| 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, September 29, 2011
It is neither surprising nor a scandal that loan guarantees are going to solar firms that are connected in one way or another to the Democrats...
After all, given that the entire industry is built on the liberal delusion that alternatives to dirty energy are just around the corner and there is not now and likely never will be a business model that has these alternative energy firms making a profit, is it any surprise that conservatives - and their money - would be avoiding this industry like the plague? For all the liberal talk about their being the 'reality based community', it is the conservatives who recognize the reality is that there is no there there when it comes to alternative energy companies. So... if government liberals who control the purse strings are going to be giving money to companies in this sector, just as night follows day, the recipients of this money are going to be companies whose founders and executives have the same faith in alternative energy as do the Democrats... and these people are going to be among those contributing to Democratic candidates. Not because they're looking for handouts, per se, but because liberals with money contribute to liberals running for office. That's not a scandal... just a fact of life. Wednesday, September 21, 2011
How much more were patients at the University of Chicago Medical Center charged for their care in order for UCMC to cover the $670,833 it paid to Eric Whitaker, an Obama crony who fills the incredibly important (/sarcasm) positions of 'executive vice president for strategic affiliations' and 'associate dean for community-based research'?
And presuming that Whitaker isn't the exception at UCMC, how much less would patients have to pay for medical care if UCMC got rid of the other padded positions? And, presuming UCMC isn't the exception, how many millions upon millions of dollars could patients be saving on their health care bills if hospitals nationwide simply got rid of these payoffs to the friends (and spouses) of politically influencial legislators? Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Warren Buffett's complaint that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does has (justifiably) received a lot of criticism (sample), most of which focusing on the fact that his income is in the form of capital gains and dividends, both of which are taxed at a lower rate than is ordinary income.
I have another complaint: why hasn't Buffett allowed his secretary to do the same thing? If he can set his compensation plan to minimize ordinary income, he could have done the same for her. Why hasn't he set her up so that she gets the majority of her pay in the form of dividends? If Buffett, as he claims, is so interested in the 'little guy', why does he force his secretary to pay out so much of her compensation in taxes? Assuming she makes somewhere in the ballpark of $75,000 a year, just a 10% cut in her effective tax rate would put some $7,500 more dollars in her pocket each and every year. How many people making 'just' $75,000 a year do you know who wouldn't dance with joy at getting another $7,500 a year to do with as they wish? Isn't she one of the middle class that Buffett (and Obama) profess to care so much about? If so, where's the love? Where's the consistency? Where are the deeds that back up the words? Or is this a case of the big powerful CEO using his position to take what he can and to h**l with everybody else? Or is it a case of him screwing her by leaving her to pay higher taxes than she needs to so that he can get his so-called talking point for raising taxes?
If the GOP hopes to win popular support for defeating Obama's plans to raise taxes, they're going to need some better arguments than Larry Kudlow's argument.
If, as Kudlow argues, the tax would affect a relatively small number of people and only to the tune of $19 billion a year, why and how would it be so devastating to the economy? Wouldn't it have to hit more than 22,000 people and/or hit them a whole lot harder for it to have the negative impact that Kudlow and other critics claim would be the case? From a different perspective, advocates of cutting taxes would never claim that a $19 billion tax cut spread among just 22,000 people would do much of anything to stimulate the economy. Likewise, budget cutters would never claim that a $19 billion cut in federal spending was enough to have a major stimulative effect on the economy, they would - rightfully - argue that such an amount was too small - both in absolute terms and as a percentage of federal spending - to have any effect at all. So how is it any different when it comes to taxes? Guys, there are plenty of wonderful reasons with which to oppose Obama... we don't do ourselves any good when we advance arguments that don't hold up to the most basic level of scrutiny. Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Two, somewhat related thoughts:
Two years ago, Obama spent close to a trillion dollars on a stimulus plan that didn't produce much of anything in the way of jobs. So now he is pushing another $450 million in more of the same stimulus spending... and at the same time pushing to such $450 million out of the pockets of the most productive members of the economy. Even if the 'jobs' programs he is pushing actually created jobs, why would anyone think sucking the same amount of money out of the economy would produce a net gain of jobs? There is no way that anyone could think that this would so anything to improve the economy. Anyone, that is, who understood even a little bit about how the economy works. As bad as Obama has been on just about every aspect of the economy, I'm not upset with him. He doesn't know any better, getting mad at him for what he is doing is as silly as getting mad at a one year old who spills his food on the floor. It is just the way it is. Nor can I say I am disappointed in him, and for pretty much the same reason. Disappointment comes from unmet expectations, and I had no expectation that he was going to get anything right. What does bother me is that Obama is a constant reminder that a really large number of my fellow Americans are, to put it bluntly, idiots. I look at the polls that show, even today, that 1 out of 5 people think he's doing a great job and have to think, what are these people smoking? I look at the polls that show him running even or ahead of the GOP candidates and have to think, how deluded are his supporters that they could think that anyone would do a worse job? Having him as President is like having salt poured in a wound... every day, every day, every day. I would think that at some point I would become numb... but it hasn't happened yet. Monday, September 12, 2011
Obama, in pushing his latest 'jobs' plan, describes it as insurance against a second recession.
Talk about setting your goals low! What happened to the (his) idea that his proposal was going to spark a whole new round of hiring and spending? Where's the optimism? Where's what the Good Professor (mockingly) refers to as that "hopey-changey stuff"? Instead, we have some sales guy giving us the insurance pitch. You know, the guy who tells us we need to spend a lot of money right now on the off chance that something bad might happen.
Misc thoughts...
While cutting the payroll tax may not a terrific job creating measure, raising it right now is a bad idea. One of the last things we need right now is the government sucking more money out of people's pockets... and eliminating the 'temporary' tax break would do just that. And it's rich to see critics complain that this tax cut has a negative impact on social security when they know that social security finances are a bookkeeping fiction.... the only thing that matters is the sum of tax collections and the sum of government spending. I have to agree with the critics (Democrats, mostly) who argue that capital gains shouldn't receive such favorable tax treatment. (granted, I'm not calling for them to be raised right now, at least not without matching cuts elsewhere). To me, a dollar of income is a dollar of income and it doesn't matter the form income takes, the tax on that income should be the same as on any other dollar of income. Giving a tax break on capital gains is gaming the tax system, something conservatives profess to dislike (except, I guess, when doing so nets them some extra money?). As for the claim that taxing capital gains at a higher rate doesn't take into account the inflationary effect of that gain, there are a number of other 'investments' people make without receiving a special tax break. People spend tens of thousands of dollars on an education that (hopefully) provides a good return on the investment... and without any special break on their ROI. As to the claim that 'investment' will dry up without a tax break, much of what is called 'investment' doesn't go into new start ups, it is simply people buying established companies on a stock exchange. And finally, to the point that capital gains are a form of double taxation, that doesn't apply where the entity is a non-C Corporation, and in the case of C-corps, double taxation is the price to pay for having an entity that enjoys many of the benefits of 'personhood'. Sunday, September 11, 2011
Originally posted as a comment at Powerline
I think a good part of what George Will alludes to is attributable to people elevating in importance what happens to them and in their lives over that which happened earlier. Nirvana one of the greatest rock bands? Tarantino one of the greatest directors? Last year's Green Bay Packers one of the greatest football teams? Derek Jeter (who I like) one of the top shortstops in the history of baseball? No, no, no and no. And 9/11 bigger than Pearl Harbor? Heck, there were probably a dozen battles in WWII alone in which the US suffered more casualties. The war on terror more of an impact on our lives than WWII? Not even close. Taking off our shoes to get on an airplane is an annoyance, but it pales to doing what society did without during WWII. Sure, let's remember 9/11, but in context. It was a sad day. Unfortunately, just one of many this country has had in its lifetime. Historians in fifty years may not even rank it in the top (bottom?) five. Friday, September 09, 2011
I think the GOP is making a mistake in opposing Obama's 'jobs bill' on fiscal grounds, rather than on the basis that it won't do what the country needs...
Yes, one of the last things that the country needs right now is another $500 billion of government spending. But the bigger reason to oppose Obama is that none of what he is proposing will do anything to restore our nation's confidence. In fact, given that he just can't stop trying to raise taxes, he is actually perpetuating the climate of fear he has created among the most productive sectors of the economy. All Obama has done is trot out more of the same type of stuff that hasn't worked before. Why should anyone (except, of course, for the most delusional of what remains of Obama's core) believe more of the same will do anything different? Football teams that enter the season with the same roster as they ended the prior year aren't expected to post four win improvements. If a team wants to improve its record, then it has to do something different. The same holds for the economy. If you spend a trillion dollars and you don't get the economy going, that is pretty good evidence that spending a truckload of money isn't what the economy is looking for right now. The GOP needs to challenge Obama on the substance (or, more correctly, the lack of substance) of his proposals. They need to put forth their own proposals for getting the economy growing again. Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Growth comes from increases in spending and production. Increases in spending and production can only come from people and businesses who have the money and motivation to do so. The key therefore is to get these people to open up their wallets.
With this in mind, and not that he will listen, but here are some things Obama could push in his 'jobs' speech on Thursday night... * Make it easier for businesses who want to hire to do so. Raise the employee threshold at which businesses become subject to various workplace rules and regulations (such as FMLA and ADA). Allow a business that hires someone during the next six months to fire that person for any reason during the first six months of employment. * Freeze current individual tax rates and limits on deductions. Removing the fear that taxes are going to go up removes a huge incentive for people to hoard money. * Allow multi-nationals to bring home foreign earned profits TAX FREE, provided they pay out that amount in dividends. This would not only put a ton of money in the hands of people to spend, the taxes paid on those dividends will generate a fair amount of tax revenue. * Roll back the minimum wage. Why not let someone take a job for $6 an hour than sit home with no job at all? * Open up domestic drilling and exploration for oil and gas. This will not only increase employment, it will put long term downward pressure on gas and energy prices, freeing up cash for just about everybody. * Eliminate the requirement that government projects pay wages at the union level. This would effectively give the federal, state and local governments 25% more buying power for their construction dollars. * Hold those reponsible for filing (unsuccessful) lawsuits against construction projects for the cost increases resulting from the delay. There isn't much that is truly 'shovel ready', but these nuisance lawsuits make everything that much less 'shovel ready'. If a plaintiff can't win their case, then they should have to pay for whatever costs are incurred as a result of the delay they caused. * Make it easier to start a business. Eliminate the rules that restrict people from getting into various industries. * Change the climate. Stop demonizing businesses and the people who run them. Stop complaining that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. \ * Pledge to keep government spending at no more than what was spent last year.
|