go to war out of "honor, fear and interest." War, he also said, "is a violent teacher." Another enduring lesson from him, says Mr. Kagan, is "that you can expect people, whatever they may be, to seek to maximize their power"—then a slight pause—"unless they're Europeans and have checked their brains at the door, so mortified are they, understandably, by what happened to them in the 20th century. They can't be taken seriously."
These days the burden of seriousness among free states falls on America, a fickle and unusual power. The Romans had no qualms about quashing their enemies, big or small. While the U.S. won two global conflicts and imposed and protected the current global order, the recent record shows failed or inconclusive engagements in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Some would argue that free societies are too soft to fight brutal wars too long. Mr. Kagan offers culture and political leadership as an explanation. "We're a certain kind of culture which makes it hard for us to behave rationally when the rational thing is to be tough," he says. "We can do it when we're scared to death and there seem to be no alternatives. When it's time to nail down something, we very often sneak away."
The protection and distance offered by two oceans gives America the idea—or delusion—of being able to stay out of the world's problems. Mr. Kagan also wonders about possible "geocultural" shifts at play. A hundred years ago, most people worked the land for themselves. Today they work for a paycheck, usually in an office. "Fundamentally we are dependent on people who pay our salaries," says Mr. Kagan. "In the liberal era, in our lifetime, we have come more to expect it is the job of the government to provide for the needs that we can't provide. Everything is negotiable. Everything is subject to talk." Maybe that has weakened the American will.
Also don't forget, says Mr. Kagan, "unsubtle Christianity" and its strong strain of pacifism. "Who else has a religion filled with the notion 'turn the other cheek'?" he asks. "Who ever heard of such a thing?! If you're gonna turn the other cheek, go home. Give up the ball."
In 2000, Mr. Kagan and his younger son, Frederick, a military historian and analyst, published "While America Sleeps." The book argued for the reversal of the Clinton Cold War peace dividend to meet unforeseen but inevitable threats to come. The timing was uncanny. A year later, 9/11 forced the Pentagon to rearm.
With the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the U.S. is slashing defense again. "We do it every time," Mr. Kagan says. "Failing to understand the most elementary childish fact, which is: If you don't want trouble with somebody else, be sure he has something to be afraid of."
Brownsville, not Thucydides, taught him that. "Any kid who grows up in a relatively tough neighborhood gets quick early lessons in what the realities are," he says. His 1995 book, "On the Origins of War," made a moral and strategic case to exert as much effort and money to safeguard peace as to win a war.
Thucydides identified man's potential for folly and greatness. Mr. Kagan these days tends toward the darker view. He sees threats coming from Iran and in Asia, yet no leadership serious about taking them up. The public is too ignorant or irresponsible to care. "When you allow yourself to think of it, you don't know whether you are going to laugh or cry," he says.
The Kagan thesis is bleak but not fatalistic. The fight to shape free citizens in schools, through the media and in the public square goes on. "There is no hope for anything if you don't have a population that buys into" a strong and free society, he says. "That can only be taught. It doesn't come in nature."
Mr. Kaminski is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
A version of this article appeared April 27, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: 'Democracy May Have Had Its Day'.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Monday, April 8, 2013

The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World


  • The Wall Street Journal
It sounds like the setup for a bad joke: What did the Wall Street type say to the college president on the golf course? Well, we don't know exactly—but it has launched a saga with weighty implications for American intellectual and civic life.
Here's what we do know: One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, a respected liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for a round of golf about an hour north of campus. College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors. In this case, the two men spoke about college life—especially "diversity"—and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowdoin's freshman class. That's where the dispute begins.
In his address, President Mills described the golf outing and said he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer's announcement: "I would never support Bowdoin—you are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons," said the other golfer, in Mr. Mills's telling. During Mr. Mills's next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin's "misplaced and misguided diversity efforts." At the end of the round, the college president told the students, "I walked off the course in despair."
Word of the speech soon got to Mr. Klingenstein. Even though he hadn't been named in the Mills account, Mr. Klingenstein took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books to call it nonsense: "He didn't like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting, Bowdoin-hating boor who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow."
image
Associated Press
The campus of Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine
The real story, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, was that "I explained my disapproval of 'diversity' as it generally has been implemented on college campuses: too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference," coupled with "not enough celebration of our common American identity."
For this, wrote Mr. Klingenstein, Bowdoin's president insinuated that he was a racist. And President Mills did so, moreover, in an address that purported to stress the need for respecting the opinions of others across the political spectrum. "We are, in the main, a place of liberal political persuasion," he told the students, but "we must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. . . . Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission." Wrote Mr. Klingenstein: "Would it be uncharitable to suggest that, in a speech calling for more sensitivity to conservative views, he might have shown some?"
After the essay appeared, President Mills stood by his version of events. A few months later, Mr. Klingenstein decided to do something surprising: He commissioned researchers to examine Bowdoin's commitment to intellectual diversity, rigorous academics and civic identity. This week, some 18 months and hundreds of pages of documentation later, the project is complete. Its picture of Bowdoin isn't pretty.
Funded by Mr. Klingenstein, researchers from the National Association of Scholars studied speeches by Bowdoin presidents and deans, formal statements of the college's principles, official faculty reports and notes of faculty meetings, academic course lists and syllabi, books and articles by professors, the archive of the Bowdoin Orient newspaper and more. They analyzed the school's history back to its founding in 1794, focusing on the past 45 years—during which, they argue, Bowdoin's character changed dramatically for the worse.
Published Wednesday, the report demonstrates how Bowdoin has become an intellectual monoculture dedicated above all to identity politics.
The school's ideological pillars would likely be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to American higher education lately. There's the obsession with race, class, gender and sexuality as the essential forces of history and markers of political identity. There's the dedication to "sustainability," or saving the planet from its imminent destruction by the forces of capitalism. And there are the paeans to "global citizenship," or loving all countries except one's own.
The Klingenstein report nicely captures the illiberal or fallacious aspects of this campus doctrine, but the paper's true contribution is in recording some of its absurd manifestations at Bowdoin. For example, the college has "no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation." Even history majors aren't required to take a single course in American history. In the History Department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic or intellectual history—the only ones available are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender or sexuality.
One of the few requirements is that Bowdoin students take a yearlong freshman seminar. Some of the 37 seminars offered this year: "Affirmative Action and U.S. Society," "Fictions of Freedom," "Racism," "Queer Gardens" (which "examines the work of gay and lesbian gardeners and traces how marginal identities find expression in specific garden spaces"), "Sexual Life of Colonialism" and "Modern Western Prostitutes."
Regarding Bowdoin professors, the report estimates that "four or five out of approximately 182 full-time faculty members might be described as politically conservative." In the 2012 election cycle, 100% of faculty donations went to President Obama. Not that any of this matters if you have ever asked around the faculty lounge.
"A political imbalance [among faculty] was no more significant than having an imbalance between Red Sox and Yankee fans," sniffed Henry C.W. Laurence, a Bowdoin professor of government, in 2004. He added that the suggestion that liberal professors cannot fairly reflect conservative views in classroom discussions is "intellectually bankrupt, professionally insulting and, fortunately, wildly inaccurate."
Perhaps so. But he'd have a stronger case if, for example, his colleague Marc Hetherington hadn't written the same year in Bowdoin's newspaper that liberal professors outnumber conservatives because conservatives don't "place the same emphasis on the accumulation of knowledge that liberals do."
In publishing these and other gems, Mr. Klingenstein and the National Association of Scholars hope to encourage alumni and trustees to push aggressively for reforms. They don't call for the kind of conservative affirmative action seen at the University of Colorado, which recently created a visiting professorship exclusively for right-wingers. Rather, Mr. Klingenstein and the NAS want schools nationwide to stop "silent discrimination against conservatives." Good luck.
In case you're wondering, Bowdoin's official statement on this week's report amounted to little more than a shrug. A serious response would begin with inviting Mr. Klingenstein to campus for a public debate with President Mills. No golf clubs allowed.
Mr. Feith is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
A version of this article appeared April 6, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Friday, April 5, 2013

What Would Jesus Do? Nothing.


  • The Wall Street Journal


What Would Jesus Do? Nothing.



The virtue of charity consists in voluntarily giving your own money, not in forcing others to hand over theirs.


Over the Easter weekend, the leaders of several British Christian denominations, including the Methodists and the Church of Scotland, condemned the government's welfare reforms, which come into force this week.
Among other changes, receipt of the incapacity benefit will be conditional upon being incapacitated; no family will be able to claim benefits in excess of the U.K. average household income (£26,000 a year); and the children of housing beneficiaries will be obliged to share bedrooms—though no more than two to a room. These are cruel attacks on "the most vulnerable in our country," according to these men of God.
No one will be surprised by these expressions of Christian socialism. In Britain, most religious leaders have long been advocates of more governmental involvement in the economy and, especially, greater redistribution of wealth. But Christian socialism should itself be surprising, because Christian theology supports a completely laissez-faire approach to government.
According to standard Christian theology, God is omniscient. So He knows about the suffering of families living on benefits of £25,000 a year and of children in bunk beds. Indeed, he sees even worse deprivation than this. He sees the grinding poverty of Somali refugees, of street children in Brazil, of almost every human who lived before 1800 and, hence, survived on less than £1,000 a year (in today's money).
And what does God do about all this suffering? Nothing. He lets it go on, century after century.
image
Getty Images
Many Christian theologians, confronted with God's apparently blasé attitude toward human suffering, have claimed that God wants us to live without His benevolent intervention so that we can be free to act virtuously ourselves. Our socialist churchmen may take this view of the matter. They may think that God withholds his effortless and perfect charity so that we might be charitable ourselves. A world with suffering and human virtue is better than one with no suffering and no virtue.
Even if this free-will defense successfully evades the theological "problem of evil," it lends no support to Christian socialism. If God does nothing so that we humans might freely display our own charitable virtue, Christians ought to reject compulsion when it comes to transfers of wealth. When government ministers tax you on threat of imprisonment and give your money to the poor, neither you nor they have been charitable. The virtue of charity consists in voluntarily giving your own money, not in forcing others to hand over theirs.
Given standard Christian theology, compulsory transfers of wealth subvert God's will. If he had simply wanted money to end up in the hands of the poor, regardless of the moral choices made by human donors, He could have put it there Himself, and at no cost to anyone. Christian leaders should be encouraging their flocks to care about the poor and voluntarily help them. They should not be encouraging the government to force people to hand over their money on threat of being locked in a metal box.
Of course, many Christians, including many priests and preachers, take neither theology nor its political implications seriously. They simply use their religion as a way of participating in the popular business of making a show of one's virtue and, especially, of one's compassion.
Alas, as lovely as it is to be respected for your compassion, actually helping people is costly. Hence the temptation to demand that the government—that is to say, taxpayers—spend more on the poor. You can display your compassion while suffering none of the costs of actually looking after anyone.
Christian charity once rejected such cheap moral exhibitionism. The true Christian voluntarily incurred costs for the benefit of others, and drew no attention to the fact. Now the spokesmen of Christianity join the queues of those demanding that their advertised moral sentiments be indulged at the expense of others.
Mr. Whyte is a fellow of the Adam Smith Institute in London.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Fast Times at Lenin High


  • The Wall Street Journal

Fast Times at Lenin High

In 1945, the senior class of Elisabeth Irwin High School voted to have the school teach Soviet history instead of American history.

The Little Red School House touts itself as a bastion of "progressive education." Even today the website of the private pre-K-12 school in Manhattan's Greenwich Village neighborhood advertises its commitment to "social justice." But back when I attended—I graduated in 1955 from the high school, which is officially named for its founder, the activist and social worker Elisabeth Irwin—"progressive education" simply meant an indoctrination in leftist ideology. In 1945, the senior class voted to have the school teach recent Soviet history instead of American history, since, as the school's 75th anniversary commemorative book explains, the members of the class "thought Russia was great and Communism a noble experiment."
That commemorative book was coedited by Dina Hampton, a journalist and alumna of the school (class of 1977). Now in "Little Red: Three Passionate Lives Through the Sixties and Beyond," Ms. Hampton profiles three prominent graduates of Elisabeth Irwin: the Communist academic and Black Panther activist Angela Davis; the filmmaker and Students for a Democratic Society member Tom Hurwitz; and Elliott Abrams, an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration and special adviser to President George W. Bush. All three graduated from the school in the early 1960s, and their lives trace profoundly different reactions to the political turmoil of that decade.
Judging by her book, it appears that Ms. Hampton still possesses the political outlook we were marinated in at Elisabeth Irwin—a holier-than-thou leftism that our teachers assumed brought both political clarity and moral superiority. Thus the book's heroine is Ms. Davis, a devout believer in the "science of Marxism-Leninism," as she referred to in the summer of 1972, when speaking to a crowd at Moscow's airport. Mr. Hurwitz, too, is depicted here as a true man of the left and hence a moral exemplar.
Mr. Abrams is simply the evil counterpart, a man who betrayed his school and who, even while still a student at Little Red, dared to ask its librarian why the school had subscriptions only to the Nation and I.F. Stone's Weekly. "Could the school not achieve some balance in the publications it displayed," the young man wondered, by stocking "a magazine like the National Review?" "The culture is dominated by right-wing politics," was the response. "We don't need to get more of it in the school."
image

Little Red

By Dina Hampton
(PublicAffairs, 308 pages, $25.99)
When Ms. Hampton isn't celebrating the school's wacky politics, she tries to soften them. The school's teachers "encouraged its charges to scrutinize, question and resist the inequities of American society," she writes, and students were "imbued from their earliest years with the belief that they could change the world." But as I recall, its teachers believed that the only way to better the lot of mankind was through leftist activism and Marxist revolution. And as Ms. Hampton herself reports, it was the school's longtime history teacher Harold Kirshner, for instance, who "effected a life-altering transformation in Davis," by assigning her to read Marx and Engels.
Ms. Davis is treated here as a virtual saint. From her activities in the Black Panther Party to her membership in the American Communist Party, her every political choice is heralded. "By joining a black Communist group within a larger national group," Ms. Hampton gushes, "she placed the struggle of African Americans to achieve equality in America in the context of people of all races working to overthrow oppressive regimes."
Readers are barely told about the thuggish behavior of the Panthers. Ms. Hampton, for example, omits the fact that, in 1969, the Panthers tortured and murdered a member suspected of being an informant. As for Ms. Davis's commitment to freedom, there isn't a word about her full-throated support of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, nor about the open letter to her by Czech dissident Jeri Pelikan, written in 1972, which chastised her for refusing to defend political prisoners in his country who opposed the invasion of a sovereign nation by the U.S.S.R. "Try to help them," he pleaded, "so they can defend themselves against their accusers as you have been able to do in your country." Ms. Davis, a firm defender of Stalinism, didn't respond but had a Communist friend tell the press that Ms. Davis believed the critics of the Czech regime were undermining socialism and undeserving of support.
By contrast, when Ms. Hampton discusses Mr. Abrams, she carefully draws out every attack made on him during the Reagan years. He is castigated for Iran-Contra, for supporting aid to the moderate Duarte government in El Salvador in the early 1980s, for opposing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and on and on. Mr. Abrams got away with these sins against the international left, Ms. Hampton says, because of his "charm." She can't understand how the Council on Foreign Relations—an organization "whose members include news anchor Brian Williams, contributing editor for Time magazine Fareed Zakaria and actress and activist Angelina Jolie"—can have him as a fellow. She approvingly quotes Little Red classmates furious that one of the school's commemorative publications included an appraisal by Mr. Abrams of his years there.
The days are long gone when leftist educators and activists would create their own schools to propagate Communist ideology in places like Greenwich Village. But as Dina Hampton's book demonstrates, the old dogmatism and uncharitable spirit of those agitators lives on.
Mr. Radosh, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute, is the author of the memoir "Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left."
A version of this article appeared April 3, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Fast Times At Lenin High.
Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Monday, April 1, 2013

Columbine Survivor Pens Bold Open Letter to Obama Rejecting Gun Control


Mr. President,
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops —  because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Critical Examination
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Respectfully,
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

Published on 02-20-2013