Many in Pakistan, including its president, are angry over the release of an American contractor accused of killing two Pakistani motorcyclists. The contractor, Raymond Davis, was freed and allowed to leave the country after paying the victim's families an unspecified amount of money. The arrangement was made with local tribal leaders with the help of the Pakistani government. The families of the two slain men agreed to accept "blood money" instead of pursuing the matter in court. After the agreement with the victim's' families was reached, Davis quickly left the country. Although the agreement was made in accordance with Shariah law it was not made in a Shariah court under Islamic judges as Shariah law requires. Once word got out, Islamic groups, as well as rank and file Pakistanis, became furious and took to the streets.
The U.S. has often looked askew at Islamic law, particularly Shariah law. Shariah law is frequently perceived in the West as antiquated and, in some cases, even barbaric. Normally, the U.S. would protest if one of its citizens were to be subjected to Shariah law. Yet, in this case, to circumvent Pakistani law, the U.S., with help from the Pakistani government, made an appeal to local leaders to negotiate terms for Davis's release under Shariah law. Those terms were agreed upon and Davis was released.
Many of the rules, procedures, and punishments permitted under Shariah law are repugnant to American sensibilities. For example, under Shariah law it is permissible for a husband to beat his wife so long as no marks are left. It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance under which the U.S. would support an appeal to Shariah law on behalf of one of its citizens. I say almost impossible because it does happen, much to Davis' relief. Before Davis' case I would have said impossible, as I am sure many would have.
The U.S. is a staunch advocate of the rule of law, and it remains so. It can be flexible regarding which law when the situation demands. In Davis' case, it was decided that a more advantageous outcome could be attained under Shariah law than secular law so secular court was avoided. So, Davis is free, the U.S. is relieved, the victim's family is satisfied, and Pakistanis are furious. It is a win, win, win, lose situation.
Like "reform", when the U.S. speaks of the rule of law it usually has something very particular in mind. In any event, we should not expect the U.S. to support another appeal to Shariah law any time soon.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Stop Me Before I Spend Again.
Many Republicans ran in the last election promising to abolish the practice of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions inserted into bills that set aside funding for particular projects with little or no congressional oversight.Those that won promised they would adhere to their pledge, and they did. When the new congress convened it banned earmarks. Now, many in Congress are attempting to maneuver around their promise by pressuring agency heads to steer money their way. You can't really call it a kick back, but it is close. The political reality in Washington is that unless you can deliver jobs and money to your constituents you are perceived as having little use.
There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.
Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.
It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.
There is a tendency to rely upon rules to to modify behavior. Congress cannot muster the will to stop spending, so they pass rules to try and force themselves to stop. But they will not stop because the American public demands spending. Despite the growing antipathy to federal spending among the electorate, people still expect the government to do things for them and as they see it, the job of their congressman is to make sure those things are done. As long as there is an appetite for bacon there will be a market for it.
Congress can pass all the rules it wants to try and control itself but unless the people step up and demand that government cut back, the spending will not cease. Spending is not an institutional problem, it is a political problem. Congress cannot be reformed by changing the rules, it can only be reformed by changing the culture. As has been shown time and time again, if there is a will to spend, a way will be found to spend.
It is not Washington that has the spending problem, it is the American people. Until the American people elect a congress that will not pilfer the treasury and spend beyond its means, we will have a congress that pilfers the treasury and spends beyond its means. There are only two ways to stop the bloated spending by the government. You can either adopt a stern constitutional amendment to prohibit it, or find an electorate that will not tolerate it.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Not if They Quit
Cigarette taxes will soon be going up. Washington is planning to more than double cigarette taxes from 39 cents per pack to $1.01 a pack. The increased tax is expected to bring in $33 billion over the next four and a half years. One problem in the move that Washington has not considered is that if the tax succeeds in reducing smoking, that $33 billion it anticipates collecting will evaporate. If the tax increase works, fewer people will smoke which in turn means that they will no longer buy cigarettes. If they do not buy cigarettes, they will not pay the tax and that $33 billion the government anticipates the higher taxes will bring in will not appear.
The extra revenue the government hopes to bring in through the tax increase has already found its way into the budget. Plans are currently being made on what it will do with the extra money. But if fewer people smoke, the money that the government anticipates having in the future will not be there. The taxes will not be paid if people don't buy cigarettes. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot rely on increased revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes while trying to get people to quit.
As a smoker, the government has given me a strong incentive to quit. If I succeed, it will not be because of cost or health concerns, but out of spite. Perhaps the best reason of all to quit is to help put all of the nags who are employed to agitate against tobacco out of work. If I get a few more years above ground and cheat the government out of some tax money for doing so, that will just be gravy.
Once the government gets rid of the smokers and the chewers they are going to have a hole in their budget. They will have to find something else to tax. There is no telling what that might be. You can be confident that whatever it is, it will be something that tastes good or is fun to do.
First they came for the smokers but I didn't care because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the obese but I didn't care because I was not obese.
The extra revenue the government hopes to bring in through the tax increase has already found its way into the budget. Plans are currently being made on what it will do with the extra money. But if fewer people smoke, the money that the government anticipates having in the future will not be there. The taxes will not be paid if people don't buy cigarettes. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot rely on increased revenue by raising taxes on cigarettes while trying to get people to quit.
As a smoker, the government has given me a strong incentive to quit. If I succeed, it will not be because of cost or health concerns, but out of spite. Perhaps the best reason of all to quit is to help put all of the nags who are employed to agitate against tobacco out of work. If I get a few more years above ground and cheat the government out of some tax money for doing so, that will just be gravy.
Once the government gets rid of the smokers and the chewers they are going to have a hole in their budget. They will have to find something else to tax. There is no telling what that might be. You can be confident that whatever it is, it will be something that tastes good or is fun to do.
First they came for the smokers but I didn't care because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the obese but I didn't care because I was not obese.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)