Author Archives: Eapen Thampy

Apr 20 2011
Leave a comment
politics, power

“No child left unmedicated?”

I borrow the title of this post, and the link, from the indomitable Tyler Cowen. The reference is to this study by Bokhari and Schneider in the Journal of Health Economics titled “School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants“.

Here is the abstract, written in that cool academic chill (emphasis mine):

Over the past decade, several states introduced varying degrees of accountability systems for schools, which became federal law with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The intent of these accountability laws was to improve academic performance and to make school quality more observable. Nonetheless, schools have reacted to these pressures in several different ways, some of which were not intended. We make use of the variation across states and over time in specific provisions of these accountability laws and find that accountability pressures effect medical diagnoses and subsequent treatment options of school aged children. Specifically, children in states with more stringent accountability laws are more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and consequently prescribed psychostimulant drugs for controlling the symptoms. However, conditional on diagnosis, accountability laws do not further change the probability of receiving medication therapy.

Foucault is relevant here. The state’s biopolitical power to regulate and control life itself is brutally manifested in the overmedication of children, driven by bureaucratic and federal incentives. This is a powerful argument against the acceptance of federal dollars or incentives to regulate America’s education system.
My generation grew up in a world where medication became, transparently, a mechanism for social control. It will be interesting how our politics shape the future.
Tagged , , ,
Apr 17 2011
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

Letter to the editor of the Hawaiian Star-Advertiser

Yesterday, the Hawaiian Star-Advertiser published the following opinion editorial, to which I respond below:

The national controversy about whether marijuana is a drug or medicine is being played out in Senate Bill 1458, which proposes a five-year pilot program to establish a marijuana dispensary based on the Colorado model.

While the bill ensures no prosecution to the licensed marijuana vendor, the operation is in direct conflict with federal law and could be shut down.

Also, there is potential for abuse, given this bill allows for not only Hawaii residents but tourists to use the dispensary.

Colorado law enforcement reports the lack of controls, increased crime and violence and the lowered quality of life in neighborhoods with dispensaries are hardly worth the projected tax revenues.

Most important, this bill sends the wrong message to our youth. It would erode prevention efforts by decreasing perception of harm and increasing access.

Alan Shinn
Coalition for a Drug-Free Hawaii

My response (emailed, but I do not yet know if they will publish it):

Dear Editor,

In response to Alan Shinn’s letter of April 17, 2011

The arguments Mr. Shinn raises against the adoption of a Colorado-style model for the regulation and taxation of cannabis in Hawaii are specious.

First, the argument that the proposed initiative is against federal law does not mean that the voters of Hawaii have given up their rights to self-determination. The American federal system allows for conflicts between state and federal laws to be resolved legally, though the courts, and politically, as voters across this brave land vote for different people and policies over time.

Mr. Shinn’s second point, that tourists may access Hawaiian dispensaries, is not an argument. In fact, this is a desirable feature, as tourism brings dollars and people to Hawaiian shores. In a recession economy, does Mr. Shinn want to pick jobs out of a hat instead?

Mr. Shinn’s third point is a dishonest one. Crime problems are invariably related to prohibition. Hawaii has the advantage of being geographically isolated, so Hawaiians should not have to worry about traffic between Hawaii and neighboring states.

Finally, Mr. Shinn assumes that parents should not have the freedom to raise their children as they please. Parents should have the authority to direct the education of their children insofar as health and lifestyle choices are concerned; the government has no duty in dictating what those choices may be.

Rather, it is our status as citizens that should empower us to dictate what our government should do to us. Liberty is America’s promise; it should not be our failure.

Apr 09 2011
Leave a comment
law, politics, power

Thoughts on jury nullification, Part 1

This past week I had the fortune to attend a discussion on nullification hosted by the Show-Me Institute with my friend Mitch Richards (a representative of the Fully Informed Jury Association, or FIJA). I should note that nullification issues have been in vogue for the last few years; if I recall correctly, there was a jury nullification topic selected for high school debaters nationwide a year or two ago, and with increasing federal presence in all arenas of economic and political life there is increasing grassroots interest in the topic.

It is not my intention here to discuss the history or legitimacy of nullification issues. Such issues are more fully discussed elsewhere by others. However, I wish to discuss why I find jury nullification strategies valuable but unsatisfying.

Why jury nullification is valuable: It can be used to protect individuals from prosecution under unjust laws, by unjust governments. Note that I say “can” here; despite the functional reality of the existence and the popularity of nullification strategies, it is not certain that they can even be used in many real-life contexts. Moreover, there is no reason to think that juries will only attempt nullification of unjust laws; juries can act in unjust ways. However, as an additional recourse for citizens being unjustly prosecuted by their government, the nullification option is valuable at an important margin.

But the popular focus on jury nullification strategies is very unsatisfying to me. It ignores the pragmatic reality of criminal justice system operation and legislative lawmaking. In particular the nullification discourse completely ignores the agency incentives that determine how laws are actually interpreted and applied by government agents. It is this incentive structure we must understand and seek to change; otherwise nullification efforts will always be stop-gap, low-level efforts against specific laws. Nullification strategies are like using your hands to swat mosquitoes; you might kill individual mosquitoes but that’s of little comfort when you’re in a swamp.

It would be of more practical use to try to pursue other strategies if we are really interested in constraining the justice system to minimize the number of unjust outcomes.

There are two ways in which I see this can be done. First, reformulate the incentive structures facing prosecutors. Second, make it harder for government officials to use official or qualified immunity as a shield from liability. I will be exploring these two policy prescriptions at length in further posts, so stay tuned.

 

Apr 05 2011
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

“E pluribus unum”

I met Mitch Richards last May speaking against the use of paramilitary policing tactics by the Columbia Police Department. The particular SWAT raid that had brought us to City Hall had happened in February, to a family who lived about 5 miles from my downtown abode; the cops had obtained a warrant based on specious paid informant testimony and gone in at night, guns blazing. They shot the dogs, manhandled the suspect, and videotaped the entire affair for training purposes.

In the crowd that came to Columbia’s City Hall that May night to protest the raid, Mitch stood out. Above the angry, sometimes incoherent clamor that night, Mitch spoke in measured, eloquent language about individual sovereignty, natural rights, and the freedoms protected for Americans by the Constitution of the United States.

In these times such a voice speaks loudly. There is great yearning in America for our lost Liberty; across the country, the political landscape is experiencing an upheaval as citizens find our political structure inapt to meet their demands. Much of this energy is unfocused. In this environment opportunists, charlatans, and fringe elements proliferate; witness the incoherence  and sheer ignorance of Sarah Palin.

And the establishment is not much better. We are asked by our leaders and our governing institutions to give up many of our most basic freedoms in the name of security and liberty. Both political parties are perversely invested in the status quo; this is often reflected in the transition that happens between (relatively independent) candidate and (beholden) elected official.

American politics has been defined by powerful institutional players and vested interests for decades. In this morass one may lose one’s way and spend an eternity adrift far from the borders of hebetude. Consider Barack Obama, who ran on an anti-war ticket in 2008. Now he is President Obama. War-monger Obama.

Reasserting our stakeholder interests in American politics may be a Sisyphean task. I may be delusional for thinking that Americans can successfully challenge the political structures that seek to enslave us with debt and barter away our freedoms. But I know it is possible to try, and that there is virtue in the struggle. It is hard to remain independent, and speak truth to power about the realities of America’s governance, about the insanities of our Wars on Drugs, Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Mitch has never been afraid of confronting these realities; in his approach he represents an honesty and integrity that has been lacking in our politics since before I was born in 1984.

I look forward to tonight’s vote as Mitch seeks election to Columbia’s City Council in the First Ward. The outcome is uncertain, but I know that tonight’s election is an opening move, not the endgame.

Please visit Mitch at http://mitchrichardsforfirstward.com/

Tagged , ,
Mar 26 2011
Leave a comment
law, politics

Mitch Richards on warrantless administrative searches

My friend Mitch Richards is running for the First Ward seat in the city council elections this April 5th in Columbia, Missouri. I thought I would share this clip of him discussing warrantless administrative searches and other property rights issues at a candidate forum earlier today.  You can check out his website here: http://mitchrichardsforfirstward.com/

Bonus: Mitch quotes from both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without being cliche.

Tagged , , , ,
Mar 15 2011
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

Commission seeks applicants for Baker vacancy on Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

15 March 2011
Online at http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=45226.
Contact: Beth Riggert, communications counsel, Supreme Court of Missouri,
(573) 751-3676

Commission seeks applicants for Baker vacancy on Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The Appellate Judicial Commission announced today
that it is accepting applications for vacancy on the Missouri Court of
Appeals, Eastern District, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation
of Judge Nannette A. Baker, who was appointed as a federal magistrate judge
after serving more than six years on the appeals court, including a term as
chief judge, and five years as a circuit judge on the St. Louis circuit
court.

Citizens are encouraged to nominate well-qualified candidates for the
commission’s consideration. The Missouri Constitution requires that a judge
of the Missouri Court of Appeals be at least 30 years old, licensed to
practice law in Missouri, a United States citizen for at least 15 years and
a qualified Missouri voter for at least nine years next preceding
selection, and a resident of the court of appeals district in which he or
she serves. Nominations should be submitted to the commission by e-mail at
EDjudgevacancy@courts.mo.gov or by postal mail to Eastern District Judge
Vacancy, PO Box 150, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Applications will be accepted until 5 p.m. Friday, April 29, 2011.
Interested persons may download the application and instructions here:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=45226.

The commission will meet May 17 through 19 at the Missouri Court of
Appeals, Eastern District, in St. Louis to interview applicants and to
select a panel of three nominees for the governor’s consideration. The
interviews will be open to the public. The names of those to be interviewed
and information relating to the number and characteristics of all
applicants will be released publicly prior to the beginning of the
interviews May 17.

Mar 08 2011
Leave a comment
Music

Vladimir Horowitz plays Chopin’s “Raindrop” Prelude in D flat Major, Op.28 No.15

Tagged ,
Feb 10 2011
1 Comment
Uncategorized

The Prothro Review, and other things I read and sometimes write

I’m happy to announce that over the next several months I’ll be contributing part time to The Prothro Review, a blog started by my friend Trey Prothro. My first contribution will be a post about the economics and politics of the popular comedy show The Office, which I’m pretty excited about.

I am also glad to note that I will now be contributing work on police corruption and asset forfeiture issues to Hawaii News Daily.

I was very excited to find Feathers and Light, a poetry blog by Chelsea Reynolds. Her writing is hard for me to pin down, but it is elegant and precise. I am reminded at times of poets as diverse as Paz, Plath, Sexton, Roethke, Bogan, or even Soyinka, though I have no idea if that is by intent or correspondences drawn by my own imagination.  Wonderful stuff.

 

Feb 09 2011
2 Comments
Economics, law, politics

My testimony to the Citizens Police Review Board in Columbia, Missouri, 2-9-2011

My name is Eapen Thampy. I am the executive director of Americans for Forfeiture Reform, a nonprofit that works on issues of asset forfeiture, an issue implicated deeply with the emergence of paramilitary policing in America. We have been endorsed by groups on every part of the political spectrum. Some of these groups include the Missouri Libertarian party, Ed Rosenthal’s Green Aid Marijuana Legal Defense Fund, and the conservative Right on Crime initiative, a project of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Ed Meese, and Pat Nolan.

Last May I was one of the many people at city council speaking in protest of the Kinloch raid; today I return to this chamber to ask again that we pursue a more sensible approach to policing in Columbia. Over the last year, as light has been shone on paramilitary policing practices in Columbia and around the nation, many thousands of people have contacted us, asking us to speak on their behalf, and bear witness to the harms that uncontrollable police agencies can do to their communities.

At the outset, it is important to note what we want. We want a strong and effective police presence, we want a fair and impartial justice system, and we want every man, woman, and child in America to be able to enjoy their freedoms in this brave land. We do not oppose the rule of law; rather, we wish to see it flourish. We honor and respect the sacrifices of all who serve to protect us, but we will not compromise on the high ideal we must hold our public servants to.

Nor do we intrinsically oppose the existence of SWAT teams. They exist for specific reasons: hostage crises, gun rampages in schools and public areas, to combat the threat of organized violent crime. Situations where a SWAT team might be required are by definition extraordinary.

But the emergence of SWAT policing in America and in Columbia indicate that these real needs have been corrupted by the perverse incentives provided by the War on Drugs and Columbia’s own dysfunctional police force.

SWAT policing, as I noted, is a far cry from routine policework. Most small jurisdictions do not need their own SWAT team. However, over the last twenty years, almost every medium to small police department or sheriff has managed to obtain their own SWAT teams, often without citizen approval or request. Moreover, the weapons and armor available to a SWAT team are fairly heavy duty and very expensive to operate and maintain.

A SWAT team is an expensive proposition. To simply get the APV out of the garage and back is a minimum of $2,000. Some of the raids Columbia SWAT have been involved in were on holidays; that means triple hazard, overtime, and holiday pay.

The most perverse part of SWAT policing may be the funding mechanisms that allow it to happen. Federal law allows Columbia police to seize property without proving a crime or obtaining a conviction; moreover, federal law allows Columbia police to keep this money directly, in violation of Missouri constitutional law and Missouri Supreme Court precedents that delegate seizure money to Missouri’s schools. The name of the program is Equitable Sharing, and over the last several years Columbia Police have received hundreds of thousands of dollars with essentially no oversight.

During the last year I have investigated the 106 SWAT warrants Columbia narcotics police served between January 2007-May 2011. You may view the map of these raids at

http://forfeiturereform.com/2010/11/16/columbia-police-department-swat-raids-in-columbia-missouri-2007-may-2010/

Here is Brennan David from the Columbia Tribune (http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jun/27/swat/):

Columbia’s SWAT team served 106 narcotics search warrants between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 11, 2010. The Tribune, through an open records request, received 99 of those search warrants; the others were considered closed records for various reasons.

Of the 99 SWAT narcotics search warrants granted by the Boone County Circuit Court to Columbia police, officers executed 43 percent of them within hours of being issued. Of those, 65 percent resulted in one felony arrest, and 18 percent resulted in misdemeanor arrests.

But the percentage of warrants producing a felony arrest dropped drastically to 37.5 percent when investigators waited one day before serving the search warrant. In those cases, 50 percent produced misdemeanor arrests.

I would also direct the CPRB to the video of another Columbia SWAT raid in 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05gLm6mSZ5M). In this raid, a family is at home when the SWAT team visits; you can see Columbia’s finest holding women and children at gunpoint. There is even a moment of pure incredulity at 7:30, where an officer handcuffs the elderly woman sitting in the bathroom, telling her that she is not under arrest and not in any trouble.

In this raid, 3-4 crack rocks were found, along with some minor paraphernalia. No weapons or evidence of trafficking were found, and despite the prior record of the men who were the target of the warrant, no indications of violence are provided that might justify a SWAT raid on this house in this manner. The woman who was not “arrested” ended up being charged with a paraphernalia possession charge; initially, she pleads not guilty until the court appoints a public defender for her, who negotiates a plea deal with the prosecutor instead of defending her in a court of law. Justice is no longer weighed by a judge in a court of law; it is held at gunpoint before being negotiated in the prosecutor’s office.

No government official here had any incentive to check the wrongdoing, misconduct, or negligence of other government officials.

Other Columbia SWAT raids bear similarly striking details. I have interviewed victims of at least 10 of these raids, who have asked me to bring you parts of their stories. Many of them are fearful that they will find themselves being retaliated against, and none are willing to give me permission to use their names. I have heard and verified tales of SWAT raids being used as retaliation for petty offenses or to put competitors out of business both legal and illegal.

This kind of enforcement is incompatible with the principles of Justice, or of her sister, Mercy.

It is important to note a contrast that I hope illustrates more clearly the problem we face. Boone County Sheriff’s Department does not generate the kind of lawsuits and publicity that Columbia Police Department does. There are a couple structural factors at work here: Columbia Police Department has had an incoherent series of transitions from one police chief to another over the past decade, leaving CPD with dysfunctional leadership and command structures that never had time to build or find the values that law enforcement must have to perform effectively. BSCD, by contrast, has a smaller, more stable force, with much more organizational integrity and continuity of leadership.

We have a few recommendations for the CPRB:

  • First, recommend that the use of SWAT raids for non-violent offences be strictly prohibited.
  • Second, recommend that any SWAT action be fully videotaped. This will allow the city to limit its liability from future civil lawsuits by demonstrating that the city has fulfilled its duty to ensure that any use of force has been accompanied by sufficient checks on its use.
  • Third, recommend that all seizures related to criminal activity be documented, strictly accounted for, and deposited into the School Building Revolving Fund as per RsMO 166.131.
  • Fourth, recommend that the city council refuse any federal funds deriving from seizure or forfeiture funds. Federal funding may be important for emergencies, but seizure money comes to our police free of civilian oversight or legislative control. This undermines our ability to influence policy at the police department. Moreover, un-appropriated funding undermines our ability to control the city budget, particularly when it is used to purchase weapons and equipment that must then be maintained with city funds over time.
  • Fifth, recommend that the city council establish the protocols for enforcement of Columbia’s ordinance regarding cannabis offenses, with particular regard for the rights and safety of chronically ill or incapacitated patients. We understand that the implementation of this ordinance poses problems from a law enforcement perspective, which is why it is important that these directives come from civilian leadership. In this way our police can avoid the criticism of how their enforcement protocols may sometime provide conflicting imperatives.

Finally, please consider the words of Missouri Supreme Court Justice William Ray Price in his address to the Missouri Legislature today (emphasis mine, available here: http://forfeiturereform.com/2011%20state%20of%20the%20judiciary%20-%2002-09-11%20-%20FINAL.pdf):

From the 1980s, in Missouri and across the nation, we attempted to incarcerate our way out of crime and illegal drug use. We thought just putting people in prison would make them better or scare them straight. We spent billions of dollars and it did not work. We were tough on crime, but we were not smart on crime. Consider these numbers.

In 1982, 612,000 people were behind bars in state prisons across the country. By 2008, that number had risen almost fourfold to 2.3 million people. In 2010, the United States incarcerated a higher share of its population than any other country in the world. The cost has been staggering. State correctional spending across our country increased from $11.7 billion, in 1988, to $47.3 billion in 2008. (One in 31 The Long Reach of American Corrections, The Pew Center on the States, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org; The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration, Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010, http://www.cepr.net)

There is a broader debate here over how we approach crime of any nature. I ask you to dare to be smart on crime and engage the broader issues of Drug War reform and incentive-compatible policing in your evaluation of these issues of police conduct and misconduct.

I furthermore recommend the following experts on 4th Amendment law and paramilitary policing:

Radley Balko, former Cato Institute scholar and senior editor of Reason Magazine; expert on SWAT raids and paramilitary policing (radley.responses@gmail.com)

Orin Kerr, Professor of Law at George Washington University; expert on criminal law, asset forfeiture, and Fourth Amendment law (okerr@law.gwu.edu)

John Payne and Audrey Spalding, policy analysts at the Show-Me Institute; asset forfeiture and SWAT raids (john.payne@showmeinstitute.org, audrey.spalding@showmeinstitute.org)

David Roland, lead litigator at the Freedom Center of Missouri; expert on Missouri and US constitutional law (dave@mofreedom.org)

John Chasnoff, Eastern Missouri ACLU; expert on SWAT policing and Fourth Amendment law (john@aclu-em.org)

Peter Kraska, Eastern Kentucky University, expert on SWAT policing (peter.kraska@eku.edu)

Please contact me for any clarification or if you have questions.

I am respectfully yours,

Eapen Thampy
Executive Director, Americans for Forfeiture Reform
3630 Holmes St., Kansas City, MO, 64109
Phone: 573-673-5351
Email: Eapen@ForfeitureReform.com or Eapen.Thampy@gmail.com
Web: http://www.forfeiturereform.com and  http://www.facebook.com/ForfeitureReform

Tagged , , ,
Jan 31 2011
Leave a comment
Economics

Income taxation as an inefficient mechanism

Carl Bearden has an interesting discussion about Missouri’s Fair Tax proposal today that I thought was worth commenting on.

Income taxation means that each eligible individual has to figure out that they are eligible to pay tax, what that tax is, and finally, how and when to pay it. Not all individuals, depending on income status and other variables, have to pay income tax, but at a bare minimum, there is a cost to figuring out that I need to pay taxes on my income. I identify this as inefficient; simply because of the existence of transaction costs, some people simply don’t file tax returns. Worse, some people deliberately don’t file, and a lot of people cheat. Some people simply make mistakes.

 

The system, however, cannot easily correct for free-riders and enforcement costs. You have limited resources to go after tax cheats and people who made mistakes filing, and at the end of the day, most people who keep money from Caesar never face any real penalty.

 

The sales tax is far more efficient. Instead of collecting from individuals, the tax is collected at the point of sale by businesses, a finite number of entities that are registered and (pervasively) regulated anyway. It is a far simpler thing to collect sales tax from the smaller number of businesses and firms than it is to collect income tax from millions of individuals. Moreover, the costs of enforcing compliance are minimized; you already have the regulatory apparatus in place, pretty much, and the tax is simple to calculate (you don’t need H&R Block to fill out a 50 page form for you).

 

From an efficiency criterion, this is a much superior setup. Free-riders find it much harder to escape taxation, and society does not have to be overly intrusive to ensure compliance.

 

 

Tagged , , , ,
Jan 03 2011
Leave a comment
Uncategorized

Kenny Hulshof needs your vote

I was unfortunately unable to vote for former Missouri prosecutor Kenny Hulshof during his 2008 gubernatorial race. Fortunately I now have the chance to vote for Mr. Hulshof; over at The Agitator, Radley Balko has a poll up for worst prosecutor of 2010. You may recall that several of Hulshof’s murder convictions have either been overturned due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct or are likely to be overturned in the future.

Tagged , , ,
Dec 29 2010
Leave a comment
politics, pop culture, power

What happens in New Haven…

This was posted on bulletin boards at Yale this fall semester after a couple episodes of police tasing students. The police in New Haven have also been using SWAT raids to enforce compliance with the underage drinking laws.

Think about that.

Tagged , ,
Dec 29 2010
Leave a comment
history, pop culture

Great stories in federalism, Lawrence Tribe edition

There is a great story about how Lawrence Tribe’s son used to be a college policy debater back in the 80’s. He made a practice of running affirmatives that were vulnerable to federalism criticisms, and opponents would often indeed respond with federalism arguments citing Tribe’s latest federalism scholarship, to which Tribe’s son would respond with a list of author indicts (mostly in the vein of “my dad’s frickin’ crazy”).

Tagged , ,
Dec 28 2010
Leave a comment
Economics, history, law

Papers that need to be written: the property rights frameworks of origin myths

Quick thought: A culture’s origin mythology is usually the basis for much of its legal architecture. As LLSV (1997) note, there are some legal architectures that are vastly superior to others (and they discuss a lot of comparative data on civil vs. common law regimes). Common law regimes are generally superior to civil law regimes in terms of economic and human welfare outcomes. Part of the argument is that common law regimes tend to be principle-based, with legislatures making laws and courts deciding dynamically how the legal principles, the law, and the specific case interact; this allows common law regimes to efficiently catalyze economic development through the efficient evolution of things like tort law. Common law regimes also tend to conceptualize property rights in far more generous terms than civil law regimes. Civil law regimes delegate a lot more importance and foundation to legislative law; you can think of the legislative law as creating lines on a court and judges as referees who are limited to far more technical calls. Civil law regimes tend to be inflexible and less efficient, though there are many unanswered questions. You can think of America or Britain as modern bastions of common law, and French law as a good example of a regime based on civil laws.

So here’s the challenge. Origin myths are foundational “oral constitutions” that provide direction for the legal architecture of a culture. We can analyze some basic ways in which they differ through their conceptualization of property rights, and then look at outcomes. There should be some very interesting comparative work to be done in all directions there, I’m sure, and there is a lot of data in human history, so there should be a lot of interesting natural experiments that can be surveyed.

Tagged , ,
Dec 28 2010
Leave a comment
Economics

Against Tuohey on Haslag, and a comment about taxes

So here is an interesting post by Patrick Tuohey, editor of the Missouri Record (a publication that has previously featured at least one essay by yours truly). In this post, Tuohey very uncharitably slams Show-Me Institute economist Joe Haslag’s latest paper on taxation (disclosure: Haslag taught my Introduction to Macroeconomics class circa 2005). Here is an excerpt from Tuohey’s post:

I’ll take the authors’ word for it because I cannot make heads of tails of the essay itself.  It begins with,

Which tax structure — sales or income — is most preferred by the typical Missourian? For the purposes of this essay, the notion of “most preferred” is formalized as lifetime welfare. Both sales and income taxes are distortionary.

That is when I skipped the following twelve pages to get to that summary.  The writing is so opaque that I defy anyone without an advanced degree in economics to read and understand the whole essay.  This is a shame, because Show-Me has such lofty goals.  Their website states that they,

…study public policy problems and develop proposals to increase economic opportunity for ordinary Missourians. It then promotes those solutions by publishing studies, briefing papers, and other educational materials, which help policymakers, the media, and the general public gain a better understanding of the issues.

But this essay helps exactly no one.  In fact, I’d argue that such argot-laden documents actually hurts the Institute’s mission because well-meaning journalists and policy-makers are less likely to seek their input if they fear they are going to be hit with such… garbage.

At the top, let me say I meet Tuohey’s sole challenge: I have read (and purport to understand) the entire essay, although I do not have an advanced degree in economics. I will say that the essay itself has a clear and understandable summary, and you do need to understand some mathematics to grasp the more technical sections. A lay reader might be comfortable reading the less technical sections, though there might be a couple definitions to look up (but that’s why Al Gore invented Wikipedia, right?). We might also have a discussion about how well I understand the essay, but that that is a separate issue.

Now, I feel bad that Patrick “cannot make head or tails of the essay itself”. But I do not think that Patrick’s observation of his inability to read or comprehend the essay is sufficient evidence for the claim that Haslag’s writing is universally “opaque”. For one, I think that the sole part of the essay that Tuohey excerpts is crystal clear; there is a question asked (What kind of tax do Missourians prefer?), a clarifying statement (we are measuring what Missourians prefer using this notion of total lifetime “benefit”), and a statement that both income and sales taxes are distortionary (which is simply the observation that taxing products distorts the market price for the good or service taxed).

Here’s the thing. If Tuohey can’t understand this essay, that’s fine. It’s one thing to post asking for clarification. It’s entirely another to slam someone else’s work as “garbage” and to say that this “essay helps no one” without a coherent argument for your claim. Certainly reading the essay helped me; I now know and understand more about Ribelo’s AK model (1991) and the dynamics of income taxation, though emulating Haslag’s work remains far beyond my poor capabilities.

Far from being “well-meaning”, I have another word for Tuohey and journalists like him: lazy. Or perhaps: arrogant, rude, or crass. It would behoove Tuohey to post an apology and to (humbly) ask for clarification. If Tuohey does not, then we know he is not intellectually honest.

Tagged , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →