politics conservative political news maryland senators virginia political news
Monday 3 October 2011
Right Turn: Will Libya matter in 2012?
A reader e-mailed me over the weekend asking whether "the situation in Libya may affect the 2012 presidential campaigns." He mused: "Depending on how bad it gets in Libya, I envision a whole slew of political ads showing Obama shaking Gaddafi's hand back in 2009."
An indecent proposal
(Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
As it turns out, you don?t need to wait for President Obama to sign legislation raising taxes on you. You can open up your checkbook right now, write a check payable to the United States Treasury, and drop it in the nearest mailbox (or just hand it to your ?secretary?). Problem solved. [...]Once you?ve sent the check, I would be glad to help spread the word. The many others who believe the government can spend their money better than they can will be inspired by your example.
As a convenience to you, I?ve enclosed an envelope pre-addressed to the U.S. Treasury. You?ll have to take care of the stamp yourself, however.
Conservatives seem to think they've stumbled on a very clever argument, which is that people who want taxes raised on the wealthy should just donate money instead and let the various more greedy sons-of-bitches in America continue on as usual. Ha ha! Take that, you intellectuals!
First off, I note that Grover Norquist is too cheap to spring for a stamp, indicating that the total sum Mr. Norquist is willing to invest in his clever scheme is considerably less than one dollar. And I don't expect Norquist particularly gives a damn if someone points out that his solution is, shall we say, spurious, because most of what Grover Norquist does in life is come up with spurious arguments as to why wealthy Americans should be held to different standards than other Americans, when it comes time to support their own government, and why government itself should exist solely as greaser of corporate wheels, and to hell with all of the rest of it.
Rather than a long, drawn-out explanation of the basic economic principles of taxation, then, since Norquist neither cares about such things nor has any understanding of them, I'm going to counter-propose my own entirely spurious plan. And I think it's one Grover Norquist could get behind.
My proposal is that we make taxes for wealthy Americans and corporations entirely optional. That's it. If a corporation wants to pay zero percent in taxes, they should be allowed to, and if they want to pay the full tax rate, that is also allowed. The same for wealthy Americans.
The only caveat is that non-contributing corporations and individuals will be barred from taking advantage of any government services. It is the perfect free-market-based opt-out: If you do not want to support the American infrastructure and population to the same extent that your fellow citizens do, you can simply decline to, and live your life as the libertarian god you have always longed to be. You will be free! You will be allowed to go Galt, or not go Galt, to whatever degree you wish; as a special bonus, we shall prevent you from becoming that most dreaded of figures, the parasite, since if you are not contributing to the benefit of society it only stands to reason you should not gain profit from it either.
For starters, companies that do not pay the going tax rate will be barred from shipping their products on American roads. They will be prevented from connecting to the American electric grid, or from using municipal water or sewer systems. Instead, they will have to provide these services on-site. The good news: They can feel free to pollute as much as they like, as long as no pollution crosses the boundaries of their property (above, below or horizontally) into the rest of America. That would be considered an act of war.
Wealthy Americans that opted out of paying the going tax rate would also, of course, be prohibited from using American roads. This would not be a problem for them, as they generally can afford airplanes or helicopters, which would be similarly fine so long as they did not use American airspace (sorry, but the FAA costs money too, you know). But they could certainly fly around the property, which might be a pleasant experience.
Then we must consider the issue of security. Fire and police protection would be right out, so there would be no particular incentive for poorer Americans not to loot their properties (wealthy Americans tend to have nicer things than the rest of us). The American elite might consider the approach taken by wealthy Mexican families, which is to install a high perimeter fence around the property with a heavily armed private guard service. This would be expensive and unsightly, but it would be up to each individual to decide, for themselves, what the appropriate free-market level of protection for their own property might be. My one tip would be to spend a good deal of time on that decision.
It goes without saying that non-contributing Americans, corporate or otherwise, would not have access to the courts. This should be fine with them, since we know that meddlesome lawsuits are the biggest non-tax-related threat to America today. There is the minor issue of no recourse, if armed mercenaries do manage to overpower your guards and make off with your antique commodes or whatever it is you rich people hoard these days: Again, though, think of the tax savings.
Some government functions are a bit harder to parcel out. Food safety efforts, for example. I'm not worried about the safety of your products, since they won't actually be leaving your factories. But the food you eat, that has been through cursory tests for safety?how do we price that service? An individual tax on food testing for Americans that choose to not support their government is one option, but I suppose a tax is a tax, and probably that would be frowned upon as well. The same with government standards for an array of potentially dangerous products. We have already discussed elsewhere how weather reports represent something akin to uber-socialism; we may want to pull the plug on all communications whatsoever, since the government has its meddlesome hand in all of it, deciding which frequencies should be reserved for which products. All of that would have to be worked out. A true libertarian would live on a completely isolated plot of land, with not so much as the light from a public street lamp crossing their pristine border of Freedom.
That does sound like a fine way to reduce government, though: Reduce it one freedom-loving soul at a time. If wider society wants some government function that a smaller political segment of the population emphatically does not want, like bridges that do not collapse when you cross them, the liberty lovers can cross the goddamn river the old way, by swimming for it and hoping for the best.
The natural libertarian response to all of this is that the rich could perhaps opt into a pay-as-you-go scheme, similar to the sales tax. If you pay no taxes, you could still drive on public roads but only by paying rather hefty a per-mile toll; you could still gain police protection, but as a pay-to-use service.
Yes, the rest of us took a vote on that. We refuse. We simply can't create an entire national infrastructure on the off chance that you might use one road, or need electricity in one location, or have law enforcement everywhere you might ever go on the off chance that you might go there, or field an entire military on the slight chance that another country might declare war on you and your mansion and nothing else. It's not cost efficient. That is why the rest of us do these things together. Opt in, or opt out.
Now this, I think the rest of us could get behind. I have always wondered what would happen if the libertarians among us took themselves up on their own threats, and started to live entirely independent from accouterments of the country they claim to be so very independent from. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous would become a much, much more interesting reality show once you added malaria or smallpox to the mix. I continue to have the sneaking suspicion that anti-government types are not in fact anti-government at all, but simply greedy, self-important little bastards looking for any excuse not to support their nation, their neighbors, or anything they cannot directly own: I base this on their insistence that they must have the government do X, Y or Z for them while all the while caterwauling about how they will not pay for it.
And if the issue is tax rates, and that the rich and poor should be taxed the exact same dollar amount because that would be fair? Yes, fucketh that. There is nothing that says the free market is fair; the free market says that the proper price for something is the maximum amount a person will pay for that thing. The free market would dictate that we crank tax rates on the rich up as high as we can before wealthy Americans decide to flee the country in droves, and then set it one bare dollar below that point. In previous generations, the rate was 50 percent, or as much as 90 percent, and very few of the whiners actually left. I remain quite confident that we could return to Clinton-era or Reagan-era rates without causing a mass exodus of rich, unpatriotic assholes, no matter how badly they might complain.
Thus is my entirely spurious, nonsensical argument, Mr. Norquist. If you are interested, you may sign on. Please note that I have not enclosed a stamp because I do not really give a crap.
Oh, and while we're talking about things that only exist due to the largess of the government: Get the hell off our internet, Mr. Grover Norquist.
Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/UTSdEk4is-c/-An-indecent-proposal
ap political news political party platforms cnn politics texas senate
Is Twitter blocking Occupy Wall Street from trending in the USA?
Occupy Wall Street is trending everywhere on Twitter, except in the United States:
Click for larger image
Update: Twitter says no:
Not so, says Twitter?s Carolyn Penner, who pointed us to this blog post, written after people made the same speculation about the #wikileaks tag, which explains that Twitter?s trending topics are based on what?s breaking out rather than what?s popular. ?Twitter Trends are automatically generated by an algorithm that attempts to identify topics that are being talked about more right now than they were previously,? it explains.
arkansas senators political party political poll senators of georgia
China picks up U.S. slack in trade
Booming trade ties between China and Latin America are raising concerns in Washington.
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/64933.html
politics in the news bbc politics cnn new political marketing
Sunday 2 October 2011
Gas prices, Japan and leadership likely to dominate at Obama's news conference
President Obama is planning a news conference at 12:30 Friday afternoon that the White House announced will focus on high energy prices. He will also no doubt address the massive earthquake in Japan, which has spawned a tsunami whose waves have hit Hawaii and Alaska.
international politics news north carolina senators and representatives senate votes political platform
Christie has team investigating 2012 bid
With the first GOP caucuses about 100 days away, NJ Gov. Christie to make final decision on 2012 bid this week 
Source: http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/CBSNewsMain/~3/a6qG4KLQw3A/main20114560.shtml
economic magazine recent political polls michigan politics illinois senator
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signs collective bargaining bill, bypasses Senate Democrats
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill to strip public workers of most of their collective bargaining rights on Friday. As Karen Tumutly reported:
andhra political news political parties canadian political news recent political news
The Onion awakens a sleeping giant
From ABC News:
Did The Onion Go Too Far?
The New York Times:
The Onion's twitter posts draw scrutiny
Time:
Is The Onion Going Too Far With Its #CongressHostage Twitter Satire?
That's right. This is the hostage situation that made the media sit up and take notice:
Brandishing shotguns and semiautomatic pistols, members of the 112th U.S. Congress took a class of visiting schoolchildren hostage today, barricading themselves inside the Capitol rotunda and demanding $12 trillion dollars in cash.
Now granted, it isn't as far-fetched as it would have been before the GOP had its group HPV vaccine?at approximately noon ET on January 20, 2009?but come on! It's The Onion.
A satiric site?one that currently features the headline: Pediatricians Announce 2011 Newborns Are Ugliest Babies in 30 Years?starts tweeting its brand of humor and we get this?
A few weeks after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and one day after a man was arrested and charged in connection with a plot to attack the Capitol ...
Which only seems to raise the question of what the point-of-no-return is for citing proximity to 9/11 to make an idiotic point.
And the most ridiculous part of this story?
The United States Capitol Police on Thursday said they were investigating The Onion, a satiric media organization, for making false reports on Twitter claiming that there was a hostage situation ...
A satiric media organization is being investigated for engaging in satire? It's straight out of The Onion.
But really, you can't blame the media for getting so worked up about this. After all, it's not everyday they get to cover a breaking hostage situation ... because when it happens in Washington, it's called Democrats and Republicans are unable to reach an agreement.
Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/1CNjNy_0Pa8/-The-Onion-awakens-a-sleeping-giant
politics news ap political news political party platforms cnn politics
Romney says Perry is too liberal
Romney's campaign is knocking Perry for having 'liberal' views
Perry is now the liberal in the race. And if that makes you laugh incredulously, see Rush Limbaugh, taking a dig at Perry (and Romney) while discussing Herman Cain's straw poll victory in Florida.
Headline on Romney web video, last night:
Exposed: Rick Perry and his liberal immigration views
Romney's aggressive attacks may be hurting Perry, but as Markos pointed out, Romney isn't gaining ground. Romney's leading the most recent Fox poll, but not because his support has grown ? he's leading because Perry has stumbled. It's Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich who have picked up ground, and Chris Christie has become the talk of the GOP town.
That leaves the GOP establishment in a bit of a pickle: it's clear they don't want Rick Perry to get the nomination, but they've got to be afraid that Romney can't close the deal. That doesn't mean they aren't doing their best to boost Romney ? check out these clips from Wednesday and Thursday in which Fox anchors Shepard Smith and Megyn Kelly work with Carl Cameron to redeclare Romney as the frontrunner:
(You can also check out this clip and this clip for more examples of Perry's Fox problem.)Still, not even Fox can point to any actual enthusiasm for Romney from Republican primary voters. The best they can do is compare him to a tortoise, and hope that the latest distraction of the day ? whether it's Herman Cain or Chris Christie or Donald Trump or Sarah Palin ? is enough to keep the GOP primary field unsettled as Romney methodically makes his way to the finish line, hoping to be the last option standing.
In short, the Romney strategy is to let everybody else lose first. That's not exactly inspiring, but with both Fox and the GOP establishment on his side (unless Chris Christie enters the race), it's plausible ? and given his weaknesses, it's probably his best shot.
Source: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/dNGlmzVxDws/-Romney-says-Perry-is-too-liberal
north carolina senators and representatives senate votes political platform politics news
The Caucus: Romney and Huckabee Meet on TV, and Get Along Fine
In the race for the Republican nomination in 2008, then-candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee seemed to take every chance to disparage one another. In a television interview on Saturday, they were downright civil.
Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ecd946834518715c548b743127b1d7f1
senate elections 2010 alabama politics senator of florida msn news
Obama to Republicans: On Jobs, What Are You for and Against?
In his weekly address, President Obama pressed Republicans in Congress to justify their opposition to his $447 billion jobs bill and reiterated his plea for them to ?pass this jobs bill.? ?Some Republicans in Congress have said that they agree with certain parts of this...
Source: http://feeds.abcnews.com/click.phdo?i=39959492638ca5b735d8f42c8f404a3f
cq politics latest politics news usa political news bbc politics news
Perry says slowing carbon emissions hurts economy
ATKINSON, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Texas Governor Rick Perry, struggling to regain his status as front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, expressed fresh doubt on Saturday about whether humans are causing climate change. 
georgia senators political candidates texas senator political signs
Saturday 1 October 2011
Authorities: CA murder suspect killed in manhunt
Aaron Bassler, suspect in the fatal shootings of a councilman and a county land trust official, died after massive manhunt 
Source: http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/CBSNewsMain/~3/JOd4vLSuyhQ/main20114370.shtml
senate majority leader total politics political news political unrest
Health care promises landmark high court term
One of the little-known prerogatives of the U.S. Supreme Court is the justices' discretion to refuse any case on the merits presented to them for review. Only one in 10 petitions actually gets accepted. But though the justices usually say no, when epic disputes arrive at the courthouse steps -- by tradition and political reality -- the nine members know they are powerless to turn away. 
Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/ImbXKaY3RLQ/index.html
nevada politics news politics forum top news today political contributions by corporations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)