Image:songbirdweddings.com
Monday, July 30, 2012
Short: That incredible bond (marriage)
Watch this video. It is the eloquent defense of marriage by a lonely widow who misses "that incredible bond." She spoke when the Washington state legislature was debating extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. I hope you laugh and cry like I did.
Short: In the tank!
This story has so many angles that I like:
- A wonky/techy aspect.
- An encapsulation of a bigger political picture.
- A story about the possible loss of manufacturing capability.
- A quote that grabbed me because I know it's true from my own experience: [The workforce] “is not like a light switch. You can’t just click it off, then walk away for three years, come back and click it on.”
- A big, noisy, amped-up aspect.
Image: robertnyakundi.wordpress.com
Friday, July 27, 2012
What the rich owe us
Yes, you rich person, who either made a fortune or inherited one, you owe society. As Elizabeth Warren and President Obama have pointed out, you owe something to the society in which these riches were made.
That shouldn't be denied, though some people strenuously deny that society, or specifically government, provides much benefit to those who are trying to make a living. That's hogwash, of course. The rich are not self-sufficient. They rely on the commercial marketplace, public roads and utilities, customers, property rights enforced by police and courts, etc.
Nonetheless, an unqualified statement that rich people owe society is frightening. The world has seen the rich plundered (along with the poor or the average), the rich guillotined, the rich sent to reeducation camps, etc. Even in this country we've had 90% income tax rates for the rich, which amounts to confiscation for those who aren't adept at tax avoidance.
It would be good if those who say that 'the rich owe society' show that they aren't planning to go down that slippery slope, because that is what will pop into the heads of a lot of people if they don't address the issue.
What is effective reassurance? Giving a maximum tax rate would be somewhat reassuring, but it's not the best political optics. For people who know their effective tax rate or their tax bracket, the highest tax bracket of almost 40% sounds damn high. Besides, I think that tax bracket will break over the 40% threshold when the Obamacare taxes start being collected.
Perhaps it would be more palatable to talk in multiples of the usual payroll tax. I personally think that having highest earners paying income tax at a rate of 5 times the usual payroll tax doesn't sound terrible, especially if you quantify the other brackets too: 1.5 times the payroll tax, 2 times the payroll tax, 3 times the payroll tax, etc. (Note: I say the usual payroll tax to account for the Social Security tax rate cut we're currently having. Any tax holidays for payroll taxes shouldn't apply to the income tax rates.)
The best way to reassure taxpayers that you aren't out to soak the rich is to support a broad, fairly flat income tax structure. But that means committing to tax reform because our current tax structure isn't very flat and contains all sorts of loopholes for the wealthy and not-wealthy to reduce their tax burden. It also means being committed to finding ways to rein in spending, including entitlements. Because if you don't rein in spending (and growth in entitlements are the largest automatic spending hikes), then the US taxpayers know that you're going to be soaking the rich sooner or later.
So here's my declaration: I believe in the rich paying their fair share, and everyone else paying theirs too. And I'm not afraid to quantify what I mean by 'fair share.'
That shouldn't be denied, though some people strenuously deny that society, or specifically government, provides much benefit to those who are trying to make a living. That's hogwash, of course. The rich are not self-sufficient. They rely on the commercial marketplace, public roads and utilities, customers, property rights enforced by police and courts, etc.
Fear Factor
It would be good if those who say that 'the rich owe society' show that they aren't planning to go down that slippery slope, because that is what will pop into the heads of a lot of people if they don't address the issue.
Reassurance Rates
Perhaps it would be more palatable to talk in multiples of the usual payroll tax. I personally think that having highest earners paying income tax at a rate of 5 times the usual payroll tax doesn't sound terrible, especially if you quantify the other brackets too: 1.5 times the payroll tax, 2 times the payroll tax, 3 times the payroll tax, etc. (Note: I say the usual payroll tax to account for the Social Security tax rate cut we're currently having. Any tax holidays for payroll taxes shouldn't apply to the income tax rates.)
Reform
The best way to reassure taxpayers that you aren't out to soak the rich is to support a broad, fairly flat income tax structure. But that means committing to tax reform because our current tax structure isn't very flat and contains all sorts of loopholes for the wealthy and not-wealthy to reduce their tax burden. It also means being committed to finding ways to rein in spending, including entitlements. Because if you don't rein in spending (and growth in entitlements are the largest automatic spending hikes), then the US taxpayers know that you're going to be soaking the rich sooner or later.
So here's my declaration: I believe in the rich paying their fair share, and everyone else paying theirs too. And I'm not afraid to quantify what I mean by 'fair share.'
My proposed tax rates
Image: travel-images.com
Fighting the Sequester/Defending it
The GOP has regretted
the defense cuts they agreed to last August almost as soon as the
ink was dry. Now few Democrats are getting into it. Tom
Harkin is cherry-picking cuts to vaccine programs to show how bad
the sequester is. This commenter expressed some of my
sentiment:
I've come to think that the sequester was the best Congressional action of 2011. They finally began to face the huge task of cutting the deficit. They also accepted, if only for a microsecond, that the pain was going to be spread broadly instead of being shoved onto the "other side."
I'm going to make a prediction. After Obama details the cuts, as the House and Senate are requiring him to do, there will be:
"The louder the politicians squeal about sequestration the better I like it." - WSJ commentThe comments were generally quite pro-sequester. That means the portion of the public that's paying attention is more realistic and pragmatic than the elected officials.
I've come to think that the sequester was the best Congressional action of 2011. They finally began to face the huge task of cutting the deficit. They also accepted, if only for a microsecond, that the pain was going to be spread broadly instead of being shoved onto the "other side."
I'm going to make a prediction. After Obama details the cuts, as the House and Senate are requiring him to do, there will be:
- A brief period of trumped-up outrage.
- Then a period of mellowing.
- Then general acceptance of the cuts as positive change in government, with a few remnants of dissent by the habitually outraged.
Not a workable solution
Image: jlnavarro.blogspot.com
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Short: We like lies!
Classify this under unsurprising research: NPR (tax-supported liberal radio to some, the most detailed radio news to others) aired a story about how the public often prefers lies in support of their political opinions to the truth, at least from political candidates.
No, tell me it's not so! ...Except that anyone who examines media bias already knows this. However, here's an interesting counter opinion.
No, tell me it's not so! ...Except that anyone who examines media bias already knows this. However, here's an interesting counter opinion.
Give me what I want, not what I say I want.
Image: flickr.com
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Short: When you aren't the target audience
Bernstein had a great, timely reminder that the general public is not always the target audience for all parts of the campaign. He writes about the rumors that the Romney campaign is going to start 'vetting' Obama. By vetting, they mean it the way Breitbart meant it, which is digging up any past action or association that looks at all radical or socialist. "Palling around with terrorists" will make a resurgence.
However, this part of the campaign is not for general consumption, but a special mooshy dessert for the GOP loyalists who can't get enough of Obama as foreign agent provocateur. It'll run mostly on Fox and the conservative blogosphere, but not on the general airwaves in the swing states. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I don't live in a swing state, so I can't find out easily by turning on my TV anytime between Labor Day and Election Day. Ah, spared the excitement!
However, this part of the campaign is not for general consumption, but a special mooshy dessert for the GOP loyalists who can't get enough of Obama as foreign agent provocateur. It'll run mostly on Fox and the conservative blogosphere, but not on the general airwaves in the swing states. At least, that's what I'm guessing. I don't live in a swing state, so I can't find out easily by turning on my TV anytime between Labor Day and Election Day. Ah, spared the excitement!
Image: nicedeb.wordpress.com
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Short: Patty Murray shows she's a hack
If the Harry Reid is smart (and I think he is), he's probably gotten Patty Murray to stop saying that the Dems are happy to go over the fiscal cliff because it will give them better leverage in 2013. It's not as dumb as the Teapublicans in the House proclaiming that they won't raise the debt ceiling, but it's in the same ballpark, and no senator should be there.
As an elected representative in a party that hopes to do OK in the next election, Murray shouldn't be saying that she's OK with people taking a major hit in their paychecks. You don't want to spite everyone to get leverage in a negotiation. The GOP was doing that last July over the debt ceiling, as it wasn't good for their favorability ratings. Did Murray somehow learn the lesson backwards?
Now I'll be looking for the signs that some of the Dems senators took her to the woodshed and made sure she learned the lesson right this time.
As an elected representative in a party that hopes to do OK in the next election, Murray shouldn't be saying that she's OK with people taking a major hit in their paychecks. You don't want to spite everyone to get leverage in a negotiation. The GOP was doing that last July over the debt ceiling, as it wasn't good for their favorability ratings. Did Murray somehow learn the lesson backwards?
Now I'll be looking for the signs that some of the Dems senators took her to the woodshed and made sure she learned the lesson right this time.
Patty Murray needs a minder...
Image: huffingtonpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)