A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Economists from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a study that said property taxes are the best way to raise additional tax revenues since its effects on economic growth are less than other ways to increase taxes. The study concluded that increasing income and employment taxes are the worst way to raise taxes due to its negative impact on economic growth.

This is consistent with the supply-side revolution in tax and economic policies that Ronald Reagan unleashed almost 30 years ago, and keeping tax rates on income low is one of the important ways we can get the economy growing again.

Interestingly, the OECD is a Paris-based organization that works on economic and public policy issues. It is an established member of the many international organizations that influence policy. As such, it is no bastion of conservative thinking. The fact that such a group published a study extolling the virtues of a "regressive" property tax and depicting the problems of a "progressive" income tax illustrates how accepted it is by economists that higher income taxes reduce economic growth.

Where's the Reciprocity?

Pakistan continues to detain in police custody Raymond Davis, an American subject to diplomatic immunity, after Davis shot and killed two armed assailants. Pakistani police say the attackers robbed others earlier.

By all accounts, Davis was acting in self-defense and should be released on that basis alone. Moreover, all diplomats are immune to prosecution for crimes committed in their host country, to avoid being used as a hostage. While Davis did nothing wrong, he should also be released immediately given his diplomatic immunity.

If the situation were reversed, and America was detaining a foreign national who was subject to diplomatic immunity, it would be a major news story in this country. The left and its media friends would denounce America, and you would hear about why America needs to live up to its international obligations so its diplomats can receive commensurate treatment in their host countries.

But there is no outrage by the left when America is on the receiving end of abusive treatment.

Why Egypt and Tunisia?

The recent events in Middle East, most prominently in Tunisia and Egypt, portend many changes for the troubled region. But one of the remarkable facts about these revolutions is that the countries with the largest demonstrations are not directed against the most repressive regimes in the region.

We can use the information that Freedom House publishes with its annual ratings of political rights and civil liberties for every country in the world, and that the Heritage Foundation produces with its ranking of nations based on economic freedom to assess this.

Let's look at five countries, three of whom have experienced recent large scale demonstrations (Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan) and two that haven't (Syria and Iran). Freedom House rates all five countries as Not Free, but its numerical scores differentiate between them. Egypt and Jordan have better ratings than Syria, Iran, and Tunisia.

For economic freedom, the Heritage Foundation rates Jordan 38th in the world, which is better than many countries we associate with as having a high degree of freedom (such as Israel and Iceland); Egypt and Tunisia rate in the middle of the pack at 96th and 100th, respectively; while Syria (140th) and Iran (171st) rate near the bottom.

You would think that Iran and Syria would be more logical candidates for domestic-driven regime change, given their more repressive policies. But it is their very repression that makes it difficult for domestic groups to succeed in toppling these regimes. In 2009, Iran experienced large scale demonstrations after rigging elections to allow President Ahmadinejad to win. But consistent with its brutal nature, the regime employed its vast powers against demonstrators, killing, torturing, and imprisoning so many that the demonstrations ended.

In 1982, Syria destroyed the city of Hama where the Muslim Brotherhood staged an uprising. Tens of thousands of Syrians were killed when the Syrian military turned its artillery, tanks, and planes against its own city, destroying the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in Syria. Such brutality acts as a powerful deterrent to future demonstrations and uprisings.

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and President Ben Ali of Tunisia have employed oppressive tactics against its citizens for years, and certainly are no friends of freedom. But Ali was, and Mubarak to date has been, reluctant to turn the full power of their military forces against their own citizens to maintain their grip on power. While this doesn't make them "good guys", they are certainly less evil than the dictators in Iran and Syria.

Moreover, the modest degree of freedom people have experienced in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan make them want to have more. They see the quality of life through media and the Internet that is possible in other countries, and this emboldens that to take risks to change their government. At the most extreme, the people of North Korea are so isolated from the rest of the world, it isn't clear how well they know how awful the regime they suffer under is.

Given Egypt's size, geographic position, and leadership role in the Arab world, there is both risk and opportunity with an end to the Mubarak regime. The risk is that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic group that has stayed relatively quiet in Egypt due to Mubarak's brutal policies, is able to secure political power and turn Egypt away from its relationships with the United States and Israel. The opportunity lies in the possibility that non-Islamic groups can lead a future Egyptian government and extend the scope of freedom in the Middle East.