Today is the 1st birthday of our 4th baby, Sloane. However, I’m not going to wish her a Happy Birthday out here. Seems kinda stupid to me since she doesn’t have a page of her own. No, I’m using this occasion to express how impressed with and proud I am of my wife. She has fulfilled my belief that if you really want to get in shape, you can.
Now mind you, she was a babe when I met her. That’s why I was attracted to her. I can still remember the outfit she was wearing on the night we met … uh, oops, sorry. That story is more appropriate for our anniversary. Anyway, she worked out then, but considering that she’s a year removed from childbirth, and the fact that the change is noticeable when I see her everyday, blows my mind. The running she has done has really had an effect.
I’ve always taken it as an article of faith that if you eat well and exercise, you’ll remain healthy, and healthy-looking. Before this year I’ve had only two first-hand experiences of any significant weight fluctuations.
The first was when I moved up to Dallas a couple years after graduating high school. At the time, I was in the 170-175 range. I was an athlete in high school, so I had fairly good eating and workout habits. When I moved, I refined those habits further. I tightened up the diet (if only due to financial constraints) and started lifting weights more. Thus, I put on about 20 pounds, and stayed there for a number of years.
My other experience has been a slower climb over the last five years or so. Blame it on ice cream. Blame it on beer. Blame it on time constraints. Given the birth of 4 daughters and a change of priorities, the latter is probably the biggest culprit. Whatever: I have gained about 10 lbs in that time.
Now comes the third experience, the first one of losing weight. As I said, there’s not a big difference in her appearance, but it’s there. I gaze at her longer than I used to in order to make sure what I’m seeing is for real. It’s as if I’m holding out my hands, fingertips to the sky and palms facing each other, and looking at her between them. I’ve had to move my hands closer to each other over the course of this year. Granted, part of this can be attributed to her body reassuming its normal shape the further out from the birth she progresses. But still, I don’t recall doing this as we neared Sloane’s older sisters’ respective 1st birthdays.
So take notice. If you really want to shape up, take care of yourself, set a good example for your kids and be productive, you can.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Did Christine O'Donnell Turn Delaware Into A 2-for-1?
Way back when, long about last week, I maintained that, given a vote, I would have gone for Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP senate primary. Sure, his beliefs probably are not as close to mind as his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, but he’s probably as close as I could get in such a state, and most polls had consistently shown him to be as near a shoo-in as imaginable. And anyway, it’s not like he was as out there as Lincoln Chaffee. Throw in the fact that he didn’t seem to have near the baggage as Miss O’Donnell, and the decision didn’t seem that hard.
But now I’m having second thoughts, particularly after a slew of favorable polls (collected at www.realclearpolitics.com) for the GOP were released yesterday.
One of those polls, which actually wasn’t so GOP-friendly, was one taken Saturday by Fox News/Rasmussen of the aforementioned Delaware senate race to fill Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat between Miss O’Donnell and democratic nominee Chris Coons. It showed Mr. Coons up by 15 LVs (likely voters). That’s actually an increase of 4 points from the poll Rasmussen conducted the day after the primary. No real surprise, although many in the republican establishment are probably still cursing through pursed lips at losing what looked to be the surest pickup of the Triple Crown (President Obama’s old seat in Illinois and that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being the other two).
As my wife and I sat down to work and read after putting our girls to bed last night, I flipped on the TV to CNN’s AC360 (since we keep our TV-viewing to a minimum, CNN is the only news network in our satellite subscription package). They were still hammering Miss O’Donnell about her “checkered past”, as they like to call it. If I were going to donate to her campaign, I’d like to see her address some of that myself. But then we wondered why they were focusing so much on her. She’s down 15 in a very blue state. Even given the bias in the mainstream media, don’t they have something better to cover? I thought to myself ‘I bet the other so-called controversial (you know, because they believe in the constitution and stuff) tea party candidates like Sharron Angle & Rand Paul are happy about this’. RedState’s Erick Erickson expressed a similar impression a few minutes later. Even if Miss O’Donnell eventually loses this race, which is where I believe the safe money resides, she might at least go down as a martyr because of the media fire she drew away from other tea party/constitution candidates.
A couple other poll results that grabbed my attention yesterday came out of the senate races in Wisconsin and West Virginia.
The race in Wisconsin exemplifies, as well as any, what the political climate is like. There are probably not one or two issues on which I agree with Senator Russ Feingold, but he’s a principled liberal. Because of that, I respect him. When he votes against his party, it’s usually because their position isn’t far enough to the left. I’ve never had the impression that he votes the way the wind blows. This was the man after all, the ONLY senator, who voted against the Patriot Act. Agree or disagree, he stuck to his principles.
He has been in a tough race this year, usually finding himself up only a couple points. That changed last week when Rasmussen found him down by 7 points. Then a whopper this weekend; it increased to 11 points in a poll taken by … The Daily Kos, the pioneering liberal netroots blog!
West Virginia, in the meantime, is holding a special election this year to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in the history of the world. Polling in this race has regularly shown democratic Governor Joe Manchin with a lead just shy of double digits. Businessman John Raese, previously a 2-time loser in senate races, had managed to knock off a point or two in recent weeks, but was barely moving the needle … until yesterday. Public Policy Polling showed him up this weekend by 3 points, roughly a 10-point swing.
The recent trends in those two races got me to thinking; did O’Donnell’s victory have the effect of a national pep rally, or at least that of an encore at a rock concert? Was it the ultimate confirmation of what Florida senate candidate Marco Rubio said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday, that there is definitely a national aspect carrying his race, along with that of Joe Miller in Alaska, the aforementioned Mrs. Angle and Mr. Paul of Nevada and Kentucky, respectively, and others? Has a sense of “If this has touched a state as small and as blue as Delaware, certainly something must be going on” swept across the country?
I told my wife it kinda reminded me of that scene at the end of Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Darth Vader “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I would not be shocked if this national wave actually sweeps Miss O’Donnell into office. But even if it doesn’t, conservatives ought to be thankful for the side benefits derived from her primary victory.
But now I’m having second thoughts, particularly after a slew of favorable polls (collected at www.realclearpolitics.com) for the GOP were released yesterday.
One of those polls, which actually wasn’t so GOP-friendly, was one taken Saturday by Fox News/Rasmussen of the aforementioned Delaware senate race to fill Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat between Miss O’Donnell and democratic nominee Chris Coons. It showed Mr. Coons up by 15 LVs (likely voters). That’s actually an increase of 4 points from the poll Rasmussen conducted the day after the primary. No real surprise, although many in the republican establishment are probably still cursing through pursed lips at losing what looked to be the surest pickup of the Triple Crown (President Obama’s old seat in Illinois and that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being the other two).
As my wife and I sat down to work and read after putting our girls to bed last night, I flipped on the TV to CNN’s AC360 (since we keep our TV-viewing to a minimum, CNN is the only news network in our satellite subscription package). They were still hammering Miss O’Donnell about her “checkered past”, as they like to call it. If I were going to donate to her campaign, I’d like to see her address some of that myself. But then we wondered why they were focusing so much on her. She’s down 15 in a very blue state. Even given the bias in the mainstream media, don’t they have something better to cover? I thought to myself ‘I bet the other so-called controversial (you know, because they believe in the constitution and stuff) tea party candidates like Sharron Angle & Rand Paul are happy about this’. RedState’s Erick Erickson expressed a similar impression a few minutes later. Even if Miss O’Donnell eventually loses this race, which is where I believe the safe money resides, she might at least go down as a martyr because of the media fire she drew away from other tea party/constitution candidates.
A couple other poll results that grabbed my attention yesterday came out of the senate races in Wisconsin and West Virginia.
The race in Wisconsin exemplifies, as well as any, what the political climate is like. There are probably not one or two issues on which I agree with Senator Russ Feingold, but he’s a principled liberal. Because of that, I respect him. When he votes against his party, it’s usually because their position isn’t far enough to the left. I’ve never had the impression that he votes the way the wind blows. This was the man after all, the ONLY senator, who voted against the Patriot Act. Agree or disagree, he stuck to his principles.
He has been in a tough race this year, usually finding himself up only a couple points. That changed last week when Rasmussen found him down by 7 points. Then a whopper this weekend; it increased to 11 points in a poll taken by … The Daily Kos, the pioneering liberal netroots blog!
West Virginia, in the meantime, is holding a special election this year to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in the history of the world. Polling in this race has regularly shown democratic Governor Joe Manchin with a lead just shy of double digits. Businessman John Raese, previously a 2-time loser in senate races, had managed to knock off a point or two in recent weeks, but was barely moving the needle … until yesterday. Public Policy Polling showed him up this weekend by 3 points, roughly a 10-point swing.
The recent trends in those two races got me to thinking; did O’Donnell’s victory have the effect of a national pep rally, or at least that of an encore at a rock concert? Was it the ultimate confirmation of what Florida senate candidate Marco Rubio said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday, that there is definitely a national aspect carrying his race, along with that of Joe Miller in Alaska, the aforementioned Mrs. Angle and Mr. Paul of Nevada and Kentucky, respectively, and others? Has a sense of “If this has touched a state as small and as blue as Delaware, certainly something must be going on” swept across the country?
I told my wife it kinda reminded me of that scene at the end of Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Darth Vader “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I would not be shocked if this national wave actually sweeps Miss O’Donnell into office. But even if it doesn’t, conservatives ought to be thankful for the side benefits derived from her primary victory.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
2 More Things About Unemployment
Stormtrooper: Here is my identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] We don't need to see your identification. Stormtrooper: You don't need to see my identification.
Obi-Wan: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Stormtrooper: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Obi-Wan: You need feel no pressure to find a job.
Stormtrooper: I need feel no pressure to find a job.
Obi-Wan: We’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
Stormtrooper: You’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt0440731
No, no, that’s not George Lucas’ newest hatchet job on one of his classic movies. That’s just how it seems policymakers try to convince people of something that just isn’t true.
This week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the cover entitled “Long Recession Ignites Debate on Jobless Benefits” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575338691913994892.html). Contrary to what some believe, this is a legitimate debate.
There are indeed some out there, like the internet programmer in New York, who abuse the system, passing up jobs because they do not pay what the applicants are accustomed to. People like him surely engender no sympathy from people like the forklift driver in Indiana. Few tears would be shed by the latter because, after landing another job that paid 10% more than the one he was laid off from, the former quit it because his “miserable career” depressed him.
While not even the government sympathizes enough with someone like that to extend benefits, the more intriguing story is that of the former forklift driver. The story provides two such reasons: his wife still has a job, making roughly what he use to; and, if you look closely at the picture of him, there is an ashtray beside him on the couch.
Although it is optimal, even desirable for everyone who wants a job to have one, it doesn’t always work out that way, especially in an economic climate like that of today. Misfortune strikes and one spouse loses a job. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2-earner families decreased from 51.4% in 2008 to 48.5% last year. The apparent course of action, therefore, would be to adjust the lifestyle to be able to live on one salary (it could be argued that it is prudent to adopt such a lifestyle anyway).
Most people agree with the propriety of temporary unemployment benefits, like the 26 weeks that used to be the norm. It is a small price to pay for prosperous dynamic economy brought about by a relatively free market, free trade and a flexible workforce. After a while, however, adjustments need to be made, perhaps psychologically as much as anything.
Now, assuming that ashtray does not serve simply to hold the couch down, it appears that he smokes. A pack of cigarettes have averaged about $5 for about a year now. The fact that the ashtray made it into a picture means it is probably conservative to assume he smokes a pack-a-day. Thus, there goes about $150 per month in smokes.
Assume, in this case, that numerous studies apply and he drinks. Let’s say he downs 3 beers every day. Here in Texas, a case of regular, domestic runs around $15-$20. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the price is roughly equal in Indiana. That’s $60-$80 per month.
Between cigarettes and beer, that’s at least $200 per month. Never mind the subsequent health care costs for someone with such a lifestyle.
Is it any wonder there has been pushback to extending unemployment benefits any further?
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] We don't need to see your identification. Stormtrooper: You don't need to see my identification.
Obi-Wan: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Stormtrooper: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Obi-Wan: You need feel no pressure to find a job.
Stormtrooper: I need feel no pressure to find a job.
Obi-Wan: We’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
Stormtrooper: You’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt0440731
No, no, that’s not George Lucas’ newest hatchet job on one of his classic movies. That’s just how it seems policymakers try to convince people of something that just isn’t true.
This week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the cover entitled “Long Recession Ignites Debate on Jobless Benefits” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575338691913994892.html). Contrary to what some believe, this is a legitimate debate.
There are indeed some out there, like the internet programmer in New York, who abuse the system, passing up jobs because they do not pay what the applicants are accustomed to. People like him surely engender no sympathy from people like the forklift driver in Indiana. Few tears would be shed by the latter because, after landing another job that paid 10% more than the one he was laid off from, the former quit it because his “miserable career” depressed him.
While not even the government sympathizes enough with someone like that to extend benefits, the more intriguing story is that of the former forklift driver. The story provides two such reasons: his wife still has a job, making roughly what he use to; and, if you look closely at the picture of him, there is an ashtray beside him on the couch.
Although it is optimal, even desirable for everyone who wants a job to have one, it doesn’t always work out that way, especially in an economic climate like that of today. Misfortune strikes and one spouse loses a job. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2-earner families decreased from 51.4% in 2008 to 48.5% last year. The apparent course of action, therefore, would be to adjust the lifestyle to be able to live on one salary (it could be argued that it is prudent to adopt such a lifestyle anyway).
Most people agree with the propriety of temporary unemployment benefits, like the 26 weeks that used to be the norm. It is a small price to pay for prosperous dynamic economy brought about by a relatively free market, free trade and a flexible workforce. After a while, however, adjustments need to be made, perhaps psychologically as much as anything.
Now, assuming that ashtray does not serve simply to hold the couch down, it appears that he smokes. A pack of cigarettes have averaged about $5 for about a year now. The fact that the ashtray made it into a picture means it is probably conservative to assume he smokes a pack-a-day. Thus, there goes about $150 per month in smokes.
Assume, in this case, that numerous studies apply and he drinks. Let’s say he downs 3 beers every day. Here in Texas, a case of regular, domestic runs around $15-$20. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the price is roughly equal in Indiana. That’s $60-$80 per month.
Between cigarettes and beer, that’s at least $200 per month. Never mind the subsequent health care costs for someone with such a lifestyle.
Is it any wonder there has been pushback to extending unemployment benefits any further?
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Unemployment Benefits Do Not Create Jobs
Last year I wrote an article in our company’s biannual newsletter detailing what I thought was necessary for our industry, natural gas, to recover from the plunge in it’s the price. In it I said “…relying on input demand for the production of inelastic goods (stuff we buy largely regardless of price i.e. food & energy) to return the industry to sunnier times is akin to expecting rip-roaring profit growth in the grocery industry to fuel robust growth in GDP.” Now it seems some prominent people are indirectly trying to make that case about GDP growth.
After an extension of unemployment benefits ran into some stiff headwinds last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded us that they “inject demand into the economy.” She went further and informed us of a new advantage: it “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” Huh? It’s debatable whether or not unemployment benefits are even a job preserver, much less a job creator.
It is technically true that they do support demand, but demand for what? Given that benefits average a little more than 1/3 of the average weekly wage nationally, demand is most likely relegated to the most essential, necessary goods, such as groceries, probably the most indispensable goods we buy.
Even in the absence of such assistance, don’t most people, especially parents, find a way to provide for such necessities, be it drawing on savings, taking whatever work can be found, seeking private charity (family or church) or even selling assets? If someone can’t find a job after 26 weeks, the range of time when most benefits originate from taxes on businesses, it’s probably time to evaluate his/her/their current living expenses i.e. rent/mortgage, TV, phones, etc.
Regardless of the source of funds, we will always eat and clean ourselves. Therefore, the purchase of groceries rarely fluctuates. It is true that when a society becomes richer the makeup of its diet changes, incorporating more meat for example, an entrée that is a luxury in many parts of the world. We also might buy more brand-name foods. This might explain why we spent 17% more on groceries in 2007, the last year of solid economic growth before the recession, than last year.
Still, in those beefier, even steak-ier, Charmin-using times, groceries accounted for less than 10% of GDP. In 2009, that figure was 5 ½ %. Last year’s figures arguably represent the minimum amount of basic food we need to get by. This is why we are unlikely to ever see a headline that reads “Grocery Stores’ Profit Lead the Way in 3rd Quarter GDP Surge”.
Whatever jobs that may have been shed at Del Monte that were not subsequently absorbed by generic fruit & vegetable canners are unlikely to return due to an extension of unemployment insurance.
After an extension of unemployment benefits ran into some stiff headwinds last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded us that they “inject demand into the economy.” She went further and informed us of a new advantage: it “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” Huh? It’s debatable whether or not unemployment benefits are even a job preserver, much less a job creator.
It is technically true that they do support demand, but demand for what? Given that benefits average a little more than 1/3 of the average weekly wage nationally, demand is most likely relegated to the most essential, necessary goods, such as groceries, probably the most indispensable goods we buy.
Even in the absence of such assistance, don’t most people, especially parents, find a way to provide for such necessities, be it drawing on savings, taking whatever work can be found, seeking private charity (family or church) or even selling assets? If someone can’t find a job after 26 weeks, the range of time when most benefits originate from taxes on businesses, it’s probably time to evaluate his/her/their current living expenses i.e. rent/mortgage, TV, phones, etc.
Regardless of the source of funds, we will always eat and clean ourselves. Therefore, the purchase of groceries rarely fluctuates. It is true that when a society becomes richer the makeup of its diet changes, incorporating more meat for example, an entrée that is a luxury in many parts of the world. We also might buy more brand-name foods. This might explain why we spent 17% more on groceries in 2007, the last year of solid economic growth before the recession, than last year.
Still, in those beefier, even steak-ier, Charmin-using times, groceries accounted for less than 10% of GDP. In 2009, that figure was 5 ½ %. Last year’s figures arguably represent the minimum amount of basic food we need to get by. This is why we are unlikely to ever see a headline that reads “Grocery Stores’ Profit Lead the Way in 3rd Quarter GDP Surge”.
Whatever jobs that may have been shed at Del Monte that were not subsequently absorbed by generic fruit & vegetable canners are unlikely to return due to an extension of unemployment insurance.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Before You Take Advantage of a 0% Credit Card Offer ...
I have become more and more averse to debt as I have grown older and educated myself more. But I'm still open to it if we can come out ahead. With that in mind, this article from the Wall Street Journal this morning (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703890904575297353083622856.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF2) caught my interest.
The notion of borrowing from a 0% credit card and dumping the proceeds in an interest-bearing account is a good one. A few years ago, we actually started using such offers to move around our old student loan balance. Going the savings route, with $10K, could net you almost $180 in interest after a year (assuming that a portion of that $10K is used to make a $200 monthly payment to that credit card). There's only one hitch: the transaction fee.
Every time we move the balance from one credit card to another, there is a 2-3% transaction fee. So for the aforementioned $10K, we'd have to pay $200-300. Unless part of the lure of recent offers is the absence of such a fee, simple math shows that to be an unwise 'investment'.
The notion of borrowing from a 0% credit card and dumping the proceeds in an interest-bearing account is a good one. A few years ago, we actually started using such offers to move around our old student loan balance. Going the savings route, with $10K, could net you almost $180 in interest after a year (assuming that a portion of that $10K is used to make a $200 monthly payment to that credit card). There's only one hitch: the transaction fee.
Every time we move the balance from one credit card to another, there is a 2-3% transaction fee. So for the aforementioned $10K, we'd have to pay $200-300. Unless part of the lure of recent offers is the absence of such a fee, simple math shows that to be an unwise 'investment'.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Ultimate Hope
Well, it’s been two weeks since the election. In that time, even though I voted for McCain, I have felt some enthusiasm with anticipation of a fresh start. To honest, I’m ready to be finished with the Bush years. But I just can’t bring myself to get excited about Obama. A few reasons keep a lid on it.
There was an episode of South Park where Cartman’s mom was lobbying, in her own special way, different public officials to legalize abortion all the way up to the (divide Cartman’s age by ¾)th trimester. It was a funny bit because the notion was outrageous. It might still have been at least a little funny if she’d have instead said 4th trimester. Why? Because in either case, the baby is already born and there’s no way imaginable someone could lobby for that, or even close to that. This presidential campaign proved that isn’t so far fetched when we learned of President-elect Obama’s opposition to a Born Alive Infants bill, which directed medical attention to babies who survived botched abortions (wouldn’t the 4th trimester theoretically start at birth?). When he says he doesn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, he really means it!
Even though he acknowledged in a debate that raising capital gains rates has proven, in the past, to bring about decreased federal tax receipts, he still wants to raise it in the name of “fairness”. Two things come to mind. One is the saying “Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak”, never mind that it’s a debatable point if the weak became so as a result of their own actions. It is this kind of stance that has convinced me that liberals sincerely do believe in equality of outcome, if they’re not downright hostile to those who succeed (especially without government help). How else to explain them depriving beloved government programs/ideas of funds when they know they’ll get more if they cut taxes on higher earners?? Second, if he means fairness is lacking because tax rates on income derived from labor are higher than those on income derived from investments (capital gains, dividend, rents, etc.), OK, but he’s only half way there. Why not bring down those top marginal rates in an effort to have them eventually meet capital gains, and dividend rates, somewhere in the middle?
If he has his way, and there’s little reason to doubt he will given expanded democratic majorities in congress, there will be fewer people pulling the American economic wagon and yet more riding. This was one of the areas I wish the McCain campaign would have hit earlier, harder and more frequently: if upwards of 40% of Americans pay no net taxes, how can Obama possibly cut taxes for 95% of us? Now there’s some fuzzy math! How is that anything other than more people going on the dole?? One could argue that there are already too many people who pay no taxes. If, however, they would like to trade their right to vote while they owe no taxes, fine by me. Otherwise, it could conceivably be viewed that they vote for a ‘pay raise’ every time they vote democrat, kinda like how they can count on increases in the minimum wage (why stop at $7.25?) or strengthening organized labor (nothing like getting paid 90% of your salary when there’s no work to do).
There are other things, like his declaration that we have to get “past the notion that we are better than everyone else”, even though many Americans, like myself, think we are indeed exceptional. I do hold out some hope that he will all-of-a-sudden value life more, that he will turn away from professed desire to “spread the wealth around”, that he will realize the markets are gyrating right now because they don’t know what Washington is going to do next and that he shouldn’t contribute to that uncertainty with “experimentation”. I do hold out hope, a sliver, that he will do a 180. But that’s hoping for a lot.
There was an episode of South Park where Cartman’s mom was lobbying, in her own special way, different public officials to legalize abortion all the way up to the (divide Cartman’s age by ¾)th trimester. It was a funny bit because the notion was outrageous. It might still have been at least a little funny if she’d have instead said 4th trimester. Why? Because in either case, the baby is already born and there’s no way imaginable someone could lobby for that, or even close to that. This presidential campaign proved that isn’t so far fetched when we learned of President-elect Obama’s opposition to a Born Alive Infants bill, which directed medical attention to babies who survived botched abortions (wouldn’t the 4th trimester theoretically start at birth?). When he says he doesn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”, he really means it!
Even though he acknowledged in a debate that raising capital gains rates has proven, in the past, to bring about decreased federal tax receipts, he still wants to raise it in the name of “fairness”. Two things come to mind. One is the saying “Holding back the strong is no way to help the weak”, never mind that it’s a debatable point if the weak became so as a result of their own actions. It is this kind of stance that has convinced me that liberals sincerely do believe in equality of outcome, if they’re not downright hostile to those who succeed (especially without government help). How else to explain them depriving beloved government programs/ideas of funds when they know they’ll get more if they cut taxes on higher earners?? Second, if he means fairness is lacking because tax rates on income derived from labor are higher than those on income derived from investments (capital gains, dividend, rents, etc.), OK, but he’s only half way there. Why not bring down those top marginal rates in an effort to have them eventually meet capital gains, and dividend rates, somewhere in the middle?
If he has his way, and there’s little reason to doubt he will given expanded democratic majorities in congress, there will be fewer people pulling the American economic wagon and yet more riding. This was one of the areas I wish the McCain campaign would have hit earlier, harder and more frequently: if upwards of 40% of Americans pay no net taxes, how can Obama possibly cut taxes for 95% of us? Now there’s some fuzzy math! How is that anything other than more people going on the dole?? One could argue that there are already too many people who pay no taxes. If, however, they would like to trade their right to vote while they owe no taxes, fine by me. Otherwise, it could conceivably be viewed that they vote for a ‘pay raise’ every time they vote democrat, kinda like how they can count on increases in the minimum wage (why stop at $7.25?) or strengthening organized labor (nothing like getting paid 90% of your salary when there’s no work to do).
There are other things, like his declaration that we have to get “past the notion that we are better than everyone else”, even though many Americans, like myself, think we are indeed exceptional. I do hold out some hope that he will all-of-a-sudden value life more, that he will turn away from professed desire to “spread the wealth around”, that he will realize the markets are gyrating right now because they don’t know what Washington is going to do next and that he shouldn’t contribute to that uncertainty with “experimentation”. I do hold out hope, a sliver, that he will do a 180. But that’s hoping for a lot.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
How Much Less Can I Get Away With?
I had an immediate opinion about this piece (http://www.mysanantonio.com/moms/Caregivers_watch_little_ones_in_wee_hours_so_parents_can_sleep.html) as soon as I read it. But, since I'm only a dad (of 3 pre-K girls), regardless that I also get up in the middle of the night, handle most bath times, share in bedtime stories, change diapers, etc. etc., I figured I would send it to my wife and see what she thought. She and I agree the vast majority of the time, so I thought it would be safe, and smart, to defer to her on this idea of nighttime nannies.
That evening I asked her if she read the article and what she thought. She said "Sounds like more outsourcing of parental duties." "That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!" I love her.
How much more parental responsibility, one might say 'the parental experience', are we going to delegate to others? Putting babies/children in daycare because you have to go out to earn a living to make (reasonable) ends meet is one thing. But passing off the responsibility of soothing your baby in the middle of the night? Isn't that where part of the parental-child bond is formed?? No pain, no pain, right? But if that is your mantra, perhaps the parenting gig isn't for you.
I suppose soon some of these nannies will also offer breastfeeding as part of an a la carte menu.
That evening I asked her if she read the article and what she thought. She said "Sounds like more outsourcing of parental duties." "That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!!" I love her.
How much more parental responsibility, one might say 'the parental experience', are we going to delegate to others? Putting babies/children in daycare because you have to go out to earn a living to make (reasonable) ends meet is one thing. But passing off the responsibility of soothing your baby in the middle of the night? Isn't that where part of the parental-child bond is formed?? No pain, no pain, right? But if that is your mantra, perhaps the parenting gig isn't for you.
I suppose soon some of these nannies will also offer breastfeeding as part of an a la carte menu.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Why Health Insurance is Expensive and Continues to Go Higher
"Verizon Communications Inc. was facing a weekend labor strike deadline as it negotiated Friday with unions representing about 65,000 employees.
"The workers object to the company's plans to require employees to contributed toward health-care coverage costs.
"Verizon currently picks up the entire cost of insurance premiums for C.W.A. (Communications Workers of America) and I.B.E.W. (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) workers."
When something is inexpensive, or outright free, whether through normal market mechanisms or artificially so (such as as in this example), more is demanded of it. When demand increases accordingly, the price goes up in an attempt to reach a market-clearing price. Yet, in cases such as this, the final consumers never feel the pinch of increased prices. So what happens? Their demand continues unabated, and prices continue to rise and the cycle continues.
Read that passage again. Verizon's unionized workers, which fortunately make up a small portion of their entire workforce, pay nothing. Zero, and they want to keep it that way. Do they have no pride, no shame or integrity?? Do you know anyone who has ever bragged about being a freeloader?? They are coddled like babies and now they're crying because their free goodies might be taken away. Welcome to the real world where we pay for essential goods and services!
On a side note, it's interesting that neither Yahoo nor AP, just to name a couple, pointed out the specifics of the health insurance point of contention. This passage was taken from Saturday's Wall Street Journal.
"The workers object to the company's plans to require employees to contributed toward health-care coverage costs.
"Verizon currently picks up the entire cost of insurance premiums for C.W.A. (Communications Workers of America) and I.B.E.W. (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) workers."
When something is inexpensive, or outright free, whether through normal market mechanisms or artificially so (such as as in this example), more is demanded of it. When demand increases accordingly, the price goes up in an attempt to reach a market-clearing price. Yet, in cases such as this, the final consumers never feel the pinch of increased prices. So what happens? Their demand continues unabated, and prices continue to rise and the cycle continues.
Read that passage again. Verizon's unionized workers, which fortunately make up a small portion of their entire workforce, pay nothing. Zero, and they want to keep it that way. Do they have no pride, no shame or integrity?? Do you know anyone who has ever bragged about being a freeloader?? They are coddled like babies and now they're crying because their free goodies might be taken away. Welcome to the real world where we pay for essential goods and services!
On a side note, it's interesting that neither Yahoo nor AP, just to name a couple, pointed out the specifics of the health insurance point of contention. This passage was taken from Saturday's Wall Street Journal.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Take This to the Ballot Box
"Offshoring does create losers, most obviously those whose jobs disappear when business operations are shunted abroad. But on balance it is good for the economy, making domestic firms more productive and generating jobs at home as well as abroad. Just as trade delivers overall gains to developed economies by allowing them to specialise in activities in which they have a comparative advantage, so does offshoring."
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11506740&subjectID=423172&fsrc=nwl
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11506740&subjectID=423172&fsrc=nwl
Sunday, May 25, 2008
The Dead Horse That Apparently Still Needs Beating
The “oil economy” may be in a state of flux, perhaps even a bit volatile, but I’d hardly say the collapse thereof is imminent.
The one thing that contributes largely to this volatility seems to be the one thing Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News suggest employing to help us in his piece this morning ("A new energy economy in S.A. could be the next big thing": http://www.mysanantonio.com/columnists/stories/MYSA.052508.METRO3BRivard.2f26c04.html): more government. It is a good thing that gas prices are spurring the search for other forms of energy, but it is artificially inflated due to too much government involvement in the market via excessively low interest rates, restrictions on domestic production and refining, etc. Hopefully, the new finds in Brazil won’t head off at the pass sources that have become more viable due to high prices, such as the tar sands in California. Those are two examples right there that, if government would just get out of the way, new supplies would start flowing into the market and perhaps stabilize, if not bring prices down eventually.
Another example is his suggestion of offering Toyota incentives to switch the local plant from producing Tundras to hybrids. They simply need no such incentive. It’s like throwing gas onto a fire. They’re sales have taken a dip, as have truck sales in general. That’s all the incentive they need!
There will be clients for such alternatives when they become economically viable. Nothing would make me happier than to spend less on gas. But instead of looking at Priuses, I’m looking at scooters. It’s just not worth it to my family right now to spend a few thousand on a hybrid when my Camry does OK. We know two people who have Priuses, and we applaud them. They are the types of people who brought down the prices of flat screens. They wanted the product, regardless of price, and as more people bought them, the prices came down.
Surely, though, he doesn't believe in a free lunch. There’s no such thing as free bus ridership. The buses will not be maintained, tanks be filled, drivers be paid with money that comes out of thin air. The funds will come from somewhere, and that somewhere will be increased taxes, likely paid by people who still will not ride public transit.
Here’s hoping his “mandatory recycling program” only includes a recycling can for every trash can. The last thing I, or any freedom-loving American needs is to be forced to do something I may (which I am), or may not already be doing.
The one thing that contributes largely to this volatility seems to be the one thing Robert Rivard of the San Antonio Express-News suggest employing to help us in his piece this morning ("A new energy economy in S.A. could be the next big thing": http://www.mysanantonio.com/columnists/stories/MYSA.052508.METRO3BRivard.2f26c04.html): more government. It is a good thing that gas prices are spurring the search for other forms of energy, but it is artificially inflated due to too much government involvement in the market via excessively low interest rates, restrictions on domestic production and refining, etc. Hopefully, the new finds in Brazil won’t head off at the pass sources that have become more viable due to high prices, such as the tar sands in California. Those are two examples right there that, if government would just get out of the way, new supplies would start flowing into the market and perhaps stabilize, if not bring prices down eventually.
Another example is his suggestion of offering Toyota incentives to switch the local plant from producing Tundras to hybrids. They simply need no such incentive. It’s like throwing gas onto a fire. They’re sales have taken a dip, as have truck sales in general. That’s all the incentive they need!
There will be clients for such alternatives when they become economically viable. Nothing would make me happier than to spend less on gas. But instead of looking at Priuses, I’m looking at scooters. It’s just not worth it to my family right now to spend a few thousand on a hybrid when my Camry does OK. We know two people who have Priuses, and we applaud them. They are the types of people who brought down the prices of flat screens. They wanted the product, regardless of price, and as more people bought them, the prices came down.
Surely, though, he doesn't believe in a free lunch. There’s no such thing as free bus ridership. The buses will not be maintained, tanks be filled, drivers be paid with money that comes out of thin air. The funds will come from somewhere, and that somewhere will be increased taxes, likely paid by people who still will not ride public transit.
Here’s hoping his “mandatory recycling program” only includes a recycling can for every trash can. The last thing I, or any freedom-loving American needs is to be forced to do something I may (which I am), or may not already be doing.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
It Had to Come Down to These Two??
It’s been a depressing couple of political days lately…week and a half, actually. I’ve always been realistic about how unrealistic the chances are of my 1st choice, Dr. Paul, ascending to the presidency. But now, after the unremarkable campaign of Fred Thompson has ended, Rudy Giuiliani’s Florida/Super Tuesday strategy has gone down in flames and Mike Huckabee has predictably proven to be a 1-hit wonder, I might be left to choose between my two least favorites: John McCain and Mitt Romney. Yuck!
McCain is, as he likes to proclaim, a “straight-shooter”. Problem is, many of his shots are in the wrong direction i.e. man-mad global warming, the evilness of the pharmaceutical industry, campaign-finance reform, etc. (I do believe he has sincerely seen the problem with the immigration bill he tried to ram through last summer) He voted against the tax cuts and has said nothing more than he sign major tax reform if it “hit his desk”. That’s code for “It ain’t my issue and I’m not gonna push it.” And, although both Reagan and W proved you can never be sure, given his aforementioned errant ways, I’m not sure he’d nominate the right people to the federal bench. The only two areas in which I’ve been a big fan of his are national security/foreign policy hawkishness and his stance against federal spending. And if it wasn’t for the fact that Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Tom Coburn and the like support him, it’d be easier instead to support…
Mitt Romney. I’m not thrilled about someone to whom labels such as “panderer” and “flip-flopper” can be legitimately affixed. He has just always seemed to slick, too…politician-y. And shouldn’t he have a plan to simplify the tax code? I mean, he’s supposed to be the business guy in this race. Paul, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee all have/had such plans. Why doesn’t he? He wants to “clean up Washington” (a phrase I tire of hearing less than only “change”). Isn’t the tax code the best place to start? Hell, couldn’t you stop there, too?!? Still, at least this year (say what you will), he stands on the right side of more issues, in my mind, than McCain does. Regardless, if either is elected and don’t hew closely enough to the party line (i.e. Papa Bush), they’ll both be one-termers. Of course, the same thing could probably be said with regard to hewing close to the party line in the campaign, and that doesn’t seem to be holding true.
Finally, I want to say a pleasant ‘Good-bye’ to Mayor Giuliani. He has been 1st, 2nd or 3rd on my list the whole campaign (even though Fred moved ahead of him briefly, he wasn’t in the race long enough for me to have as good a vibe). I trusted him on national security. He said all the right things with regard to reforming health insurance. He was always quick to address the fallacy in thinking that revenues can only be increased by raising taxes. He finally came out with a good idea for tax reform. It was looking for a while like his Florida/Super Tuesday strategy might just work. I personally think the tipping point came in the debate where he and Romney went at it over sanctuary cities. He seemed petty with the “sanctuary mansion” tack. Plus, that was also about the time it was alleged that his then-mistress may have been protected with taxpayer funds. That gave me a sour feeling (it was also about that time that Fred came out with his 2-rate, optional income-tax return). That’s when he dropped to 3rd on my list. But still, I would have more enthusiastically supported him than either McCain or Romney. I suppose it wasn’t mean to be.
Unless of course McCain taps him for V.P. That would make my day in that it would effectively smooth the path for a Rudy nomination after McCain’s time passes.
I guess there’s hope.
McCain is, as he likes to proclaim, a “straight-shooter”. Problem is, many of his shots are in the wrong direction i.e. man-mad global warming, the evilness of the pharmaceutical industry, campaign-finance reform, etc. (I do believe he has sincerely seen the problem with the immigration bill he tried to ram through last summer) He voted against the tax cuts and has said nothing more than he sign major tax reform if it “hit his desk”. That’s code for “It ain’t my issue and I’m not gonna push it.” And, although both Reagan and W proved you can never be sure, given his aforementioned errant ways, I’m not sure he’d nominate the right people to the federal bench. The only two areas in which I’ve been a big fan of his are national security/foreign policy hawkishness and his stance against federal spending. And if it wasn’t for the fact that Jack Kemp, Phil Gramm and Tom Coburn and the like support him, it’d be easier instead to support…
Mitt Romney. I’m not thrilled about someone to whom labels such as “panderer” and “flip-flopper” can be legitimately affixed. He has just always seemed to slick, too…politician-y. And shouldn’t he have a plan to simplify the tax code? I mean, he’s supposed to be the business guy in this race. Paul, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee all have/had such plans. Why doesn’t he? He wants to “clean up Washington” (a phrase I tire of hearing less than only “change”). Isn’t the tax code the best place to start? Hell, couldn’t you stop there, too?!? Still, at least this year (say what you will), he stands on the right side of more issues, in my mind, than McCain does. Regardless, if either is elected and don’t hew closely enough to the party line (i.e. Papa Bush), they’ll both be one-termers. Of course, the same thing could probably be said with regard to hewing close to the party line in the campaign, and that doesn’t seem to be holding true.
Finally, I want to say a pleasant ‘Good-bye’ to Mayor Giuliani. He has been 1st, 2nd or 3rd on my list the whole campaign (even though Fred moved ahead of him briefly, he wasn’t in the race long enough for me to have as good a vibe). I trusted him on national security. He said all the right things with regard to reforming health insurance. He was always quick to address the fallacy in thinking that revenues can only be increased by raising taxes. He finally came out with a good idea for tax reform. It was looking for a while like his Florida/Super Tuesday strategy might just work. I personally think the tipping point came in the debate where he and Romney went at it over sanctuary cities. He seemed petty with the “sanctuary mansion” tack. Plus, that was also about the time it was alleged that his then-mistress may have been protected with taxpayer funds. That gave me a sour feeling (it was also about that time that Fred came out with his 2-rate, optional income-tax return). That’s when he dropped to 3rd on my list. But still, I would have more enthusiastically supported him than either McCain or Romney. I suppose it wasn’t mean to be.
Unless of course McCain taps him for V.P. That would make my day in that it would effectively smooth the path for a Rudy nomination after McCain’s time passes.
I guess there’s hope.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Most Pure Kind of Passion
"It's always fascinating, however, to read about the passion Paul does inspire in his fans."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/the_daily_2008_180.html
It's the purest, most admirable kind of passion because the guy is the straightest shooter up there. I mean, how can you go wrong when you the Constitution is your guide 100% of the time?? I'd argue that his supporters are the most dedicated to the Constitution and have the most faith in what the Founding Fathers did. They have the most respect for the Founding Fathers. Any supporter of the so-called "Living Constitution" or of any non-defense, non-justice taxpayer-funded government program or any regulation of private behavior, they think less of the wisdom of what the Founding Fathers put down in writing, whether it's the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, etc
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/the_daily_2008_180.html
It's the purest, most admirable kind of passion because the guy is the straightest shooter up there. I mean, how can you go wrong when you the Constitution is your guide 100% of the time?? I'd argue that his supporters are the most dedicated to the Constitution and have the most faith in what the Founding Fathers did. They have the most respect for the Founding Fathers. Any supporter of the so-called "Living Constitution" or of any non-defense, non-justice taxpayer-funded government program or any regulation of private behavior, they think less of the wisdom of what the Founding Fathers put down in writing, whether it's the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, etc
Monday, December 03, 2007
Please...
Giuliani Assails 'Fair Tax' Plan (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TA6KR80&show_article=1&catnum=0)
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani criticized the "fair tax" plan that has been touted by rival candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday, saying it could hurt home buyers.
The former New York City mayor cited the struggling U.S. housing market as a reason to avoid the plan, which would eliminate all taxes on income and investments in favor of a hefty federal sales tax.
A questioner asked about the plan but did not mention Huckabee. Nor did Giuliani mention his rival in his response.
"I think there are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy," Giuliani said. "This would not be a good time—I don't know if there would ever be a good time to do this—to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of people to buy a home and keep their home."
He also said deductions for charitable contributions and state and local taxes were important tax breaks that Huckabee's plan would eliminate."
====
Who would seriously want to keep the system we have now, instead of a much simpler, less time-consuming option, just for the deductions? No tax deduction is "vital" to the economy. People won't refrain from buying a house because they won't get to write part of it off. And it has been shown that charitable giving actually increases when taxes are lowered, not necessarily when deductions are increased.
It'd be one thing if he were showing how his radical tax simplification plan was preferable, but he's not. Only Thompson and Paul could do that. How does Rudy want to drastically reform the tax code??
GREENSBORO, N.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani criticized the "fair tax" plan that has been touted by rival candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday, saying it could hurt home buyers.
The former New York City mayor cited the struggling U.S. housing market as a reason to avoid the plan, which would eliminate all taxes on income and investments in favor of a hefty federal sales tax.
A questioner asked about the plan but did not mention Huckabee. Nor did Giuliani mention his rival in his response.
"I think there are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy," Giuliani said. "This would not be a good time—I don't know if there would ever be a good time to do this—to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of people to buy a home and keep their home."
He also said deductions for charitable contributions and state and local taxes were important tax breaks that Huckabee's plan would eliminate."
====
Who would seriously want to keep the system we have now, instead of a much simpler, less time-consuming option, just for the deductions? No tax deduction is "vital" to the economy. People won't refrain from buying a house because they won't get to write part of it off. And it has been shown that charitable giving actually increases when taxes are lowered, not necessarily when deductions are increased.
It'd be one thing if he were showing how his radical tax simplification plan was preferable, but he's not. Only Thompson and Paul could do that. How does Rudy want to drastically reform the tax code??
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Theoretically Wrong; Practically...Correct
I was going to give a regular guy's rebuttal to Michael Kinsley's piece in the L.A. Times yesterday ("Flat-tax and spend GOP", http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kinsley1dec01,0,1162496.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail). I was so confident that I could provide a quality response to his 'I-don't-know-how-he-won;-I-don't-know-anyone-who-voted-for-him' attitude and tone, but he got me in the end, (ahem) so to speak.
Maybe he was just exaggerating when he said he thinks "approximately zero" people would go for the simplicity of a flat tax or embedded (it's NOT a sales tax) FairTax if it meant losing deductions which would thereby increase their tax bills. To that, I was going to say he must have forgotten the approximately 6 billion hours Americans take each year to file their taxes. He must not fully understand the concept of opportunity cost. Some of those hours are hours that could be spent doing something else, whether something leisurely or productive. And what about all the money people already spend to have their taxes done for them? My guess is that those who have more and varied deductions might pay more and/or spend more time to do their taxes. That might make it a wash. To use Fred Thompson's plan on us as an example, we could choose to pay a flat 10% for this year. After accounting for personal exemptions ($39K for a family of 4, ~$49K when extrapolating that out to a family of 5, such as ours), our tax bill would roughly be what it would the same either way. Hmm, I'll go the simpler, flatter route. The only problem with Thompson's plan (and it's a small one, given that it is, after all, a step in the right direction) is that the rate would go up to 25% after income of $100K. As it stands right now, we straddle that line in that the missus works part time while our girls are pre-K. What will be the incentive for her to go back to work some more, not necessarily full-time if the little bit we go over $100K would compel us to pay another 15% in marginal taxes? We'd have more incentive for her to keep us just under that threshold to avoid it. Now THERE'S a system meant to foster productivity!
Then I wondered if the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation uses the same kinda static scoring of this tax cut that always, always overestimates the revenue shortfall from a tax cut (or, for that matter, underestimates the revenue increase from a tax hike). Why, oh why is it always assumed that the tax base will stay the exact same after alterations to the tax code? This is the folly that is the liberals' belief that wealth just occurs. It will always be there for more taxing. It never occurs to them...do they think it appeared just out of thin air?? Do they not think it has to be created it? Do they not think increased taxation is a disincentive to create more, or at least to change reporting structures so as to shelter more from taxation??
I was also going to no doubt perplex Mr. Kinsley again by raising my hand to say I'd accept lower Social Security payments (as long as I get back close to what I put in; please, just that) for a simpler tax code. I believe Thompson would also allow me to take back some of my contributions and invest them on my own, which I know could earn me a higher return.
He went on to say some other goofy stuff, like if person A's taxes go down, person B's taxes must necessarily go up, before stating the obvious: "The GOP bluff has been called. Republicans had six years in which they controlled the White House and (for most of that time) Congress. They could have cut any spending they wanted. They did the opposite. None of the realistic Republican presidential possibilities is discussing spending cuts except in the vaguest terms."
That makes it tough to be an enthusiastic GOP supporter.
Maybe he was just exaggerating when he said he thinks "approximately zero" people would go for the simplicity of a flat tax or embedded (it's NOT a sales tax) FairTax if it meant losing deductions which would thereby increase their tax bills. To that, I was going to say he must have forgotten the approximately 6 billion hours Americans take each year to file their taxes. He must not fully understand the concept of opportunity cost. Some of those hours are hours that could be spent doing something else, whether something leisurely or productive. And what about all the money people already spend to have their taxes done for them? My guess is that those who have more and varied deductions might pay more and/or spend more time to do their taxes. That might make it a wash. To use Fred Thompson's plan on us as an example, we could choose to pay a flat 10% for this year. After accounting for personal exemptions ($39K for a family of 4, ~$49K when extrapolating that out to a family of 5, such as ours), our tax bill would roughly be what it would the same either way. Hmm, I'll go the simpler, flatter route. The only problem with Thompson's plan (and it's a small one, given that it is, after all, a step in the right direction) is that the rate would go up to 25% after income of $100K. As it stands right now, we straddle that line in that the missus works part time while our girls are pre-K. What will be the incentive for her to go back to work some more, not necessarily full-time if the little bit we go over $100K would compel us to pay another 15% in marginal taxes? We'd have more incentive for her to keep us just under that threshold to avoid it. Now THERE'S a system meant to foster productivity!
Then I wondered if the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation uses the same kinda static scoring of this tax cut that always, always overestimates the revenue shortfall from a tax cut (or, for that matter, underestimates the revenue increase from a tax hike). Why, oh why is it always assumed that the tax base will stay the exact same after alterations to the tax code? This is the folly that is the liberals' belief that wealth just occurs. It will always be there for more taxing. It never occurs to them...do they think it appeared just out of thin air?? Do they not think it has to be created it? Do they not think increased taxation is a disincentive to create more, or at least to change reporting structures so as to shelter more from taxation??
I was also going to no doubt perplex Mr. Kinsley again by raising my hand to say I'd accept lower Social Security payments (as long as I get back close to what I put in; please, just that) for a simpler tax code. I believe Thompson would also allow me to take back some of my contributions and invest them on my own, which I know could earn me a higher return.
He went on to say some other goofy stuff, like if person A's taxes go down, person B's taxes must necessarily go up, before stating the obvious: "The GOP bluff has been called. Republicans had six years in which they controlled the White House and (for most of that time) Congress. They could have cut any spending they wanted. They did the opposite. None of the realistic Republican presidential possibilities is discussing spending cuts except in the vaguest terms."
That makes it tough to be an enthusiastic GOP supporter.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The FairTax Clarified...Finally!
Now I think I get it.
Back a few months, I read the back and forth between Neal Boortz and Bruce Bartlett regarding the the FairTax. The former, you may know, is a radio talk show host who co-authored a book on the subject with prime proponent in the House of Representatives, John Linder of Georgia. The latter is a columnist who has served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (1988 - 1993) and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress before that. Bartlett, no doubt, felt compelled to study and comment on the FairTax in, given the unexpectedly strong finish by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Ames Straw Poll of candidates for the republican nomination for president. Huckabee's support for the FairTax is arguably one of his signature issues. Even though a flat tax is my preferred form of tax reform (simpler, does not require the repeal of a Constitutional amendment), I want to understand the FairTax.
One of Bartlett's main critiques, as written in The Wall Street Journal, was that it would actually be a 30% tax on all goods and services. Many others have made this claim, too. For example, if you buy a home for $100,000, it would actually end up costing $130,000. So naturally, Boortz felt compelled to write an entry on his blog Neal's Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html) in an effort to clarify. To use our home example (Boortz actually used a $100 lamp, which changed to a $100 griddle for another clarification op-ed yesterday), he said the tax was already figured into the price of the house. Essentially, it's a $77,000 house with a $23,000 tax added. Hence, the $100,000 final price tag. I don't know about you, but I've always assumed that the FairTax is basically a national sales tax. Therefore, I saw a $23,000 tax on a $77,000 home. Living in Texas, I know sales taxes are computed on products bought. Using that logic, I came to, voila, a 30% tax.
So far, no good. I was confused and not being anymore swayed from the flat tax.
So I emailed him. I agree with much of what Boortz says and admire the passion and assertiveness with which he opines and explains. But, at least on this issue, the resulting clarity of his attempted explanations did not match his flabbergastedness over the fact that some people still don't get it. If someone with a graduate degree in economics and a big interest in serious tax reform/simplification still doesn't quite understand it, I'm betting more than a few other people don't get it either.
Alas, I get it now, thanks to another effort by him (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2007/11/27/the_fairtax_--_the_truth) to explain it in response to another critique, this time by Hank Adler of Townhall.com (Give him credit for continually being up to the challenge of trying to explain this issue. It finally helped at least one person understand it). One word and one phrase helped me see the light: embedded and "sales tax". The part that stumped me was the fact that the FairTax is often taken as synonymous with a sales tax. Again, living in Texas all my life, I'm sure I'm not the only one who understands that a sales tax of, say, 8% is added to the cost of a $1.29 soda, thereby making it $1.39. The way the final price of a good is figured out using the embedded FairTax is to divide the final cost of the product by 77%.
In the same way people need to unlearn what they've been told/taught with regard to tax cuts draining and tax hikes raising federal revenue, FairTax proponents need to clarify that it is not a sales tax. I almost flipped my lid last night while watching the CNN/YouTube GOP Presidential debate, when the I-Want-You animated Uncle Sam character came on asking if any of the candidates supported the "FairTax...sales tax"! Almost a quarter of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency reside in states that employ a sales tax rather than a personal income tax, and those states (Texas, Florida and Nevada) are 3 of the fastest growing states in the union. That share could possible approach a 1/3 by the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around. So this is a clarification that needs to occur if there is any chance that the FairTax ever becomes a reality.
The part of his defense of a couple months ago I sufficiently understood was the fact that the tax is embedded in the price of a product (A $23 tax within the $100 cost of a lamp). It made sense to me that part of the cost of a good is the income tax that company pays, the payroll taxes it pays, the income taxes paid by the employees of the company, etc. The first bit of protest a person would lodge against this theory is "What makes you so sure a company would lower it's price by something close to the 22% currently estimated to be embedded in products?" I've heard similar doubts with regard to salaries increasing when companies no long have less of an incentive to offer/provide health insurance than a person has to buy it on his/her own. The answer I offer is basically the same one I give whenever someone, in a temporary bout of insanity, says "The big oil & gas companies are conspiring the keep gas prices high." If a company, after having been relieved of the burden of myriad taxes, still charges what it did before, some enterprising individual will figure it out and enter the market to sell that product at a lower price. If that individual, in the interests of making as much as he/she can, doesn't quite come down as much as possible (say, 15% of the estimated 22%), another one will come along and drop the price further, and so on and so on.
The only problem with that is the current American psyche that has to have everything right now! True, in the short run, where unfortunately too many Americans live these days, there might very well be a producer surplus, where prices are slow adjust and come down once the FairTax is enacted. But they will, and eventually that producer surplus will become a consumer surplus. One need look no further for an example than the price of televisions over the years. Perhaps you've noticed that the price of flat-panels t.v.'s, whether LCD or plasma, has dropped drastically in the last few years. Even though this is more the result of supply-side economics, the similarity is that other producers saw opportunity and started offering their t.v.'s for lower prices. The same would inevitably happen when adjusting to a new, more efficient tax scheme. That's the beauty of the dynamism of our free-market economy.
Back a few months, I read the back and forth between Neal Boortz and Bruce Bartlett regarding the the FairTax. The former, you may know, is a radio talk show host who co-authored a book on the subject with prime proponent in the House of Representatives, John Linder of Georgia. The latter is a columnist who has served as deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (1988 - 1993) and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress before that. Bartlett, no doubt, felt compelled to study and comment on the FairTax in, given the unexpectedly strong finish by former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in the Ames Straw Poll of candidates for the republican nomination for president. Huckabee's support for the FairTax is arguably one of his signature issues. Even though a flat tax is my preferred form of tax reform (simpler, does not require the repeal of a Constitutional amendment), I want to understand the FairTax.
One of Bartlett's main critiques, as written in The Wall Street Journal, was that it would actually be a 30% tax on all goods and services. Many others have made this claim, too. For example, if you buy a home for $100,000, it would actually end up costing $130,000. So naturally, Boortz felt compelled to write an entry on his blog Neal's Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html) in an effort to clarify. To use our home example (Boortz actually used a $100 lamp, which changed to a $100 griddle for another clarification op-ed yesterday), he said the tax was already figured into the price of the house. Essentially, it's a $77,000 house with a $23,000 tax added. Hence, the $100,000 final price tag. I don't know about you, but I've always assumed that the FairTax is basically a national sales tax. Therefore, I saw a $23,000 tax on a $77,000 home. Living in Texas, I know sales taxes are computed on products bought. Using that logic, I came to, voila, a 30% tax.
So far, no good. I was confused and not being anymore swayed from the flat tax.
So I emailed him. I agree with much of what Boortz says and admire the passion and assertiveness with which he opines and explains. But, at least on this issue, the resulting clarity of his attempted explanations did not match his flabbergastedness over the fact that some people still don't get it. If someone with a graduate degree in economics and a big interest in serious tax reform/simplification still doesn't quite understand it, I'm betting more than a few other people don't get it either.
Alas, I get it now, thanks to another effort by him (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NealBoortz/2007/11/27/the_fairtax_--_the_truth) to explain it in response to another critique, this time by Hank Adler of Townhall.com (Give him credit for continually being up to the challenge of trying to explain this issue. It finally helped at least one person understand it). One word and one phrase helped me see the light: embedded and "sales tax". The part that stumped me was the fact that the FairTax is often taken as synonymous with a sales tax. Again, living in Texas all my life, I'm sure I'm not the only one who understands that a sales tax of, say, 8% is added to the cost of a $1.29 soda, thereby making it $1.39. The way the final price of a good is figured out using the embedded FairTax is to divide the final cost of the product by 77%.
In the same way people need to unlearn what they've been told/taught with regard to tax cuts draining and tax hikes raising federal revenue, FairTax proponents need to clarify that it is not a sales tax. I almost flipped my lid last night while watching the CNN/YouTube GOP Presidential debate, when the I-Want-You animated Uncle Sam character came on asking if any of the candidates supported the "FairTax...sales tax"! Almost a quarter of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency reside in states that employ a sales tax rather than a personal income tax, and those states (Texas, Florida and Nevada) are 3 of the fastest growing states in the union. That share could possible approach a 1/3 by the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around. So this is a clarification that needs to occur if there is any chance that the FairTax ever becomes a reality.
The part of his defense of a couple months ago I sufficiently understood was the fact that the tax is embedded in the price of a product (A $23 tax within the $100 cost of a lamp). It made sense to me that part of the cost of a good is the income tax that company pays, the payroll taxes it pays, the income taxes paid by the employees of the company, etc. The first bit of protest a person would lodge against this theory is "What makes you so sure a company would lower it's price by something close to the 22% currently estimated to be embedded in products?" I've heard similar doubts with regard to salaries increasing when companies no long have less of an incentive to offer/provide health insurance than a person has to buy it on his/her own. The answer I offer is basically the same one I give whenever someone, in a temporary bout of insanity, says "The big oil & gas companies are conspiring the keep gas prices high." If a company, after having been relieved of the burden of myriad taxes, still charges what it did before, some enterprising individual will figure it out and enter the market to sell that product at a lower price. If that individual, in the interests of making as much as he/she can, doesn't quite come down as much as possible (say, 15% of the estimated 22%), another one will come along and drop the price further, and so on and so on.
The only problem with that is the current American psyche that has to have everything right now! True, in the short run, where unfortunately too many Americans live these days, there might very well be a producer surplus, where prices are slow adjust and come down once the FairTax is enacted. But they will, and eventually that producer surplus will become a consumer surplus. One need look no further for an example than the price of televisions over the years. Perhaps you've noticed that the price of flat-panels t.v.'s, whether LCD or plasma, has dropped drastically in the last few years. Even though this is more the result of supply-side economics, the similarity is that other producers saw opportunity and started offering their t.v.'s for lower prices. The same would inevitably happen when adjusting to a new, more efficient tax scheme. That's the beauty of the dynamism of our free-market economy.
Friday, October 12, 2007
"For the Children" Is Not an Impenetrable Shield Anymore
I'm kinda confused why those on the right find it so hard that those on the left are dumbfounded by the reporting on the Frosts since Graeme's radio response to President Bush. This is, after all, an issue about the principle of personal responsibility, something the left has a hard time grappling with (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.
First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?
And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.
It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.
Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.
2007/10/why_did_they_attack_graeme_fro.html). It seems kinda simple to me.
First of all, I know that's Maryland and this is Texas, so I'm sure there's a bit of a difference in the cost of living. But more than $400,000 worth of property and 3 nice/new cars is "modest"?? I don't think so. We have 2 cars, one of which is paid off and one which is brand new, but only ~40% financed thanks to having it's trade-in paid off. We have a 1/4 of the property. I think we're living a bit more modestly. "...the Frosts...are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?" Because those assets are the very means with which they should!! If we were in their predicament, what would we do? Liquidate, as much as necessary to pay the bills. What are assets there for if not to be used, especially in an emergency situation?
And did I read that the Frosts' parents were OK financially? If that's the case, you also go to your family for help. Isn't a major system of support supposed to be the family? This is why some say big government contributes to the erosion of the family.
It's kinda sad that someone as seasoned (don't wanna say old, since I'm getting up there) and experienced as Mr. Dionne still refers to government as just some entity that has money (if you think about it, that's kinda how the left views the affluent; they just have money so higher taxes should result in higher revenue, never mind that that wealth actually has to be created). I say this in reference to his mention of "government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school...(f)ederal money for private schools but not for health insurance?" First of all, the federal government should not be involved in public education. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly implies this. But that's another subject. It is completely legitimate for parents to petition their state governments to be able to use the taxes THEY PAY to fund government schools, to pay for the school of their choice for their children. This is one kinda of choice that the left, ironically, does not favor. The opposition to it is sheer insanity. All schools would become private schools, in a way, but it would still be public education. Liberals continue to miss the boat when it comes to how much better the private sector provides goods than does the public sector.
Finally, I'd love to see where this "average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually" figure comes from. My family of 5 pays about a 1/3 of that. It's hard for me to believe that we pay that much less than average.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
My Lone Divergence with Kudlow
Ironic, indeed, says Larry Kudlow today (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/anatomy_of_a_fabulous_fed_flip.html).
I’m just not sold that cutting the interest rate a couple weeks ago was the best thing. Do we really need more dollars in the system right now? Isn’t the dollar already weak enough (benefits to exports notwithstanding), and inflation a real enough threat? Most importantly, wouldn’t it be a good thing to steer Americans a little more away from charging on the credit card and more toward saving? For the record, I think the so-called trade deficit (since writing a paper on it in grad school, I refer to it as the ‘foreign direct investment surplus’) garners a much worse reputation than it deserves. It’s not nearly as much of a principled concern as the federal budget deficit, and national debt. It just seems a poor personality trait to me to charge something right now as opposed to saving for the purchase.
A step in this direction would have been supported by the Fed staying at 5.25%. I can only hope that this was a temporary, symbolic cut that allowed the markets to feel like the Fed was there at the ready, and that there will be no more cuts for a while. I actually wouldn’t lose any sleep if some inflation indicators perked up a little, compelling the Fed to pull rates back up. People have not incentive to stick some money in their savings accounts. We just do it because it’s a good idea to have some there. I’m sure we’re not the only ones who, at one point or another, had (much) more in credit card balances than in savings, or even assets such as automobiles.
For all the unwarranted worrying about the foreign direct investment surplus, it’d be hard not to see how the trade deficit wouldn’t come down if more domestic investment derived from Americans’ savings and investments, in something other than retirement accounts and homes. And really, how much of a negative effect would there be on the economy if Americans changed their habits in such a way? Even though some of the slowdown in consumer spending would be made up by the investment e made with their savings (via bank loans, stock investments, etc.), it could amount to just one quarter’s worth of GDP slowing. Once the adjustment is made, consumer spending could resume, but with real money instead of credit. Not only is that preferable financially, it would be good individually as people could teach themselves some discipline and patience. Plus, a new model of whatever they might want might be introduced, making the wait worth it.
On another note, do you really believe the recent jobs report would have been any, much different without the cut?? Please; I don’t think so. And while it might not have returned to its record heights of 14,000+, I bet the Dow Jones would have risen back up into the mid-to-upper 13,000s.
One last thing about the politics of all this. Speaking as a liberta
rian-conservative, while there is no part of me that believes Democrats espouse better ideas on economic and budget matters, Republicans deserve to be trailing Democrats in polling in all such matters (except taxes…huh?) . Almost 6 years of complete Republican control in D.C. and we get…a new farm bill, a tack on to Medicare, an expansion of the education department (doesn’t the Constitution prescribe that as a state matter in the 10th Amendment??), a 16,000-earmarked transportation bill, etc. etc. Is the budget deficit at a manageable level? Yes, but it could have been gone by now and paving the way for perhaps more tax cuts. Better yet, serious income tax reform. Who knows; we might have even had more success with Social Security reform.
Great; now I’m all depressed remembering what a lost opportunity Republicans had a few years ago.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
I Guess $40,000/year Wasn't Enough, Ay Gov. Richardson?
The American Federation of Teachers recently endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president (http://www.aft.org/presscenter/releases/2007/100307.htm). My reaction: who cares? Public education, I would point out, is something that should be a state matter. I guess that's kind of a quaint notion in this day of a federal department of education, NCLB and the like.
Regardless, establishment educators (I reserve these remarks for those actively involved in the union, because I'm sure there are some teachers and administrators who do not fit this characterization) these days still don't have students' and parents' best interests at heart, while at the same time essentially showing an utter lack of confidence in their own ability. If they, and the educational bureaucracy within which they exist in this country were, in fact, so confident, and really cared about the quality of public education, why would they stand in the way of allowing parents to choose where to send their kids' to school using the taxes they pay to support public education??
It's interesting on their website that they have pages for "Academic Freedom" and "Employee Free Choice Act". Yet, every time the issue of allowing parents of modest-to-low means the freedom to use at least a part of what they pay to support public education (I support public education, just not government schools), groups like this and the NEA vociferously oppose it. What are they so worried about?? There will always, always be demand for good teachers. I can only believe it is the paranoid and slackers amongst them who drive this opposition.
Too bad a dollar figure can't be applied to public education quality (results) in much the same way as they can be toward the U.S.-owned automobile industry. Hopefully, though, people will start to wonder why, as funding for government schools continues to increase unabated, the number of students being home/private schooled continues along the same trajectory. "Why is the rate of growth of funding increasing faster than the rate of growth in the public student body," they might ask.
Maybe then, the number of school choice legislators will also grow.
Regardless, establishment educators (I reserve these remarks for those actively involved in the union, because I'm sure there are some teachers and administrators who do not fit this characterization) these days still don't have students' and parents' best interests at heart, while at the same time essentially showing an utter lack of confidence in their own ability. If they, and the educational bureaucracy within which they exist in this country were, in fact, so confident, and really cared about the quality of public education, why would they stand in the way of allowing parents to choose where to send their kids' to school using the taxes they pay to support public education??
It's interesting on their website that they have pages for "Academic Freedom" and "Employee Free Choice Act". Yet, every time the issue of allowing parents of modest-to-low means the freedom to use at least a part of what they pay to support public education (I support public education, just not government schools), groups like this and the NEA vociferously oppose it. What are they so worried about?? There will always, always be demand for good teachers. I can only believe it is the paranoid and slackers amongst them who drive this opposition.
Too bad a dollar figure can't be applied to public education quality (results) in much the same way as they can be toward the U.S.-owned automobile industry. Hopefully, though, people will start to wonder why, as funding for government schools continues to increase unabated, the number of students being home/private schooled continues along the same trajectory. "Why is the rate of growth of funding increasing faster than the rate of growth in the public student body," they might ask.
Maybe then, the number of school choice legislators will also grow.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Shedding More Light
Fortunately, slooowly but surely, more light is being shed on "47 million Americans...uninsured" (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/
cguerra/stories/MYSA092507.01B.guerra.345d50c.html).
The first and most striking being that 1/5 of them aren't even American! It was entertaining to watch Hillary Clinton this weekend assert that her plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, yet she, along with other demagogues, continue to cite that number. Isn't that at least a little disingenuous??
Also, more than 1/3 make more than $50,000, with almost 1/5 of those making more than $75,000. Many choose to go without, as is their perfect right. I once did, even though, at the time, I made less than $30,000. Whenever I went to the doctor, I paid out of pocket, which one could argue is better in that it exposes the patient to the true cost of health care today. More of that and costs might come down as a result of people thinking twice before going in for a simple cold.
Then there are those who are eligible for government plans but who haven't signed up. Who's fault is that??
The very snapshot nature of that figure explains that many of those "47 million" are without insurance (NOT without health care) only temporarily, for example due to the fact that they are between jobs, something that itself can be remedied by conferring upon individuals the same kind of tax treatment businesses receive.
I thought a little bit more this weekend about the fact that this could extend eligibility to kids living in households making more than $80,000. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of that prospect, and the backdoor way in which it attempts to engulf a few more citizens into government-run health care. I understand that costs of living are different from state to state; $80,000 doesn't go as far, say, in California as it does here in Texas (and only partially due to higher taxes out there). This debate also brings to light the need, perhaps, to determine poverty rates based on state and local costs of living.
cguerra/stories/MYSA092507.01B.guerra.345d50c.html).
The first and most striking being that 1/5 of them aren't even American! It was entertaining to watch Hillary Clinton this weekend assert that her plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, yet she, along with other demagogues, continue to cite that number. Isn't that at least a little disingenuous??
Also, more than 1/3 make more than $50,000, with almost 1/5 of those making more than $75,000. Many choose to go without, as is their perfect right. I once did, even though, at the time, I made less than $30,000. Whenever I went to the doctor, I paid out of pocket, which one could argue is better in that it exposes the patient to the true cost of health care today. More of that and costs might come down as a result of people thinking twice before going in for a simple cold.
Then there are those who are eligible for government plans but who haven't signed up. Who's fault is that??
The very snapshot nature of that figure explains that many of those "47 million" are without insurance (NOT without health care) only temporarily, for example due to the fact that they are between jobs, something that itself can be remedied by conferring upon individuals the same kind of tax treatment businesses receive.
I thought a little bit more this weekend about the fact that this could extend eligibility to kids living in households making more than $80,000. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of that prospect, and the backdoor way in which it attempts to engulf a few more citizens into government-run health care. I understand that costs of living are different from state to state; $80,000 doesn't go as far, say, in California as it does here in Texas (and only partially due to higher taxes out there). This debate also brings to light the need, perhaps, to determine poverty rates based on state and local costs of living.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
My Thoughts Right Now
In response to my inquiry the other day, my solid-red republican friend told me that he is as undecided as anyone with regard to the Presidential candidates. It gave me the opportunity to assess where I stand currently:
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)