Roe v. Wade

I've long believed that the decision in Roe v. Wade was an example of judicial overreach that did very little to secure women's rights and ultimately helped to empowered the pro-life movement. Whether you agree with that position or not, I think it's pretty hard to argue that Roe was fairly decided. Aside from some of the practical issues that complicated the case -- like the fact that Jane Roe (whose real name is Norma McCorvey) now admits she committed perjury when she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape -- there are a number of moral and legal question which I believe the Court overlooked or oversimplified in rendering its final decision. Still, there's one thing that keeps bugging me . . .

The debate over Roe usually centers around two main arguments. Supporters of the decision maintain that there is a Constitutionally-implied right to privacy (established by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut), which safeguards a woman's right to control her own body. Opponents, on the other hand, contend that states have a "compelling interest" in preserving potential life (at whatever stage of development), and that this interest may supersede the right of a mother to arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy.

I happen to think the notion that an implied "right to privacy" further implies a right to unlimited legal abortion within the first trimester is a bit of a logical leap. But the question that's been really been nagging at me is this: If the Supreme Court doesn't recognize an unborn child as having any compelling right to life (at least within the first trimester), how can our legal system hold abusive husbands responsible when their actions lead to miscarriage or death of the child? Why, for example, was someone like Scott Peterson charged with second degree murder in the killing his unborn child? If Laci Peterson had been earlier along in her pregnancy, would this charge have stuck?

Any thoughts?

Blame game

Megan McArdle has a must-read post on the widespread mental deficiency that caused the housing crisis. The upshot:

What we need, fundamentally, is not simply stricter regulation or less greedy bankers. What we need is better economic theory of how these things play out, so that the regulators have better tools to assess and prevent systemic risk. But that's not how we're thinking right now. What we're looking for is not better tools, but someone to blame.

Because, after all, we know that it wasn't us who was at fault. We're just the victim of broad market forces outside our control.

The one culprit I think she left out is the credit rating agencies -- like Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poors -- who were giving what we now know were extremely risky CDOs awfully high investment grades. I still don't understand how these companies' risk formulas managed to hit so dangerously off the mark. Some of these CDOs were given the same AAA rating that U.S. Treasury bonds receive.

Maybe the broader lesson here is that we shouldn't expect mathematical certainty when we're assessing human activity . . .

Above the law

I don't understand why Charlie Rangel isn't in jail yet. This isn't his first "mistake." And, as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, shouldn't he know a bit more about the tax code than, say, anybody else in the country?

He's been breaking the law a bit too much for his own good lately. . .

Andrew Sullivan's Palin bias?

I tend to agree with Ross Douthat that Andrew Sullivan is being unfair to the Alaskan governor, but I don't think he's being inconsistent. Palin is clearly unqualified for office. It's not outrageous or sexist to suggest that she was selected for reasons other than her management experience. And if Palin was an "affirmative action" pick, as seems likely, her being on the ticket isn't the victory for feminism that Ross seems to think it is. Sullivan puts it best:

[H]ow many Republican vice-presidential picks have lauded Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro in their acceptance speech? It wasn't even subtle. I find this kind of attitude to be about condescension, not feminism; about tokenism, not post-gender meritocracy.

Still, Sullivan definitely goes overboard. It's one thing to criticize McCain for such a blatant appeal to identity politics; it's quite another to imply that Palin is a vapid airhead. Whatever Palin's shortcomings, stupidity is certainly not among them. She wouldn't have been chosen if McCain didn't believe she could stand up against Joe Biden in a debate.

I have a good feeling she'll surprise everyone . . .

What is sound tax policy?

A must-read response to Ezra Klein's post on tax policy. If you're in favor of raising marginal rates, at least consider Megan McArdle's counterarguments.

Meat Sandwich?

I've always been turned off by the hysterics that seem to dominate the debate over animal liberation, but perhaps that's because I can't fully grasp the moral complexity of the issue.

To me, it's pretty simple. I don't value animals in anything like the same way that I value humans, and I don't think that animal life carries any significant moral weight. Thus, I'm against giving animals considerable legal protections. And while I can understand the impulse to try to limit animal suffering--by enacting basic animal cruelty statutes, for example--I don't get the attempts to preserve animal life.

Having said that, I realize that values are subjective, and that animal rights advocates will actively try to prevent me from eating meat. This is fine, as long as it's done within the confines of the law--by lobbying for greater restrictions on meat products, promoting discussion, and staging public relations campaigns with scantily clad pornstars. Obviously, I will oppose and mock all of these efforts, while I slowly develop heart disease and die from eating too much red meat.

In general, animal rights organizations focus their arguments around animal suffering rather than sanctity of life issues, but the slaughter of animals is what seems to cause the most controversy. This, I think, is why we'll never be able to reach any sort of compromise on this issue. Clearly, animal liberation groups would still oppose killing animals if it could be done without causing suffering. If we slaughtered chickens with pentobarbital or if we could magically remove a cow's nociceptors, it wouldn't make any difference to animal rights campaigners. It would still be "wrong."

So, what's the real issue here? As much as animal rights advocates would love to find some objective standards to cling to, it seems to me that this is always going to be a question of personal morality. If logic played a factor here, it may be worth debating. But how can we adjudicate between competing value systems?

As an old professor of mine once said--when you start framing an issue in moral terms, you might as well take it off the table.

Obama v. McCain

This is a pretty interesting election for me. I have two candidates who I really respect.

I appreciate that both Obama and McCain tend toward the center, even if they've both advanced policies with which I strongly disagree. I know that Obama and McCain are both men of integrity, even though they've done things that are out of character. And I trust that both Obama and McCain have the best interest of the country in mind, even if they've been willing to make some ridiculous statements--or run some unfortunate ad campaigns--along the way.

Having said that, I know that I'm too fiscally conservative to ever fully support Obama's economic agenda. While it's true that I have decidedly mixed feelings about universal health care, on almost every other economic issue, I think Obama is too far left.

But I am also very socially liberal. I care about issues like gay equality and warrantless wiretapping. And though I'm almost certain the Democrats will win large majorities this November, I'm still deeply concerned about Supreme Court nominations.

So, for me, this election really comes down to two questions:

1) Which candidate is most competent to run the country?

2) Which set of issues am I, at this stage in my life, most concerned with?

When I look at the election this way, Obama is the clear choice.

Your moment of Zen

For those of you who a) know who Ted Stevens is, and b) hate his guts, your moment of bliss has arrived. They're finally indicting this incredible douchebag.

This is pretty good news for the Democrats. Stevens--who is currently the longest-serving Republican in the Senate--is up for reelection this year, and I have a feeling his support is going dry up pretty quickly.

For McCain, this may be a good opportunity to show his independent streak. He's been a strong critic of Stevens in the past, frequently invoking the "Bridge to Nowhere" as an example of the wasteful pork that now dominates discretionary spending.

Anyway, the next few days should be interesting . . . .

Another boring economics post on . . . housing!

Paul Krugman has an interesting op-ed in today's NYT on the housing bill that's likely to be signed into law this week. Like many economists, Krugman seems to think that it offers a lot piecemeal remedies to the current housing crisis, but very little in the way of comprehensive reform of the mortgage industry.

Krugman's solution is, of course, to strong-arm mortgage originators into more vigorously screening applicants--compelling them to deny mortgages to the riskiest borrowers in order to protect the rest of us. And I must say, I don't necessarily disagree with this:

If the government is going to stand behind financial institutions, those institutions had better be carefully regulated — because otherwise the game of heads I win, tails you lose will be played more furiously than ever, at taxpayers’ expense.

If the government is going to be taking on billions of dollars in mortgage liability, of course it should force financial institutions to limit the amount of risk that they're exposed to. The issue is why the federal government is bailing out large investment banks like Bear Stearns with tax payer dollars in the first place. Aren't we setting an awfully scary precedent by doing this?

I can understand ensuring the liquidity of large government-sponsored enterprises like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac (which are already intensely regulated by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight), but why is the Federal Reserve now letting private investment firms off the hook for bad decisions?

I'm certainly not an expert on the mortgage industry, and I can't imagine how hard it must be for all of those families facing foreclosure, but it seems to me that if our goal is a little more humility from large financial institutions, it's probably a bad idea to tell them that they're basically too important to fail--no matter how badly they screw things up.

Taxing the rich

A few days back, CNN posted an interesting analysis of Obama's tax plan, and how it will impact wealthy Americans . I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but I should say that I'm not particularly opposed to raising the top marginal income rates back to their pre-2001 levels. (I do, however, think it's a bit deceptive for Obama to say he's "rolling back the Bush tax cuts," since Bush was basically rolling back Clinton-era tax hikes).

I am concerned about Obama's plan to lift the cap on income subject payroll taxes. Will employers have to pay an additional 6.2% on every dollar over 250,000? If so, isn't Obama concerned about wage deflation? Or unemployment? Or economic stagnation? Would he consider an exemption for small businesses?

Obama is surprisingly vague on the details. At a time when we're cycling out of a pretty severe contraction, should we really be focusing on this kind of income redistribution?