A Gas Tax Increase Should Have Us Fuming

A couple of days ago, the Council for the city of Jacksonville voted on extending a six-cent gasoline tax for another twenty years. While this might seem like a relatively minor occurrence, it got me thinking about the merits of whether an excise tax should be levied on the sale of fuel, particularly on the state and federal levels. Typically, the gasoline tax acts as a de facto imperfect user fee to help fund transportation-related projects, e.g., highways and other infrastructure, which is important because the infrastructure system is the lifeline of the American transportation system that provides transport, job, economic growth, and mobility. One of the issues with the gasoline tax is that overall, inflation-adjusted revenues have been on the decline.

The reasons for decreased revenue have to do with more fuel-efficient cars, inflation eating into purchasing power, as well as more people taking public transit, all of which make the gasoline tax less effective. We should be worried about a deteriorating infrastructure because with it comes higher costs, more congestion, increased accidents, and reduced mobility.  Infrastructure is a metric of a country's economic wealth, which it makes me wonder if we should stick with the gasoline tax or if we should try something else. Aside from its unpopularity, the gasoline tax comes with its issues, including the regressive nature of the gasoline tax, inelastic demand (Bento et al., 2009; Li et al., 2013), improper reallocation of federal funds, increased prices of other goods, inability to disincetivize driving during peak hours and decrease congestion (Congressional Budget Office [CBO], 2011, p. 10), noticeable market distortions in secondary markets (Taylor and Van Doren, 2007), and an unfair burden on rural and remote areas [and the poor] (Ferguson, 2007).  Stricter fuel-economy standards might seem like a good idea, but a gas tax is up to six times more effective than stricter fuel-economy standards (Karplus et al., 2013). Perhaps we can index the gasoline tax to inflation. Using the Consumer Price Index wouldn't be the best idea because it overstates inflation and has a substitution bias. Alternatively, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that the tax can be adjusted to the inflation of construction costs to more accurately reflect the costs of infrastructure projects. Regardless, it could help recover some lost funds. Even so, indexing it to inflation is no guarantee of the quality of the roads (Hartgen et al., 2010).

There were some other ideas that I came across while doing research. One is to install toll roads. Although that would act more like a user fee than the gasoline tax, the upfront costs to replace gasoline taxes with toll roads would be astronomical. The Rand Corporation suggests that instead of implementing a tax on gasoline, we should implement one on oil (Crane et al., 2011), which has the advantage of making the tax more diffuse. There is the possibility of implementing a private-public partnership, but looking at other public-private partnerships, it may or may not work.

The idea that seems to best work is to tax the miles in what is known as a milage-based user fee. The Government Accountability Office conducted a study in 2012 showing that a milage-based user fee is more efficient than a gasoline tax. It's equitable (CBO, p. 15) and it's fiscally sustainable (O'Toole, 2012), not to mention that it cuts back on financial crisis issues. However, it comes with its issues. One has to do with tracking the miles. If one uses the odometer, that leaves it open to odometer tampering, i.e., fraud and tax evasion. A GPS might solve that problem, but it would considered an invasion of privacy because the GPS would track where and when people would drive. There have been implementations in which the tracking system only collects certain data, but with what the NSA did with regards to acquiring metadata, it's difficult not to be skeptical. Alternatively, there is the possibility of using your own GPS, smartphone, or other system to wirelessly track your milage without the government invading privacy. Furthermore, the tax would be collected at the gas pump, which means that electric cars would be exempt. Implementation would eat up a good chunk of revenues because adding in trackers into each car would be costly, especially with tracking and assessing a user fee (CBO, p. 18).

On the whole, I would say that we should relegate funding of the roads to the states because the federal government muddies things up. At least that way, there would be more competition and innovation of ideas. To make the infrastructure system more market-based, and thereby more efficient, the solution is going to be a portfolio of the aforementioned policy alternatives. For example, start the milage-based user fee with trucks only. Although they make up four percent of automobiles, they are responsible for twenty-five percent of milage travelled (CBO, p. ix). Increase the petroleum tax while decreasing the gasoline tax. States can install more toll roads while decreasing the gasoline tax. Whatever the mixture of policies looks like, one thing is for sure: the gasoline tax is on its way out.

June 22, 2014 Addendum: Brookings Institution senior fellow Clifford Winston wrote a paper on how the private sector can improve our infrastructure system. Worth the read.

July 11, 2014 Addendum: The Left-leaning Center for American Progress even realized the wonders of the mileage-based user fee in their latest report.

The "Case for Reparations" Isn't So Black and White

A few days ago, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote this really lengthy piece over at The Atlantic about a case for reparations to African-Americans for all the damages done to them, which apparently has garnered some attention. African-Americans dealt with slavery in the founding days of this country up until the end of the Civil War. After emancipation, they then had to put up with Jim Crow and Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" dreck. America's past is filled with discrimination towards African-Americans, not to mention there was a whole civil rights movement to attempt to rectify it. Heck, there can still be a case made that discrimination and racism are lodged against African-Americans to this very day. Because of "the enduring legacy of our country's shameful history of treating black people as sub-citizens, sub-Americans, and sub-humans," Coates argues that all this wrongdoing is a basis for reparations. After looking at the piece, it sounds compelling and it certainly is distressing to read about the level of discrimination that African-Americans had to endure, but what Coates fails to realize is that forcing non-African-Americans to pay reparations to African-Americans isn't that simple.

Coates tries to analogize what happened between the Jews during the Holocaust and what happened to African-Americans. From Coates' point of view, this example sets precedence. The difference with the Holocaust example is that at least the individuals themselves were still alive to receive compensation from the German government. The African-Americans who were enslaved are deceased, as are their children. With the case of reparations for African-Americans, it would be the descendants who receive the reparations, not those directly affected by slavery. Even when using the example of imprisoning Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II, although 1988 was too long to wait [in terms of righting a wrong], it was not so late where the victims themselves could not be recompensed. As I will bring up later, if we are going to recompense anyone who has indirectly been affected by a past injustice, it's going to get messy really quickly.

Another example in America's short history that could be used for reparations is with regards to Native Americans. Native Americans have received monetary compensation for the lands ceded to the United States government. Using the Native Americans as an example for precedence has two shortcomings. The first is that the Native Americans have always been dealt with as tribes and nations, not as individuals. From a legal standpoint, the courts are enforcing treaties that were signed long ago. African-Americans do not have such legal standing or recourse. Second, the federal government has been mismanaging the lives of Native Americans for about two centuries now, and has done a bang-up job keeping Native Americans in a trap of poverty as a result. Do we want the government to subject another minority group? I think not.

For argument's sake, let's say that in spite of the previous paragraphs, we want to make the argument that the moral case for granting reparations in this day in age is perfectly justifiable. You still come across the greatest hurdle to accomplishing this: implementation. Trying to determine who receives them and who has to pay reparations would be an absolute nightmare.

Let's start with who would be recompensed. First, have fun trying to trace the genealogy of nearly 45 million African-Americans in this country. Even if one is able to accomplish this enormous undertaking, which would cost millions of taxpayer dollars and man-hours, the levels of victimization would be nigh impossible to identify, especially if you want identify any victimization perpetrated post-empancipation. There is also the issue of a number of African-Americans having some Caucasian descent within their gene pool, including our current president. Does a certain percentage of Caucasian ancestry negate being qualified for reparations? What about Caucasians who are a sixty-fourth or a hundred twenty-eighth African who happen to have a former slave in the family tree? If we are to look for Caucasians who have a small percentage of African ancestry, then we have to open up the investigations even more.

Let's continue with those who would have to pay because this facet brings in even more nuance. Should those who pay the reparations need to be individuals who directly benefited from this slave labor or indirectly? Let's first hypothesize by saying "those who directly benefited." When I say "directly benefited," I don't mean those who did the enslaving and economically benefited. Those individuals are long gone. Who I mean in this case are the descendants of slave owners, although I think it's unfair to punish individuals for what wrongs their ancestors committed because the descendants are not responsible for what their ancestors did. The kvetch from proponents is that "the United States built its wealth on the backs of slaves." From an economic standpoint, I would call that a tenuous overstatement because using slave labor to manage huge plantations was highly inefficient. Those in the South who managed plantations had shaky finances prior to the abolishment of slavery. The North, which used free labor instead of slave labor, had much more economic growth than the South. Should it be surprising that the region in the country that used slavery as a basis for its economy is still paying the price by being the least developed region in the country?

In terms of who directly benefited from slavery, we can take a more historical and more global look. For one, slavery was not a uniquely American institution. Not that I am justifying the institution by any means, but slavery was a universal institution for the longest time, and there were other slave trades, such as that of Brazil, ancient Rome, or the Arab slave trade, that were considerably worse. More to the point, the Atlantic slave trade was not merely an American operation. It involved many actors on an international level, which not only included European powers, but even neighboring tribes who helped capture other Africans. Do you really want to take other countries to international courts to try to get the monetary compensation sorted out?

Now how about those who indirectly benefited? The term commonly used for this indirect benefit is "white privilege." The theory behind "white privilege" is that even though Caucasians in this country did not directly benefit from slave labor, they still had a societal advantage because of the prejudices and racism that exist towards those of color. Using the whiteness of one's skin as a basis for paying reparations is not only racist, it's also unfair. What about those Caucasians whose ancestors were abolitionists or fought the South in the Civil War? What about those whose ancestors immigrated to America after the Civil War? What about Caucasian ancestors who were also discriminated against, such as the Jews or the Irish? What about those whose ancestors stood aside African-Americans during the Civil Rights movement? Is it fair to make them pay reparations when their ancestors helped? It's reasonable to assume that forcing Caucasians to pay a tax to recompense for slavery simply based on the color of their skin would only increase racial hostility.

Additionally, there is the matter of the price tag of reparations. As explained above, it would take a lot of resources to determine ancestry, validity of grievances, as well as monetizing wrongdoings. Even if that all were done, do you think it's a good idea to pay millions of African-Americans reparations when this country is dealing with its own debt issues? The political feasibility to front up all this money to recompense is simply not in the cards. There is also the question of just how much the federal government has attempted to undo the wrongs with monetary compensation. For instance, African-Americans make up a disproportionate amount of the recipients for food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid (although to be fair, they are underrepresented in receiving retirement benefits for Social Security). And let's not forget the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or affirmative action. Whether we discuss if the government should be involved in undoing past wrongs, if it has done a good job, or whether it can do a good job, we can't say that there are still certain imbalances and discrimination because the government didn't try to undo some of the wrongs.

Even if we were to argue that the government should be in the business of undoing the wrongs of racial discrimination, there are some questions we have to ask ourselves. If the government is to recompense for these wrongs, how about recompensing the LGBT community for the discrimination they have undergone in this country? How about what the Irish, Chinese, or other groups of immigrants of what they had to endure when they first arrived in this country? If we want to go even further back, can Jews around the world sue Egypt for the slavery they endured during biblical times? Where do we draw the line? There have been so many people wronged in history. Where would it end? It would be impossible to recompense African-Americans for a wrong that occurred 150 years ago. If the freed slaves would have been compensated shortly after the Civil War, which would have logistically and practically been the most appropriate time to recompense them, they very well could have taken on a different life, which could very well have given their descendants a different future. We can't go back in time and properly compensate those who were wronged from the onset of the problem.

Reparations would do nothing to improve race relations, and if anything, they would only be exacerbated. Rather than looking back, we should be looking forward to see how we could help African-Americans, and indeed all Americans, live a better life. If we are too look at how to specifically improve upon the lives of African-Americans to help mitigate some of the inequalities (because let's face it, there's going to be some sort of inequality in society regardless), although I'm sure I can come up with a comprehensive list, two ideas come to mind. One is more school vouchers for African-American students so they can have better access to high-quality education and don't feel trapped by the public school system. The second is to stop the War on Drugs. I say this because a disproportionate amount of those thrown in jail as a result are African-American. One in three African-Americans is expected to be in jail at some point in their lifetime, and the War on Drugs undoubtedly plays a pivotal role in this incarceration rate. It is more difficult to have a stable family life when one of the parents is in jail. Rather than throwing money at the problem with reparations, what we should focus on are policies that will empower African-Americans to live the American dream.

Could We Sell Health Insurance Across State Lines to Improve Obamacare?

Saying that I dislike Obamacare would be an understatement. It has been the largest overhaul of the American health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. In spite of my aversion, I also realize that the probability that Obamacare will be repealed is very small. As much as I would rather not, the reality is that Obamacare is law and it is most likely to stay. Even so, that does not mean that we cannot improve upon the law. That was the idea when Nick Gillespie, the contributor to libertarian publication Reason Magazine, wrote 3 Ways to Make Obamacare Less Horrible. One of the ideas proposed was allowing for health insurance companies to sell interstate health insurance. Would forcing insurers to compete across state lines improve the quality of health care, or would it be too burdensome for the health care system?

The reason why the intuition is so alluring is because allowing for health insurance companies to sell insurance that crosses state borders means that states with more expensive health care plans can find cheaper plans. Looking at economic theory, competitive markets mean that there is a larger net economic welfare. A more competitive marketplace would bring about lower prices and more choices. Expanding the risk pool to the national level seems like good economics.  

As alluring as this might be, there are some detractors. The primary complaint lodged against this policy alternative is the "race to the bottom," which would mean that consumers would be attracted to the least comprehensive health care plan because it would be cheapest. As a result, the quality of health care would decline (although in spite of Obamacare's attempts to improve access, it's backfiring, which is arguably already causing a "race to the bottom"). I have two counterarguments against the "race to the bottom" argument.

First, shouldn't the consumer be in charge of determining what sort of coverage they want? While navigating health insurance can be difficult, I would imagine that the consumer would have a better idea of what level of comprehensiveness they require than a distant bureaucrat. Something as important as health care insurance should be tailored to the needs of the customer, not to the misconceived notions of the government. For example, isn't it more than a distinct possibility that the reason why so many "young invincibles" didn't have insurance in the first place is because they didn't need it? Maybe offering a less comprehensive plan like a low-cost, catastrophic plan would do the trick. However, I know that Obamacare is focusing on accessibility and comprehensiveness, which causes the "healthcare trilemma" that makes it nigh impossible to reduce costs.

Second, the "race to the bottom" argument assumes a static market, which is contradistinctive to reality. It's like any other good or service: if you have a competing firm offering a cheaper good and more individuals end up consuming said good, you will either adjust your practices to be able to compete with the other firm or you will eventually go out of business. These market forces would essentially prevent a "race to the bottom." Plus, comprehensiveness is not a luxury that everybody can afford, which is why the consumer should be able to choose insurance that is within their price range.

There are some who argue that current laws allowing for interstate insurance, most notably with Georgia, are inherent failures. The reason why the Georgia experiment was a failure was due to bad timing. Obamacare was on its way over to the Supreme Court when Georgia decided to give it a go. Since the Supreme Court ruling would have profound implications for the health care regulatory system, it should be unsurprising that insurance companies were hesitant to even try it. Since no state has actually tried it, what we have here is an untested idea, which means that we need to rely more on theory than practice (i.e., case studies or analyses). Even though the Congressional Budget Office took a look at this policy alternative in 2005, the issue with using this analysis to disprove the policy alternative is that it was conducted pre-Obamacare. 

An analysis conducted by health care consulting firm Avalere Health shows there is a mismatch effect amongst the states, which means that supply is not matching up with demand. This mismatch effect shows the needs to liberalize the health care insurance market. I would much prefer to treat health insurance like any other good because "special interests" have this uncanny propensity to lead to crony capitalism (Calabresi, 2013). The issue here is that we have to also contend with the reality of the insurance market.

Insurance regulation has been relegated to the states since 1945 with the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Much like auto insurance, each state has its own regulations, which include variations on regulating benefits and consumer protections. Even if insurance companies were more apt to implement interstate insurance policies, there would need to be transition costs, not to mention working with the state governments to make sure that the rigidities are minimized. While I think logistics would be complicated up-front, I would opine that they are not insurmountable, at least in theory. Given how the system is set up, there is little incentive for either the states or the health insurance companies to relinquish the control and power they have (Blumberg and Pollitz, 2010). And what about assigning jurisdiction when there are consumer complaints? Conversely, I would reply that this is hardly the first time this country has dealt with interstate commerce, and there are ways to adjudicate these cases.

In addition to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Obamacare presents a couple of obstacles preventing a liberalized marketplace. One is the limit of age rating, and the other is eliminating the category of pre-existing conditions. These are obstacles because they prevent insurance companies from performing adequate actuarial risk, which means that there is even less incentive to buy insurance across state lines. As much as I would like for insurance to cross state lines, the insurance industry is so complex and nuanced that it would be exceptionally difficult to untangle the regulations that are in existence. There are way too many barriers of entry to the market, and breaking up local monopolies seems to be a prerequisite for being able to sell health insurance across state lines. It would be nice to expand the risk pool, but given the current system, I have to acquiesce in saying that "Unless serious reforms are passed that deregulate the market and actually help consumers, interstate insurance would not work, which means that Americans are screwed."


3-5-2016 Addendum: An article from the American Enterprise Institute on the topic just came out. Worth the read. 

Occupational Licensing Is Generally an Occupational Hazard

From doctors to hair stylists to restaurants, the government requires a plethora of businesses to acquire occupational licensing, which is the process of receiving permission from the government to practice a certain trade or profession. As of date, about 30 percent of workers are covered by licensing schemes. The premise behind this licensing is for the government to ensure the improved overall quality of the goods and services rendered, in the interest of the general public, to be sure. As nice as the concept of "ensured quality" sounds, it both literally and figuratively comes with a price that businesses should not have to pay.

Dating back to Adam Smith and continuing with Milton Friedman's concerns, when we look at the economics of occupational licensing, it is evident that occupational licensing acts as a barrier to occupational entry because of the financial costs (e.g., exams, fees) that are involved. Since occupational licensing restricts employment, it increases prices of goods and services relative to a competitive market (Skarbek, 2008; Kleiner and Todd, 2007; Cox and Foster, 1990). Occupational licensing is found to stymie economic growth by 20 percent (Kleiner, 2011, p. 2). It is also found to have an adverse effect on income inequality (Kleiner and Kruger, 2010). Looking at this study from the Institute for Justice, there is a disproportionate burden on low-income workers, both in employment and prices of goods (also see Larsen, 2014), which is something I would imagine is particularly worrisome for those on the Left. Furthermore, there is a negligible or even a negative impact on the quality of services, which minimizes one of the essential arguments of proponents for occupational licensing.

If we looked at licensing in a sector-by-sector, I am sure we can find some sectors that could use some regulation. However, I think some soul-searching needs to be done when those who want to braid hair, be a nanny, practice dentistry, be a florist, or style hair need to jump through bureaucratic hoops and deal with red tape to live the American dream. The government has gotten hooked on excessive amounts of licensing, and we need to see a reverse in that trend. There are alternatives and reforms that can be implemented, including voluntary certification in lieu of governmental licensing or requiring that any current licensing laws are periodically reevaluated under major scrutiny after a certain period of time.  I would like a labor market with higher rates of employment, less barriers to entry, and better quality of customer service that are impeded by occupational licensing. Evaluating which sectors need regulating and which ones could use some deregulating would be a good first step in engendering economic proliferation.


2-29-2016 Addendum: The Brookings Institution just released a policy memo on four reasons why occupational licensing causes social immobility.

11-1-2017 Addendum: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty released a peer-reviewed report showing that reducing occupational license standards to that of the least burdensome state in the 10 fields with the most occupational licensing would increase employment in those fields by 4.5 percent.

12-17-2017 Addendum: The National Bureau of Economic Research released a paper showing how occupational licensing reduces interstate mobility, thereby reducing labor market efficiency.

11-20-2018 Addendum: The National Bureau of Economic Research released another paper (Blair and Chung, 2018) suggesting that occupational licensing reduces labor supply by 17 to 27 percent.

"Football Is a Man's Sport": The Social Costs of Hypermasculinity in America

Last Saturday, Michael Sam was the first openly gay individual drafted in the NFL or any major sport. After receiving the good news, Sam turned to his boyfriend and kissed him while they were on television. Needless to say, there were some that did not react too kindly. There are some who didn't like it because "homosexuality is being shoved in peoples' faces." I find that to be amusing, and as for the reason, I'll give it to you straight: it's "normal" or "acceptable" for straight people to hold hands, kiss, get married, talk about their children, or post pictures on Facebook as a couple, but when gay people do it, it suddenly becomes "flaunting sexuality in others' faces?" Really? At least double standards these days are blatantly obvious.

Setting aside my derisiveness for a moment, I honestly think there is something more profound going on here. In American society, part of the definition of a "real man" has to do with the gender of a man's partner. "Real men sleep with women. If you sleep with another guy, that's totally gay." The fact that the word "gay" is still synonymous with the word "stupid" says something right there. The aversion here goes beyond one's sexuality. Football is seen as a man's sport. There are those who think allowing an open homosexual to be drafted into the NFL feminizes football. 

But it's more than just football. We come across these sensationalized forms of masculinity and gender stereotypes all the time (Archer, 2010). Be a man. Man up. Real men don't cry. Boys will be boys. Men are taught that if they want to be "real men," they need to keep their emotions contained and not show them (Ben-Zeev, 2012). The problem with bottling up emotions is that they swell up and eventually erupt in a volcanic-like manner, which leads to nasty, and quite possibly violent, outbursts. It's going to be difficult to cover so much ground in such a short blog entry, but I would like to provide a brief overview on the problems of how America defines masculinity in such a constraining, counterproductive manner.

Before continuing, I would like to state I recognize that there are some fundamental differences between men and women. However, I'm not going to ignore the narrow, distorted definitions of masculinity that are nothing more than societal constructs. It can be as subtle as "wearing pink is not manly." It can be as something as noticeable and detrimental as "expressing emotions is what women do" or "having deep friendships with other guys is girly." You want to know why guys can't have healthy, emotional same-sex friendships that involve either emotional or physical intimacy? Part of it is because we have relegated emotions to being "feminine," but there's also the puritanical part of American society that has sexualized any physical intimacy between two guys. Forget something like two guys being comfortable enough with their sexuality to cuddle or spoon together and not have it be sexualized (Andreson and McCormack, 2014). In American society, when you see two guys holding hands, the default assumption is that they are a gay couple because people conflate affection with sexuality. Friends platonically hold hands to show the profundity of their friendship in places like Africa, Asia (e.g., India), and Arabic countries, of all places. You can't do that in this country without someone sneeringly labeling you as a homosexual. There was a time, even in American culture, when two guys could have a platonic relationship that included physical intimacy, and that relationship was so strong that it easily could surpass the profundity of their relationships with their spouses. Believe it or not, guys want to be really close to each other platonically, and it's exceptionally difficult to find that in this country because doing so is "too gay or womanly." If a man cannot develop emotionally healthy relations or have a healthy emotional outlet, how does that affect how men interact in society?

President Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah (2005)

For one, men are much more likely to commit suicide than women. I admit that part of the uptick has to do with the economy, but since a man's self-worth has been societally defined in the stark gender role of "breadwinner," is it a surprise that an economic downturn combined with a narrow definition of what makes a man contributes to this? It also doesn't help that the women's right movement and increasing equality in the workplace did not help with the ego of any man who holds to these narrow definitions of manliness. Christina Hoff Sommers at the American Enterprise Institute brings up the fact that men have lower rates of depression, but higher rates of suicide. The issue is that the vast majority of suicides in this country stem from depression, which means that men are hiding their depression because doing so is a form of "manning up." If men were allowed to express their emotions in constructive manners, I'd make an educated guess that fewer men would feel the need to resort to suicide.

In addition to suicide, hypermasculinity does not help with scholastic achievement (Santos et al., 2013), nor does it help with levels of male violence (e.g., bullying), particularly towards women in the forms of domestic violence and sexual violence. Since there isn't a correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, I'm starting to subscribe to the theory that Americans are more violent than their European counterparts because of hypermasculinity. While inherent gender differences will maintain some sort of gap, I think that at least by addressing it, we can minimize the gender-based gap of violence. In spite of the research that might already exist, I would really be excited to see a meta-study that directly deals with how American society's narrow definitions of masculinity affect the upbringing of boys, as well as how grown men handle their lives. The same goes for a cost-benefit analysis on the topic, especially since measuring social costs is much trickier than something like the costs and benefits in the economic transaction of tangible goods.

I'm not advocating to get rid of masculinity. That would be ridiculous. What I would ask for is that we exchange the toxic masculinity that is so prevalent in American society for a healthy view of masculinity (e.g., being a gentleman) because I want men to have healthy relationships, as well as stable emotional and mental health. Both boys and men should be comfortable with their masculinity, but at the same time, we should remove the violence and aggression, not to mention the aversion towards emotions, that come with the stereotypical form of masculinity.

History has taught us that there are many legitimate ways to express masculinity that go beyond the stereotypical "manly man" with bulging biceps, aggressive behavior, needs to be "a player," doesn't cook because "that's what women do," and has to love sports and activities, especially football, hunting, or fishing. We need to realize that much like femininity, masculinity also comes with its complexities and nuances, which means transcending a simplistic view of machismo. Men also have the ability to care, show compassion, as well as exude sympathy and the ability to put himself in someone else's shoes. Replace aggressiveness with assertiveness. Resilience is a good trait to have in life, but men are also human and sometimes need to cry. Accepting our limits is a part of maturity and having a clearer picture of life, which is preferable to acting out or taking it out on others because emotions have been bottled up for too long. These are just some examples of how we can modify and expand the definition of masculinity for the better.

There isn't a government policy that is going to fix this problem, which I fittingly label as a negative externality. Much like with any civil rights movement, these types of societal changes require a bottom-up approach. The first step is to recognize the problem. After that, we need to find ways for communities to encourage positive male role models for children. We need to let boys and men know that it's okay to express emotions and that it's acceptable to have profound and intimate friendships with other males. We also need to recognize that much like with the federal government, there is not a "one-size-fits-all" approach to masculinity. Some men will be more attracted to more traditional definitions of masculinity. Others will be more comfortable with a non-traditional form of masculinity. Since people are diverse, we should encourage both forms of masculinity so that men can be both comfortable with their sense of masculinity while being able to live as enjoyable of lives as possible.

Yes, We Can.....Eliminate Obamacare's Employer Mandate

Let's face it: Obamacare was a 2,000 page monstrosity of a health care bill. None of the politicians read the bill before passing it. We're still at the point where we're untangling the bill and discerning all the effects of the provisions in Obamacare. Aside from the individual mandate, the part of Obamacare that received a lot of attention was the employer mandate. The employer mandate was a penalty in the bill stating that any employer with 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees had to provide healthcare for their employees. The flowchart below illustrates how the employer mandate works.

In addition to the reasoning why the individual mandate received flack (i.e., you're forcing individuals to purchase a good or service), conservatives and other naysayers were, or rather are worried that the employer mandate will either cause less hiring or force employers to change their full-time employees to part-time in order to avoid the mandate. At least for the accusation of Obama creating a "part-time America," the data show that it essentially a myth. Whether it will cause more unemployment or adversely affect business practices, the evidence is primarily anecdotal since the mandate is not supposed to fully take effect until 2016. Proponents argue that the employer mandate is a necessary component to fund the health care exchanges. A recent report by the Left-leaning Urban Institute, however, refutes the necessity of an employer mandate. What has the Urban Institute found that can add to the discussion?

The most significant finding is that removing the employer mandate would only decrease the number of insured individuals by 200,000 (Urban Institute, p. 1), which would mean that the employer mandate is not necessary for Obamacare to survive (p. 4). What was also interesting was that the employer mandate acts regressively, which is to say that low-wage employees would take the greatest brunt of the mandate (p. 2-3). I also appreciated the sobering analysis that although economic theory would suggest that increasing the cost of labor would adversely affect employment, there are also other factors that go into hiring, including efficiency and reduced turnover (p. 2). There is also the reality that health care benefits can actually be used to attract high-quality labor.

But why is it that the employer mandate would not have a huge impact on the number of insured? Because the government already provides tax incentives to perpetuate the employer-based insurance system (p. 3). There is also the matter of revenue that would be lost by those 200,000 who would not be paying into the system. The Congressional Budget Office had the figure at $130B from 2014 to 2023, but the Urban Institute estimates to be a significantly lower $46B (p. 4). To quote the Urban Institute's summary (p. 4), "eliminating the employer mandate would eliminate labor market distortions in the law, lessen opposition to the law from employers, and have little effect on coverage." Since it's only projected revenue, I am inclined to say that if Congress wants to better fund Obamacare or contend with long-term debt issues, it should find better ways to go about it. To quote the Urban Institute's summary (p. 4), "eliminating the employer mandate would eliminate labor market distortions in the law, lessen opposition to the law from employers, and have little effect on coverage."

Keeping the employer mandate will most likely cause more harm than would be lost in the projected revenue stream (see here and here). The Obama administration has already delayed the employer mandate twice, but in reality, it would do well to simply eliminate a provision that is superfluous as it is unpopular.

Parsha Bechukotai: Is Reward and Punishment Really That Simple?

Divine retribution. It's one of those theological tenets that is typical amongst many world religions, including Judaism. The idea of divine reward and punishment was widely accepted enough where it became one of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles [of Judaism]. It is a concept that also happens to begin this week's Torah portion:

אמ בחקתי, תלכו. ואת מצותי תשמרו, ועשיתם אתם...ואם לא תשמעו לי, ולא תעשו את כל המצות האלה....

If you walk in My statutes and keep my commandments and do them.....but if you do not hearken unto Me and will not to all these commandments.... (Leviticus 26:3, 14)

Much of Leviticus 26 details what happens if you obey or disobey G-d's commandments (also known as תוכחה). If you behave properly, G-d will provide such rewards as rain for your crops (Leviticus 26:4). However, if you mess up, it means that many curses will befall you, including terror and disease (Leviticus 26:16), dried-up land (Leviticus 26:20), and being smote (Leviticus 26:17). If we take the פשת (pshat; literal/plain meaning) the way we would have to interpret the passage is that our behavior has a direct causal effect on what happens to you (Rashi's commentary on Leviticus 26:3). "Do a mitzvah and you will be rewarded. Perform a transgression and G-d will give you your comeuppance." Too bad it doesn't fall that neatly into place, and here is where I take issue with a simplistic reading on the passage.

First, what is implicit in the passage is an all-or-nothing mentality. What happens when you make a mistake? It's human to err, so is G-d taunting us with an impossible task? Whatever happened to all the elements of forgiveness that exist within Judaism? Second, all of these rewards and punishments take place in the physical world, in the present world (העולם הזה). Since there is no explicit mentioning of an afterlife in the Torah [or the Tanach], does this mean that G-d is delivering all of His divine retribution in the here and now? It would explain why the concept of an afterlife in Jewish eschatology is post-Biblical in nature. Third, I believe in a G-d that is flawless. If He were going to deliver divine retribution, I would expect the correlation between performing mitzvahs and receiving reward to be unambiguous (i.e., R-squared value is equal to 1). There are evil individuals who enjoy material wealth and there are plenty of good individuals out there who suffer, which makes theodicy a legitimate concern here. In a cold, dark, cruel world that has plenty of injustice, how can we even begin to accept a literal or simplistic reading of this passage? Is there something else we can glean from this before becoming dismissive? 

Nachmanides points out that G-d is not addressing individuals, but rather a community, which is why it's interesting to interpret it through a public policy lens. What happens when a community or a society enacts a top-notch policy? The populace and its quality of life are better off. When a detrimental policy becomes a part of society, the effects are adverse, and the community suffers as a result. It sounds alluring, but this is not a political treatise; it's a theological text, and we should interpret the verse within that context. Conversely, it's also possible to say that the results of society's actions can still be extrapolated from the text. Regardless, I don't find it to be the most compelling of interpretations.

R. Ibn ben Ezra has a different take on the matter, which is that because we are physical beings, we don't have an understanding of the spiritual world. G-d is essentially putting the punishment in terms that we can understand. Personally, I think G-d could have done a better job at conveying a sense of the spiritual world in the Torah instead of sidestepping it. While I think ben Ezra's interpretation has some truth in it, I think it's better to modify the interpretation in classifying the passage as a form of hyperbole to make a point. But this begs the question of what good would hyperbole do?

I believe that this hyperbolic passage is to get us to conduct some contemplative reflection on two levels. First is that our actions have repercussions. What we do as human beings is significant. One person can make a difference, and we shouldn't forget that society is still made up of individuals. The ideas that humans can come up with can create or destroy societies. Our words can uplift or knock down others. Our actions affect others, and can do good or harm. We should take the time to do some spiritual bookkeeping and work on improving ourselves.

The second goes back to that tease of "if we can't act perfectly, why bother" that I mentioned earlier. Much like with singing Dayenu during Passover, we're not meant to blindly accept what's put in front of us. It's meant to be a springboard for conversation. Maybe we're supposed to realize that we are only human and that tying our material circumstances to how we perform in life is tenuous. Perhaps we take a cue from Rambam (Hilchot Teshuva 9) and realize that true reward and punishment is not in terms of material possessions and wealth, but in something more transcendent, whether that is enjoying life's experiences [with others] or fostering a sense of spirituality in life. By realizing that "money doesn't buy us happiness," we can find a meaningful, more spiritually enriching life.