| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Having already voted for the Ryan budget once while in the House, why would recently appointed Nevada Senator Dean Heller have any issues with voting for it again?
But from the perspective of a Democrat, the Ryan budget is toxic and damaging to anyone who voices support of it. Obviously, the GOP feels differently. And with the public indicating more support for the GOP's approach to the economy, I'm putting my money on the GOP being proven right. Monday, April 25, 2011
Two law firms. Two unpopular clients. Two different reaction.
One major law firm just dropped a client because some people don't think highly of the client. A second law firm continues to defend their representation of a client notwithstanding that a lot of people aren't too happy with the then-client... The former? King and Spalding, announcing they won't defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The latter? Carolyn Lamm, a partner at White and Case, who helped Libya minimize the money it had to pay to settle claims related to Libya's orchestration of the Pan Am 103 bombing. And note that these were claims brought against Libya by Americans... Lamm is happy that her efforts on behalf of a terrorist regime helped deny Americans the full amount of their claimed damages. It's definitely an odd day when representing Muammar Qaddafi against one's fellow Americans is seen as less of a problem than representing the idea that marriage should be comprised of one man and one woman. It almost makes me wish my firm was a huge client of these firms... how nice it would be drop them.
Tell me again why it wouldn't be better to just shoot every Taliban on the spot rather than capture them only to let them escape?
A claim made by those who would tax employer provided health care benefits (either by deeming it income to the employee or disallowing the deduction by the employer) is that ending the current arrangement would give the employee an incentive to shop around for the cheapest coverage.
Huh? Please point to a single company that currently provides health insurance coverage for its employees that isn't doing everything it can to find the lowest coverage it can? Even though the benefit isn't taxable to the employee, the cost takes real dollars out of the employer's bank account... which gives the employer a lot of incentive to pay as little as possible. And... since more and more employees are having to kick in some kind of contribution (often in the form of a share of the premium costs), they too already have a large incentive that the costs be kept as low as possible. As to the implied suggestion that taxing the employee would result in the employee choosing to forgo coverage benefits, thus reducing the net cost of health insurance coverage, this too doesn't make sense. While the employee's current coverage may provide coverage for procedures the employee could just as soon do without, if the employee isn't availing himself of those benefits, the employer isn't paying much (if anything) to offer that coverage. Insurance premiums are based on expected usage... and if there is little expectation that a given procedure will be utilized, then the insurance company isn't going to charge much for covering that particular procedure. It is possible that advocates of taxing insurance benefits think (or hope?) that this would result in lower premium costs as a result of consumers going without coverage for needed procedures... but this would simply shift those costs as people would have to pay for those procedures out of pocket. Still another possibility is that there are a ton of medically unnecessary care being provided that people would do with... but I really doubt that a whole lot of what is being spent on health care is being spend for such care. Bottom line, those who call for taxing benefits really don't understand what is going on in with the people whose lives they're trying to regulate... Friday, April 22, 2011
I'm not sure what to make of complaints that BP gets to deduct its gulf clean up costs from its tax return...
It certainly is legal to do so, those costs are definitely an expense that BP has incurred, and business expenses are legitimately written off against income. And if as a result of those costs, BP has no remaining net income, then it follows that BP isn't going to be writing a tax check to the US Treasury. Maybe the complainers feel that BP shouldn't expense those costs, perhaps as some kind of penance for having caused the spill (stipulating that they caused the spill and were thus responsible for all of the resulting damage). Yet, the money BP is spending is supposed to make people (and the area) whole on their losses, so not allowing BP to write off those costs imposes a penalty on BP that goes over and beyond the actual damages. Maybe the complainers know this and they don't care. Maybe they're just out for blood. The comment of one of the complainers seems to bear this out. Nick Nyhart, the President of Public Campaign, reportedly said ""It doesn't add up... And it sends the wrong signal to the public about preferential treatment". What doesn't add up? The math makes perfect sense. Prior to accounting for the costs it incurred in relation to the spill, BP had a profit. After booking those expenses, BP has a loss. Companies with losses don't pay income taxes (clue: income taxes are paid by companies with 'income'... no 'income', no 'income' taxes) And what 'preferential treatment'? EVERY company that incurs expenses gets to deduct those expenses against their income in the year they incur those expenses. BP isn't doing anything that is any different than what every other company does with their tax return. How can something be 'preferential' if everybody is doing it? And another complainer, Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, while acknowledging that "This is all on the up and up" still complained that "It doesn't mean it makes it any easier for taxpayers to swallow...". Why would taxpayers have trouble swallowing? I know of taxpayers (me, for one!) who get upset when profitable companies figure out a way to not pay taxes, but I don't know of any who get upset when companies that lose money don't pay taxes. Again, it is pretty straightforward concept: if you lose money, you don't pay tax.
Here's some advice from a marketer to politicians (of both aisles):
No matter what the topic is, whenever you cite your reasons for taking the position that you have, you absolutely positively need to make the public feel they have a vested interest in your accomplishing your goal. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the public just won't care if they don't think their lives are going to be affected by whatever is going on. And if they don't care, not only are you not going to get points for addressing whatever it is, you're going to lose points for spending time and effort on something the public just doesn't consider relevant to their lives. Let's look at some examples: Libya. Aside from the knee-jerk support that goes with anything involving our troops, there is no public support for whatever it is that Obama is doing. Why? Because Obama hasn't drawn the dots between his getting involved and our lives. He hasn't argued that getting involved will help our economy or make us safer from terrorist attack. (note: probably because it won't) Deficit: While politicians from both aisles have been spending lots of time arguing about this or that plan to reduce the deficit, none of them have done a particularly good job personalizing the issue. It's not enough to talk about the deficit (or the debt) in abstract terms, they need to talk about how their plans will provide concrete benefits to the public. Notice the key word: benefits. As any good copywriter knows, the key to a successful advertisement is making sure the target sees your product as the solution to whatever problem they feel they have. Pushing benefits, benefits, benefits is the copy equivalent to retail's 'location, location, location'. And politicians are selling, or at least they ought to be trying to sell, their ideas. And if they want us to buy their idea (and not their competitors' idea), they need to constantly trumpet the benefits to us if we buy their pitch. This means Ryan and the GOP need to drive home how implementing their plan will help our home prices... and lower the cost of medical care... and improve our retirement plans... and lower prices at the pump and the grocery. If they do that, they'll get support. But if they continue to talk about the issues as abstracts, they won't. Remember, it isn't enough to build a better mousetrap, you have to convince the public that their lives will be immeasurably improved by buying that mousetrap. You can't assume the public will figure that out for themselves, you have to make the point over and over and over again. Wednesday, April 13, 2011
I neither watched nor listened to Obama's speech on how he is (not) going to tackle the deficit, but I can't help but think all his critics - both on the left and the right - are missing something: they weren't the target, Obama wasn't speaking to them... yet they're criticizing Obama from their perspective.
This is a bit like some snobby film critic panning some throwaway action film; of course they're not going to like it, the movie wasn't made for their benefit. The correct perspective is to look from the viewpoint of the intended target. Would a teenage boy like the latest version of American Pie? If so, then the producers have scored. In this case, the question is: did Obama succeed in convincing the mushy middle of voters that he is on the right side when it comes to fixing the economy? Did he mouth the right platitudes? Did he appear earnest and sincere? It doesn't matter whether he lacked specifics, these people aren't in the mood to evaluate the relative pros and cons of one platform or another. Nor does it matter if there are contradictions and the use of fuzzy math, these people aren't poring over budget documents. All that matters is whether these voters think Obama is the guy they want tackling the nation's problems. If so, then he'll win re-election. If not, he'll lose. It's that simple. And all of the pundits - on both the right and left - would do well to remember that. Their views don't matter, Obama has taken for granted the left and has long figured out the right isn't going to support him. He knows the battle is for the middle. Today's speech was aimed at them.
Since 'to pivot' implies a change of direction, in what way is it an appropriate use of the word to refer to Obama's proposing to raise taxes?
Hasn't he, pretty much from Day One of his presidential campaign called for raising taxes? When did he ever NOT want to raise taxes? Obama isn't 'pivoting' from not wanting to raise taxes to raising taxes, he is simply using concern over the federal deficit to justify doing what he has always wanted to do. And for the AP to use the word in this context is a fraud on their readership. It suggests that Obama is (wisely) changing direction in response to new conditions... and how could anyone argue with that? A better - and more accurate - headline is something along the lines of the Washington Examiner "Obama will renew call to tax the wealthy". Monday, April 11, 2011
In the latest chapter of advice the GOP won't listen to, I suggest that they agree to raise the debt limit... but only by a specified amount... with that amount calculated as the amount by which expected tax revenues fall short of the spending the GOP wishes to authorize.
If tax revenues are expected to come in at $1 trillion, then the GOP approves an increase in the debt of only $.5 trillion... which means government spending can't exceed $1.5 trillion. Yes, this is a backdoor way of cutting government spending. But since the GOP showed they lack the backbone to cut spending in a straight fight, maybe they'll go for cutting it this way. Monday, April 04, 2011
In a world where perception is reality and where perception is the product of presentation, then the loser of the budget fight is going to be the side that does the worst job of making its case to the American people.
Put another way, the GOP can win the fight if it makes the Democrats appear to be the ones who are the ones screwing around.... as in, 'wehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif'd have a budget but for the Democrats refusal to do X and Y'.... And that is exactly the approach the GOP should take with the Democrats threat to filibuster any budget that doesn't fund Planned Parenthood. Far from being a problem, this is an opportunity for the GOP. All they need to do is to relentlessly push the theme that the Democrats would rather shut down government and close the parks and post offices and deny paychecks to hundreds of thousands of government workers than to strip funding for a favored special interest group. And the GOP should not hesitate to add a whole bunch of other cuts into the mix (a win-win for the GOP, they get to cut even more of the liberal wishlist and they insulate themselves from charges that they are singling out a particular group). If that isn't the picture of rigid ideology on the part of the Democrats, the kind of partisanship the voters profess to hate, what is? And the GOP needs to move fast to stake out this claim... if they don't, the Democrats will try to turn the tables by claiming that the GOP is the side willing to shut down government if they don't get to implement their radical agenda. This is what the GOP should do. Of course, being as tactically inept as they are, I am not holding my breath that they will do so.
The funny thing about this report that the Obama Administration is complaining that Libya is a distraction from their economic message is that I figured they would have welcomed anything that distracted us from paying attention to their god-awful economic message.
|