Category: reason

A pack of Democratic lawmakers in California are proposing a wealth tax for the state’s richest citizens, forcing them to pay more essentially just for owning a lot of stuff. They also, amazingly, want the tax to follow Californians who flee the state in response, attempting to make them continue paying taxes on wealth that’s not even in the state.

Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D–Oakland) is blunt about his reasons for introducing the California Wealth Tax (A.B. 2088). Rich people have money. He wants more of it to pay for and expand state services. And that’s it.

“The California Wealth Tax would add critically needed revenue for California by creating a more equitable tax structure,” Bonta said in a press release promoting the bill. “Families are hurting right now. COVID-19 has only made matters worse. In times of crisis, all Californians must step up and contribute their fair share. Asking these well-resourced Californians to give a little more to keep our people working and support our most vulnerable is the right thing to do.”

The proposed wealth tax would add a .4 percent tax on a taxpayer’s net worth for net worths that exceed $30 million, which Bonta estimates will affect fewer than 31,000 Californians. From this proposed wealth tax, he estimates the state will raise $7.5 billion per year. The state currently faces a $54 billion budget deficit due in part to economic downturns from the coronavirus pandemic.

And to be clear, this tax goes beyond wealth and assets held in the state of California. “All worldwide property” of these wealthy Californians would be subject to this tax. If you park your money in real estate, farm assets, artwork, offshore funds, or a whole host of categories, they want a piece of it. (It even lists pension funds as taxable to those who meet the threshold!)

For rich Californians thinking of leaving rather than paying the state for the privilege of owning things, lawmakers are also attempting to tax the wealthy who vote with their feet. The bill contains a special formula to apply to anybody who has lived in the state within the last 10 years, though the tax burden will slowly drop over time for each year they don’t live in California. It’s pretty much a certainty that former Californians subjected to this wealth tax would challenge the legality of this plan.

Despite Bonta’s attempt to present the state’s wealthiest as needing to contribute their “fair share,” the reality is that California is exceedingly—perhaps even overly—dependent on its wealthiest for tax revenue. According to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, people earning more than $1 million a year were responsible for almost 40 percent of the state’s personal income tax revenue in 2015, though those same people account for only 19 percent of adjusted gross income in the state (see page 10 here for a graph).

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jon Healey notes that this proposed wealth tax could have effects on capital gains taxes, especially if it encourages people to sell their assets at a loss to lower their tax burdens—and California extracts a significant amount of capital gains taxes from its wealthiest citizens. The result here could be a drop in capital gains revenue in the state, meaning (ironically) less tax revenue overall.

You don’t even need to ask whose bright idea this was because Bonta is actually quite happy to reveal that the bill’s co-sponsors are the California Federation of Teachers, the California Teachers Association, and the Service Employees International Union. These are, without exaggeration, the people who would financially benefit from the tax’s passage. The money would be given to the state’s general fund, which pays public employee salaries.

Has there ever been a more vivid example to pin the “taxation is theft” saying to? This wealth tax is literally a fine for having assets the state’s public employees covet for themselves.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/315w8co
via IFTTT

I think this is generally quite right, and indeed an important victory for academic freedom; professors, including those at public colleges, have to be able to speak freely about religious belief systems (whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else), no less than other belief systems.

From Sabra v. Maricopa County Comm. College Dist., decided this morning by Judge Susan M. Brnovich (D. Ariz.):

Arising out of an Islamic Terrorism module in an online World Politics course taught by Dr. Nicholas Damask, this case tests the limits of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. Mohamed Sabra enrolled in this spring semester course at Scottsdale Community College (“SCC”) in 2020. Its syllabus describes it as one that will provide an “[i]ntroduction to the principles and issues relating to the study of international relations. Evaluation of the political, economic, national, and transnational rationale for international interactions.”

The course is organized into six modules, each containing multiple components to explore various topics concerning world politics. The Islamic Terrorism module challenged by Mr. Sabra and the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Arizona … had three components: a PowerPoint presentation, excerpts from Future Jihad, and a quiz. The PowerPoint presentation explored world politics through three sub-topics: (1) “Defining Terrorism”; (2) “Islamic Terrorism: Definition”; and (3) “Islamic Terrorism: Analysis.” The second component required students to read excerpts from Future Jihad, a book published by Walid Phares, and the quiz evaluated students on their comprehension of course material with twenty-five multiple choice questions.

Plaintiffs take issue with Dr. Damask’s instruction throughout these various Islamic Terrorism module components, alleging that his teachings violate the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause …. Plaintiffs allege his instruction unconstitutionally “conclude[es] that Islam ‘mandates’ terrorism and the killing of Non-Muslims, and that this is the only interpretation of religious texts, but without any disclaimer to inform students that this is one-perspective and that Islam itself does not condone terrorism.” They further allege that Dr. Damask “is not teaching that only some extremists espouse these beliefs, but rather that literally, Islam itself teaches the mandates of terrorism.”

And “[t]he only objectively reasonable construction of [Dr.] Damask’s actions,” Plaintiffs allege, “is that his primary message is the disapproval of Islam.” As it specifically concerns the quiz, Plaintiffs allege “[it] forced [Mr.] Sabra to agree to [Dr. Damask’s] radical interpretation of Islam.” And when Mr. Sabra refused to answer questions in accordance with what he learned in the course, his answers were marked wrong, and his course grade was negatively impacted….

The court rejected Sabra’s Establishment Clause challenge (applying the “endorsement” test set forth by Ninth Circuit precedent, though the Supreme Court seems to have retreated from that test in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n):

“The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'” This includes not only government approval of religion, but its disapproval of or hostility toward religion [citing Ninth Circuit cases].

Courts are directed to apply the “Lemon test” in cases challenging government conduct under the Establishment Clause. Government action regarding religion only satisfies the Establishment Clause if it (1) has a secular purpose; (2) does not have the principle or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) does not foster excessive entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Plaintiffs argue that the challenged module fails under the second prong of the Lemon test. “Under the second prong of the Lemon test, [the Court] must consider whether the government action has the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.” When making this determination, courts decide whether it would be “objectively reasonable for the government action to be construed as sending primarily a message of either endorsement or disapproval of religion.” The analysis is whether the government action “‘primarily’ disapproves” of religious beliefs notwithstanding the fact that one may infer possible government disapproval of religious beliefs.

Under this objective standard, even where the government practice reflects “some disapproval” of religion, this alone is not enough to run afoul of the Establishment Clause. “Courts have long emphasized the importance of academic freedom in deciding the appropriate curriculum for the classroom.”

Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. The offending component was only a part of one-sixth of the course and taught in the context of explaining terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam. Dr. Damask also quotes Peter Bergen for the view that the terrorist threat comes from radical terror groups that represent a “twisted” variant of Islam as a whole.

{Further, as Plaintiff’s counsel misstated in oral argument, Question 19 of Dr. Damask’s quiz on terrorism states: “Walid Phares notes that although ‘gullible’ Westerners are taught that jihad can have two meanings, people in the Arabic world understand that its overwhelmingly obvious meaning is ___.” This question merely asks students to identify the opinion of Walid Phares regarding Islam, not to adopt his position on Islam.} Thus, the Court finds that the primary effect of Dr. Damask’s course is not the inhibition of the practice of Islam….

And the Court rejected Sabra’s Free Exercise Clause challenge:

“The Free Exercise Clause, which applies to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘protects religious observers against unequal treatment’ and against ‘laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.'” … Curriculum that merely conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Parker v. Hurley (1st Cir. 2008) (requirement that public school students to read a book featuring gay couples did not violate constitutional rights of Christian parents or children); California Parents for Equalization of Educ. Materials v. Torlakson (N.D. Cal. 2017) (ruling that requiring students to learn class material that the plaintiffs viewed as “derogatory towards Hinduism” did not violate the Free Exercise Clause)….

Here, Mr. Sabra alleges that he was forced to choose between denouncing his religion by selecting the “correct” answer or receiving a lower grade. That is simply not correct. As Defendants point out, Mr. Sabra was not required to adopt the views expressed by Dr. Damask or the authors Dr. Damask cited to in his course, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. Dr. Damask’s course did not inhibit Mr. Sabra’s personal worship in any way. Instead, Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to “attitudes and outlooks at odds” with his own religious perspective. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s allegations do not amount to a violation of the Free Exercise Clause ….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/315dwJo
via IFTTT

Various right-wing populist media personalities and sources seem to think that revealing that Kamala Harris has, according to her father, a distant ancestor who was a slaveowner in Jamaica is some sort of “gotcha.” In particular, they often suggest that this is evidence that Harris is “not really black” or is “barely black.”

As I noted previously, because Harris has black African ancestry and identifies as black, she is included in the legal definition of “black/African” we use in the U.S. This legal definition both reflects and informs common parlance.

Beyond that, the racial categories we use in common parlance in the U.S. do not track genetic ancestry, but are rather sociological. In the U.S., the one-drop rule generally prevailed historically, where anyone with discernible African ancestry was deemed black. According to what I’ve read but not independently confirmed, the U.S. is the only country that had African slavery where the one-drop rule has been standard.

In short, having a white ancestor, including slave-owning ancestors, has never disqualified anyone from identifying or being identified as black/African American. The only legitimate objection is the history of forcing that identity on people regardless of how they see themselves, and then discriminating against them because of it.

The civil rights group challenging the segregation law in Plessy v. Ferguson purposely chose Homer Plessy as the test-case plaintiff, because, as the Supreme Court related, he was “of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven eighths Caucasian and one eighth African blood; .. the mixture of [African] blood was not discernible in him.” Among other things, the litigants hoped to show the absurdity and arbitrariness of American race law.

In the course of my research on government mandates requiring use of race for classification in medical studies, I found that researchers who have done genetic studies estimate that the average self-identified black person in the U.S. has European ancestry ranging from 7 to 24% (depending on the study). Bryc Katarzyna, et al. The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States, 96 Am. J. Human Genetics 37 (2015). People who self-identify as black/African American have anywhere from 2% to 100% African ancestry. This obviously is a confounding factor in trying to use American race categories as proxies for genetic origin, but it also points to the fact that there is no contradiction between having some European ancestry and identifying as black or African American.

Not all of all African Americans with white ancestry have white *slaveowner* ancestry, but some of them do. It doesn’t make them less “black”; it does reinforce the horrors of slavery, as slaves were forced into sexual relationships with slaveholders, and their offspring remained slaves unless specifically freed by the father.

It would be preferable if society advanced to the point where differences in “racial” origins were considered largely irrelevant to anything but one’s own self-identity. Obviously we haven’t reached that stage yet. Meanwhile, it’s completely uncalled for to suggest that Senator Harris isn’t “really” black.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34cRRkK
via IFTTT

When presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris was running for president, she appeared at CNN’s Equality Town Hall, an October event focused on the LGBTQ community. How, one questioner asked, will Harris communicate her “liberal, Californian perspective when reaching out to voters in small, conservative areas?”

Harris said she’d tell the story of a day in 2004 where she arrived at San Francisco’s City Hall to find families of same-sex couples lined up around the block to witness their loved ones’ weddings. “It was a day where people who loved each other had the ability for their love to be recognized by law,” said Harris, who herself officiated gay weddings years before they were legalized statewide in California. “And if anyone has known love, and honors the importance of love and the commitment one person is willing to make to another person in the name of love,” she continued, “they should always recognize and encourage that nobody would be treated differently under the law.”

It’s an evocative story about why gay marriage should be allowed, but it doesn’t address the chief concern you’ll hear from religious conservatives these days: Whether they’ll be compelled to participate in and pay for things, particularly in the workplace, which their creeds and consciences forbid. Unfortunately, this wasn’t a momentary lapse: Harris shows little interest in reaching common ground with voters worried about religious liberty. She even seems unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that their fears could be based in something more substantive than a failure to have “known love.”

The Supreme Court’s June decision on Bostock v. Clayton County is a useful synecdoche for LGBTQ policies. Bostock controversially expanded employment discrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Though a subsequent ruling enhanced the “ministerial exception,” which gives religious institutions far wider latitude in hiring and firing, Bostock was considered catastrophic by many religious conservatives who want to bring their beliefs into business contexts that aren’t explicitly religious. At least arguably, the court has protected religious institutions but not individuals. Harris cheered Bostock, which accomplished a major goal of her 2017 and 2019 legislation to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The birth control fight, similarly, turns on whether the state can force employers to pay for birth control they consider abortifacient if doing so violates their religious beliefs. Harris says employers must be made to pay. In 2014, as California’s attorney general, she filed an amicus brief in the Hobby Lobby case that presented a stunningly narrow view of free religious exercise. She described it as “personal, relating only to individual believers and to a limited class of associations comprising or representing them.” The Constitution “protect[s] the development and expression of an ‘inner sanctum’ of personal religious faith,” Harris wrote, but not “the exercise of such inherently personal rights by ordinary, for-profit business corporations.”

This is a bizarre vision of faith confined to mental assent and perhaps a few private ceremonies. It is unrecognizable and nigh useless from many religious perspectives, for most religious people believe our faith should inform all parts of our lives, including our work. In that case, protecting only an “inner sanctum” is no protection at all.

Then there’s abortion. Harris is pro-choice, of course, but her stance goes well beyond ensuring abortion is legal and accessible. She’s a vocal proponent of federal funding for abortion. In California, she championed legislation forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise free or cheap abortion options to their clients. (The law was later struck down as a First Amendment violation.) Critics and supporters alike have said Harris’ bill to weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be used to require Catholic health care providers, for example, to perform abortions.

Perhaps the single most revealing comment Harris has made on abortion came in 2018, when the U.S. Senate was considering the nomination of Brian Buescher for a district judgeship. “Since 1993,” she said, “you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In 2016, Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as ‘a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths.’ Mr. Anderson went on to say that ‘abortion is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.’ Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?”

This is what has conservative Catholics denouncing Harris as an anti-Catholic bigot. To be Catholic, they say she’s implying, is to be an extremist unsuitable for the federal bench. That’s a plausible reading, though it’s complicated somewhat by her willingness to run alongside Joe Biden—but then, Biden isn’t exactly the same sort of Catholic. The assumptions undergirding Harris’ comment suggest she doesn’t think people whose religion places them on the opposite side of the culture war merit much protection in public life.

Finally, there’s Harris’ gleefully expressed willingness to override constitutional rights by executive order. At a primary debate in September, she sneered at the “idea that we would wait for this Congress that has just done nothing” to issue a federal assault weapons ban, breaking with Biden on the constitutionality of such a move.

Biden’s view may hold sway for the next four years. But it’s not hard to imagine a President Harris in 2025, freed of Biden’s lingering constitutional constraints, deciding that executive orders could be used on First Amendment matters as well as Second. Whatever lip service Harris pays to Americans’ freedom to worship, it’s a freedom she clearly wants neatly confined to our own heads.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ybzd8S
via IFTTT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and a slew of musical guests were on the roster for night one of the virtual Democratic National Convention, a two-hour hodgepodge of panels, speeches, smooth jazz, hope, and nonsense. But it was former first lady Michelle Obama who stole the show with an eloquent speech that harked back to her husband’s heyday and less complicated times.

There was nothing remarkable about the contents of her speech, or at least there wouldn’t have been in another era. Perhaps its focus on unity and a simple but dignified message are themselves a rarity in 2020 politics.

“Let’s be clear: Going high does not mean putting on a smile and saying nice things when confronted by viciousness and cruelty,” said Obama in the pre-recorded segment which aired last night.

Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountaintop. Going high means standing fierce against hatred while remembering that we are one nation under God, and if we want to survive, we’ve got to find a way to live together and work together across our differences.

Obama’s speech moved seamlessly between the personal and the political, weaving a narrative thread between her husband’s administration with Joe Biden as vice president and a potential Biden presidency. She touched on the COVID-19 pandemic, racial justice, and other highly-charged issues without getting all mucked up culture war grievances; it was all top-level values and empathy.

“The America that is on display for the next generation” is “a nation that’s underperforming not simply on matters of policy but on matters of character,” said Obama.

And that’s not just disappointing; it’s downright infuriating, because I know the goodness and the grace that is out there in households and neighborhoods all across this nation.

And I know that regardless of our race, age, religion, or politics, when we close out the noise and the fear and truly open our hearts, we know that what’s going on in this country is just not right. This is not who we want to be.

Michelle Obama didn’t chastise past Trump voters but appealed to people’s better angels, and—in contrast to much Democratic messaging these days—didn’t try to portray President Donald Trump as a literal fascist or a shady foreign stooge, but rather someone that many Americans simply know, deep down, just isn’t right.

“Let me be as honest and clear as I possibly can,” said Obama. “Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country. He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is.”

A lot of people seemed to be inspired.

My god. Michelle makes everyone else look like amateurs. No one can deliver a speech like she can. Even in these conditions, she leaves you hanging on every syllable. Few can do that. #DemConvention

— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) August 18, 2020

Others found her delivery stilted and optimism forced.

I’ll split the difference and say it was indeed schmaltzy and basic but that’s probably exactly what the moment called for and, honestly, it was still a little refreshing. (I also liked that it didn’t mention Biden’s V.P. pick, Kamala Harris, at all even if this was just because the segment was recorded before the pick was announced.)

The only truly annoying part of Obama’s speech was her dig at third-party voters.

“This is not the time to withhold our votes in protest or play games with candidates who have no chance of winning,” Obama said. “We have got to vote like we did in 2008 and 2012.”

That wouldn’t be the worst thing: In 2012, the Libertarian Party saw its highest number of votes yet, with candidate Gary Johnson earning nearly 1 percent of the popular vote that year. But Johnson and the L.P. smashed this record in 2016, gaining 3.28 percent of the popular vote.

Were these—and votes for other non-Democratic or Republican candidates—wasted? Hardly. As Reason‘s Matt Welch wrote recently, “behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. If you reward your party for nominating people you don’t like, chances are very likely that will happen again, sooner rather than later. There is a contradiction in complaining that two-party choices seem to get worse every four years while still voting reliably for one of those choices.”

Watch Obama’s whole speech here.

---

FREE MINDS

Happy 100th anniversary to the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which said “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” I’ll be talking tonight with author and Liberty Fund Senior Fellow Sarah Skwire, Rachel Davison Humphries of the Bill of Rights Institute, and the Cato Institute’s Kat Murti about the history of the suffrage movement, its divides and missteps, and what the 19th Amendment actually meant for American women and electoral politics. The panel is hosted by Feminists for Liberty, a nonprofit libertarian feminist group that Murti and I founded. Tune in via Zoom at 7 p.m. EST.

---

FREE MARKETS

Some authorities have reservations about the antitrust attack on Google. “Some Justice Department staffers have expressed internal concerns over plans to bring an antitrust lawsuit against … Google—and what they view as an aggressive timeline favored by Attorney General William Barr,” the Wall Street Journal reports:

There are a range of views among staff about a Google case, people familiar with the deliberations said. Some Justice Department lawyers believe Google’s conduct isn’t blameless, but they don’t want to bring a once-in-a-generation lawsuit with flaws and lose in court, the people said.

Some staffers also are concerned that top officials overseeing the probe might be feeling pressure to get a lawsuit filed before the election, the people said.

More here.

---

QUICK HITS

• College “free speech zones” are getting a look from the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Teachers are calling the cops over kids skipping virtual classes.

• Viral photos of the horrors supposedly brought by Postal Service cuts keep turning out to be not at all what people fear.

OK so everyone has seen the "viral" photo going around of the piles of mailboxes in Wisconsin being used as evidence that Trump is sabotaging USPS. Problem is, they have been there for years: Hartford Finishing Inc. powder coats and refurbishes the old mailboxes. (1/8) pic.twitter.com/HQpAprWxoK

— Gary He (@garyhe) August 17, 2020

• How social justice slideshows took over Instagram.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31bNh4l
via IFTTT