Monthly Archives: July 2004

The Man Who Would Own Eros

I will never forget my college political philosophy professor mocking John Locke's attempt to ground the foundations of property on the admixture of labor or property to unclaimed resources by asking whether, were he to legitimately acquire a can of tomato paste and pour it into the ocean, he could therefore claim the ocean as his own.

Think that's silly? How about Gregory Nemitz of Carson City, Nevada, who claims to own Eros, and wants NASA to pay him $20 for “parking and storage fees” now that it has landed the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft on “his” asteroid. Basically, the basis of Nemitz's claim to ownership of Eros is, well, that he claims to own it, and that he's expending resources to pursue the claim, so it must be his. Oh yes, and that the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies of 1967, which precludes private ownership of celestial bodies, sounds in the Communist Manifesto, so it must be illegal.

This would be funny if the guy were not (it seems) funded by the sale of beef jerky (I am not making this up, see the bottom of his web site), and appealing (pro se) the loss of his district court case up to the 9th Circuit. Where I confidently predict he will lose again.

(The words “sui juris” on his brief are by the way a giveaway that the appellant is in the grip of a legal cult, akin to the common law court cultists, or the people who think that writing “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207” will somehow have a magic effect on their debts, or who think that they can avoid paying taxes by eschewing Social Security numbers and claiming to be just a state citizen not a citizen of the US.)

Posted in Law: International Law | 1 Comment

Never Trusted Those Voting Machines Anyway

Peter Shane has a cautionary article in today's Washington Post. In Usurping the Voters, Prof. Shane conjures up a scary hypo based on a close reading of Bush v. Gore,

Under that decision, there is no guarantee that the electors who are decisive in choosing the next president of the United States will themselves be selected by the people of the United States. That's because the justices ruled in that case that state legislatures have unlimited authority to determine whether citizens in their respective states shall be allowed to vote for president at all.

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” the court said, “unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

Imagine, now, a state in which the same party controls both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. There would presumably be no partisan impediment to the state legislature, with the governor's approval, deciding that the majority party in state government shall control the state's electoral vote, regardless of any popular vote in the state. If the Supreme Court's declaration is an accurate statement of the law, there would not be any legal impediment either.

The impedement of course is, as he notes, “outrage” but look how far that's gotten us in the last four years…

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 9 Comments

No Corporation Left Behind

Hi, I'm George Mundstock. Michael was kind enough to let me guest blog while he travels. Always wanted to try running a blog, but was afraid of the start-up and commitment (and, OK, that I would throw a blog and nobody would come). This is a great opportunity for me. Thanks Michael! Hope that you all find my stuff at least somewhat interesting.

As a tax type, it seems mandatory that my first entry be on taxes. Unfortunately for America, there is a huge corporate tax bill working its way through Congress, which is likely to pass after the elections and, therefore, makes a perfect first topic. The House passed the American Jobs Creation Act with $130 billion (over 10 years) in new corporate tax breaks (and some offsetting corporate tax increases, but only one big one, which will be discussed in a minute). The Senate has its Jumpstart our Business Strength (JOBS) Act with about the same total new benefits (although it, unlike the House bill, also includes the energy stuff that will be discussed tomorrow), but a few more revenue offsets, so as to have a lower net cost.

Quo Vadis? Well, its a long story: Since the 1960s, the US has had a tax incentive for exports, first called DISC (Domestic International Sales Corporations), then FISC (Foreign International Sales Corporations), and now ETI (Exempt Territorial Income). Most of the current tax benefits go to few companies (Boeing, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Honeywell, Caterpillar, Motorola, and Cisco). Surprise, all 3 versions of the incentive have been ruled to violate GATT by interfering with free trade, most recently in January of 2002. Since then, Europe has waited patiently for Congress to repeal ETI. (The Bush Administration did not push very hard for a fix.) Finally, in January, various European countries began imposing WTO-approved sanctions: tariffs on various imported US goods, which tariffs increase the longer that the US is in non-compliance, until the tariffs reach a total of $4 billion a year. So, now, Congress must Act. But, there is a problem: Chair Thomas of the House Ways & Means Committee views this as a “competitiveness” issue: US corporations must pay as little tax on foreign operations as some hypothetical tax outlaw foreign corporation (that doesn't really exist). In other words, GE needs new breaks for its foreign operations to replace its lost export incentive — that this makes it more desirable for US businesses to export jobs be damned. But, wait, says the Senate, what about Boeing and Caterpillar? We also need tax breaks for US manufacturing to replace the lost break for US manufacturers who export. And the House, which never met a tax cut that it didn't like, agrees. So, now, we have 2 bills that, rather than pick up $50 billion in much needed federal revenues by repealing an illegal subsidy, instead provide expensive new rules that benefit companies' offshore operations, while also rewarding anything that some accountant thinks is US manufacturing. Aarrgh! Why isn't your business as valuable to America as manufacturing?

Posted in Law: Tax | 17 Comments

Meet Guest Blogger George Mundstock

I'm going to be away for most of the period between July 26 and August 6. For the first few days I will be at the Internet Meltdown event, and might blog a little from there if the wifi is working. But after that blogging could be very sparse: I'll be back in Miami but not in my house since the construction will have temporarily taken over. Then I'll be at a Berkman Center conference.

George Mundstock in a rare formal momentMy colleague George Mundstock has heroically volunteered to step into the breach as a guest blogger (starting this week), which should be fun. George is a guy who knows numbers. He's a tax lawyer, and an expert on accounting, but if you met him it would undoubtedly destroy any stereotypes you had of what tax lawyers are like. George is the antithesis of stuffy. He's wickedly funny. He has wildly iconoclastic taste in music. He learned to program on an IBM 1130 and runs Linux (SuSE) at home. And he cares about tax policy. So I've created a new category Law:Tax just for him.

George joined the UM faculty long before I did, and a few years ago his achievements were recognized with the offer of a prestigious chair at the University of Minnesota. Since that's reputed to be a good school, and since his family was from around there, George moved, leaving a very George-sized hole in our faculty. Last year, to our delight, he decided that he wanted to come back—the perfect answer to the vast George-sized hole we had yet to fill. As I was chair of the Promotion and Tenure committee last year, my share of the bureaucracy necessary to rehire him involved me assembling his weighty publications and reading through years of his teaching evaluations. The teaching evaluations were humbling: students love him and apparently love his quirky humor too.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that George's politics are somewhere to the right of mine, but I'm not really sure. I have no idea what party if any he belongs to. He's interesting. He's going to have fun doing this, and I think people who read this blog will find what he has to say as stimulating as we at UM do.

Continue reading

Posted in Discourse.net | 5 Comments

Cuban-Born Miami Bishop Warns that Bush Request for Church Membership Resembles Castro’s

Here is something I certainly never expected to see. A Miami Bishop, born in Cuba, has said President Bush reminds him of Castro. OK, he's an Episcopalian Bishop, not a Catholic, but still…

Here's what the Miami Herald reported (reg. req.),

As the Bush-Cheney campaign mounts an offensive to solidify a religious base for the November election, the Episcopal bishop of Southeast Florida has joined a chorus of religious leaders denouncing the campaign's plan to obtain church directories for electioneering purposes.

To Bishop Leo Frade, the Bush-Cheney strategy violates the separation of church and state.

“Handing over names for partisan politics to any party would be an infraction of our tax-exempt status as a religious institution,'' said Frade, who heads 82 Episcopal churches in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Monroe and Martin counties.

Frade, who was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1960 as a college student, went further in a July 2 diocesan letter.

“I'm alarmed by any suggestion of providing the names of church members to any particular political group,'' he wrote. “I saw this request made by Fidel Castro at the beginning of his regime, and his persecution of churches that refused.''

The Herald reprints the GOP instructions to churches, or church members, here. (It also reports the interesting GOP claim that what the GOP is doing to evangelical churches is just like what Democrats have done for years in black churches. Is that true? Have Democrats ever been that organized?)

Incidentally in other Florida-Cuban news, it turns out that Bush's allegations about Cuba being a sex-tourism haven may be several years out of date (at least, that's what the Cubans claim, and there's some evidence to support it) and that Bush's picked GOP Senate candidate, Mel Martinez, is getting some south Florida flack for suggesting that some Cuban refugees are economic refugees, not entitled to political asylum.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | 5 Comments

Movies You Will Not See on TV for a LONG Time

Today's NYT “Week in Review” section has a small but remarkably clueless item by Sharon Waxman on the profusion of liberal movie/DVD documentaries being released this year. Lights, Camera, Liberal begins like this:

If talk radio is dominated by conservatives, documentaries must be the preferred medium of liberals. It’s not only “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore’s box-office hit about the Iraq war. A number of films — all left of center — are set to be launched in the coming weeks, as the electoral season gets underway in earnest.

Why so many documentaries, and why now?

The article not only fails to explain “why now” but it fails to connect its lede with the fact it explains: the main reason why anti-Bush documentaries are going to film or DVD is that the broadcast media, largely owned and run by right-wing Republicans, won't make them and won't play them. If even a mildly hagiographic TV mini-series like the Reagan biography gets mau-maued by the right wing, who in the broadcast world is going to dare to speak truth (or anything unwelcome) to power? No one. And most of the cable news networks are overtly or covertly Republican. So that relegates centrist and especially liberal documentaries to independents working through distinctly second-best alternate distribution channels. And even that can be hard, witness the various obstacles film chains have put in the way of 9/11, a money-making film.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Movies You Will Not See on TV for a LONG Time