I read an editorial this morning by the Robertses (Cokie & Steve). I usually enjoy their commentary despite their center-left orientation. One statement in today's column, though, drove me nuts, given a vast body of emperical experience that contradicts it. they said the "Republicans' . . . 'Pledge to America' . . . promises to to cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time - a total impossibility." (my emphasis). Why categorically ("total") advance the notion that simultaneous tax and deficit reduction are mutually incompatible? Because there is nothing besides the statement to support the statement.
This notion has been proven false by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and by Democratic and Repblican congresses alike. Lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. Increases in revenue decreases the deficit if spending does not increase. Logic and experience show this. When rates are lowered economic activity increases, resulting in more revenue. When projecting budgets and revenue "static scoring" assumes taxpayer behavior will remain unchanged as rates go up or down. "Dynamic scoring" takes into account behavioral changes that accompany tax (rate) increases and decreases. The Robertses would be correct if static scoring is borne out by experience. Experience shows that with every tax decrease, there has been a revenue increase. Kennedy deliberately calculated that behavior would change and revenues would increase when tax rates were lowered at his urging. He was proved right. the Reagan cuts made for a sharp U-turn and lasting recovery in the recession of the early 80s. After 9-11, there was no stimulus to keep the economy from tanking, but there was a 2001 tax cut, followed by another in 2003. These not only avoided disaster (think "jobs saved"), they helped fuel decent growth through mid-2008. And the "rich" (liberal term) or "employers and investors" (conservative terms) respond better to the swings in their rates than those who are employees and not investors. So cutting taxes of the "rich" generates more revenue than cutting taxes of the "middle class," especially since with progressive tax rates the "rich" are soaked (nicked? touched?) much heavier in the first place.
Maybe the Robertses are relying on what I call "extreme logic" to make their point. Of course if, on the one extreme, the government is taxing at a 5% rate and lowers it to zero, revenue will go down. But on the other end, do they really believe people will keep working and investing if their marginal rates are raised to 100%?
The Bush tax cuts are set to expire on January 1, 2011. The Obama administration (and Democrat congressional leadership) are in no hurry to avert that disaster. My question is whether their inaction can be explained by something other than incompetence or cynicism.
Your turn.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Death of Neglect?
Hello. So, we are a little over three weeks away from the mid-term elections, and there has been no activity on this blog since July. Has this blog turned into a vacuum from an echo chamber from a lively blog? Just wanted to know.
My prediction for the upcoming election - both houses of Congress will move to the right. The Democrat survivors will have moved to the right. The replacement Democrats will be to the right of their predecessors. The Republican survivors will have shifted further to the right. And the new Republicans will be futher to the right than their (R or D) predecessors. The only person whose stated or closely held ideology will have remained as far left as before (or perhaps moved further left) is President Obama.
This is a recipe for federal gridlock, a welcome change from what we have seen for the past four years.
Comments?
My prediction for the upcoming election - both houses of Congress will move to the right. The Democrat survivors will have moved to the right. The replacement Democrats will be to the right of their predecessors. The Republican survivors will have shifted further to the right. And the new Republicans will be futher to the right than their (R or D) predecessors. The only person whose stated or closely held ideology will have remained as far left as before (or perhaps moved further left) is President Obama.
This is a recipe for federal gridlock, a welcome change from what we have seen for the past four years.
Comments?
Monday, July 12, 2010
LeBronomics: Myopic Soak-the-Rich Tax Policy Likely Cost the Knicks a Superstar
What's a post about LeBron James doing on this blog? Well, I love talking sports just as much, if not more than I love talking politics. I couldn't pass up the chance to simultaneously do both! Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see last week that, despite LeBron's well-documented love affair with the Yankees, his close friendship with rapper Jay-Z (part owner of the soon-to-be relocated New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn, NY), his desire to become the richest athlete in the world (which the NY market would best facilitate), his love for playing in NY's Madison Square Garden (often called the "Mecca" of basketball), and the predictions of many so-called experts, LeBron chose to "take his talents to South Beach," joining forces with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh of the Miami Heat.
Why?
Of course, according to LeBron and many talking heads on TV, playing alongside Wade and Bosh, two fellow all-stars and U.S. Olympic teammates, gives him the best shot at a championship. Although this is true, there's more to LeBron's decision than meets the eye.
Consistent with his desire to be the richest athlete on the planet, I'm sure LeBron's "crew" advised him that NYC has the highest state and city income taxes in the country at a 12.85 percent for top-earners, on top of what the feds already take for their share. Assuming a 5 year contract worth 96 million, LeBron will save 12.34 million by playing hoop in Miami vs. New York because there is no state income tax in Florida. To be sure, LeBron would still have plenty to put food on the table if he signed with the Knicks and no one, besides LeBron of course, would cry tears over the fact that he'd be out an extra 12.34 million. However, this makes for an interesting case study about the limits of a soak-the-rich tax mentality.
Is it any wonder why we're seeing a sizeable exodus from NY to places like Florida and Texas, 2 states that choose not to soak their successful citizens? Yes, top earners in New York get nailed on their state taxes if they are there, but lawmakers don't have the power to mandate that top-earners stay in NYC or even locate there to begin with. Eventually, as we've seen here, a soak-the-rich mentality can deter ambitious and successful people like LeBron James from coming and will encourage other ambitious and successful individuals to leave. I think it's safe to say that die-hard Knicks fans can at least partly blame their well-meaning, but short-sided lawmakers in Albany for LeBron choosing Miami over New York.
[P.S. - Nic, could you copythis post over to ArmchairPoliticians when you get the chance? Thanks!]
Why?
Of course, according to LeBron and many talking heads on TV, playing alongside Wade and Bosh, two fellow all-stars and U.S. Olympic teammates, gives him the best shot at a championship. Although this is true, there's more to LeBron's decision than meets the eye.
Consistent with his desire to be the richest athlete on the planet, I'm sure LeBron's "crew" advised him that NYC has the highest state and city income taxes in the country at a 12.85 percent for top-earners, on top of what the feds already take for their share. Assuming a 5 year contract worth 96 million, LeBron will save 12.34 million by playing hoop in Miami vs. New York because there is no state income tax in Florida. To be sure, LeBron would still have plenty to put food on the table if he signed with the Knicks and no one, besides LeBron of course, would cry tears over the fact that he'd be out an extra 12.34 million. However, this makes for an interesting case study about the limits of a soak-the-rich tax mentality.
Is it any wonder why we're seeing a sizeable exodus from NY to places like Florida and Texas, 2 states that choose not to soak their successful citizens? Yes, top earners in New York get nailed on their state taxes if they are there, but lawmakers don't have the power to mandate that top-earners stay in NYC or even locate there to begin with. Eventually, as we've seen here, a soak-the-rich mentality can deter ambitious and successful people like LeBron James from coming and will encourage other ambitious and successful individuals to leave. I think it's safe to say that die-hard Knicks fans can at least partly blame their well-meaning, but short-sided lawmakers in Albany for LeBron choosing Miami over New York.
[P.S. - Nic, could you copythis post over to ArmchairPoliticians when you get the chance? Thanks!]
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Maxwell on Government
"I fear that, as conditions worsen, many will react to the failures of too much government by calling for even more government. Then there will be more and more lifeboats launched because fewer and fewer citizens know how to swim. Unlike some pendulums, political pendulums do not swing back automatically; they must be pushed. History is full of instances when people have waited in vain for pendulums to swing back."
-Neal A. Maxwell, Insights from my Life, BYU Devotional, 1976-
-Neal A. Maxwell, Insights from my Life, BYU Devotional, 1976-
Friday, June 18, 2010
More on BP, Obama
Sorry Chris, didn't mean to steal your thunder by one-upping your post. Readers, know that there is a post right below this one that is also deserving of comment. Anyway, I just read a piece from Peggy Noonan in the WSJ and wanted to share a few quotes from it that I thought were fair. Although she leans somewhat to the right, Noonan is pretty moderate politically, and she'll tell it like it is. She's not afraid at calling out the right or the left when either are out of line. So when I want to get a glimpse into the mind of the more middle-of-the-political-road folks, it's refreshing to read her stuff.
Anyway, this is kind of a follow-up to Creighton's last post about the BP slick. Obama gave a prime-time speech to address the federal response to the spill, which I consciously decided not to watch, preferring instead to read the transcript online the next day. I'm not the only one who made the switch. Obama's TV audience went from 48 million in the State of the Union (Jan.) to 32 million this week. Here are a couple quotes from Noonan's column that I thought were fair and insightful:
"It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers [the "small people"] took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors."
And now, some speech reaction from Obama's normal cheerleaders:
"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
On empty sternness:
"And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty."
Finally, good insight into what has been, for me, perhaps the one aspect of the Obama Presidency that has been most irritating:
"There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault. Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there."
My thought is that while Obama undoubtedly inherited a tough situation, no one likes a whiner or a complainer. Noonan's right, the more Obama blames Bush (not that he has done that relating to BP, at least not that I'm aware of), the weaker he looks. I think America would respond much better to a President who at least comes off as someone who rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work, solves the problem first, and asks questions later - even though the slick isn't his fault - instead of pointing fingers, waiting around, figuring out "whose ass to kick" and hoping that BP will handle everything. I think Obama could learn a lesson from the the "small people" shrimp farmers in that regard.
Here's a link to her entire column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html
What do you guys think?
Anyway, this is kind of a follow-up to Creighton's last post about the BP slick. Obama gave a prime-time speech to address the federal response to the spill, which I consciously decided not to watch, preferring instead to read the transcript online the next day. I'm not the only one who made the switch. Obama's TV audience went from 48 million in the State of the Union (Jan.) to 32 million this week. Here are a couple quotes from Noonan's column that I thought were fair and insightful:
"It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers [the "small people"] took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors."
And now, some speech reaction from Obama's normal cheerleaders:
"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
On empty sternness:
"And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty."
Finally, good insight into what has been, for me, perhaps the one aspect of the Obama Presidency that has been most irritating:
"There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault. Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there."
My thought is that while Obama undoubtedly inherited a tough situation, no one likes a whiner or a complainer. Noonan's right, the more Obama blames Bush (not that he has done that relating to BP, at least not that I'm aware of), the weaker he looks. I think America would respond much better to a President who at least comes off as someone who rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work, solves the problem first, and asks questions later - even though the slick isn't his fault - instead of pointing fingers, waiting around, figuring out "whose ass to kick" and hoping that BP will handle everything. I think Obama could learn a lesson from the the "small people" shrimp farmers in that regard.
Here's a link to her entire column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html
What do you guys think?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The conservative king-of-the-hill game in Utah
On You Tube type in "Cherilyn Eagar supporters prepare for the caucus meetings" and watch a hilarious video that encapsulates the primary race for the Utah Senate seat. Cherilyn Eagar got bumped out before Bob Bennett, but the one-upsmanship on who loves the Constitution more is still alive and well between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. (Eagar AND Bennett, along with Lonsbury endorsed Bridgewater; Shurteff, Bangerter, Hansen and Covey endorsed Lee) Lots of other endorsements. I am not settled on who to vote for. Any thoughts?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
There's been a case here in Utah I've been following a little bit over the past year. Last July, it was uncovered that a seminary prinicipal in Utah (I think Provo area) at a high-school had been engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16 year old female student (for a synopsis of the story, go to Anyways I'm not sure if this is totally correct, but it says he faces 6 years to life in prison. Now I really doubt this guy is gonna go to prison for life, but even 6 years seems a little steep. I don't want to minimize the severity of what he did, it was pretty horrible. But I don't know that it warrants a multi-year jail sentence. I had a companion who's father had a consensual sexual relationship with the neighbor's 17 year old daughter and he got slapped with a 30 day prison sentence and so many years of probation. Granted he wasn't a teacher, but does being a teacher warrant extending the prison time by 72 times? What do you guys think should happen to this guy?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Obama Administration's reaction to oil spill
New polls out show a huge dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's response to the gulf oil spill. From what I've seen they've largely left it up to BP to fix the spill. I would think this would be more of the "tea party" or conservative response. What more or less should the Obama adminstration be doing to help with the Gulf oil spill?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Arizona Immigration
I think the passing of Arizona's new, staunch law on immigration represents a fantastic point our Founding Fathers wanted to happen: the distinction between state and federal governments. People are all up in arms over this new legislation- people outside of Arizona, that is. The people inside of Arizona like the legislation (for the most part). They passed it because they wanted it. No one else outside of Arizona has follow the Arizonian laws and they don't have to worry about the laws there. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. Don't complain about what other states are doing unless it's your own state is what I say. It's wonderful to live in a country where different states with different problems can handle their problems in the way that best meets their needs, without messing everyone else up.
P.S. If you are registered to vote in Utah, vote for Bob Bennett! The Convention is May 8th!
P.S. If you are registered to vote in Utah, vote for Bob Bennett! The Convention is May 8th!
Which way would you rule?
This doesn't have a lot to do with politics, well in a way it does. I was reading around on the site recommended by Nic, Redit. Well while cruising around I found a really interesting legal case that I wanted to get your opinion on.
Two guys get in a fight at a bar, one pulls out a knife and stabs the other in the stomach. The man stabbed loses a lot of blood before he gets to the hospital. At the hospital the doctors tell him he needs a blood transfusion. Turns out this guy is a J-dub (Jehovah's Witness) and refuses the blood transfer. The doctors tell him if he refused the transfusion, he will die. If he has it however, he will live. This dude refuses it to his death. The guy that stabbed him was then charged with murder. If you were on the jury, would you find the stabber guilty of murder?
Two guys get in a fight at a bar, one pulls out a knife and stabs the other in the stomach. The man stabbed loses a lot of blood before he gets to the hospital. At the hospital the doctors tell him he needs a blood transfusion. Turns out this guy is a J-dub (Jehovah's Witness) and refuses the blood transfer. The doctors tell him if he refused the transfusion, he will die. If he has it however, he will live. This dude refuses it to his death. The guy that stabbed him was then charged with murder. If you were on the jury, would you find the stabber guilty of murder?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
