Caroline Baum for Economic Policies for the 21st Century: By the time Americans go to the polls in November, April 15 is a distant memory. We do not connect what we pay for government services with what we get for our money as determined by those we elect to represent us.
There was an effort almost a decade ago to align the costs and benefits of taxation, at least in taxpayers’ consciousness. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican, introduced a bill in 2007 to change the deadline for filing income tax returns to the first Monday in November, the day before Election Day. …
When it comes to the cost of government, we are less discerning. We are willing to pay up front for some yet-to-be-determined benefits.
Tax filing day isn’t set in stone. Congress has the power to change it. With the ratification of the 16th Amendment and introduction of the income tax in 1913, Congress set March 1 as tax filing day. In 1918, the date was moved to March 15, only to be changed again in 1955 to April 15.
Changing the date would come with significant costs, according to a 2007 policy brief from the National Taxpayers’ Union. The IRS would have to notify taxpayers of the date change, offer customer support, answer questions and update IRS computers (think Y2K). And that’s just on the federal level. Throw in costs to the states, and the taxpayers union estimated the total cost at $3 billion. …
That sounds like a lot of money to change a lousy date. But there’s an offset. If Bartlett is correct and the synchronization of tax and Election Day encourages voters to demand tax reform and simplification, the upfront cost will be swamped by the time and money saved on tax compliance.
Progressive double-standard
Angela Rachidi for the American Enterprise Institute: Research conducted over the past few years identifies two policies that could have substantial positive effects on poverty reduction. One involves housing-choice vouchers aimed at moving families to better neighborhoods. The other involves charter schools aimed at moving children to better schools.
Research on both policies find surprisingly similar results. Yet, only housing-choice policies gain broad support from those on the Left.
Progressives often claim the moral high ground when it comes to anti-poverty policies, but their inconsistencies on these issues only lessen opportunity for poor families. …
With such similar results, one would expect both policies to be part of an anti-poverty agenda from the Left. Housing-assistance policies that move families to better neighborhoods certainly have been. President Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget request included funds for it, a 2015 White House blog post identified it as one of six programs that have long-term positive effects on poverty and Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has expressed her support for the policy.
But charter schools still get little backing from progressives. Clinton ran away from charter schools last year, and Bernie Sanders has given mixed statements on his views. Instead, Democrats double down on universal pre-kindergarten, which has a much thinner evidence base than charter schools.
Privacy battles are nothing new
Sam Adler-Bell for the Century Foundation: The question at the center of the Apple-FBI dispute, “who should have access to strong encryption,” is decades old. Since at least the 1970s, when academic cryptographers at Stanford and MIT first broke the government’s monopoly on advanced cryptographic knowledge, government agencies — especially the National Security Agency — have tried to prevent its proliferation, by any means necessary.
For years, the NSA suppressed funding and pre-empted the publishing of cryptographic research outside its walls. For most of the 20th century, export laws treated cryptographic algorithms as munitions, subjecting software engineers to arms export violations if their code crossed an international border. Throughout the 1990s, pioneering crypto enthusiasts such as Phil Zimmerman, the inventor of the email encryption program PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), were investigated for federal crimes.
In 1991, then Sen. Joe Biden tried to sneak a provision into a comprehensive counterterrorism bill that would have required telecommunications companies to provide law enforcement with “plain text” contents of “voice, data and other communications,” effectively outlawing end-to-end encrypted communication in the private sector. The provision failed, but similar efforts have cropped up since.
The government’s position then, as it is today, was that companies should not be able to sell encryption that law enforcement can’t crack — because bad guys will use it. And they do. As in the case of the San Bernardino terrorists, encryption can make it difficult for police to access digital devices, intercept text messages and tap phone lines — even with a court order.
On the other side, academics, tech companies and civil libertarians have long insisted that publicly available, strong crypto is necessary to protect our data from nefarious attacks and protect our privacy from government intrusion. …
The story is always the same. We’re at a precipice, a turning point. If Congress doesn’t act, or tech companies don’t submit, American lives will be endangered. Blood on our hands and so on. You can practically set your clock to it.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
