Where America Will End Up
I was checking out the online version of The New Hampshire Union Leader, and saw an article about NH Republican Judd Gregg’s effort to modify the tax code with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). I am not interested in any kind of progressive income tax, even the simplified one Gregg and Wyden offer, so I skimmed through it quickly.
Below the article, however, I ran across a brilliant analogy to the American tax code. I don’t know if the commenter, one Jay of Manchester (NH), came up with it…but it’s really, really good.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh would pay $7.
* The eighth would pay $12.
* The ninth would pay $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 total.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!“
“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!“
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!“
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Steve Forbes has pushed the flat tax for well over a decade, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, talk show host Neil Boortz and Republican Georgia Congressman John Linder have pushed the Fair Tax for many years. Gregg’s idea is better than what we currently have- it gets rid of many special interest tax breaks, among other things- but it is not nearly as good as either the flat or Fair taxes. Increasingly progressive tax systems are always bad.
Personally, while the Fair Tax would be the best way to institute a tax- it gives you a choice of how much you want to be taxed, among other benefits, being a sales tax- I think the flat tax is the most politically palatable. The flat tax pleases Democrats, because of its innately progressive nature, but it does not become increasingly progressive, which should please Republicans. Furthermore, like the Fair Tax, it gets rid of the class warfare that permeates our current tax structure. The same rates are applied to all taxpayers, and any changes would thus affect all taxpayers.
The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
The Congressional Black Caucus Is Out Of Touch
The New York Daily News’ S.E. Cupp said it best: the Congressional Black Caucus “…practically every month seems to find new ways to demonstrate how irrelevant and out of touch it is.” This year alone, the CBC seems to be trying really hard to throw itself on the proverbial ash heap of history.
First it was the visit to Cuba and praising of Fidel Castro’s brother, Raul Castro. Then there was the investigation of one of the caucus’ more prominent members, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) for a conflict of interest for steering bailout money to a bank she and her husband had a financial interest in. And who can forget efforts by members of the CBC- and ally Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee- to get a bailout for minority-owned radio stations? The original effort, which happened in May, carried into December when members said they would not support certain financial regulations if minority-owned broadcasters were not given specific attention.
Obviously, the name of the Congressional Black Caucus highlights their support for a particular group of Americans. Were their goal to assist what Waters called “most vulnerable of our population,” I would disagree with their avenue and tactics to help black Americans but still hold great respect for their goal. However, it is clear that is not their intent.
According to Cupp, President Obama’s Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, said, “I don’t think the President believes that we should address only one part of the unemployment rate.” The president and Gibbs have it exactly right. It is grievous fact that black Americans have an unemployment rate of over 15%, versus 10% for all of America, but the president has to worry about 100% of over 300 million Americans, not just the approximately 13% of black Americans in the country. (Of course, he seems to be trying to help the less-than-one percent of Americans who are CEOs of insurance companies…)
Unfortunately, Frank caved to the CBC, and is using part of last year’s bailout funds for the caucus’ pet projects, something that is actually illegal, as Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) pointed out recently. TARP, officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was stipulated in last year’s bill to “be used automatically to pay down the federal budget deficit,” according to Gregg. Given this fact, it appears the CBC, Frank and the majority of Congress might be on the path to continuing to break the very financial laws they passed only 14 months ago.
Passing laws and getting money for constituents and special interest groups is nothing new, of course, though generally they follow the law. Unfortunately, the CBC and others in Congress are sidestepping the law and using billions of dollars for their interests- note, not for America’s- against the very laws they passed to “save” our economy. I think we should hold them and every other Congressman who supports using the TARP funds for more than its initial intent(s) accountable both at the voter’s booth and in every media possible until we reach the voter’s booth.
Of course, there is always impeachment, if some feel that is the best venue to hold our representatives accountable. I’m not certain that would work en masse, or be necessary or appropriate, though I support it in specific circumstances.
New Hampshire Looks Strong For Republicans
This was originally published at http://race42008.com/
New Hampshire, which has been bragged about by Democrats for its 2004-2008 elections of Democrat, has a very good chance of switching to red in 2010 in all three of its very wide open races.
The First District’s Representative is in enough trouble that on October 20 Politico highlighted difficulties Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) is having back home with her reputation. As a New Hampshire native I remember her initial campaign in 2006, which was a truly impressive grassroots effort first against a favored primary opponent and then a general election victory over incumbent Jeb Bradley. Of particular import to her campaign was her very liberal anti-war stance and her radical behavior towards Bradley. Politico focused on concerns that she had “gone native,” something that New Hampshireites despise in our elected officials. This was highlighted during the 2009 August recess, where it took several weeks of bi-partisan pressure for Shea-Porter to finally hold an open town hall meeting- and where she kicked out a retired policeman from one of the town halls. The video of the expulsion can be seen here. She is also expected to face a tough Republican in Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta.
The Second District’s Representative, Democrat Paul Hodes, is going for retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg’s seat. He is a two-time elected representative, but suffers from a lack of statewide recognition, being behind in the very preliminary polls and a slight lack of fundraising this quarter compared to his only announced opponent, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte.
Lastly, the Second District is wide open. 2008 Republican nominee Jennifer Horn has declared her candidacy, and there are many Republicans and Democrats showing interest daily or already in the race (of particular interest are rumors that former Second District Representative Charles Bass, a Republican who lost to Hodes in 2006, may run for the seat). This is a wide open race on both sides, though Democrat Ann McLane Kuster did raise a fair amount of money in the second quarter of this year.
Of course, all Republican candidates are likely to pick up the nomination of the conservative Union Leader, the state’s largest newspaper.
This early in the races, there are many weaknesses on the Republican side of things. These include Horn’s lack of grasp on the issues, something I saw firsthand in a Republican candidate forum I sponsored at Plymouth State University last year. Also, according to numerous sources in New Hampshire (I’ve always wanted to say that), Ayotte’s unpopular choice of bringing in an out-of-state campaign manager and her inability to take strong stances on several issues thus far are hurting her. Thirdly, of course, the simple fact that there are so many Republicans running or expected to run that we could very well end up with a bad candidate in the general election.
Whatever happens over the next eleven months before the primary elections, and no matter who the general election candidates are in these races for Republicans, party activists should keep New Hampshire in their minds as they choose states and campaigns to donate their time, money and other resources. This will be a truly wide-open election, and one that could begin a Republican resurgence in the Northeast.
