Choice
As promised, here is my choice for President. I will cast my vote later today.
It is with heavy heart and great reluctance I choose John Kerry for President. In fact, this vote is not so much a vote for the junior Senator from Massachusetts as it is an unequivocal and vigorous vote against Bush. I think he's done some good things. He's gone in the right direction on taxes and tax reform-- indeed, not far enough. No Child Left Behind has a good idea somewhere deep inside, cloaked in layer upon layer of fat and hot air. His leadership in the first couple months after September 2001 were good stuff. He's been far from a disaster on many fronts. However. I want him gone for the following reasons.
1) The "war on terror," which is the most important struggle facing our nation today-- on a par with the Cold War-- is also not the only struggle, and I deeply resent my patriotism being questioned for asking if the way the President chooses to fight it is the right way, and I deeply resent the implication that talking about anything else implies I am unserious about national defense. I do not believe that we are more safe now than before Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This is not the same thing as disagreeing with the decision to remove him. If terrorists are the problem, I may simplistically ask why Saudi Arabia is not a smoking crater. Again, although some parts of the "war on terror," (which in itself is a ridiculous title like "war on poverty," "war on drugs," or "war on mosquitoes") have gone smashingly well, I think enough major parts have been completely fumbled so's to warrant giving someone else a chance. Is John Kerry my first choice? Hahahahahahahahahaha....no. I vote for him only because he's the evil I don't know.
2) I love France and the French more than I love life itself. French toast, French ticklers, French letters, French fries, French poodles, uppity French wine, and French hygeine are my ne plus ultra. They have been our greatest ally, and it is high time we as a nation were grateful for them and their haughty righteousness.
3) Bush's unquestioning loyalty to himself. "We're on a mission from gad" is great for the Blues Brothers, but terrible for policy. It too easily transmutes from humble supplication and introspective moral guidance into arrogant crusading, and that don't sit too good with me. His inability to admit making any mistakes, his inability to accept or delegate accountability, his loyalty to his inner circle long after that loyalty pays any dividends or indeed makes any sense, and his legendary incuriousness about policy or detail leave me deeply dissatisfied about his fitness to take the nation in a worthwhile direction . Moreover, I find that fratboy schtick fatuous, not funny.
4) I hate our prosperity, I hate free trade, I love the gays, and I hate our freedom. (Which of these things is true, and which is just me shinin' you on?)
5) Four years of John Kerry means, at the very least, four years of divided government. It's an article of faith with me that such times are when the *magic* happens.
6) There's a bunch of other things that belong on this list, from specific gripes about Medicare entitlements and government spending to Bush's overweening moralism, but it's November the Second, the end of the tunnel is in sight, and I am so powerfully sick of our Hallowed Democratic Process so's to willingly consider Constitutional Monarchy if only our first king could be TV's Dave Coulier. I have little to add to what the Kerry supporters at Begging to Differ have to say, so if my choice vexes you, go see where I nod my head, then come back here and unload.
Remember: vote early. In Chicago, vote twice!
on
| § 9
§ 9 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Also, what is objectively
Also, what is objectively wrong with more money in rich pockets? Why is that qualitiatively different than more money in my pockets, which The Great Pumpkin knows I sure as hell could use?
Ross, think outside the box
Ross, think outside the box for a second. Assume 1) lower taxes are better, and 2) a smaller tax bill MUST lead to smaller government. Not in a starve-the-beast way, but in a fundamental burn-it-down-and-rebuild kind of way. Also assume taxes are a given like death, oxygen and bad christmas albums. Why not set the lowest tax rate at 10%, progressing to 30%? Do not then everyone pay less? Sure, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will have to lay off a buncha folks and the D of Ed will have to join HHS, HUD, and Labor as appendages of a reconstituted Dept of the Interior, but what the hell?
"more money in rich pockets"
"more money in rich pockets" means more money in rich pockets, and nothing else. 20 years ago you could legitimately look at the data and say that it was _possible_ that lower taxes for the rich could lift all boats. the verdict is in, now, and what we know is that dramatically lowering taxes on the rich doesn't help anyone but people who are already rich. and they get _dramatically_ richer when you do it. i've written about the basic studies involved fairly extensively.
you know how the tobacco companies maintained for years that smoking wasn't bad for you? same thing with republicans and taxes on the rich. the science is _settled_ now. you can argue that you _prefer_ lower taxes on the rich, but you can't argue that they _help_ poor and middle class folks. they don't.
"mildly progressive" means rich folks pay less, poor folks pay more. you ok with that? or do you want to end the social security/medicare/income tax farce and just have one rate? if so, we can deal. :)
Don't mind doing that at all,
Don't mind doing that at all, really. The current numbers are total federal tax rates that start at around %16 and go to about 30-40%. So we're not really all that far off from what you'd like to see.
Where does your 30% upper bound come from, by the way? Is it a number that just has a good feel to it? ;)
Ross, actually that's right.
Ross, actually that's right. An upper bound of 30% does just have a good feel to it.
Ross, to a certain extent,
Ross, to a certain extent, yes. But there are two other reasons. First: the old saw about more money in rich pockets means a healthier economy. I don't buy that as gospel, but I to accept that it does have some effect on the economy. Second: lower taxes means less sheltering. Very rich people have more financial instruments available to them for sheltering and structuring their tax exposure than most people have ever even heard of. The less advantage they take of those instruments, the better. That means less income funneled overseas and may well mean *more* tax revenue to the US of A as the marginal tax rates fall to a level where it's easier to take a hit than it is to shelter all your money.
Your point yesterday about the shortcomings of a flat tax were well taken, especially your observation that exempting very low incomes from all or some taxation just means that the progression curve is biased far to the left. That being said, I intuit that the closest-to-ideal tax structure for the US would be a mildly progressive system with low income exemptions and a maximum marginal rate of about 30%., preferably lower if big changes also occur in the size and nature of the US government's bureaucracy and administration.
But exactly why lower taxes
But exactly _why_ lower taxes on the rich-rich? What is the desired _effect_ of that policy? Is it just plain old fairness?
Ross, I like the underlying
Ross, I like the underlying ideas of a) lowering taxes in general and b) simplifying the tax code. Those in the know, who were asked, who I asked, say that the long-term goal of Bush II is-- or at least was-- to continue the work Reagan started with the tax reform act of '86. To wit: lower corporate taxes and lower taxes on the rich-rich (thereby making them less willing to shelter their money rather than pay up), drastically simplify the tax reporting and deduction process to eliminate loopholes, and (so the talk goes, and so I hope), not doing much to shift the real tax burden (as opposed to the proportional tax burden) onto the lowest quintiles.
I like lower taxes in general, and I like simpler taxes for sure. The people who put together Bush's tax package-- many of whom are gone gone gone and angry about it-- had the right idea. The fact that they're gone makes me suspicious that their right ideas might not be the ones driving Boosh forward.
Well, that's another one! :)
Well, that's another one! :)
Dude -- what exactly about Bush's tax policy do you like? It fails the equitable and fairness tests instantly.
Everybody likes lower taxes, but that's not what the RoboGOP is after. They're after _much_ lower taxes for _certain people_. And they got it.