Taxing “Right”

As part of the lame duck session of congress that has been thankfully concluded, an extension of existing tax rates was passed to avoid what would have been the largest, as a percentage, tax hike in US history. The reason this piece of legislation went unresolved until just about the last minute (tax rates were set to increase 1 January 2011) was because there was argument about which tax rates to extend and which to raise. With both houses of congress and the presidency controlled by democrats the usual class rhetoric was employed to gin up support for raising taxes only on “the rich”. Much has been said in regard to the “progressive” tax system in this country (the more earned the more as a percentage is paid) and the dangers in increasing the differences in brackets and the reasons for why democrats did not vote to raise taxes with so much control, what was striking about the argument was the way in which democrats insisted on how “right” they were about raising taxes on only “the rich”.

In announcing a “compromise” the president was at his meandering best, calling the extension of tax rates a compromise and the right thing to do then bemoaning the extension as a “giveaway” to “the greedy rich” and “morally wrong”. The president continued to note that he knew he was right because the majority of the public was on his side. In this, the president demonstrated the folly of only listening to people who agree with himself. National polls have shown time and again that a majority in the United States supported the extension of tax rates at all levels. That result is in and of itself miraculous as nearly half of the country’s working adults pay no income taxes at the federal level. Those who describe the extension of tax rates as a “giveaway” are the type to make claims on the incomes of others by believing that the earnings of “the rich” belong to the government first. Who’s greedy again?

Another line in the same theme is the idea that the extension of tax rates cost the government too much. Again, more claptrap assuming that the government’s claim on income comes first. The first thing ignored by proponents of raising taxes is that all of this “revenue” is completely theoretical based on projections. Obscured by politicians was the fact that in their theoretical fantasy land, the extension of tax rates on the other brackets actually “cost” the government more than the extension of the highest bracket. Never discussed is that these projected numbers are completely theoretical. Because our tax system is a monolith of holes and legalese spread over thousands of pages nothing is certain. And what is certain is that there is a relationship between rates and revenue raised where rates can only get to a certain level without actually lowering revenue. The point is that higher rates on “the rich” or anyone for that matter may not actually bring in greater revenue. One certainty is that “the rich” have the resources to better understand and use the holes in the tax system to ensure that revenue does not increase and kudos to them.

In the rhetoric of a democrat politician, they’re always right and “the rich” never pay their fair share. It’s advantageous that their righteousness relies on the unknowable and that class warfare works to their benefit by giving voters a distraction from their shoddy shell game policies. There is no true “right” way to go about taxing, circumstances are always changing. How making claims on the success of others, punishing those despised for no good reason is “right” escapes logic.

Disservice in Tidbits

Every half hour there is a news update on both major news-talk radio stations in the Albuquerque area. I count only 770 and 1050 AM, and not NPR because government “news” from don’t-call-it-National-Public-Radio-anymore is not really news. 770 uses ABC News and 1050 uses Fox news to provide brief national updates while the stations themselves provide local news.

I wonder to how many these brief tidbits is their only source of news. From the news wires, brief bits of news are a disservice that leads to an utter misunderstanding of much of the news because they only inform a bit, leaving almost all detail out. The worst type of news bit to listen to is on legislative matters. A typical news wire brief on new legislation often goes something like this:

The president will today sign the happy talk, sunshine and rainbows act of 2010 on a near party line democrat vote in both houses of congress. The bill will provide funding for a study of the positive effects of happy talk, sunshine and rainbows. Republicans say that sunshine is too expensive.

This kind of tidbit not only demonstrates a democrat bias from the news wire but also laziness in not informing the public properly. This laziness involves taking the title and summary of the piece of legislation at face value. Never mind that every piece of legislation coming from the Unites States congress is made up of hundreds and often thousands of pages comprised of legalese, unreadable by most of the population.

If legislation was as simple as they seem from a news radio tidbit they would not need hundreds and thousands of pages. And the problems with legislation both explicit and unintended amounting to an assault to freedom and liberty cannot be described in five seconds. Legislation is often written by unaccountable parties and debate on it in either house of congress is often done behind closed doors leading to a severely truncated time frame in which ordinary citizens cannot be made aware of what is being done in their name. This problem is the result of the “get things done” attitude.

It’s bad enough that much legislation is sold on false premises and with the aid of human props. Legislators mock those who point out that their work should be read and understood before enacted and too often only care about how their actions look from a public relations perspective. Consequences are never pondered and the legislator only worries about how to identify victims within their constituency who will “get something” from their work.

News services do their listeners no favors in presenting legislation in the same way as propagandists in congress do. No matter the intention of a bill or act, if the elements that make those intentions possible cannot be explained or even introduced along with those intentions, mentions of it should be limited. The stated intentions should also not be referred to as happening before it is even passed. Too much legislation never actually works as intended and only succeeds in helping drain the treasury. If the news were to mention a piece of legislation by name and then its intention as, you know, an intention, the user can then do the work of learning more about it if the news won’t tell them. This method will inform the listeners instead of cheerleading big government.

Random Thoughts...

I learned from a caller into the Bob Clark show on 770 KKOB this morning that Bill Richardson vetoed a bill specifying veteran preferences in state contract awards. Finally, something that Richardson did that I can support. Veterans deserve our gratitude but no one should be favored in any state contract for any reason other than having a superior bid and/or solution.

It’s an ugly habit to assume that the ill-defined “rich” should pay more for government just because they can and it is assumed that they won’t even notice. How can that statement even be verified and how is it not greedy? Our current government is made up of narcissists lecturing in class warfare to hide their own greed. Give a legislator a dollar and they’ll spend three every time.

What is it with the size of shopping carts at Sam’s Club? It’s understandable that some customers buy a lot at that store but it makes the store difficult to traverse when a single cart takes up an entire aisle.

The caller into the Bob Clark show was commenting on Richardson’s legacy as a politician in New Mexico as his gubernatorial tenure is nearing its end. Many of the positive comments centered on what Richardson “gave” people and “amazing” work he did as a diplomat. This means that he’s good at giving favored constituencies and friends goodies at the expense of taxpayers. As a diplomat it seems that he has presented himself well on the international stage, while nothing tangible has ever happened good or bad from either his freelance diplomacy or tenure at the United Nations. All that means is that Richardson is a good useful idiot to horrible despots like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

In all the discussion about the new START treaty, a nuclear weapons containment treaty with Russia, no one seems to be able to explain why it’s such a big deal. Is it 1981, did the cold war not end? I don’t recall Russia being much of a threat over the last twenty years. Perhaps the government wants us to be reminiscing of Rocky 4 instead of actual threats of nuclear proliferation from countries including Iran and North Korea.

What about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? What does its repeal mean? I have no clue. The language behind the actual law tied to the acronym, DADT, is much more complicated and as someone who is neither gay nor in the military I’m not sure about it. I do think that the consternation surrounding the law, as a horrible atrocity, was overblown. Hopefully its repeal will not hinder the military in any way.

I find myself often rooting for public figures that drive some people irrationally nuts. No one objects to shunning mass murderers but the way that Sarah Palin and Michael Vick are treated is laughable. Palin talks about reading C.S. Lewis and is derided as dumb and childlike. Vick says that he would like to have a pet dog some day and he’s immediately treated as though he wants to start a Shih Tzu fighting ring. Someone needs to get these critics the ability to play back in their heads what they are saying, along with a clue.

The Self Promotion Governor, Part 10,000,000

Social amnesia as a result of ignorance seems to be on display in our great state today. There exists a myth that New Mexico territorial governor Lew Wallace once offered a pardon to the criminal Billy the Kid, real name William Bonney, for his testimony in a murder trial and reneged on that promise after Billy kept his side of the deal. There is no evidence whatsoever of this deal being made other than an impossible to validate letter in which Billy wrote the governor to volunteer his services in testifying if he were to be pardoned.

Current (thankfully not for long) governor Bill Richardson floated the idea of pardoning the long dead Bonney to make headlines for something not related to his administration’s rampant cronyism under the auspices of making right on Wallace’s “promise”. It seemed as though Richardson heard plenty of negative feedback on this absurd proposal as it disappeared from the news.

That line of thinking was wrong. As the story slipped from public consciousness, Albuquerque Attorney Randi McGinn, wife of Richardson State Supreme Court appointee Charlie Daniels, “volunteered” to “research “ the issue as an interested party who comes from Alamogordo, near Lincoln County, where Billy the Kid operated. The result of this “research” was a petition to pardon Billy the Kid on December 14th from McGinn’s office in the murder of Sheriff William Brady.

Billy the Kid was shot and killed in July 1881 by Sherriff Pat Garrett. He was a thief and a killer. Part of his legend is that Garrett was dishonorable in shooting Bonney in the back, but that’s a matter of opinion. When a criminal is wanted dead or alive, it doesn’t seem to matter how it gets done. Because of stories, legends and movies, Billy the Kid exists in today’s world as more of a myth than as a real person. Many of these movies are complete works of fiction that have the express purpose of romanticizing a criminal within the framework of the “wild west”.

This unfortunate circumstance has led to whatever public support and interest in this subject that exists. Many do not understand New Mexico history and know Bonney only in legend and not by his crimes. McGinn, with her loose ties to Lincoln county and direct ties to the governor is only interested in the same thing as Richardson, publicity. Richardson has proven over time to be a shameless self promoter and this hollow gesture is just the latest in a long line of examples.

It might be said that this issue doesn’t matter much. Pardoning a man who has been dead for nearly 120 years on a single crime, out of many, won’t really affect anyone. It may be true that Bonney can no longer terrorize and murder but that is not the point. It seems that a main reason that this pardon is being considered is because to many, Bonney is not a criminal but some kind of historical bad boy type figure. And some flimsy at best historical promises from a territorial governor of which actual documentation does not exist. Truth is, it is contemptible to our history as New Mexicans to go down this path which will only further the myth of Billy the Kid while obscuring the reality of William Bonney.

This initiative is of such high importance to Governor Richardson that there is a state web site, http://www.governor.state.nm.us/btk.php, an email address, btk.comments@state.nm.us and a person, Eric Witt, tasked to it. It is contemptible to the taxpayer that there exists a person in charge of, a web page for and email address to monitor this frivolous effort. Certainly there are more important things that the state has on its plate than the pardon of a criminal in the name of publicity?

Confounded by Responsibility

According to sports writer Jason Whitlock, who is known for his large size as much as his inane opinions, McDonalds is a criminal enterprise comparable to a drug dealer. In a recent column about himself while deriding capitalism he wrote:

Most Americans have no idea Ronald McDonald is killing their kids. No clue… You can spin the argument like you’re doing it for the good of the country. No different from Ronald McDonald standing on every corner slanging your 5-year-old a Happy Meal.

A mom in California apparently feels the same way about McDonalds and is seeking the courts to do something about it:

we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.

Pondering these opinions and the resulting lawsuit I wonder how it is that I made it to adulthood. When I was a child I ate at McDonald’s regularly and almost always had the same thing, a cheese burger happy meal with fries and orange drink. Plus a toy guaranteed to break within a week. If it had been my choice I would undoubtedly have eaten McDonald’s much more often than I actually did but my parents *surprise* did not find it overwhelming to be parents and determined how often I could indulge in a happy meal.

I no longer frequent McDonald’s, mostly because I find it bland. I have many friends that still enjoy McDonald’s and I often make fun of them for it but it is without malice. I don’t care what anyone else chooses to eat. None of them are obese.

As the father of a toddler I know that soon my son will like McDonalds, often request it and sometimes I will take him and sometimes I will say no. And he may act out and I will respond by sticking to my decision, regulating his behavior so that it is not over the top and hopefully encourage perspective. Happy Meals now have many more options than when I was young even including fruits and juices. I do not need or want some government entity “helping” me with the decisions relating to my son’s diet.

And that’s the point. Because Whitlock seemingly ties his large size and likely lack of self-control to Happy Meals consumed as a youth and a mom in California is overwhelmed, both think the government should control what children consume because he has to blame someone other than himself for his problems and she either can’t or won’t make decisions for herself. We live in a wishy-washy kind of society now where many people act helpless and cry out for government oversight to help in their specific issues. The problem is that they are pushing the government to make those same decisions for others who are not helpless.

It is often said that if the government subsidizes a certain activity or commodity (think long term unemployment or ethanol) we will get more of it. The same goes for overbearing nanny like oversight. And while the government can be incredibly inefficient, the one area in which it is always expeditious is in delivering hard to understand rules and regulations telling everyone how to live, robbing all of us of freedom.

Miscommunication

When I was a teenager and worked at a local dairy queen one of the mistakes I made involved misunderstanding a customer’s order. When I started at the place I was told that a value meal could be made of any main menu item, so a customer could either choose from the pictured combinations on the menu or select one of the other items listed to the right and append it with fries and a soft drink. One day I didn’t quite understand the customer and thought the order was for a two cheese burger meal when they meant two cheese burger meals. Recognizing the mistake I obtained the extra fries and drink for the customer when it came time to deliver. Fortunately my manager didn’t care as it was almost a negligible cost and while I wasn’t an exemplary employee I didn’t screw up all that often and showed up on time.

I was thinking of that experience from more than sixteen years ago when I had another instance of misunderstanding a customer recently. Being at the end of the year a lot of companies purchase services for next year now. Last week someone from a large company called to purchase what I thought was a single quantity of something my company sells. The customer was in a hurry, calling at the last minute within their company’s billing cycle needing an immediate invoice. I asked some follow-up questions to ensure I knew as much as I could in order to complete the sale.

It happened that my company’s billing department, on the east coast, was out for a holiday party the afternoon I needed the invoice so it was delayed and we got it out just a few hours before losing the sale. As soon as it was out the customer wrote back to inform me that they intended to purchase a grouping of our products. Fortunately our billing department, now in, redid the invoice in a few minutes. It was a good mistake as the grouping meant that the sale increased ten times from the way I understood it. So instead of losing the cash from some fries and watered down soft drinks some serious cash was made.

I went over in my mind the sales call and I remember asking questions specific to the single product. Perhaps it was timing related, the customer was in a hurry. English is a fickle language and after so many years I still find myself learning.

The Middle Unicorn

Many words have been written recently about this “no labels” group and the ideal of transcending the ugliness of partisan politics and just getting the people’s work done. Some proponents of this claptrap have labeled “no labels” as a moderate counterpart to the tea party movement. Which may as well be a way to define the “no labels” group as a liberal progressive counterpart to the tea party, not that there’s anything wrong with it, but if one follows the liberal progressive movement they learn that liberal progressives have undergone more rebranding efforts than General Motors.

While there have been politicians from both major parties involved in this “no labels” re-branding efforts those from the Republican side often espouse what are, absent the r next to their name, typically liberal progressive positions. Some, like former Florida governor Charlie Christ left the Republican Party in a failed senatorial bid that defined Christ as a crass political opportunist.

It seems apparent that when Election Day comes most everyone is annoyed with the tone, volume and abundance of campaign ads. In line with this tone are political talking points expressed by pundits and politicians expressed in fifteen second snippets on political shows on cable news networks. Neither of these outlets really rises above hot air, making them a good generic target for “no labels”.

No one can really understand the intricacies of a politician’s policy stance from a television commercial where Martin Heinrich accuses Jon Barela of being a lobbyist because he worked in business relations for Intel, or Anthony Weiner screaming at the top of his lungs about how millionaires and billionaires are greedy robber barons not paying their fair share. Many politicians, including both above, do not really have any policy ideas beyond general talking points and based on the way they are often regurgitated by many in casual conversation these talking points work.

So, is it interesting that many deride the exact thing that they base their own politics on? Not really. The center in contemporary politics is mythical in the sense that there is no perfect central position that would truly work for everyone, taking ingredients from left and right and mixing into a delicious pie of legislation. Almost in every instance there is a liberal position and there is a conservative position and they are antithetical in every way. And everyone knows that when you mix blueberries and pepperonis the result is something no one likes.

The real center is made up of undecided folks that base positions based on whatever sounds better at the moment. There is nothing really wrong with this except that these decisions are often emotionally based without much thought involved. These kinds of people are what “no labels” wants to attract and they will fail because in reality “no labels” is made up of finger wagging, no it all liberal progressives who label everything and annoy undecideds as often as they attract them.

Strained Analogies

When politicians and partisan supporters of legislation resort to analogies to describe why an intrusive law is legal and warranted citizens should take that as concrete evidence that it is not. Yesterday a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the health insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional on a suit brought by the attorney general in that state as opposed to allowed under the Commerce clause regulating interstate commerce. This ruling should be indisputable by the fact that the rule mandates that presumptively free citizens purchase health insurance.

Supporters of the mandate have three justifications. Members in congress apparently believe that the federal government can force US citizens to do anything. Big government advocates point to costs associated with uninsured consuming health care resources as justification for it. The intellectually lazy justification, really just a talking point, is that because motorists are required to carry automobile insurance then the federal government has authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance.

Fortunately with the recent ruling by the federal court in Virginia the idea that the feds can say because we said so, citizens will not be forced to purchase a federally outlined commercial product. There are costs associated with the uninsured using a lot of services and is due almost entirely to big government regulation. Because of regulation, no one understands how much health care actually costs and must use services that they might not if given an actual choice. Health care is expensive and it is a good idea for people to subscribe to some sort of health plan but when there is no choice involved because users are forced to get something that is outlined by government making its cost artificially inflated there will be people that forgo it.

The analogous way of seeing things, comparing health insurance to car insurance is just stupid because they are completely different things and the authority and justification for insuring automobiles is different in every way. Because roads are built and maintained by the state, cars which use them must be licensed within the jurisdiction where they are located when not in use. As a condition of use on the roads built by the jurisdiction they are to be insured in order to protect anyone that is harmed by the insured. There is a minimum requirement in auto insurance and the purchaser may customize based on their own needs. If one does not want to purchase auto insurance they can take mass transit, a bicycle or some other way not to drive. The health insurance mandate affects anyone by virtue of existence and forces them to purchase something they may not want designed without their personal interests considered.

The only reason why the mandate exists is to raise concerns about it so that it serves as a step towards government run health care. To implement, taxes will be raised to pay for all health care and it will be buried with all other taxes. Citizens will not have an insurance premium or a mandate; they will have access to something they pay for anyway. It’s just another statist method to force onto the country more government. And the health care system will get worse.

Everything is like Something Else

Listening to President Obama’s hissy yesterday in regard to a compromise framework on the extension of current tax rates I learned something; I cannot stand to listen to a person who is both a drama queen and speaks almost entirely in analogies. That is our President, a man who cannot speak in plain language who is always reaching for some over the top analogy that perfectly explains the nonsensical.

Yesterday’s whine fest was as grating as it was educational.

It appeared that the media was able to show its liberal progressive political inclinations based on the questions asked. For a media used to fawning over a person sold as a messianic figure that would heal political divides and provide true bipartisanship, questions asking about the Presidents true core when he is announcing the only thing he has ever done that could be called bipartisan was strange.

The President himself seemed to convey that he is the President of some of the country, those who agree with him. He stated that most of the country was on his side in regard to raising taxes only on “the rich”, which polling shows is not true. He stated that the Republican’s financial policy was to ‘give’ money to the rich. He likened Republicans to “hostage takers” and “bomb throwers”, and that’s the current lame duck congress, not the incoming congress which features a lot more Republicans.

It is puzzling to understand that the President believes that he can bully business into creating jobs just because while attacking them as greedy. The President’s understanding of reality is lacking while his understanding of the imaginary as defined in his own mind is superb.

These are not tax cuts being discussed. What is being discussed is an extension of current tax rates. There are several tax rates based on income levels, it is progressive meaning that as income grows the tax on it raises. So, besides the already obvious fact that those with higher incomes pay more taxes, they pay more as a percentage as well. Widening the gap between the differing tax thresholds is abhorrent because it will never be enough for some people and as a weapon of class warfare creates divides in our country.

The President, and those who agree with him, believe (plainly, through their statements) that the income of American citizens belongs to the country first and to its earners second. This is a morally bankrupt concept and is in no way fair, to anyone. The President’s petulant attitude and thin skin when it comes to actual compromise and not just his assertion of Republican priorities demonstrate that a mistake was made in his election. With every policy statement like this it becomes clearer that the goal of our country must be to deny him re-election.

A Requiem for a fired coach

One of the first things that I thought about after Josh McDaniels was hired as coach of the Denver Broncos was in regard to his age. Being only a couple years older than myself McDaniels symbolized a coming of age for myself as I was approaching an age where NFL coaches became about my age and younger. Other than that I was hopeful for the future. Mike Shanahan had won two Super Bowls and many games over a more than decade-long career but the team seemed to have stagnated into an also-ran state. It seems that no matter how effective a coach is, there is a shelf life in terms of effectiveness.

Starting 6-0 in McDaniel’s first season I was ecstatic and hopeful for the future. The Broncos proceeded to finish 2-8 and middle of the road again. The problem seemed to be with a defense that had begun the season as a dominant force regressed badly. Still optimistic I thought good things were coming and was pleased with the draft even though the top end concentrated on offense rather than what has seemed to be a perennial need on the defensive line.

This year the Broncos started unevenly as opposed to undefeated like last year and it seemed to be that they were competitive and would at least have the same record as last year if not eek out one or more wins. Today, Denver is 3-9 and in the worst stretch record-wise in forty years. Instead of showing any improvement the team just can’t seem to win. Watching the game this past Sunday I was struck by how little they could do in the red zone. Knowshon Moreno had some fantastic runs with the passing game basically non-existent but once they were in scoring position they could do nothing. It was sad to watch, especially as they had more than a few chances to score a touchdown which would have led to a win.

I wanted Josh McDaniels to be successful as coach of the Denver Broncos for the simple reason that I want the Denver Broncos to be a successful football team. It seems that hiring a coach in the NFL is often a crapshoot and there is never a guarantee but if the right coach is hired a team can get better in a hurry. Josh McDaniels was not a successful football coach and as such is unemployed right now. While some commentary is bitter and wishes our now ex-coach ill will, I refuse. Perhaps McDaniels wasn’t ready to be a head coach in the NFL, perhaps he is meant to be a coordinator or something else. I don’t know and I wish him luck in his future endeavors.

Go Broncos.

Rock, meet Hard Place

If a policy of placing the cart before the horse were a discussion topic, a recent kerfuffle involving alcohol, sports, high school students and a certain highly funded high school nails it. La Cueva football coaches were recently suspended because students were caught drinking on a school bus trip back from Las Cruces. For the most part nothing outside of those facts is known and a heated discussion ensued this morning on KKOB radio. The discussion mostly centered on responsibility, its placement and lack thereof from just about everyone involved.

The range of discussion was from demands for the coaches to be hung in the public square to those who don’t see anything wrong at all. Personal opinions tend to be that way but in the end the only thing that matters for those involved is the rules of their school and the laws of the state of New Mexico and city of Albuquerque.

The most intriguing part is that, outside of those involved, no one knows anything about what actually happened and whether or not there is any culpability towards any of the parties because of what actually happened. A caller mentioned that this kind of thing, high schoolers drinking on a school trip on the bus, is common and that the adults aren’t numerous enough or dispersed throughout the bus in an effective manner that would discourage such behavior. I thought that was a reasonable assessment.

Of course, this is in the absence of some important facts such as, who purchased the alcohol? After the adults on board learned of the behavior, what happened?

Some of the callers were just silly. Once caller stated that they knew the coaches personally and that the issue was completely a fabrication of the media because these coaches would never have done something like that. Really? Does this caller know more than anyone else? Probably not. What if the coaches actually did obtain the booze? Reminds me of the parents in high school who provide alcohol for their children and friends in order to better monitor their behavior, sounds reasonable, but is still illegal.

Another opinion involves the idea that because it involves La Cueva, a well funded high school in an affluent area of Albuquerque, this story is being swept under the rug and the perpetrators are being handled with kid gloves. It’s my opinion that anything to do with any sort of actual or perceived malfeasance in any public school is often glossed over in order to hide problems with a big government cash cow. In this case there is still an investigation going on making this charge incomplete at best.

The problem is that this kind of story brings with it public outcry and demands to ‘do something’ while investigations take time for a number of reasons. I know that I cannot say definitively what happened or exactly what laws may or may not have been broken. If I was a parent of one of the students I would be paying much more attention and learning as much as I can. Sadly, it seems doubtful that what really happened will ever be learned because of faulty memory or outright lying. What to do?