As promised, I've updated the Blog Roll with everyone who attended the Blogger Bash the other night.
Also, I think I've got the html worked out for the "Previous Posts" section in the sidebar.
However, I still can't get the nifty little Blogger feature which allows visitors to hit the "Next Blog" to show up at the very top of the screen. While I was working on fixing things, I did a "preview" test run as Blogger lets you do. The nifty black bar showed up. I save and republish and then it's gone. So, now I'm totally befuddled by the whole thing.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Blogger Bash Closing Summation
Whoo! Well that was a good time. Thanks to everyone who attended the Blogger Bash. I hope everyone had a great time. We had a better turn out than I expected. I'm already looking forward to the next one in Iowa City. (Which I believe Kris agreed to take the lead on organizing.)
I'm going to update my permalinks to get everyone added who was there last night. But, in the mean time, let me send out a quick thanks to the attendendees:
Doug and Jody from Iowa Geek
Kris from Anywhere But Here
Joe from the Roth CPA Tax Update
Jill from Purple Fish Guts
Brett from Beat Canvas
Kris from Random Mentality
Stephanie from Bob
Jarod from One Brick Shy
Royce from Iowa Libertarian
And last, but certainly not least,
Dave from Hog Haven, who drove in from Washington, DC just to catch up with everyone.
Fantastic.
Thanks again everyone.
I'm going to update my permalinks to get everyone added who was there last night. But, in the mean time, let me send out a quick thanks to the attendendees:
Doug and Jody from Iowa Geek
Kris from Anywhere But Here
Joe from the Roth CPA Tax Update
Jill from Purple Fish Guts
Brett from Beat Canvas
Kris from Random Mentality
Stephanie from Bob
Jarod from One Brick Shy
Royce from Iowa Libertarian
And last, but certainly not least,
Dave from Hog Haven, who drove in from Washington, DC just to catch up with everyone.
Fantastic.
Thanks again everyone.
Friday, February 25, 2005
Final Iowa Blogger Bash Reminder
We're getting together on Saturday, February 26 at 6:00 PM at Wellman's Pub on Ingersoll in Des Moines.
BE THERE!
BE THERE!
So much ignorance, so little time
I attended a forum today on Social Security privatized/personalized accounts. Now I find myself more depressed than usual. The speakers were Mike Whalen, businessman, reform advocate and possible future Republican candidate for Jim Nussle’s Congressional seat if Nussle decides to run for governor, versus Greg Cusack, former alderman, former state legislator and former Chief Benefits Officer for the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS).
Having been around the privatization debate for a lot of years now, I heard little that was new in either of their arguments. The most remarkable feature of the afternoon was Mr. Cusack’s ability to contradict himself. You see, the SoSec “problem” (it’s not a crisis, dammit!) could be solved by a few trivial adjustments such as raising the retirement age and taxing the benefits of those who have adequate income from other sources, and this would eliminate the need for benefit cuts. [Just let Dubya suggest raising the retirement age or taxing benefits and see how quickly Mr. Cusack and friends let him know that would be intolerable.] Yet near the end of his talk, he claimed that “they are talking about raising the retirement age”!
He had earlier warned the audience about how ideologues like to scare people, and then raised the specter that privatization could bring on a depression. [No, I didn’t follow that either.] And despite the *facts* that this administration consists of “very dangerous people”, and we are “under assault from the far-right” and “dangerously close to becoming an American fascist state”, not to mention “this administration lies repeatedly…there’s no other word”, Mr. Cusack’s “goal is to try to bring people to consensus”. You can see how he has his work cut out for him.
But best of all, he believes that there should be mandatory participation in a 401 (k) plan for everyone. Got that? Optional participation is bad, but mandatory participation is good. I think I know where he is going with this, because Bill Clinton tried it once before, but that discussion will have to wait for another day.
When it was his turn, Whalen began his talk by saying he believes, “Government has a role in helping people achieve what they can achieve and to provide a safety net [for those who can’t; it must] provide a helping hand.” [Note to self: Hold off on sending that big campaign donation for a little while.] His contribution to instilling fear was this: When the baby boom generation starts to retire, it will do so at the rate of ten thousand persons per day. Each and every day, ten thousand people like him (and me) will stop paying into the system and will start pulling money out.
He suggested that just like Monte Hall/Let’s make a Deal days, we have three choices. Not right away, but down the road we could choose a tax increase to keep the system solvent. He claims a fifty percent increase in the payroll tax would do the trick. Door number two would be a benefit cut – or more precisely a series of cuts, a little at a time – ultimately equaling about a third of what the average person could otherwise expect. Or, door number three, we could take action now to mitigate the effects of the coming shortfall. “Pay me now, or pay me later.”
The depressing part of the afternoon was the inability of the audience to focus on the topic. There were about fifty people in attendance, which sadly included very few young people, and from the questions, most had some other ax to grind. First to speak in the Q and A portion, thereby asserting his alpha male status, was former Dem congressional candidate Bill Gluba, who threw in a few gratuitous slams at the Bush administration, read from a Des Moines Register editorial (1/14/05) and, and, oh hell, I don’t know what his point was. Even Cusack asked if there was a question in there somewhere.
The one good question, directed to Whalen, was how he intended to cover the transition costs. This is something that needs to be discussed. Whalen’s answer is that this is why we must start now, while there is a surplus in contributions over withdrawals, because it can be used to finance part of the transition. Every year the surplus decreases, and after 2018 that option is gone.
In summation, was anyone in the audience convinced one way or the other? Did Whalen convince anyone that time is running out? Did Cusack convince anyone to wait until a *real crisis* requires government action? I doubt that there were any undecideds in the crowd. There may have been a few stirred to action and, yeah, I got a few new contact names. But overall, there’s a long hard slog ahead for those of us who would like to see our children and our grandchildren be able to contribute to their own retirement - not just ours.
Correction:
I meant "after 2018 that option is gone"
Now fixed. Sorry
Having been around the privatization debate for a lot of years now, I heard little that was new in either of their arguments. The most remarkable feature of the afternoon was Mr. Cusack’s ability to contradict himself. You see, the SoSec “problem” (it’s not a crisis, dammit!) could be solved by a few trivial adjustments such as raising the retirement age and taxing the benefits of those who have adequate income from other sources, and this would eliminate the need for benefit cuts. [Just let Dubya suggest raising the retirement age or taxing benefits and see how quickly Mr. Cusack and friends let him know that would be intolerable.] Yet near the end of his talk, he claimed that “they are talking about raising the retirement age”!
He had earlier warned the audience about how ideologues like to scare people, and then raised the specter that privatization could bring on a depression. [No, I didn’t follow that either.] And despite the *facts* that this administration consists of “very dangerous people”, and we are “under assault from the far-right” and “dangerously close to becoming an American fascist state”, not to mention “this administration lies repeatedly…there’s no other word”, Mr. Cusack’s “goal is to try to bring people to consensus”. You can see how he has his work cut out for him.
But best of all, he believes that there should be mandatory participation in a 401 (k) plan for everyone. Got that? Optional participation is bad, but mandatory participation is good. I think I know where he is going with this, because Bill Clinton tried it once before, but that discussion will have to wait for another day.
When it was his turn, Whalen began his talk by saying he believes, “Government has a role in helping people achieve what they can achieve and to provide a safety net [for those who can’t; it must] provide a helping hand.” [Note to self: Hold off on sending that big campaign donation for a little while.] His contribution to instilling fear was this: When the baby boom generation starts to retire, it will do so at the rate of ten thousand persons per day. Each and every day, ten thousand people like him (and me) will stop paying into the system and will start pulling money out.
He suggested that just like Monte Hall/Let’s make a Deal days, we have three choices. Not right away, but down the road we could choose a tax increase to keep the system solvent. He claims a fifty percent increase in the payroll tax would do the trick. Door number two would be a benefit cut – or more precisely a series of cuts, a little at a time – ultimately equaling about a third of what the average person could otherwise expect. Or, door number three, we could take action now to mitigate the effects of the coming shortfall. “Pay me now, or pay me later.”
The depressing part of the afternoon was the inability of the audience to focus on the topic. There were about fifty people in attendance, which sadly included very few young people, and from the questions, most had some other ax to grind. First to speak in the Q and A portion, thereby asserting his alpha male status, was former Dem congressional candidate Bill Gluba, who threw in a few gratuitous slams at the Bush administration, read from a Des Moines Register editorial (1/14/05) and, and, oh hell, I don’t know what his point was. Even Cusack asked if there was a question in there somewhere.
The one good question, directed to Whalen, was how he intended to cover the transition costs. This is something that needs to be discussed. Whalen’s answer is that this is why we must start now, while there is a surplus in contributions over withdrawals, because it can be used to finance part of the transition. Every year the surplus decreases, and after 2018 that option is gone.
In summation, was anyone in the audience convinced one way or the other? Did Whalen convince anyone that time is running out? Did Cusack convince anyone to wait until a *real crisis* requires government action? I doubt that there were any undecideds in the crowd. There may have been a few stirred to action and, yeah, I got a few new contact names. But overall, there’s a long hard slog ahead for those of us who would like to see our children and our grandchildren be able to contribute to their own retirement - not just ours.
Correction:
I meant "after 2018 that option is gone"
Now fixed. Sorry
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A Truly Iowa-centric Event
There can't possibly be another place in the country where you'd see this as the lead paragraph in a news story:
Nope, the World Wrestling Federation isn't coming to town. It's for the 90,000 folks looking for parking for the state high school wrestling tourney which begins tomorrow afternoon. That 90,000 works out to something like 10,000+ for each of the eight or so sessions that they hold during the tournament.
For the uniniated, collegiate-style wrestling is H-U-G-E huge in Iowa. Over Christmas, I was at a tournament for kids age 5 to 12. There was something like 600 participants and a couple thousand in the crowd--to watch eight year olds!
But that still doesn't get your ready for the state wrestling tournament.
I first attended the state high school tournament three years ago and was simply amazed. There are eight mats on the floor with a match going on each of them at all times. Since a kid can be on Mat 1 this round and Mat 7 next round, coaches, participants, and cheerleaders are constantly running from mat to mat. The stands are sort of a constant rugby scrum as the crowd tries to continually rearrange itself. And, as best as I can tell, they basically keep letting people in until the fire marshall tells them to stop.
Good news, wrestling fans: Des Moines business leaders say they think they've pinned down an answer to traffic and parking problems.
Nope, the World Wrestling Federation isn't coming to town. It's for the 90,000 folks looking for parking for the state high school wrestling tourney which begins tomorrow afternoon. That 90,000 works out to something like 10,000+ for each of the eight or so sessions that they hold during the tournament.
For the uniniated, collegiate-style wrestling is H-U-G-E huge in Iowa. Over Christmas, I was at a tournament for kids age 5 to 12. There was something like 600 participants and a couple thousand in the crowd--to watch eight year olds!
But that still doesn't get your ready for the state wrestling tournament.
I first attended the state high school tournament three years ago and was simply amazed. There are eight mats on the floor with a match going on each of them at all times. Since a kid can be on Mat 1 this round and Mat 7 next round, coaches, participants, and cheerleaders are constantly running from mat to mat. The stands are sort of a constant rugby scrum as the crowd tries to continually rearrange itself. And, as best as I can tell, they basically keep letting people in until the fire marshall tells them to stop.
My astonishment at the MSM just continues to grow
The ABC radio top-of-the-hour newsbreak included this item (as close as possible from memory):
That’s it. That was all they had time for, I guess. The newsblurb left out this information: His name is Ahmed Omar Abu Ali and he is also charged with supporting al-Queda. He claims to have been tortured after having been arrested in Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News. Am I wrong to think that these details are important to the story?
If you haven’t already heard this story, there’s more here.
Update:
The 2:00 newsblurb was expanded to include most of the story that was available three hours earlier at the linked FoxNews site. Evidently in the intervening hour, ABC was able to factcheck more of the details besides just how well this guy had done in high school. As Stef comments, apparently only about 4 seconds was available for this story at 1:00 (CST) and, I'm thinking, in ABC's news judgement the most noteworthy part of this story was that very intelligent Americans want to kill the president. Better tread lightly on the foreign and terrorism aspects.
By 3:00, the story dropped entirely off the ABC radar to be replaced by more crap about who will be witnesses in the Michael Jackson trial. Way to go, ABC.
Update:
Captain Ed has looked into this Abu Ali = valedictorian story and found it goes a whole lot deeper. An e-mailer tells him, “He wasn't valedictorian of Pleasantville High School, he was valedictorian of 'The Islamic Saudi Academy" [aka Terror High] of which there is lots of dirt…” and that dirt is documented here.
“An American citizen has been arrested on charges he was planning the assassination of President George W. Bush. The Falls Church, Virginia man was a former high school valedictorian.”
That’s it. That was all they had time for, I guess. The newsblurb left out this information: His name is Ahmed Omar Abu Ali and he is also charged with supporting al-Queda. He claims to have been tortured after having been arrested in Saudi Arabia, according to Fox News. Am I wrong to think that these details are important to the story?
If you haven’t already heard this story, there’s more here.
Update:
The 2:00 newsblurb was expanded to include most of the story that was available three hours earlier at the linked FoxNews site. Evidently in the intervening hour, ABC was able to factcheck more of the details besides just how well this guy had done in high school. As Stef comments, apparently only about 4 seconds was available for this story at 1:00 (CST) and, I'm thinking, in ABC's news judgement the most noteworthy part of this story was that very intelligent Americans want to kill the president. Better tread lightly on the foreign and terrorism aspects.
By 3:00, the story dropped entirely off the ABC radar to be replaced by more crap about who will be witnesses in the Michael Jackson trial. Way to go, ABC.
Update:
Captain Ed has looked into this Abu Ali = valedictorian story and found it goes a whole lot deeper. An e-mailer tells him, “He wasn't valedictorian of Pleasantville High School, he was valedictorian of 'The Islamic Saudi Academy" [aka Terror High] of which there is lots of dirt…” and that dirt is documented here.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Vilsack Joins the Property Tax Proposal Game
Apparently Governor Vilsack was tired of Republican legislators getting all the headlines (both good and bad) for their various tax cut proposals. Accordingly, the governor issued his own idea for sweeping changes to Iowa's property tax code.
The linked article is a little light on specifics. But then again, when do initial proposals ever contain much in the way of specifics?
Here's a paragraph, discussing another component of Vilsack's idea, that I found especially interesting.
Hey, hey. Now we are getting somewhere. This is something that Chad and I discuss with some frequency. We've got to find a way to get rid of the redundant governmental services that are endemic in this state. Finding a way to reward local governments that eliminate redundant services is a good idea. This would be especially true if we'd find a way to get some of our counties to share services across county lines. That could save us a boatload of money
The linked article is a little light on specifics. But then again, when do initial proposals ever contain much in the way of specifics?
Here's a paragraph, discussing another component of Vilsack's idea, that I found especially interesting.
He also suggested the creation of an ‘‘innovative fund,’’ or a a pool of money that would provide incentives for local governments that combine services. Those who do so most efficiently would get extra funding, he said.
Hey, hey. Now we are getting somewhere. This is something that Chad and I discuss with some frequency. We've got to find a way to get rid of the redundant governmental services that are endemic in this state. Finding a way to reward local governments that eliminate redundant services is a good idea. This would be especially true if we'd find a way to get some of our counties to share services across county lines. That could save us a boatload of money
Takin' It Easy
Haha! My employer shuts down on President's Day. We're just about the only private company I know who does so.
That means that I'm sitting around the house contemplating cleaning. So far, I've been successful in avoiding doing so. I read a chapter or so in my current project book, The Persian Puzzle. I've watched an hour or so of the History Channel. Now I'm catching up on my internet time. All in all, a good start to the day.
That means that I'm sitting around the house contemplating cleaning. So far, I've been successful in avoiding doing so. I read a chapter or so in my current project book, The Persian Puzzle. I've watched an hour or so of the History Channel. Now I'm catching up on my internet time. All in all, a good start to the day.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
If You Build It, They May or May Not Come
Well, the Iowa Events Center isn't even done, and already we are seeing that maybe it won't be quite the boon to the local economy as promised. It seems that there is a glut of convention space in the nation. Convinced that drawing conventioneers was the key to economic growth, cities across America added millions of square feet of convention hall space over the last decade...just as technology was making it less important to get together in one place. Teleconferences and emailed presentations have caused convention space needs to recede to 1993 levels.
So, not only are the tax payers on the hook for building the place, the likelihood of it ever making money now looks less likely. That means that the tax payers will be on the hook for operating the place forever.
Great.
So, not only are the tax payers on the hook for building the place, the likelihood of it ever making money now looks less likely. That means that the tax payers will be on the hook for operating the place forever.
Great.
Hmm..That's an Intriguing Tax Cut Proposal
Fresh off proposals to eliminate income taxes on individuals on under the age of 30 and to freeze property taxes on individuals over age 65, the Iowa Legislature today proposed eliminating income taxes in communities that border neighboring states.
Hmmm....I'm torn, on the one hand, I'm generally against these sorts of targeted tax cuts. On the other hand there are some elements here that intrigue me. Specifically, the proposal lays a framework for shifting from an income tax to a sales or property tax in some border communities if the people of that community vote to do so.
That's interesting to me. Those communities could act as a bit of a test bed to demonstrate whether or not the sales tax has the potential to generate as much revenue as the income tax.
Perhaps this is worth considering.
Hmmm....I'm torn, on the one hand, I'm generally against these sorts of targeted tax cuts. On the other hand there are some elements here that intrigue me. Specifically, the proposal lays a framework for shifting from an income tax to a sales or property tax in some border communities if the people of that community vote to do so.
That's interesting to me. Those communities could act as a bit of a test bed to demonstrate whether or not the sales tax has the potential to generate as much revenue as the income tax.
Perhaps this is worth considering.
Can somebody please explain to me what this is about?
Have you seen these two PSA’s on TV lately. One has some people concluding a church service and being told to be careful on their way home. Then they climb out from an underground bunker. The other one shows some cops stopping and frisking some poor schlub and searching his car until they triumphantly find some newspapers.
Both then end with an admonition to support freedom. The only credit shown is the Ad Council.
WTF? Who is putting these things on? What is the threat? I personally think that threats to our freedoms include campus (and other PC) speech codes, hate crime/don’t-offend-anybody-or-you’ll-be-sorry regulations, property condemnation and use restrictions, legislation from the judiciary, voter fraud, asset forfeiture laws, gun control legislation, “Winter holiday” and frivolous litigation, not necessarily in that order and not necessarily an all-inclusive list.
But I somehow doubt that those are the dangers these ads are warning us against. If they are, I apologize to the producers, but please be more specific in the future.
Both then end with an admonition to support freedom. The only credit shown is the Ad Council.
WTF? Who is putting these things on? What is the threat? I personally think that threats to our freedoms include campus (and other PC) speech codes, hate crime/don’t-offend-anybody-or-you’ll-be-sorry regulations, property condemnation and use restrictions, legislation from the judiciary, voter fraud, asset forfeiture laws, gun control legislation, “Winter holiday” and frivolous litigation, not necessarily in that order and not necessarily an all-inclusive list.
But I somehow doubt that those are the dangers these ads are warning us against. If they are, I apologize to the producers, but please be more specific in the future.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
More press bias
The QCTimesODT had this article yesterday:
The QCT’s opposition to SoSec reform is well-known, but they were good enough to print one letter (no longer on their website, sorry) regarding an upcoming discussion between advocates and opponents of reform to take place at St. Ambrose University's Rogalski Center at noon on February 25 .
I will be interested to see how they report that exchange.
The emphasis in the body of the story is, of course, mine. Illinois Congressman Lane Evans, a confirmed leftybot, invited a bunch of retirees, union hacks and, I suppose, retired union hacks to a group crab-in/p.r. event and the Times reports this as NEWS?? Front-page, above-the-fold #1 big headline NEWS??Bush’s Social Security plan takes beating
No one stands up to defend agenda at Moline meeting
The crowd gathered on Valentine’s Day at the Moline Township Hall had no hearts or flowers for President Bush and his Social Security program.
.
About 50 people, mostly of retirement age, came at the invitation of U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., and spoke in virtual lockstep with the longtime congressman from Rock Island against the president’s initiatives concerning partial privatization of the Social Security program.
No one at the session supported Bush's ideas. Etc., etc.
The QCT’s opposition to SoSec reform is well-known, but they were good enough to print one letter (no longer on their website, sorry) regarding an upcoming discussion between advocates and opponents of reform to take place at St. Ambrose University's Rogalski Center at noon on February 25 .
I will be interested to see how they report that exchange.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Interesting Take...
...on the Iraqi elections from Michael Ledeen.
Ledeen can get a little melodramatic with his prose, but that seems to me to be a nice summary of what's going on.
The two great elections of recent months were held in Iraq and Ukraine. In both cases, the conventional wisdom was wrong. The conventional wisdom embraced the elitist notion that neither the Ukrainians nor the Iraqis were "ready" for democracy, because they lacked one or another component of the so-called requirements for a free society. Their alleged limitations ranged from historical tradition and internal conflicts to a lack of education and culture and insufficient internal "stability." How I hate the word stability! Is it not the antithesis of everything we stand for? We are the embodiment of revolutionary change, at home and abroad. Most of the time, those who deplore a lack of stability are in reality apologizing for dictators, and selling out great masses of people who wish to be free. And even as those un-American apologists invoke stability, we, as the incarnation of democratic capitalism, are unleashing creative destruction in all directions, sending once-great corporations to history's garbage heap, voting once-glorious leaders into early retirement, and inspiring people everywhere to seek their own happiness by asserting their right to be free.
Ledeen can get a little melodramatic with his prose, but that seems to me to be a nice summary of what's going on.
Periodic Iowa Blogger Bash Reminder
Hey, it's time for my periodic Iowa Blogger Bash reminder post.
We're getting together on Saturday, February 26 at 6:00 PM at Wellman's Pub on Ingersoll in Des Moines.
Be there, or be square.
Update: Don suggests that I list some of the people who we are pretty sure will be there.
Well, for starters, Don, Chad and I will all three be there.
Doug and Jody from Iowa Geek.
Royce Dunbar from Iowa Libertarian.
Bret from the Opinion Paper.
Joe from Roth CPA Tax Updates.
And, I'm hoping to meet the folks behind State 29, Corvis, Wide Eyed Insolence, Anywhere But Here, and Bob.
Did I miss anyone who's even contemplating stopping by?
We're getting together on Saturday, February 26 at 6:00 PM at Wellman's Pub on Ingersoll in Des Moines.
Be there, or be square.
Update: Don suggests that I list some of the people who we are pretty sure will be there.
Well, for starters, Don, Chad and I will all three be there.
Doug and Jody from Iowa Geek.
Royce Dunbar from Iowa Libertarian.
Bret from the Opinion Paper.
Joe from Roth CPA Tax Updates.
And, I'm hoping to meet the folks behind State 29, Corvis, Wide Eyed Insolence, Anywhere But Here, and Bob.
Did I miss anyone who's even contemplating stopping by?
Ah, Spring Is On the Way
When it comes to the doldrums of winter, some people put there spirit-lifting stock in a groundhog in Pennsylvania. Me? I wait a couple more weeks for this headline:
Pitchers and Catchers Report to Camp
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Iowans Split on the Iowa Values Fund
The Register ran a poll showing that Iowans are just about evenly split on the Values Fund. Forty-six percent are in favor of it; forty-three percent are against it. The poll has a 3.5% margin of error, so the three-point difference between pro and con amounts to a statistical dead heat.
Glad to see that the general population of Iowa appears to have more common sense than our elected officials.
Glad to see that the general population of Iowa appears to have more common sense than our elected officials.
Caught this on ABC Last Night
Des Moines is the number one city in the country for female managers. According to a study from Business Week magazine shows that 70% of managers in Des Moines are women.
Why?
Interesting.
Why?
It's the insurance industry — and other industries like publishing and accounting that tend to employ large numbers of women — that have helped make Des Moines an attractive place for working women.
Seventy percent of the managers in Des Moines are women — the greatest percentage in the United States. That's compared with 57 percent in Los Angeles, 49 percent in New York, and 53 percent in Chicago, according to a study by Business Week magazine.
Interesting.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Stop the Insanity
Dear Heavens above, what have we done to deserve this legislature?
Today, another tax cut proposal was presented by the GOP leadership. This time, it's freezing property taxes on people age 65 or older.
This is another bad idea.
As the article points out, critics of this proposal have already pointed out one flaw. If property tax rates are frozen on the elderly, local communities are almost certain to raise the general rates--which will then exclusively affect the working age population.
That sounds outstanding. And combined with the proposed income tax cut for those under 30, I'm sure we'll just have a friggin' utopia.
No, wait. That won't happen at all. If these proposals go through, let me make a bold prediction of what will happen.
After removing income tax liability from under-30's, in order to be "revenue neutral," the legislature will raise taxes on everyone else. Once we freeze taxes on the elderly, the local governments will only be able to raise rates on those under 65. Some portion of the benefits of the income tax elimination for under-30's will be offset by the property tax increases on them. Some portion of the property tax reduction on over-65s will be offset by income tax increases. Those between the ages of 30 and 65, and businesses, will get ripped by increases to both their income taxes and their property taxes.
As 30 to 65s and businesses are pretty much the backbone of the economy, stifling their spending or incentive to expand is no way to help the state economically. Also, the increased tax burden on businesses and people age 30 to 65 will, on the margins, pressure more of them to leave the state. That's not going to do us any favors either.
Now, some may ask, "Hey Jeff, if the tax cuts for under 30's are offset by property tax increases, the property tax freeze for over 65s is offset by income tax increases, and the 30 to 65s get hammered by increases to both, shouldn't state tax revenue be through the roof? Shouldn't we be able to fund all sorts of good programs for both?"
My answer: Tax revenue may go up in the initial year after the tax increases. This of course will lead to new or expanded government programs. But, the stifling of the economy and the driving away of some percentage of the working age population will cause long term government revenue to stagnate or even shrink. Then we're saddled with the worst of both worlds. There would be a couple of large groups (under 30s and over 65s) who are increasingly on the take from the government. There would be a shrinking work force and shrinking business base.
That's no way to spur an economy.
Now, I'm not saying that these proposals, if enacted, would lead to some sort of localized economic devastation. They're probably better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. But they aren't going to do us any favors--like a poke in the eye with a dull stick.
Today, another tax cut proposal was presented by the GOP leadership. This time, it's freezing property taxes on people age 65 or older.
This is another bad idea.
As the article points out, critics of this proposal have already pointed out one flaw. If property tax rates are frozen on the elderly, local communities are almost certain to raise the general rates--which will then exclusively affect the working age population.
That sounds outstanding. And combined with the proposed income tax cut for those under 30, I'm sure we'll just have a friggin' utopia.
No, wait. That won't happen at all. If these proposals go through, let me make a bold prediction of what will happen.
After removing income tax liability from under-30's, in order to be "revenue neutral," the legislature will raise taxes on everyone else. Once we freeze taxes on the elderly, the local governments will only be able to raise rates on those under 65. Some portion of the benefits of the income tax elimination for under-30's will be offset by the property tax increases on them. Some portion of the property tax reduction on over-65s will be offset by income tax increases. Those between the ages of 30 and 65, and businesses, will get ripped by increases to both their income taxes and their property taxes.
As 30 to 65s and businesses are pretty much the backbone of the economy, stifling their spending or incentive to expand is no way to help the state economically. Also, the increased tax burden on businesses and people age 30 to 65 will, on the margins, pressure more of them to leave the state. That's not going to do us any favors either.
Now, some may ask, "Hey Jeff, if the tax cuts for under 30's are offset by property tax increases, the property tax freeze for over 65s is offset by income tax increases, and the 30 to 65s get hammered by increases to both, shouldn't state tax revenue be through the roof? Shouldn't we be able to fund all sorts of good programs for both?"
My answer: Tax revenue may go up in the initial year after the tax increases. This of course will lead to new or expanded government programs. But, the stifling of the economy and the driving away of some percentage of the working age population will cause long term government revenue to stagnate or even shrink. Then we're saddled with the worst of both worlds. There would be a couple of large groups (under 30s and over 65s) who are increasingly on the take from the government. There would be a shrinking work force and shrinking business base.
That's no way to spur an economy.
Now, I'm not saying that these proposals, if enacted, would lead to some sort of localized economic devastation. They're probably better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. But they aren't going to do us any favors--like a poke in the eye with a dull stick.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Chad, Your Chariot (?) Awaits
This link probably will be of absolutely no interest to anyone but Chad.
Behold, the limited edition Dodge Charger Daytona R/T.
Behold, the limited edition Dodge Charger Daytona R/T.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Arrgghhh!!!!
The GOP should have a special corner of hell reserved for government programs that attempt to pick winners and losers in the market place. That's exactly what the Iowa Values Fund is about--picking which companies the government thinks are worthwhile and which aren't. Unfortunately, rather than fighting the Values Fund, the GOP is walking hand in hand with the Democrats to push this thing.
The problem with programs like this is that it assumes politicians know what companies will succeed. It assumes that our elected officials will never fall prey to slick salesman or a pretty girl hawking crapola. It assumes that our appointed councils have a power of foresight that would floor Nostradamus. Unfortunately, none of that is true.
They don't. They will. They don't.
The Iowa Values Fund is a half-billion dollar boondoggle. We should take it out behind the barn and kill it with an axe.
The problem with programs like this is that it assumes politicians know what companies will succeed. It assumes that our elected officials will never fall prey to slick salesman or a pretty girl hawking crapola. It assumes that our appointed councils have a power of foresight that would floor Nostradamus. Unfortunately, none of that is true.
They don't. They will. They don't.
The Iowa Values Fund is a half-billion dollar boondoggle. We should take it out behind the barn and kill it with an axe.
An Outstanding SOTU Speech
I pretty much quit watching State-of-the-Union speeches during the Clinton years because I couldn’t stop gagging as he went through the endless laundry list of things he wanted to spend someone else’s money on. Conversely, I liked most of this president’s message last night and was reassured by the many lines directed at Iraq’s middle-Eastern neighbors that his gameplan to follow the Iraqi election will be to keep the pressure on. And then the emotion of the hug between Safia Taleb al-Suhail and Byron Norwood’s mother at the conclusion of the speech painted an indelible picture that will keep the American people behind the war effort.
Below are some of my favorite lines from those with fast-enough typing fingers to do liveblogging. (Times converted to CST where necessary.)
8:14 – I BET CATO CAN NAME MORE [John J. Miller]There are only 150 government programs that aren't "essential"?
8:21 - Social Security: the first shoe to drop. "Do not let anyone mislead you" -- that's a pretty contentious message. I guess Bush still won't back down from a fight. Bush gives a good explanation why Social Security has a problem, using the workers-to-beneficiary ration. The Democrats don't like the numbers Bush uses, and decide to rudely catcall during the speech. That should tell you all you need to know about the immaturity of the opposition...
8:24 PM: Bush reminds us that in 2018, Social Security will begin to pay out more than it takes in. In other words, it will finally begin to resemble every other government program.
8:37--The thing I always hate about these speeches is how they reveal the obsolescence of the concept of limited government. It's one damn program after another.
And for the Democrat reaction:
I would like to blog more about Reid's and Pelosi's comments, but my eyes rolled in the back of my head, met my brain, and cursed the day I was born and fated to have to listen to the dreck coming from the two (permanent?) Minority Leaders.
Below are some of my favorite lines from those with fast-enough typing fingers to do liveblogging. (Times converted to CST where necessary.)
8:14 – I BET CATO CAN NAME MORE [John J. Miller]There are only 150 government programs that aren't "essential"?
8:21 - Social Security: the first shoe to drop. "Do not let anyone mislead you" -- that's a pretty contentious message. I guess Bush still won't back down from a fight. Bush gives a good explanation why Social Security has a problem, using the workers-to-beneficiary ration. The Democrats don't like the numbers Bush uses, and decide to rudely catcall during the speech. That should tell you all you need to know about the immaturity of the opposition...
8:24 PM: Bush reminds us that in 2018, Social Security will begin to pay out more than it takes in. In other words, it will finally begin to resemble every other government program.
8:37--The thing I always hate about these speeches is how they reveal the obsolescence of the concept of limited government. It's one damn program after another.
And for the Democrat reaction:
I would like to blog more about Reid's and Pelosi's comments, but my eyes rolled in the back of my head, met my brain, and cursed the day I was born and fated to have to listen to the dreck coming from the two (permanent?) Minority Leaders.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
I’m sorry about the tedious sports metaphor, but…
Reaction to the Iraqi election has ranged from euphoria on the part of President Bush’s supporters to being, well, ignored by his detractors. Not ignored as much as the Afghani elections – the stakes of this one were too high both for those who predicted disaster and for those hoping for vindication of the whole Iraq war – but overlooked in the hopes that better (worse) news would soon be forthcoming. The NYTimes was unequaled in this respect in that, as Gabe Rivera noted, it changed the headline of its online election report three times in one day. (HT:Instapundit)
John Kerry, in his much-ridiculed Meet The Press appearance, warned against overhyping the election results. Kerry at times tried to pretend that he had been elected President and that this was his State-of-the-Union address, a fantasy that was supported by enablers later trotting out the Democrat response to it. For example, Steve McMahon on last night’s Scarborough Country insisted that what Kerry meant was that this election is only a “first step”. They suggest lots of ways the situation can yet go wrong, which it probably will if we take their advice.
Make no mistake; the enthusiasm of the Iraqi voters was a great sign of progress, as was the impotence of the al-Zarqawi thugs’ efforts to shut down the voting. More than a first step, but not yet a conclusion, this election was very much like a basketball team hitting a three-pointer just before the halftime buzzer. It gave our Iraqi Freedom team momentum and confidence, and the home-town crowd is yelling their heads off, but there’s a tough second half to go and we can’t let down, thinking we’ve won anything yet. If Iraqi voters think that the result of an election will be instantaneous jobs, water and electricity, they’re in for a shock. They have to demonstrate that they understand the rule of law, property rights, respect for minorities and the peaceful transfer of power before this election will mean anything in the long-term.
We can expect there will be more criticism from the world-wide anti-Bush forces, more doom-and-gloom from the MSM and almost certainly more combat deaths. We have to remember that this war is part of a process that will take years, even decades, and there will be setbacks. If we give Team Jihadistan an opening, they can inflict deadly damage. What we need right now, to keep us on the path to victory is a great half-time strategy pep-talk in the SOTU message tomorrow. USA! USA! USA! USA!
John Kerry, in his much-ridiculed Meet The Press appearance, warned against overhyping the election results. Kerry at times tried to pretend that he had been elected President and that this was his State-of-the-Union address, a fantasy that was supported by enablers later trotting out the Democrat response to it. For example, Steve McMahon on last night’s Scarborough Country insisted that what Kerry meant was that this election is only a “first step”. They suggest lots of ways the situation can yet go wrong, which it probably will if we take their advice.
Make no mistake; the enthusiasm of the Iraqi voters was a great sign of progress, as was the impotence of the al-Zarqawi thugs’ efforts to shut down the voting. More than a first step, but not yet a conclusion, this election was very much like a basketball team hitting a three-pointer just before the halftime buzzer. It gave our Iraqi Freedom team momentum and confidence, and the home-town crowd is yelling their heads off, but there’s a tough second half to go and we can’t let down, thinking we’ve won anything yet. If Iraqi voters think that the result of an election will be instantaneous jobs, water and electricity, they’re in for a shock. They have to demonstrate that they understand the rule of law, property rights, respect for minorities and the peaceful transfer of power before this election will mean anything in the long-term.
We can expect there will be more criticism from the world-wide anti-Bush forces, more doom-and-gloom from the MSM and almost certainly more combat deaths. We have to remember that this war is part of a process that will take years, even decades, and there will be setbacks. If we give Team Jihadistan an opening, they can inflict deadly damage. What we need right now, to keep us on the path to victory is a great half-time strategy pep-talk in the SOTU message tomorrow. USA! USA! USA! USA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
