In a recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham argue that President Obama should invade Syria and overthrow Bashar Assad in order to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). For Senators McCain and Graham, it seems that no matter the question, the answer is always war.
They open the piece by stating:
“The airstrikes and other actions President Obama is taking against Islamic State deserve bipartisan support. They are beginning to degrade the terrorist group, also known as ISIS, but will not destroy it, for one reason above all: The administration still has no effective policy to remove Bashar Assad from power and end the conflict in Syria. Administration officials have called their approach ‘ISIS first.’ As for Mr. Assad, in the words of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the administration will ‘defer that challenge into the future.’ This is not a luxury we get to choose. And Mr. Obama himself recently said he does ‘recognize the contradiction’ in his own policy—which is that by confronting Islamic State but not Assad, the U.S. may unintentionally benefit the ruler whose ouster he continues, rightly, to demand.”
Of course, a similar contradiction lies in the Senators’ own so-called plan: by confronting Assad, the U.S. would benefit the terrorist group known as ISIS, one of whose stated objectives is precisely to overthrow the Assad regime. Ignoring this obvious flaw in their own logic, they continue:
“Mr. Assad all but created Islamic State through his slaughter of nearly 200,000 Syrians, and he has knowingly allowed the group to grow and operate with impunity inside the country when it suits his purposes. Until we confront this reality, we can continue to degrade Islamic State in Syria, but Mr. Assad’s barbarism will continue to empower it.”
Again, one could argue that it was U.S. interventionism that all but created the Islamic State. Although President Obama famously backed down from his “red line” threat against Assad, the U.S. government continued to funnel weapons, money, and training to the so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria. Not surprisingly, McCain’s thoroughly-vetted “good” rebels turned out to be remarkably cozy with the “bad” rebels who formed ISIS, and many of those same weapons wound up in ISIS hands, enabling them to steamroll over two-thirds of the territory of Iraq, raping, looting, crucifying, and beheading people all along the way. Now McCain and Graham want to commit American forces to an even more profound intervention, in the vain hope that this time they will get it “right.”
They close their piece with the following paragraph:
“The reality is that defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad. Avoiding this reality, as Mr. Obama still tries to do, will only postpone the problem at growing risk to Syrian lives and American security. And when Syria deteriorates further, as it surely will, the U.S. will be compelled to respond once again, but our options will be fewer, worse and costlier.”
There are several problems, I believe, with their analysis (and this is by no means an exhaustive list).
To start, the Senators spend a great deal of time describing the danger Assad and ISIS pose to the Syrian people (and there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that ISIS terrorists are unspeakably evil and that the world would be a much better place without them in it). But at no point do McCain and Graham explain how ISIS represents an existential threat to the United States, which should presumably factor somewhere into a decision by the U.S. government to invade yet another country. ISIS certainly poses a grave problem for the long-suffering people of the Middle East, but the direct threat posed to the people of, say, the American Midwest is much less clear. ISIS may boast about raising the black flag of jihad over the White House, but so far they haven’t even been able to knock Assad out of the box (although Senators McCain and Graham would like to lend them a hand).
And despite all of their handwringing, at no point do the dynamic neocon duo suggest drawing up a Declaration of War against Syria, as Congress (the branch of government in which they serve) is required by the Constitution to do. At no point do they explain how the United States government would manage a post-Assad Syria. Given the debacles of prior U.S. interventions in both Iraq and Libya (which contributed in no small part to the rise of ISIS in the first place), one might think this question would be foremost on even the most hawkish neocon mind, but McCain and Graham have shown themselves to be impervious to learning from past mistakes. Indeed, the last we heard from McCain on any post-invasion plans was an angry “I told you so moment” on the floor of the Senate, in which he blamed President Obama for pulling out of Iraq “too soon” (a mere eleven years after the initial invasion). But then again, John McCain is an expert at “truncating the antecedents,” and this latest episode is no exception. Non-interventionists can (and do) remind the neocons that they warned of the Pandora’s box that would be opened by invading Iraq in the first place (and by bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria to boot). There is no reason to think another American military operation in the region would do anything to close that box.
Perhaps there was simply not enough space in the pages of The Wall Street Journal for the Senators to make a more convincing case, but after more than a decade of disastrous elective wars cheered by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, I’m afraid I’ll need a bit more justification to support yet another strategic blunder of dubious legality.
The New York Times reports former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke can’t get a loan from his bank to refinance his house. They claim it’s because he recently transitioned from a salaried position at the Fed to a new career as an author and freelance speaker with variable income.
I think it’s just karma.
I’ve been mildly amused by The Guardian’s recent hyperventilating over tax avoidance in Great Britain. It has been revealed that many wealthy Brits use offshore banks in Jersey to reduce their taxable income, and The Guardian has gone to great lengths to publicly excoriate these people for taking advantage of the perfectly legal arrangement.
Legal has nothing to do with it, of course. For the professional statists at The Guardian, the government always has first dibs on your money, and any effort to keep more of what you’ve earned will get you branded with a scarlet letter “A” for “avoidance.” A quick scan of their headlines on the subject will provide a sense of what The Guardian considers to be “moral” with regard to taxation:
This farcical tax system is costing us billions, by Polly Toynbee
These tax scams are all legal – that’s morally repugnant, by Simon Jenkins
Be it Gary Barlow or Amazon, let’s stop making excuses for tax avoiders, by Alex Andreou
And my personal favorite:
The joy of tax: why payment should be a pleasure, by Josh Bornstein
The same attitude is prevalent in the United States, too, as I have discussed several times before (see Inversion and Ex Post Facto Laws and Whose Money Is It, Anyway?). But The Guardian seems to be taking it to a whole new level. In A Who’s Who of Britain’s Legal Offshore Tax Avoidance, they list the names of several successful businesspeople (and Bernie Madoff) who have structured their finances so as to reduce their tax burdens in accordance with the rules established by HMRC. They’ve also lambasted entertainers such as Jimmy Carr and David Barlow in other articles for doing much the same thing. Both entertainers, duly castigated by The Guardian’s public shaming campaign, apologized profusely on Twitter and other outlets for their “errors in judgment.” Most of the businesspeople called out either defended the legality of their accounts or declined to comment altogether.
I’m not looking to change the hive mind of the editorial staff at The Guardian. The degree of Stockholm syndrome exhibited in their opinion pages cries out for professional help, and I’m sure there are better resources than A Beginner’s Guide to Freedom for that. I will, however, point out one small but very important benefit that arose from tax avoidance efforts long ago but continues to make our lives better to this very day:
That’s right; the recipe for Guinness beer (and Irish stouts in general) came about because brewers wanted to reduce their tax burdens. From Chapter Nine of Tasting Beer: An Insider’s Guide to the World’s Greatest Drink, by Randy Mosher:
Exemplified by Guinness and others, Irish stout is characterized by the use of roasted barley rather than black roasted malt. Originally a tax dodge (unmalted barley was not taxed like malt), this gives the beer a unique, sharp, coffeelike roastiness. Raw, unmalted barley is also used in the modern recipe, which gives the beer a rich, creamy texture even in its low-gravity incarnations.
Yes, indeed – and we have tax avoiders to thank for it. Sláinte!
Nothing gets hardcore statists riled up more than when the US government’s tax cattle wander off the ranch in search of greener pastures overseas. We witnessed this when Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin high-tailed it to Singapore, and we’re seeing it again now that Burger King has announced its intention to merge with the Tim Horton chain in Canada, in part to lower its corporate tax burden. Case in point, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who stated,
“Burger King’s decision to abandon the United States means consumers should turn to Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers or White Castle sliders. Burger King has always said ‘Have it Your Way'; well my way is to support two Ohio companies that haven’t abandoned their country or customers. To help business grow in America, taxpayers have funded public infrastructure, workforce training, and incentives to encourage R&D and capital investment. Runaway corporations benefited from those policies but want U.S. companies to pay their share of the tab.”
Once again the the tired (yet stubborn) progressive “Your Dog Owns Your House” nonsense spouted by the likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren and President Obama finds new life. The way Senator Brown tells it, you might think Burger King never paid any corporate taxes to contribute to those indispensable infrastructure projects (which would make one wonder why they’d want to move to Canada in the first place). It must be Burger King’s “patriotic duty” to sit idly by and allow politicians like Senator Brown fleece them with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world.
As there’s not much new here, I hadn’t been paying too much attention to the story other than to chuckle at the likes of Warren “Raise My Taxes, Please” Buffett helping finance a deal that will enable a giant corporation like Burger King lower its tax burden. But then I heard that Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had weighed in on the issue.
In a recent opinion piece in The Washington Post, Secretary Lew urges Congress to reform the tax code “to make the U.S. economy more competitive and to accelerate economic growth and job creation. Taking this step will make the United States an even more attractive place to do business and ensure that capital and talent are allocated more efficiently in pursuit of high economic returns, rather than low tax bills.”
So far, so good. But he continues…
“But one particular tax loophole has become increasingly urgent to address: the fact that the law rewards U.S. corporations with substantial tax benefits when they buy foreign companies and declare that they are based overseas. This practice, known as an inversion, has accelerated in recent months, with a significant number of big corporations nearing completion of such deals and reports of many more in the works.”
Time to string some more barbed wire fence along the American tax ranch, I guess. But that was not what struck me about his piece (which, to be fair, does seem to imply that the US tax rate should be lowered). What got my attention was the following:
“For legislation to be effective, it must be retroactive. Current proposals in Congress would apply to any inversion deal after early May of this year. The alternative — legislation taking effect after the president signs it into law — could have the perverse effect of encouraging corporations to act more quickly, negotiate new deals and rush to close those transactions before the bill is enacted. It would be a mistake for Congress to pass anti-inversion legislation that creates a race against the clock and encourages more, not fewer, inversions.
Making legislation effective before the date that a bill is enacted is not a new or novel approach; the Congressional Research Service referred to the practice as ‘quite common’ in a 2012 report. A good example of this is the 2004 anti-inversion legislation. Passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2004, it had an effective date of March 2003.”
The legalese term for “retroactive” is ex post facto. And Mr. Lew is correct that the 2012 report he references does indeed refer to the practice as being quite common. It even states that “[i]t is clear there is no absolute constitutional bar to retroactive tax legislation.”
No constitutional bar other than the actual Constitution, that is.
Article I, Section IX, Paragraph III seems to differ from the Congressional Research Service’s take on the subject of “retroactive” laws, stating in remarkably plain English that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Full stop. No asterisk, no codicil, no “except for Burger King” clause, nothing. No ex post facto law shall be passed.
This is not to say that none have been passed, nor to imply that a silly thing like the Constitution will stop the likes of Senator Brown from passing another one. Tax law in the United States is pretty much a Constitution-free zone where you are guilty until proven innocent. And not only do companies here pay above-average prices for the US government’s “services,” they also get the added bonus of possibly having conduct that is perfectly legal today be criminalized retroactively at some point in the future.
With an operating environment like that, it’s little wonder that companies are increasingly eager to leave. If having Burger King headquartered in the United States is as important to Senator Brown as he claims, then maybe he should spend less time lambasting them for seeking better opportunities abroad, and more time improving the tax and regulatory environment here so that the US might once again become the kind of country that companies invert to, rather than from.
As you may have heard, there has been a spate of incidents recently involving airline passengers bickering over reclining seats (assuming three qualifies as a “spate”). As Maria Cardona writes in a recent CNN op-ed,
“We have now witnessed the third instance in only nine days of a flight being diverted from its original destination because someone leaned her seat back and someone objected.
Has it come to this? Do we really need air marshals on flights now to intervene between people in front who (in this most recent case) want to get comfy and knit, and people behind who want to put their heads down on a tray table to nap?
While both passengers in each of the three cases had reasonable arguments on their side — recliners felt they had every right to recline, and the people behind them felt their personal space was being violated — does their inability to work it out not seem like just another example of a society where civility is declining?
There is a simple solution to save us from our worst selves: Get rid of reclining seats.
If we are all compelled to sit upright for a flight’s duration, the issue of invading already infinitesimal personal space simply goes away.”
There are roughly 30,000 commercial flights every day in the United States, so three incidents over a period of nine days equates to roughly 0.001% of the flights during that period. So naturally nanny-staters like Ms. Cardona immediately conclude that an all-out ban on reclining seats is an appropriate corrective action. This is what passes for thought among statists – all that is considered good must be compulsory, and all that is considered bad (or even mildly annoying) must be banned.
To be fair, she does not explicitly state that the government should be the one to implement the ban, but given her “credentials” as a political commentator for CNN, a Democratic strategist, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee, and former communications director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I think it’s a safe bet that’s where she’s heading. After all, it’s not as though she’s encouraging passengers to fill out suggestion cards to request airlines change their seating policies.
As an all-too-frequent flyer myself, I can see both sides of the “to recline or not to recline” question. On short-haul flights (which for me is anything under six hours), I fly upright. On long-haul flights (which for me can be as many as sixteen hours non-stop), however, I want as little discomfort as possible. A quick look over my shoulder will inform my decision whether or not to recline the seat and claw back those three precious inches. But the difference between Ms. Cardona and me is that I would never demand that the government transform my personal preference into a national policy to which all others are forced to adhere.
The recent brouhaha over airline seats is merely the latest symptom of Americans’ growing inability to conceive of non-coercive solutions to minor inconveniences. The notion that individual passengers and airlines are perfectly capable and motivated to figure these things out on their own (as roughly 99.9999999% of them do every single day) seems completely beyond the grasp of professional statists who write editorials for CNN (as is the antiquated notion that businesses in an allegedly free country should be able to set their own rules about what they will or will not allow in their own operations).
So if Ms. Cardona’s 0.001% threshold of inconvenience is to be the new standard for across-the-board prohibitions, what else should we ban? Back in 2010, CNN’s Jack Cafferty highlighted five separate instances of holiday shopping related violence. Should we ban the holidays, or just the malls? Last year two people got into a fight over prize tickets at a Dearborn-area Chuck E. Cheese. Obviously a nationwide ban on pizza and skeeball is needed. Earlier this year an Iowa man got in a fight with his brother over peanut butter sandwiches. According to Ms. Cardona’s “logic,” there’s a simple solution: just make it a crime for anyone to eat peanut butter sandwiches. And more recently President Obama blamed the media for his sagging poll numbers.
Maybe we should just ban CNN. At least that way we’d be spared these simplistic solutions from statists.
Update: CNN later posted a far more rational op-ed on the same subject. You can check it out here.