Classical Values :: We'll make static analysis work this time!

December 26, 2007

We'll make static analysis work this time!

What is it about the left and the refusal to learn from history?

In an earlier post, I wrote about the refusal to learn about the danger of appeasement, and now I see that the movement to raise taxes on alcohol has not gone away. Far from it. A New York Times ~~report~~ ~~story~~ editorial that Glenn Reynolds links all but demands major new alcohol taxes.

Great. So the great minds which refuse to learn the lessons of Chamberlain are also adamantly refusing to learn the lessons of Gorbachev.

Granted, more people know about Chamberlain's Munich appeasement folly than Gorbachev's alcohol tax folly, but would the people who know what's best for us even care that what they propose has been tried and failed?

When I clicked on the piece Glenn linked, I found not only naked advocacy masquerading as a news report, but no mention of the likely consequences of the action the writer so obviously wants:

Since the early 1990s, the federal tax on wine -- $1.07 a gallon -- hasn't budged. The taxes on beer and liquor haven't changed either, which means that, in inflation-adjusted terms, alcohol taxes have been steadily falling.

Each of the three taxes is now effectively 33 percent lower than it was in 1992. Since 1970, the federal beer tax has plummeted 63 percent. Many states taxes have also been falling.

At first blush, this sounds like good news: who likes to pay taxes, right? But taxes serve a purpose beyond merely raising general government revenue. Taxes on a given activity are also supposed to pay the costs that activity imposes on society. And for all that is wonderful about wine, beer and liquor, they clearly bring some heavy costs.

Right now, the patchwork of alcohol taxes isn't coming close to covering those costs -- the costs of drunken-driving checkpoints, of hospital bills for alcohol-related accidents and child abuse, and of the economic loss caused by death and injury. Last year, some 17,000 Americans, or almost 50 a day, died in alcohol-related car accidents. An additional 65,000 people a year die from other accidents, assaults or illnesses in which alcohol plays a major role.

Mr. Cook, besides being a wine lover, has been thinking about the costs and benefits of alcohol for much of his career, and he has come up with a blunt way of describing the problem. "Do you think we should be subsidizing alcohol?" he asks. "Because that's what we're doing."

The failure to raise taxes is a subsidy?

Amazing. I always thought subsidies meant payments to producers, but never mind.... This call for tax hikes is static analysis at its absolute worst, and it reminds me of the way Philadelphia bureaucrats keep raising taxes on businesses, then wonder why businesses locate themselves outside the city limits.

By attempting to analogize alcohol to cigarettes, the article avoids any mention of a very important -- perhaps the most telling -- point.

Alcohol is -- in one very major respect -- not like gasoline or cigarettes.

As Gorbachev's commissars learned (and probably should have known), anyone can make it.

Look, I know I'm repeating myself, but I really think I need to spell it out for the static analysts, so here I go again:

Home brewing is already a fairly major industry, and if these people are serious about raising beer taxes (as they appear to be), it might be a good time to "get in on the ground floor" as the saying goes.

Who knows? If they're stupid enough to raise the beer taxes, they might be stupid enough to raise them even higher when the projected revenues don't pan out. Then home brewing would skyrocket, and then they'd really have to raise the taxes. (This process is called static analysis, and it's typical of the bureaucratic mindset.)

As far as the bureaucrats are concerned, this history lecture is probably a waste of time. Like the people who know that socialism doesn't work, these people also know that prohibition (even in the form of high taxes on alcohol) will not work.

But hey, if the program doesn't work, it's back to the drawing board for more meetings and more programs. And hiring new people to figure out how to "improve" on the old program.

If it failed before, and it fails again, we'll just have to keep getting it wrong so we can keep fixing it again.

It's as silly to ask why they don't learn from past failures as it is to ask why a dog licks its tail. (Or other unmentionable areas.)

If you don't want a program to work (but want its failures to generate more programs), why, not learning from past failures becomes part of the program.

Hmmm...

Might be a good time to invest in companies that sell brewing and home distillation equipment, and sugar.

posted by Eric on 12.26.07 at 05:16 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5959

Comments

As I said a bit earlier on a closely related subject, the time has come when stupidity ceases to be an adequate explanation for the follies of left-liberals (ignorance failed the snort test long ago).

We are looking at the fruits of two deadly character faults. One is the determination to believe oneself infallible, by reason of one's moral superiority. The other is a power-lust so strong that it will countenance any means and will rationalize any consequences. The persons who suffer these faults are not stupid, by and large. But some of them are consciously evil, while the rest, should they ever admit their faulty assumptions to themselves, will become suicidal.

America stands at a cusp. Which way events will go is as yet uncertain. Remain watchful.

Francis W. Porretto · December 26, 2007 06:15 PM

"If it failed before, and it fails again, we'll just have to keep getting it wrong so we can keep fixing it again."

That sounds like the agency that I work for! I laughed at first, but now it's really pissing me off...

jan · December 26, 2007 07:28 PM

There's actually a small-but-growing contingent of people who raise their own tobacco, especially in countries where the taxes are much higher than they are here.

Some countries (such as Australia) have enacted prohibition-style laws against it (note the "reefer madness" tone of the page).

Nicotinic · December 26, 2007 10:08 PM

Dynamic analysis is hard. Static analysis is pretty straight forward.

From the Governor's webpage, "More than 117,000 Oregon children live without health insurance."

From the Oregon Department of Human Services press release dated today, " Approximately 75,000 Oregon adults experience problems related to their gambling, which also impacts children and families."

What state agency has the largest advertising budget? The Oregon Lottery. If we ended the Oregon Lottery, how many of those 117,000 kids would no longer have parents frittering away their paychecks?

Let's tax cigarettes and alcohol to pay for kids health? I can't get a billboard to advertise my business, but the state has electronic billboards to promote the lottery? Why does a dog lick its tail?

OregonGuy · December 26, 2007 10:20 PM

Perhaps "cross subsidizing" would have been a better term to use.

This also depends on policy perspective. From what I read, I think where the "subsidizing" term comes up is on the external cost aspects from excessive alcohol comsuption(a parallel could also be drawn with gasoline too).

Though in general it's the poor that subsidize the weathly.

"I'm pro human rights, but I'm also pro human responsibilities too!"

Andrew Dawson · December 26, 2007 10:28 PM

Yes, Andrew, we know you found your meme. Can you be more specific?

Inquiring minds want to know?

Penny · December 26, 2007 11:56 PM

Is this now a leftist issue? As a kid I was introduced to the temperance mentality at the WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) meetings at the local Methodist Church where my grandmother had me play marching music on the piano. And no, I'm not THAT old!
There are still states with dry counties, and a number that make you buy hard spirits from state owned stores, like Oregon.

So the idiots want to raise sin taxes on beer. Haven't they learned anything from the folly of prohibition?

Frank · December 27, 2007 12:28 AM

"Taxes on a given activity are also supposed to pay the costs that activity imposes on society."

That supposition is a canard. Such taxes accrue income and little tin tyranny to parasites, but do nothing to alleviate the so-called costs to society, so airily and arbitrarily determined. Such taxes do punish the drinker or smoker or what have you, and that must be the real purpose of them. They amount to Bills of Attainder. The tyrannical left meets the Puritan.

High taxes on carbon--pigovian taxes--will do nothing to alleviate pollution or climate change--simply create a new set of parasites.

Brett · December 27, 2007 07:31 AM

As someone who has been homebrewing for more than 15 years, I will only say that if you enjoy cooking and you like beer, it's the perfect hobby. And if you don't have the time or inclination to brew all-grain beers, you can easily make award winning beers using malt extract and specialty grains. Another benefit of using extracts is that your brewing and cleanup times are substantially reduced; I can start a batch, finish it and clean up in 2-3 hours. All-grain brewing usually adds another hour or two to the process.

My brewing library actually takes up two shelves on my bookcase. I suspect that it will continue to grow. Fortunately, my wife indulges me this little obsession.

If you're truly interested in this hobby, I'd suggest Alternative Beverage on the east coast and Williams Brewing on the west coast. I had good success with James Page Brewing too, but I don't know if it's still in business. There are a lot more companies making brewing supplies now than when I started, so feel free to investigate on your own. I would also suggest that you buy The Complete Joy of Homebrewing (3rd edition) as a good starter book. It has plenty of advanced techniques and recipes too, if you decide to go that route.

Good brewing.

physics geek · December 27, 2007 10:40 AM