I don't know what I find more disturbing;
The tragic terroristic assault in Mumbai or......
the trampling to death of a Walmart employee by customers seeking bargain prices on worthless shit.....
.... the day after Thanksgiving.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Why Politicians Betray Their Promises
The ‘Myth of the Rational Voter’ by Bryan Caplan offers an enlightening explanation of our political reality.
1. Unlike market behavior voting behavior is irrational because the cost of being irrational is low. Unlike your decision on how to spend your money the impact of your decision on how you vote is largely born by someone else. The actual impact of a single vote is small. You in a sense get the pleasure of a short term indulgence and the longer term cost is largely born by others.
2. The average voter underestimates the benefits of free markets and free trade and overestimates the positive impact of government programs. The average voter is ignorant of the current budget, overestimating the portion spent on foreign aid and welfare and underestimating the portion spent on defense and Social Security. The average voter thinks corporate and business profits are much larger than they are.
3. To get elected the politicians must pander to the wishes and perception of an ignorant voter. Yet to stay in office a leader must deliver a sound economy, and to do so requires actions contrary to those promised to get elected. The voters ask for policies they really do not want.
4. The painful but usually effective solutions (in the long run) can be executed by a cabinet or bureaucratic officials, somewhat sparing the elected official from the charge of ignoring the popular (but often wrong) desired policy or will.
5. Lawyers make effective politicians because they are trained to argue a position regardless of its merit. Economic principles that offer real solutions are complicated and the people most knowledgeable on the subject are poor at teaching and convincing the voting public. Policy wonks rarely get elected.
1. Unlike market behavior voting behavior is irrational because the cost of being irrational is low. Unlike your decision on how to spend your money the impact of your decision on how you vote is largely born by someone else. The actual impact of a single vote is small. You in a sense get the pleasure of a short term indulgence and the longer term cost is largely born by others.
2. The average voter underestimates the benefits of free markets and free trade and overestimates the positive impact of government programs. The average voter is ignorant of the current budget, overestimating the portion spent on foreign aid and welfare and underestimating the portion spent on defense and Social Security. The average voter thinks corporate and business profits are much larger than they are.
3. To get elected the politicians must pander to the wishes and perception of an ignorant voter. Yet to stay in office a leader must deliver a sound economy, and to do so requires actions contrary to those promised to get elected. The voters ask for policies they really do not want.
4. The painful but usually effective solutions (in the long run) can be executed by a cabinet or bureaucratic officials, somewhat sparing the elected official from the charge of ignoring the popular (but often wrong) desired policy or will.
5. Lawyers make effective politicians because they are trained to argue a position regardless of its merit. Economic principles that offer real solutions are complicated and the people most knowledgeable on the subject are poor at teaching and convincing the voting public. Policy wonks rarely get elected.
Fragmented Republicans
The Republicans have been so dismembered that they will have little influence on Obama’s administration. He will likely find his real opponents within this own party.
When Clinton was first elected the party pushed too far left, primarily with Hillary Health care and other issues such as gays in this military. It quickly cost them control of the Congress. Consolidation of Obama’s power base may require him to use him new power to constrain his own party.
The Republicans are fragmented. There is the religious right/ pro life part of the party; there is the free market solutions segment; there is the fiscally conservative yet still somewhat authoritarian segment; and there is the neoconservative/ world police segment whose mission is to avert the next Hitler.
Many generally conservative voters have a problem with one or more of these segments of the Republican Party. If the Democrats could shed the tax and spend label and become the party of fiscal responsibility they could rule for decades.
When Clinton was first elected the party pushed too far left, primarily with Hillary Health care and other issues such as gays in this military. It quickly cost them control of the Congress. Consolidation of Obama’s power base may require him to use him new power to constrain his own party.
The Republicans are fragmented. There is the religious right/ pro life part of the party; there is the free market solutions segment; there is the fiscally conservative yet still somewhat authoritarian segment; and there is the neoconservative/ world police segment whose mission is to avert the next Hitler.
Many generally conservative voters have a problem with one or more of these segments of the Republican Party. If the Democrats could shed the tax and spend label and become the party of fiscal responsibility they could rule for decades.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tough Choices
The challenge to controlling health care cost is whether you can control cost without reducing choice. That is what sunk Hillary Care.
If government wants to provide a benefit it should actually pay the cost. By forcing health care providers to take low reimbursements the providers must shift cost to the paying customers and it inflates their costs.
If government intends to provide health care to the lower income then it must make a choice how much care to provide- they will have to allocate the cost to the most necessary coverage and perhaps not include dental, psychological, cosmetic, or even life saving treatments with relatively low success rates.
Yes they will have to make life and death decisions.
For some reason in health care we believe that reducing choice lowers costs. This does not hold true in any other sector of the economy and it does not hold true in health care either.
One way to lower health care costs is for government to actually fund the commitments it has already made. A second is to return control of their health care costs to the individuals. Tax deductible Health Savings Accounts is a good start, but this option is very new and is only catching on so far with the upper income. It needs time to grow,
Employers and insurance companies have come between the individual health care consumer and their provider. Replacing this third party with a government bureaucracy will not improve the situation. It will just replace the higher costs with rationing; lowering choice and quality.
If government wants to provide a benefit it should actually pay the cost. By forcing health care providers to take low reimbursements the providers must shift cost to the paying customers and it inflates their costs.
If government intends to provide health care to the lower income then it must make a choice how much care to provide- they will have to allocate the cost to the most necessary coverage and perhaps not include dental, psychological, cosmetic, or even life saving treatments with relatively low success rates.
Yes they will have to make life and death decisions.
For some reason in health care we believe that reducing choice lowers costs. This does not hold true in any other sector of the economy and it does not hold true in health care either.
One way to lower health care costs is for government to actually fund the commitments it has already made. A second is to return control of their health care costs to the individuals. Tax deductible Health Savings Accounts is a good start, but this option is very new and is only catching on so far with the upper income. It needs time to grow,
Employers and insurance companies have come between the individual health care consumer and their provider. Replacing this third party with a government bureaucracy will not improve the situation. It will just replace the higher costs with rationing; lowering choice and quality.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Affluent Deprivation
In the November 10, 2008 Newsweek, economist Robert Samuelson describes the economic shift with the phrase “affluent deprivation”. Income gains will be modest and largely siphoned by increases in taxes, energy costs, and health care spending.
Growth which was largely taken for granted will be pressured. Thoughts on how to divide the pie may take precedence on how to grow the pie.
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are now 2/5 of out bloated budget.
The strain on these commitments with a low birthrate and an aging population is enormous and the solutions are almost inevitable, regardless of party philosophy.
I have contended for years that the social security retirement age will be raised, and that these social benefits will be means tested. If you are fortunate enough to still have a large 401k balance when you retire, your social security will adjust downward.
The affluent elderly will have to pay more for medical procedures that the lower income.
It does not matter if you call this a tax increase on the rich, or a betrayal of the government trust, the fact is that our government has been making a promise that they can not keep. We can not raise taxes enough to cover the bill and we can not likely grow out of the predicament either. These steps will be inevitable.
Both parties have refused to address this for decades
Growth which was largely taken for granted will be pressured. Thoughts on how to divide the pie may take precedence on how to grow the pie.
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are now 2/5 of out bloated budget.
The strain on these commitments with a low birthrate and an aging population is enormous and the solutions are almost inevitable, regardless of party philosophy.
I have contended for years that the social security retirement age will be raised, and that these social benefits will be means tested. If you are fortunate enough to still have a large 401k balance when you retire, your social security will adjust downward.
The affluent elderly will have to pay more for medical procedures that the lower income.
It does not matter if you call this a tax increase on the rich, or a betrayal of the government trust, the fact is that our government has been making a promise that they can not keep. We can not raise taxes enough to cover the bill and we can not likely grow out of the predicament either. These steps will be inevitable.
Both parties have refused to address this for decades
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Production vs. Consumption
The biggest difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in economic policy is the difference in emphasis between production and consumption.
Congress is considering another series of ‘stimulation’ packages designed to deliver money into the hands of consumers. They believe they will spend the money and it will stimulate further economic growth. During the last stimulation package Hillary Clinton stated that the money should be given to poor people because they will spend it, while the rich would save or invest the money.
One reason the poor are poor is because they will not save. Hillary’s comment was insulting, but the idea that the Congress can control the economy and stimulate by just throwing the money around is inherently arrogant and false.
First of all to give the money to one person they must take it from someone else. So the net spending gain is zero. To finance this with debt, which is what they do, they must add interest which will eventually draw money from the economy when it needs to be repaid.
Secondly a stimulus package is a very short term solution to a long term problem. No one will tool up for a single shot of money because they know it will not be repeated. I will not stock an item that one customer bought one time.
Growing the economy requires a consistent growth of spending power that will not come from junkie like financial fixes from Congress. It will come from increasing production. This requires capital forming policies that encourage the free flow of capital and risk.
This means low capital gains taxes and low corporate taxes. The Republicans believe that stimulating production, buying machinery and assets that increase employment and production will stimulate new jobs that provide the steady flow of consumption that further stimulates the economy. The Democrats deride this contemptuously as ‘trickle down economics.’ I just call it economic reality; especially in a world where the competition for capital does not stop at our borders.
The Democrats in Congress engaged in the class warfare economic model deride capital formation policies as ‘give a ways’ to the rich, but unless this risk is rewarded we will see less of it.
If the boat is sinking it doesn’t make any difference which end sprung the leak.
Congress is considering another series of ‘stimulation’ packages designed to deliver money into the hands of consumers. They believe they will spend the money and it will stimulate further economic growth. During the last stimulation package Hillary Clinton stated that the money should be given to poor people because they will spend it, while the rich would save or invest the money.
One reason the poor are poor is because they will not save. Hillary’s comment was insulting, but the idea that the Congress can control the economy and stimulate by just throwing the money around is inherently arrogant and false.
First of all to give the money to one person they must take it from someone else. So the net spending gain is zero. To finance this with debt, which is what they do, they must add interest which will eventually draw money from the economy when it needs to be repaid.
Secondly a stimulus package is a very short term solution to a long term problem. No one will tool up for a single shot of money because they know it will not be repeated. I will not stock an item that one customer bought one time.
Growing the economy requires a consistent growth of spending power that will not come from junkie like financial fixes from Congress. It will come from increasing production. This requires capital forming policies that encourage the free flow of capital and risk.
This means low capital gains taxes and low corporate taxes. The Republicans believe that stimulating production, buying machinery and assets that increase employment and production will stimulate new jobs that provide the steady flow of consumption that further stimulates the economy. The Democrats deride this contemptuously as ‘trickle down economics.’ I just call it economic reality; especially in a world where the competition for capital does not stop at our borders.
The Democrats in Congress engaged in the class warfare economic model deride capital formation policies as ‘give a ways’ to the rich, but unless this risk is rewarded we will see less of it.
If the boat is sinking it doesn’t make any difference which end sprung the leak.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Most Progressive Tax Country Is ....
Taxes: A Fair Share for All
America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it.
By Jonah Goldberg
from National Review Online
excerpts
It was, after all, Teddy Roosevelt — McCain’s hero — who introduced the progressive income tax for precisely the purpose of spreading the wealth around. The maverick’s campaign saddlebags are heavy with redistribution policies that redistribute wealth as well.
I still believe that redistribution for its own sake is little more than institutionalized covetousness. But that’s a subject for another day. What was left out of the national tax conversation was the reality of the situation: America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it. In fact, we’re one of the most progressive countries in the world in this regard.
Either way, the U.S. tax code is a lot more progressive than you might think. A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.” Our tax system is, in fact, the most “pro-poor,” according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country’s save Ireland. That’s right, we’re more progressive than France and Sweden.
The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.
America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it.
By Jonah Goldberg
from National Review Online
excerpts
It was, after all, Teddy Roosevelt — McCain’s hero — who introduced the progressive income tax for precisely the purpose of spreading the wealth around. The maverick’s campaign saddlebags are heavy with redistribution policies that redistribute wealth as well.
I still believe that redistribution for its own sake is little more than institutionalized covetousness. But that’s a subject for another day. What was left out of the national tax conversation was the reality of the situation: America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it. In fact, we’re one of the most progressive countries in the world in this regard.
Either way, the U.S. tax code is a lot more progressive than you might think. A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.” Our tax system is, in fact, the most “pro-poor,” according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country’s save Ireland. That’s right, we’re more progressive than France and Sweden.
The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Ignorant Critique
from the speech by Michael Mukasey at the Federalist Society just before he passed out and was taken to a hospital (he is fine.)
as reported in James Taranto in the WSJ
Earlier this year, the head of a legal organization that prides itself on what it calls its "nonpartisan approach to the law" gave a speech condemning what he called "the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty." According to this person, we live now in a--"time of repression" where the "word 'Patriot' names a statute that stifles liberty," and where we face "assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions." You can practically hear the rumble of tanks in the background.
It is interesting--and telling--that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things--provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read--but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.
Also completely absent from these remarks, and from many remarks like it, is any fair appraisal of the legal issues actually involved or an acknowledgement of the difficulty or novelty of the legal questions confronted by the administration lawyers who made these decisions.
as reported in James Taranto in the WSJ
Earlier this year, the head of a legal organization that prides itself on what it calls its "nonpartisan approach to the law" gave a speech condemning what he called "the oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty." According to this person, we live now in a--"time of repression" where the "word 'Patriot' names a statute that stifles liberty," and where we face "assaults by our government on constitutional rights, the Separation of Powers, and the Geneva Conventions." You can practically hear the rumble of tanks in the background.
It is interesting--and telling--that even in the published, written version of these remarks by a lawyer, the references and footnotes are not to statutory texts, the Constitution, treaties, or laws. Instead, the author relied on such authorities as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. This style of criticism can be called many things--provocative perhaps, or evidence that the author could be regarded by some as well-read--but what it cannot be called is a reasoned legal critique.
Also completely absent from these remarks, and from many remarks like it, is any fair appraisal of the legal issues actually involved or an acknowledgement of the difficulty or novelty of the legal questions confronted by the administration lawyers who made these decisions.
Rational Ignorance
Voters act rationally in markets. They will research and study purchases and trading partners that will have an impact on their satisfaction with the decision. When a consumer buys a car they probably know the horsepower, the mileage and can recite the safety features. The benefits and the costs are internal and they bear the burdens and the fruits of their decisions.
Yet when making political decisions the voters may choose to be rationally ignorant; believing that the costs associated with being better informed are not justified by the benefits. They may also be rationally irrational; when the cost of being irrational is so low that they may make an irrational decision with some short term or specious benefit.
In his famous Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville noted that while the new Americans would spend painstaking time and effort to analyze situations of trade that they would quickly accept precepts of politics and philosophy (or religion). Modern politics and issues such as environmentalism has become more like religion where beliefs in dogma are expected and logic and skeptics are treated as heretics.
This makes the case for market solutions over political solutions to reflect the people’s will. It also explains how marketing is outweighing substance in political campaigns.
The concept of the ‘rationally ignorant’ and the ‘rationally irrational’ is from “The Myth of the Rational Voter” by Bryan Caplan.
Yet when making political decisions the voters may choose to be rationally ignorant; believing that the costs associated with being better informed are not justified by the benefits. They may also be rationally irrational; when the cost of being irrational is so low that they may make an irrational decision with some short term or specious benefit.
In his famous Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville noted that while the new Americans would spend painstaking time and effort to analyze situations of trade that they would quickly accept precepts of politics and philosophy (or religion). Modern politics and issues such as environmentalism has become more like religion where beliefs in dogma are expected and logic and skeptics are treated as heretics.
This makes the case for market solutions over political solutions to reflect the people’s will. It also explains how marketing is outweighing substance in political campaigns.
The concept of the ‘rationally ignorant’ and the ‘rationally irrational’ is from “The Myth of the Rational Voter” by Bryan Caplan.
How to Be a Beacon
From Peggy Noonan’s “Patriotic Grace”
It would be good to have the most visible symbols of our country, the President and the Congress, be clean. So often they seem not to be. They seem scandal-ridden, or an embarrassment, or seem in the eyes of the world to be bought and paid for by special interests or unions or industries or professions. Whether you are a liberal or conservative, you agree it is important that the world be impressed by America’s leaders, by their high mindedness and integrity. Leaders who are not dragged through the mud because they actually don’t bring much mud with them.
To be a beacon is to speak softly to the world, with dignity, with elegance if you can manage it, or simply good natured courtesy if you can’t. A superpower should never shout , never bray, “We’re number one!” If you’re number one, you don’t have to .
To be a beacon is to have a democracy in which issues of actual import are regularly debated.
It would be good to have the most visible symbols of our country, the President and the Congress, be clean. So often they seem not to be. They seem scandal-ridden, or an embarrassment, or seem in the eyes of the world to be bought and paid for by special interests or unions or industries or professions. Whether you are a liberal or conservative, you agree it is important that the world be impressed by America’s leaders, by their high mindedness and integrity. Leaders who are not dragged through the mud because they actually don’t bring much mud with them.
To be a beacon is to speak softly to the world, with dignity, with elegance if you can manage it, or simply good natured courtesy if you can’t. A superpower should never shout , never bray, “We’re number one!” If you’re number one, you don’t have to .
To be a beacon is to have a democracy in which issues of actual import are regularly debated.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Sacred Deduction
The home mortgage interest deduction is one of those sacred cows of the tax code. It is almost as sacred as not taxing church property. Yet it is one of the most regressive of taxes. Richer people in the highest brackets with the largest houses and the largest mortgages get the biggest dollar break.
Expect to see a cap on the mortgage interest deduction in the new administration. The real estate industry will howl that this will keep downward prices on the housing industry that desperately needs to recover.
I would not mind seeing a cap on the exemption for church property as well.
Expect to see a cap on the mortgage interest deduction in the new administration. The real estate industry will howl that this will keep downward prices on the housing industry that desperately needs to recover.
I would not mind seeing a cap on the exemption for church property as well.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Why Your Employer Buys Your Health Care Insureance
World War II created health insurance perk
from
Ron French / The Detroit News
The fact that GM pays anything for health care is an accident of history.
By the 1940s, health care costs in most industrialized nations were paid by the government.
That might have happened in the United States, too, if not for World War II.
To halt inflation during the war, the government put a cap on wage raises. To compensate workers, companies began offering health insurance.
By the time the cap on raises was lifted, health insurance had become a common perk to attract and retain workers.
In 1950, GM President Charles Wilson offered to pay 50 percent of the health care costs of his employees. Walter Reuther, national president of the United Auto Workers, initially resisted, believing the cost should be spread across many companies or across the nation, according to a biography of the union organizer.
Reuther gave in, and GM entered the health care business.
In 1961, retirees were included. Three years later, the company began paying 100 percent of health care bills for workers and retirees.
Today, the United States is the only industrialized country in which most health care is paid for by employers.
Tips to college buddy Bob Cain.
HKO Comments- few people realize this and therefore see the government as the only option for our health care problems in spite of the fact that few would freely choose the government plans such as VA or Medicaid that we now have. The answer is to get business out of the picture and put individuals in charge.
Government wants to provide the benefit but they do not want to pay for it. The result is the Medicare strongarm technique that forces providers to drop prices so low that it only shifts the costs to the paying patients. The result of making this technique system wide is to reduce choice and quality. In a private market you could choose this option but in a government controlled market this will forced on all of us.
from
Ron French / The Detroit News
The fact that GM pays anything for health care is an accident of history.
By the 1940s, health care costs in most industrialized nations were paid by the government.
That might have happened in the United States, too, if not for World War II.
To halt inflation during the war, the government put a cap on wage raises. To compensate workers, companies began offering health insurance.
By the time the cap on raises was lifted, health insurance had become a common perk to attract and retain workers.
In 1950, GM President Charles Wilson offered to pay 50 percent of the health care costs of his employees. Walter Reuther, national president of the United Auto Workers, initially resisted, believing the cost should be spread across many companies or across the nation, according to a biography of the union organizer.
Reuther gave in, and GM entered the health care business.
In 1961, retirees were included. Three years later, the company began paying 100 percent of health care bills for workers and retirees.
Today, the United States is the only industrialized country in which most health care is paid for by employers.
Tips to college buddy Bob Cain.
HKO Comments- few people realize this and therefore see the government as the only option for our health care problems in spite of the fact that few would freely choose the government plans such as VA or Medicaid that we now have. The answer is to get business out of the picture and put individuals in charge.
Government wants to provide the benefit but they do not want to pay for it. The result is the Medicare strongarm technique that forces providers to drop prices so low that it only shifts the costs to the paying patients. The result of making this technique system wide is to reduce choice and quality. In a private market you could choose this option but in a government controlled market this will forced on all of us.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Is A Bailout The Only Solution?
I think the voting populace are so very dissappointed with the recent results of the bailout of the financial system that they are even more reluctant to bailout the big US auto makers.
We heard that the bailout of the financial players was necessary to keep the economy from a meltdown. Since the bailout we have seen a 30% drop in the Dow and a comensurate drop in investor's 401k's and investment accounts. Unemployement is growing rapidly and car sales and other credit dependent purchase are at record lows.
The automobile manufacturers are crippled by CAFE regulations, UAW benefits and pay, a bloated dealership system, and other excesses. It needs a total restructure that will happen much more effectively with a bankruptcy than with a bailout.
The public has little sympathy for another industry where the bailout will maintain pay and benefits far in excess of what most of the voters get. The public had little or questionable support for the first bailout; they have even less for this one.
The new regime is likely more interested in bailing out the union that the companies. By letting the companies go bankrupt; the company can suspend the contracts.
I hope Bush passes on any temptation to bail out the auto workers. He certainly has nothing to gain politically by doing so.
Expect Obama and Biden to honor their commitment to the unions very soon after inauguration.
We heard that the bailout of the financial players was necessary to keep the economy from a meltdown. Since the bailout we have seen a 30% drop in the Dow and a comensurate drop in investor's 401k's and investment accounts. Unemployement is growing rapidly and car sales and other credit dependent purchase are at record lows.
The automobile manufacturers are crippled by CAFE regulations, UAW benefits and pay, a bloated dealership system, and other excesses. It needs a total restructure that will happen much more effectively with a bankruptcy than with a bailout.
The public has little sympathy for another industry where the bailout will maintain pay and benefits far in excess of what most of the voters get. The public had little or questionable support for the first bailout; they have even less for this one.
The new regime is likely more interested in bailing out the union that the companies. By letting the companies go bankrupt; the company can suspend the contracts.
I hope Bush passes on any temptation to bail out the auto workers. He certainly has nothing to gain politically by doing so.
Expect Obama and Biden to honor their commitment to the unions very soon after inauguration.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Moving Center
The Libertarian Party had its roots in the Nixon Administration, in what many considered Nixon’s betrayal of the Goldwater Conservative values. His effort to combat the effects of inflation with wage and price controls indicated that he had limited faith in free market principles and sound money policies. His actions at Watergate showed contempt for the law he was supposed to uphold.
The growth of the religious right in the Republican Party also concerned Goldwater and continues to alienate many conservatives from the party. But the center is a moving center. Both the Democrats and the Evangelical right is moving closer to the center, leaving the Republicans weaker than it has been since Reagan.
The party needs new leadership. It should both rediscover its roots and address the changes that have already occurred.
The growth of the religious right in the Republican Party also concerned Goldwater and continues to alienate many conservatives from the party. But the center is a moving center. Both the Democrats and the Evangelical right is moving closer to the center, leaving the Republicans weaker than it has been since Reagan.
The party needs new leadership. It should both rediscover its roots and address the changes that have already occurred.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sunnis and Shias in Iran
Sunnis believe that we know the succession of Mohammed therefore religious leaders should function in government.
Shiites believe that the rightful successor to Mohamemd is yet to come and therefore no religious leader should sit in a positon of government power. This is why Shiite leaders in Iraq do not participate in Parliament.
But this Shiite position broke down in Iran when Khomeini took over in 1979. He not only thought religious leaders should be allowed to govern, he considered it mandatory.
While they have a theological disagreement the Sunnis and Shiites have been able to work together since the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. Arafat was a Sunni and trained the early Iranian Revolutionary Guard which is largely Shiite. The two groups also worked together to overthrow the Shah.
Those who claim that Sunnis and Shias can not work togther ignore the reality on the ground.
Info above paraphrased from "Understanding Iran" by Michale Ledeen written int the Hillsdale College - Imprimis.
Shiites believe that the rightful successor to Mohamemd is yet to come and therefore no religious leader should sit in a positon of government power. This is why Shiite leaders in Iraq do not participate in Parliament.
But this Shiite position broke down in Iran when Khomeini took over in 1979. He not only thought religious leaders should be allowed to govern, he considered it mandatory.
While they have a theological disagreement the Sunnis and Shiites have been able to work together since the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. Arafat was a Sunni and trained the early Iranian Revolutionary Guard which is largely Shiite. The two groups also worked together to overthrow the Shah.
Those who claim that Sunnis and Shias can not work togther ignore the reality on the ground.
Info above paraphrased from "Understanding Iran" by Michale Ledeen written int the Hillsdale College - Imprimis.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Republican Salvation
There are many conservative thinkers who do not call themselves Republicans because of the over weighted influence of the religious right in the party. If the Republicans are ever going to regain a position of power they must neutralize that influence.
The religious right makes litmus test decisions on abortion, public display of the Ten Commandments, and such issues as school prayer. As the Democrats have moved slightly right the efforts of the religious right have damaged their flagship Republican Party. The result is that they now have little power.
Whenever they proclaim we are a Christian nation they drive away more than just Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists (17% of the population). They drive away many Christian sects who fear that one Christian religious group will infringe on another.
The 15th and 16th century in Europe saw great hostility and violence between Christian sects in Europe. Many of them came here to escape prosecution from other Christian sects in Europe.
We forget how Kennedy’s election surprised those who thought we would never elect a Catholic president.
When they proclaim we are a Christian nation we risk alienating a world that is not Christian. Our tendency to be ethnocentric (a very descriptive word) isolates us in the eyes of the world and neutralizes our influence.
The Republican Party must stand for the freedom AND the respect of all religions and sects or they will not stand at all.
When Colin Powell explained his endorsement of Obama he referred to Republican leaders who expressed fear that Obama was a Muslim, even though the candidate denied it repeatedly. Instead of explaining whether it was true, Powell noted, “we should have asked why that even mattered.”
To many on the religious right abortion is the litmus test issue. To many of the left it is also a driving concern. Yet I believe that 75% of the voters are pro choice, making that a losing issue for Republicans. But many of those who are pro choice would choose against abortion in their own life, but still abhor the government’s involvement in that deeply personal and private decision. It is a battle with a better chance of success from the pulpit than from the ballot box.
Goldwater feared the influence of the religious right on his party and while he opposed abortion, he felt like the government should have no place in that decision (up to point. I doubt he would have dreamed that a partial birth abortion would have ever been considered.)
I think the Republican’s salvation is to return to the Goldwater roots.
The religious right makes litmus test decisions on abortion, public display of the Ten Commandments, and such issues as school prayer. As the Democrats have moved slightly right the efforts of the religious right have damaged their flagship Republican Party. The result is that they now have little power.
Whenever they proclaim we are a Christian nation they drive away more than just Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists (17% of the population). They drive away many Christian sects who fear that one Christian religious group will infringe on another.
The 15th and 16th century in Europe saw great hostility and violence between Christian sects in Europe. Many of them came here to escape prosecution from other Christian sects in Europe.
We forget how Kennedy’s election surprised those who thought we would never elect a Catholic president.
When they proclaim we are a Christian nation we risk alienating a world that is not Christian. Our tendency to be ethnocentric (a very descriptive word) isolates us in the eyes of the world and neutralizes our influence.
The Republican Party must stand for the freedom AND the respect of all religions and sects or they will not stand at all.
When Colin Powell explained his endorsement of Obama he referred to Republican leaders who expressed fear that Obama was a Muslim, even though the candidate denied it repeatedly. Instead of explaining whether it was true, Powell noted, “we should have asked why that even mattered.”
To many on the religious right abortion is the litmus test issue. To many of the left it is also a driving concern. Yet I believe that 75% of the voters are pro choice, making that a losing issue for Republicans. But many of those who are pro choice would choose against abortion in their own life, but still abhor the government’s involvement in that deeply personal and private decision. It is a battle with a better chance of success from the pulpit than from the ballot box.
Goldwater feared the influence of the religious right on his party and while he opposed abortion, he felt like the government should have no place in that decision (up to point. I doubt he would have dreamed that a partial birth abortion would have ever been considered.)
I think the Republican’s salvation is to return to the Goldwater roots.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Bourne is the New Bond
The new James Bond movie is a real dud. During the opening theme song I turned to my wife and noted "This song really sucks". Nothing memorable like 'Goldfinger' by Shirly Bassy, 'You Only Live Twice' by Nancy Sinatra, 'Live and Let Die' by Paul McCartney, 0r even 'A View to a Kill' by Duran Duran.
It was noteworthy that the Bond gadgets were gone. No special high tech toys in the good guy's aresenal. No specially equipped brief case with hidden knives, no dart ejecting cigarettes, no specially magnetic watches, no car with ejector seats, oil spewing defense mechanisms, and machine guns behind the head lights.
But what was most missing were Bond quality villains. There was no plot to take over the world's gold supply like 'Goldfinger', destroy the human species and restart a master race in outer space as in 'Moonraker', black mail the western powers with stolen nuclear weapons like 'Thunderball', or destroy Silicon Valley and monoplolize the computer chip industry like 'A View to a Kill.'
In Quantum of Solace there is a weasel who threatens the head of Bolivia with overthrow if he does not buy the country's water supply from his monoploy. Instead of real villains with real evil this Bond fights amoral CIA hacks and greedy businessmen.
This Bond seems to try and copy the Bourne series with explosive fighting and jarring car chase scenes. Even Bond himself becomes a rogue agent like Bourne.
There is one bad ripoff when a Bond sex object is drowned in oil and her dead black shining body left on his bed, reminiscencent of Goldfinger.
Bourne is the new Bond.
It was noteworthy that the Bond gadgets were gone. No special high tech toys in the good guy's aresenal. No specially equipped brief case with hidden knives, no dart ejecting cigarettes, no specially magnetic watches, no car with ejector seats, oil spewing defense mechanisms, and machine guns behind the head lights.
But what was most missing were Bond quality villains. There was no plot to take over the world's gold supply like 'Goldfinger', destroy the human species and restart a master race in outer space as in 'Moonraker', black mail the western powers with stolen nuclear weapons like 'Thunderball', or destroy Silicon Valley and monoplolize the computer chip industry like 'A View to a Kill.'
In Quantum of Solace there is a weasel who threatens the head of Bolivia with overthrow if he does not buy the country's water supply from his monoploy. Instead of real villains with real evil this Bond fights amoral CIA hacks and greedy businessmen.
This Bond seems to try and copy the Bourne series with explosive fighting and jarring car chase scenes. Even Bond himself becomes a rogue agent like Bourne.
There is one bad ripoff when a Bond sex object is drowned in oil and her dead black shining body left on his bed, reminiscencent of Goldfinger.
Bourne is the new Bond.
The Capital Gains Dilemma
There is a fairness issue to many in the capital gains tax. Earned income may be subject to a total of over 50% in tax when you include federal and state, Medicare and social security (both portions). Yet a wealthy person may make all of his money on capital gains and pay only 15%. It is hard to argue that this is fair or just.
Yet high capital gains taxes locks up capital. Investors will avoid paying the tax by deferring the liquidation of one stock to buy another. Both Clinton and Bush understood this, lowered capital gains rates and saw revenues in dollars increase as a result of lowering the capital gains rate.
Even Charlie Gibson noted this in his interview with Obama, and such economic understanding is unusually rare in the press corps.
Furthermore other countries with much lower capital gains rates may attract investment capital from high tax countries; China’s capital gains tax rate is zero.
So how do we balance the desire for fairness without a negative impact on the revenue dollars?
One idea is a progressive capital gains rate. Perhaps the first $100,000 would be taxed at a zero rate and the rest would be taxed at 20-25%, higher than the current rate. With this plan a retired couple would get a tax break who is living on such investment return, but the really super wealthy ( million dollars in income and higher) would pay a capital gains rate a little closer to earned income. This does not address the issue of competitive capital flow, and large incomes may still go to places with lower capital gains rates.
Another idea is to increase the required holding period or stagger it. Perhaps you would be required to hold for one year to get a 25% capital gains tax rate, but you could get a 10% tax rate for holding equity for 5 years. This would still impede capital flows more than the current system but it would create a much longer term outlook that would be much more beneficial that our short term horizons that place a greater emphasis on chance than on performance.
A combination of both may achieve a good balance.
The current debate is framed in terms of class warfare. We need an intelligent discussion considering what is fair AND what is effective.
Yet high capital gains taxes locks up capital. Investors will avoid paying the tax by deferring the liquidation of one stock to buy another. Both Clinton and Bush understood this, lowered capital gains rates and saw revenues in dollars increase as a result of lowering the capital gains rate.
Even Charlie Gibson noted this in his interview with Obama, and such economic understanding is unusually rare in the press corps.
Furthermore other countries with much lower capital gains rates may attract investment capital from high tax countries; China’s capital gains tax rate is zero.
So how do we balance the desire for fairness without a negative impact on the revenue dollars?
One idea is a progressive capital gains rate. Perhaps the first $100,000 would be taxed at a zero rate and the rest would be taxed at 20-25%, higher than the current rate. With this plan a retired couple would get a tax break who is living on such investment return, but the really super wealthy ( million dollars in income and higher) would pay a capital gains rate a little closer to earned income. This does not address the issue of competitive capital flow, and large incomes may still go to places with lower capital gains rates.
Another idea is to increase the required holding period or stagger it. Perhaps you would be required to hold for one year to get a 25% capital gains tax rate, but you could get a 10% tax rate for holding equity for 5 years. This would still impede capital flows more than the current system but it would create a much longer term outlook that would be much more beneficial that our short term horizons that place a greater emphasis on chance than on performance.
A combination of both may achieve a good balance.
The current debate is framed in terms of class warfare. We need an intelligent discussion considering what is fair AND what is effective.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Dictatorship of the Retarded
From Peggy Noonan’s “Patriotic Grace”
I spoke about two years ago with a network producer, an old warhorse who was trying to explain his frustration at the current ratings race. He wrestled around the subject, and I leaned in with blunt words.
“You mean it’s gone from the dictatorship of a liberal elite to the dictatorship of the retarded.”
I spoke about two years ago with a network producer, an old warhorse who was trying to explain his frustration at the current ratings race. He wrestled around the subject, and I leaned in with blunt words.
“You mean it’s gone from the dictatorship of a liberal elite to the dictatorship of the retarded.”
Friday, November 14, 2008
Universal Competence
"[A]ccording to The Huffington Post, Obama's lack of experience is immune from criticism because he attended Ivy League schools, was a serious and successful student, is a well-traveled, published author, and has a diverse background. Heck, he's me! Yet, in every one of my encounters with America's rural communities, the diversity of my privileged experience was eclipsed by the depth of theirs. I had rhetoric; they had well-measured speech, punctuated by forbearing silences. I had easy answers; they knew there was no such thing. It is not that the Republican base is anti-intellectual, as David Broder claims; they are anti-elitist. An Ivy League education is hardly a universal signal of competence in anything other than the liberal cultural canon " -- Joan Chevalier, a New York City speechwriter and essayist, writing in the Boston Globe.
as told in the WSJ Political Diary
as told in the WSJ Political Diary
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Scrap as a Forecaster
We have two companies. One Macon Iron primarily process scrap metal and the other General Steel, sells and fabricates metal products. Scrap prices metal prices have risen dramatically for the last few years and especially the last 12 months. During the last 30 days the price increases for the last 12 months have been largely undone.
For us that means that much of the profits that have been booked from the rise in inventory values are about to be returned. When prices drop this fast you end up selling material for less than you paid for it. You can not cut expenses enough to make money in this environment. That is just the nature of commodity products. This is why this business is inhospitable to debt.
Steel and scrap prices have dropped on almost all metal and other commodity products just as oil sells now for less than half of its high last summer.
At the time we all heard that with the growth of China and India would keep commodity prices high for the foreseeable future. It sounded like the permanently high plateau forecasted by academics for the stock market just before the crash of 1929. Again we learn that nothing grows forever; all markets have their reckoning.
This could be a temporary pause caused by the financial meltdown worldwide, but I would not expect a quick rebound. Some disagree.
There are those who will benefit from the drastic drop. Contractors who are now starting jobs they bid with a higher cost will have the benefit of executing the contract with lower costs. Lower metal and especially copper prices will reduce much of the metal theft that has plagued many communities.
Many economists look to the scrap market as a harbinger of the economy to come because it is one of the most free and unregulated markets. If the drastic drop holds as a meaningful indicator then we are in for a rough ride ahead.
For us that means that much of the profits that have been booked from the rise in inventory values are about to be returned. When prices drop this fast you end up selling material for less than you paid for it. You can not cut expenses enough to make money in this environment. That is just the nature of commodity products. This is why this business is inhospitable to debt.
Steel and scrap prices have dropped on almost all metal and other commodity products just as oil sells now for less than half of its high last summer.
At the time we all heard that with the growth of China and India would keep commodity prices high for the foreseeable future. It sounded like the permanently high plateau forecasted by academics for the stock market just before the crash of 1929. Again we learn that nothing grows forever; all markets have their reckoning.
This could be a temporary pause caused by the financial meltdown worldwide, but I would not expect a quick rebound. Some disagree.
There are those who will benefit from the drastic drop. Contractors who are now starting jobs they bid with a higher cost will have the benefit of executing the contract with lower costs. Lower metal and especially copper prices will reduce much of the metal theft that has plagued many communities.
Many economists look to the scrap market as a harbinger of the economy to come because it is one of the most free and unregulated markets. If the drastic drop holds as a meaningful indicator then we are in for a rough ride ahead.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Making the Recession Longer
I have to confess that the never ending line of bailouts is truly concerning me. I can not imaging where the money is going to come from to finance this. Business is down, profits and tax revenues are down, entitlements are climbing and the bailout costs are rapidly climbing.
The fact that the federal government may be taking an ownership in these failed enterprises is an even greater concern. Will they have a voice in the management and strategy? Will they force GM to build "politically correct" cars which the market may reject, especially with cheaper gas?
I can not imagine that government ownership of our largest corporations comes without a voice. Nationalized industries, even partially nationalized industries do not have very good track record.
The recession is a good thing in the sense that it corrects market imbalances. But the market corrects these imbalances quicker without government interference.
The more the government bails out industries, the longer this recession will take.
The fact that the federal government may be taking an ownership in these failed enterprises is an even greater concern. Will they have a voice in the management and strategy? Will they force GM to build "politically correct" cars which the market may reject, especially with cheaper gas?
I can not imagine that government ownership of our largest corporations comes without a voice. Nationalized industries, even partially nationalized industries do not have very good track record.
The recession is a good thing in the sense that it corrects market imbalances. But the market corrects these imbalances quicker without government interference.
The more the government bails out industries, the longer this recession will take.
The Limits of Intelligence
We will be years dissecting the financial meltdown, but the cause was certainly not the lack of the intellects that developed this disaster. We applied the minds of brilliant scientists to create financial models that ignored the human side of economics and grossly underestimated or ignored the dynamics of probability. This created a false sense of security for a leverage that was incredibly risky.
Not everything that is important can be measured and not everything that can be measured is important. Many bright people and companies were paid big money to believe things that were not true.
Intelligence does not overcome conflicts of interest, greed and hubris. In fact it often empowers it. Sound principles will trump intelligence every time.
Not everything that is important can be measured and not everything that can be measured is important. Many bright people and companies were paid big money to believe things that were not true.
Intelligence does not overcome conflicts of interest, greed and hubris. In fact it often empowers it. Sound principles will trump intelligence every time.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Sacred Lottery
The Georgia State Lottery is a very sacred cow and any political campaign that wants to reduce or alter the lottery stands to be surely defeated. Yet the Lottery is one of the most regressive taxes ever launched.
Yes – it is not really a tax, since it is voluntary. But the effect is the same especially since the government grants it a monopoly and outlaws any competition. A casual observer will see that the lower income buy the tickets and middle and upper income reap the benefits, especially the HOPE scholarship.
Originally the Hope scholarship was only available to families with under $100,000 of income. They raised so much money that they removed that limit, making it even more regressive than it was initially.
Yes – it is not really a tax, since it is voluntary. But the effect is the same especially since the government grants it a monopoly and outlaws any competition. A casual observer will see that the lower income buy the tickets and middle and upper income reap the benefits, especially the HOPE scholarship.
Originally the Hope scholarship was only available to families with under $100,000 of income. They raised so much money that they removed that limit, making it even more regressive than it was initially.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Three Ways to Spend
from P.J. O'Rourke in the Weekly Standard through American Thinker
Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."
Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.
Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.
"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.
"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.
"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."
Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.
Sharing the Same Information
From Peggy Noonan’s “Patriotic Grace”
We’re not sharing the same information anymore. We used to share the same information- and argue about it. But now more and more we don’t even get the same essential facts, or headlines. And I think in part this change had an impact on how we actually viewed the political realities of the last seven years. If you wanted to hear that Iraq was a great success, you went to Fox. If you wanted to hear that the generals in the Pentagon were rebelling against the White House leadership, you went to CNN. If you wanted to take a full, deep bath in George Bush’s greatness, you went straight to one cable show; if you wanted all the arguments on the enormity of his failures you went to another.
This sort of thing is never a problem or a challenge for the sophisticated and mature. But it causes problems for ... well, for those who really can not think easily or well.
We’re not sharing the same information anymore. We used to share the same information- and argue about it. But now more and more we don’t even get the same essential facts, or headlines. And I think in part this change had an impact on how we actually viewed the political realities of the last seven years. If you wanted to hear that Iraq was a great success, you went to Fox. If you wanted to hear that the generals in the Pentagon were rebelling against the White House leadership, you went to CNN. If you wanted to take a full, deep bath in George Bush’s greatness, you went straight to one cable show; if you wanted all the arguments on the enormity of his failures you went to another.
This sort of thing is never a problem or a challenge for the sophisticated and mature. But it causes problems for ... well, for those who really can not think easily or well.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Conscience of a Conservative
From Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative”- published first in 1960
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals- on the other hand- in the name of a concern for “human beings”- regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So ... (that) their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe, they fight against nature.
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals- on the other hand- in the name of a concern for “human beings”- regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So ... (that) their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel “progress.” In this approach, I believe, they fight against nature.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
We Have Overcome
SILVER LININGS, EVEN ON THE RIGHT
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
excerpts
Government financing of political campaigns, always a dreadful idea, is dead. Yes, Obama egregiously broke his solemn promise to accept public financing and its attendant spending limits. But having witnessed Obama’s astonishing financial blowout -- he raised well over $600 million, crushing his rival in the money war and therefore in advertising and field organization -- no future candidate will agree to be shackled by those limits.
A turn in the wilderness will do Republicans good. During the GOP’s years in power, the one-time party of fiscal sobriety and limited government turned into a gang of reckless spenders and government aggrandizers. If a few years in exile can lead Republicans back to their conservative, Reaganite roots, yesterday’s losses will not have been in vain.
But the most lustrous silver lining of all, even for disappointed Republicans, is the racial one. As a politician and policymaker, Obama distresses me; his extreme liberalism is decidedly not what the nation needs in its president. But as a symbol -- a son of Africa elected to lead a majority-white nation that once enslaved Africans and treated their descendants with great cruelty -- Obama’s rise makes me proud of my country. The anthem of the Civil Rights Movement was "We Shall Overcome." Impossible as it might have seemed scant decades ago, we have.
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
excerpts
Government financing of political campaigns, always a dreadful idea, is dead. Yes, Obama egregiously broke his solemn promise to accept public financing and its attendant spending limits. But having witnessed Obama’s astonishing financial blowout -- he raised well over $600 million, crushing his rival in the money war and therefore in advertising and field organization -- no future candidate will agree to be shackled by those limits.
A turn in the wilderness will do Republicans good. During the GOP’s years in power, the one-time party of fiscal sobriety and limited government turned into a gang of reckless spenders and government aggrandizers. If a few years in exile can lead Republicans back to their conservative, Reaganite roots, yesterday’s losses will not have been in vain.
But the most lustrous silver lining of all, even for disappointed Republicans, is the racial one. As a politician and policymaker, Obama distresses me; his extreme liberalism is decidedly not what the nation needs in its president. But as a symbol -- a son of Africa elected to lead a majority-white nation that once enslaved Africans and treated their descendants with great cruelty -- Obama’s rise makes me proud of my country. The anthem of the Civil Rights Movement was "We Shall Overcome." Impossible as it might have seemed scant decades ago, we have.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Turning Citizens into Subjects
from
Taxes: A Fair Share for All
America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it.
By Jonah Goldberg
from National Review Online
Experts on economic development have long noted what they sometimes call the “oil curse.” Countries with huge oil reserves become economically wealthy but democratically impoverished, because the government can fund itself without taxing the middle class. As a result, the middle class demands less accountability from government because, heck, they didn’t pay for it. (No taxation, no representation.) In the process, the people become subjects rather than citizens.
A sane tax code, under any president, would be simple, clear and direct. We’re not going to give up on redistribution in the form of, say, the earned income tax credit. But it’s important that the working and middle classes feel as if government spending comes out of their wallets, too. Otherwise, the line between citizen and subject is blurred and the costs of government are seen as someone else’s problem.
Taxes: A Fair Share for All
America already redistributes its wealth. A lot of it.
By Jonah Goldberg
from National Review Online
Experts on economic development have long noted what they sometimes call the “oil curse.” Countries with huge oil reserves become economically wealthy but democratically impoverished, because the government can fund itself without taxing the middle class. As a result, the middle class demands less accountability from government because, heck, they didn’t pay for it. (No taxation, no representation.) In the process, the people become subjects rather than citizens.
A sane tax code, under any president, would be simple, clear and direct. We’re not going to give up on redistribution in the form of, say, the earned income tax credit. But it’s important that the working and middle classes feel as if government spending comes out of their wallets, too. Otherwise, the line between citizen and subject is blurred and the costs of government are seen as someone else’s problem.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Signs of a Sound Economy
by Henry Oliner
About a week after John McCain announced the the fundamentals of our economy to be strong, the Dow dropped like a rock and we encountered the worst credit and financial crisis in half a century. Obama used it effectively against him.
While most consider the turn of events to have proved McCain wrong, to me it proved him right.
IN SPITE of the financial meltdown, we still got up and showered, shaved, filled up the car with gas (much cheaper gas) and went to work (well at least the 93.5% who had a job), went home and otherwise went about our day as we had the week before.
There was still no shortage of gas, the grocery store shelves were well stocked with fresh produce, the lights still came on, the internet still worked, and 400 cable TV station still came into our homes with no interruption. The mail was still delivered on time, the paychecks still cleared, the local banks remained open, and we could still get a flat tire fixed quickly. There were no riots in the street, no revolution, no breadlines. The election went forth as scheduled.
The soundness of an economy is most evident when it faces a crisis. We showed this on 9/11 and we are showing it again in this financial crisis. We may disagree on how the institutions should respond, and we may be unhappy with the causes and the situation, but McCain was right; the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
About a week after John McCain announced the the fundamentals of our economy to be strong, the Dow dropped like a rock and we encountered the worst credit and financial crisis in half a century. Obama used it effectively against him.
While most consider the turn of events to have proved McCain wrong, to me it proved him right.
IN SPITE of the financial meltdown, we still got up and showered, shaved, filled up the car with gas (much cheaper gas) and went to work (well at least the 93.5% who had a job), went home and otherwise went about our day as we had the week before.
There was still no shortage of gas, the grocery store shelves were well stocked with fresh produce, the lights still came on, the internet still worked, and 400 cable TV station still came into our homes with no interruption. The mail was still delivered on time, the paychecks still cleared, the local banks remained open, and we could still get a flat tire fixed quickly. There were no riots in the street, no revolution, no breadlines. The election went forth as scheduled.
The soundness of an economy is most evident when it faces a crisis. We showed this on 9/11 and we are showing it again in this financial crisis. We may disagree on how the institutions should respond, and we may be unhappy with the causes and the situation, but McCain was right; the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
President Obama
His opponents may cite the huge fundraising advantage, the compliant media, and the possible campaign fraud- but in the end the voters trusted Obama and the Democrats more than McCain and the Republicans. Historically, past a certain point the additional money offers little advantage.
Obama’s campaign obviously did a lot of things right; very right. But he was also fortunate. He was running against a very tarnished opponent in the primary, Hillary Clinton; and he was also running against an even more tarnished Republican Party in the general election.
He was fortunate that the surge was successful, even though he was against it, because it removed the fear of terrorism from the election. It was ironic that it was Bush’s late success in Iraq, not his early failure that helped Obama. The financial meltdown could not have happened at a more convenient time; a huge event with massive uncertainty that occurred between the primaries and the general election. Voters largely vote their pocket book.
McCain and Palin ran more against Obama than for anything; that is a losing strategy. In fact many conservatives who were disenchanted with McCain and especially Palin voted more against Obama than for their party leaders.
And many reluctant Obama supporters were just voting against the Republican Party which many have come to despise, not without some reason.
I do not know that the outcome means that the country is turning left; personally I think the voters have risen far above simplistic left/ right descriptions and analogies.
He faces one of the most challenging times of any president. I hope he proves successful and confounds his critics including me. I could not be happier to confess how wrong I was about him.
I wish Obama and his administration the best.
Obama’s campaign obviously did a lot of things right; very right. But he was also fortunate. He was running against a very tarnished opponent in the primary, Hillary Clinton; and he was also running against an even more tarnished Republican Party in the general election.
He was fortunate that the surge was successful, even though he was against it, because it removed the fear of terrorism from the election. It was ironic that it was Bush’s late success in Iraq, not his early failure that helped Obama. The financial meltdown could not have happened at a more convenient time; a huge event with massive uncertainty that occurred between the primaries and the general election. Voters largely vote their pocket book.
McCain and Palin ran more against Obama than for anything; that is a losing strategy. In fact many conservatives who were disenchanted with McCain and especially Palin voted more against Obama than for their party leaders.
And many reluctant Obama supporters were just voting against the Republican Party which many have come to despise, not without some reason.
I do not know that the outcome means that the country is turning left; personally I think the voters have risen far above simplistic left/ right descriptions and analogies.
He faces one of the most challenging times of any president. I hope he proves successful and confounds his critics including me. I could not be happier to confess how wrong I was about him.
I wish Obama and his administration the best.
Henry's Tax Plan
Everyone pays a flat 30% income tax with no deductions for anything, except retirement plans. Individuals are exempt from their first $10,000 of income, married couples are exempt from the first $20,000 plus $5,000 for every kid under 18. (Singles also get deduction for child care.)
Capital gains and dividends will be tax free for the first $100,000 and then taxed at 15% above that .
It is progressive. A married couple with two kids can make $30,000 tax free, and earn interest tax free to help build up savings.
A retired couple could earn $100,000 in unearned income tax free.
Capital gains and dividends will be tax free for the first $100,000 and then taxed at 15% above that .
It is progressive. A married couple with two kids can make $30,000 tax free, and earn interest tax free to help build up savings.
A retired couple could earn $100,000 in unearned income tax free.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sirius Zeppelin
On Sirius Satellite Radio Channel 12 is all Led Zeppelin - 24/7.
A baby boomer rocker's dream!
Raw Dog Comedy has provided a great relief from 24/7 election coverage.
A baby boomer rocker's dream!
Raw Dog Comedy has provided a great relief from 24/7 election coverage.
Henry's Health Insurance Plan
Let everyone buy their own plan. Get it away from the employer completely. Include a tax on the premium that is used to fund a pool to help the poor and the high risk get vouchers for coverage. Encourage Health Savings Accounts and high deductible policies with tax credits or deductions. Set basic guidelines for insurance companies to keep premiums affordable when a claim is failed.
McCain’s proposal to tax health insurance benefits sounds harsh but the purpose is to erase the tax advantage the company has to buy your insurance while an individual gets no preferential tax treatment.
The real objective to restore individual control to people’s health care.
McCain’s proposal to tax health insurance benefits sounds harsh but the purpose is to erase the tax advantage the company has to buy your insurance while an individual gets no preferential tax treatment.
The real objective to restore individual control to people’s health care.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Rock and Roll FTC
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether musical instrument manufacturers are illegally blocking retailers from discounting their ware. Fender, Gibson, Yamaha and Guitar Center retailers are under scrutiny.
I am a guitar nut. Some new Les Pauls are selling for nearly $3,000. There is probably less than $200 worth of parts and maybe that much again in labor to make one of these. I have no problem with them selling them for as much as the market will bear. I am happy with my Ibanez Artist which I bought for $600.
The issue is important for the big stores with inventory who would have to compete with online retailers without the overhead.
I am a guitar nut. Some new Les Pauls are selling for nearly $3,000. There is probably less than $200 worth of parts and maybe that much again in labor to make one of these. I have no problem with them selling them for as much as the market will bear. I am happy with my Ibanez Artist which I bought for $600.
The issue is important for the big stores with inventory who would have to compete with online retailers without the overhead.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Sorry Charlie...
... only the other tuna processors get a hike in the minimum wage.
from the Washington Times
GOP hits Pelosi's 'hypocrisy' on wage bill
Originally published 12:07 a.m., January 12, 2007,
excerpts
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
from the Washington Times
GOP hits Pelosi's 'hypocrisy' on wage bill
Originally published 12:07 a.m., January 12, 2007,
excerpts
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Maddox vs Stoner
One of those defining political moments for me was in the late 1960s. Georgia Public Television had a panel of all of the candidates running for governor. The mix was incredible. There was one Republican, Bo Calloway, during the years when a Republican had little chance of gaining office. There was a Black Democrat, C.B. King from Albany who probably had an equally miniscule chance at that time. There was a socialist, And there were other democrats, including Lester Maddox. And finally there was a Nazi, J.B. Stoner (literally - he ran as an American Nazi- and he got 10,000 votes!) . It was a fascinating array.
For those who do not remember, Lester Maddox he had been elected in a previous gubernatorial bid against Howard “Bo” Calloway . In the primary many Republicans had crossed over to vote for Maddox as opposed to the incumbent Ellis Arnall, figuring that he would be the easiest to beat. There was a runoff in the primary and again as a result of the Republican crossover Lester Maddox won.
Republican Bo Calloway won more votes in the general election, but at that time the State legislature selected from the top two candidates, and since it was overwhelmingly Democrat, they selected Lester Maddox. The Republican crossover backfired.
Lester had achieved some national notoriety for standing up to federal officials who wanted to force him to integrate his restaurant. He became symbolized by the ax handles he distributed to ward off those the unwelcome.His defenders contended that his real enemy was an intruding federal government forcing local businesses to comply with rules from Washington and crushing states rights. But most saw Maddox as the supreme symbol of the southern bigot- George Wallace (not the comedian) without the class.
This Public Television Panel was after Maddox’s term as governor, which was surprisingly peaceful and even progressive on some fronts. He appointed more African Americans to state government positions than any other governor before him, including the first African American to head a state department (the Board of Corrections), the first black GBI agent, and the first black state trooper.
The microphone was on for the opening comments of Nazi, J.B. Stoner.Stoner blasted the state of affairs peppering his remarks with “niggers” and “Jews” so frequently that was all I heard. He leaned on both elbows with a little confederate flag sticking out of his coat pocket.
The other candidates sat unaffected by the racist tirade, but Lester Maddox interrupted the moderator. He said that the other candidates, as much as he may disagree with them, were acting in a civil manner and did not deserve to share the stage with the frothing J.B. Stoner. The moderator did not know how to respond, or implied that all candidates deserved to be heard.
Maddox restated his offense at Stoner and said that either Stoner would leave the stage or he would. Again the moderator acted indecisive or stunned. At that point Lester Maddox stood up, removed his lavaliere microphone and walked off the set.
Lester Maddox, the generally perceived racist, was the only one to stand up to the absolute racist. I have had a warm spot in my heart for him ever since.
In politics things are not always what they seem.
For those who do not remember, Lester Maddox he had been elected in a previous gubernatorial bid against Howard “Bo” Calloway . In the primary many Republicans had crossed over to vote for Maddox as opposed to the incumbent Ellis Arnall, figuring that he would be the easiest to beat. There was a runoff in the primary and again as a result of the Republican crossover Lester Maddox won.
Republican Bo Calloway won more votes in the general election, but at that time the State legislature selected from the top two candidates, and since it was overwhelmingly Democrat, they selected Lester Maddox. The Republican crossover backfired.
Lester had achieved some national notoriety for standing up to federal officials who wanted to force him to integrate his restaurant. He became symbolized by the ax handles he distributed to ward off those the unwelcome.His defenders contended that his real enemy was an intruding federal government forcing local businesses to comply with rules from Washington and crushing states rights. But most saw Maddox as the supreme symbol of the southern bigot- George Wallace (not the comedian) without the class.
This Public Television Panel was after Maddox’s term as governor, which was surprisingly peaceful and even progressive on some fronts. He appointed more African Americans to state government positions than any other governor before him, including the first African American to head a state department (the Board of Corrections), the first black GBI agent, and the first black state trooper.
The microphone was on for the opening comments of Nazi, J.B. Stoner.Stoner blasted the state of affairs peppering his remarks with “niggers” and “Jews” so frequently that was all I heard. He leaned on both elbows with a little confederate flag sticking out of his coat pocket.
The other candidates sat unaffected by the racist tirade, but Lester Maddox interrupted the moderator. He said that the other candidates, as much as he may disagree with them, were acting in a civil manner and did not deserve to share the stage with the frothing J.B. Stoner. The moderator did not know how to respond, or implied that all candidates deserved to be heard.
Maddox restated his offense at Stoner and said that either Stoner would leave the stage or he would. Again the moderator acted indecisive or stunned. At that point Lester Maddox stood up, removed his lavaliere microphone and walked off the set.
Lester Maddox, the generally perceived racist, was the only one to stand up to the absolute racist. I have had a warm spot in my heart for him ever since.
In politics things are not always what they seem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)