Hugh Hewitt Lost in Fantasyland

Apparently, Hugh Hewitt doesn't like debate:

This is why the GOP needs to rethink its debate schedule and why the RNC should take over the operation of the debates and exile Cain, Johnson and Paul as well as every other candidate without a prayer of winning. (Santorum is a long shot, but he has a realistic though small chance of winning the nomination, while the others do not.) The seriousness of the fiscal crisis requires the GOP and its candidates to act seriously, and allowing marginal candidates to eat up time and distract from the enormous problems facing the country is not serious.

Or debate means "eventually, you agree with me" because either Hewitt seriously underestimates Ron Paul's importance or he's being disingenuous and writes him off because of their disagreements. Yeah, it sucks when those guys won't even deign to pretend to think like you.

As for the candidates Hewitt wants gone, Paul and Johnson are the only two that I know of who have given more than platitudes towards solving the fiscal crisis. On this issue, and most issues, the rest are sloganeers. No details, no substance. Cain, though I disagree with him, fared well in the debate, maybe even coming out on top. I know he's not Mr.GovernmentRunHealtcare, Hewitt, but it would seem you can't just write him off.

Oh yeah, and Republicans don't even agree:

Gallup has always found political independents to be most desirous of a third party, and 68% currently are. But right now there is also a significant party gap, with 52% of Republicans favoring a third party, compared with 33% of Democrats. (emphasis added)

I would say Republicans are craving something different from the small(microscopic, actually) "c", top-down, big government loving, conservatives that Hewitt just absolutely, positively loves.

Amerinese Water Torture and the Cognitive Dissonance of Spreading Democracy

The death of Osama bin Laden and the Republican primary debate last night have reignited the debate on waterboarding. When asked to raise their hands if they supported the resumption of waterboarding under any circumstance they can think of Tim Pawlenty, Hermann Cain, and Rick Santorum aired out their armpits. (It gets hot under those lights.) Ron Paul and Gary Johnson refused to join the stink fest.

Of course, it was never called torture. It was referred to as "enhanced interrogation." Though, as any 8 year old boy knows, euphemisms are only used when we know we're doing something we're not supposed to be doing. "No sir, I don't know how he got that bloody lip and black eye. We were just 'playing'." This is akin to saying, "Oh that chinese water thing. That's just some drops on the forehead."

When the Japanese and German military performed this "enhanced interrogation" technique during WWII we cried foul. And rightly so. But when we do it, we turn a blind eye.

The crux of the matter is the cognitive dissonance we have when it comes to our team doing the dirty deeds. Last September Bryan Caplan, who blogs at EconLog, asked, "When Are We the Bad Guys?"

"OK, what would we have to do to be the bad guys?"  And my claim is that group-serving bias makes us quick to clear us and condemn them. (emphasis in original)

Last night, Tim Pawlenty said, "There is a group of radical jihadists, and we need to call them by name. And they believe it is okay to kill innocent people in the name of their religion." He's right. It's not okay to kill innocent people for your cause. And Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on 9/11. And through other attacks have killed more.

But we have gone around the world and, at current count, according to the Iraq Body Count Project, have killed somewhere between 98,170 — 107,152 innocent people in the name of our form of democracy. That's more than 30 times the amount Al Qaeda have killed, yet we still see ourselves as righteous.

Even now, I experience this cognitive dissonance and group serving bias. Thinking of 9/11 makes me feel wronged, personally. As if the attacks were carried out on my family. I don't feel the same way when I think of those others killed. Even though logically I know I should feel 30 times as worse, that was them. 9/11 was us.

Polishing Ron Paul's 10% Solution

Ron Paul has been out lately promoting a 10% solution. Basically, what this means is that you are given the option of "opting out of the system" and in return you pay a flat 10% of your income.

Now, some people, like MSNBC's Ed Shultz, have derided Paul because their small minds can't comprehend what Paul my actually mean. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure Ron Paul is sure what he means. He admitted it was a rhetorical question, I think more in the vein of a thought experiment than actual workable policy. So, let's clean it up.

First, specify that it is an option to opt out of the welfare/entitlement system. This means no direct subsidies to that person. They would still have access to public roads, Mr. Schultz, because that's paid for through the gas tax. CIA, FBI, FDA, military would still apply to this person because they are still paying taxes.

Second, we have to untangle these entitlements out of this person's life. Entitlement taxes are no longer withheld and all employer tax contributions are now captured by the employer, immediately raising their income.

Third, the taxpayer has the option of opting out of their employer's health insurance package and capturing that value for their income. This is because these benefits only exist because of federal tax policy.

The combined effect of two and three would dramatically raise income. In my own personal experience, the combined loss to income from federal withholdings and taxpayer subsidized employer health insurance was just shy of 30%. A giant bite.

Fourth, the 10% tax bill would come with no deduction. No business deductions, charitable deductions, home mortgage interest deduction, etc.. Reducing a tax bill to zero would exacerbate the debt problem, so you would have to pay.

Fifth, we would need a comprehensive immigrant work visa program to make up for any revenue shortfall, especially in the short term with baby boomers retiring. Unlimited work visas with the "opt out" option already attached. Immigrants would work, pay 10%, and receive nothing.

There is probably a lot of stuff I'm missing but I think this would be a good start. It's definitely something I would do.