In Support of Gay Marriage
9 November 2008
Editor, The Washington Times
Dear Editor:
Thomas Sowell's case against affirmative action is sound; his case against same-sex marriage is not ("Affirmative action and gay marriage are frauds," November 9). It's true that marriage laws emerged largely to deal with fact that heterosexual couples have children. But this fact does not imply - contrary to Mr. Sowell's careless claim - that "the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation." Certainly in a free country, the state has no business governing in any way or for any purpose people's decisions on having children.
Additionally, the 'married couple' has become a legal entity with unique status under tax, property, insurance, and estate laws. Being married also carries with it important, largely positive, social implications. The fact that gay couples cannot (by conventional means) have children is no reason to deny these couples such status.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
A Role for Us All
8 November 2008
Editor, Baltimore Sun
Dear Editor:
Commenting on the recent election of Barack Obama to the presidency, Ron Smith wisely counsels: "Don't expect much from the next Great Man" (Nov. 8). Mr. Smith's wisdom causes me to reflect that America is divided into two groups of persons: those who believe that what goes on in Washington is largely a serious quest by serious people to tackle serious problems seriously, and those who understand that what goes on in Washington is largely theater scripted so that the actors and actresses appear at first glance to be 'public servants' but who, in fact, care for nothing nearly as much as maximizing their power and satisfying their megalomania.
Alas, the first group greatly outnumbers the second. This fact means that those of us in the second group are obliged not only to attend and watch - but to participate in the large role for the audience demanded by - this absurd drama.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Barack & Franklin
8 November 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Joe Nocera reveals that the line from F.D.R.'s first inaugural address that got most public attention in 1933 wasn't the one about "the only thing we have to fear"; instead, it was the new President's call for "action, and action now" ("75 Years Later, a Nation Hopes for Another F.D.R.," November 8).
If Mr. Nocera spent less time studying the reaction to Roosevelt's rhetoric and more time studying the reaction to Roosevelt's policies, he might reassess his happy opinion about the New Deal. The evidence suggests that F.D.R.'s interventions only deepened and prolonged Americans' economic plight. In 1939 the unemployment rate remained abysmal, at 17.2 percent - no surprise given the drying up of investment during the 1930s. As Robert Higgs found, "In the period 1931-35, net investment totaled MINUS $18.3 billion. After reviving to positive levels in 1936 and 1937, net investment again fell into the negative range in 1938 (-$0.8 billion) before resuming its recovery. For the eleven-year period from 1930 to 1940, net private investment totaled MINUS $3.1 billion."*
Let us fervently hope that President Obama is NOT a second F.D.R.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Robert Higgs, DEPRESSION, WAR, AND COLD WAR (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 7.
Not a Place for Passion
7 November 2008
Editor, WTOP Radio
Washington, DC
Dear Sir or Madam:
About the gentleman you interviewed who gushed over "the passion young people bring to politics": Passion is appropriate for places such as football stadiums and bedrooms. In voting booths I'd prefer there be sober reflection and reason.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Deserving?
6 November 2008
Editor, The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Advocating universal health care, Steven Safyer, M.D., hopes that "the next administration will see the wisdom of acting — not just talking — so Americans get the care they deserve" (Letters, November 6).
What evidence is there that Americans do not now "get the care they deserve"? Material deserts are earned, not given by nature. In the case of health care, the fact that even POOR Americans consume other things so abundantly casts doubt on the supposition that this land is crowded with people who are denied health care that they deserve. Consider, for example, that today 80 percent of POOR households have air-conditioning (compared to only 36 percent of ALL households who had it in 1970); 75 percent of poor households today own a car, and 31 percent own two cars; the typical POOR American has more household living space than does the typical Parisian and Londoner; and nearly 80 percent of POOR American households have a VCR or DVD player.*
Someone who voluntarily purchases X instead of Y - where X is widely regarded as less vital than Y - cannot legitimately be said to deserve Y.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
* Robert E. Rector, "How Poor Are America's Poor?" Heritage Foundation, August 2007:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064es.cfm
