Tag: barack obama

Categories
ideological culture

Alfred Nobel Rolls Over

The Nobel Committee, having whetted its appetite for absurdity with a long string of goofy Peace Prize Awards, especially but not limited to the 2009 award for Barack Obama (who had done nothing but get elected to earn it), went all the way by giving the 2012 award to the European Union.

Barack Obama went on to become a “war president,” even regularly picking targets for assassination by drone. So, could Europe continue the trend and head straight towards war?

Maybe. Last year, former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe warned that the unions debt crisis could lead to “the explosion of the European Union itself,” and warned of growing nationalism. And violent unrest.

Dire warnings from former heads of state are one thing. Actual military movements are another. And Switzerland seems to be preparing for the worst:

The Swiss defense ministry told CNBC that it doesn’t rule out having to deploy troops in the coming years.

“It’s not excluded that the consequences of the financial crisis in Switzerland can lead to protests and violence,” a spokesperson told CNBC​.com. “The army must be ready when the police in such cases requests for subsidiary help.”

Talk about financial contagion!

Cooler heads may prevail, of course. Matthew Feeney, writing at reason​.com, notes that the “most obvious argument against the possibility of war is that there are no likely candidates for the part of aggressor.” And Europe hasn’t exactly been engaging in a massive military build-​up, unlike before the two world wars.

Alas, that doesn’t preclude massive rioting and uprisings.

Sovereign financial bankruptcy usually follows war, rather than preceding it. I guess that provides something like hope.

This is Common Sense. Im Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture tax policy

Curvewise, Gainswise

The so-​called “Laffer Curve” — the graphic representation of the varying relationship between tax rates and tax revenues — really bugs people left of center.

The curve maps an economic reality, showing that not all increases in tax rates can increase tax revenues. Why object to reality?

Perhaps because, on the left, taxes are seen less as a practical means to raise government revenue than as an expression of one’s values. The more “leftist” one is, the more equality matters, which too often boils down to: the more one wants to punish the rich. Higher rates stifle the economy and garner less revenue? Big deal. Consequences be damned. One’s values must be expressed.

This came out in Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign. He famously didn’t care whether a capital gains tax rate increase would decrease revenues, as has happened in the past. For him, “fairness” was more important.

Interestingly, it appears that capital gains tax rates tend to top out Laffer-​Curve-​wise much lower than income taxes. The reason? One seeks a return on capital from invested savings, but one also fears the possibility of loss.  Risk. Pile higher tax rates onto the already palpable negative of uncertainty, and the investor will be tempted to consume his capital rather than engage further in risking his wealth for less reward.

But I confess: I sort of sympathize with the left’s attitude towards taxation. I don’t really want the government to maximize revenue, either. Government misspends most everything it takes in, so I’d prefer lower rates for reasons maximizing quality, not equality.

I bet that the poor, though, would be far better off were the rich not targeted for extra penalties. But that’s not an egalitarian concern, for me. It’s a humanitarian concern.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

Polled American!

More people view Mitt Romney unfavorably (49 percent) than view Barack Obama unfavorably (45 percent), according to the most recent Reason-​Rupe Poll. This, despite Romney being the challenger, while President Obama must live down his sorry record.

By this measure, and others in the poll, Obama’s re-​election seems ever more likely. And if you think that’s depressing, wait till you read about the general views of taxing the rich more. The “soak the rich” mentality remains quite strong. But some of this “the rich don’t pay their fair share” notion is based on misinformation. Get a load of this:

Last year, the government collected about $1.8 trillion dollars in income tax revenue. If you were to estimate, about what PERCENTAGE of this total tax revenue do you think the top 5 percent of households probably contributed? Would you say…

<1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3%

1% to less than 20% . . . . . . . 29%

20% to less than 40% . . . . . . 19%

40% to less than 60% . . . . . . 15%

60% to less than 80% . . . . . . 11%

80% or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Don’t Know/​Refused . . . . . . . 16%

The truth is that America’s Top 5 percenters pay more than 60 percent of income taxes collected. The vast majority of those polled (66 percent) thought the Top 5 should pay less than they currently do.

I’m not going out on a limb, here, to infer a lesson: Were Americans to learn a few more truths about their government, about taxes, and (hey, why not?) real life, they might change their minds on a few crucial political notions.

Education — and by this I don’t mean schooling — is obviously important to political betterment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Lies You Can Believe In

“Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election,” former President Bill Clinton intoned at the Democratic National Convention this week. “I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it.”

Don’t believe it.

Also not worth believing? Clinton’s television ad, for which, you can be sure, every word was chosen carefully, not just ad-​libbed (as some of the gray-​haired Lothario’s lines from the convention were said to be):

This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice. The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper-​income people and go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.

President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground-​up — investing in innovation, education and job training. It only works if there is a strong middle class, That’s what happened when I was president. We need to keep going with his plan.

Very persuasive … until examined.

Is the current economic depression the result of tax cuts and deregulation? No.

The original implosion was in the mortgage bundle markets, and that was fed by Clintonian homeownership policy and the Federal Reserve’s cheap credit. Regulation had increased dramatically under Bush, and the only bit of deregulation worth talking about was the repeal of Glass-​Steagall … which Clinton himself signed.

The idea that the prosperity of the Clinton years was caused by his “investment” and “education” and “job training” plans is a howler. Clinton’s era was blessed, instead, with

  1. a mostly stable Fed policy;
  2. Republican opposition in the House that forced him to make his most famous policy moves; and
  3. low gas prices.

This latter was the result of the two most astounding policy moves in the years prior to his administration:

  1. The Carter-​Reagan deregulation of the oil industry; and
  2. George Herbert Walker Bush’s sending Saudi Arabia and Kuwait the bill for the Persian Gulf War.

Politics, we must remember, is often dominated by expert liars.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

The Punisher Vote

As bad weather and thousands of good Republicans descend upon Florida, it’s worth keeping perspective: The best (and perhaps only) reason to vote for Mitt Romney is the same as the best/​only reason Americans had to vote for Barack Obama in 2008: to punish the party previously in power.

The excesses of united Republican government in the mid-​oughts, and the sheer irresponsibility and insider bias in the lame duck Bush years, as the GOP president panicked and turned Wall Street into the largest welfare queen class in America, required punishment.

Americans wanted a change. So they voted, understandably, for the man who promised change.

But what did they get?

Bush had pushed in a new welfare “entitlement” program; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had pushed bailouts for the wealthy and the protected; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had pushed war and occupation and “nation building”; so did Obama and the Democrats. Bush had presided over deficits and a rising debt; so did Obama and the Democrats.

Turnabout being not merely fair play, but the will of the pendulum to swing back, it seems like voting against Obama is what is in order. It seems almost ineluctable.

But, uh, there’s a problem. Is Romney electable?

Both major parties tend to throw up lackluster candidates when the opposition has an incumbent in the White House. Take three examples: Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and John Kerry, paragons of pointlessness.

But, this time, a pointless challenger has history endow him with a point: Obama and the Democrats deserve to be punished.

Not much of a platform? True. But it’s something.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy

Fair is Fair

President Barack Obama is not targeting the country’s 99 percent against the wealthiest 1 percent. In a news conference, yesterday, he instead singled out the top 2 percent.

Even though they account for 46 percent of all income taxes collected, Obama says members of this group don’t pay their “fair share.” Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay just 3 percent of income taxes. 

Though the president readily confesses to being in that top two-​percent, sadly I’m not. But hey, even if I’m not rich, this country is as much mine as any wealthy person’s. If tax hikes truly are necessary (and this is for the sake of argument — I do not believe they are), shouldn’t I be part of his tax-​hike solution to our national deficit and long-​term debt?

Even those making less could afford to hand over an extra percent or two of their income for essential government services, eh?

And why leave out the poor? A surcharge of $20 (or $10 or $2.50) a year — even if that’s only removed from their earned income credits or food stamps or welfare payments — would put their “skin in the game.”

We should all be in this together, so why didn’t Obama propose a solution that included sacrifices by everyone?

My guess: It has nothing to do with revenue, everything to do with November’s election.

Obama is asking Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 a year. But he seeks a mere one-​year extension.

Why?

My guess is that the over-$100,000 cohort is next on his list.

But he needs their votes, first.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.