Month: December 2007

A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

Post author By David
Post date December 15, 2007
8 Comments on A Tax Debate Would Be Wise

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

Apparently the New York Times would like to have a public debate about taxes. The editorial board expresses their despair that none of the presidential candidates talk about taxes. I think that they are completely right that such a debate is necessary. Beyond that it seems that there is hardly anything that we agree about on this subject. When they turn to discussing their views as opposed to the positions and rhetoric of the candidates they start by saying:

Still, going forward, competent governance, let alone achieving great things, will require more revenue, period.

I consider it to be a very safe bet that they mean that on an perpetual basis. As a proponent of fiscal responsibility I could be sold on the idea that we need more revenue for the time being (meaning the next few decades) to help us dig ourselves out of the financial pit we are in (as a result of our spending in the last few decades). But I think that part of the solution will have to include reducing the spending on some government programs this should include increased efficiency in such programs, but wisdom dictates that it also include a reduction in some programs or services.

The editorial board suggests three opportunities that we can address in the necessary tax debate. Of those three, only one really strikes me as a real opportunity rather than empty dialog:

To create a system that does not disproportionately favor investment income over income from work.

I think we agree that the idea that the Democrats gave lip-service to when they gained the majority of both houses of Congress – paying for new programs with reductions elsewhere or new taxes – is a nice idea. The problem is that it really makes little difference if they do that without also making sure that they are actually paying for existing services as well, rather than allowing for deficit spending where it already exists.

The bias of the New York Times is irrefutable when they make statements such as:

. . . the exorbitant cost of the flat tax would likely be paid by cutting Medicare, Social Security and other bedrock government services.

If Medicare and Social Security are “bedrock government services” then I wonder how our nation survived its first 150 years without those services. Though I may easily be accused of being willing to punish poor people for being poor by cutting these government programs, I promise that I would happily support any such program if we did not have debts in the Trillions and if Congress were not deficit spending to implement the programs. Though I believe that these programs are not necessary for government, I am not one to believe that government can never do any good with such programs. The problem I see is in allowing our federal government to use illusory tricks such as deficit spending that even state governments (let alone private individuals) are not allowed to do. The fact is that if a business operated like the government the leaders of that business would be prosecuted and jailed in a truly just society.

More difficult than tax reform itself may be the search for a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly to the American people about the nation’s budget problems and the leadership skills to solve them.

There is a candidate with the political courage to speak frankly about our budget problems – his name is Ron Paul. They might decide to argue that he lacks the leadership skills to solve the problem but nobody can credibly argue that he lacks the political courage to speak frankly about it. I think that this is a debate we should have. Perhaps the New York Times could start it by hosting a debate or forum in which they could invite Dr. Paul to participate. They could also invite David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, who is also anything but timid in speaking about this subject. They can invite whoever they want to defend their positions where they obviously differ from these two men, but with their influence the debate would be hard to ignore once they got the ball rolling. We might even get all the candidates talking about it like they should be.

Tags economics, issues, media, New York Times, Ron Paul, taxes

culture

Liberty is the Priority

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Tags democracy, Elevated, Iraq, liberty, thoughts

National

A Lame Duck Can Bite Harder

Post author By David
Post date December 13, 2007
No Comments on A Lame Duck Can Bite Harder

As illustrated by the current budget standoff, an unpopular lame duck president has powers that often elude presidents earlier in their tenure. Prior to 2006 Bush never vetoed anything. Now he has no re-election to worry about so he has nothing to lose by vetoing every bill Congress sends that is not in line with what he wants. Eventually they have to override the veto or fall in line with his request.

Because his popularity is already low he does not have to worry about disappointing anyone by sticking to his favored position. By standing firm he takes the chance of raising his popularity. If that fails the other members of his party are already prepared to keep their distance from him. The odds are highly against this coming out good for the Democrats.

Tags Bush, economics, issues, vetoes

culture National

Media Outlets Are Focused On Future Business

Post author By David
Post date December 13, 2007
No Comments on Media Outlets Are Focused On Future Business

I’m not big on conspiracy theories nor do I subscribe to the belief that our elections are largely determined by the media so I don’t generally pay much attention to things like the dust-up between Huckabee and Romney. On the other hand I recognize that the media does have a good deal of influence on our culture and political discourse so I thought it would be worth posting this insight from when I was reading some of the recent Huckabee/Romney commentary.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the media does not care who wins the election. All they care about is having profitable stories to run during the campaign and for the months between presidential election cycles. To prove my point let me run through some stories about each of the front runners in both major parties that would be written if they win in November. (Notice that all but one of them were among the front runners last year.)

Rudy Giuliani –

- Mr. 9/11
- Where Did All the Social Conservatives Go (even cross-dressing and 3 messy marriages couldn’t stop him)

Hillary Clinton –

- Wife of Bill Clinton (gives 8 years of history against which to compare her every move)
- First Female President
- The Dynasty (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton) storyline

John McCain –

- The Comback Kid
- The Maverick

Barack Obama –

- First Black President (this is even easier to peddle with the public support of Oprah)
- New Kid in Politics

Mitt Romney –

- First Mormon President (overcame the anti-Mormon sentiment in the country)
- The Real Executive President (as opposed to GWB)

John Edwards –

- Five Years of Campaigning Paid Off
(notice that this weak storyline goes with the weakest of the 7 candidates)

Mike Huckabee –

- The Baptist Minister
- Second Man From Hope (just like Bill Clinton but they will focus more on the minister than the former governor because the former governor is just like Clinton, Bush, and Reagan before him)
- Anti-Mormons Control the GOP (that’s why they play up every religion question whether Huckabee or Romney believe they’re on the record or off)

If anyone thinks I’ve forgotten Fred Thompson among the front runners they should notice that almost nothing is said about him anymore outside of his schedule and where he sits in the polls. They thought he’d make a good story as the evangelicals flocked to him, then they discovered that there was not much real interest in him. This made Huckabee all the more attractive to write about once he started making a mark on the race.

Tags business, media, thoughts

culture State

More Is Not Always Better

In January I wrote my personal feelings about the value of all-day kindergarten. Today I learned a few things I didn’t know before. As a fan of irony I knew I would enjoy this when I read the opening:

All-day kindergarten sounds like a great opportunity. The teacher really gets to know your child, and how to help them learn. Your child gets enough hours in a learning environment to really absorb important skills. And, after all, kids are a lot smarter these days, so they are ready to get on with ‘real’ learning at a younger age.

Other good aspects of all-day kindergarten programs are not having to pay day-care costs for another year, and your little tired 5-year-old can just have his 1 p.m. melt-down at school, not at home. There are only 28 students in the class, so your kid will have plenty of attention. And don’t worry, the school will take care of teaching your child everything they need to know — you don’t have to worry about a thing.

The short takeaway list that should make you cautious of all-day kindergarten is this:

All-day kindergarten damages the academic performance of kids from middle- and upper-class homes
The Goldwater Institute found that there was no measurable impact on reading, math or language arts test scores by fifth grade of children who attended all-day kindergarten
All-day programs cost more

I should not take much observation to conclude that “most 5- to 6-year olds are not ready for a six to seven-and-a-half hour school day.” I think that those who push for all-day kindergarten are well-intentioned but I am confident that we would not want the social blow back that it is bound to bring. I think Ms. Herron got her conclusion just right:

In Utah, even kindergarten is optional — and with good reason. We shouldn’t push very young children to be in school all day at the expense of the family and playtime that makes childhood special.

Tags Education, kids, learning

State

This Should Tell Us Something

Post author By David
Post date December 12, 2007
3 Comments on This Should Tell Us Something

The idea that the government should be involved in my health care has always been disconcerting to me. When I read Health care: You can’t give it away I was not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Apparently the state CHIP program is losing more families than they are adding even as they expand their budget to cover more kids. So we’re paying more for a program that is covering fewer kids because people are actively opting out faster than they are opting in. I think that should be a big red flag.

That’s the part that made me want to laugh. The part that made me want to cry was:

Judi Hilman, director of the Utah Health Policy Project, said it’s going to take a “Herculean” effort to combat the stigma that has equated subsidized health care with welfare in Utah. . .

“We need a whole strategic marketing campaign to put these programs in a more positive light,” Hilman said.

If the programs are so good for people why do the people they are designed to help choose not to participate? Secondly, and more importantly, what gives anyone the right to insist that those who are leaving or choosing not to partake should be choosing differently?

Another sentence from Ms. Hilman leads to one more question:

“These programs are absolutely essential if they [low-income families] are going to become permanently self-sufficient.”

The question is – where’s your proof?

I have been uninsured with a family of 5 to take care of and I didn’t use CHIP nor would it have helped me become “permanently self-sufficient.” I don’t mean to say that the program is useless, but I do think her statement is based on a whole range of unfounded assumptions – the kind of assumptions that lead to larger and less efficient government dragging our society towards fiscal slavery.

Tags health care, issues, media, reactions

technology

Winning the Oil Endgame

Is there anyone who would not want to see our nation profitably end its dependence on foreign oil? I doubt that there is anyone like that (not counting the Saudis of course). If you are anything like me that idea – profitably ending our dependence – sounds like a fairytale but that is exactly what Winning the Oil Endgame is about. According to the book it is not only possible, but even relatively simple.

I learned about this through the video by one of the authors of the book (posted below) and my only two questions are – will we really do it? and is there a catch (such as did they account for the oil necessary to make the carbon-fiber materials referenced in this talk)?

Tags economics, environment

National

The FairTax

I began to take a closer look at the FairTax proposal because Mike Huckabee (currently the most visible supporter of the FairTax) is rising quickly in the polls and also because I have had some co-workers ask my opinion on the proposal. My immediate answer was, “I want more details.” I read two articles on the same day, one for and one against the FairTax, that helped me to clarify my position.

From Responding to still more absurd attacks on the FairTax I gathered the following:

Lambro is right in asserting that some people actually spend all of their earnings just buying the basic necessities of life. What Lambro obviously doesn’t understand is that under the FairTax every single legal household in this country would receive a check (probably in the form of a credit to a charge account or a debit card) every month equal to the amount of the FairTax which that family would be expected to pay on those necessities during the ensuing month. By way of example, using current poverty statistics the “prebate” for a household of four people would be $506.00 per month. Add that $506.00 to the fact that no household will see anything deducted from their checks for income taxes or for Social Security or Medicare taxes … and you see a substantial rise in real income for the very families that Donald Lambro was so concerned about; the poor and middle income. The president’s own tax reform commission stated that the FairTax was the only tax reform plan out there that would completely untax the poor (at the federal level). How does that square with Lambro’s dire warnings on the effect of the FairTax?

That is what immediately sounds appealing about the FairTax. There would be no taxing people and then giving money back (vouchers, credits, or deductions) based on activities we decide to subsidize. I’m not sure how it works out that, “You don’t pay any more for your toilet paper and milk than you do now,” if the government is still taking the same amount of money and we are getting more in our paycheck. I guess they expect that your toilet paper and milk type necessities will only cost as much in taxes as the prebate you receive each month.
Huck’s Daft Tax Plan made these points:

To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good luck. Huckabee’s magic wand will come in handy.

Then, there’s the rate of the sales tax. FairTaxers say that a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What they really are talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar — what most people would consider a 30 percent rate. The government would pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick “done solely to make revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are,” writes economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to go as high as 57 percent.

The tax would apply to everything, even medical expenses, so it would amount to an incredibly regressive tax on even the most necessary purchases of low- and middle-income taxpayers. The home mortgage deduction would be gone, and instead buyers would pay a 30 percent (at least) tax on their homes. To make up for this burden, the government would send monthly “prebate” checks to all Americans based on income. (And you thought our current tax scheme was complex?)

The addition of a sales tax and an income tax would be unwanted and I agree that repealing the 16th Amendment would not be easy, but if people were willing to pass the FairTax they would probably do so by setting income tax rates to 0% across the board. If the plan were successful for a few years I would think it would be easy to convince people to repeal the 16th Amendment.

The funny think about whatever rate the taxes would be set at is that the amount of money is not changing. If we are talking about replacing current revenues with the same level of revenue then whatever rate they establish is the same rate we are paying now, either by ourselves, or through increased costs for the goods we purchase. The only difference is who pays and when. The same holds true for the mortgage argument. If I am taxed at 30% on the interest of my mortgage payment that sounds bad, but right now I get taxed on my savings instead of my debt. The current system encourages debt. It appears that the FairTax would encourage savings (which would not be taxed). That seems to be a better system to me.

I like the idea of the FairTax, but I am under no illusions that it will make me wealthy overnight.

Tags issues, taxes

culture

Playoffs vs Bowl Games

Before the BCS pairings were even announced yesterday I heard people talking about how this year should be conclusive evidence that we need to have a playoff for the National Championship in NCAA Football. I disagree. I think that Mike Lopresti got it right (again):

So ends an entirely captivating, wildly absorbing, deliciously unpredictable college football regular season. And now at the finish, what do we see?

Controversy. Mayhem. Protests.

Ain’t it great?

Here comes the BCS bashing, clanging like cymbals in a band, guaranteeing peace in our time — if only there could be a playoff.

Yeah, right. Put eight teams in a playoff. One would have to be Georgia, of course. Hottest team at the end, and all that.

Now go tell that to Tennessee, who won the division that Georgia could not, and beat the Bulldogs head-to-head by three touchdowns. And what about Hawaii? You going to have eight teams in a playoff and leave out the only team in the land with a 12-0 record? Or 11-1 Kansas? Or Missouri, which somehow fell from No. 1 to the Cotton Bowl in 24 hours? Just a few of many dilemmas.

The howls can be heard, though, now that the bowl pairings are out.

THE SYSTEM DIDN’T GET IT RIGHT!

No it didn’t, because there is no right answer. Not for the BCS. Not for a playoff. Someone will always feel shafted. Someone will always have another case to make. There will always be politicking, because if you need two teams, you can’t pick three. And if you need eight, you can’t choose nine.

He missed one thing there – college athletes are not professionals. I know, they work as hard as the professionals (perhaps harder) but thankfully they are still expected to be students and do more than take the field for our entertainment. The fact that we have an imperfect BCS system means that we as fans get to participate in a much more animated discussion surrounding what is happening, right or wrong, in college football. The fact that we don’t have a fool-proof way to declare a champion every year might serve to remind us that there is more to life than sports – no matter how entertaining those sports may be.

Let’s not ruin that by throwing together an imperfect playoff system that would concentrate more money in the big name leagues than we already have and give us the false sense that we really were getting the right champion every time. We’ll never be able to get a football playoff large enough (like the 65-team March Madness) so that the schools at the bottom of the pool will prove each year that while they might surprise us they still never win it all. Each time the lowest seeded team wins we have to wonder why not number 9, or 17, or 66?

Let’s just admit that the system is imperfect but the goal is entertainment, not clarity.

Tags entertainment, football, sports

life

Exercise Your Voting Muscles

Post author By David
Post date December 3, 2007
No Comments on Exercise Your Voting Muscles

I discovered Bob’s straw poll on the presidential candidates yesterday. Bob made the poll to serve two purposes but I am linking to it for one purpose – I like the fact that all 18 candidates who are registered for the Utah primaries are included in the poll and I would love to see the results of as large a sample of voters as possible.

Just before I went to post this I was reminded that the voting is closing today to elect an advisory board for the Utah Bloghive (I’m one of the candidates there). So go get some practice for February 5th by making some judgment calls among two groups of candidates today.

Advisory Board (closes Monday 12/3)
Straw Poll (closes Friday 12/7)

Tags poll, voting