In just over fifteen months, both my oldest daughters will likely have their drivers’ licenses.  In addition to driving themselves to school, football games, etc., they’ll also be able to get to a job.  Thank goodness we live in Texas, because they’ll face one less obstacle to finding employment than do kids in other states; a minimum wage prohibited by law from rising higher than the federal $7.25 level.

In their constant drive to shield all manner of folks from the responsibilities of adulthood, democrats in Washington want to more than double this price floor.  Even though many starting wages here in San Antonio are above the current minimum, they are well below the $15 proposal.  Needless to say, this proposal would shut out many teenagers who might not be grandfathered in by current jobs.  On the flip side, it would attract some to an easier gig than what they’re currently having to do for roughly the same pay. 

This perversion reflects the left’s general (mis)understanding of economics and incentives, not to mention human nature.  So convinced are they of the virtues of this policy that they dismiss job losses of as much as nearly 4 million, according to a recent CBO report, as “worth whatever the cost might be.”  The cynic could be forgiven for seeing this as a step closer to total government dependence when combined with a universal basic income, their supposed solution to the imminent takeover of our society by robots. 

Business’ constant drive to keep costs low in order to stay afloat, and by extension maintain a payroll, has prompted many to utilize such automation, which ironically makes these price controls obsolete.  To the extent that it makes jobs vanish, it’s a quiet disappearance via attrition: a worker leaves, but is not replaced.  Bigger companies can afford to experiment and deploy cost-saving technology.  As a result, a hike in the minimum wage is an affordable, temporary uptick against revenues.  It is also an assist from the government at keeping smaller competitors at bay.   

As a result, some companies are indifferent to it.  Others, not so much. 

During a debate last year about the Alamo City’s proposed paid-sick-leave ordinance, a lady told me she already offers it to her employees, and that her rivals should be compelled to do the same in order to “level the playing field.”
 
When Amazon announces that they “intend to … gain congressional support for an increase in the federal minimum wage” to the same $15 level they just granted to its employees, the scale is different, but the principle is the same.  Politicians laying out plans to “revitalize … rural America” should know better when Walmart urges “Congress to boost the federal minimum wage.”  It’s reminiscent of when golf courses tried to “Tiger-Proof” their holes by lengthening them to a distance manageable only by … Tiger Woods.   

Smaller companies are less able to absorb higher labor costs.  At some point, the owner cannot support herself and her family and therefore has to abandon her venture and find paid employment at a bigger firm.  Meanwhile, her former employees join the increased supply of labor clamoring for work at the bigger company that now needs fewer employees thanks to the aforementioned technology.  This is how monopolies AND monopsonies (sole buyer of labor) are born.   

This is not at all an argument against automation, which itself is a sign of progress and prosperity.  Often times a small business needs manual help to get off the ground.  It is doubtful, judging by their modest-looking storefronts, that local businesses can do so with anything more than basic technology i.e. cash register, debit card machine, etc.  They need the flexibility to find just the right people at freely agreed-upon wages, who are happy to get their foot in the door.  This is as much a case of jobs that will never be created, as it is those that we see today eventually disappearing. 
​
As it is, the only doors my daughters have wedged open is mine and that of their mothers.  I’m happy to keep paying them to tend to the lawn so I can do other things.  I would however, appreciate the workout from pushing a mower around lawn if they landed a job somewhere, though I suspect my wife would soon hire a housekeeper to make up for the lost mopping services.  In the end, that’s lower unemployment by three people.

​​One of my favorite publications is the “Review” section of the Weekend (Wall Street) Journal.  For anyone whose desire to read outweighs their available time to do so, it provides nice, thorough synopses of books that document the nooks and crannies of history to which general textbooks don’t have the pages to commit: Oliver Wendell Holmes’ life before ascending to the Supreme Court, 18th and 19th century life in Ohio when it “was the frontier”, etc.
 
More recently, Gordon Marion reviewed Mark Kram Jr.’s “Smokin’ Joe,” a biography of the late heavyweight boxing champion, and 3-time Muhammad Ali foil, Joe Frazier.  Among the notable details was the fact that five different women gave birth to his eleven kids, an occurrence not uncommon among celebrities: Ali himself, actor/director Clint Eastwood, comedian Eddie Murphy, et al.
 
This dynamic has been on my mind since I learned that recent San Antonio mayoral candidate Greg Brockhouse has four children with four mothers.
 
It goes without saying that the ideal arrangement for children is that they live with both of their biological parents 24/7.  When two people accept the duty that comes with parenthood, no one else has the same vested interest in the health, well-being and success of their children. 
 
Life happens, though. 
 
Some spouses commit acts of inexcusable betrayal, or maybe worse; perpetrate a crime.  Intractable clashes of principle can also make continued cohabitation untenable.  Some relationships break down over time, and marriages are not immune.
 
None of this necessarily erodes parents’ childrearing abilities, or absolves them of the responsibility they have to the children who depend upon them. 
 
Spending enough quality time with each child is enough of a challenge when just one father and one mother are involved.  The logistics of trying to pull it off when there are greater multiples of parents are difficult to comprehend.  Unfortunately, irrespective of the particular situation, one parent usually gets primary custody while the other ends up paying child support. 
 
What’s worrisome about these arrangements is that children typically spend only a quarter to a third of their time with the non-custodial parent.  According to a U.S. Census report, as recently as 2016 mothers accounted for 80% of custodial parents. 
 
The mother may be the best one a child or children could have.  That does not however, diminish the equivalent importance of a father in a child’s life.  Moms and dads tend to occupy different roles.
 
While a mother generally has a softer touch, the father is usually more stern.  As mom is imparting manners and etiquette, dad is being a goofball.  As mom is advising that care be taken before climbing into a treehouse, dad is saying “go for it!”
 
It gets more serious as time progresses.
 
The authenticity with which dad speaks to the machinations of young boys is second to none; he was one after all.  He can caution his son(s) about the ramifications of being hotheaded, before the latter encounters a bigger fish one day and learns the lesson the hard way. 
 
Also, not only can he convey to young men the importance of treating girls with respect, he can also lead by example via how he treats their mother, and his spouse if he’s remarried.  Daughters can get the same lesson, but dad can show them more directly via date nights: opening doors, pulling out chairs, etc.
 
It should be no surprise then what tends to happen when dad isn’t around.  It’s been well-documented that educational achievement is lower, drug/alcohol use is higher, as is criminal activity.  Arguably the worst manifestation of the latter is the direct link shown between mass shootings and the fatherlessness of the shooters.
 
Dads need to step up. 
 
Kids aren’t just a “check,” as I once heard a father infer.  Regardless of the nature of the demise of their relationship with the mother, they have an obligation to their children, and society as a whole, to fulfill their parental responsibility.  They and moms need to set aside any residual hurt feelings and commit to more equal involvement in the lives of the children. 
 
Forunately, the tide is turning for the better.
 
More states have sought to reform custodial laws so as to address each case from a position of co-equal parenting, most recently in Missouri.  Some celebrities have exposed their fatherless childhood wounds in an public effort to break the cycle, including none other than James Hetfield, frontman of the legendary metal band Metallica. 
 
All this is not to say kids are absolutely doomed in the absence of one parent.  Examples to the contrary exist, as do instances of children who persevered through the presence of bad parents.  Regardless of the situation, once a child is conceived, parents need to accept that demands on their time have necessarily changed, and that the importance is 50/50 between the two.

We’ve been enduring a regular drip of whining these days regarding the misguided notion that “capitalism is broken.”  It has even crept into my house, as my oldest daughter has been hearing from her classmates about the virtues of socialism (the dire situation in Venezuela notwithstanding). 

This both startles and thrills me.

It startles me because I wonder where it’s coming from.  The best case scenario is that it’s not talked about at home.  The worst case scenario is that is that they’re learning about it from authority figures, absent its inherent individual submissiveness and responsibility abdication no doubt. 

Nonetheless, I’m thrilled as well.  Having the opportunity to teach college students is one thing.  Being able to convey to my own children the wisdom of the principles codified by our Founding Fathers is quite another.  It’s a privilege.

My mind filled with these thoughts upon reading Peggy Noonan’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal.  I’m not a regular reader of her weekend “Declarations,” but the highlighted “Less taxes and spending won’t resolve America’s crisis” caught my attention.

Initially I thought to myself “great; another ‘conservative’ throwing in the towel on fiscal matters.”  Sure enough, she taps out: “the federal government will not become smaller or less expensive in our lifetimes.”

A couple years ago, a younger friend of mine expressed a similar sentiment when he asked “shouldn’t we just accept the government we have and work with it?”  Even if I deemphasized my stance on one issue in favor of others, I can’t imagine so openly surrendering my principle in the process.

Alas, principles aren’t what they seem.  When she says the “old conservatism of smaller government … was deeply pertinent to its era and philosophically right, but it is not fully in line with the crises of our time or its reigning facts,” it sounds more like political messaging than a set of deeply-held values. 

That’s ironic given her reasoning for why the government should “revitalize small towns.”  “We lose a lot when we lose those old shared ways and values,” she laments.  Unclear is what politicians and bureaucrats thousands of miles away could do to rejuvenate thousands of towns with merely thousands of residents each.

Having grown up in one such town (Victoria, TX, population 67K), with most of my elder relatives a half hour away in Goliad, TX. (pop. 2K), I can say values there were sturdy.  It was those same values that “(bound them) together” when an arsonist flattened a mosque a couple years ago.

People from around the world donated more than $1 million to rebuild.  Local stores donated a cut of their sales to the same.  Varied houses of worship opened their doors.  “Victoria is not looked at as the city that burned a Muslim church, it's looked at as the city that came together,” said Abe Ajrami, board member of the Victoria Islamic Center.

One could be forgiven his/her skepticism that better values could be injected from a place where they appear more malleable.  The government, regardless of jurisdiction, can no more do that than it can “help families form and grow.”  In fact, excessive state involvement in our lives has arguably contributed to the deterioration of the family, under the guise of doing “whatever will help.” 

Her essay essentially reads like a “Compassionate Conservatism” reboot: comfort with the government as is, and republicans should do “whatever it takes … to make it significantly more helpful.”  The good intentions implied in “compassionate” do however, allow some room for a couple of worthy ideas.

I found myself nodding along to the idea of a return of “settlement houses” to teach prospective Americans “the meaning and history” of their new home.  Immigrants go to great expense, be it monetary, time, personal risk, etc., to come here to make a better life for themselves.  They seek the same opportunity with which my daughters were born.

The current anti-immigrant sentiment that permeates certain segments of our society is unfortunate, but much of the time it’s predicated on a valid concern; legality.  Immigrating to the U.S. should be easy and permissive.  You bring a disease, you stay in quarantine until deemed healthy.  You come here a criminal, you get turned away a criminal.  To everyone else, welcome, and here’s your path to citizenship.

Additionally, though the suggestion to “drag … lost … teenage boys … of the working and middle classes … out of” their house was likely made tongue-in-cheek, it sounds like one good way to populate the labor force required to fix up our ports, bridges, etc. 

The irony is that spending on immigration and infrastructure is not what put the federal fisc in its current distended state, and the rest of her “Compassionate Conservative 2.0” brings back bad memories from 1.0.

For the first time in a half century, the GOP had control of congress as the 21st century began, and for a majority of it, a republican presidency.  But far from being the “sober-minded … best stewards” of the government who look at spending “coolly,” as Ms. Noonan envisions, they became drunk with the power of the purse.  Spending rose an average of 7% per year, 2-3 times the rate of inflation.

Perhaps the saddest part of this commentary is that she predicates her entreaty on the certainty of a “terrible day” in our future, an act of war against us using nuclear or biological weapons.  This is eerily reminiscent of the justifications we hear to maintain military spending more than twice as high as China, and more than the next seven countries combined. 

Only those who live under a rock are unaware of the presence of such weapons.  To exploit fears of such nightmare scenarios so that taxpayer resources can be politically-directed toward “growing families” is unfortunate to say the least.  Not only should such appeals be rejected, but so should said defense spending be subject to greater spending discipline, especially when the Pentagon seems prone to lose track of almost a billion dollars.

On one of the tests in my macroeconomics class, a question states “discretionary fiscal policy is limited by the fact that roughly __% of the federal budget is dedicated to defense or is on autopilot: 30, 50, 70 or 90.”  The answer is 70. 

Rooting out “waste and fraud” is always a noble sentiment, but over the years it’s been reduced to little more than a political bromide intended to placate those committed to a constitutionally-sized government.  If republicans “naturally enjoy” this exercise, as Ms. Noonan alleges, they’ll work with President Trump in his effort to sell off the governments $1.45 trillion student loan debt to private investors, just to name one example.  They could even go a step further and help him make the Department of Education leaner.

While abolishing the DoE altogether and returning that function to the states where it belongs is the ultimate goal, these practical baby-steps would at least prove her right.  The primary target of spending reform however, should be that ~70%.

Some of what should be done is simply common sense. 

Life expectancy for example, has increased by roughly a decade since the inception of both social security and Medicare.  Logic dictates that the age of eligibility should follow suit.  Also, we should have more choice about our participation in these programs, and the way disbursements are administered.

Furthermore, there’s a popular myth that these entitlements have dedicated revenue streams; the payroll tax.  The fact is, barely a third of Medicare is funded that way, and if demographic trends don’t change, it’s currently projected that social security will also have to start dipping into general revenues to help pay out full benefits in fifteen years. 

Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has a wonderfully illuminative chart that shows the inflationary effects wrought by government involvement in some of these sectors.  It eats into our ability to pursue other worthy personal ventures, not to mention the vicious cycle it perpetrates on the federal budget.  

If we do not adequately address these problems, interest on the national debt will likely blow past 10% of the budget, and Ms. Noonan’s spending preferences will be further squeezed.  This assumes of course that hers is not simply one of the initial ‘conservative’ endorsements of the fantasy known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). 

She is certainly correct in stating that republicans are bigger proponents of free-market capitalism than are democrats.  One might quibble that her claim that progressives simply do “not love it” is too restrictive.  Some on the left profess to and genuinely enjoy prosperity, but their obliviousness regarding which policies support or impede it is often staggering. 

Regardless, even though republicans have proven they can spend, they can’t match the deceptively gleeful ignorance with which democrats assert they can give things away cost-free.  If we’re stuck with a two-party system, they need to be the party that aggressively represents and promotes independence and personal responsibility, not to mention logic and basic math.  If a parent cannot understand or accept his/her duty to his/her children, no amount of government largesse is going to change that.
​
It’s been proven before, as recently as 2006 and last year, that republicans can’t win elections maintaining or adding to the welfare state.  They might as well stand and act on effective, decidedly American principles, to the extent they still exist within the party.

By Chris Baecker and David Peek
===
Two years have passed since what can safely be characterized as a very unusual, highly-charged presidential election, which produced a result that shocked many; the election of Donald Trump.  That means it’s time for midterm elections, where all 435 representatives in the House, and 35 senators (2 via special election) face the voters.
 
Midterms have traditionally been a dicey proposition for the president’s party.  Levelheaded voters, including his supporters, should be able to reasonably surmise that if any president could so inflame the opposition to maintain that trend, it would be President Trump.  
 
As if his blunt, abrasive personality wasn’t enough, the fact that he lost the popular vote by almost three million on the way to victory in the Electoral College triggers the intensity of his detractors to the level of a bonfire.  The recent confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned that bonfire into an inferno. 
 
One thing most regular folks see on fire right now however, is the economy.
 
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently reported that GDP grew by 3.5% in the 3rd quarter.  That follows 4.2% growth in the 2nd quarter.  Wages are rising.  Unemployment is at historic lows, down across most demographic groups.  It’s true that unemployment has been steadily trending downward since the recession of a decade ago, but so was participation in the labor force.   Until a couple years ago.  Unemployment has continued dropping even as more people have (re)entered the labor force. 
 
While democrats and former President Obama have been quick to throw dirt on the leftist commentariat’s predictions of economic doom under President Trump in order to grab some credit, a look at the facts tell a different story.  There is a clear break between the first several years of the last decade, and the last couple.  We’ve gone from a rollercoaster GDP ride to one of an ascending flight of stairs. 
 
When we covered fiscal policy a few weeks ago, I told my class that government actions do have an effect on the economy, though it’s more analogous to a jumbo jet changing course rather than us taking a left turn in our cars.   Because of President Trump’s stout deregulatory posture and his signature on tax simplification/reduction, a bumpy taxi down the runway appears to be giving way to a long-awaited takeoff for the economy. 
 
The only foreseeable bumps in the road are the current trade disputes and the impasse on immigration policy, the resolution of the latter of which could help fill the excess of job openings over job seekers.  Fortunately there are enough pro-free trade and pro-immigration republicans to keep either situation from devolving much.
 
With that in mind, we can’t help but wonder why voters would hand over the House speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi, who characterized as “crumbs” the employee raises and bonuses handed out by companies after the passage of the tax reduction?  Why would we put in charge her and the party she leads when they appear perpetually challenged by the simple logic that those individuals and entities that pay more in income taxes tend to gain more of the “benefit” when taxes are lowered?
 
This is the same party that, every time a tragic mass shooting occurs, comes out guns blazing wanting to shoot more holes in the 2nd amendment.  Yet their own gun control proves poor in that regard when it’s revealed that many of these shootings either happen in gun-free zones, or the killer broke gun control laws already on the books, or both.  Common sense yields to uncontrollable emotions, raging passions that can seemingly only be pacified by the former President Obama’s smooth smile or a wink of Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s batting eyes.
 
They are quick to get stoked again though, when a republican president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
 
A quick look at the last 100 years shows that, by and large, presidents have been given deference regarding such nominations.  In recent times however, even non-controversial republican appointees garnered only a handful of democrat votes.  The rest are afraid of losing the ability to get the constitution to say what they want it to say, instead of, gasp, living by its original meaning.
 
When controversy does arise, a total meltdown ensues, and the legitimacy of nearly every institution is called into question.  We saw less whining when our respective nine children were in diapers.

Furthermore, their lack of shame appears indirectly proportional to their intellectual honesty when confronted with a GOP merely following the precedent laid down by their own leaders regarding appointments in a presidential election year. 
 
One might then ask “don’t we need two prominent political parties to keep each other in check?”  Don’t we need “these guys to watch those guys,” in the words of the late Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter?  As long as the system is rigged against third parties, that’s a legitimate concern.  Democrats however, regularly demonstrate that, at best they are too unserious, and at worst too dangerous, to be that other party.
 
We need a second party where Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky would feel at home.  He was the only to voice genuine constitutional concerns about Justice Kavanaugh, regarding the 4th amendment, that weren’t just worn-out political talking points. 
 
We need a second party that would welcome Congressman Thomas Massie, also from Kentucky.  No doubt informed by his belief in the 10th amendment, last year he introduced legislation to abolish the federal Department of Education.  One has to believe this would be helpful in restoring some market discipline into the student loan sector that has Americans on the hook for $1.5 trillion.
 
We need a second party that has no illusions regarding the source of our fiscal/budget problems; excessive spending.  Spending is an emotional narcotic employed by democrats to scare people into thinking we need the government to provide for us.  They think it’s the candy and we’re the baby.  We need a second party that is immune to this rubbish.
 
We need a party that appreciates when someone like Congressman Justin Amash from Michigan pushes for a humbler, less adventurous foreign policy conducted on a tighter budget.
 
In a recent column in the New York Times, Bret Stephens, who hopes “republicans get pummeled in the midterms,” lamented how the democrats are “flubbing it”:  from the myriad ways they lost their marbles during the Kavanaugh hearings, to the (encouragement of) public heckling of republican officials, to countering them from beneath the gutter.  He pines for a “party of moderation, not extremism.”
 
The democratic party is not that party.
===
Christopher E. Baecker manages fixed assets for Pioneer Energy Services in San Antonio, and is an adjunct lecturer of economics at Northwest Vista College.  He is a 2006 graduate of UT-San Antonio, a 1996 graduate of UT-Dallas and a 1990 graduate of Victoria High School. He can be reached at facebook.com/professormetal/ or professormetal@chrisbaecker.com.
David E. Peek currently serves as the Rockwall County Treasurer.  He was a 2008 Delegate to the Republican National Convention, a Distinguished Military Graduate of the United States Military at West Point, and a 1987 graduate of Samuel Clemens High School in Schertz.

​Once on his T.V. show, John Stossel laid out dozens of consumer goods: a flashlight, a newspaper, a video camera, etc.  As he strode along the tables, he picked up and demonstrated some, then held up a smart phone and said “now it’s all in my phone for a few hundred dollars.  What a bargain!”
 
Back in the day when you fumbled your way to turn off the alarm clock, or took your Walkman to the gym, or mapped out a particular destination, did you ever think to yourself “man it’d be great if I could access all my stuff at once in the palm of my hand?”  If you did, did you go around waving money hoping someone would concoct and sell such a device to you?  Doubtful. 
 
Make no mistake; for all but the most basic goods, supply creates demand.
 
Many of us have had an idea(s) that we thought could possibly be turned into a worthwhile commercial venture, but how many could actually do something about it? 
 
While we’re partying, playing ball or otherwise maximizing our leisure time, folks like computer programming pioneer Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, or Tony Fadell, co-inventor of the Nest Thermostat, are trying to figure out a way to make life better, easier.  Whereas we’re busy adding bells and whistles to our resume, these visionaries we’ll end up working for are singularly focused and determined to make their vision a reality. 
 
“Entrepreneurial spirit” is a personality trait that can’t be taught.  Without its creative spark, much land, labor and capital would lay idle; some of the latter two might not even exist.  There would be notably less progress without that applied imagination. 
 
While untold numbers of these dreams are never realized, some are: the tastiest recipe comes together, biology and chemistry are merged perfectly into a life-saving medicine, etc.  At that point a vital characteristic kicks in; intestinal fortitude. 
 
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment, and you can start to understand why a high school classmate recently told me he’s “gone crazy and started a second business”; many times they are trading a regular paycheck for a world of uncertainty. 
 
These producers deserve the utmost respect and admiration for taking the dive.  Unfortunately, too many people don’t get it.  “You chose to do that, so deal with the taxes and regulations” someone once told a friend of mine who co-owns not one, but two businesses.
 
These are probably the same type of folks behind some of the more misguided, domineering initiatives to have sprung up across the country in recent years. 
--
In May, in an effort to deal with a growing homelessness problem, the Seattle city council unanimously passed a so-called head-tax of $275 on every employee of local businesses that earned at least $20 million annually.  They wanted $500, but the mayor threatened a veto because apparently that was too high. 
 
Seattle-based Amazon issued a veto threat of its own, implying that a second headquarters might not be the only company growth that happens outside the city due to its “hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses.”
 
A month later, the city repealed the measure.   
 
A few years prior, the Emerald City boosting the minimum wage to $15 per hour.  Even as this particular policy slips further into obsolescence due to automation and the fact that very few people support a family on such earnings, how insolent of a public body to commandeer the resources of those who risked their livelihood and financial solvency to get a new venture off the ground. 
 
In addition to having their own elevated minimum wage, the D.C. city council recently raised by fivefold the revenue tax on Uber, Lyft and other ridesharing companies in order to provide funding for the  government-run Metro transit system. 
 
What type of reasoning concludes that one way to fix homelessness is to tax employment, the very activity that produces the income needed to obtain shelter?  What kind of imperious mentality endorses taking from successful companies to give to a failing entity?
 
The irony with these ordinances is that the homelessness is exacerbated by restrictive zoning and a building code that is more than twice the size of Portland and Austin combined, and the overcharged Metro patronage is slipping in part because of safety and maintenance concerns.
 
This kind of foolish, authoritarian approach has infected other parts of the country as well. 
 
In the Big Apple, Mayor Bill De Blasio and the city council are going another round with those same ride-sharers by capping new vehicle licenses and imposing upon them an industry-specific minimum wage.  Even here in the Alamo City an ordinance was recently passed to coerce businesses to pay for employee sick days. 
 
If politicians as high up as Sens. Cory Booker (D – N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D – N.Y.) are so confident in their business ability that they’ll propose a jobs guarantee, why not strike out on their own, without the cushion of a taxpayer-supported slush fund?
 
Because just like many other officials and activists, they have scant, if any experience owning/running a business.  It begs the question; where does all this misplaced overconfidence come from? 
 
Innovators and producers don’t ask for our gratitude, but nor do they welcome such arrogant policy supported and enacted by those with only a fraction of their cojones.  If these kinds of regulations continue to proliferate, the next big gadget or service could very well disappear from the future just like Marty McFly before his parents kissed.   
--
Perhaps these bureaucrats and advocates could instead become productive members of society and put their money where their mouth is, like the investors in the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment did a couple years ago.
 
Led by former executive director Sister Patricia Daly, they spearheaded a shareholder drive to compel ExxonMobil to factor the “realities of climate change” into their policies.  Sister Daly is currently on the advisory board of Jana Impact Capital fund, which along with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, is pushing Apple to “offer parents more tools” to help them monitor their kids’ activities on their products. 
 
Or, they could follow Howard Schultz’ example.
 
Under his leadership, in an effort to “build the kind of company that … not only cares for its people but gives them opportunities to be their best,” Starbucks recently gave a healthy bump in pay to its employees, extended to most of them tuition reimbursement for an entire bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University, and expanded parental and sick leave benefits. 
 
If those avenues seem too daunting, they could open a lemonade stand and experience the wet blanket their ilk have thrown on pre-teen entrepreneurs.   
--
Fans of “The Walking Dead” will recall the first things the survivors did after escaping the “biters”: gather food, set up shelter and scavenge fuel.  For the sake of survival, we’ll always seek out these basic necessities before they’re presented to us.  However, even the supply of these items has reached vast abundance and variety due to pioneering minds.    
 
One friend of mine was recently called up by the ABC show “Shark Tank” to pitch his vision of “revolutionizing urban agriculture” by employing underutilized spaces like city-owned vacant lots and drainage areas, while my aforementioned classmate tells me he will soon be machining new cost-saving equipment that will “revolutionize” the energy industry. 
 
We hear about heroes all the time: medics, teachers, first-responders, et al.  These risk-taking creators of the future belong in the same conversation.  Only they know the answer to the question with which Stossel ended his show: “who knows what’s coming next that I can’t even imagine?”

When I was young, my dad found an opportunity for me to earn a few dollars at the gun club where he shot skeet, trap and country doubles.  Being fairly informal, I was paid in cash straight out of the same bag into which shooters paid to shoot at the range. 

After working briefly at a hardware rental place a couple summers later, I spend the last couple years of high school working at McDonalds with a few friends.

In college, I spent time working at a video store, a gymnastics establishment, a big and tall man clothing store, and the last couple years before graduation at a gift shop chain at various hotels in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

Never once in all that time did it occur to me that I was entitled to anything more from the owners of those businesses than the wage to which we voluntarily agreed.

Never once did it dawn on me that if I missed a day of work due to sickness, that not only should they pay someone else to cover for me, or the owner take time out of his or her schedule to do so, but they should also pay me for not being there. 

Back then, when I was just starting out in the world of paid employment, the only political-type issue that was important to me was protesting the censorship of the music that I listened to.

Apparently I was naïve for not realizing that if I complained loudly enough, I could possibly lay claim to the resources of others.  If only I had the nerve, I could have essentially looked my bosses in the eyes and said “I know you’ve been at this longer than I have, saved up enough money and put your butt on the line to take a risk on a business idea, but I think I should be paid much higher than the going rate even while I’m out sick.”

How wet-behind-the-ears I was!

Full disclosure: I didn’t have kids when working such jobs.  But since they have come along, I know what it’s like when they fall ill.  Not only do I ache for them, but I too fret about leaving work.  I don’t like taking sick time at all. 

Alas, I’m not the best example.  My wife on the other hand, is/was. 

When she was a single mom working in restaurants, one of the worst things that could happen to her was her pre-school son getting sick.  Fortunately, shifts could be traded.  It was a good thing, too, because she didn’t have the type of family support network that permeates San Antonio.  And, she had proven herself worthy of not simply being replaced due to something as natural as a child feeling under the weather. 

Still, she didn’t have the audacity to demand compensation during her absence.

Fortunately for these folks today, they have advocates who possess as little business experience as they do, to push elected officials that are too often as similarly inexperienced (though not as much here as in places like Seattle), to make this a reality; making low-to-moderate-skilled jobs as comfortable as possible to take the edge off maybe training for a higher-paying job one day down the line, like my wife did in putting herself through college at the time.

When exactly was it that we started feeling so entitled to the property of others?  Was it before, or not until, we were told that such business owners “didn’t build that?”

The opposition, as indicated by Michelle Tremillo in Sunday’s Express-News, is not solely “groups well-funded by national and corporate interests,” but rather others of us brought up in similar socioeconomic situations in South Texas (Victoria), who respect those who have sacrificed a stable livelihood to strike out on their own, the result of which has been the opportunity of employment for others.
​
I agree with Ms. Tremillo when she says it’s a moral issue.  If these activists are so confident about this, perhaps they should put their own money where their mouth is and show current business owners how it’s supposed to be done in the competitive free market.  Lobbying to use the force of law is a lame, immoral tack to take when they have nothing to lose in doing so.

​Back in the mid-1980s, I took an occupational investigation class when I was in the 7th grade.  If I remember correctly, there was a fairly stout textbook involved that listed nearly all the jobs/professions of the day.  Earning six-figures as a pilot stuck in my memory. 
 
At the time however, I was drawn to lawyers of “L.A. Law”, and the doctors in “St. Elsewhere.”  I wanted to be an obstetrician like Cliff Huxtable on “The Cosby Show.”  I knew any of these paths could be lucrative, but delivering babies seemed pretty rewarding. 
 
Then I saw a character in some movie utter something about going six-figures into debt to attend medical school.  I was out. 
 
This came back to me when I saw a story on National Public Radio’s website recently that reported on a growing trend; earnings in vocational trades are on the rise, while the returns to a college degree are “softening.”  There are organic and artificial market signals at the root of this, and I’m not alone in having experienced both. 
 
My sister and I grew up lower-middle class.  Our mom married our dad after graduating high school, while he was enrolled in a two-year stint at Del Mar Tech in Corpus Christi (now Del Mar College).  He took those skills into the Air Force before landing a welding job a few years later. 
 
As mom did some secretarial work, and dad moved to sales in the oilfield and school fundraising, it was expected that my sister and I would devote comparatively more time to college.  “If you don’t know what to major in, just get a business degree,” I remember him saying.  Such a path was seen as the way to a comfortable life, and no doubt it still is.
 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the unemployment rate is half to three-quarters lower, and median earnings are 50-250% higher the more educated you are. 
 
Enter the artificial signal.
 
The Federal Family Education Loan program, part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” created a government backstop for banks that lent to college students.  This gave way in 2010 to the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA).  Private sector involvement ended in favor of total control by the Department of Education (DoE).  HCERA also lowered the required monthly repayment and moved up the time at which the remaining balance could be forgiven. 
 
In the interim, the Grad PLUS program of 2005 expanded the availability of government loans to graduate students, many of which fall under the same loosened repayment options.
 
Add it all up and the amount of federal student loans outstanding has more than doubled in the last ten years alone, to $1.4 trillion.
 
To be sure, I utilized such loans to earn my undergraduate degree, and I might have to again for my daughters.  However, I paid them off a few years later, albeit back when moral hazard and perverse incentives were a bit clearer. 
 
Before I took my first university class though, I paid my way through community college.  According to the BLS, there are myriad jobs that require only a year or two of training and/or education. 
 
At the five Alamo Community Colleges here in San Antonio, you could earn an associate’s degree in water resource sciences and pull down almost $50,000 per year.  Nursing and dental assisting programs prep students to clear $70,000.  One year of study can secure plumbing skills that could fetch almost $60,000.  One of my daughters, having expressed an interest in volunteering at animal shelters, might like to know she could earn a veterinary tech degree and make $30,000-$40,000. 
 
Furthermore, companies like mine reach out to schools like mine when looking to staff their IT departments.
 
In addition to a high graduation rate, one of the reasons my school was ranked #1 in Texas last year was affordability.  60 hours of education and/or training can be had here for less than $6,000 for San Antonio residents.
 
If kids today are anything like I was, there are more than a few who are uncertain about the direction they want to go after high school.  For much less cost, and quite likely no borrowing, they could learn a skill that could pay them handsomely before they’re even of legal drinking age.  It could also be a big source of funding for continuing education at the university level. 
 
In the absence of that, or perhaps other debt-free options such as income-sharing agreements, if borrowing is still necessary, it should take place wholly within the private sector. 
 
When you juxtapose studies that compare the lowest earning quartile of college graduates to high school graduates, with earnings-per-major information compiled by the DoE, it’s not a stretch to conclude that this is another example of what happens when politicians meddle in the market; taxpayers are left holding the bill.  And if you were one of the borrowers, that’s two bills for you; three, if you count the tax hit on a forgiven balance.
 
Private investors and banks have an incentive to survey the occupational landscape to see which fields have, or could have, a growing demand for qualified labor, and therefore will likely experience rising wages.  That incentive is business survival.  Wherever they see supply outstripping demand, they’re likely to shy away from investing therein.  That would in turn be an incentive to a prospective student to perhaps consider another course of study if applying for assistance. 
 
Add that type of scrutiny in educational financing, to the appeal of higher wages accruing to jobs that require just a year or two of training, and watch university tuition drop. 
 
If only I’d realized back then how affordable and relatively brief pilot training was …  Oh well, maybe it is indeed never too late to be what you might have been.

Last year, the college where I teach economics, Northwest Vista, was the ranked #1 in Texas.  While a graduation rate quite a bit higher than most no doubt played a big part, we also rated just two out of five “$”s when it came to affordability.  Starting this fall, my department will take a step further in that direction when we adopt OpenStax, a web-based textbook created by a nonprofit based at the top university last year, Rice.
 
So far, I like what I see.  “Impact of Government Borrowing” is a new chapter for us.  It strikes me as a way to beef up the “Fiscal Policy” chapter with a discussion of consequences.
 
As one who values the freedom and liberty codified in our constitution, I used to think it might be a challenge to cover the policy chapters.  It’s in those chapters where economics becomes more intertwined with government and politics, and the voters who drive them, some of whom sit in my classroom.
 
Over time however, it’s become apparent to me that the topic speaks for itself. 
 
This came to mind when I happened upon a passage recently from another textbook, “Modern Principles of Economics” by Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok, professors at George Mason University and fellows at the Mercatus Center.  I actually use some of their videos in my classes.  The topic was fiscal policy over the course of the business cycle. 
 
The authors allude to Keynesianism, the practice of increasing government spending during a recession in order to fill the resulting gap in aggregate demand.  Some, like unemployment benefits, food stamps (SNAP) and health insurance, happen automatically.  Our society has come to accept such short-term aid as a small cost of living in a prosperous, relatively free-market economy which is naturally susceptible to cyclical downturns. 
 
Occasionally efforts are also made to include job training, public works, etc.  History does not look fondly upon the results however, when the discretionary extras come to life, and any of it lingers. 
 
In response to the Great Recession, Presidents Bush (W) and Obama signed off on $1.5 trillion in spending to bail out financial institutions, auto makers and prop up the economy in general.  The federal government also regularly extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. 
 
From 2008 - 2011, the federal budget deficit measured almost 8% of gross domestic product (GDP), on average annual spending increases of 7%, according to Office of Management and Budget data.  In that time, the unemployment and labor force participation (LFP) remained under strain; the former hovering just under 9%, the latter starting its slide to a historical low of 62-63%.

Then Uncle Sam tightened his belt.  Spending cuts of almost $1 trillion over ten years were set in motion in 2011.  He also let unemployment benefits return to the standard 26 weeks, an action reinforced by some states.  The deficit-to-GDP ratio subsequently dropped almost to 3% over the next few years.  Also starting a steady drop was unemployment. 
 
Unfortunately, the LFP continued to drop as well, though not as solely attributable to the retirement of Baby Boomers as some might suspect.  Around two million people had dropped out of the labor force and filed for disability, a program that itself has experienced increased payouts since criteria were loosened in 1984.  
 
Over the course of the last ten years, we’ve been told that such spending measures were necessary to avoid another Great Depression.  Back then, after an initially modest spending response, a fiscal explosion took hold.
 
Despite having approved of $500 million in the summer of 1929 to help farmers suffering from falling crop prices, before committing any more taxpayer resources, President Hoover first tried to cajole industry leaders to resist natural market forces in the aftermath of the stock market crash.  He would eventually agree to $5 billion in aid to businesses and state and local governments in 1932. 
 
This paved the way for average annual spending hikes of 13-14% for the balance of the 1930s, the nature of which resembled a rollercoaster ride; spiking beyond 28% in some years, while dropping a couple percentage points in other years.  The budget deficit averaged almost 4%. 
 
It was in this era when John Maynard Keynes wrote “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” (1936), thus giving rise to the aforementioned school of thought.  The spending embodied by the “alphabet soup” of government aid to the economy fit nicely into this new way of thinking.  Attempting to “pay the bills” at the same time conversely, did not. 
 
Once Hoover resigned himself to the position that government intervention was necessary, his instincts to balance the budget followed.  Having already raised taxes on consumers by way of the widely criticized Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, he approved raising a variety of taxes in 1932, the top rate on income more than doubling from 25% to 63%.  As he did with spending, President Roosevelt (FDR) took the baton from Hoover and raised taxes even further in 1935 and 1936. 
 
The economy subsequently struggled nearly the whole decade to return to where it was before the downturn in terms of nominal GDP, and unemployment fluctuated between 15-20%, spiking to almost 26% at one point.

​As hinted at previously, the Great Depression informed another part of the Keynesian concept regarding fiscal policy; don’t raise taxes.  In fact, lower them.  Deficit spending is advisable when trying to blunt the effects of a recession.  Concern for “paying off the bill” should be postponed until “good times.”  But even then, Uncle Sam has learned that “taxing more” to do so can be a dicey proposition with the people.

​Notwithstanding that, whether or not those bills even get paid depends upon how they are viewed. 
 
When times are good, many folks probably aren’t thinking all that much about what the government is doing with the chunk of their income it already takes.  “We’re flying high; what’s the worry?”  Think back a couple decades.  5% yearly increases in spending and “revenue enhancers” in the early 1990s produced budget deficits of almost 4% of GDP.  After that figure dropped below 1% on the backs of reduced spending and tax reduction in the latter part of the decade, GDP averaged a point and a half higher while unemployment started dropping after flatlining around 5.5% mid-decade.  

All of this culminated in the Halley’s Comet of government figures; budget surpluses from 1998-2001. 
 
Rumblings could be heard about “shoring up social security,” paying down the $5+ trillion national debt, and the perennial favorite, “rebuilding infrastructure.”  Would that have made sense?  Possibly.  There is some logic to it if you accept things the way they are. 
 
But many don’t. 
 
With the dot-com bubble deflating, and bringing a recession with it, a bipartisan congress passed W’s $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001.  Though it did have a Keynesian portion (remember the rebate checks?), it was supply-side in nature, with cuts in marginal and investment income rates.  If a government insists on “fighting a recession,” which is a normal, healthy part of the business cycle, at least attacking it from this angle tends to provide the biggest bang for the buck in the long run, as opposed to spending measures orchestrated by government bureaucrats.
 
Paying down some of the aforementioned bills instead would have been construed by some as treating a symptom of what they see as the real problem; government spending. 
--
“When you run in debt, you give to another power over your liberty.” – Benjamin Franklin, “Poor Richards Almanack [sic]”

After World War II, much of the “New Deal” that had not already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was abolished.  President Truman’s own “Fair Deal” was largely rejected by congress, and President Eisenhower continued to hold the line on spending so that the “reduction of taxes … a very necessary objective of government” could be addressed.
 
As a result, the budget remained largely in balance through the 1950s, the debt-to-GDP ratio kicked off a four-decade decline, and the unemployment rate averaged 4-5%.

Some costs of government spending are less obvious than others.
 
It tends to erode individuals’ motivation to work.  Why go punch a clock when the state can feed, house and entertain you?  It also wears away the incentive of companies to produce high-quality, low-cost goods.  Why go to the effort when the government will subsidize your operations, or protect you with trade barriers like tariffs or quotas?   
 
Another problem arises when the public sector competes with the private sector for resources.  When prices for inputs like labor or capital are bid up, the price of the final consumer good rises.  Americans get hit twice when their income taxes essentially travel a “bridge to nowhere.”  To make matters worse for example, whereas private stakeholders in DHL were able to cut their losses when the company pared back operations here until recently, American citizens are stuck with the regular losses of the U.S. Post Office.
 
Supporting all this spending requires a commensurate level of taxation.  To pay those taxes, disposable income is diverted from otherwise productive endeavors, like investing in companies that employ workers, workers who need inputs from yet other companies to do their jobs.  If this isn’t happening, people buy goods and services for themselves that are necessarily supplied by still other companies. 
 
Moreover, the U.S. tax code is fairly complex, so much so there’s even debate about the number of pages.  Regardless, Americans spend billions of hours and billions of dollars each spring to pay their bill.  That's a  deadweight loss to society.   
 
When that still fails to bring in enough revenue for regular operations, government borrows.  
--
“There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” – Milton & Rose Friedman, “The Tyranny Of The Status Quo” (1984)
 
The budget surpluses that resulted from Eisenhower’s early spending restraint paved the way for President Kennedy’s income tax cuts, with the top rate dropping from 90% to 70%.  Then came the advent of President Johnson’s (LBJ) “Great Society”: declaring “war on poverty” in 1964; the creation Medicaid and Medicare in 1965 and 1966, respectively; and increased federal spending on education in 1965. 
 
Even though revenue surged by an annual average of 8% during this time, spending grew by 10-11%, with welfare, health and education outpacing that of defense.  As we proceeded through the inflationary grind of the 1970s, the deficit climbed back over 2% of GDP. 
 
Despite this, the debt-to-GDP ratio had sunk to its modern-day nadir of 31% when President Reagan took office.
 
Since then, according to U.S. Debt Clock.org, after dropping from almost 2/3 of the federal budget to just over 1/3 in 1990, health and income security entitlements have gradually crept back up to almost 60%.  Defense spending has slid to an average of 21%. 
 
By the time W signed off on reducing taxes, the “bills to be paid” had accumulated to push the national debt to 55% of GDP, while the accompanying interest obligation accounted for roughly 13% of the federal budget. 
 
Incurring debt is not absolutely a bad thing.  In fact, it’s generally advisable if the return-on-investment (ROI) is greater than the interest paid.  Additionally, there’s a reason Uncle Sam is able to borrow so prolifically; investors regard it as one of the safest investments in the world.  After all, if they’ll lend to some of the least economically-free countries in the world, throwing a line to #18 barely rates as a blip on the radar.  Borrowing to fund consumption however, is recommended by nearly no one as a smart financial move.
 
Many of those who pushed for the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 rejected “paying the bills” as is at the expense of lower taxation.  Proper reform was, and still is needed.
 --
“I should have understood that you want the government to give everyone free healthcare because you’re a good-hearted person who can’t do simple math.” – Roseanne to sister Jackie in the recently rebooted ABC comedy “Roseanne.”
 
Since social security’s introduction over eighty years ago, life expectancy has grown by roughly a decade, while the age to qualify for benefits has inched forward only two years, and even that reform required a 22-year lead time.  Surely even the current beneficiaries, who no doubt contributed to the decades-long declining birthrate that has chipped away concurrently at the worker/retiree ratio, can see past such political scare-tactics as pushing grandma off a cliff to the need for reform.
 
For his part, W proposed allowing more personal control over a portion of what taxpayers pay into the system.  It went nowhere. 
 
Few issues fit the proverbial “definition of insanity” better than our approach to education.  Uncle Sam has increasingly subsidized higher education with increasingly forgivable student loans, which very possibly contributes to an increasing skills mismatch.  We’ve been spending more and more money on education at all levels since LBJ, including the creation of a cabinet-level agency under President Carter, and getting mediocre results at best. 
 
In the absence of taking up serious proposals to free up the areas of education and health care, and redirecting responsibility to the ultimate beneficiaries, price inflation for these services has soared to as much as ten-times that of goods and services where the government footprint is much smaller, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index.
 
In fact, we’ve regressed and arguably made the problem worse: adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare in 2003; the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; and the expansion of Medicaid within the $1-2 trillion Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
 
In all, the federal budget has more than doubled during the first part of this century.
 --
“Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” (loosely attributed to Winston Churchill)
 
After affirming that economists believe “ideal fiscal policy is counter-cyclical,” Cowen and Tabarrok address what they refer to as the “folk wisdom” of voters: “in bad times government should spend less and only in good times spend more.”     
 
It’s debatable whether or not government should spend more in bad times, but it would seem even less so in good times.  The economy would be expanding its potential GDP, unemployment would be low, wages solid, returns on investment healthy, etc.  There’d be little reason for the public sector to pile on. 
 
That there is “folk wisdom” about the government spending less in bad times makes more intuitive sense. 
 
Common sense tells us that we should cut back on expenditures as much as possible when the economy turns south.  That still might not be enough for those of us hit directly with a loss of income.  In such a case, those who adhered to one of the most ubiquitous bits of financial advice, “saving for a rainy day”, are quite possibly miffed when government jumps in to bail out those who lived more profligately, beyond their means.
 
Ultimately, I believe history and the discipline of economics speak for themselves.  To the former, I can point to the increased revenue that has resulted from every substantive tax reduction/simplification over the last century to show that the constitutional functions of government can still be adequately funded.  And to the latter, all I have to do in class is stick to the basics and “keep it simple, stupid.” 
 
A recent article in The Economist stated “good economics should involve using theory and data to quell prejudices.”  The key is merely having a rudimentary understanding.  Whether or not people choose educate themselves is another story.

I read a couple really good pieces the last couple Sundays in the San Antonio Express-News:
“The reality is that as a country we do a poor job of making financial literacy a priority. What we do instead is promote rampant consumerism and that works well for the companies that are beneficiaries of that. Most of the time it doesn’t lead to sustainable personal financial practices that enable someone to be successful over time.”
"Not only are there no good credit cards, the question itself feels wrong to me. It makes me cringe in all my sensitive finance places. I think of the question as the equivalent of asking a nutritionist what the best candy bars are for a college student. Or asking a substance abuse counselor what the very best narcotics would be for a graduating senior to take.
"They are all bad choices. Some could be less bad than others, but the product itself could not be intrinsically good, or advisable. No responsible financial adviser, nutritionist or drug abuse counselor should endorse any of these things."

And then my wife & I took our first stab at doing our taxes last weekend. The best thing that came out of that horrible experience was a possible teachable moment.
It'll already surprise no one who knows me that there's no way in hell I'd ever condone my daughters getting a credit card once they leave the nest (once I'm not supporting them anymore, or claiming them on my taxes, they're free to make their own such decisions). I already encourage them to save, but yesterday gave me another idea.
I'll advise them to have as little withheld from their paycheck as possible, and save on the side to pay their taxes. Then, hopefully, when they get the bill, they can a) pay it easily and b) be reminded of just how much Uncle Sam is ... how to put this nicely ... raking them over the coals, ESPECIALLY the more successful they are.
If they ever get a 'refund'* large enough to smile about, or do anything more than buy a nice dinner, I know I will have failed them in some small part.
* And it's NOT a refund. It's Uncle Sam returning to you the principle of a loan you gave to him INTEREST-FREE.

​I’ve been a huge Metallica fan for 30 years.  The intro to “Battery” off the thrash-terpiece album “Master Of Puppets” sucked me in.  Then when I saw my parents’ and their friends’ reaction to their cover of the Misfits’ profane “Last Caress”, I was hooked.  As I was reading a recent analysis in The Economist magazine, the title of an even more outrageous song they covered by the 1980s British punk band Anti-Nowhere League repeatedly came to mind; “So What?”
 
“The Case For Taxing Death” the cover read, complete with a skull fashioned partially out of a dollar bill.  The impetus was the easing of the estate tax in the reform bills that recently made their way through congress.  But the only thing for which the magazine really seemed to make a case was why individuals and/or entities shouldn’t get to keep all they have earned.
 
It starts out informatively enough, for those whose knowledge about “some of the world’s oldest taxes” is sketchy.  It cites a roman emperor, Teddy Roosevelt and philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, both of whom were generally predisposed to individual liberty, as favoring some form of inheritance or estate tax.  “Mere accident of birth shouldn’t entitle” one to great wealth.
 
It’s understandable to feel it’s not fair that the children of Sam and Helen Walton were born to a couple whose industriousness drove them to build one of the most commercially successful businesses in history, the value of which was subsequently bequeathed to them in the form of billions of dollars of Wal-Mart stock wealth.  It’s no more fair than the child that’s born to methhead parents who’d rather get high than get a job. 
 
What’s the alternative though, to that fortune staying in family hands?  It being taxed away by an entity that would merely redirect the funds into the hands of the less-diligent and/or less-driven, or into subsidized life-support for less successful companies?  (And any notion that WalMart’s bottom-line would take a significant, substantive long-term hit should these federal public assistance funds be pared back is too silly to be taken seriously.  It feeds into the preposterous, condescending implication that without government assistance, beneficiaries would simply starve, wither away and litter the streets with their malnutritioned bodies.) 
 
One of the points the article attempts to make regards the alleged laziness and incompetence of heirs. 
 
Not all family-business successors resemble the bumbling, book-cooking Ted Beneke from “Breaking Bad.”  Nor are they as selfish as the drugged-out, combed-over kung-fu fighter Bobby Pellit from 2011’s “Horrible Bosses.”  But even if some are, so what?
 
The authors point to an unsubstantiated “risk: that people with inheritances work less hard or drop out of the workforce altogether.”  There are plenty of people who don’t need inheritances not to work hard, much less at all.  Look no further than the 21st century downward trend that has dragged the labor force participation rate to historic lows.  And as a former chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers recently asserted, it’s not just reflective of retiring baby boomers. 
 
They also note research that “suggests that lottery winners work less,” and that the more one inherits, the more likely he/she is to “leave the labor force.”  Well duh!  I don’t imagine the recent Louisiana lottery winners of almost $200M ($119M after taxes) feel any particular pressure to continue to work to support themselves.  Having inherited many more times that, I bet the Walton children didn’t either.  But that they did, staying active in the management of WalMart, banking, community development, etc.  There are more than a few folks out there whose inner drive to be productive overwhelms any desire for perpetual leisure.  Pride in keeping the family business going probably plays a part as well.
 
On the other hand, the report is quick to point out that “the long-run effect … of inheritances … is to increase wealth inequality … in part because richer folk tend to save their windfall, in contrast to poorer folk, who spend it.”  Maybe the solution to this problem, such as it is, is in fact fewer/lower taxes, or at least fewer of the wrong ones, like those on work and saving.  Perhaps the focus should be on consumption taxes instead.  Unwinding artificial monetary policy that has only served to aid those with great means, while disincentivizing saving by those with less, would probably be helpful as well.
 
Yet another study is cited as claiming “firms that promote family CEOs see declines of 14% in operating return on assets.”  So what?  Wouldn’t multi-generational companies be at least as likely to suffer from the dynamism of a free market economy?  Even if my bosses’ daughter had taken over the video store where I worked after high school, Netflix likely would have devoured it more than a decade ago.
 
Another “so what” has increasingly come to mind during the current tax reform debate, that “the economic benefits of cutting such wealth-transfer taxes may have been overplayed and the drawbacks underappreciated.”  Since when did doing things for “economic benefit” come at the expense of doing the right thing; confiscating less of a free person or entity’s resources?  Many estates are the result of ingenuity, diligent work ethic, frugality, etc.  The very word “estate” implies a cumulative result of success.  It’s quite possible that they’ve already been taxed out the wazoo on multiple levels: the first building blocks of income, the resultant investment gains, the earnings from those investments … how much is enough?
 
There were other “so what” instances in this piece:

• “Observations from Sweden and America … suggest that … (p)eople save to insure against personal risks, rather than to pass on wealth when they die.”  So what? 
• “Research also suggests that … parents derive happiness from the pre-tax amount bequeathed, rather than what a child will receive after the tax is applied.”  So what?
• “In OECD countries, the proportion of total government revenues raised by such taxes has fallen from over 1% to less than .5% since the 1960s.”  So what?

 
The most troubling aspect of this report however, is captured in two passages: “wealth-transfer taxes ought to be the subject of more public debate,” and “is it sensible for the state to privilege family firms?”  The authors apparently believe government, and those who didn’t build the targeted estates, should get a say in what happens to said estates upon the death of he or she who built them.  It’s reminiscent of a notion JFK rejected during the Berlin Crisis of 1961: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."
 
One is left to wonder if they are in the “you didn’t build that” camp.  Alas, there is nary a mention of the government “needing” money for education, roads, job-training, infrastructure, or any of the usual statist red herrings.  It’s almost as if they want companies to die with their makers, and a good chunk of the value be remitted to public coffers.
 
A nerd like me will always value a publication like The Economist, whether they’re running a “Six Big (economic) Ideas” series like they did this summer, or documenting the history and current relations between India and Pakistan in a multi-page special feature.  But sometimes the articles supporting government claims on private property just fall flat, that’s what happened here.  It left me anxious to do something else Metallica covered; “Turn The Page.”