Morality Policy and Individual-Level Political Behavior; The Case of Legislative Voting on Lesbian and Gay Issues

Researchers using the morality politics framework have focused on aggregate-level analysis, largely ignoring the behavior of individuals wlthin political institutions. My research fills this gap by examining legislative voting behavior on lesbian and gay issues in the U. S. House ofRepresentatives. The theory of morality politics is used to extract a number of hypotheses concerning legislative voting behavior. The morality politics framework suggests that legislative voting on lesbian and gay issues will be driven by partisanship, ideology, religious beliefs, constituency opinion, and perhaps interest groups. The results of multiple regression analysis demonstrate that while the morality politics model does a good Job of explaining legislative voting behavior, some revisions may be in order. Based on my findings I argue that actually there may be two forms of morality politics, euch ofwhich is dependent on how the issue is framed. The dominant issue frame, moreover, may impact the ability of opposing interest groups to influence decisionmakers in thepolicy process.     

A Prolegomenon to Responsible Legislative Reform

When you're young it's easy to streak appeals across the sky like rockets. But as you get older you feel increasingly esponsible for those traveling the road your rocket lights. What if you've led them wrong? You grow wary of making reckless appeals, and a sense of responsibility must be tempered above all with analysis and reflection. Relentless analysis alone, not childish shouting, embodies the true appeals.¹     

Re-Thinking Legislative Productivity: Commemorative Legislation and Policy Gridlock

This research charts the levels of commemorative legislation passed in Congress in the postwar era and assesses the conditions generating such legislation. Utilizing a statistical model of stalemate developed by Sarah Binder, it demonstrates that conditions hypothesized to produce gridlock on salient legislation also generate (even more statistically robust) activism on commemoratives. ¹ Our joint appreciation to Paulina Burdge-Small and Michael Williams for their help in collecting the data analyzed in this paper. In addition, Dodd expresses appreciation to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for support that aided his contributions to the paper.      

罗马税制的积弊与戴克里先税制改革

分析戴克里先税收改革失败的原因,不能只看改革措施本身,必须把税收问题与帝国3世纪的财政危机联系起来考察。共和国后期逐步确立的罗马税收制度并不完善,国家征税没有统一的税则和成文的税法,没有彻底的土地和人口普查,对税收完纳的日期、方法、数额没有具体界定,造成赋税名目繁多、税收混乱。罗马税收中唯一形成制度的是征税方式上实行包税制,但是包税制本身有其弊端和危害,包税商和总督勾结,中饱私囊,损害国家利益;后来包税制逐渐被破坏,直接或间接地起到了妨害社会生产的不良作用。从戴克里先的税收改革措施来看,他还是找到了罗马税收问题的症结,税收改革措施本身没有问题,导致改革失败的原因很多:首先是3世纪社会经济危机太深;其次,罗马税制之弊由来已久,且积弊已深,实际上已没有灵丹妙药可以救治。从这个意义上说,戴克里先税收改革的失败是不可避免的。     

中国税制改革50年

新中国成立 50年来 ,税制改革经历了新中国税制建立和巩固、曲折发展、税制建设得到全面加强及税制改革不断前进三个时期。我国的税收制度先后进行了五次重大的改革 ,已经初步建立了适应社会主义市场经济体制需要的税制框架 ,强化了税收的聚财功能和宏观调控功能 ,从而标志着中国的税制建设进入了一个新的发展阶段。 50年来税制改革的基本经验特别值得认真总结和借鉴。     

The Tax Threshold: Policy, Principles, and Poverty

In the absence of an independent poverty standard, postwar Britishgovernments have tended to use current, politically determinedsocial security scales (from Unemployment Assistance in the1930s to Income Support today) as their definition of minimallyadequate income levels, commonly known as an ‘officialpoverty line’. A basic principle of taxation since thedays of Adam Smith, however, has been that incomes below theminimum income required for socially defined necessities shouldbe free of tax. The personal tax allowance which determinesthe income tax-paying threshold thus also provides a practicaldefinition of such an official poverty line. Royal Commissionsand official committees since the nineteenth century have endorsedSmith's principle, but it only acquired major political significanceafter the Second World War when income tax began to affect lowearners, particularly after the 1960s when poverty was ‘rediscovered’in the UK. In spite of this potential coincidence of purpose,a review of evidence and interviews with officials shows thatthere has been no co-ordination of policy between the Treasuryand Inland Revenue responsible for determining the level ofthe tax allowances, and the Social Security ministries responsiblefor the minimum benefit scales. The tax threshold has consequentlycontinued to be determined by considerations of political economyand administration and not by the alleviation of poverty. ^* This paper is part of a larger project on concepts of povertyand need in British income maintenance systems, chiefly the‘Assistance’ schemes which ran from 1934 to 1966.I am grateful to the many people who have helped with the project,regrettably too numerous to name here. I am particularly indebtedto Sir Norman Price and Sir Kenneth Stowe, James Meade, DellaNevitt, and). Leonard Nicholson for information on the tax issues,and want to record my thanks to them and to Fran Bennett, JohnHills, Chris Pond, and Adrian Sinfield, and especially RodneyLowe, as well as participants in seminars at the Universitiesof Edinburgh and Essex, and in Budapest, for their advice onthis paper.