In this blog entry I challenged Liberals to admit Obama's failings on civil liberties before they vote for him. Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic has done me one better.
He admits the failings, far more descriptively and coherently than I, and admits it's a strong enough reason not to vote for him.
I strongly encourage everyone to read his post. I underestimated how much damage President Obama actually did to civil liberties.
"I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, and the statement that follows. I can imagine people supporting Obama, but those who do should do so with reservations and disappointment not enthusiasm.
I've actually wrestled with voting for Gary Johnson as well. When I lived in New Mexico (not during his tenure), I was told by both Democrats and Republicans how much they respected him and how well he governed. I don't think I'd vote for him for President, though, because I just can't get behind libertarian foreign policy. For Governor or Senator, he'd be a terrific candidate.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Assorted Links
There have been a few terrific pieces I've read in the past few days.
Media ignore Independents this Election Cycle - This is hopeful. If Romney is doing this well with Independents, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he's very far behind. Even the polls showing him far behind concede he's doing well with Independents!
Obama's Dereliction of Duty - I have no desire to be disrespectful, and this headline seems more inflammatory than I am comfortable with, but he brings up a terrific point. Namely, that President Obama, by just briefly popping in to the UN summit, is being a pretty bad President. Foreign Policy should probably be a major focus of any president, especially when there are so many things going on. Meeting with other leaders is paramount. Obviously they want to meet with him, but he says if he sees one, he has to see ten. What a cop-out! Ask yourself a question, what's the more likely reason he's not seeing leaders--he is unable to say yes to a few select ones without saying yes to hordes of them or because he'd rather be campaigning? From my point of view, it is obviously the latter. If anyone did a study, I imagine they would find that President Obama has spent more time campaigning than any other first-term president in history.
How the AARP Made $2.8 from Obamacare - What an article! Reading this really makes you understand just how self-interested these organizations are and how corrupt the whole system is!
Media ignore Independents this Election Cycle - This is hopeful. If Romney is doing this well with Independents, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he's very far behind. Even the polls showing him far behind concede he's doing well with Independents!
Obama's Dereliction of Duty - I have no desire to be disrespectful, and this headline seems more inflammatory than I am comfortable with, but he brings up a terrific point. Namely, that President Obama, by just briefly popping in to the UN summit, is being a pretty bad President. Foreign Policy should probably be a major focus of any president, especially when there are so many things going on. Meeting with other leaders is paramount. Obviously they want to meet with him, but he says if he sees one, he has to see ten. What a cop-out! Ask yourself a question, what's the more likely reason he's not seeing leaders--he is unable to say yes to a few select ones without saying yes to hordes of them or because he'd rather be campaigning? From my point of view, it is obviously the latter. If anyone did a study, I imagine they would find that President Obama has spent more time campaigning than any other first-term president in history.
How the AARP Made $2.8 from Obamacare - What an article! Reading this really makes you understand just how self-interested these organizations are and how corrupt the whole system is!
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Romney's Real Taxes
The reported percentage of Mitt Romney's income that he paid in taxes was 14.1%.
This leaves out corporate taxes he pays. The CBO imputes some of the taxes paid by corporations to the stockholders of those corporations because it comes out of their dividends. This figure does not include that.
Also, about his charitable deductions. He paid about $4 million of $14 to charities. I don't know which charities. But it seems to me, that Liberals should count that money as taxes. Actually, from their point of view, it's probably better. I suspect that Liberals' main priority is helping the poor, or those momentarily down on their luck. Isn't that what charities do? In a sense, Romney is bypassing defense, infrastructure, parts of Medicare, public research, and sending it directly to those who need it most. If Liberals were consistent, they would focus on how much better it is that he donates it to charity than to government.
This leaves out corporate taxes he pays. The CBO imputes some of the taxes paid by corporations to the stockholders of those corporations because it comes out of their dividends. This figure does not include that.
Also, about his charitable deductions. He paid about $4 million of $14 to charities. I don't know which charities. But it seems to me, that Liberals should count that money as taxes. Actually, from their point of view, it's probably better. I suspect that Liberals' main priority is helping the poor, or those momentarily down on their luck. Isn't that what charities do? In a sense, Romney is bypassing defense, infrastructure, parts of Medicare, public research, and sending it directly to those who need it most. If Liberals were consistent, they would focus on how much better it is that he donates it to charity than to government.
Reidiculous
"Meanwhile, at first glance, it appears that Harry Reid’s infamous source alleging that Romney paid nothing in taxes for 10 years was incorrect."
"That makes Reid’s behavior here shameful. His defense is that he was just passing along what he’d heard, and all Romney had to do to prove him wrong was release the returns. But Reid isn’t some campaign flack, or even a congressional backbencher. He’s the majority leader of the United States Senate. There’s a dignity that comes with that office, or there should be."
I'm stupefied. Democrats often talk about the lack of civility in the public discourse, then one of their leaders does something like this and no one cares. Granted, a few have called him out on it, but it's nowhere near the outcry we'd hear of a Republican did the same thing.
This whole double-standard argument is becoming extremely over-used. But what else can we say? The media are just so biased! Try to imagine if you were transported to five years ago, and offered this hypothetical situation. Would people believe it was possible? I'm sure I wouldn't.
This campaign has seen depressing behavior reminiscent of the 1820s and 30s. What some regard as the worst era in our history for campaign underhandedness. Indeed, making up accusations was a tried and true method of attack.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Stimulus Fails Again - International Edition
I don't understand how all of that oil money can be going into the Venezuelan economy, but it's not growing as fast as its neighbors.
Maybe there's no Spanish word for Keynesian?
Maybe there's no Spanish word for Keynesian?
Don't Look Here, Look There!
I guess liberals are starting to realize that the US has the most progressive tax system in the world.
I remember not too long ago when Greg Mankiw made the same point to see a pretty shrill reaction from the liberals. (He has a post cited, and I'm pretty sure I read stronger reactions, particularly on Ezra Klein's site, but now I don't seem able to find them).
Then Ezra Klein responds that though it's true that 47% of people don't pay any federal income tax, we should ignore that statistic and focus on total taxes (federal income, federal payroll, state income, state sales, everything).
There are several reasons why that idea is misguided. First of all, when we as a nation discuss taxes, we invariably are talking about the Federal marginal income tax rate. Can you remember any discussion of payroll tax rates? Bush Tax Cuts were about marginal income rates, returning to the Clinton era rates--marginal income rates. These are the rates everyone focuses on!
We focus on them for a reason. The federal income taxes pay for all the programs that are meant to benefit us collectively as a nation--defense, infrastructure, research. The payroll taxes are designed to fund our retirement. Ostensibly, these taxes are a type of insurance. They were designed and promoted on an individual basis (the more you pay into Social Security, the more you get out.)
States, on the other hand, are operated independently of the Federal government. As far as I know, governors and Congressmen don't cooperate to determine the best overall rate. If they did, then maybe Ezra Klein would have a point.
But they don't. So national policy-makers discuss what they can change, which are the marginal rates for federal income. Klein would have legislators in DC say, "Well, 35% is high, but some states have low rates so we're not going to change it." I think that's wrong.
We're talking about what liberals call "public goods." Goods that they believe only government can provide. That's what income taxes pay for. Is it really unfair to ask at least 75% of the population to contribute something?
I remember not too long ago when Greg Mankiw made the same point to see a pretty shrill reaction from the liberals. (He has a post cited, and I'm pretty sure I read stronger reactions, particularly on Ezra Klein's site, but now I don't seem able to find them).
Then Ezra Klein responds that though it's true that 47% of people don't pay any federal income tax, we should ignore that statistic and focus on total taxes (federal income, federal payroll, state income, state sales, everything).
There are several reasons why that idea is misguided. First of all, when we as a nation discuss taxes, we invariably are talking about the Federal marginal income tax rate. Can you remember any discussion of payroll tax rates? Bush Tax Cuts were about marginal income rates, returning to the Clinton era rates--marginal income rates. These are the rates everyone focuses on!
We focus on them for a reason. The federal income taxes pay for all the programs that are meant to benefit us collectively as a nation--defense, infrastructure, research. The payroll taxes are designed to fund our retirement. Ostensibly, these taxes are a type of insurance. They were designed and promoted on an individual basis (the more you pay into Social Security, the more you get out.)
States, on the other hand, are operated independently of the Federal government. As far as I know, governors and Congressmen don't cooperate to determine the best overall rate. If they did, then maybe Ezra Klein would have a point.
But they don't. So national policy-makers discuss what they can change, which are the marginal rates for federal income. Klein would have legislators in DC say, "Well, 35% is high, but some states have low rates so we're not going to change it." I think that's wrong.
We're talking about what liberals call "public goods." Goods that they believe only government can provide. That's what income taxes pay for. Is it really unfair to ask at least 75% of the population to contribute something?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Wonks vs. Wallets?
This Romney quote sure is generating a lot of discourse! Megan McCardle argues that this issue represents a schism between conservative intellectuals and donors. I think that's a stretch.
She says that both the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit are very popular among Republican wonks. I agree the EITC is about the best method we have of helping the poor, but I'm not sold on the child tax credit. The point is, however, that 47% of the country paying zero net taxes (or less) is too high. I propose that the largest percentage of people who pay no taxes should be 25. At least 75% of people should make some contribution to the national government (which doesn't include payroll taxes because those are nominally individual-based).
She also says it's foolish to tax Social Security benefits. "...it hardly makes sense to send them benefits, and then tax it all back." Ah, our old friend the straw man. Who said anything about taxing it all back? Should it be treated as normal income? If someone makes $50,000 in Social Security income (for example), should it be treated as normal income? I would argue it should be treated either as normal income or investment income. Either way, some tax should be paid on it. Just because the government pays it out, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taxed! Employees of the government are taxed? Does it make sense to pay them and then tax it all back?
She says that both the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child tax credit are very popular among Republican wonks. I agree the EITC is about the best method we have of helping the poor, but I'm not sold on the child tax credit. The point is, however, that 47% of the country paying zero net taxes (or less) is too high. I propose that the largest percentage of people who pay no taxes should be 25. At least 75% of people should make some contribution to the national government (which doesn't include payroll taxes because those are nominally individual-based).
She also says it's foolish to tax Social Security benefits. "...it hardly makes sense to send them benefits, and then tax it all back." Ah, our old friend the straw man. Who said anything about taxing it all back? Should it be treated as normal income? If someone makes $50,000 in Social Security income (for example), should it be treated as normal income? I would argue it should be treated either as normal income or investment income. Either way, some tax should be paid on it. Just because the government pays it out, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taxed! Employees of the government are taxed? Does it make sense to pay them and then tax it all back?
Voting for Free Stuff
While Romney's recently unearthed comments about the 47% were clearly awkward and inaccurate (obviously there are many affluent people who pay taxes that will vote for President Obama) and his explanation in my opinion was pretty weak, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. Specifically, one way Democrats attract votes is by redistribution--providing benefits to some people and imposing costs on others.
The birth control debate over the summer is an example of that. Democrats wanted women to have free access to birth control. Now, they didn't directly raise taxes to accomplish this, instead, costs will be imposed through premiums. Then when Republicans argued with the policy, Democrats started their "war on women" meme. "Republicans don't want to give you free stuff, therefore Republicans don't want to help you. They hate you." Democrats are very practiced and adept at these skills.
The birth control debate over the summer is an example of that. Democrats wanted women to have free access to birth control. Now, they didn't directly raise taxes to accomplish this, instead, costs will be imposed through premiums. Then when Republicans argued with the policy, Democrats started their "war on women" meme. "Republicans don't want to give you free stuff, therefore Republicans don't want to help you. They hate you." Democrats are very practiced and adept at these skills.
Monday, September 17, 2012
(Broken) Windows Fallacy
Some have already pointed this out, but these stories about how the iPhone will boost GDP have left out part of the picture.
I'm going to grant that all of their math is correct, because that's not the problem. The problem is that some of that money may have been spent on something else. Let's say you buy an iPhone. Where did the money come from? Is that money you would've spent on clothes or a new TV? If so, it will have no effect on GDP because it would've boosted it anyway (clothes and TV both affect GDP just as iPhones do).
Did you save the money to purchase the iPhone? If so, then yes there may be a boost in this quarter's GDP, but that's only because you spent it this quarter instead of last quarter. So last quarter's GDP fell by the exact amount that this quarter's rose.
Did you work more hours to enable you to buy it. This is the only case that actually improves GDP, because you added value to the economy by working which you otherwise would not have done.
What about the fact that most of the money comes from the carriers in the form of a subsidy? Well, I'm not sure how phone subsidies enter the GDP, it seems odd because people are paying their monthly bill (which I believe goes into GDP) and that money is used for the phone subsidy. What matters is, if the subsidy weren't spent this quarter, it would be spent sometime; firms can't afford to let money just sit around.
Paul Krugman weighs in
I'm going to grant that all of their math is correct, because that's not the problem. The problem is that some of that money may have been spent on something else. Let's say you buy an iPhone. Where did the money come from? Is that money you would've spent on clothes or a new TV? If so, it will have no effect on GDP because it would've boosted it anyway (clothes and TV both affect GDP just as iPhones do).
Did you save the money to purchase the iPhone? If so, then yes there may be a boost in this quarter's GDP, but that's only because you spent it this quarter instead of last quarter. So last quarter's GDP fell by the exact amount that this quarter's rose.
Did you work more hours to enable you to buy it. This is the only case that actually improves GDP, because you added value to the economy by working which you otherwise would not have done.
What about the fact that most of the money comes from the carriers in the form of a subsidy? Well, I'm not sure how phone subsidies enter the GDP, it seems odd because people are paying their monthly bill (which I believe goes into GDP) and that money is used for the phone subsidy. What matters is, if the subsidy weren't spent this quarter, it would be spent sometime; firms can't afford to let money just sit around.
Paul Krugman weighs in
Reasons to be Depressed
I'm finding myself fairly depressed these days. Mostly it's because of the election, but it's not the only cause. It's depressing that from my point of view, President Obama is doing a terrible job: the economy's been spinning its wheels for 3 years and foreign events are horrendous. It's depressing that four Americans, including the ambassador were murdered, and the biggest story was how Romney reacted. I haven't read his reaction, maybe it was poorly planned, but that is clearly not the most important thing that has happened. It seems like the media are unwilling to challenge President Obama on these things.
I have no doubt, and I don't believe anyone can have any doubt, that if President Bush (or candidate Romney) had said he didn't consider Egypt an ally, for days we'd hear about how inexperienced, ignorant, foolish he is. But when President Obama says it--nothing. How can that be possible? How can the media be so negligent? How can any moderate still want to vote for this man?
On top of these issues, liberals keep up their unflinching war on liberty. George Will documents one battle in New Mexico. Michael Bloomberg wages another. They're relentless!
I have no doubt, and I don't believe anyone can have any doubt, that if President Bush (or candidate Romney) had said he didn't consider Egypt an ally, for days we'd hear about how inexperienced, ignorant, foolish he is. But when President Obama says it--nothing. How can that be possible? How can the media be so negligent? How can any moderate still want to vote for this man?
On top of these issues, liberals keep up their unflinching war on liberty. George Will documents one battle in New Mexico. Michael Bloomberg wages another. They're relentless!
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
People Respond to Incentives
One of the many complaints I have about the Democratic platform is how they complain about people not finishing high school or going to college while simultaneously pushing policies that make life easier for those people. It's like they don't understand that these people are just responding to incentives. If you increase welfare, make it easier to get free healthcare, foodstamps, etc., then people have less incentive to finish high school or go to college.
In Michelle Obama's speech last night. She said "Like so many American families, our families weren't asking for much...They simply believed in that fundamental American promise that, even if you don't start out with much, if you work hard and do what you're supposed to do, then you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids." [Emphasis mine]
Do you think she believes "what you're supposed to do" includes finishing high school? If it doesn't, then what does it mean? If it does, then should we make welfare programs contingent on a diploma?
Here's a counter-argument.
In Michelle Obama's speech last night. She said "Like so many American families, our families weren't asking for much...They simply believed in that fundamental American promise that, even if you don't start out with much, if you work hard and do what you're supposed to do, then you should be able to build a decent life for yourself and an even better life for your kids and grandkids." [Emphasis mine]
Do you think she believes "what you're supposed to do" includes finishing high school? If it doesn't, then what does it mean? If it does, then should we make welfare programs contingent on a diploma?
Here's a counter-argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)