Interesting links again

How to lose your job at Google. Write a memo about how Google is mishandling diversity issues and has an intolerant leftist bias. While the author did make some blanket statements that I consider erroneous and patronizing, he emphasized evaluating people as individuals, and was against group discrimination. He seems to have lost his job because views he expressed outraged too many within the company. Simply put, his views didn't line up with a dogma of many, and he lost his job because of it.

Signs of war in Korea. The military choices in Korea aren't great. If the US decides on a military offensive against N. Korea, typically there would be a build-up of military resources and a withdrawal of civilians. Of course, that signals a military step to N. Korea, and they might strike because of it. It seems to me that an unannounced, substantial attack would be more effective. However, a deadly response from N. Korea has to be expected. I don't see any military response with minimal casualties. A write-up of the possibilities and their disadvantages.

Rational approach to Russia. I'm suspicious of most American opinions about Russia. Political blogs are awash with Russian shills and bots commenting. Partisan politics has overshadowed clear thinking. So I wondered what the Germany policies toward Russia are. Here's a summary.

New strategy in Afghanistan. Actually, somewhat the same strategy, but with some more troops and maybe stronger tactics. Afghanistan will not be fit to defend itself anytime in the foreseeable future, so it makes sense to try to minimize the terrorists Afghanistan would harbor. Trump talked of winning and peace, but reality is that the military mission is successful with much less than that--such as the avoidance of Afghanistan becoming a major terrorist training and safe zone.

An archive of Trump's lies. This might be handy. However, I wonder whether the Washington Post would be archiving the lies of Hillary Clinton as carefully.

Image: washingtonpost.com

Late additions. List of Arpaio outrages in honor of his pardon by President Trump. This is only a partial list. I visit my parents in Phoenix, and remember Arpaio having a peaceful speaker arrested at an evening meeting because he didn't like her viewpoint. Arbitrary arrests didn't even make the outrage list.

Description of Hurricane Harvey. The aspects that caused it to flood so much of east Texas.

Short: Jamelle Bouie speaks truth to starry-eyed Dems

I'm cleaning up my browser and clearing out some interesting stories I read over the past few months. However, this is just from yesterday.

Jamelle Boiue, a black political columnist, tries to explain to all those starry-eyed idealist what is going to happen if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2016. The unwelcome news: Even their beloved Bernie can't change the dynamic enough.

Please read the whole thread. I almost feel like I could have written it.

"Democrats want your 401k" came true, a little

I almost missed this story because there was no way I would listen to another State of the Union speech. Obama floated the idea of taxing 529 college accounts to help pay for his proposed program for free community college tuition.

The current law says that money placed in 529 account isn't tax deductible when it goes in, in contrast to an IRA, where you get to exclude the contribution from your taxes for that year. However, all the earnings that accumulate are tax-free. So, the principle is that you're taxed either at the beginning or at the end, but not both.

I haven't been able to verify that Obama proposed to tax the earnings in 529 accounts because the proposal is already dead. This is no surprise. The upper middle class doesn't want to lose some of their tax advantages, like deductions for mortgage interest, pre-tax contributions to IRAs and 401k's, or 529 college savings accounts.

Progressives would take your 401k

So who was Obama listening to when he made such a blunder? I don't know, but I have to guess that it was typical progressives--the kind who think a 70% tax rate on high incomes is fine. There are progressives who don't know how much the middle class cherish their tax breaks. They imagine that the middle class feel wealthy, and don't mind giving more to help those much closer to poverty. These progressives are quite wrong--the middle class doesn't want to give up more, and they definitely don't want to pay more tax.

I know there are a lot of progressives like this because I live in a town with way too many of them. According to them, we can't build or improve soccer fields because we must direct the money to the poor and underserved. We can't preserve a beautiful parcel of land, because that money should go to build affordable housing. Teachers and town workers shouldn't get a raise because, well, they already have paychecks. These progressives have never seen a poverty program they didn't want to fund at a higher level and have never seen anything other than poverty programs that deserve a little more money.

Would these progressives like to tax my 401k? Indubitably.

I'm not so crazy about the idea of giving them free rein to put a siphon in my retirement savings, and I have a lot of company. The people who share my view include a lot of Dem supporters--especially in academia and in liberal states. That explains the pushback and fast reversal on the 529 proposal.

Limiting deductions is not confiscation

So the idea of taxing 529 accounts was quashed. I assume that no powerful Dem will listen to progressives who want to do something similar to Roth IRAs. But how about regular IRAs and 401k's. These programs have a different kind of tax advantage--you get to deduct contributions from your taxable income, saving 15% or 25% or even more, depending on your tax bracket.

It's possible to lower the amount that people can deduct, and that's not the same as double-dipping with the taxation. Limiting deductions is already happening. Deductions of many types phase out for those earning over $100K. There are limits on the amount of 401k contributions that can be deducted on your tax return. Fiddling with limits of deductions isn't the same as double taxation, or confiscation--though some mindless conservative media outlets don't seem to know the difference.

Image: swordattheready.wordpress.com

Extras. I noted back in 2011 that some conservatives warned that Dems want to confiscate your 401k savings. It was based on a Big Brother-like proposal to limit the types of retirement savings plans and have them all managed by the government. That sounds scary, but the proposal didn't go anywhere. If you're scared, this article tries to talk you down. Jared Bernstein evaluates the tax breaks from 529s. No surprise who gets most of the benefits.

Moderating forces and their opposite, Part 2

Democrats moderated after their losing streak in the 60's through the 80's, which included their very wild 60's. The motivating force came from not wanting to lose so many elections, not from the idea that moderation was inherently better. However, many Dems might have started questioning how far the Great Society and welfare state could or would go under the liberal aegis, and they may not have liked what they saw. So a bunch of Dems set up the Democratic Leadership Council. They had a lot of success, with Bill Clinton winning the Democratic nomination, and then the presidency as a 'third way' New Democrat.

No Moderation in the GOP 

The GOP haven't had a moderating period for 35 years, except for a brief period when Bush was campaigning in 2000. He acted like he cared about the environment, but promptly dropped that. He did care about education, but his proposals were always tinged with partisan jabs against teacher unions, who are strong Democratic supporters.

After eight years of Bush as president, suddenly the farthest right component of the GOP realized that he was too moderate and they hadn't gotten what they wanted. They disavowed Bush and became even more hard-core.

Free Rein to Go Left among the Dems

The GOP's pivot to the right allowed the Dems to end their moderation jag. They shifted to the left (though they didn't become more extreme than they were in the 70's). Leaders were no longer claiming to be 'New Democrats.' Nancy Pelosi, the House leader and a big fundraiser for the party, is not from the DLC group but is instead one of founders of the House Progressive Caucus. The DLC disbanded in 2011, but hadn't had much influence since 2000. I'm not sure why, but the driving force and probably the money machine among Dems has been on the progressive side.

The sad consequence of this is that no party right now is trying to be moderate. All this is playing out against a backdrop of the parties becoming more ideologically polarized, rather than being coalitions.

There may not be forces that can correct this. The GOP has managed to fight off the most extreme Tea Partyers, but they certainly haven't become more moderate after their rightward turn in 2008, when their House members at first rejected legislation necessary to stabilize the banks and the economy. Many are still vehemently against TARP and the stimulus, even though these programs were successful in preventing a full blown depression.

If there are moderating forces working in the Democratic party, they aren't apparent to an observer like me. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still the heads of their respective caucuses. Dems aren't forming new groups to spearhead a centrist message of responsible budget trimming and cost controls for entitlement programs. I wonder whether they need to lose the presidency before that happens. If so, the Dems will end up losing a great deal. 

What's At Stake

If the Dems lose the presidency, the GOP will most likely also have the majority in the House and Senate too. What, aside from Democratic filibusters, will keep the GOP from legislating a lot of their program? The GOP might be able to slice up Obamacare so that it no longer provides access to health insurance for anyone who's hard to insure (older, pre-existing conditions, women of child-bearing age, etc.). The GOP can also remove the Democratic-favored cost-control measures and substitute their own measures--a Medicare voucher system. That will probably lead to a class-based healthcare system for elders rather than the current one which is fairly equal. 

However, if the GOP remains true to form, their first move will be passing tax cuts that benefit the wealthy and that also massively inflate the deficit. If the GOP goes for tax cuts, I don't think they'll attach a sunset clause this time, so the tax cuts will last until the Dems finally win back the White House, House and Senate. How hard will it be to undo what happens in the next few years? Isn't that a good reason to be moderate  now?

Which trajectory will we take?

Image: spaceweather.com

Extra. Part 1 here.

Post Mortem: "We're not the problem"

The Democrats may be on the cusp of being exiled in the wilderness for another period like the 70's and 80's, due to their leadership and money machine being too liberal/progressive. They've lost a lot of popularity between 2008 and now, but they are behaving like it's 'not their problem,' but a problem with midterm electorates. Maybe this is true, but it's a big gamble with 2016 coming up. Look at this popularity graph:

Imsge: gallup.com

Popularity of the GOP has been going up in the past year, while the Dems' popularity has dropped. Isn't it time for the Dems to try reversing that trend?

Deborah Wasserman Schultz, the first Dem to address the problem, says that it's not the policies that have to change. She's ordering a post-mortem with changes to be announced early next year. These reporters (obviously biased toward progressives) seem to think that only progressives Dems support a higher minimal wage and reform of overly long criminal sentences. And since these measures are popular, Dems need more progressives. I say that they're looking at a very skewed picture there. Lots or all Dems support those measures, not just progressives. Mistaken assumptions lead to mistaken conclusions.

If the progressives get their way, and the Dems become even more progressive, they don't have a bright future ahead in 2016. But maybe they'll have to run the experiment and find out (because the whole of the 1970's wasn't enough). It will only cost them... the presidency. No big deal.

Short: Elizabeth Warren forgets her math

I know Liz Warren is a smart person. She's got a background in bankruptcy, consumer finance, overseeing the management of TARP assets, etc. I bet she knows numbers pretty well.

But now she's pretending the equations don't have to equal, that increased spending doesn't have to be balanced with increased, um, what was that other thing? Warren, the great hope of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, wants to expand SS benefits, not consider reform that would reduce their rate of growth. And where will that extra money come from? Warren forgot to mention that.

Reminder for Professor Warren

Image: microsoft.com

Oust Nancy Pelosi

I'm no fan of Nancy Pelosi. This is what I've said before:

Her hand in the creation process of the stimulus and reviled health reform bills costs the Democratics a great deal of support ... [H]er egotism keeps her from stepping aside and giving the leadership to someone who could help Democrats rather than further blacken them.

Thinking about her, I realized something ironic. The GOP smears Obama with lies (he's radical, marxist, etc.), but Nancy Pelosi provides them with more than enough completely factual mud that they don't have to invent garbage to throw at her. Look at these headlines:

Republicans are the E. coli club.  (but she has a good point there)

Republican Jews are being exploited.

Todd Akin's views are doggie doo on GOP shoe.

Pelosi: I could have arrested Karl Rove, but we didn't.

Pass Health Reform so you can find out what's in it.

It's a terrible reflection on the House Dems that she is still their leader. Are the House Dems largely hacks? According to this Politico article, Pelosi draws substantial support from: California Dems, the progressive caucus, and women representatives.

She also has two other big advantages: she knows how to work the liberal money machine, and she's merciless to those who cross her. Fear and/or loyalty keep the House Dems in line and keep Pelosi in her leadership role.

So the House Dems won't depose her, nor is she moving on for the good of the party. This is another sign that Democrats can be the party of stupid. The most successful Democrat in the past 20 years, Bill Clinton, isn't the example Dems follow. Instead, it's Nancy Pelosi.

I hope the Dems don't regain the House, in this election or in any other election until they learn what it takes to become the majority and keep it. In other words, until they win on their merits. The last time they won, it was after 6 years of George Bush and his endless, expensive wars. If that's what it takes for Dems to win, I hope they keep losing. By the way, I feel differently about the Senate and the presidency, since there seem to be fewer hackish senators and candidates for president.

Pelosi with pearls and her biggest sponsor

Image: blogs.southflorida.com

Cut-only deficit reduction

In my earlier post about the debt deal, I didn't discuss an issue that's being weighing on me: how important is it to have both spending cuts and tax increases? 

This isn't something that has to be decided all at once. Obviously, we're going to be dealing with deficits and debt for many years. Since we absolutely will be having many iterations on this, we can start with some of approach A, add some more of approach A, add some of approach B, add more of approach B, tweak both A and B, maybe find an approach C that can help. Since a large majority in Congress and the president agree that we must cut spending, let's start there. Requiring tax increases, which many in Congress resist, is a complication we don't need to add into the mix. At least in this iteration.

Another reason to hold off with tax increases is the perception that Congressional Democrats "tax and spend." Part of that perception is outdated: tax revenues have ticked up only a bit in the last 30 years. However, we have been spending much more by running deficits, and it hasn't only been Democrats, since Republicans have had majorities in Congress quite often. Now, however, the calls to fix the deficit primarily or solely through tax increases... er, revenue targets, are coming from progressives who conveniently ignore the projected costs of the programs we already have. I wonder if they are so frightened of the consequences of cuts that they refuse to even look at the math. I've seen this fear before, prior to welfare reform, and the dire predictions didn't pan out. These cuts will probably be more painful, but also more necessary.

A final reason to make the first round of deficit-reduction through cuts is to see how much cutting hurts. We don't have much experience with cutting or its pain, since it's tended to be more spending, more programs, new needs identified that the government feels it should address. If the cuts are too deep and there are painful cries from a sizable majority, that may mean we really do want to pony up more in taxes to get the services we want. But we haven't tested that proposition in this new world where we aren't borrowing a large percentage of a program's cost. We won't know how the cuts hurt until we start actually wielding the scalpel.

History for Amnesiacs: How Obama became President.

Pres. Obama's honeymoon with conservatives lasted about 3 weeks past his inauguration, if I remember correctly. After that, conservatives started asking how we ended up with such a crappy person as president. He was a far-left liberal socialist illegitimate anti-American apologist foisted on them by idiot liberal Democrats.

The amnesia has only gotten deeper, with many people again wondering how this happened. This is a reminder.

In the Democratic nomination, the race was between Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama. John Edwards was a distant third, so most Democrats (including me) were going to choose between Hillary and Obama. Since  Bush had done such a crappy job on the Iraq war and financial crisis, it was obvious early on that the Democratic candidate was likely to win. If anyone doubts this point, I'll write another installment to help you remember.

I'm not absolutely sure how we chose Obama over Hillary. Partly he was the more inspiring speaker. Partly we sensed that the country didn't want alternating dynastic rule:  Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Partly Obama gave some false dog whistles to the progressive Nader/Kucinich wing and they bought it. Maybe we favored the underdog versus the Clinton machine.

In my case, I honestly hoped for greater bipartisan cooperation, and thought Obama had the better chance at creating it. After all, the Republicans had been so thoroughly investigating Bill and Hillary for 16 years and sharpening their knives, I thought there would no peace if Hillary was in the White House.

Let's review:

1. We had to choose between Hillary and Obama. 
2. Hillary already had a huge target on her back. 
3. So Democrats picked Obama. 

Conservatives, if you hate Obama so much, you can partly blame yourselves. Maybe you shouldn't have been so shitty to Bill and Hillary, because you helped make Obama the viable candidate he was.