On June 24, the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Not unexpectedly (due to a leak of associate justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in early May), the ruling overturns decades of precedent established in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992),  largely leaving the question of if (and if so, how) abortion can be regulated to state legislatures.

My usual disclaimer: This column is not about abortion. I’m not going to try to tell you that it’s right or wrong, or that it should be legal or illegal. You’ve probably got opinions on that. They’re probably not going to change. I’m not going to try to change them.

I’m less interested in abortion itself than I am in the quality of arguments about it. And I see a truly silly argument being advanced by supporters of the Dobbs ruling. Let’s call it “the argument from decentralization.”

Constitutionally, that argument often takes the form of claims for “states’ rights,” which is itself a misnomer. Constitutionally, states don’t have “rights,” they have powers. See, for example, the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Most “states’ rights” advocates ignore those last four words, holding that anything goes for state legislatures where a federal power isn’t enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.

A specific sub-set of those who favor the “states’ rights” position also attribute a general goodness to “decentralization” as such, rather than mere “federalism” (which really treats state legislatures as the “lowest” level of power).

Decentralization is the notion that decisions should be made at the “lowest” possible level of government. Don’t let Congress decide if a state legislature can decide; don’t let a state legislature decide if a county commission can decide; don’t let a county commission decide if a city council can decide;  don’t let a city council decide if individuals can decide.

I’m pretty fond of decentralization myself. But the Dobbs ruling is exactly the opposite of decentralization.

Per Roe, decisions concerning abortion were largely decentralized to the lowest possible level, that of individual choice. Agree with the logic of the decision or not, that was its effect.

Per Dobbs, such decisions are now largely centralized into the hands of state legislatures.

It’s reasonable to argue that abortion is right or wrong, choice or crime, etc., and that it should be addressed at this or that level of government.

It’s unreasonable to pretend that a massive centralization of power is a decentralization of power.

Whatever else Dobbs may be, it’s unquestionably a “bigger government,” not “smaller government,” ruling.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 22, by popular demand, US president Joe Biden asked Congress to pass a three month “holiday” on collection of the federal gasoline tax. With prices hovering at around $5 per gallon, Americans want something done.

I’m all for it. I hate taxes, and I’m all for tax cuts, in any amount, for any length of time. Yay, Biden!

But before breaking into a collective happy dance over the “holiday” proposal and how great it’s going to be for our wallets, let’s look at some numbers.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, Americans used about 135 billion gallons of gasoline — about 408 gallons per man, woman and child in the country — in 2021. That’s not quite eight gallons per week per person.

Even if Americans aren’t reducing their miles driven due to higher prices, that means a “holiday” on collection of the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax would save each of us a whopping $1.47 per week.

Don’t spend it all in one place.

And don’t expect to not pay for it on the inflationary back end.

The popular/common understanding of inflation is “price inflation” — a general rise in prices that happens when more dollars  chase the same goods and services. Everything else equal, if 350 million Americans suddenly have an extra $1.47 their wallets, that will produce at least some small upward blip in prices. A can of corned beef hash will go for a penny more next week than it did last week, or whatever.

Another effect will come in the form of textbook inflation, which is an increase in the supply of money (that is, the Federal Reserve creating new dollars out of thin air) versus total production of goods and services in the economy.

If the feds stop collecting the gas tax, naturally Congress will have to cut government spending by $25 billion per year (about $6 billion over the three-month “holiday”) to make up for reduced revenues, right?

Don’t make me laugh. Government spending will roll right along as usual. Congress will  just borrow the money, which means the Fed will magic that money into existence, making every dollar in your pocket worth less in terms of real purchasing power.

The proposed “holiday” is feel-good, “do something, anything” theater, not a serious solution. Gas prices will fall when supply goes up, demand goes down, or both. Anything else is just the equivalent of avoiding ladders and black cats on Friday the 13th.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In late March, Florida governor Ron DeSantis was all about “parental rights,” signing what critics called a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which he insisted was really all about protecting the ability of parents to guide their children’s upbringing, control what subject matter they were exposed to in the classroom, and be informed by schools of matters pertaining to their “mental, emotional, or physical well-being.”

Only three months later, he’s threatening to have parents investigated by the state’s “child protective” bureaucracy should they choose to take their kids to entertainment events he doesn’t approve of.  And the same legislators who passed that “parental rights” bill now propose  to make parental non-conformity with Ron DeSantis’s entertainment preferences a felony punishable by, among other things, termination of the “parental rights” they so recently postured as defenders of.

Why the sudden bootlegger’s reverse on “parental rights?”

Well, it seems that some parents, in some places, are taking their kids to “drag shows” — per Wikipedia, “a form of entertainment performed by drag artists impersonating men or women.”

Ron DeSantis and company consider that a prime opportunity to “own the libs” in the “culture war,” even if it means turning on a dime and abandoning their “parental rights” line.

In American culture, drag shows have been a thing for about a century. Until fairly recently they were mostly confined to adults-only venues, especially “gay bars” and remote war zone locations where US troops had to provide their own entertainment.

But in recent years they’ve become increasingly popular outside the LGBTQ and military communities, in large part due to the “reality TV” series  RuPaul’s Drag Race, now entering its 15th season.

When things become popular in the larger culture, they become interesting to kids too. And some parents are going to humor that interest.

DeSantis is obviously willing to throw those parents under the bus if he thinks it will increase his vote totals in this November’s gubernatorial election and, prospectively, the 2024 GOP presidential primaries.

I’m not going to try to sell you on drag shows, especially for kids. In my limited experience (I attended a few such shows with friends at “gay bars” back in the 1980s), they’re quite entertaining, but usually feature dancing, dress, and humor with strong sexual overtones. I hear that “family-friendly” versions are a thing now, but haven’t seen those and thus have no opinion on them.

What I am going to try to sell you on is … well, “parental rights.”

Being a parent means making choices, and while I hope you’ll make good choices, the types of entertainment you choose for your family are your business. Not mine. Not Ron DeSantis’s. Yours.

Any politician who says otherwise should be punished, not applauded.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY