So, the Federal Government Wants a National Tax

An Everett Herald editorial warned that a national sales tax is being talked about on Capitol Hill. Here is what I wrote in response:

I have an idea. Instead of a National Sales Tax, let’s have a National Income Tax. Oh, wait. We already have one of those!

It's not that I object to paying taxes and even more on my income tax if it's really needed. I do object to adding additional taxing options to the government's arsenal.

Increased complexity through multiple avenues of taxation only serves to hide the true cost of government from the people. And, even if it starts out as just a small tax, down the road there's nowhere else to go but up. Also, as the editorial mentions, sales taxes are regressive -- hitting the poor hardest.

Confusion and Lack of Disclosure Make for an Inefficient Market

An Everett Herald article reports that despite the growing number of housing forclosures, there isn't much actual buying activity at auctions on the front steps of the county courthouse. Also, there is plenty of risk for bargain hunters to make a serious mistake. Here is what I wrote:


If buyers at a foreclosure auction can easily not know what it is they are buying (ie: a second mortgage with outstanding debt vs the actual property unencumbered) then the market is not operating efficiently. Many potential bidders would justifiably be unwilling to show up. Since these auctions take place outside the county courthouse, this would be a legitimate service of government to set standards for full and understandable disclosure. Unfortunately, the entire real estate titling system is unnecessarily complex. No doubt this is due to layering of laws and practices over the years without thought as to how it makes the buying process more difficult. There is probably very little incentive to simplify it and make it transparent to people who buy a home two or three times in their life. The complexity provides an opportunity to charge for expertise and to hide flimflammery.

Social networking has many functions

An Everett Herald article noted that users of Facebook and Twitter were from different demographics. One person thought it was a waste of time. One quoted authority said such sites allowed uncommitted interactions between people. Here is what I wrote:

"Sociologist Karen Sternheimer says that's the attraction of all social networking sites. No matter how flashy or simplistic, they provide a chance to interact with others in a way that requires the least possible personal commitment."

Seems to me the reasons people use social networking sites is varied. Some just want to connect with old friends they long ago lost touch with. Others use it as a stepping stone to a new relationship -- which if it is to grow must go beyond the social networking site where it started. Others just like the idea of a place where they can express themselves -- regardless of whether anyone is watching or interacting with them. Twitter, in particular, offers the possiblily of sharing a real-time event with strangers at a moment when nothing else interesting is happening -- or when information sharing about an event they are experiencing (such as a traffic issue) is useful.

Ban on Cell Phone Use while Driving

An Everett Herald article noted that many people ignore Washington State's ban on using a cell phone while driving (It can only be cited if the driver is pulled over for some other offense such as speeding). The article drew more than the usual number of comments from readers. Here is what I wrote:

Gee, is this a hot button topic or what?
Most Herald articles get no responding posts -- maybe one or two at the most!

My two-cents: My employer (a state agency) prohibits use of cell phones and other electronic devices while driving. It happened several years ago when an employee was killed on her way home for the day in a collision caused by a driver who was on a cell phone.

Yes, it's true that there are other distractions that can lead to collisions. But, it is easier to document and defend a citiation for violation of a specific prohibited behaviour rather than the more vague "inattentive". It also helps when there is data that demonstrates that a specific activity is hazardous.

A study was done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2006 which involved wiring 100 vehicles with cameras and sensors that recorded their activities for 18 months. The vehicles logged nearly 2,000,000 miles and generated 42,300 hours or 6.3 terabytes of data. The 241 drivers of the vehicles were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents.

Researchers found that:
+ 80% of crashes and 65% of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within 3 seconds before the event.
+Drowsiness is a significant problem that increases a driver’s risk of a crash or near-crash by at least a factor of four. But drowsy driving may be significantly under-reported in police crash investigations.
+The most common distraction for drivers is the use of cell phones. However, the number of crashes and near-crashes attributable to dialing is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening. Dialing is more dangerous but occurs less often than talking or listening.
+Reaching for a moving object increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times; looking at an external object by 3.7 times; reading by 3 times; applying makeup by 3 times; dialing a hand-held device (typically a cell phone) by almost 3 times; and talking or listening on a hand-held device by 1.3 times.
+Drivers who engage frequently in distracting activities are more likely to be involved in an inattention-related crash or near-crash. However, drivers are often unable to predict when it is safe to look away from the road to multi-task because the situation can change abruptly leaving the driver no time to react even when looking away from the forward roadway for only a brief time.

So, the data supports prohibiting cell phone use while driving -- and apparently several other specific hazardous activities. Like other states with similar laws, it won't be taken seriously until it is made a primary offense.

How should the US deal with charges of torture?

Columnist David Broder wrote in an article praising Obama for ending "waterboarding and other forms of painful coercion": "But he was just as right to declare that there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been the policy of the United States government". Here is what I wrote in response:

This isn't just about a policy change

If all that happened was that a policy changed because the incoming administration felt differently about "enhanced interrogation", then I would agree with Mr. Broder that criminal investigation and possible prosecutions are out of order.

But, what happened was that many people were subjected to what historically has been called "torture" by this and other civilized countries. The fact that this torture was cloaked in legal policy discussions doesn't cleanse the fact that real people (some of whom who were innocent and shown to have no connection to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban) were subjected to real pain and terror under order of US government officials. "I was only acting under orders." was not an acceptable defense for Nazis at Nuremburg.

I don't favor a political witch hunt. However, a criminal investigation into the decisions and actions that resulted in the torture of specific individuals authorized by specific individuals is necessary. People who hold high power, especially, must be accountable for their actions under the law -- since they are capable of doing much damage to the people and the constitution.

Tags:
Broder
torture
Nuremberg
waterboarding