2 quick thoughts, neither of which is at all serious. First, I love Christmas. Being married to a genuine elf helps with this. But I especially like that this time of year I get to reach over to the far left-hand side of my tie rack and break out the Christmas ties. I pretty much wear one every school day and Sunday in December (except for home ball games, when the dress code is the open-collared coach shirt). It's a little bit of holiday cheer that costs nada.
Secondly, I have a new razor. Now, this is not big or important news. But several months ago, Mrs. Sal got on a kick of clipping coupons. She's good at it, and has saved us big-time bucks. But one of the things we began doing was trying out various disposable razors for which she had coupons rather than pay the big bucks for refills for my old Gillette Mach 3. Sadly, my face (unlike the rest of me) is carved from a block of granite--all sharp angles. And the new razors came at a cost... I have probably cut myself 20 times since the coupon deal began. Well, she got a coupon that let us get the relatively-new Gillette Fusion, their top-of-the-line 5-blade super razor. Sorry, but I may never go back. Yes, a 4-pack of blades is $14. But WOW. I know, I sound like a commercial, but after carving my chin at least once a week (and still having patches along my jawline that never got touched), this is amazing. I think I wouldn't have appreciated it so much if I hadn't had some of the cheapo razors first, just for contrast.
Anyway, we don't say "thanks" for small, simple pleasures often enough. So I'm just registering a couple of little nice things that have brought me joy. May your Christmas be merry and your cheeks be smooth!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
How to Fix the Auto-Makers
Just a couple of quick points about the near-bankrupt American automotive industry: first, their biggest problem is that they are hamstrung by the UAW. The average UAW worker costs over $70 an hour to employ. At minimum, that's about $40 in wages and $15 in benefits, plus another $15 (some say) in costs to keep paying benefits to current retirees and those laid off. (Some sources say the $70+ figure doesn't include anything for that last bunch, but I'm taking the most favorable interpretation.) Now, let's make it really clear--if it costs $20 more PER WORKER PER HOUR to build a Chevy than a Honda, there's no way the cars can be of the same quality and sell for the same price. Oh, yeah, and while we're at it--if you're an "average" auto-worker and make $83k in salary plus gold-plated benefits, then don't give me any crap about the poor "working class" guy turning a wrench. There are plenty of "working" FAMILIES who don't net what these guys do. So if these guys want to NOT go under, they've got to do something about that math.
Point #2 is, that's what chapter 11 Banruptcy is for. You re-structure your obligations. In a fair world, that's what would happen. Of course, our world is not fair, and there's no way that congress is going to allow the big 3 to go bankrupt. There WILL be a bailout.
Point #3 is, there is absolutely no incentive for any Republican congressman to support the bailout. Their voters are still ticked about the last one they went along for. If you're fiscally conservative enough to vote GOP, you should be able to do enough math to know that the first bailout is only the tip of the iceberg unless the business model changes (which is unlikely), and covering for the Democratic majority on this doesn't make political sense. They have the majority, they get the union votes, let THEM own it. (That said, if congress passes a stopgap measure to cover until the Obama administration gets to town, Bush shouldn't veto it... that's just basic politeness for a lame duck).
Finally, point #4: There is almost zero chance that congress has the stones to do what must be done. So what they ought to do is give the job to somebody who does (and that can give them cover). About 15 years ago, after the Cold War ended, we needed to close some military bases. No congressman dared vote to close the base in his or her own district--it was political suicide. So they created a base closure commision that made a list without their input, and then accepted the commission's recommendations on a voice vote. Our Navy base here in Charleston was closed, but our congressman didn't get blamed for it. We could do that here--if the congress is serious, they can appoint someone with the authority to undo the union contracts, and then later say, "Wow. Sorry about that. Wish we could have stopped it."
Now, will they do it? Who knows. I don't know that anybody in DC is that serious about genuinely doing things that make sense. But they could. And if I can figure it out, it's not rocket science.
Point #2 is, that's what chapter 11 Banruptcy is for. You re-structure your obligations. In a fair world, that's what would happen. Of course, our world is not fair, and there's no way that congress is going to allow the big 3 to go bankrupt. There WILL be a bailout.
Point #3 is, there is absolutely no incentive for any Republican congressman to support the bailout. Their voters are still ticked about the last one they went along for. If you're fiscally conservative enough to vote GOP, you should be able to do enough math to know that the first bailout is only the tip of the iceberg unless the business model changes (which is unlikely), and covering for the Democratic majority on this doesn't make political sense. They have the majority, they get the union votes, let THEM own it. (That said, if congress passes a stopgap measure to cover until the Obama administration gets to town, Bush shouldn't veto it... that's just basic politeness for a lame duck).
Finally, point #4: There is almost zero chance that congress has the stones to do what must be done. So what they ought to do is give the job to somebody who does (and that can give them cover). About 15 years ago, after the Cold War ended, we needed to close some military bases. No congressman dared vote to close the base in his or her own district--it was political suicide. So they created a base closure commision that made a list without their input, and then accepted the commission's recommendations on a voice vote. Our Navy base here in Charleston was closed, but our congressman didn't get blamed for it. We could do that here--if the congress is serious, they can appoint someone with the authority to undo the union contracts, and then later say, "Wow. Sorry about that. Wish we could have stopped it."
Now, will they do it? Who knows. I don't know that anybody in DC is that serious about genuinely doing things that make sense. But they could. And if I can figure it out, it's not rocket science.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Long Time No Blog
I've been "away" from the blog for a while... caught up "in the thick of thin things," as the old saying goes. I'm not even sure anybody still checks in on my ruminations, but I have been chastised--my buddy Steve says I need to post so he'll have something to read while goofing off. (Lori, Becky--he reads yours, too, so consider yourselves on notice, as well.)
I really haven't had that many original thoughts of late. I feel somewhat obligated to hold forth on things historical, political, or economic, just to keep up my nerd "cred." However, there's not much to say... the economy is still in the toilet, W. is a lame duck (lamer than most), and, despite my best efforts over the past campaign season to take the high road politically, team Obama has yet to call and solicit my input on anything of merit. (Although once Matthew gets firmly established in the upper rungs of the administration, I hope that will change!)
One quick thought about the economy, though: yes, it's bad. But when all these pundits pop off with the "worst economy since the Great Depression" stuff, I just sigh. Is there nobody who remembers the late 1970's? Back then, there was a number we called the "misery index." It's the sum of inflation plus unemployment. So "full" (5%) unemployment plus low (3%) inflation would be a good, low number, like 8. That's a descriptor of the boom years of the 1990's. Currently it's more like 10-11 (6.5% unemployment plus 4% inflation). That's worse, but it's not fatal. In 1979 the index was near 20--double-digits in both, plus gas lines, a terrible recession, home interest rates in the teens. Today you can get a mortgage (IF you've got good credit) for less than 6%. You can buy a gallon of gas for $1.61 on the corner nearest my house. You can get a Euro for about $1.25. And although we are now (finally) in a genuine recession (consecutive quarters of negative economic growth), we've seen MUCH worse. Admittedly, the banking industry is a mess, as are the auto makers (maybe I'll blog about their woes later). And my 401-K is more like a 201-K, just like everybody else's. But it's not as bad as 1979, much less 1932.
On another, more personal topic, will all my praying friends please pray for me to get out of the rut I'm in? I have neither been running, praying, nor reading my Bible (or, for that matter, reading anything) at anything like the levels that satisfy me lately. I think I really fell off the wagon around election time--despite my protestations that I wasn't taking politics too seriously, I spent an inordinate amount of time on the internet reading about it. This corresponded with the end of my cross-country season and the accompanying guaranteed daily time of exercise. Stir in a really busy time at work, and I've been just surviving from day to day. That's no way to run a railroad. Worse, I feel like a hypocrite. I feel like as a coach and a very public Christian, I should be more of a role model. Thanks!
OK. That wasn't too hard. Maybe this is the start of a new trend.
I really haven't had that many original thoughts of late. I feel somewhat obligated to hold forth on things historical, political, or economic, just to keep up my nerd "cred." However, there's not much to say... the economy is still in the toilet, W. is a lame duck (lamer than most), and, despite my best efforts over the past campaign season to take the high road politically, team Obama has yet to call and solicit my input on anything of merit. (Although once Matthew gets firmly established in the upper rungs of the administration, I hope that will change!)
One quick thought about the economy, though: yes, it's bad. But when all these pundits pop off with the "worst economy since the Great Depression" stuff, I just sigh. Is there nobody who remembers the late 1970's? Back then, there was a number we called the "misery index." It's the sum of inflation plus unemployment. So "full" (5%) unemployment plus low (3%) inflation would be a good, low number, like 8. That's a descriptor of the boom years of the 1990's. Currently it's more like 10-11 (6.5% unemployment plus 4% inflation). That's worse, but it's not fatal. In 1979 the index was near 20--double-digits in both, plus gas lines, a terrible recession, home interest rates in the teens. Today you can get a mortgage (IF you've got good credit) for less than 6%. You can buy a gallon of gas for $1.61 on the corner nearest my house. You can get a Euro for about $1.25. And although we are now (finally) in a genuine recession (consecutive quarters of negative economic growth), we've seen MUCH worse. Admittedly, the banking industry is a mess, as are the auto makers (maybe I'll blog about their woes later). And my 401-K is more like a 201-K, just like everybody else's. But it's not as bad as 1979, much less 1932.
On another, more personal topic, will all my praying friends please pray for me to get out of the rut I'm in? I have neither been running, praying, nor reading my Bible (or, for that matter, reading anything) at anything like the levels that satisfy me lately. I think I really fell off the wagon around election time--despite my protestations that I wasn't taking politics too seriously, I spent an inordinate amount of time on the internet reading about it. This corresponded with the end of my cross-country season and the accompanying guaranteed daily time of exercise. Stir in a really busy time at work, and I've been just surviving from day to day. That's no way to run a railroad. Worse, I feel like a hypocrite. I feel like as a coach and a very public Christian, I should be more of a role model. Thanks!
OK. That wasn't too hard. Maybe this is the start of a new trend.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Milestones
In the past couple of weeks, I have had a series of milestones involving three of the best athletes I have ever coached. Two weeks ago, I attended the wedding of a young man who, until recently de-throned, had been the best miler I ever had. He also is one of the finest Christian young men I've ever known. He's now a youth and family minister at a local church, and helps me out as a volunteer assistant coach.
Last week, the captain of my 1997 team, with whom I had lost contact, found my number and we got back in touch. He's 29 now, married (his was actually the first wedding of a former student to which I was ever invited, but it was in Kansas), and sent me an email with photos of his two sons. He and his wife are adopting two boys they have been foster parents for. I'm so proud of him!
And this week, I attended the funeral of arguably the best athlete I ever coached, and also an incredible young man. He was killed in an auto accident last weekend. That was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do as a coach.
I guess over 15 years I have coached 500-1000 kids total. A very small minority of those have remained close to me after graduation. They are the ones that give me untold satisfaction with the career field I have chosen. Words cannot express how much it means to me to have been a part of the lives of these three.
Last week, the captain of my 1997 team, with whom I had lost contact, found my number and we got back in touch. He's 29 now, married (his was actually the first wedding of a former student to which I was ever invited, but it was in Kansas), and sent me an email with photos of his two sons. He and his wife are adopting two boys they have been foster parents for. I'm so proud of him!
And this week, I attended the funeral of arguably the best athlete I ever coached, and also an incredible young man. He was killed in an auto accident last weekend. That was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do as a coach.
I guess over 15 years I have coached 500-1000 kids total. A very small minority of those have remained close to me after graduation. They are the ones that give me untold satisfaction with the career field I have chosen. Words cannot express how much it means to me to have been a part of the lives of these three.
Post-Election Thoughts
No time for a long post-mortem. But pretty much everything I said would happen came out just as predicted. To put the race in historical perspective, it was a slightly bigger margin than Bush 43 won by in 2004, but slightly smaller than Bush 41's margin in 1988. The electoral vote margin was similar to Clinton in '92. So a very "normal" election (thank goodness, no drama this time). It was, however, the biggest popular-vote margin for a Democrat since before I was born (1964, Johnson in one of history's biggest landslides ever over Goldwater). Since then, the previous best showing by a Dem was 50.1% by Carter. This is also the first time in my lifetime that a genuine liberal has been elected (Carter and Clinton both ran as centrists). Although, to some extent, Obama did, too... whether he'll govern from the middle or the left is the big question, and we'll see how that turns out.
One thing I've found amusing in the past 72 hours is how many of my liberal friends have made a point of checking to see if I'm OK with the result. Nobody has been visibly gloating, which is nice, but I think some have been a little surprised that I'm behaving so "reasonably." I think some folks got so wrapped up in how terrible it would be (to them) if McCain had won that they have a hard time imagining somebody just shrugging it off. In a way, I'm almost glad Obama pulled it off so we can avoid the pain of being told how stupid and racist America was for electing "another Bush." Maybe, hopefully, we can get past the last 16 years of half the country hating the guts of the guy in the White House. Oh, and while I'm being thankful, I guess I should also count my blessings that Obama has almost certainly saved us from ever seeing Hillary Clinton or Al Gore as president.
I'm sure I'll have other political thoughts later on. But that's enough for now.
One thing I've found amusing in the past 72 hours is how many of my liberal friends have made a point of checking to see if I'm OK with the result. Nobody has been visibly gloating, which is nice, but I think some have been a little surprised that I'm behaving so "reasonably." I think some folks got so wrapped up in how terrible it would be (to them) if McCain had won that they have a hard time imagining somebody just shrugging it off. In a way, I'm almost glad Obama pulled it off so we can avoid the pain of being told how stupid and racist America was for electing "another Bush." Maybe, hopefully, we can get past the last 16 years of half the country hating the guts of the guy in the White House. Oh, and while I'm being thankful, I guess I should also count my blessings that Obama has almost certainly saved us from ever seeing Hillary Clinton or Al Gore as president.
I'm sure I'll have other political thoughts later on. But that's enough for now.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Pre-Election Thoughts
Sorry to all the few of you who have possibly wondered when (if) I was ever going to post again. You'd think that a political junkie would be going at it like gangbusters during this election season. As I indicated earlier, there were a couple of factors in my "radio silence"--first, I explained a long time ago that I'm conservative (and my reasons for it). And that therefore, since Obama is liberal, I wouldn't be voting for him. Nothing about that has changed, and harping on it wouldn't do any good. Secondly, I decided a long time ago to not sink to the lowest level in this political season. I read political blogs daily, and so I've had steady diet of negativity. I just decided not to play. And finally, as I indicated earlier, I just haven't been that enthused by this election. I voted for McCain an hour ago, as he's the least-bad option in this race for someone of my world view. But even if he were to win, I'd only be moderately less unhappy with the outcome. Hard to chearlead when your enthusiasm level is so low.
All that said, with a little over 2 hours until the polls close, I guess I should predict something. For McCain to win, EVERYTHING has to break his way. I happen to think it'll be closer than expected, and I happen to think the polls overstate Obama's case. Still, I can't imagine McCain catching ALL the breaks. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States. (However, I do entertain a small fantasy of pulling it off, just for the sake of seeing the heads of my smug liberal friends explode!)
So, what does this mean in the long run? Well, for starters, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, for either the USA or conservatism. There was hardly any scenario this year that looked good for any Republican. Assuming we don't see an Obama landslide (which I'm not expecting), this means that the best-financed candidate EVER, in a race against a 72-year-old guy not even liked by his own party, running at a time when everybody has a huge case of Bush fatigue, the economy helpfully crashes, foreign policy recedes from the headlines, and the news media gives every possible advantage, can just BARELY pull off a win by pretending to be a center-right moderate. This country is a center-right country, period. That's not likley to change soon.
Secondly, despite all the hype to the contrary, this is NOT the "most important election of our time." Indeed, if I could have only had one, I prefer the victory 4 years ago to now. Had Kerry prevailed in 2004, we would have certainly lost the Iraq war and two conservative Supreme Court Justices would have been replaced by liberals (which also means that the Heller case would almost certainly have gone the other way and the 2nd amendment would already have been gutted, as just one example). Now, the war is all-but won, and the next two Supremes to retire will come from the left side (Stephens and Ginsburg). Assuming Scalia eats his Wheaties, we're looking at living to fight another day, in more ways than one.
I also don't think Obama will be as able to implement a far-left vision as some fear. You may remember Clinton coming to office with a very similar house and senate to what we're likely to have this year, back in 1992. He bit off more than he could chew, and 2 years later, the "Contract With America" put the clamps on him. I think Obama is a smart enough guy to try to avoid that outcome. At least I hope he's that smart. If he tries to govern as the same guy he acted like in the debates, that'll be fine. If he goes hard left, the voters will wise up. As I wrote earlier, it's still basically a center-right country.
One more note about the election. It's a great country we've got. And it's awesome that we, the people, get to choose our leaders. The system isn't perfect, and sometimes we get results I would not prefer. But I respect the system. If the people want this, then that's fine with me. I voted, fair and square, and if I lose, that's OK. (And conversely, if my side happens to pull the upset, I sure hope it doesn't provoke stupidity from the other side!)
Now the waiting begins. I'll be up late watching the polls close, and of course I'll be interested in the outcome. But I have been reminded again this week how little this really matters compared to the big stuff. Tomorrow I will attend the funeral of a young man I coached, one of the all-around best kids I've worked with in 15 years. That is REALLY important. As C.S. Lewis said a long time ago, kingdoms, nations, empires (and presidencies) are temporary. People, made in the image of God, live forever in eternity. Even as we pick a "leader of the free world" in tumultuous times, I prefer to spend the bulk of my energy on what lasts forever.
All that said, with a little over 2 hours until the polls close, I guess I should predict something. For McCain to win, EVERYTHING has to break his way. I happen to think it'll be closer than expected, and I happen to think the polls overstate Obama's case. Still, I can't imagine McCain catching ALL the breaks. Therefore, I predict that Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States. (However, I do entertain a small fantasy of pulling it off, just for the sake of seeing the heads of my smug liberal friends explode!)
So, what does this mean in the long run? Well, for starters, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, for either the USA or conservatism. There was hardly any scenario this year that looked good for any Republican. Assuming we don't see an Obama landslide (which I'm not expecting), this means that the best-financed candidate EVER, in a race against a 72-year-old guy not even liked by his own party, running at a time when everybody has a huge case of Bush fatigue, the economy helpfully crashes, foreign policy recedes from the headlines, and the news media gives every possible advantage, can just BARELY pull off a win by pretending to be a center-right moderate. This country is a center-right country, period. That's not likley to change soon.
Secondly, despite all the hype to the contrary, this is NOT the "most important election of our time." Indeed, if I could have only had one, I prefer the victory 4 years ago to now. Had Kerry prevailed in 2004, we would have certainly lost the Iraq war and two conservative Supreme Court Justices would have been replaced by liberals (which also means that the Heller case would almost certainly have gone the other way and the 2nd amendment would already have been gutted, as just one example). Now, the war is all-but won, and the next two Supremes to retire will come from the left side (Stephens and Ginsburg). Assuming Scalia eats his Wheaties, we're looking at living to fight another day, in more ways than one.
I also don't think Obama will be as able to implement a far-left vision as some fear. You may remember Clinton coming to office with a very similar house and senate to what we're likely to have this year, back in 1992. He bit off more than he could chew, and 2 years later, the "Contract With America" put the clamps on him. I think Obama is a smart enough guy to try to avoid that outcome. At least I hope he's that smart. If he tries to govern as the same guy he acted like in the debates, that'll be fine. If he goes hard left, the voters will wise up. As I wrote earlier, it's still basically a center-right country.
One more note about the election. It's a great country we've got. And it's awesome that we, the people, get to choose our leaders. The system isn't perfect, and sometimes we get results I would not prefer. But I respect the system. If the people want this, then that's fine with me. I voted, fair and square, and if I lose, that's OK. (And conversely, if my side happens to pull the upset, I sure hope it doesn't provoke stupidity from the other side!)
Now the waiting begins. I'll be up late watching the polls close, and of course I'll be interested in the outcome. But I have been reminded again this week how little this really matters compared to the big stuff. Tomorrow I will attend the funeral of a young man I coached, one of the all-around best kids I've worked with in 15 years. That is REALLY important. As C.S. Lewis said a long time ago, kingdoms, nations, empires (and presidencies) are temporary. People, made in the image of God, live forever in eternity. Even as we pick a "leader of the free world" in tumultuous times, I prefer to spend the bulk of my energy on what lasts forever.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The perfect tax code
One of colleagues, who teaches AP US Government, has a class blog. (Sorry, you have to be a student in the class, or get special permission like I did, to participate). She has asked me to be the token right-wing Bible-thumper, as she and almost all the students are liberal (sigh). Anyway, I posted a thought or two today on how I would change the federal income tax, if I could. I have cut and pasted my thoughts below. I would welcome any feedback.
First of all, it would still be graduated and progressive. Either a flat tax or the so-called fair tax would be significantly less progressive than we have now. I have no problem with those who make more paying a higher percentage of their income than those who make less; but I would stipulate that there ought to be reasonable limits on how much anyone can pay.
What limits? I would stipulate that there is an alternative maximum tax of an effective 33% rate. (Note--marginal rates could be higher; at the current 35% top rate, a doctor earning 400k a year still doesn't hit an effective rate of a third). This is just a matter of fairness... even if it is economcially good sense, I think it smacks of theivery to confiscate more than a third of someone's income.
Moreover, I would have a minimum nominal tax. Under the current system, many, many families (mine used to be one) pay ZERO federal income tax. (in my case it was one teacher salary, a stay-at-home wife, tithing at church, a mortgage deduction, and three child tax credits...zippo net tax. Even though I lived in a brick house, had two cars, and sent the aforementioned kids to PG). I would set it to where everybody pays, say $600 a year minimum.$50 a month... less than most of the "poor" spend on cable TV, and a small price to pay for the benefits of US citizenship. Moreover, I would index that amount to future tax increases. So if spending/taxs go up 10%, the poor guy feels 5 bucks worth. The notion that we can spend whatever we want and someone else will pay for it is pernicious.
But what, you may ask, about the truly poor who get things like the Earned Income Child Credit? Still do such programs, but call them what they are: welfare. Put them on the "expenditures" side of the ledger, not as a negative on the "revenue" side. I don't care if a poor family takes in more from the government in welfare than they pay in taxes. I care that they (and we) think that somebody else pays the taxes. And I especially hate it when politicians promise "tax cuts" to people who don't pay anything. That's just buying votes with stolen money.
Finally, I would design the tax code around the concept of maximum federal revenue, subject to the above principles. If an increase in rates chokes off economic growth and creates less-than-maximum revenue, then it's a mathematically bad idea, regardless of how "fair" it makes us feel. But conversely, if a cut in rates does not throw off enough increased growth to make it a net positive, then supply-siders should be against it. I feel quite comfortable in saying that JFK cutting rates from 90% to 70% was sensible, as was Reagan's cut of 70% to 28%. I am less convinced that the Bush cuts from 39.6% to 35% were as necessary (but open to convincing on that point).
Spending, of course, is a totally different topic. But in the unlikely event that we generate enough revenue to cover all expenses and have leftovers (like we did during the tech boom of the 90s), I would say that excess revenue should go to debt reduction, not as a cut back to the taxpayers (provided, of course, that my other conditions are being met).
First of all, it would still be graduated and progressive. Either a flat tax or the so-called fair tax would be significantly less progressive than we have now. I have no problem with those who make more paying a higher percentage of their income than those who make less; but I would stipulate that there ought to be reasonable limits on how much anyone can pay.
What limits? I would stipulate that there is an alternative maximum tax of an effective 33% rate. (Note--marginal rates could be higher; at the current 35% top rate, a doctor earning 400k a year still doesn't hit an effective rate of a third). This is just a matter of fairness... even if it is economcially good sense, I think it smacks of theivery to confiscate more than a third of someone's income.
Moreover, I would have a minimum nominal tax. Under the current system, many, many families (mine used to be one) pay ZERO federal income tax. (in my case it was one teacher salary, a stay-at-home wife, tithing at church, a mortgage deduction, and three child tax credits...zippo net tax. Even though I lived in a brick house, had two cars, and sent the aforementioned kids to PG). I would set it to where everybody pays, say $600 a year minimum.$50 a month... less than most of the "poor" spend on cable TV, and a small price to pay for the benefits of US citizenship. Moreover, I would index that amount to future tax increases. So if spending/taxs go up 10%, the poor guy feels 5 bucks worth. The notion that we can spend whatever we want and someone else will pay for it is pernicious.
But what, you may ask, about the truly poor who get things like the Earned Income Child Credit? Still do such programs, but call them what they are: welfare. Put them on the "expenditures" side of the ledger, not as a negative on the "revenue" side. I don't care if a poor family takes in more from the government in welfare than they pay in taxes. I care that they (and we) think that somebody else pays the taxes. And I especially hate it when politicians promise "tax cuts" to people who don't pay anything. That's just buying votes with stolen money.
Finally, I would design the tax code around the concept of maximum federal revenue, subject to the above principles. If an increase in rates chokes off economic growth and creates less-than-maximum revenue, then it's a mathematically bad idea, regardless of how "fair" it makes us feel. But conversely, if a cut in rates does not throw off enough increased growth to make it a net positive, then supply-siders should be against it. I feel quite comfortable in saying that JFK cutting rates from 90% to 70% was sensible, as was Reagan's cut of 70% to 28%. I am less convinced that the Bush cuts from 39.6% to 35% were as necessary (but open to convincing on that point).
Spending, of course, is a totally different topic. But in the unlikely event that we generate enough revenue to cover all expenses and have leftovers (like we did during the tech boom of the 90s), I would say that excess revenue should go to debt reduction, not as a cut back to the taxpayers (provided, of course, that my other conditions are being met).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)