Archive for May, 2014

Reparations: more reactions

The Ta-Nehisi Coates essay in the Atlantic arguing the case for racial reparations stirred quite a bit of discussion and here are three more reactions:

* John McWhorter, “The Case Against Racial Reparations” [The Daily Beast]

* Jonathan Blanks, “Why Aren’t There More Black Libertarians?” [Libertarianism.org]

* Richard Epstein on Coates’ “acute tunnel vision” and misreadings of individual rights [Hoover “Defining Ideas”]

Plus: not a reaction but an older piece, “How Far Back Should We Go? Why Restitution Should Be Small” [Tyler Cowen, 2002, PDF]

If you want to understand the logic of an inquisition…

…study this comment on our thread about activists’ FOIA-ing of University of Virginia professor Douglas Laycock:

Scott Rose 05.30.14 at 9:40 am

That Laycock and/or the university would refuse to show the requestors the material they are requesting suggests that Laycock has something to hide, and that what he is hiding shows that he has been behaving unethically.

The story has broken out into widespread discussion this week; check out contributions by Will Creeley at FIRE, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, and Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View.

Lunch Lady 1, First Lady 0

A House panel has voted to allow school districts to opt out temporarily from much-protested nutrition standards [Washington Post, earlier] While the Obama administration and its allies have chosen to blame Big Food for the reverse, the capital has not been short on firsthand testimony from school lunch directors about thrown-away offerings, declining student participation and other woes. [Washington Post, School Nutrition Association]

More: Nick Gillespie/Time (“if we can’t trust our schools to figure out how best to fill their students’ stomachs, why the hell are we forcing our children to attend such institutions in the first place?”), Baylen Linnekin (“She’s right. The House GOP is playing politics. They’re just not doing it as pervasively—or as deftly—as she and her colleagues are.”)

May 30 roundup

“Congress moves to turn back taxes over to debt collectors”

Law enforcement for profit to take another big leap forward? [Washington Post]:

The Internal Revenue Service would be required to turn over millions of unpaid tax bills to private debt collectors under a measure before the Senate, reviving a program that has previously led to complaints of harassment and has not saved taxpayers money.

The provision was tucked into a larger bill, aimed at renewing an array of expired tax breaks, at the request of Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose state is home to two of the four private collection agencies that stand to benefit from the proposal.

It requires all “inactive tax receivables” to be assigned to private debt collectors if the IRS cannot locate the person who owes the money or if IRS agents are unable to make contact within a year.

The idea has been tried twice before, but was discontinued both times after poor results including net losses on the program. Nina Olson, who holds the position of Taxpayer Advocate in the U.S. government (and is no relation), strongly opposes the program, noting that some of the money would be recouped by the Treasury anyway through means such as future withheld refunds without the need for paying 25 percent contingency fees to the middlemen. Bounty-hunting freelancers are more likely to resort to tactics such as day-and-night harassing calls, and have less flexibility to work out payment plans for those getting back on their feet after reverses or, in the case of estate taxes, heirs who may have not yet received the inheritances from which they need to pay the tax due.

Compare many state governments’ practice of putting out plaintiff’s-side litigation opportunities to private lawyers at contingency fee, which has created a durable lobby for hardball extractive lawsuits of dubious social benefit as well as showering large sums on law firms that already are or soon become influential political players in their states.

What the New Yorker finds to be “unlikely”

From a September New Yorker profile by writer Ryan Lizza of Tom Steyer, the billionaire political donor promoting environmental causes:

Steyer is, at first glance, an unlikely leader of the environmental movement. He is rangy and square-jawed, and he has exquisite establishmentarian credentials, to say nothing of a vast pile of money. He honed his raffish sense of humor at Phillips Exeter Academy, and went on to get degrees from Yale and Stanford business school. Before starting his own fund, he worked at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley….

This must represent the New Yorker editors’ special idiomatic use of the word “unlikely” to signify “clichéd, stereotypical, and exactly as you would expect.” William Tucker has written at more length about the subject.

Schools roundup