A Sober Lesson About Any Rt. Hon. So-and-So

by Don Boudreaux on September 4, 2009

in Not from the Onion, Politics

Massachusetts state Rep. Michael Rodrigues was among the majority in the Massachusetts legislature who voted for a hefty hike in the Bay State sales tax.  A predictable consequence of this higher tax is that, as reported by the Boston Herald, “Authorities have … cracked down at the border, targeting Bay Staters seeking to avoid paying state taxes by crossing into New Hampshire to shop.”

Alas, recently the Hon. Mr. Rodriques “was spotted brazenly piling booze in his car – adorned with his State House license plate – in the parking lot of a tax-free New Hampshire liquor store.”  When asked about his actions, he snapped “Mind your own business.”

The hypocrisy is intoxicating.  Mr. Rodrigues votes for higher taxes enforced in part by border searches of private citizens’ automobiles.  And then he has the gall to get offended when his own private, out-of-state liquor purchases are questioned.

(HT Hans Eicholz)

I’m reminded of Mencken’s sound description of the typical politician:

He is a man who has lied and dissembled, and a man who has crawled. He knows the taste of boot-polish. He has suffered kicks in the tonneau of his pantaloons. He has taken orders from his superiors in knavery and he has wooed and flattered his inferiors in sense. His public life is an endless series of evasions and false pretences. He is willing to embrace any issue, however idiotic, that will get him votes, and he is willing to sacrifice any principle, however sound, that will lose them for him. I do not describe the democratic politician at his inordinate worst; I describe him as he is encountered in the full sunshine of normalcy. He may be, on the one hand, a cross-roads idler striving to get into the State Legislature by grace of the local mortgage-sharks and evangelical clergy, or he may be, on the other, the President of the United States. It is almost an axiom that no man may make a career in politics in the Republic without stooping to such ignobility: it is as necessary as a loud voice. Now and then, to be sure, a man of sounder self-respect may make a beginning, but he seldom gets very far. Those who survive are nearly all tarred, soon or late, with the same stick. They are men who, at some time or other, have compromised with their honour, either by swallowing their convictions or by whooping for what they believe to be untrue. They are in the position of the chorus girl who, in order to get her humble job, has had to admit the manager to her person. And the old birds among them, like chorus girls of long experience come to regard the business resignedly and even complacently. It is the price that a man who loves the clapper-clawing of the vulgar must pay for it under the democratic system. He becomes a coward and a trimmer ex-officio. Where his dignity was in the days of his innocence there is now only a vacuum in the wastes of his subconscious. Vanity remains to him, but not pride.

From H.L. Mencken, A Second Mencken Chrestomathy (1995), pp. 31-32.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • janinerator
    This story reminds me of what's going on here in Los Angeles, where our screwed-up city council and mayor have happily endorsed a regulation which prevents residents, even those who live in the very hottest part of the city (20-30 degrees hotter in summer), from watering their lawns on any day other than monday or thursday. My lawn is now dead and my yard looks awful. NBC helicopters meanwhile have photographed the sprinklers running in the mayor's backyard on a day when watering is prohibited.
  • JoeCushing
    The federal government should formalize sales tax competition by making it illegal for one state to collect taxes on purchases made in another state.
  • true_liberal
    ...And since Mr. Rodrigues is merely behaving like the majority of his constituents, he will be readily re-elected to another term or five. Hey, it's politics, right?
  • Curious
    An amoral individual is not the problem (there will always be amoral people). It is the system that allows amoral individuals to get into position, where they have power over others. Democracy is the problem.
  • Solomwi
    Daniel, that was my first thought, too, and remains the most interesting part of the story to me. There is so much potentially wrong with them (not to mention any tax structure into which such searches fit), and so little potentially right, that it boggles the mind.

    Sorry, this was supposed to be in reply to DK's post.
  • Ross
    He lost me at the chorus girl part. At least when the chorus girl gets her job, she doesn't point a gun at the audience and tell them to hand over their money for their own good.
  • Mencken wasn't extending the analogy in a universal fashion.

    He said that politician is in the position of the Chorus Girl, who had to sleep with the boss to get the job.

    And like older Chorus Girls, as politicians age they get so numbed to the notion of selling their virtues they don't notice it anymore.
  • Oh, I just love the two-pronged nature of his response:

    1) "Mind your own business."
    2) "It's Republican demagoguery."

    Answer to #1:
    Yes, it is taxpayers' business, to wonder if:
    a) you're approved to take the vehicle across state lines,
    b) state policy allows for transport of personal alcohol,
    c) why you authorize police to prevent the very same activity, and
    d) why you voted for a policy that clipped stores in your own state by 10%.

    Answer to #2:
    Thoroughly believable, provided you file criminal complaints against:
    a) the GOP operatives who made you vote for the booze tax,
    b) the GOP operatives who drugged you, and sent you across the state line in a state vehicle,
    c) the GOP operatives who forced you to buy liquor, avoiding the tax you were strong-armed into supporting.

    Put up or shut up, Mr. Rodrigues.
  • I’d guess shut up is the easier alternative, but one never knows with these types….
  • B
    Don't get too specific, he's not just typical of the a politician but, sadly, he's typical of (probably) almost all Americans. Almost all of America want their morals/ideas to be enforced by the government (removing other's freedom), but get upset if the government enforces things that remove their freedoms.

    Americans are perfectly find removing freedom, just as long the freedoms being removed aren't something they enjoy.
  • danielkuehn
    What exactly do they DO in these "border searches"? That's incredible. Even if someone did go across the border to shop, do they have any legal standing at all to do anything about it? That's bizarre.
  • usedtobeDAVE
    Search people? Are they allowed to do that? Sounds like a police state or something.
  • Alexei
    If I recall correctly from when I lived up there, the cops tend to sit at the state line and really strictly enforce the traffic laws on vehicles coming back down from the well-known shopping areas down there. So it's not like they're pulling everyone over. But you're going a hair over the limit, or your brake light's out...... Then when you're pulled over.....hey what's that that I see in your back seat?
  • danielkuehn
    I don't know - it's the last line in the article. It's so vague it makes you wonder... I'm not sure what the quality standards at the Boston Herald are like - I'm not familiar with the paper. But I find it hard to believe they are stopping people or can stop people for shopping across the state lines.

    And to be honest - does anyone really think this guy went over to New Hampshire to avoid the tax? It seems more likely to me that he was on vacation like he said.
  • T_Rich_1
    The article indicates certain quantities of alcohol (3 gallons for spirits) that are illegal under Mass laws. I agree that the representative probably didn't go there just to buy the booze. His home district appears to be close to Rhode Island - so that would be one expensive and time consuming beer run to get up to NH. However, it is odd (not really) that he picked a liquor store at the state line so his wife could use the rest room. I think he stopped there to buy some hooch and avoid the tax, thereby proving that even the saints (guffaw) that represent us plebes act in self interest -- and not only in these small matters (in other news, a bear used the forest as a toilet).

    The big question is, was the woman in the restroom really his wife?? ;-)
  • Alexei
    Ummm...... Hell yes, he was avoiding the tax. Everyone in Mass near the NH border does that. Lived there, saw that.

    Even if that weren't the common practice, hello! He's a politician caught in a potentially embarrassing hypocritical situation! Of course he's going to lie about it!

    Daniel, you seem like a smart guy a lot of the time, but sometimes you go a bit too far in giving these schlubs the benefit of the doubt.
  • danielkuehn
    It's the week before Labor Day. Is it really that inconceivable to you that he is on vacation? A quick google search will tell you he represents Bristol, Massachusetts - the very south eastern corner of the state - south of Cape Cod.

    Why the hell would he drive straight across the entire state to go into New Hampshire to save a 6.25% sales tax on booze??? If he wanted to avoid a simple sales tax, why wouldn't just drive into Rhode Island? Your claim has a ton of holes in it.

    RE: "Daniel, you seem like a smart guy a lot of the time, but sometimes you go a bit too far in giving these schlubs the benefit of the doubt."

    No, it's basic logic. It doesn't make sense. Sometimes people on here go too far in assuming the worst about "these schlubs". He raised a sales tax. That does have negative economic consequences. It's also what states have to do to raise revenue. It's not an excuse to concoct irrational assumptions about people without evidence or even a sensible storyline.





  • Daniel, I don't profess to know the rules in Massachusetts, but the phrase "was spotted brazenly piling booze in his car – adorned with his State House license plate" makes me wonder... if he *was* on a vacation (i.e. personal business) is he allowed to use his "state" vehicle? It would seem logical: "official business, official vehicle; personal business, personal vehicle."

    Here in Texas, we have something similar... I drive a truck, but I'm not a farmer. My truck's license plate says "Texas Truck" above the number. I can have the same truck, but if I'm a farmer, it says "Texas Farm Truck" above the number. The difference being that, if I'm a farmer, I can use tax-free "farm fuel" in my "farm truck." But only on the farm, for farm business.

    There are DPS troopers who will stop "farm trucks" to make sure they're on "farm business" and will issue citations if they're not.
  • link1234567890
    Dan,

    Usually the argument that someone is evading a sales or excise tax is based on the amount of stuff they are buying. If you buy beer or cigarettes out of state, people won't necessarily assume you're evading the tax. If you fill up your entire trunk with the stuff, that's another matter.

    Note also that while the representative's home district may be rather far from NH, Boston isn't that far from NH, and a state representative has plenty of reasons to be in Boston.

    Once the booze is in the trunk and the trunk is shut, however, it's a mystery to me how a search at the state line could legally discover it.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm not saying it's impossible - I'm just saying I don't see why anyone would assume that, or why it's anything other than a vacation.

    Booze on a vacation? Doesn't sound that odd to me. Add it up and all I'm saying is this doesn't seem to be worth a witch hunt and the evidence points to giving him the benefit of the doubt. But of course it's not impossible.
  • danphillips
    What difference can it possibly make whether the man was on vacation? The fact is this: while in NH he stopped at a liquor store and bought a trunkful of booze. Why would he do that? It's obvious to any discerning individual that his motive was to avoid the tax. It's obvious that while he was in NH he decided to stock up on booze and avoid the tax. Is that so difficult to understand?
  • danielkuehn
    A trunkful? We have no idea how much booze he got. The witness vaguely said that he was "piling booze into his trunk". And clearly the witness might not be objective in this situation. It could have been two bottles - it could have been a lot more. Either way, I don't know - we "piled booze into our trunk" when I was at the beach last summer... I think we're really making too much of this (or maybe my vacations need to be tamer). Raising taxes can suck, some people avoid them. That much is clear. The idea that any of us have any special insight into what this guy was doing is crazy.
  • T_Rich_1
    I am not saying that I know the answer to any of these questions, but is there evidence to show that raising taxes leads to increased revenue for the government? Is the increase temporary until the people figure out how to avoid it when it is too burdensome? Does it create law breakers out of normally law abiding people? Does it create a black market as has been seen in cigarettes? Does it enhance the interest of organized crime in the targeted product as a means to increase their revenue? Do the attempts to address all of these negatives eat up any gain (temporary or permanent) in the state revenues? Hmm.
  • danielkuehn
    Oh I'm sure there's research but the easy answer is of course it raises revenue, and of course there is avoidance too. On net, if raising taxes didn't raise revenue there'd be no point. There are some important exceptions that you probably could find more research on - take the capital gains tax, for example. Transactions that lead to capital gains are not necessarily as common as transactions at retail stores. So it is definitely possible that lowering a capital gains tax could raise revenue because it will cause more people sell and buy assets than before. But that's a specific case. Normal transactions that happen regularly - sales tax, income tax, etc. - almost certainly raise revenue on net, but granted there will be some behavioral shifting to avoid it too.

    In the limit, the infamous Laffer curve is going to be right. There will be a point where taxes become so burdensome that reducing taxes will increase revenue (slightly different from the capital gains argument about the frequency of a transaction). But I'm at a loss for thinking of anyone that doesn't agree that we're on the left hand side of the Laffer curve... maybe someone out there would make that case (Laffer presumably???) but I don't know.
  • T_Rich_1
    Sorry, I got bored part way through. Are you saying that you don't know for sure?

    Just kidding, Daniel. Another question, in a small state like Massachusetts, is the ability to adapt behavior likely to lead to higher percentages of people shifting behavior? In addition will you cause the citizens to become so pissed that they just cut down on consumption of the product too avoid helping the bastards that raised the tax - I know I would do that.

    It's a bit like the cash for clunkers and the auto company buy out. I heard a news story about the impact on auto sales for August during the c4c fiasco. Ford sales were up 11% against July and 17% vs. August '08. Honda had its best ever August (up 40% vs. July and 15% vs. August '08). GM (that would be government motors) was up 30% against July but DOWN 20% vs. August '08. That means that GM's July sales really had to stink in order to have that outcome. Chrysler was a bit like GM - up vs. July down vs. August 08. I have a strong hypothesis that this is largely a backlash against GM for having been bailed out (and the fact that their cars suck eggs).
  • danielkuehn
    "Another question, in a small state like Massachusetts, is the ability to adapt behavior likely to lead to higher percentages of people shifting behavior?"

    I don't think most people view legislators who levy taxes as bastards. Most people realize you need some taxes. Anyway - how the hell should I know? Behavior is shifted in response to incentives - I said that before. I'm sure it happens in Massachusetts.

    As for cash for clunkers, I agree it was a dumb program and what it really did was just shift when people were going to make their purchase. I doubt anybody's behavior was out of spite at GM getting bailed out, though. Again - most people respond to incentives - not to teach a faceless corporation a lesson.
  • danielkuehn
    I bet Russ and Don are two Northern Virginia residents that disagree with me - but a lot of Northern Virginians have been angry that the state won't raise taxes and won't let us raise our own local taxes to fund transportation projects. Traffic is terrible in the area - we jockey with LA for worst in the country, as I understand it. Lots of us think they're bastards for not taxing us.

    Or you can take the California route where you demand the goodies but don't want the taxes. I think the Northern Virginia route makes a little more sense.
  • sandre
    LA has 5 & 6 lanes in each directions and 1000s of miles of such highways, it hasn't solved the traffic problems. They have 24/7 carpools on many highways. I haven't been to LA at a time when there wasn't some new construction going on ( adding new lanes, new overpasses etc ). And it hasn't solved the crisis. If people were fed up with traffic, they will move into a smaller residence closer to their workplace. Subsidizing long commutes will only make the situation worse.

    I live in NorCal and I do go to LA a few times a year. I know the traffic horror in that area.
  • danielkuehn
    Yes - it's more complicated than building new roads and fixing old ones. But that's part of it as well.

    I've heard that there is a county in West Virginia that's not officially classified as a suburb of Washington.
  • The Other Eric
    I'm very curious about this too. It's one thing to point out the craven nature of politicians (dog bites man, more news at 10), but it's stunning to think that Massachusetts can levy fines or extra taxes on legal purchases made outside Massachusetts.
  • MichaelSmith
    In a "mixed economy", an advanced welfare-state such as we have now, a legislator's job is deciding which men to sacrifice to which other men. There is no honorable or honest way to make such decisions -- there is no principle of morality to guide such choices, for no choice to sacrifice another man can be moral -- and there is no possible justice when the task is to dispense the unearned to some by denying the earned to others.

    A process that dispenses with honor, honesty, morality and justice is inherently corrupt and corrupting. Little wonder it attracts the worst sort of man and repels the best.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: