Dishonest Debt Debate

As we come nearer and nearer to the supposed economic Armageddon of not raising the debt ceiling, everyone is being stirred to action in support of their side. Letters to the editor are flying, but I am becoming particularly annoyed by those whose only solution is to raise the taxes on "the rich." This is the favorite topic of those on the Left and Democrats in general as a solution to the problem because it fits in with their narrative of class warfare. Even if you confiscated all the wealth of millionaires and billionaires, you would only be able to pay the deficit for one year, and the next year they would have all quit and the Treasury will receive $0 from them, and still have the deficit. Since this makes no sense at all for generating revenue, why is it that our “leaders” are proposing such a thing. My answer is that this is not about raising revenue, but social engineering. And we have sufficient evidence in support of this proposition.
For instance, the tax code is more than 70,000 pages of rules and regulations which set forth not only tax rates but exceptions. That is how General Electric was able to make $6 Billion in profits and pay no income tax. And they did it legally, because their lobbyists were able to get the government to subsidize activity for them that you and I can never get.
The progressive rate of taxation is another example of social engineering. I am always amazed and amused at people who take the notion of progressive taxes as a given. President Obama wants all of us to pay “our fair share, even millionaires and billionaires.” Now, I may not be that good at math, but the fact that he wants to raise taxes on those making $250,000 a year in addition makes me wonder what he thinks a million really is. But the idea is that people making more than you should contribute more. Well, they already do.
In 2011, Federal income tax rates were set to increase to pre-2001 levels, but the renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts left the existing tax brackets in place through 2012. Below are the resulting tax rates and income ranges for 2011:
Filing Status and Income Tax Rates 2011
Caution: Do not use these tax rate schedules to figure 2010 taxes. Use only to figure 2011 estimates.
Tax rate Married filing jointly
or qualified widow(er) Single Head of household Married filing separately
10% $0 - 17,000 $0 - 8,500 $0 - $12,150 $0 - 8,500
15% $17,000 - 69,000 $8,500 - 34,500 $12,150 - 46,250 $8,500 - 34,500
25% $69,000 - 139,350 $34,500 - 83,600 $46,250 - 119,400 $34,500 - 69,675
28% $139,350 - 212,300 $83,600 - 174,400 $119,400 - 193,350 $69,675 - 106,150
33% $212,300 - 379,150 $174,400 - 379,150 $193,350 - 379,150 $106,150 - 189,575
35% over $379,150 over $379,150 over $379,150 over $189,575
Source: http://www.irs.gov

Looking at the lowest rate, one could argue that $17,000 for a couple is pretty low for being taxed, and you would be right, unless you remember that this number considers taxable income after deductions. So say the married couple have only one earner and a child. If I remember correctly, you get a $3700 deduction per person plus an additional $1,000 for the kid. And if they are buying a house, they get to deduct the mortgage interest. Suppose that they are smart and put money into a 401k and a flex plan and give to charitable organizations, all of which is not considered to be income for the purposes of computing taxes, and pretty soon you could be looking at some real coin before deductions. Throw in the Earned Income Tax Credit and a family like the one above could easily end up paying no taxes on their income.

For the higher earners, a lot of those exceptions of the family above are not available, and the richer ones have to cope with the Alternative Minimum Tax in addition, and that’s not even taking into account that their base rates are three and a half times higher than the lower earners. Do the rich drive on roads that are three and a half times better, or are they defended by the military three and a half times as much? Why no, they’re not. So the rich are already paying more than their “fair share.”

Why then is there such a hue and cry from Obama on down for what is effectively redistribution? Well, it seems that they have arbitrarily decided that the rich have too much, and can part with it more easily. There is a certain logic to it, for example, the family that lives on $45,000 could argue that if they can make it on that, so can anyone else. But let’s just hope that that family doesn’t work in any kind of industry which produces goods that the rich would buy, since they would no longer be able to do so, and the $45K family will then be out of a job. Even if they don’t work in that industry, whatever work that they do will be affected by all the ones that are engaged in producing products that the rich buy, since when they are laid off, those people will no longer be able to purchase goods or services either. The cascading effect of unemployment will be ameliorated somewhat in that the increased tax collections will be used for the most part as unemployment insurance for all those that lost their jobs.

Maybe, that is too extreme of an example. Let’s say that someone who is working and bringing home $450,000 dollars a year is our subject next. People who earn that kind of money are doing something right, since the general rule is that you provide more in value than you cost. Let’s say that the $450K earner only produces $400K in value for the company. There is a net loss of more than $50K (don’t forget all of the supplemental costs beyond salary) and eventually the business will either have to lay them off or go bankrupt, in which case there is no longer that amount of income for the household. But if the worker is meriting their higher salary, they usually have some incentive to keep working at that job. Making them pay more in taxes, will have an impact on their incentives to keep working at that level, and if they should decide that enough is enough, and live off their investments at the level of the $45K family, the government has been shortchanged all that income when they were working for a net loss to the Treasury.

So, soaking the rich doesn’t solve our debt problems. Then what do we do? My suggestion is to return the tax code to an instrument of collecting revenue and do away with trying to use it to coerce or reward behavior. If we went to a two step flat tax, with everyone making less than $50,000 paying 10% and everyone above that paying 20%, with absolutely no deductions or tax havens or anything else, we would have a solid and steady source of income, greater employment because business will finally feel that investing is not the same as gambling.

The problem with this solution is that it doesn’t allow the government to reward or punish people, and that is why the Democrats oppose such a common sense approach and are only interested in soaking the rich. And that is why Obama will never give up on his irrational need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession.

Racists Don't Always Wear Sheets

I realize that this is the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel, but really, how stupid is Sheila Jackson-Lee? She thinks that the only reason that there is opposition to raising the debt limit is because Obama is black. Some of her quotes are especially ironic:

"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? . . . .Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times?

and

"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.

If it was just about the debt limit, I would point out that everyone protesting now did so too when the debt exceeded $14.5 TRILLION. I wonder if she understands that that is a lot of money?
But worst treatment of a President? Remember that the ever so concerned about the dignity of the President, was always in the forefront of trying to impeach Bush for following the Congressional Resolution for going to war. I mean, when did anyone call Obama McChimpy, or Adolf Obama? And those are just the less inflammatory names.
To say that opposition to raising the debt limit to an extraordinarily large sum is only racism, is racist itself. She can't seem to separate that people could have logical and fiscal objections to that action, but she only sees racism.
I don't want to spend the time to look for it, but this kind of racism is not unique. A while ago, I drifted over to Left in the West where they were saying that everyone who isn't a liberal has to be a racist. In support of that proposition, someone told Rob Kailey that they met a black man who had been to Montana and said that Missoula was the most racist city he had ever been in.
I'm sure it's all of the "coloreds only" drinking fountains and restrooms that we have, or the fact that people of color are not allowed to sit at the counter at the Oxford and eat. Missoula? The most racist city he had ever been in? Has he been in any other city than San Francisco? But what was really interesting, is the willingness to accept the allegation by the writer and the readers at LITW. And unthinkingly assigning specific traits to a group based on the color of their skin is racist, even if you say everyone in Missoula is a racist because they aren't of color.
I am beginning to realize that the good Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is really a pillar of moral and intellectual thought for the Left.
It sure is a good thing that only 20% of the country identify as liberals. Of course they are all in either politics or "journalism."

As an Example

Jonah Goldberg puts out a weekly missive that is not linked, but in this case, I think that I need to include the entire thesis on how government is screwed up because it's run by people.

Dear Reader (and those of you who, according to the McConnell plan, will read this "News"letter only after 3/5ths of it has been approved by the president),

I was listening to the "This American Life" podcast the other day and heard a story. I will summarize.

A man is returning from vacation with his wife and kids and some neighbors' kids. They went camping in Texas. Towards the end of the long drive home in the family van, a Texas highway patrol car comes right up on the van, following like an "angry hornet," lights and siren blazing, forcing the driver to pull over. The man can tell from watching Cops that these guys are serious. From behind their car doors, the police yell through their loudspeaker, to turn off the enginge "using your left hand!" When the flustered driver uses his right hand, the cops shout louder. They make the driver get out of the car and get down on his knees on the gravelly shoulder of the Texas interstate. Some of the kids are already crying. The driver is terrified, confused, freaking out. One of the cops approaches with his rifle pointed at the man's head. The other cop, his gun drawn, is talking to the wife.

Finally, after an eternity, the cop who'd been talking to the wife comes over and says to the driver, "Sir, do you know what your daughter wrote on the car?"

It was actually the neighbor's kid, not his own daughter. But to make a long -- but very entertaining -- story short, what was written in the dust on the back of the van was: "Help. Please God. Call 911. I've been kidnapped."

"Well, son, for about fifteen minutes there, you were the most wanted man in Texas," one of the lawmen informed him.

The driver was so furious that, when the cops told him it was a crime to write that on the car, the driver told them, "Take her in."

But it turns out that the neighbor's daughter didn't write the whole thing. It was a group effort. And that's why I'm taking up your time with this story in the first place.

Apparently what happened is that the mother had written, "Help. Please God," several hours earlier because she so dreaded getting back in the car with all of the kids for even more driving. Then one of the other kids filled in after, "I've been kidnapped." And then the neighbor's daughter wrote, "Call 911."

It seems to me that this is a great little allegory for understanding how really, really, really stupid things happen in life, particularly in Washington. Person A has a harmless idea. Person B doesn't completely understand A's idea, but builds on it anyway. By the time you get to person Z, you're selling hundreds of automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

On both the left and the right there's a tendency to assume the other side -- particularly when it is running the government -- is both really evil and really competent. Most of the time it's closer to the opposite -- again, particularly when we're talking about the government. What appear to be conspiracies from the outside are in fact a series of dumb, innocuous, or even somewhat okay ideas that build on each other into colossally idiotic foul-ups, thanks to imperfect information and mission creep. If there's a human being out there who hasn't had some experience with this sort of thing I can only assume it's because you were raised in a refrigerator box and without human contact. And if there's a reader out there who doesn't think this capacity for screw-ups is an important part of the human condition, well, you're free to read this but you're not a conservative.

This is not -- or at least not entirely -- a road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions point. The initial idea that gets the ball rolling can be cynical or crass. Rather, it's to note that the more humans you have in the decision tree, the more you multiply the human factor, and that can lead to some pretty inhuman results.

Which is why I would be fine with government control of my life as long as there are no people in government.

You Have Been Warned

If you load a page on this site and sit on it for awhile, you will start to hear music from the game Angry Birds. Go to the bottom of the site, and there you will find the game, just click on the icon, then click on the pause button, which will allow you to mute the game while you play it.
Or you could just back out of it, but what would be the fun of that?

I Am So Proud

One of the misfortunes of not learning history, is that you are apt to repeat the same mistakes that others had. For instance Phidipides, who ran from the battle at Marathon to announce the victory to Athens, died shortly thereafter. But not knowing history, also means that you do things that you don't know can't be done. As an example, my daughter, Annelise Hedahl, just completed the Missoula Marathon, and I am so proud of her.

Why We Need More Taxes

How else are we going to pay for all of the soon to be unemployed once employers start to let them go because they can't afford them anymore?

The most amusing thing to me, is how stupid our elected leaders are, or alternatively, how stupid they think we are. The Democrats need to punish the wealthy as some form of Calvinistic redemption, the economy and workers be damned. And Republicans seem to fear anytime someone calls them "racist, hater" or whatever is the term du jour to make them falter. When Obama wants to claim that busting the debt ceiling means that Granny won't get her Social Security check, and the soldiers won't be paid while serving in a war zone just to keep the wealthiest tax cuts, why don't the Republicans point out that the Democrats want to starve Granny just to keep money going to the National Endowment for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, whatever version ACORN is calling itself now, and subsidies for "green tech" that doesn't even come close to being efficient. We not only have a problem with spending, but we have no priorities when it comes to spending.
Someone please tell me the justifications for either the Department of Education or Energy, both of which have seen a continued slide in their benchmarks since their creation. How much worse off would we be without Pell Grants that encourage universities to keep price pressure higher and higher to the detriment of whoever has to take out a loan to go to school? Or how much money would we save if we quit giving ethanol subsidies and lifted the tariff on imported ethanol, or for that matter, just allowing for the expansion of energy development, even if it means coal or oil.
And the thing that ticks me off the most is the complexity of the tax code. How is it that GE managed to pay less taxes than I did? Oh, that's right, I can't afford to hire a lobbyist like they do, and oh yeah, I am not being nominated for Treasury Secretary, or Chairman of the House Tax Committee, yet those same people will demand that I pay more before they do.
The only solution is a complete rewrite of the tax code. I suggest a 10% Value Added Tax with a 15% income tax for all incomes over the national median. No deductions, (amazingly called "tax expenditures" in the Orwellian language of the Obama Administration) no shelters for investment or business development, nothing. Just a flat tax that would apply to everyone, no matter their station or if they are a corporation or not. Everyone over the median would pay the same and everyone who consumes will also pay the VAT, so we will all be involved in paying for the government we get, deserved or not. It would stand out like a sore thumb when the first politician decides to do the bidding of the person who bought him and pass through a tax break that wouldn't apply to everyone.
But by removing the deductions, we will increase the rate of unemployment as lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers have to go find something else to do. But I am sure that as creative people they will finally find something of use to do.

Believe It Or Not

But the legal system actually worked in the Casey Anthony trial. Like Dave, I did not follow the case at all, but my family did, including my wife who gave me constant updates on the trial's progress. From what she told me, I did not believe that the prosecutors would get a conviction on the deliberate homicide charge, but because a child was dead, I figured the jury would at least go for whatever version of manslaughter was proffered. And then, my wife called to tell me that she was "Not Guilty."
I must admit that I was surprised, inasmuch as I usually feel that juries go with what they think is fair, then their common sense, and finally will look at the law. But in this case, the jurors actually found that the State had failed in its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the aftermath of the verdict, I did have a good time watching the talking heads like Nancy Grace have a complete meltdown on air about the jury's verdict. But she was not alone, and as noted here, the court of public opinion feels as if there has been a complete miscarriage of justice.
The reality is that the system worked. The State put on the best case that they could, which really consisted of pseudo science (a device to sniff decomposition? Give me a break!) and character assassination of the defendant, but no evidence of how the child died. And that is where the case failed apparently in the eyes of the jurors.
My wife and daughter both feel that Casey is guilty of something, and I would probably agree with them on that point. But if the State doesn't prove it, how can there be a conviction unless being a bad person is all the proof you need.
Now I say that the system worked because the jury found that the State hadn't proven their case. The reason that the system is set up this way is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. If mass opinion is enough, there is no real need for evidence or actual proof. Simply take a poll and determine the accused's guilt or innocence. But if you are innocent and charged with a crime, don't you want the highest standard before the State can take your freedom or even your life? And if you are convinced that the State would never wrongly charge you or your loved ones with a crime that you did not commit you are living in a fantasy world, as prosecutors become more attuned to the political winds than they are in their pursuit of justice.
If nothing else, remember the people who have given you the right to make the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and honor their sacrifice.

Most Ironic Headline Ever!

Sharpton Claims Herman Cain's Too Racially Obsessed

Knowing When to Win

The so called "kinetic action" in Libya, where it is officially declared that we "lead from behind" has House Republicans saying that the President has violated the War Powers Act. As a result, they are seeking to cut off funding for the Libyan whatever it's called military operation. The fun thing, is how much the sides have flipped on the issue. Although to be fair, Boenher did support a Democrat President (Bill Clinton) when he used military force in Yugoslavia. But the flipping by Obama is to be admired for his deft acrobatics.
I have always felt that the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, and the proof of that is that since its passage, many have railed that whichever President of the party opposite of theirs has violated the law, but no one goes to court. Primarily because they aren't sure they will win.
My solution for the problem is to have the Congress repeal the act. When you have Harry Reid saying that the act doesn't apply, you have to wonder why it's on the books. It's time for this law to go, and we have just enough crazy people in Washington to make that happen.
The advantage is that you can remove this partisan tool that has no real value except to claim that whichever president is in office is violating the law. If Congress feels that a future president's actions are illegal, they still have the power of the purse. In the end, win-win for everyone.

The Montana School of Law Makes an Ass of Itself

There are many things that I am proud of, but being a graduate of the Law School is not one of my top ones. And when it goes nationally that the school is so petty, it really diminishes the value of the name of the school even more.
The school has a good philosophy in that it is set up more as a trade school to provide Montana with lawyers than it is with training future law professors. But some of the personalities in the faculty are further proof of my thesis that "liberal" is not the same as Left. The faculty of the school is nearly completely Left, to the exclusion of any other form of thought.
When I went there, there was Rob Natelson, who was obviously conservative, and my hero and mentor, Larry Elison, who first made me aware of libertarianism. Otherwise, the faculty was carefully insulated from any thought that could be found more than 15 minutes away from the school. I am sure that the selection committee rued the day that they selected me, and of my class of 75, maybe 5 of us weren't Left/liberal.
So, I suppose that it was no surprise that they turned down giving Prof. Natelson the honorific of "emeritus." But the loss is not Rob's. It is the petty small mindedness of the faculty that would make that decision. I don't know all of the professors there, but I am sure that many of the ones that I had are still there. The one thing that I am certain of, is that they are proud of their narrow mindedness. And they can always turn to their left and right and find someone who agrees with them. Now, if they travel as far as Lolo, East Missoula, Frenchtown or Evaro, they would be confronted by a reality that they cannot comprehend. But the folks of those towns certainly understand them.
Which is probably why they avoid the faculty of the law school.

Debate Review

I started to watch the debate last night on CNN and the first question went to Herman: In one minute or less, what will you do to fix the economy? At that moment, I knew that there was no point in watching further and headed to the bar to watch baseball and play cribbage. One minute to address all of the issues that make up our complex economy? Only an idiot TV guy would propose to do that. Later, I saw some recaps where the moderator asked stupid questions like Coke or Pepsi. I would instantly have thrown my support to the first candidate who would have said "This is not American Idol, you either start asking serious questions, or get out of the way so I can talk to the American people."
On the same vein, King kept on the idea that tax cuts don't grow the economy. No, remember after six years of the Bush cuts when we had 4% unemployment, no inflation, people had jobs, yeah, that had to be the work of magic economic fairies, not tax cuts. Tax cuts are a part of the whole framework. If you combine tax cuts (although simplification works better) with a regulatory and legal framework conducive to business, you get a growing economy. But when you throw in panic (TARP) and regulatory excess (Dodd-Frank) and cronyism (Chrysler bond holder's jobbing) and you have an environment that no one wants to be in and are only too wiling to take their jobs off shore and you have the economy we have now.


For a more complete take on the debate, I would suggest Michael Barone.

Herman Cain is Making a Mark

Even before tonight's debate on CNN, Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic is calling for him to resign from his campaign for supposed anti Muslim bigotry. The fact that this is in the Atlantic shows that the Administration is well aware of how Herman is moving up with Republicans and are trying to preemptively knock him out. If he was inconsequential, you know that the Obama administration would just ignore him.

Good Luck with that.

Why Bother?

Peter Parisi, an editor at the Washington Times has this opinion piece which echoes something that I have been thinking about for a while. Why debate with Leftists? Now, Mr. Parisi uses the term "liberal" but I reject that appellation since so many on the Left have misappropriated the term for their own use while being decidedly illiberal. There are a few that I would consider to be true liberals (as opposed to classical liberalism of the Libertarian kind) and they are usually identified when you point out the problems with the Left's talking points, they at least deem those worth considering.
But too many on the Left have simply swallowed the Kool-Aid and repeat what they have been told to think. How many times have you been accused of being a Republican as soon as they find out that you aren't a Democrat? No subtleties, no appreciation for complex experiences and reasoning, you are either with them or against them. And they do defend their own against all crimes that would have been worth of the death penalty if committed by a Republican. See for example, tax cheats, Geithner, Rangle, and a host of others, or sex freaks such as Clinton, Studds and now Weiner. I have always said that you can get away with anything once in America so long as you publicly apologize. But if you are a Democrat, don't even bother with that. Your oblivious jihadis will defend you to their death just because you have a D behind your name. Comical, if you take them seriously.
But why take them seriously anymore? I have been mystified by the strange adherence to failed policies like Keynesianism, even when it has failed to provide any proof in support of its efficacy. In fact, there is even proof that it is a complete sham of an economic theory, but still it remains sacrosanct to the Left. Why pursue such failed policies? Because as someone said we don't believe the lies we fear, we believe the ones we want to believe. And if you want the government to spend money, then Keynesianism is just the right tonic for what ails you. Sort of like when Lewis and Clark would dose their comrades with mercury to treat venereal disease. Seemed like a good idea, but it tended over the long run to kill the patient. So much for the Hippocratic oath.
The economic nostrums put forward by President Obama and his party are the same as L&C's mercury. But the difference is that the President's remedy has been tested and found wanting. Yet still they persist.
Reading the letters to the editor in the Missoulian, we see more demand that nothing be done to change Medicare. Now a rational person would say that Medicare is going to implode in about seven years, and doing nothing is not going to make that problem go away. But that is apparently the position of the Democrat Party, which means of course that the Democrats are not rational.
Although, in a way they are. If you presume to play on people's fear and ignorance in order to maintain your political power, then it is completely rational to demonize Republicans. Besides, when the system fails, who will really remember that it was the Democrat Party that contributed the most to both its inception and its destruction.
So you see, the first point I made in this post is that it is unworkable to deal with these people. You cannot rationally debate and discuss anything with them that they won't try to turn into some sort of partisan advantage at your (and the truth's) expense. To discuss anything with them is to give validity to their positions, positions that do not merit validity.
But those few who are truly "liberal" and not just Leftist, we need to work together to solve some huge problems. Just remember though, if you are not part of the main body of thought of the Democrat Party, you will be called a Republican.

Well, This is Embarrassing

We like to think that Montana is one of the last bastions of freedom, and now we find that is nearly completely false. Montana ranks 29th on the State Freedom Index. You understand that that means that 28 states are freer than we are right? The recommendations for increasing our freedom are easy enough, but our last legislature seems to have completely ignored them. From the article:

Repeal health-insurance coverage mandates to reduce costs.
Reduce occupational licensing for epidemiologists, clinical lab technicians, occupational-therapist assistants, audiologists, private detectives, alarm installers, well-driller helpers, and boiler operators.
Reform civil-asset forfeiture by requiring the government to satisfy a burden of proof and by directing revenues to the general fund.

The last one, civil forfeiture is a byproduct of the war on drugs. I haven't seen it used for awhile, but it is a law still on the books, and if you own anything, you risk losing it if some ambitious prosecutor thinks that they want it. Remember, in those cases, they just have to say that it is related to drug money, and then you have to prove it's not. Good luck with that.

They Told Me That . . . .

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame has a collection of all of his "They told me if I voted Republican/for McCain we would have . . . ." All of which is to show that the Obama administration is just the Bush third term. The things some politicians will do to reach across the aisle.

You can find them all here.

A New Catchphrase for Herman Cain

Remember James Carville's mantra "It's the economy, stupid."? Herman needs to rework it to "It's the competency, stupid." Obama has become Jimmy Carter's best hope for improving as the worst President ever.

"Obamacare" is No Longer Racist

A prominent Democratic Congressman, John Conyers of Michigan says that Democrats should embrace the term Obamacare. And it wasn't that long ago that if anyone used the term Obamacare, they were told to stop it because it is racist.

These people beclown themselves.

Lying Liars

My wife made me watch part of the Casey Anthony trial over the weekend, and then there was Weiner's admission that he had lied about being hacked.


In both cases, the seemingly effortless ability to lie was truly amazing. Maybe if Casey Anthony gets her case overturned on appeal she can become a politician.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

The Biggest Smile in the Room

The New York Times does a reasonably good piece on the Hermanator. Well worth the read.

Today's Philosophy Question

Something about little boys throwing rocks into the water raised this question: If you took all of the two year olds in the world to Flathead Lake, how long would it take them to fill the lake up? Goodness knows that he is trying.