Category: Politics

Bill Clinton caused the Plague, too.

Once again, the editors at Opinion Journal are spinning a crisis to pretend that Republicans haven’t been complicit.

In reality, the AMT is one more liberal monster that was created in the name of soaking the rich but has now come back to swallow the middle class. Democrats created the AMT in 1969, amid a political frenzy to capture a mere 21 millionaires who had paid nothing. And the politician most responsible for the AMT’s relentless expansion in recent years is none other than William Jefferson Clinton.

Remember the 1993 tax hike that was supposed to fall only on the rich? In addition to raising gas taxes and Medicare payroll taxes and income tax rates, the Democratic Congress that year also raised the AMT: from a 24% flat rate to a dual tax rate of 26% on AMT income up to $175,000 and 28% on AMT income above that amount.

It’s true that the 1993 bill slightly increased the AMT’s family income exemption, but Democrats refused to index those exemptions for inflation. So the combination of the higher rates and the failure to index for inflation has caught more and more middle-class taxpayers in the AMT’s maw. From 1992 to 2002, this Clinton stealth tax hike increased sixfold the number of filers paying the AMT, to nearly two million from 300,000.

That’s fascinating, but it’s also irrelevant. Rather than waste brainpower on new words, I’ll quote myself from December, when this ploy last appeared:

I don’t seek to absolve the Democrats of any guilt, for they surely must share. Still, I have to come back to the reality that the allegedly fiscally conservative Republicans had six years of complete control over the two branches of government necessary to implement reform on these issues. They did nothing. When the weeds got thick, the party punted in favor of attacking gays and Janet Jackson’s breast.

That’s still the proper analysis. Politicians, no matter what letter follows their names, don’t care about leading, which is what solving this before it became a problem required. None of the blame matters. It would be just as easy for the Journal’s editors to start here rather than end up here:

All of which means that if Democrats really want to spare Joe Lunchbucket from the AMT, the cleanest solution is to repeal the Clinton AMT rate hikes. The nearby chart, prepared by the American Shareholders Association based on Joint Tax data, compares the number of filers who will be hit by the AMT under current law and what would happen if the AMT rate was moved back to the pre-Clinton 24% and the exemption was indexed for inflation at the 2005 level of $40,250 ($58,000 for a joint return). Going back to the pre-Clinton rates would leave only about 2.6 million tax filers subject to an AMT penalty next year instead of 23 million under current law.

The estimated “cost” of this fix to the Treasury over 10 years would be some $632 billion, which is money Democrats in Congress would prefer to spend. But as Senator Grassley notes: “This tax was never meant to tax the middle class, so why should we count it as a revenue loss when we make sure they don’t have to pay it?”

The AMT is a travesty, which is where I’d take the discussion. It should go. (I’d end with sweeping simplification to a flat tax.) But aside from including Clinton in that paragraph for historical fact and reference, there is no reason to sling blame. The debate isn’t lifted. Let’s try solutions and how to get them implemented so that we can begin the return to fiscal restraint and limited government.

P.S. I’m going to assume that the excerpt I quoted from myself will stand in as sufficient commentary to mock the nonsense that Democrats, and not politicians in general, would prefer to spend that estimated $632 billion.

The FCC whiffs.

Even though any such action could benefit me, I’m against this out of principle:

The government is investigating a proposed deal between Major League Baseball and DirecTV Inc. that has had fans in a tizzy.

Remember that Senator John Kerry sent a complaint letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Martin, in reply, wrote Kerry: “I share your concerns regarding this proposed deal.”
…

“I am concerned whenever consumers cannot purchase the programming they want or are forced to purchase programming they don’t want,” Martin wrote.
…

Martin wrote that the agency has “contacted the parties and requested additional information about their proposed arrangement. Once we have this information, we will report to you on the deal’s implications for consumers and any recommended changes to the law to ameliorate any harms to consumers.”

As I stated before, the FCC shouldn’t involve itself in this. As stupid as I think it is, Major League Baseball should be free to be stupid. If they’re prevented from being stupid, the market won’t get the chance to teach them how to take care of customers. In the end, we’ll just have more madness from Bud Selig and Co. because there is no legitimate pressure put on them to signal what is and isn’t wise. I’d rather rip this band-aid off now and let the backlash finish it.

Or not, of course. I could be in the minority of fans negatively affected by this who cares enough to complain and not switch to DirecTV. Whatever the truth, let’s find out the right way.

There’s no free pass for noble intentions.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley penned an essay in today’s Washington Post on his opposition to the death penalty. I like and agree with much of it. The state should not be in the business of killing people when a less troublesome solution is available. I see no reason that life without parole can’t guarantee the same benefit to society. That, and I don’t want people killing in my name any more than necessary.

However, his essay is not perfect.

And what of the tremendous cost of pursuing capital punishment? In 2002, Judge Dale Cathell of the Maryland Court of Appeals wrote that, according to his research, processing and imprisoning a death penalty defendant “costs $400,000 over and above . . . a prisoner serving a life sentence.” Given that 56 people have been sentenced to death in Maryland since 1978, our state has spent about $22.4 million more than the cost of life imprisonment. That’s nearly $4.5 million “extra” for each of the five executions carried out. And so long as every American is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the cost of due process will not go down.

If, however, we were to replace the death penalty with life without parole, that $22.4 million could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 of our addicted neighbors. Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crime. If we knew we could spare a member of our family from becoming a victim of violent crime by making this policy change, would we do it?

Why not stop at stating that Maryland has spent an estimated $22.4 million more than necessary to achieve the same result? That’s money that Marylanders do not need to pay to the state to receive effective government. But I get his point. He’s advocating an argument that Maryland can be even safer if the money is better spent. It’s a pleasant argument without guaranteed results. It’ll market his solution to a few more people. Still, it’s extraneous fluff not central to the topic of what government should do to convicted murderers.

Gov. O’Malley’s second suggestion irks me more. Of course we should save those millions, because then we can fight the War on Drugs treat drug addicts. Drugs are bad, mmmkay. This isn’t even a pleasant argument. It’s marketing to the basest understanding of where morality and public policy should meet. I can think of only one way for Gov. O’Malley to make his suggestions worse: propose using that $22.4 million for 500 additional police officers to arrest 10,000 drug addicted Marylanders. I’m actually surprised he didn’t.

For what it’s worth, note that Gov. O’Malley suggests using money saved over 28 years to pay for 500 officers for 1 year. Talked about an unfunded mandate based on feel-good marketing.

Violent attacks on liberty will be censored.

I haven’t seen the report mentioned in this story, but I don’t need to read it to know that any recommendation it makes is unconstitutional. The First Amendment says what it says, without exceptions for violence or protecting children from potential harm. This is classic government overreach permitted by populist ramblings.

Television networks are free to sprinkle their programs with shootings, slashings, torture and other gore because the government has no regulatory authority over violent programming. But a draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress can change that, without violating the First Amendment.

Networks are free to sprinkle such things into their programs because we have a previously recognized right to free speech expression. Cable has even more freedom, yet it’s hard to argue that those networks are showing more than the broadcast networks. Any viewing of a commercial for 24 should be enough to counter such silly complaints. (Also important, we’re more upset about fake torture on television than real torture by our government? That’s majoritarianism at its most hypocritical.)

The long-overdue report suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity _ by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example.

Take one wrong idea and perpetuate it. This is what we’ve come to. Every decision made by every person should be filtered through whether or not it’s appropriate for children. We really are marching along to ever-more statism while the majority stands by and cheers.

I have a better idea: parents. Shocking, I know, but it seems to work when applied. It’s easier to pass time-consuming parenting decisions to someone else, I suppose. I don’t have kids, so maybe I’m missing the point. I thought it was to experience raising a child from dependence to independence. Is it really just a task designed to pass a child from one dependence to another? Maybe it’s a scam to have free labor for household chores.

Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs for the Parents Television Council, said the industry’s campaign to make parents the violence police is “purely designed to convince the Congress that they (programmers) are being responsible.”

The parental blocking technologies are insufficient due to a flawed television rating system, he said. As for the argument that cable is pressuring broadcasters to be edgier, Isett believes that’s nonsense.

Umm, if the ratings system is flawed, presumably letting inappropriate violent content senak into a lighter rating when parents might expect otherwise, parents should block shows with the offending rating. If that means you block everything but G-rated content on the Disney channel, so be it. That’s simple, and technology most certainly can handle that. Instead, the Parents Television Council wants government to do the job for parents. No effort needed. This would be bad enough if it applied to PTC members, but the PTC obviously wants all children shielded from what it deems inappropriate. Start with majoritarian nonsense and swirl in a batch of authoritarian goodness.

Enjoy this most laughable claim in the article:

The issue is bipartisan. Martin, a Republican, gave a joint interview to The Associated Press with Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.

Getting a proud censor like Commissioner Copps on board for more FCC regulations is about as compelling as stating that scientists believe our planet revolves around the sun. Duh. I’d rather hear from someone who believes the Constitution is still enough justification to restrain American government. That would involve principles rather than politics, though, so I don’t expect to hear it from anyone in office.

Treat adults like adults.

I looked into a few policy recommendations coming from the Center for Responsible Lending, based on yesterday’s post. My initial hunch proved correct. Consider its stance on “Debit Card Danger”:

Banks stand back as debits and ATM withdrawals cause high-cost overdrafts for their customers

Rather than linking their customers’ checking accounts to their savings or other resources to cover overdrafts, many banks and credit unions are automatically covering their customers’ shortfalls with expensive short-term loans.

More overdrafts are happening when customers swipe their debit card or make an ATM withdrawal than when they write a check. In these cases, banks can warn customers or merchants when they have insufficient funds—but most do not. They can also decline the transaction and save the customer the overdraft fee—but most do not.

See, we should blame the banks because people don’t manage their money. Someone should be looking out for the customer who can’t keep track of his checking account. Someone should look out for him, even though he signed up for the account with “expensive” short-term loans. Remember, banks are in the business of giving away money to customers. That’s the purpose of banks. They have money. They give it to people who don’t have it.

I never use my bank card as a debit card, instead opting for the credit card feature. Perhaps I just have better credit than most Americans, but I doubt it. My brother got it on his card when he opened a checking account at 18-years-old. As you could expect, the Center for Responsible Lending’s stance doesn’t get any better when looking at credit cards:

While some cardholders use their credit for occasional purchases, working families have come to rely on plastic to weather economic downturns or to make essential purchases: groceries, medical expenses, home repairs. Even though most households pay more than the minimum each month, more and more people find themselves perpetually indebted to the credit card industry. College students and other minors have also become attractive targets for the marketing of cards that contain hidden transfer charges, exorbitant late fees and exploding interest rates.

Any public policy that starts with the premise of “working families” and “weathering economic downturns” will most likely be garbage. I suffered through years of credit card debt that I brought upon myself. I ended up using my cards to make essential purchases like groceries. This was my fault. I’m not saying that people are to blame for every bad incident in their life, but placing this at the feet of credit card companies is silly. They offer a service. People can buy that service or not.

It’s just as possible to say that people use credit cards to manage economic downturns so that they don’t have to rely on others, including the government, to bail them out. They know that their situation will change, and they’ll repay the debt. Again, tighter regulation, which is what I suspect is the ultimate policy recommendation, cuts both ways. Consumers will suffer. The ability to manage their present and future is limited as much as their opportunity to screw it up. This is about who knows best, individuals or central planners.

Naturally the Center has an opinion on Tax Refund Anticipation Loans.

Tax Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) are short-term cash advances against a customer’s anticipated income tax refund. But the loans are offered at high interest rates, ranging from about 40% to over 700% APR. Also, they speed up the refund process by as little as one week, compared to what consumers can expect by filing online and having their refunds deposited directly into their banking accounts. There were over 12 million RAL borrowers in 2003.

Tax preparers and lenders strip about $1.57 billion in fees each year from the earned-income tax credits paid to working parents, according to a 2005 study by the National Consumer Law Center.

There are few worthwhile angles here. Taxpayers shouldn’t be getting refunds hefty enough to justify such fees. Teach people to adjust their withholding exemptions to come much closer to their tax liability. They’ll have more cash throughout the year. (By extension, that might also impact the debit and credit card “problems”.)

The last sentence is the real kicker here. Tax preparers and lenders strip these dollars in fees. Why not just say that they rape customers if you’re going to implicitly accuse them of thievery? Teach people to manage their money, if that’s the problem. Teach them to read their contracts, if that’s the problem. Teach them to …

You get the drift. The Center for Responsible Lending seems more interested in being the Center for Lending Regulation, with a healthy disrespect for the abilities of “working families” to manage their money. Whatever evidence exists to support such a belief is not sufficient justification to punish with more regulation those who can do what the Center for Responsible Lending believes is impossible, or worse, unnecessary.

You don’t get a vote, mate.

We’ve heard versions of this in every election since 2001. I see no reason to believe it won’t continue for years to come, but I’m amazed that it’s crossed oceans.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Monday denied having a political motive when he said that terrorists in Iraq should be praying for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to become president of the United States.

Howard, a supporter of President Bush in the Iraq war, insisted his criticism of Obama was in Australia’s national interest because Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31, 2008, would represent a defeat for Australia’s most important military ally.

In an interview Sunday, Howard said that Obama’s plan meant al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq should “be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats” in presidential elections in November 2008.

Prime Minister Howard has a point to make. I disagree with it, but there is room for debate. Let’s have it.

Instead, he chose the easy, sound-bite route. The terrorists want Obama! Vote for right-thinking candidates, you left-leaning liberty-hating Americans! That’s a smear tactic straight out of the authoritarian handbook. Pretend like there’s no debate to be had, declare the truth, and admonish anyone who disagrees. When confronted on it in a free-thinking society, deny that you actually smeared anyone. And you certainly didn’t intend to smear anyone.

I’m not buying it.

Unacceptable Notions

The United Nations is concerned:

More parents are turning to medical clinics to perform genital mutilation, wrongly assuming that it spares girls physical and psychological damage, a U.N. agency warned Monday.

The U.N. is specifically concerned about girls because it’s full of hypocrites. I’ve discussed that before, so no need to rehash it here. Yet, looking into its concern is informative. In this context, the United Nations is worried that parents are making female genital mutilation (FGM) more palatable by turning it into a clinical procedure. What the U.N. now fears for girls sounds painfully similar to the basic history behind the growing acceptance of male circumcision (MGM) in America. Physicians became the new priests. The technique improved, but the logic didn’t.

The practice leaves lasting physical and psychological scars, in addition to the risks it generates during childbirth, the U.N. Population Fund said.

The comparison between each procedure leaving physical scars should be obvious enough, although far too many people believe the circumcision scar(s) that remain on the penis are somehow normal. As for psychological scars, the only difference I can decipher is that female genital mutilation is often performed on girls old enough to understand what’s being done to them, whereas male genital mutilation in “civilized” countries occurs primarily on those too young to consciously remember the surgery. Many tout this aspect as a benefit.

Obaid also warned that in some nations parents were subjecting “younger and younger” girls to the practice to avoid refusals to participate. Girls generally undergo the rite before the age of 10, often without anesthesia.

If children remembering the surgery is what the U.N. is concerned with, it should cheer these parents for sparing their daughters the memory. Instead, the U.N. correctly gasps at such an obscene development. But why the disparity? Why should girls be protected, yet when the same fact pattern occurs in boys, it’s wise medical practice? In some parts of the world, males are not circumcised until they approach puberty. They’re old enough to remember the anticipatory buildup. Even then, when the comparison is particularly direct, the United Nations (and other organizations) never fail in remaining quiet. Why? I’ve argued before that basic human rights require more than a clean operating room and good intentions. Surely gender does not fall into that realm of more.

In related news, the Population Reference Bureau declared today the 4th International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Cutting (pdf), complete with a symposium. I don’t link this here to indict their work. I’m sure it’s useful and any effort to end medically-unnecessary genital cutting on unconsenting individuals will generally get my support. But the glaring omission that the other half of the population is equally at risk must be highlighted. At the symposium I attended in August, the organizers focused on non-consensual genital cutting. Boys and girls deserve equal protection from unnecessary surgery.

“Soak the rich” is not shared responsibility.

I haven’t had time to work my way through John Edwards’ proposed health plan (pdf), but I’ve read enough to know that it’s a preposterous joke that would end in fully socialized health care. No thanks. But instead of summarizing such a silly idea, I’d rather briefly explore Ezra Klein’s analysis of the plan. (Link courtesy of Balloon Juice.) I suspect it’s a fair representation of a good swath of left-leaning liberals who buy into the economically unsound view sold by most prominent Democrats. Consider:

In other words, the public sector will finally be allowed to compete with the private sector, and consumers will be able to decide which style they prefer. For Democrats, this is a significant step forward. From there, the plan offers the usual mix of sliding subsidies to ensure affordability, individual mandate to universalize coverage, pay-for-performance promises, and public health fixes. You’ve heard those bits before. What’s new, and what’s important, are the community rated health markets that include public insurance. Indeed, the plan satisfied every plank of my progressive health reform test from last week.

The plan will cost between $90 billion and $120 billion a year, and according to Edwards, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it. Readers should remember that this is the first full health reform plan from a major candidate in the 2008 election. As such, it has widened the field of the debate, and unless the other candidates want to explain why they lack the boldness of Edwards’ plan, they’ll have to offer similarly comprehensive proposals. What they will have to match is full community rating, a public insurance option, total universality, scaleability towards more public involvement, and a willingness to propose something comprehensive enough to require revenue increases to fund. In other words: The goalposts have been moved. To the left.

I don’t like this at all. The public sector has no business competing with the private sector. Aside from the centuries of data demonstrating that private markets work better, the public sector isn’t tasked with such endeavors. It must tackle public concerns like national defense. Individual choices of managing personal risk is entirely different. The public sector can’t know what my preference is for medical insurance. Inevitably, I will be forced to pay for something I don’t want or need, or I will be forced to pay for something for someone else that I don’t believe is appropriate. Why should a third-party be involved in that decision?

From what I’ve seen of Mr. Edwards’ tax plans with respect to health coverage, he believes that the rich should pay more and that the IRS can find unpaid taxes to minimize the new burden. Nonsense on both counts. The “rich” have no obligation to the “poor,” just as no man has any specific obligation to another man. That’s what individual, private sector transactions are for. People can create their own network of obligations and commitments. With such a radical shift, and massive increase in the tax burden of a few, those proposing such a change must prove why their new path is justified. If consumers can decide which version they prefer, why will some still get stuck with the bill for those who prefer the other? Using the barrel of a government gun to make me pay for someone else’s choices is wrong, regardless of how much money I make.

Of course, Mr. Klein’s entire premise is absurd, so everything preceding his final point adds little but easy counter-arguments. “Comprehensive enough to require revenue increases” is an ideological assumption, not a practical foundation. It shouldn’t be hard to see the byzantine mess that can evolve if bold vision requires only greater revenue. Too many supporting universal, taxpayer-funded health care seem confused that poor people receiving inadequate care and groups of people lacking health insurance are the same problem. They are not. You can solve one in this debate. Either everyone gets coverage and medical care becomes rationed, or people in need of medical care who can’t pay for it get the specific, immediate care they need, with the question of who pays being a separate discussion. If it’s the latter, this babble about universal health care is a utopian dream. If it’s the former, why do supporters believe that worse health care for most Americans is justifiable to give poor people what they’re generally already getting?

The short version is better. Wishing it so and making it so aren’t the same action.

I laughed at the expense of the bigots.

The ramifications if this idea passed would be horrific, but we don’t need to worry because it won’t pass. But it expertly demonstrates animosity directed at gays through public policy.

Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled.
…

The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.

All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized,” making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.

Even the organizers acknowledge that it’s absurd, but they’re correct in what it will reveal. For example:

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage and Children, said opponents of same-sex marriage want only to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t,” she said.

But what about the children? Isn’t that what hate supporters like Ms. Haskins have argued, that same-sex marriage would harm children. So this proposal brings up a wonderful question. If not “for the children,” then what? Naked bigotry is the only answer that seems to fit.

The anti-logic of folks like Ms. Haskins could be carried further than even this plan. Why not a law that, if the two parent, one man and one woman household, breaks up or dissolves for any reason, the state takes custody of the children and places them with a one-man-and-one-woman married couple? Aren’t those children better off being raised in such a home? Let’s eliminate divorce, while we’re at it.

Someone remind me which side is being absurd.

A government takeover can’t be far behind.

This is only peripherally about the Major League Baseball Extra Innings package, although I will discuss that angle again. But I can’t let it pass when a politician so bravely steps in to assist in a way that highlights his previous hypocrisy. Consider:

A proposal to make Major League Baseball’s “Extra Innings” exclusive to DirecTV has drawn the ire of Sen. John Kerry.

The Massachusetts Democrat said he plans to raise the matter with the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission at a hearing Thursday.

“I am opposed to anything that deprives people of reasonable choices,” Kerry said in a statement. “In this day and age, consumers should have more choices _ not fewer. I’d like to know how this serves the public _ a deal that will force fans to subscribe to DirecTV in order to tune in to their favorite players. A Red Sox fan ought to be able to watch their team without having to switch to DirecTV.”

So many issues pop up, but it’ll probably make the most sense to first address the MLB decision in the context of Sen. Kerry’s remarks. MLB is stupid if it proceeds with this asinine marketing strategy, but it is free to hurt its business if it so chooses. It is not obligated to “serve the public” any more than Whole Foods is obligated to cater to vegans. That, of course, brings up the notion that consumers should have more choices. I view keeping cable as an Extra Innings choice as desirable because it specifically impacts me. But MLB should have the same range of choice to run its business in whatever way it believes will maximize its profits and its brand, even if that means running both into the ground. Sen. Kerry’s rhetoric will serve well the economic populism that pervades our public discussion, but it’s misguided.

With his statements, Sen. Kerry also managed to make a mockery of his stances on most economic issues and many personal choice issues. If Senator Kerry is in favor of people having reasonable choices, why isn’t he promoting Social Security reform, for example? I contribute, even though I’d prefer to put my money in personal investments controlled by me and backed up by actual assets. But I don’t have that choice. How does that serve the public? I’m sure I could walk through a point-by-point list of Sen. Kerry’s campaign issues and find many more examples where he’s been less than a champion for allowing people to have choices. (I have little doubt I can find multiple examples where Sen. Kerry believes that businesses should be limited, so I won’t challenge him there.)

Greater than all of this, though, is the simple fact that Chairman Kevin Martin and the FCC have no regulatory control over cable that would enable it to take action against Major League Baseball. Sen. Kerry should know this. I assume he does, but that doesn’t sell because then the government¹ isn’t there to come to the rescue.

¹ Major League Baseball should not have anti-trust exemption. There shouldn’t be anti-trust prosecution against MLB if it didn’t have the exemption, but that’s getting further into that issue than I’m interested. Since these are the rules we’re operating under, and MLB is happy to benefit from them, I won’t feel bad if/when Congress goes after the owners for this exclusive deal with DirecTV. Feed the snake enough and you will get bitten.