December 13, 2004
Full Circle
It happened quicker than I would have predicted. Gays have finally started to treat marriage like their heterosexual counterparts: They’re getting divorced. I thought it might take longer for them to treat marriage like the weekend fling too many straight folks have for years. Nope. Maybe we’ll see less media celebration of the 2-bride weddings. And less of the lesbians, too.
Of course, some people are going to use this as an excuse to argue that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry at all. If that’s the case, we should probably make the same rule for major celebrities. And people under 25. And any other demographic that has a higher-than average divorce rate.
I say no. I say we start actually making people realize that marriage is a pretty big deal. It’s supposed to be for life. It’s supposed to be about love, not easy tax and inheritance proceedings. Let’s put marriage back where it’s supposed to be: in churches. As I’ve argued before, all the state does is enforce legal contracts. Anyone who cares about the sanctity of marriage, should see to it that the government has nothing to do with it.
December 12, 2004
Nostradamus’ third Anti-Christ
Lord, please save us from Hillary. The link is to a Peggy Noonan story in the Opinion Journal. Noonan wrote a book before the 2000 election about Hillary, trying to alert the New York voters about her. Now, there’s a pretty good chance she’s going to lock down the Democratic nomination in 2008, so that story is a bit of an update.
I’ve thought that Hillary is a very smart, shrewd operator, and she will stop at nothing to gain power. Her moves in the Senate certainly don’t disappoint, she’s well on the path to the nomination. Republicans need to start thinking NOW about who we’re going to pick to oppose her. She’s going to be a formidable opponent when she runs, and we’ll need someone capable of matching her to have a chance. I worry about Giuliani, because his wonderful marriage history won’t look very good against her if she tries to play the “stand-by-your-man” card. And not very many others have the power to oppose her, so we need to start grooming and vetting someone now. Anything less will be a loss in ‘08. Hillary actually scares me, so I really don’t want to see that happen.
Also found this on Opinion Journal. Seems that HillaryCare was tried in Tennessee. Failed miserably. Not like government ever learns not to repeat their mistakes, but a good read nonetheless.
(Link found on Uncle Jack’s Blog. No, he’s not my uncle. But it’s one of my daily reads, so I suggest you check it out.
December 10, 2004
Tax Simplification
One of the big issues in the campaign, and quietly becoming a bigger issue since, is the reformation and simplification of the tax code. This is a very delicate and highly charged issue, because taxes have been used in class warfare between the Republicans and Democrats since the income tax was created. Over these years, the tax has grown from a very small (1%) tax on the income of the wealthy, to a behemoth with 8 1/2 times the number of words in the King James Bible. It has grown so large and confusing that armies of tax lawyers and preparers make their entire living trying to comply and avoid taxation, and the IRS can’t give proper advice on tax law 50% of the time.
Looking at the problem, I think it can be easily agreed by both liberals and conservatives that the system is broken. Whether you believe in a flat tax, a highly progressive tax, or one of the other lesser-known variants, it is obvious that we would all be served by simplification. For the basis of my below arguments, I will assume that all tax systems are designed to be revenue-neutral. So for those of you who are liberal or conservative, if you disagree with me, please comment based on the merits of the plan, not whether it would affect the government’s ability to continue paying for its current responsibilities.
Bush has stated that he will not support a plan that does not include deductions for mortgage interest or charitable contributions. For the sake of argument, I will try to show ways that this may be included or is avoided by the below schemes. Also, some of these tax schemes are highly different than the current scheme. In essence, they would completely scrap tax ideals as we know it. Please realize that to fix this problem, we need to be open to thinking “outside the box”.
1) Tax simplification of the current income tax structure.
This probably entails completely scrapping the current code, but beginning again with a graduated rate structure based upon income, and implementing simple, common sense deductions. This would need to be done to the personal income tax, as well as the corporate income tax, dividend and capital gains taxes, etc. This certainly isn’t easy, but I’m sure an army of policy wonks could revamp our current system into 100 pages or so.
Advantages: This system is closest to what we have now, so transition is not exceptionally difficult. Deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest, perhaps education or healthcare expenses, and business expenses, could be implemented without too much trouble. We would have a straightforward personal and corporate tax, that would not require armies of lawyers and accountants to administer. The job of the IRS would be easier, and we would be more efficient as a country.
Disadvantages: This still keeps a significant amount of complexity. Keeping all our current taxes, such as the cap. gains tax, social security/medicare payroll tax, FICA, dividend tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax, etc, is not easy. The rules for what sort of income falls into each category would need to be fairly complex, and the current business overhead for at least tracking these taxes would be in place. While this would have many benefits of simplification, it is still nowhere near easy. As always, those with the economic means to structure their lives to avoid the tax, will do so.
2) Removal of all taxes except the personal income tax, and keeping that simple.
This would completely overhaul taxation in this country, so taxes were paid in one place: when the paycheck is received. This could be as simple as a flat tax, or keep the current graduated rate structure. With Bush’s declaration, we would of course keep charitable donations and mortgage interest as a deduction, and may add a few others, but again trying to keep the overall system simple. Rules would have to be put in place such that any individual income is taxed, to remove the loopholes that allow living trusts and other artificial methods to avoid taxation on an individual level.
Advantages: The main advantage of this, over the above, is that it removes hidden taxation. The tax burden is currently spread over many different types of taxation, so it is impossible for citizens to accurately understand what that tax burden truly is. In addition, this is a simple tax that would absolutely revamp our system and greatly reduce compliance costs. Since there is only one level of taxation, at the individual level, it is much easier to monitor how tax changes affect the taxpayers.
Disadvantages: Notwithstanding the class warfare that would undoubtedly ensue, the biggest problem is trying to classify income as individual or corporate income. It is a solvable problem, but tax avoidance will largely be based on trying to prove that income doesn’t classify as personal income, rather than trying to prove that portions of their stated income are non-taxable under a deduction scheme. As a result, like the above tax plan, it would allow those with the most money to structure their income to be “corporate” rather than personal, would have the best chance at avoiding taxation.
3) Value-Added Tax (VAT)
This is an interesting proposal, which would completely remove the personal income tax. This qualifies under Bush’s declaration that the tax must retain the charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions, because personal income is not taxed at all. The VAT states that on a business level, you are taxed on the amount of value you add to the product. For example, if you buy $50 of lumber, $20 of screws, and build a table sold for $200, you pay tax on (200 – 50 – 20), a tax on $130, since you added $130 of value to the product. The VAT is refunded to products sent for export, and since the cost of compliance is on the shoulders of business, it is much easier to force and monitor compliance than with a personal income tax.
Advantages: It is simple and effective. Since the cost of compliance is entirely on business, it removes all worry from the individual. Since businesses already have a host of rules to comply with on taxation, it will shift the business compliance costs to the VAT, and remove all other taxation compliance costs. Also, since the embedded taxation costs are refunded for products being exported, it gives our exports a better ability to compete in the world marketplace.
Disadvantages: First, transition costs will be very high. It will require entirely new modes of taxation compliance from businesses, and as such will not be easy to implement. Second, it removes taxation from the direct purview of the individual. Thus, it is a lot easier to make changes to tax rates, tax rules, without the voter having any direct impact on the decision. Last, since the VAT will increase cost of American goods, it will give imported goods a competitively advantageous position in our local markets.
4) The FairTax (full disclosure: this is the plan I support)
The FairTax replaces all other taxation with a national sales tax. That tax is on all new goods purchased, and does not apply to used purchases. The cost of compliance is placed on the shoulders of business, not on a personal level. A portion of the tax is refunded to businesses to pay for the compliance costs. In addition, a wrinkle of the plan is included so that taxes paid on the basic necessities of life, up to the poverty level, are automatically refunded.
Advantages: This tax is entirely paid for compliance by business, removing this from the personal level. Most businesses already need to comply with state sales taxes, so the added compliance costs are minimal (and offset as a portion of the tax). However, the tax rate is directly felt by consumers, so there is a direct link between the level of taxation and the individuals response to it. Products no longer have embedded taxation for income, corporate tax, or VAT, so the price of products lowers to offset the additional taxation. Also, since there is a refund for taxes paid on the basic necessities of life up to the poverty level, the tax cannot adversely affect the very poor. Last, since the tax is on goods sold in the US, we would have a competitive advantage with our exports.
Disadvantages: The main disadvantage is the possibility that the ratio of new to used products sold may change. Under the FairTax, new houses are taxed but existing houses are not, and new automobiles are taxed while existing autos are not. While the prices of new homes and automobiles will be reduced to offset that tax, it is unclear whether this will significantly affect individuals’ purchasing decisions. In addition, this may open a black market for goods, or people may attempt to purchase from foreign countries on the internet to avoid the tax. It may be unlikely, since the cost of goods will be reduced to offset the tax, but tax avoidance may be accomplished in this manner.
Hopefully this, while tremendously condensed, can give enough information to start a discussion on the issue. I am interested to hear everyone’s input on the above proposals.
Poor parenting
When ’self-esteem parenting’ goes awry.
I can’t respond to this article much better than is done in the link provided, but to say this: people are way too worried about diplomacy. When kids are out of line, they need to be brought back in line. If you don’t teach them the ramifications of being idiots now, they’re going to learn it in a much harder way in the real world.
December 9, 2004
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
If the recent history of war has taught us one thing, it’s that Injuries are up, deaths are down.
You look at one news story, and it seems that more and more troops, as a percentage of the wounded are coming home with head trauma. If you read the stories, it sounds like all of a sudden, these types of injuries are far more prevalent. Yet another story brings up the fact that out of all casualties, less and less soldiers are dying. Since WWII, it’s dropped from a 3:1 ratio to a 12:1 ratio.
Obviously, any soldier or family that has to deal with a casualty is a tragedy. But soldiers coming home injured is better than coming home in a bag. If you look at one story above, it sounds like the world for an American GI is getting worse and worse. But if you realize what our military’s medics are now capable of, it’s obvious that we’re seeing continual improvement. Are soldiers are facing injuries from the wounds that would have killed them 50 years ago. War will always be dirty, but things are slowly getting less so.
Larry Elder says to watch and take in the news defensively. Remember that the next time someone brings up statistics.
December 8, 2004
Awww, poor Froggy winos
I came across this story on French vintners. It seems that not enough people are drinking wine to support their wine industry. So they’ve done what any self-respecting businessman would do in a near-socialist society, they’ve lobbied the government for help and engaged in public protests.
It seems that due to overproduction of wine, combined with a strong governmental push against advertising alcohol, and a major fight against drunk driving, have driven down prices. These little boutique wineries just can’t support themselves any more. I’d like to think my personal boycott of French goods is doing its part to make this worse, but unfortunately it’s probably not a major factor.
When are people going to realize that government subsidies don’t solve problems? They make it easier to continue overproduction and market inefficiency. This is as true for the French winemakers as it is for the American agricultural lobby. But I guess it’s easier to ask the government for help than it is to start a more successful business.
Oh well, c’est la vie.
December 7, 2004
The West Wing
I just started getting into The West Wing this year, one of the shows I never had time to get involved with before. This year, thanks to TiVo, I’ve gotten myself sucked in. I’m finally beginning to understand why everyone likes it so much. Excellent dialogue, topical issues, and a serious tackling of what sort of pressures these people are subjected to.
Last week’s episode dealt heavily with the China/Taiwan conflict. Being a political junkie, I have a decent working knowledge of the issue. Working for a Taiwanese company, where many of the employees are native-born Taiwanese, I have had additional opportunities to learn about the issue that would not have normally been available to me. As a result, I can say that the presentation of the issue by The West Wing was pretty well covered, factual and with significant discussion of many of the underlying issues.
But I was struck with one question: How many people in this world would not have known about the Taiwan/China troubles without this program? How many still only know it as a drama storyline, and may not be aware that this is actually a real problem? Furthermore, how many people draw their political knowledge from programs such as The West Wing, as opposed to the legitimate news sources of the world?
As a political junkie, I can pick out the difference on The West Wing between real issues and storylines. I can understand the difference between accurate portrayal of positions, and editorial bias of the producers/directors/writers. But I get concerned that in the ever more prevalent dumbing down of America, that not everyone has that ability.
I think The West Wing is one of the best dramas that I’ve currently seen on television. Occasionally I see little gems of a storyline that could be applicable in our current political climate. But at the same time, I wonder if writing a storyline that is a little bit *too* close to home may be misleading to the people in our culture who are increasingly turning off and tuning out of real issues.
When I watch movies like “Biker Boyz”, as a motorcyclist I know how unrealistic it is. When I watch “Hackers”, as an engineer I know that people don’t fly virtual-reality style through a mainframe to hack into it. But following politics as closely as I do, that distinction between drama and reality in The West Wing may be dangerously blurring the line between entertainment and news. People who don’t know motorcycles will be misinformed by “Biker Boyz”. And people who don’t know politics can easily be mislead by The West Wing.
December 6, 2004
Traitors
For a long time, I’ve sat and heard liberals refer to blacks who are conservative, such as Larry Elder, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, by derogatory terms. Oreo, uncle Tom, race-traitor, etc. This is true because when they leave liberalism, the “party of the minority and down-trodden”, they are supposedly turning their backs on their responsibilities to the other “oppressed” minorities.
If this is true, does that mean that rich, white liberals should be treated the same? Should we start calling Michael Moore “White Chocolate”? Is John Kerry a class-traitor for being populist?
Or are all conservatives just evil, and it’s doubly bad when a “protected” class member is conservative?
December 5, 2004
RAZR!
I don’t know why. I do very little with my cellphone. I ask very little of it. I don’t even need all these special ringtones, graphics, speakerphone, bluetooth, or a camera. But I want it, and since my current Cingular contract allows me to upgrade, I must have it.
I try very hard not to be a techno-geek. I try very hard to only embrace the technologies that will really improve my life. When I buy a computer, despite being an engineer, I don’t need to buy something top-of-the-line and then upgrade every three months. I have a simple home theatre, a feature-poor big-screen that’s sufficed for the past 4 years, and the biggest technological acquisition I’ve made in recent memory has been my TiVo. I also try very hard not to impress others with my belongings. Anyone who’s seen the way I dress, and the truck I drive, know that’s true. And my current phone works, and works well, so I don’t need to replace it right now.
So why is it that I all of a sudden need this phone?
December 4, 2004
NCAA v. NFL Football
Growing up, I used to be a big fan of the Chicago Bears. Then again, they used to be good. But I can remember when my fandom of the Bears ended. It was when I started to get involved in College Football. Ever since the four (and a half) years at my alma mater, Purdue, I’ve believed that the college game is better than the pros.
Every game is a playoff game. In the pros, you have 16 teams per conference vying for 6 playoff slots, and only then do things begin to get interesting. Over a 16-game regular season, a team could go barely better than even to slide into a playoff slot (look at the NFC this year), and yet still end up the Super Bowl champion. In college, you have an 11-game (sometimes 12) playoff, where losing one game may be enough to remove you from national championship contention. Every game becomes more exciting, because as you go on farther in the season, every team you play is trying to knock you off. And in the pros, if your team just barely slides into that playoff spot, you’re not really looking forward to the playoffs. Since there’s such a slight chance your team could win the Super Bowl, you lose interest. In college, you get to go to your own bowl game, fighting against a team of roughly similar ability. When your team wins its bowl game, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the Orange Bowl or the Sun Bowl, it’s a bowl win, which is worth celebrating. In addition, this makes it important to keep tabs on teams in other conferences, because you could be playing that bowl game against a large possible number of different teams.
College football fandom is developed during the most formative years of ones life. For anyone who attends a major university, it is usually true that this time is when their personality really develops. As such, the experiences, friendships, and habits learned during college tend to stick. There is very little in life like stumbling to and from a college football game, yelling obscene chants at refs with a few thousand other disorderly students, storming the field and tearing down goalposts after a major upset, and watching as players who are truly your peers laying it all out on the field. Atmospheres like Michigan Stadium (aka the “Big House”), where every game hosts 110,000+ fans, are never found in the professional game.
The team you root for is what is closest to you. For professional fans, this is the major city you grew up in or near. For college, this is where you choose to attend. This is a major distinction. I grew up in Chicago, and many of the things that I know and love are tied to my upbringing there. But I chose to attend Purdue. As something that I chose, I hold it in a different regard, because I had control over that decision. While I didn’t choose Purdue for its football team, I did choose a large, Big Ten university partly because I wanted to be in the environment there. College Football is a part of that enviornment.
College athletes play with heart; for their team, their fans, and themselves. Pro athletes play for a paycheck. While this is not nearly as big a distinction as in sports like basketball, it will always be true. Most college football players will never make a pro roster. Most will never make a living from their football ability. They are playing for the love of the game and the camaraderie of their team. It’s for this reason that college games always seem to carry more emotion than their pro counterparts.
The rivalries are better. Almost no rivalry in professional sports is as major as Michigan v. Ohio State, USC v. UCLA, Oklahoma v. Texas, Auburn v. Alabama, Notre Dame v. anyone they play. Rivalries in most college football programs have traveling trophies. Purdue v. Indiana has been a rivalry lasting over 100 years, and now in nearly 70 years of playing for the Old Oaken Bucket. Ohio State can finish with a 6-5 record, but their season is salvaged if they beat Michigan. Losing in college football is never good, but losing a rivalry game is heartbreaking.
I love the controversy. College football generates much more discussion, debate, and controversy than the pros. For most people, this is not a positive thing. But as you may have guessed, I enjoy discussion and debate, and controversy sparks all of this. Since there are 117 Div 1-A teams in college football, crowning a champion is not an easy task. Ever since the invention of the BCS system, it’s only gotten harder. This year, we may have three major undefeated teams going into the bowl schedule, and it’s going to generate controversy and debate all the way until next fall. And at the same time, there is a fourth undefeated mid-major team (Utah), who may their bowl opponents and generate more controversy. The debates over the top 25 polls or which conference is the strongest is just the start. If you like to argue, college football will give you plenty of reasons.
I may travel all across the country throughout my life. For all that time, I’m sure I will have a lukewarm fondness for the Chicago bears. But my Boilermaker spirit will never die. I bleed Old Gold and Black, and will be (badly) singing “Hail Purdue” for as long as I am alive. Go Purdue!
December 1, 2004
On Iraq – the real story
Combat in Iraq: A ground-level view
From WorldNetDaily.
Often we all get wrapped up in our debates about whether the war in Iraq is justified or not, or whether we should be over there. But at the same time, most of us sitting behind computer screens formulating arguments have never, and will never, be there. The above link is a description that appears to come from the heart. As Sherman said, “War is Hell”. We may need to remember that when we’re spouting off our rhetoric.
For me, I still think that what we are doing is going to be the right thing. But for those of you who disagree, realize that the men and women that are fighting are doing so because our leaders sent them there, not because they are there on purpose. For those of you who have the opportunity, please take the opportunity to thank the soldiers that you know for what they’re doing. They are enduring hell in the hopes that we will never have to. For that, I am eternally grateful.
« Previous Page
AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!
Comment by jrj — December 14, 2004 @ 12:10 pm