After watching the Democratic Presidential debate the other night, my wife brought up the topic of the flat tax "Who could possibly be against it (or the national sales tax, for that matter). What's not fair about it?" I believe she asked. Ostensibly, liberals/Democrats will always tell you it's not progressive. On the face of it, they're right. The sales tax is even regressive, regardless of the fact that, the less you spend (and subsequently, the more you save), the less no tax you pay. It's all about appearance.
Another smaller argument they could use, if they had to resort to it, is all the jobs that would be lost if the code was so simplified, both public and private. They might be more concerned with public since they're more likely unionized. Welcome to the dynamic economy that is that of the United States. Sure, there might be a little uptick in unemployment, but in the long run (something fewer and fewer Americans think about), the tax industry lawyers, accountants, etc. would find more productive work, work that actually adds value to the economy. Their work currently just contributes to deadweight loss.
Despite the evidence to the contrary since the 2003 Bush tax cut and the late 90s Clinton tax cuts, both of which cut that of the capital gains, they use static analysis and insist that revenues are unequivocally lost when taxes are cut ("It was Clinton's 1993 budget plan i.e. tax hike that produced the late 90s surpluses", they'll say). That's why they think revenues will most definitely go up when taxes are raised; $1 revenue increase for $1 tax hike.
Unless they are willing to admit that tax cuts (the right kind, on marginal rates and particularly that on capital) actually increase revenue some by making work, savings and investing more attractive, you have to reach the conclusion that they just don't want the more productive citizens keep more of their pay. I once heard a saying "Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak"? One could be allowed to think, given just how little more government really helps the poor all that much, that it's class envy.
That's one thing that has irked me about Bush. He possibly could have had surpluses by now. Not that surpluses are a good thing since, theoretically, it means Uncle Sam has overcharged us. But they are good thing politically, since they are, by definition, not deficits. But he had to go on a spending spree while in office, spending money on education (which, according to the Constitution, is a state issue), adding a new, fat entitlement, continuing farm subsidies, signing pork-laden spending bills, etc. The GOP might not have lost Congress had they not gone along with him and allowed the surpluses to come back.
That would have lent a substantive Keynesian quality to the 2001 tax cut where, up to that point, such a characteristic was fulfilled only by the non-productive, but feel-good $600 check we received back in 2001. A Keynesian quality, I might add, that was helped a great deal by what really works; supply-side policy.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Concert review: Tool
A few minutes before Tool came on, I turned to my wife and said "After tonight, Alice in Chains will be the only band I've really wanted to see but never have/will never be able to (it's not really AIC unless Layne Staley is out front wailing)." I suppose I should include in that Black Sabbath since it seems that, to a metal fan that is the equivalent of a Muslim's requirement to make at least one trip in his/her lifetime to Mecca. But that's another story.
Then, they strode up onto the stage; singer Maynard James Keenan, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones and drummer Danny Carey, who shamelessly pandered to the crowd by wearing a Tim Duncan jersey. This fan developed a nervous feeling seeing them walk up on stage to stand next to one another. 'Two postponements is bad enough, but not a third not announced until the arena is full!' Maynard took the mic, said a few indecipherables and ended with "We have good news and bad news." 'Great!' I thought. "The good news is there is no bad news." Ha! And with that, they ripped into "Jambi", the 2nd track on their latest album "10,000 Days". Of the 3 1/2 conventional songs (something that always needs pointing out with a Tool record), that one is probably my favorite, and it's definitely the one that whips my 4 and 2 year-old girls into a frenzy.
One of the best things about the show was the stage set-up. The floor itself appeared, from the cheap seats, to be white or off-white tile or porcelain. It was as if they were performing on a bathroom floor. As a backdrop, they had 4 screens side-by-side. Probably the coolest thing was where each member was stationed. You had Jones, creator of most of their unique music videos, and Chancellor, who seemed to remind me of the late Cliff Burton, standing at the front corners. Kennan and Carey were up a step in the back middle. That set-up, plus the visuals that were passing on the screens and the stage (ahh, that's why the such clean, white floor), reaffirmed Tool as the most unique rock group today. I am trying to realize, however, that that might also explain the course of the concert.
After mowing through "Jambi", they proceeded to tackle "Aenima"s "Stinkfist" and "46 & 2" (not one of my favorite Tool songs, but I sounded good live) and "Schism", off their 3rd full-length album (does anyone call them "albums" anymore?) "Lateralus". I don't recall the hearing a crowd sing along so loud in such unison to a live show as I did up to that point. Then, they almost put me to sleep. I wake up at 4:30 most weekday mornings to workout and/or run. This Monday morning was no different, although today proved to be. I went into the show thinking there was no way they could take up too much of the concert playing the many non-song tracks from their CDs, particularly the last two discs. I stood (or sat) corrected. They played a couple from each and a few other...ditties. I seriously thought about leaving, and I never, NEVER, ever think that during a show, especially one I/We've been so looking forward to. Then they started up what turned out to be an extended version of the title track to "Lateralus". Another least of my favorites, but not too bad.
And with a "Thank you. Good night.", it was over. That was it. Nothing from their 1st album "Undertow"; no "Sober", no "Prison Sex", no "Intolerance"; nothing. There was no "Aenima". At first I thought it was probably too much to think they might also play from that album either "Eulogy" or "Pushit", two long, unconventional songs. But now, as I describe them that way, coming off as eccentric as they sometimes do, one of those songs could probably have fit into the tone of last night's show. But no.
Walking out and toward the car, my wife looked at me and said "You don't look like you enjoyed the show." My first thought was one of agreement. I even told her that every show we've seen since we've been down here, from System of a Down to Korn's Family Values to even Chevelle was better because I got what I came for, with few song exclusions. Then I started continuing out loud the thoughts I started to have while making a pit stop after the show ended; did that show and playlist just fit in with Tool's persona? Should I just take it for what it was? Then, this morning I had another thought; was that their way to keep their fans coming back for more (even though any band with as large of a following will always attract a full house)? Should I admire them for that?
Maybe after last night I might need to kinda add Tool back to that list with Alice in Chains. Maybe that's what their aim was. Maybe they could care less. And maybe that's why they are who they are and we will go back for second helpings one day. They have to have "Aenima" on some playlist, don't they??
Then, they strode up onto the stage; singer Maynard James Keenan, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones and drummer Danny Carey, who shamelessly pandered to the crowd by wearing a Tim Duncan jersey. This fan developed a nervous feeling seeing them walk up on stage to stand next to one another. 'Two postponements is bad enough, but not a third not announced until the arena is full!' Maynard took the mic, said a few indecipherables and ended with "We have good news and bad news." 'Great!' I thought. "The good news is there is no bad news." Ha! And with that, they ripped into "Jambi", the 2nd track on their latest album "10,000 Days". Of the 3 1/2 conventional songs (something that always needs pointing out with a Tool record), that one is probably my favorite, and it's definitely the one that whips my 4 and 2 year-old girls into a frenzy.
One of the best things about the show was the stage set-up. The floor itself appeared, from the cheap seats, to be white or off-white tile or porcelain. It was as if they were performing on a bathroom floor. As a backdrop, they had 4 screens side-by-side. Probably the coolest thing was where each member was stationed. You had Jones, creator of most of their unique music videos, and Chancellor, who seemed to remind me of the late Cliff Burton, standing at the front corners. Kennan and Carey were up a step in the back middle. That set-up, plus the visuals that were passing on the screens and the stage (ahh, that's why the such clean, white floor), reaffirmed Tool as the most unique rock group today. I am trying to realize, however, that that might also explain the course of the concert.
After mowing through "Jambi", they proceeded to tackle "Aenima"s "Stinkfist" and "46 & 2" (not one of my favorite Tool songs, but I sounded good live) and "Schism", off their 3rd full-length album (does anyone call them "albums" anymore?) "Lateralus". I don't recall the hearing a crowd sing along so loud in such unison to a live show as I did up to that point. Then, they almost put me to sleep. I wake up at 4:30 most weekday mornings to workout and/or run. This Monday morning was no different, although today proved to be. I went into the show thinking there was no way they could take up too much of the concert playing the many non-song tracks from their CDs, particularly the last two discs. I stood (or sat) corrected. They played a couple from each and a few other...ditties. I seriously thought about leaving, and I never, NEVER, ever think that during a show, especially one I/We've been so looking forward to. Then they started up what turned out to be an extended version of the title track to "Lateralus". Another least of my favorites, but not too bad.
And with a "Thank you. Good night.", it was over. That was it. Nothing from their 1st album "Undertow"; no "Sober", no "Prison Sex", no "Intolerance"; nothing. There was no "Aenima". At first I thought it was probably too much to think they might also play from that album either "Eulogy" or "Pushit", two long, unconventional songs. But now, as I describe them that way, coming off as eccentric as they sometimes do, one of those songs could probably have fit into the tone of last night's show. But no.
Walking out and toward the car, my wife looked at me and said "You don't look like you enjoyed the show." My first thought was one of agreement. I even told her that every show we've seen since we've been down here, from System of a Down to Korn's Family Values to even Chevelle was better because I got what I came for, with few song exclusions. Then I started continuing out loud the thoughts I started to have while making a pit stop after the show ended; did that show and playlist just fit in with Tool's persona? Should I just take it for what it was? Then, this morning I had another thought; was that their way to keep their fans coming back for more (even though any band with as large of a following will always attract a full house)? Should I admire them for that?
Maybe after last night I might need to kinda add Tool back to that list with Alice in Chains. Maybe that's what their aim was. Maybe they could care less. And maybe that's why they are who they are and we will go back for second helpings one day. They have to have "Aenima" on some playlist, don't they??
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Winning Does Not Require Compromise
"He's been tossing hanging curve balls for two debates."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/remove_ron_paul_from_the_debat.html
The guy...I don't get him. I take a keen interest in Rep. Paul for two reasons: he is a Libertarian and my mom lives in his district. I always tell my mom, who always told me she "votes for the person; not the party" (which, as I go on in life, I'm finding out is a mistake) and doesn't follow politics much, that she has a good congressman. I agree that the federal government should be much, much smaller than it is, and applauded him when he said "let's start with departments themselves" in response to Goler's invitation to improve upon Gov. Thompson's answer on cutting spending. And I also agree with him and libertarians' stance against the ongoing War on Drugs. What a waste of money and infringement on personal liberty! Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition.
But I have not noticed him say anything about that topic, nor should he at a GOP debate! That's one "hanging curve ball" he has held back (thus far, anyway). Why won't he hold the others back? THIS IS A FREAKING GOP DEBATE, RON! If you want to score points, talk about the things libertarians and conservatives agree on, like trade, the budget, personal responsibility, taxes, social security/entitlement reform, campaign-finance reform, etc. Every time I've seen a budget or spending question posed to him (granted, I have not yet made it all the way through the second debate), he always tries to explain in on foreign policy terms. If that's what he believes, fine. He's standing on principle. I admire ANYone, conservative or liberal, who does that. But you're not compromising that by sticking to, or more closely to, conservative/Republican talking points on which you agree. If these are some things you want to change about your party (nominally speaking, anyway), fine, but get elected first and work from the inside.
I would have zero problem whatsoever if a libertarian-leaning (acknowledging your description of him as just a straight-out libertarian) candidate was ever elected. It would at least, in my opinion, pull the country in a better direction. Hell, Rudy is close to that based on his socially liberal views and his professed interest in a flat tax, for example. But Congressman Paul's performances so far, by and large, are unfortunately helping me see the light on why libertarians are seen as somewhat kooky.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/remove_ron_paul_from_the_debat.html
The guy...I don't get him. I take a keen interest in Rep. Paul for two reasons: he is a Libertarian and my mom lives in his district. I always tell my mom, who always told me she "votes for the person; not the party" (which, as I go on in life, I'm finding out is a mistake) and doesn't follow politics much, that she has a good congressman. I agree that the federal government should be much, much smaller than it is, and applauded him when he said "let's start with departments themselves" in response to Goler's invitation to improve upon Gov. Thompson's answer on cutting spending. And I also agree with him and libertarians' stance against the ongoing War on Drugs. What a waste of money and infringement on personal liberty! Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition.
But I have not noticed him say anything about that topic, nor should he at a GOP debate! That's one "hanging curve ball" he has held back (thus far, anyway). Why won't he hold the others back? THIS IS A FREAKING GOP DEBATE, RON! If you want to score points, talk about the things libertarians and conservatives agree on, like trade, the budget, personal responsibility, taxes, social security/entitlement reform, campaign-finance reform, etc. Every time I've seen a budget or spending question posed to him (granted, I have not yet made it all the way through the second debate), he always tries to explain in on foreign policy terms. If that's what he believes, fine. He's standing on principle. I admire ANYone, conservative or liberal, who does that. But you're not compromising that by sticking to, or more closely to, conservative/Republican talking points on which you agree. If these are some things you want to change about your party (nominally speaking, anyway), fine, but get elected first and work from the inside.
I would have zero problem whatsoever if a libertarian-leaning (acknowledging your description of him as just a straight-out libertarian) candidate was ever elected. It would at least, in my opinion, pull the country in a better direction. Hell, Rudy is close to that based on his socially liberal views and his professed interest in a flat tax, for example. But Congressman Paul's performances so far, by and large, are unfortunately helping me see the light on why libertarians are seen as somewhat kooky.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Ignorance is Bliss, I guess
I've been thinking lately. You know how many people don't care to talk about politics or governmental actions or the like? I wonder if some people just believe a certain way and don't want to think they might be wrong.
I keep going back to a day when my coworkers and I went out to lunch and the subject of the minimum wage came up. One lady had been talking about it because her daughter just received a promotion and subsequent raise and thought her coworkers were about to receive a raise just because Uncle Sam said so. Another, however, said as much that she didn't think she agreed with me, but didn't want to talk about it. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if she put her hands over her ears when I said that it contributes to unemployment, especially amongst teens and minorities. This no secret. Yet, she'd probably be ok if the subject never came up again. I had the impression that she didn't want to go in depth about it.
And I'm wondering if I just discovered the reason why.
I keep going back to a day when my coworkers and I went out to lunch and the subject of the minimum wage came up. One lady had been talking about it because her daughter just received a promotion and subsequent raise and thought her coworkers were about to receive a raise just because Uncle Sam said so. Another, however, said as much that she didn't think she agreed with me, but didn't want to talk about it. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if she put her hands over her ears when I said that it contributes to unemployment, especially amongst teens and minorities. This no secret. Yet, she'd probably be ok if the subject never came up again. I had the impression that she didn't want to go in depth about it.
And I'm wondering if I just discovered the reason why.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Welcome to America!
Wow. That (http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/79938.html) almost made me wonder if my eyes should be watering up while reading it.
Welcome to America, where we have the freedom to seek out jobs that have generous benefits. And, if at that point in time, we do not qualify for such jobs, we have the freedom to go to school and/or attain further training to make ourselves more marketable for employment with the most such desirable employers.
We also have the freedom to seek union shelter, which would provide the opportunity to put my career in neutral while the benefits I derive from union membership slowly suck the competitiveness out of my employer until one day it has to close up shop because it is either losing money (see: Ford, GM) or losing customers (see: public schools).
Even better than that, we have the freedom to downshift our career into full slacker mode and work a job that pays less than double the minimum wage, another economic, societal drag of a policy. The hours are super flexible and I don't have to think or exert myself too much at work. Heck, I could even go to work stoned and not relegate that kinda partying to my off-hours. And if I need to go to the doctor, I'll just stroll right up to the ER and whip out my Medicaid card. Sometimes I miss such flexible, care-free work-hours (Although I didn't get high or fall back on Medicaid). Honestly, I do. That'd be cool if I could go back to a job like that, much like Lester Burnham did in American Beauty, and know that I could be taken care of by Uncle Sam. There's just ... there's just this issue I have:
I have more pride. I have a greater sense of responsibility. I feel I ought to be self-sufficient, especially since I now have a family. Everyone makes choices. If you choose to make yourself marketable only for jobs that allow few, if any benefits, then you should live with the consequences. Government should not intrude in the free marketplace. Businesses should offer the benefits they want and can get away with. If Target offers better leave benefits than Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart suffers.
How many years has it been now that liberals do not understand the law of unintended consequences?? You tax more, which is what would be required for "a paid leave fund for workers nationwide", and the economy suffers. You regulate more and employers start receding (That's based on the same word as "recession", in case you didn't notice) from the labor market. Hence, unemployment increases, and the economy suffers. Incentives to work or increase productivity declines and what results is, actually, the downward spiral in employment I mentioned previously: from self-improvement to union protection to hourly freeloader. Society suffers because the work ethic that made this country great, better than any other, disappears. Pretty soon, you start stacking more regulations on top of more regulations, more taxes upon taxes and you get...
If you want the European or Venezuelan style of economy-wrecking socialism, why don't you just come out and say it?
Welcome to America, where we have the freedom to seek out jobs that have generous benefits. And, if at that point in time, we do not qualify for such jobs, we have the freedom to go to school and/or attain further training to make ourselves more marketable for employment with the most such desirable employers.
We also have the freedom to seek union shelter, which would provide the opportunity to put my career in neutral while the benefits I derive from union membership slowly suck the competitiveness out of my employer until one day it has to close up shop because it is either losing money (see: Ford, GM) or losing customers (see: public schools).
Even better than that, we have the freedom to downshift our career into full slacker mode and work a job that pays less than double the minimum wage, another economic, societal drag of a policy. The hours are super flexible and I don't have to think or exert myself too much at work. Heck, I could even go to work stoned and not relegate that kinda partying to my off-hours. And if I need to go to the doctor, I'll just stroll right up to the ER and whip out my Medicaid card. Sometimes I miss such flexible, care-free work-hours (Although I didn't get high or fall back on Medicaid). Honestly, I do. That'd be cool if I could go back to a job like that, much like Lester Burnham did in American Beauty, and know that I could be taken care of by Uncle Sam. There's just ... there's just this issue I have:
I have more pride. I have a greater sense of responsibility. I feel I ought to be self-sufficient, especially since I now have a family. Everyone makes choices. If you choose to make yourself marketable only for jobs that allow few, if any benefits, then you should live with the consequences. Government should not intrude in the free marketplace. Businesses should offer the benefits they want and can get away with. If Target offers better leave benefits than Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart suffers.
How many years has it been now that liberals do not understand the law of unintended consequences?? You tax more, which is what would be required for "a paid leave fund for workers nationwide", and the economy suffers. You regulate more and employers start receding (That's based on the same word as "recession", in case you didn't notice) from the labor market. Hence, unemployment increases, and the economy suffers. Incentives to work or increase productivity declines and what results is, actually, the downward spiral in employment I mentioned previously: from self-improvement to union protection to hourly freeloader. Society suffers because the work ethic that made this country great, better than any other, disappears. Pretty soon, you start stacking more regulations on top of more regulations, more taxes upon taxes and you get...
If you want the European or Venezuelan style of economy-wrecking socialism, why don't you just come out and say it?
Friday, February 16, 2007
"A little ditty..."
Ahh, it's nice to know someone else has this kind of a problem (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/e9851d97-85f6-4581-8800-35eadfdb3e73). I have had to deal with this ever since I can remember. One of my favorite bands that has posed this problem is Slayer. I completely dig their music, and yet I am completely aware that some of their lyrics are satanic. I'm not much of a churchgoer, but more than that, I'm certainly no devil worshiper. I'm sure, now being a parent myself, regardless of being a good kid who earned good grades (all the way through graduate school) and hung out with other good kids, this probably provided at least a little unease for my parents. Nowadays, I just wonder how a guy who says he believes in God, or at least a higher being, like vocalist Tom Araya claims to, can belt out the satanic lyrics guitarists Kerry King and Jeff Hanneman sometimes write.
However, such a contradiction, or conflict, wasn't brought to my attention until I graduated and started working. A female coworker said that by buying Marilyn Manson records, I was supporting his beliefs. I disagreed simply on the grounds that I did not share those beliefs, I just dug the music (even though I've never been interested in seeing them live, unlike Slayer).
That passed and I didn't think about it again until a few years later when I started listening to Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down. The conflict hit home harder partially due to my maturity, but mostly because I was much more interested in the social issues RATM and SOAD addressed than I was the religious issues dealt with by Slayer and MM. I can't think of anything RATM and SOAD sing about with which I agree. They both take a hard left at the ideological fork in the road, particularly RATM. RATM, and now Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello, who has a Harvard degree in, I believe political science, and SOAD lead singer Serj Tankian formed a group called Axis of Justice. They support and demonstrate for, among other things (most notably to me), the minimum wage, workers' rights and anti-globalization. In my mind, workers have a right to work wherever they want (assuming the employer agrees) and a safe work place, but that's it.
I will probably continue to listen to and buy the music of these acts while holding my nose at some of what they espouse. Until someone comes along raging at an equal decibel level about the inefficiencies of the tax code or the erosion of states rights, I think I'm stuck.
However, such a contradiction, or conflict, wasn't brought to my attention until I graduated and started working. A female coworker said that by buying Marilyn Manson records, I was supporting his beliefs. I disagreed simply on the grounds that I did not share those beliefs, I just dug the music (even though I've never been interested in seeing them live, unlike Slayer).
That passed and I didn't think about it again until a few years later when I started listening to Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down. The conflict hit home harder partially due to my maturity, but mostly because I was much more interested in the social issues RATM and SOAD addressed than I was the religious issues dealt with by Slayer and MM. I can't think of anything RATM and SOAD sing about with which I agree. They both take a hard left at the ideological fork in the road, particularly RATM. RATM, and now Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello, who has a Harvard degree in, I believe political science, and SOAD lead singer Serj Tankian formed a group called Axis of Justice. They support and demonstrate for, among other things (most notably to me), the minimum wage, workers' rights and anti-globalization. In my mind, workers have a right to work wherever they want (assuming the employer agrees) and a safe work place, but that's it.
I will probably continue to listen to and buy the music of these acts while holding my nose at some of what they espouse. Until someone comes along raging at an equal decibel level about the inefficiencies of the tax code or the erosion of states rights, I think I'm stuck.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Timing is Everything
Mom charged after toddler drowned in tub
A 29-year-old Charlotte woman was charged with capital murder Monday after she told authorities she drowned her 3-year-old daughter in the bathtub, said David Soward, chief deputy of the Atascosa County Sheriff's Department.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021307.01A.daughter_drowned.1bdf1c3.html
==
This reminds me two people I just read about in Bernard Goldberg's 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
One was a lady in New York who, after she found out she was pregnant with triplets (a single and a pair of twins), asked a doctor "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?" because "I'd have to give up my life and start shopping at Costco". He said yes, so he helped her "selectively reduce" with a "shot of potassium chloride to the heart" of each twin.
The other is the doctor who invented partial-birth abortion. He talked of how he would "grab the foot of the fetus" and "collapse the head" and pull "it" out.
Keep voting democrat!
A 29-year-old Charlotte woman was charged with capital murder Monday after she told authorities she drowned her 3-year-old daughter in the bathtub, said David Soward, chief deputy of the Atascosa County Sheriff's Department.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA021307.01A.daughter_drowned.1bdf1c3.html
==
This reminds me two people I just read about in Bernard Goldberg's 110 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
One was a lady in New York who, after she found out she was pregnant with triplets (a single and a pair of twins), asked a doctor "Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?" because "I'd have to give up my life and start shopping at Costco". He said yes, so he helped her "selectively reduce" with a "shot of potassium chloride to the heart" of each twin.
The other is the doctor who invented partial-birth abortion. He talked of how he would "grab the foot of the fetus" and "collapse the head" and pull "it" out.
Keep voting democrat!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Wonderful, Wonderful, Wonderful!
When a BIG component of the msm realizes the benefits of free trade (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201541.html), there is a real chance remaining skepticism will be further eroded. If the New York Times were to jump on board and acknowledge the obvious, free trade would become the norm.
Wait a second...(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/opinion/02fri1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin). Wow! I am impressed!
Wait a second...(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/opinion/02fri1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin). Wow! I am impressed!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Crike!
The democrats are right! We need to raise taxes on the rich to bring down the def...wait a second...nevermind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25budget.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=fb17e1d11b52463f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/washington/25budget.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=fb17e1d11b52463f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
More Government Should Help
I have a good idea for how to get back at American Airlines (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/16533365.htm). It's a little complicated, so follow closely: fly another airline next time. If you need further explanation, please contact me.
Seriously, I sympathize. I wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane for that long, just sitting on the tarmac, especially if I had either of my pre-K girls with me. I'd raise hell if they became excessively hungry, needed medicine or the like.
The publicity this is garnering should be a catalyst for one of two things, or both: American will lose present and future customers (something it cannot afford to do) or they will improve their processes.
But please, can we cease all the 'Passenger's Bill of Right' baloney, please? The last thing that needs to happen is the introduction of more regulation on every airline because of the actions, or lack thereof, of one. The market works these things out. Uncle Sam already has his hands way too far into mine and your private lives.
You don't think they know about all this, and are taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen on one of their airplanes??
Seriously, I sympathize. I wouldn't want to be stuck on a plane for that long, just sitting on the tarmac, especially if I had either of my pre-K girls with me. I'd raise hell if they became excessively hungry, needed medicine or the like.
The publicity this is garnering should be a catalyst for one of two things, or both: American will lose present and future customers (something it cannot afford to do) or they will improve their processes.
But please, can we cease all the 'Passenger's Bill of Right' baloney, please? The last thing that needs to happen is the introduction of more regulation on every airline because of the actions, or lack thereof, of one. The market works these things out. Uncle Sam already has his hands way too far into mine and your private lives.
You don't think they know about all this, and are taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen on one of their airplanes??
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
"A Revolution"
I was listening to a local newstalk station, 1200 WOAI, while making breakfast for myself this morning, as I customarily do. Pags* was talking to Jim Pinkerton of Newsday and Fox News Watch about President Bush's State of the Union address last night. I didn't pay close attention until Pinkerton mentioned the sight of Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary. I had a feeling when he mentioned his name, he might talk about social security, based on reports that Paulson is going about quietly the process of negotiating with members of Congress social security reform. Why quietly? Because reports have been floating around, pretty much since Paulson was confirmed last June, that W might be willing to allow taxes to go up as part of a compromise. And make no doubt about it, discriminately raising, if not all out eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the social security tax is just as much a tax increase as "rolling back" or "repealing" (as liberals like to say) Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest American taxpayers. I used to wonder why there was such a cap. Then I figured out that people making that much per year, currently in the mid $90Ks, probably will not rely as much on social security when they retire (if they do, given that they are indeed the most productive members of society) as will those who make less. Then, it made perfect sense: welfare restrained. I like it!
Pinkerton finished by saying that if such a thing happens, there will be a "revolution" within the republican ranks. I hope, for the good of the economy, and society, that the cap is left alone (better yet to privatize it all together, but who am I kidding?). But, if it is lifted or eliminated, I welcome a "revolution". What's more, I look forward to seeing how current congressman (Ron Paul) and senators (McCain, Brownback) vote for it, and how that will effect the position on the issue staked out by those running for the nomination who will not have a vote, like Guiliani.
One of these days, someone running for public office will take seriously those who wish the government was at least half the size it is today.
And one other thing that has been on my mind for a while. Those for a vastly simpler tax code, such as myself, should have known better (and probably did) than to think Bush would be the one to deliver, given how he wants to address the health care issue.
*I give credit to Joe Pagliarulo. He started as the host of WOAI's morning program about a year or so ago. My first impression: 'Sheesh; what a radio voice!', which is another way of saying 'Ugh! What a fake!' He repeated himself, some of the things he said, so much from day to day, I started to wonder if it was a recording. But I must say, I have come to like him doing that job, and that's probably only partially because it seems he holds many of the same beliefs as me.
Pinkerton finished by saying that if such a thing happens, there will be a "revolution" within the republican ranks. I hope, for the good of the economy, and society, that the cap is left alone (better yet to privatize it all together, but who am I kidding?). But, if it is lifted or eliminated, I welcome a "revolution". What's more, I look forward to seeing how current congressman (Ron Paul) and senators (McCain, Brownback) vote for it, and how that will effect the position on the issue staked out by those running for the nomination who will not have a vote, like Guiliani.
One of these days, someone running for public office will take seriously those who wish the government was at least half the size it is today.
And one other thing that has been on my mind for a while. Those for a vastly simpler tax code, such as myself, should have known better (and probably did) than to think Bush would be the one to deliver, given how he wants to address the health care issue.
*I give credit to Joe Pagliarulo. He started as the host of WOAI's morning program about a year or so ago. My first impression: 'Sheesh; what a radio voice!', which is another way of saying 'Ugh! What a fake!' He repeated himself, some of the things he said, so much from day to day, I started to wonder if it was a recording. But I must say, I have come to like him doing that job, and that's probably only partially because it seems he holds many of the same beliefs as me.
Friday, January 12, 2007
music review: army of anyone
I recently finished making it through the cd and found it to be pretty good. It's at least better than the new Audioslave, who's songs sound too much alike, although not quite as good as Velvet Revolver's Contraband, to which Army will inevitably be compared due to the Stone Temple Pilots link. Some of Army's songs kinda surprised me with how good they are. And some reminded me of a Joe Walsh-y, Peter Frampton-ish 70s. You can detect the similarities to STP's music, but it also sounds to have evolved some out of that. I really like track 9, "Father Figure."
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jeepers!
The democrats are right: we better do something about this foreign direct investment surplus, er, I mean, trade deficit, before this country collapses!
"Toyota Motor Corp. on Thursday would not confirm published reports that it is close to choosing a site for its eighth assembly plant in North America, possibly in the southern United States."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA010507.06C.toyotaplans.26a126d.html
"Toyota Motor Corp. on Thursday would not confirm published reports that it is close to choosing a site for its eighth assembly plant in North America, possibly in the southern United States."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/stories/MYSA010507.06C.toyotaplans.26a126d.html
Drats!
The democrats are right: we better do something about this economy before it's too late!
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers stepped up hiring last month, boosting payrolls by a healthy 167,000 and keeping the unemployment rate steady at a still historically low 4.5 percent. Workers' wages grew briskly."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers stepped up hiring last month, boosting payrolls by a healthy 167,000 and keeping the unemployment rate steady at a still historically low 4.5 percent. Workers' wages grew briskly."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ECONOMY?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Painful
I flipped to C-Span before going to bed late last night (been working late for year-end closing) with all the interest of watching a train wreck, given that it was the democrats first full day back in control (makes me ill to type that). I saw Dreier from Cali (republican) speaking. OK. Then McGovern from Mass. (there are only democrats there, Romney not withstanding) responding. OK, same as before. Normal. It became too much for me when I saw Barney (heh, I pause here remembering Dick Armey's, ahem, 'slip up' with his last name) Frank from Mass. in the speaker's chair presiding over the debate.
I've been kinda curious the last few years to see what democratic control would look like and see if they, and the GOP, would turn into hypocrites.
I found last night that it's going to take some time.
I've been kinda curious the last few years to see what democratic control would look like and see if they, and the GOP, would turn into hypocrites.
I found last night that it's going to take some time.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Vote for Liberals at Your/Our Peril
And I think it was Republicans that someone recently told me they didn't vote for because they want to control too much of our lives.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/disparities_in_income_wealth.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/edwards_still_doesnt_get_it.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/disparities_in_income_wealth.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/edwards_still_doesnt_get_it.html
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Wow, What a Novel Concept!
"Less than 20 percent of the budget is available for education, highways, housing and courts, discretionary programs that are being further squeezed by an increasingly expensive military." (Democrats Pledge to Restrain Spending, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html)
Hmm, drop education and housing, and you approach what is actually in the Constitution, the document by which we are supposed to live by.
Hmm, drop education and housing, and you approach what is actually in the Constitution, the document by which we are supposed to live by.
Friday, December 22, 2006
In the Interests of Full Disclosure...
Whatta shocker; someone/thing else calling for a "roll back" (Please, don't insult me; it's a hike) of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in order to pay for the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, it's the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16294900.htm).
Here's my favorite passage:
"Hiking the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers - those earning $200,000 per year or more - would raise about $800 billion over 10 years. Doing so would rightly require some financial sacrifice from the taxpayers who have enjoyed most of the benefit from the Bush tax cuts."
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the effects of a tax cut/hike stop there. Basically, that rich people will simply have less money. Who could get mad about that? But, as my friend Peek once told me, rich people do not put their spare cash in a bag and bury it in the backyard. That is the only way it would not be put to work and cycle it's way back through the economy. They either invest it, possibly creating new ventures and, subsequently, new jobs. Or, they spend it, keeping other ventures (by now, more likely established businesses) in business and people employed.
But hey, that kinda talk won't appeal to emotions, will it? That won't sell papers or advance an envy-agenda.
I'll be the first one to agree that deficits, as a matter of principle, and regardless if they are below 2% of GDP (I do have some practical business sense) are not desirable. It is not advisable to spend beyond one's means. But, by the same token, why are spending cuts never seriously entertained?? Government spending is the real problem behind deficits. And by that I do not simply mean excessive earmarks. I mean any and almost all social spending: retirement security, health care, etc. Why don't people take care of themselves and their families?
This country is, in my mind, on (if only slightly) a downward trend as long as government intrudes into the free market and free society in such a way.
Here's my favorite passage:
"Hiking the marginal income tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers - those earning $200,000 per year or more - would raise about $800 billion over 10 years. Doing so would rightly require some financial sacrifice from the taxpayers who have enjoyed most of the benefit from the Bush tax cuts."
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals think the effects of a tax cut/hike stop there. Basically, that rich people will simply have less money. Who could get mad about that? But, as my friend Peek once told me, rich people do not put their spare cash in a bag and bury it in the backyard. That is the only way it would not be put to work and cycle it's way back through the economy. They either invest it, possibly creating new ventures and, subsequently, new jobs. Or, they spend it, keeping other ventures (by now, more likely established businesses) in business and people employed.
But hey, that kinda talk won't appeal to emotions, will it? That won't sell papers or advance an envy-agenda.
I'll be the first one to agree that deficits, as a matter of principle, and regardless if they are below 2% of GDP (I do have some practical business sense) are not desirable. It is not advisable to spend beyond one's means. But, by the same token, why are spending cuts never seriously entertained?? Government spending is the real problem behind deficits. And by that I do not simply mean excessive earmarks. I mean any and almost all social spending: retirement security, health care, etc. Why don't people take care of themselves and their families?
This country is, in my mind, on (if only slightly) a downward trend as long as government intrudes into the free market and free society in such a way.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Kinda Sad
Not one mention of school choice in Mort Kondracke's report on changes proposed by the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce to improve (presumably) public education(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/needed_a_governor_to_launch_ra.html). Zero, zip, nada. No mention of the correlation between increased liberty and societal progress. Zilcho.
Tell me again why parents can't use public funds allotted to their children to pick which schools they attend???
Tell me again why parents can't use public funds allotted to their children to pick which schools they attend???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)