Tag: policy

Politics vs Economics

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I was interested in the idea of six economic policies that economists across the spectrum support and politicians across the spectrum oppose. It’s not that I am surprised that there are big ideas that make perfect sense from an economic perspective which are politically unpopular – after all, doing what has been deemed to be politically possible has led us to a dire economic position. Once I read the six policies I found my reactions to be interesting.

Eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, which lets homeowners deduct the interest they pay on their mortgages. I have to admit that is one deduction that I have always wanted to keep but the fact is that it is not economically beneficial overall. The people who benefit the most are those who least need the deduction.
End the tax deduction companies get for providing health-care to employees. This is one that I have long felt should be enacted. Many people are unaware of this deduction but I think if they understood how it works and what effect it has on our health care costs they could realize that it should be eliminated.
Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. I can easily see why this one is politically unpopular but, like the deduction for providing health care for employees the net effect is to remove capital that would otherwise be used to create jobs or increase wages.
Eliminate all income and payroll taxes. All of them. For everyone. I can easily see why this is politically unpopular but the logic is the same as eliminating corporate taxes. I especially liked their explanation on this one: “Taxes discourage whatever you’re taxing, but we like income, so why tax it? Payroll taxes discourage creating jobs.” For those who are squeamish about this they go on to encourage the creation of a progressive consumption tax to replace it – this isn’t simply a starve the government proposal.
Tax carbon emissions. This is the first of their proposals that I am not sure I support. I recognize their justification for the policy but I’m not sold yet. This is really just a new version of a tobacco tax and I’m not sure that taxing tobacco has really accomplished what proponents might have hoped. Also, I consider that such a tax might distort the market in adverse ways that we have not yet considered.
Legalize marijuana. I’m not a fan of the war on drugs but like the carbon tax I am not prepared to jump on board with this idea yet. I have heard the arguments and I recognize a certain amount of logic behind it but I am dragging my feet for now. I figure that to be intellectually consistent anyone pushing such a proposal should at least include taxing marijuana like we tax tobacco and like they are proposing to tax carbon.

So there they are. Six proposals and I really like at least four of them. The other two would take some convincing.

Tags economics, government, policy, taxes

life State

Meeting the Mayor

I was invited to a blogger breakfast this morning with Mayor Becker. After digesting the surprise and wondering how they decided who to invite (there were only 7 bloggers there) I was excited to see what it would be like. Early on the question was asked if anyone present took a conservative perspective on their blog – I felt a bit lonely but I sure enjoyed meeting some of the bloggers that I have been interacting with for quite a while.

Three things really stuck out to me during the course of the morning. First (and least importantly), it’s nice to have someone else paying for breakfast. Second, I sat next to Glen Warchol and because of my recent interest in journalism and the interaction between reporters and politics, it was fascinating to watch as Glen fired off a number of questions and followups to the mayor to start things off. My respect for the art and skill of the information gathering side of reporting increased noticeably (nothing this morning really touched on the synthesizing and word-crafting side of reporting, but my blogging has already built up my appreciation for that aspect of the process). And the third thing that really stuck out to me? That’s what this is really all about . . .

One of the major topics this morning was the issue of transparency. I really think that this blogger breakfast is a part of the mayor’s transparency initiative – it’s another way for him to try to engage people and get them invoved and connected wtih their city government. Towards the end of the meeting Glen asked all of the bloggers if any of us had sought press credentials at the capital. It occurs to me that part of transparency is making sure that we make use of the options to get information that are already available to us. None of us had sought press credentials at the capital and Glen said we should give it a try. A few of us decided to look into it.

I called Ric Cantrel this afternoon to inquire and was told that the capital was pretty open to anyone who cared to visit, the meetings were generally open to the public and the elected officials wanted to get information out in any way that they could, and finally that they don’t have a policy one way or another on giving press credentials to bloggers. Ric expressed an interest in figuring out a manageable and reasonable policy on granting credentials to bloggers and suggested that it might be useful to meet with a group of bloggers to start hammering out such a policy. I trust that Ric is genuinely interested because he has been a significant force behind The Senate Site blog which is a good source for information – especially during the legislative session.

If anyone else is interested in taking part in the discussion let me know – I’ll keep you updated as I try to set things up.

Tags blogging, connections, government, media, policy, Press Bloggers, Salt Lake City, transparency

culture

Right, Left, or Straight

I think that Lyall is right in suggesting that we are asking the wrong question in the education debate. He identifies the current question as “How can we reform, improve our system of education today?” He believes that the correct question if we are to come to the answers we need is “What is the purpose of education?”

I think the critical distinction between those questions is that the one we are asking publicly is equivalent to a game we used to play in the car as kids called "Right, Left, or Straight." (RLS for short.) In that game we would drive until we got to an intersection and then Mom would call out "Right, left, or straight?" We would then vote (by who yelled the loudest generally) to determine which available path we would take. There was no right answer to the question, but there was also no knowing where we would end up before it was time to return home. The question we should be asking is like sitting down in a family council and asking where we want to vacation this year. Again there is no single right answer, but there are plenty of places you would not want to go where you might find yourself if you just hopped in the car and played RLS for your summer vacation.

The first option can be fun, but not very productive. It is useful in changing course, but not in determining the desirable outcome. Once you have determined the desired destination then there is an innate game of RLS to arrive there (the difference being that there is now a correct answer to the question when you come to an intersection).

My answer to Lyall’s new and improved question was that the purpose of education should be to provide the foundation of basic skills like the three R’s and to teach students how to face challenges and find answers to questions. Lyall contends that there is another part to education that involves (as I interpret it) education regarding right and wrong, fair play, and other generic moral issues.

Who is right? Join the discussion by commenting here or there.

Tags childhood, decisions, Education, family, policy