It's probably stupid of me to pick a fight with the folks at Reason, a bunch of smart people who have the distinct advantage of a clear ideological foundation. But Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg's post on the "myths dominating the debt-ceiling debate" is so wrongheaded, I can't help myself.

The pair start by asserting that Aug. 2 is a phony deadline, noting that the Treasury Department has pushed by the "drop-dead date" three times already. But unlike the earlier estimates, the department calculated this one after hitting its borrowing limit, at which point it had a finite number of borrowing options (e.g., from cash held in federal trust funds) before the spigot of credit ran dry.

The Treasury has had some experience with situations like this, as well as an intimate knowledge of the government's cash flow. One reason Aug. 2 is assumed to be the drop-dead day is because monthly Social Security checks (which amounted to about $49 billion in June) are due to be mailed Aug. 3. Though it's true that the Treasury collects more over the course of a month than it needs to cover those payments, it's not at all clear that it will have the money on Aug. 3. When you have no way to borrow, cash flow is a real concern.

The second bit of "malarkey" called out by Gillespie and Bragg is the notion that reaching the debt limit is the same as defaulting on the debt. "You can max out your credit cards but as long as you keep paying the minimum amount due each month, your creditors don't go crazy," they write. Yes, but as The Times' editorial board pointed out Friday, that sort of reasoning is "akin to arguing that you could survive just fine if you paid your mortgage every month but stiffed the gas company, MasterCard and your babysitter in order to do so."

When people stop paying some of their bills, credit ratings agencies place them in a higher risk category. The rest of their creditors react by raising their interest rate, demanding swifter repayment or taking other steps to guard against losses. The same would happen to the federal government if it stopped paying 35% or more of its obligations, as it will be forced to do if the debt limit is not raised. As a result, its borrowing costs would go up, increasing the deficit and deepening the financial hole.

Why is this point so hard for folks to understand? Perhaps Gillespie and Bragg never missed a MasterCard payment or were late on a utility bill.

The third point the authors make is that the debt-limit debate is no time to craft a budget deal:

The reason we're in this mess is because government can't stop spending. And the government can't even pass a budget on a year's notice. But we're expecting them to come up with a good plan for the country's borrowing in a couple of weeks?

I'll echo their complaint about excessive spending and the absurdity of using the debt ceiling as a proxy for a debate about the budget. But spending-cutters chose this fight, so it's a little strange to see Gillespie and Bragg lament it. Besides, thanks to the work of umpteen commissions, task forces and think tanks, there's no shortage of proposals for bringing the deficit under control.

Instead, there's a shortage of centrists willing to meet in the middle -- a ground that Reason is proud not to occupy -- in order to cut the kind of deal that divided government requires. I don't blame Republicans for refusing to accede to Democrats' demands, even if all it means is eliminating some tax breaks in exchange for renewing the payroll tax cut. They're pretty confident that it won't be a divided government after 2012.

Naturally, that depends on whether the credit markets freak out and, if they do, where the political fallout lands. Congress actually defaulted temporarily on some T-bills in 1979 when Congress was slow in raising the debt limit and the Treasury was hampered by technical snafus. The result was a brief but notable spike in interest rates. Just imagine how the market would react if the impasse over the debt ceiling forced the Treasury not to write some of its monthly checks, whether they be to Social Security recipients, contractors or federal employees.

Gillespie and Bragg claim that the Treasury Department is sitting on $320 billion in loans and stock from the Troubled Asset Relief Program that it could sell to keep creditors happy until a prudent long-term path is found. The latest Treasury report, however, shows that the TARP holdings are down to $129 billion, about two-thirds of which are (as the name suggests) troubled -- they're securities related to American International Group, struggling banks and other institutions bailed out by the federal government. The rest of the holdings are in General Motors, Chrysler and GM's former lending arm. I'm not sure how easy it would be to convert much of those holdings into cash, but doing so under duress would certainly be a good way to maximize the taxpayers' losses on the program.

RELATED:

Debt-ceiling denial won't work

Mitch McConnell's cop-out on the debt ceiling

Adding a dimension to the debt-ceiling game of chicken

-- Jon Healey

Credit: Reason.tv on YouTube

Carmageddon, for most, means two dreadful weekends of gridlock or, alternatively, another reason to mock Los Angeles. For people who live or commute near the Sepulveda Pass, though, the issue hits closer to home. As the editorial board notes in its Saturday editorial:

[F]or the legions of drivers who use the Mulholland Drive bridge that straddles the freeway in the Sepulveda Pass, another battle will begin Monday morning. Think "Bad Karma-geddon": Motorists will slog along a roadway reduced from four lanes to two as one side is demolished and then the other. This will continue over two years of construction to alter the bridge for the widened freeway.

The project didn't have to become such a nightmare for commuters, Sam Allen and Ari Bloomekatz pointed out in a July 10 article. An alternative bridge plan, which could have saved money and lessened traffic woes, was abandoned in the face of opposition by some residents and community groups.

Why? Because the proposed alternative was unaesthetic. On the other hand, "There's nothing uglier than cars parked on the 405," one editorial writer protested during a board meeting this week. Then again, argued another board member, L.A. isn't the most beautiful city in the world, and we should preserve what makes it special. "Can we stop calling this a bridge?" asked another. "It's a freeway overpass."

It's a unique debate when you take into consideration the subtle difference between the understated, almost unremarkable bridge that exists and the alternative that was proposed. As the discussion continued throughout the week, so too did some amusing emails pointing to noteworthy bridges ranging from the ridiculous and ugly to the beautiful, award-winning and extraordinary.

So, where did the editorial board end up? Read on to find out.

RELATED:

Full Carmageddon coverage

Two words of advice -- surface streets

The upshot of Carmageddon… for cyclists

Gregory Rodriguez:L.A.'s way is the freeway

Carmageddon: Apocalyptic, or business as usual?

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: The Mulholland Drive bridge along the northbound 405 Freeway. An alternative plan would have required shutting down the 405 for only one weekend instead of two. Credit: Gary Friedman, Los Angeles Times

If the debt-ceiling is raised, Republicans will still need to be convinced that the Treasury Department does need to borrow money to pay off America’s debt, and that a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget is a bad policy, The Times Editorial Board wrote Friday. Unless the government can borrow more money, it will not be able to pay for more than a third of its expenses. And if the government pays some bills and not others, an executive from Standard and Poor’s told lawmakers the government’s credit rating will be lowered, which would only exacerbate the deficit problem, the board said.

As for the balanced budget amendment -– deficit spending isn’t necessarily a bad thing, unless the debt begins to grow faster than the economy, the board said. The two-thirds vote required for revenue increases Republicans are seeking would also give too much power to political minorities. Here’s an excerpt:

The amendment would also require a two-thirds vote to spend more than 18% of the previous year's gross domestic product, roughly the level of spending during peacetime in the 20th century. But the U.S. population today is older, and its healthcare expenses are many times greater. Within a few decades, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, an 18% cap would leave no room for anything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt.

Those projections provide ample reason for Congress and the White House to agree to cut spending, subsidies and tax breaks enough over the next few years to stop the national debt from growing faster than the economy. A host of bipartisan commissions have offered plans that could achieve that goal; none of them, however, have called for a balanced-budget amendment. And if the fight over the amendment stops Congress from raising the debt ceiling on time, it will only serve to make the country's fiscal problems worse.

Here’s what readers are saying on the discussion board:

The U.S. has to prove to the world it’s serious about fixing it’s credit rating

If the United States cannot demonstrate to the world that it is serious about tightening its fiscal belt and living within its means, its credit rating will go into the toilet regardless of how much or how little the debt ceiling is raised.

Putting off entitlement reform is no longer an option. 

-- GregMaragos

If the government doesn’t pay the people, the people can’t pay their bills either

One thing I never see mentioned in these summaries is that revenue for paying the interest on the debt would plunge if social security is not paid, Medicare bills are not paid, military salaries are not paid, military contractors are not paid, and so on. It would remove an enormous amount of revenue from the private sector because there would suddenly be a lot of unpaid bills, unpaid mortgage payments, and a whole lot more people out of work. And that doesn't even take into account more extreme scenarios such as shutting down all air travel once the FAA has been de-funded.

How do those freshmen in Congress think they're going to pay bondholders when the economy is in a tailspin and revenues with which to pay interest on the debt have been reduced to essentially nothing?

-- SanDiegoNonSurfer

The government has failed to serve the people

Cut the military budget and get out of the global wars we wage. That alone will save a fortune. Stop giving corporations massive tax breaks - they are people now right, same rights et al? So they should pay taxes like the rest of us. Everybody complains about the government but everybody is there with their hat in hand looking for more...

Stop voting for either party they are slightly different versions of the same thing - power hungry, lobbyists. 

There once was a budget surplus... but unaccountability and a lack of oversight by decent people-serving politicians has destroyed the country.

Cut the military budget, demand reasonable taxation on businesses...

The government is not a business - it is an institution to serve the people - it clearly has failed us for a great many years.

-- Raynamhab

Spend less so we don’t have to do this again

Not all Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling, but they do oppose Democrat intransigence on solving the problem for the future.  Spend less, and we won't have to face this again.

-- TimBowman

Clearly spending without taxing doesn’t work

As long as the party of 'spend-but-don't-tax-me' controls Congress by having enough votes to block proposed changes, this is going to be going on.

-- pj.evans88

Stop paying for people who don’t deserve it

Progressives lament the ending of their tax, spend and spend more policies.  Well, the time has come to pay the piper.  Free medical care for illegal aliens?  Might not be essential.  Increased welfare payments for women who give birth to additional children while already on welfare.  Not good policy.   Pensions for government workers far in excess of what social security provides for workers in private industry paid for by the workers in private industry?  Another bad idea.  

--djohns

RELATED:

McManus: One good debt deserves another

Mitch McConnell’s cop-out on the debt ceiling

The ongoing debt-ceiling debate [Most commented]

Debt talks: What’s government for? [Most commented]

-- Samantha Schaefer

Photo: President Obama holds a news conference to discuss the progress of negotiations with lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling and find a balanced approach to deficit reduction at the White House Friday. Credit: Larry Downing / Reuters

One upshot from this weekend's "Carmageddon" fiasco is that it might inspire people to buy a scooter or ride a bike, two modes of transportation that are better for commuters, roads conditions and the environment. Editorial writer Dan Turner recently made a convincing case for scooters -- ride one and save the world, he wrote -- but a campaign to get more people on bikes may prove trickier.

Between aggressive and distracted motorists and a palpable contempt for cyclists from Long Beach (where security guards didn't protect a cyclist from a thief) to Culver City (where an officer placed blame on cyclists and not the drunk driver who hit them), riding a bike in the city seems like a really dangerous idea.

Whenever we broach this topic, there are always readers who chime in that it's the cyclists who're to blame for unsafe road conditions. And they have a point: There are punk-rock cyclists out there blowing red lights, weaving in and out of cars or taking up an entire lane. But there are also frustrated motorists who drive like swerving, impatient maniacs when they have to share the road with someone on a bike and, God forbid, slow down. Both parties, acting like a red flag to a bull, are wrong. And, though I'm inclined to side with cyclists who aren't protected by the armor of machinery, it was all I could do the other day not to chase down a guy who was riding his bike against traffic, almost causing three consecutive collisions.

Daredevil cyclists are jerks; they're also the exception to the rule. As Hector Tobar recently wrote, Los Angeles needs an attitude adjustment regarding bicyclists. And we can all start by brushing up on the law. From the DMV's California Driver Handbook:

--Drivers: How to share the road with slower moving vehicles.

--Bicyclists: How to operate a bicycle on a roadway.

 RELATED:

Full Carmageddon coverage

Pedal-power to the people

Cartoon: Hikers vs. bikers

Protecting cyclists should be a priority

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Nathan Snider of Los Angeles, left, Bob Maher of Studio City and John Kerr of L.A. cross the 6th Street Bridge downtown recently. They cycle after dark because there are fewer autos. Credit: Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times

The DWP's frequent rate hikes have long been a topic of concern. Why so many increases? What are we paying for, people demanded. In March, frustrated voters finally got their way: The DWP would now have to collaborate with a ratepayer advocate; someone who, as the editorial board described in 2010, would “cut through the politics and posturing and deliver straight answers.” It’s a move that brings transparency and accountability to the department and puts the interest of customers and the environment ahead of fat cats.    

What it doesn’t do is promise the end of rate hikes. Take, for example, a justifiable plan presented by Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, and illustrated by Michael Osbun. From Gold's Op-Ed:

In 2008, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosareleased a visionary plan for ensuring the future reliability of the water supply by moving Los Angeles away from its reliance on imported water. In an average year, the DWP purchases more than half the city's water (some 115 billion gallons) from the Metropolitan Water District, which imports it from the Colorado River and the Sacramento River delta. The DWP imports another third of the city's water from the Owens Valley and Mono Basin. Only a paltry 1% of L.A.'s supply currently comes from recycled water, a mere fraction of the water recycled by Orange and Los Angeles counties.

The goals in the mayor's plan were reasonable and achievable. Moderate water gains would come through conservation, recycling and storm water capture. The San Fernando Valley aquifer would be cleaned up so that its groundwater could be better utilized. If followed, the plan's prescription would result in enough water to supply nearly half a million people per year by 2020. Our dependence on imported MWD water would be reduced by nearly 30%.

What’s the catch? A rate increase, for one thing. Read on.

RELATED:

Come clean, DWP

Who's watching the DWP?

Can you trust the DWP's rate increases?

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

Illustration: Michael Osbun / Tribune Media Services

Stephen Gutwillig and Bill Piper respond to The Times' July 9 article "U.S. decrees that marijuana has no accepted medical use." Gutwillig is the Drug Policy Alliance's California state director; Piper is the group's national affairs director.

President Obama came into office promising to reverse George W. Bush administration practices and elevate science over politics. He explicitly applied that principle to drug policy, an area long driven by ideology and prejudice. He quickly began to make good on the pledge by promoting three evidence-based drug policies: eliminating the ban on states using federal funding for syringe exchange programs to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis; reforming the racially unjust crack-cocaine sentencing disparity that punished crack offenses more harshly than powder offenses; and vowing to end years of federal interference in the implementation of state medical marijuana laws.

But as The Times' July 9 article makes dismayingly clear, the White House is putting the "science-free zone" sign back up.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Justice issued medical marijuana guidelines to U.S. attorneys that are at best confusing and at worst a flip-flop on administration policy. The department’s much-heralded 2009 memo on the subject fulfilled candidate Obama’s campaign promise and established a principle that federal resources would not be wasted prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers who are in "clear and unambiguous compliance" with state medical marijuana laws. The department's update reiterates that the feds won't target individual medical marijuana patients but might bust large-scale, commercial medical marijuana providers. The memo unequivocally threatens federal prosecution of large-scale medical marijuana providers even if they are in compliance with state law, a significant step away from the principle at the heart of the 2009 policy. Disturbingly, the new "clarification" doesn't explain what the federal government considers to be the line between small and large-scale production -- likely an attempt to slow state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution programs while sowing anxiety and confusion for patients.

Most recently, the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected a formal citizen petition filed nine years ago to reschedule marijuana to make it available for medical use. When the DEA considered a similar petition during the Reagan administration, the agency's administrative law judge concluded, "Marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people." The Obama administration’s rejection of the petition claims marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States … lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision… [and] has a high potential for abuse." Lest one think the DEA's ruling is just law enforcement run amok, the White House released its 2011 National Drug Control Strategy earlier this week, calling marijuana "addictive and unsafe." That document devotes five pages attacking marijuana legalization and medical marijuana.

The administration's disconnect from science is shocking. A federally commissioned study by the Institute of Medicine more than a decade ago determined that nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety "all can be mitigated by marijuana." The esteemed medical journal the Lancet Neurology reports that marijuana's active components "inhibit pain in virtually every experimental pain paradigm." The National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, notes that marijuana may help with nausea, loss of appetite, pain and insomnia. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, home to 90 million Americans, have adopted laws allowing the medical use of marijuana to treat AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and other ailments. The federal government itself cultivates and supplies marijuana to a handful of patients through its "compassionate-use investigative new drug program," which was established in 1978 but closed to new patients in 1992.

Marijuana use, like any drug, certainly carries risks. When it comes to policy, however, these risks should be weighed against the harms associated with current marijuana laws. It is notable that every comprehensive, objective government commission that has examined marijuana throughout the past 100 years has concluded that criminalization of adult marijuana use does more harm than marijuana use itself. Moreover, the risks associated with marijuana use are demonstrably far less than those associated with Oxycontin, methamphetamine, morphine and other drugs currently available for medical use. It defies not just science but common sense for the Obama administration to be so aggressively anti-marijuana, especially for medical use.

It is not too late to reverse this science-phobic trend. The Department of Justice's recent medical marijuana guidance is vague enough that the administration can clarify it intends to scrutinize only  massive, rogue medical marijuana operations and that the DEA won't waste resources going after most providers in most states. The administration should clearly support responsible state and local regulations designed to make marijuana legally available to patients while enhancing public safety and health. If the federal government is unable to provide leadership in this area, then the very least it can do is get out of the way and allow local governments to determine the policies that best serve their interests. The president who promised change rooted in rational reflection shouldn't stand in the way of it.

-- Stephen Gutwillig and Bill Piper

RELATED:

U.S. decrees that marijuana has no accepted medical use

Editorial: Research, not fear, on medical marijuana

Justice Department shoots down commercial marijuana cultivation

Drug business as usual

Photo: An unidentified man smokes medical marijuana at the Cannabis Cafe in Portland. Credit: Rick Bowmer / Associated Press.

If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed, here are our FAQs and submission policy. 

The solution to the national debt is likely to be short-term, Op-Ed columnist Doyle McManus writes Thursday, with the problem coming down to an asymmetry between the two sides. President Obama is willing to compromise -- in order to solve the problem at hand and to prove he's capable of mediating -- but Republicans think his proposed spending cuts are too slow and small, and they won't budge on the tax issue.

Republicans who waiver from the party's position on taxes will likely be challenged in the primaries, and, unlike Obama, Boehner's job as speaker doesn't depend on votes from swing voters; he needs a majority of Republican members of the House, a tougher audience.

If the president is reelected in 2012, McManus said, he's likely to face Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, a situation that could make the current negotiations look like a walk in the park.

Here's an excerpt from the column:

One more asymmetry: Obama appears to relish the chance the crisis has given him to cast himself as the responsible adult in Washington's playground wars, admonishing congressional leaders to eat their peas. Boehner and [Senate GOP leader Mitch] McConnell would much rather turn the spotlight on unemployment and the apparent failure of Obama's stimulus plan, issues that helped them win seats in 2010. That's another reason they're willing to cut a deal. [...]

Both sides agree that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be reined in. Both sides agree that tax reform is the best way to increase tax revenues. But they still disagree on how quickly spending should come down and on whether taxes on the wealthy should go up.

And there's no guarantee that the American electorate will offer a crisp, clear verdict. Most voters say they want low taxes and a smaller deficit, spending restraint but no cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Voters say they like divided government as a check on both parties.

In response, readers had a few conversations about the topic of national debt on the discussion board.

Isn’t government investment in the U.S. the best way to fix things?

Just a question: How is government spending a drag on the economy? Don't all of those dollars end up in the US economy? Isn't that why government spending is considered a stimulus for the economy? Republicans act as if money spent by our government goes down some sort of hole and is never seen again, and yet those dollars end up in the pockets of businesses and individuals all over the country.

In contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy often end up invested overseas. Tax cuts for corporations can be and are often invested overseas creating jobs somewhere else.

Seems like one of the best ways to "Buy American" is to buy more government services with our tax dollars, especially if it buys us services that are needed like education, health care, infrastructure, etc.

So again how exactly is government spending a drag on our economy? Someone please explain that concept to me.

-- nirmalanow

They’re spending other people’s money on the unproductive, in response to nirmalanow

How is government spending a drag on the economy?

Healthy economies make stuff that other people want. In other words, they're productive. The government itself has no money ... it is our tax money that they spend, (at least until recently when they can simply get Bernanke to print it and devalue it, or get China to loan it to us).

Ultimately, government programs take money from the productive and redistribute it to the non-productive. It's an ideology and illusion that works until the government runs out of other people's money, which is what we are currently witnessing. 

--JeffersonNotHamilton

We need to cut back spending, but taxes don’t seem like the end of the world, in response to JeffersonNotHamilton

[...] I want good roads, good schools, good healthcare, a good scientific research community, a strong military, a healthy environment, beautiful state and national parks to visit and much more that is provided by government.

Seems to me government makes a lot of stuff I want. Who or what are the "non-productive" you refer to that the government redistributes money to? Does giving that same money to wealthy people always result in the money going to productive causes? Do rich people never waste money on frivolous luxuries or invest it in other countries?

To be clear, I do not think we can keep spending borrowed money  without dire consequences, and so we do need to cut back spending where we can and eventually balance the budget like Clinton did. I just do not understand how taking money as taxes and spending it in the economy is harmful to the economy. From the perspective of the overall economy, does it really matter if the government spends a dollar of my money or if I spend that same dollar myself?

--nirmalanow

Replace the borrowed money with taxes 

The Republicans are correct in saying that we need to bring down the debt, even if they are the ones who borrowed and spent without restraint for most of the last ten years turning Clinton's surpluses into record deficits while trashing our economy. But what I do not get is why we cannot replace some of the borrowing with taxes to thereby bring down the debt. How is it so "bad" for the economy to replace some of that excessive borrowing with taxes?

--nirmalanow

The money for things like good roads got spent on someone’s pet project, in response to nirmalanow

[...] You want good roads? Well, we have a gas tax, vehicle registration fees and tolls that are supposed to be paying for just that. Except that money got raided to pay for other pet projects, so the money is now gone.  

You want good healthcare? Well, the government runs Medicare. Ask some folks on Medicare if they think it's good. If they're being honest, the answer will be no.  

You want a good scientific research community?  Tell me, which lifesaving drugs did the government make?  As far as I've heard, the government made none.  

Please tell me about any government program, other than defense and the justice system, that the government runs more efficiently than the private sector.

Post office?  Food stamp program (with people taking their cards and gambling with them)?   Anything?  

Government lacks the accountability to be as productive as private enterprise.  There is also no profit motive ... no drive to become more efficient.  

--trust no one

The Republicans overspent and then the Democrats overspent faster, in response to nirmalanow

[...] The Republicans spent and spent and spent over the last 10 yrs, but when the Democrats held the Congress in 2006, they didn't slow spending. In fact, they increased it, spending dramatically, saying it was needed to get the economy going again. $700 billion spent and still nothing to show for it except debt for your kids and my kids. 

Government spending and bailouts will not save the economy. Small and midsize companies hiring will. Give those folks a tax break and watch more additional money enter the economy and hiring pick up. Close tax loopholes that allowed GE to pay zero income tax last year. Dramatically reduce military bases in Japan, Germany, UK and other places where we simply don't need to have that type of presence.

This is basic stuff, but when our leaders on both sides have been bought by wasteful special interests (ethanol lobby, oil companies, food companies, banks, etc.), we run on ice.

These are basic things.

--trust no one

Democrats shouldn’t have put the budget off for so long

Honesty, integrity, transparency ... what happened?

Constitutionally, this budget was due in September 2010. Congressional Democrats voted to put it off until December, and again voted in December to put it off until 2011. Had they done their constitutional duty on time rather than kissing it off until now, all this political spin would not be happening now.

It's all documented on the public Congressional Record. Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. They ran the House, Senate, and presidency when the budget was supposed to be completed. Their political ploy by voting to put it off fools no one ... except those who fail to read the public record.

--tommythek50

*Spelling errors in the above comments were corrected.

RELATED:

Mitch McConnell's cop-out on the debt ceiling

The debt-ceiling and wrong-way Republicans

Reader opinion: The ongoing debt-ceiling debate

Adding another dimension to the debt-ceiling game of chicken

-- Samantha Schaefer

Photo: The U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Credit: Alex Brandon / Associated Press

Ever wonder what happened to all those anti-income-tax goofballs? You know, the ones who refuse to pay federal income taxes because they say they're unconstitutional?

Did they all get together and form an Internet-only retailer? And name it Amazon.com?

Amazon has done pretty well too. Of course, your business might too if you could offer customers a 7.25% discount -- because you refuse to collect California sales taxes.

Now, Amazon says it isn't collecting sales taxes because it doesn't have to; that it has the Constitution on its side. (Oh, and if you want to buy a copy of the Constitution to check that out, it has that too; in fact, you can get "The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation" [Paperback] for just $4.95.)

Mind you, Amazon isn't hurting for cash; it's first-quarter revenue this year was almost $10 billion. But when California passed a law seeking to force it to collect sales taxes, what did it do?

It took its ball and went home, severing ties with thousands of affiliates in California. And it vowed to put the issue before California voters, pushing for a referendum as early as February to overturn the law.

 Plus, it brought out the ultimate hammer these days: jobs.  

"This is a referendum on jobs and investment in California," said Paul Misener, Amazon's vice president of global public policy in Washington, D.C. "We support this referendum against the recent sales tax legislation because, with unemployment at well over 11%, Californians deserve a voice and a choice about jobs, investment and the state's economic future."

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I'll sell you (although you'll have to pay the sales tax).

But hey, while we're all voting, why don't we also ask Californians if they think they should have to obey the speed limit? Can't we just ignore those pesky stop signs? And income taxes: Do we have to pay those too? 

Vote! Vote! Vote!

At least we'll be creating jobs, and lots of them -- for poll workers.

Folks, you may not like all the laws we have. You may not agree with all of them. You can certainly try to get the Legislature to change them.  

But you're supposed to obey them. 

That's you, me -- and giant Internet retailers. (Don't think so?  Then order your "Constitutional Law: The Quick Guide" [Kindle Edition] from Amazon. It's free if you have a Kindle. Don't have a Kindle?  Amazon has those too: $139 and free shipping.)

Let's get real. Amazon can talk all it wants about the Constitution and jobs and the like, but here's the bottom line, I think: Amazon doesn't want to collect sales taxes because it would hurt its business.

And the people who support Amazon?  They want a good deal, regardless of how they get it.

And everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

RELATED:

Are you an online tax cheat?

Amazon sales tax battle centers on jobs

California tells online retailers to start collecting sales taxes from customers

Apple denied injunction to stop Amazon's use of 'appstore' name; trial date set

-- Paul Whitefield 

Photo: Katherine Braun sorts packages at an Amazon.com fulfillment center in Goodyear, Ariz. Credit: Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press

The editorial board was talking this morning about the kidnapping and murder of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, who had begged his parents to let him walk several blocks home from day camp. They had rehearsed the route with him, the New York Times reported today, yet the little boy still got lost and sought help from the man who allegedly killed him.

Of such rare tragedies are daily parental worries born. These were obviously not neglectful parents, or casual ones who didn't know the meaning of "stranger danger" anxiety. The question is to what extent other parents should take this to heart, and whether they should be adjusting their own apron strings to keep their children safe -- if such a thing is even possible.

RELATED:

Photos: Brooklyn boy found dead

Hasidic boy's slaying shocks Brooklyn neighborhood

Boy's remains found in refrigerator; New York man in custody

--Karin Klein 

Photo: This undated photo provided by the New York Police Department shows 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky. Credit: New York Police Department

Washington is suspending more than one-third of its military aid to Pakistan -- $800 million -- in reaction to the nation's decreasing cooperation with the U.S. Relations with Pakistan have been particularly strained since the May 2 killing of Osama Bin Laden.

The Pakistani military helps the U.S. target Al Qaeda operatives along the border of Afghanistan but often ignores the Taliban militants who attack the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from Pakistan, The Times reported. Among other grievances the U.S. has with Pakistan’s cooperation, the country recently forced dozens of U.S. special operations trainers to leave after an incident in which CIA contractor Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis he said were trying to rob him. 

Last month, the Times' editorial board warned of publicly reprimanding Pakistan, urging U.S. leaders to work things out with the country in private. The outrage in Islamabad toward the U.S. raid on Abbottobad wasn’t surprising, the board wrote, and Americans, in turn, are upset with the reaction of their "ally."

The board noted July 13 that although the suspension of aid is acceptable in light of Pakistan's actions, the U.S. should not let the relationship deteriorate any further. Pakistan is geographically important to the war in Afghanistan and provides intelligence about militant groups. The suspension of aid has also stirred up additional frustration in Pakistan regarding the killing of Bin Laden without the country’s permission.

We worry that the cutoff in aid was based less on a calculation of its effect on Pakistan than on the desire to publicly protest the country's truculence, partly in an effort to mollify congressional critics. Ideally, the suspension of aid will be short-lived while the relationship is mended. Pakistan can and should assist in that process, rather than falling back into the rote anti-Americanism and obstructionism that led to the Obama administration's decision to suspend aid in the first place.

Tony Karon of Time magazine  said the suspension of aid will likely widen the rift between the two countries. It's clear that the Pakistani public doesn't want its military to continue aligning with the U.S., he wrote, but public opinion is probably less of a factor in the country's actions than its own interests:  Pakistan views the war in Afghanistan as an extension of its conflict with India. In any case, both nations have already been preparing for the demise of the relationship, and the U.S. should expect Pakistan to stray away even further.

Even though public sentiment made it difficult for Pakistani leaders to support the U.S. war effort, the generals who have traditionally maintained close ties with the United States were willing to cooperate up to a point. But that cooperation has never crossed limits dictated by the generals' view of Pakistan's vital national interest. Pakistan had been willing to help the U.S. roll up hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives and to try and press the Taliban in Afghanistan to expel Osama bin Laden, but U.S. and Pakistani interests diverged when the U.S. sought to topple the Taliban regime -- which had been originally installed as a Pakistani proxy in Kabul, a hedge against the emergence of a pro-India regime on Pakistan's western flank. (The Northern Alliance, fierce rivals of the Taliban, had been strongly backed by India.)

The Washington Post's editorial board wrote in a similar vein: Withholding aid will only turn more Pakistanis against the U.S. The United States' public confrontation with Pakistan will put more strain on a relationship that is less of a partnership than it is a transaction, the board wrote, and it will weaken President Obama’s withdrawal plan from Afghanistan.

The deteriorating relationship, meanwhile, offers further cause for doubt about President Obama’s plan for an accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan. If Pakistan’s government and army can’t be counted on to cooperate against the extremist forces based in the country, the United States will need a presence in Afghanistan, and a stable Afghan government, more than ever.

In his Vanity Fair piece, Christopher Hitchens wrote that Pakistan hates the U.S. because it is dependent on its aid, especially because the country’s  army and nuclear program, which are “parasitic on American indulgence and patronage,” are such a source of its pride. The U.S. is shamefully being manipulated by Pakistan, he wrote, and it puts American soldiers in danger.

But our blatant manipulation by Pakistan is the most diseased and rotten thing in which the United States has ever involved itself. And it is also, in the grossest way, a violation of our sovereignty. Pakistan routinely—by the dispatch of barely deniable death squads across its borders, to such locations as the Taj Hotel in Mumbai—injures the sovereignty of India as well as Afghanistan. But you might call that a traditional form of violation. In our case, Pakistan ingratiatingly and silkily invites young Americans to one of the vilest and most dangerous regions on earth, there to fight and die as its allies, all the while sharpening a blade for their backs. “The smiler with the knife under the cloak,” as Chaucer phrased it so frigidly.

 RELATED:

Pakistan in balance

Tone down Pakistan rhetoric 

U.S. justified in killing Osama Bin Laden 

U.S. foreign policy: In praise of nation-building

Explaining the core of our relationship with Pakistan [chart]

--Samantha Schaefer

Photo: People displaced after military launched offensive against Taliban militants live in temporary shelters near the Afghan border in Pakistan. Credit: Jabir Abdullah / EPA