Sue Bob’s Diary » 2005

January 31, 2005

Power Line Pundits Publish Article on Taxation and the Ownership Society

Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker over at Power Line have written a thought provoking article that has been published at The American Enterprise Online. Congratulations Power Line Guys!

The article recounts the history of the income tax including recent history since the Reagan era. It demonstrates that tax cuts during the 1980’s and 2000’s have either greatly reduced taxes for or totally dropped the majority of Americans off the tax rolls. Johnson and Hinderaker analyze the impact of so few funding so much of the federal budget. As part of the analysis, the article addresses how allowing private accounts for social security will impact the attempt to make this more of an Ownership Society given the fact that so few bear so much of the burden:

The top 5 percent of Americans, meanwhile, paid fully 54 percent of all personal income taxes in 2002. That too is up sharply from the 35 percent they paid in 1981. And it is a much heavier share than the 31 percent of our total income that they earned.

Even more striking is this fact: The bottom half of all income tax filers in America now pay less than 4 percent of our total income tax bill. And below them are many millions of Americans who are not even required to file income tax returns at all!

Putting these data together, a rather stark picture emerges: The personal income tax, the federal government’s main source of revenue, is collected overwhelmingly from a relative handful of Americans. The large majority of all Americans pay little or no income tax. They directly contribute hardly anything to our national defense; our interstate highways and mass transit systems; our environmental cleanups; our benefits for veterans, college students, homebuyers and others; our federal science research; and on and on.

The article concludes that the impact would be that:

...Most Americans would no longer be making any significant contribution whatever toward the maintenance of the federal government.

Any new programs that Congress might adopt would cost the average American little or nothing. He already pays scant income tax, and he would be getting much of his Social Security and Medicare taxes back in the expected personal accounts. So at that point the relatively small number of citizens who make significant income tax payments would be carrying our whole federal edifice.

And there’s the rub. “Rebating” a big chunk of payroll taxes back to workers in the form of personal accounts is devoutly to be wished for in most ways. But one troubling side effect of such a transformation would be to nakedly expose the tax burden that our personal income tax disproportionately lays on the top 5 percent of Americans.

I like the idea that the truth would be “nakedly exposed” because it would take a weapon from the arsenal of the Democrats. On the other hand, this article convinces me even more that the 16th Amendment should be repealed and that we should go to the Fair Tax—which would also replace payroll taxes.

By: Sue Bob @ 9:59 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

Mess With Texas, Will You?

The Lone Star Times links to a story from the Houston Press about a British Playwrite who lived in Houston for a while while writing a play about the city. This woman has decided that Texas is like some Third World country:

Award-winning British playwright Kay Adshead has a new production on London’s equivalent of Broadway that features, among other locales, a postapocalyptic Houston. Before the premiere, she wrote a piece for The Guardian about her three years in a Midtown condo here, saying, “More than once we have traveled on the bus as virtually the only non-amputees on board.” Also, oddly enough, “Sexual tension buzzes around Houston with the mosquitoes.”

Houston “was not at all what I was expecting…I was expecting a kind of city or state on the cutting edge of technology. I was imagining great prosperity,” she says. “And I found Texas a kind of Third World country, really.”

Matt Bramanti, the writer at The Lone Star Times observes:

This is a town that routinely dispatches men into outer space, and it’s where the finest doctors cure the uncurable. It’s home to massively successful businesses—from energy to airlines to computers, but it’s still a town where people can live big on the cheap.

This playwrite has a lot of nerve calling Texas a Third World country, given that she lives in a place where people can’t even get their teeth fixed.

By: Sue Bob @ 5:57 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

Just “Some Election”, Huh, Juan?

I don’t understand how Juan Williams has made it so far up the ladder of journalism. Did you hear him on The Factor with Bill O’Reilly tonight?

Like many other Democrats, he was kvetching about the Iraqui elections. Then, he made a statement to the effect that many—Democrats and Republicans—are going to be wondering how the 15oo deaths of American soldiers were justified by “some election”!

I thought that Democrats were supposed to be the “nuanced” ones. If Juan Williams had been alive before and after the American War of Independence, would he have been asking how the deaths of our soldiers were justified by fighting for “some piece of paper” (The Declaration of Independence)?

Go ahead. Keep yapping Democrats. We all need to understand how truly contemptuous you are of representative systems of government.

Oh no!! Now we have to listen to O’Reilly interviewing that Aphrodite person about the Michael Jackson trial.

By: Sue Bob @ 5:39 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

January 28, 2005

Embed–Edd and the Lone Star Times

I heard about this on the Laura Ingraham show this morning. Edd Hendee is presently assigned as an embed in Iraq and is filing stories with a new news/blog site called the Lone Star Times. He is filing the stories that the AP or MSM will never allow see the sight of day. Here’s a taste:

Col. Miller had told me of one thug with an AK47 was shooting while holding a child in front of him as a shield. The Marines took care of that one in a typically effective way – 2 snipers put this plan together in seconds – the first shot the wall next to him which startled him and he dropped the child. The second sniper put a round between his eyes. Marines love good shooting as they are all riflemen.

More stories from a tank commander who told of the insurgent thugs putting a small child in the back of a booby trapped car. The cries of the child did attract the Marines but they efficiently cleared the vehicle and were protected when it was set off and vaporized the “bait”. The Marines were unhurt.

Edd was interviewed by Laura this morning. He recounted a story told to him by our soldiers about an AP reporter who wrote a story about low morale and filed it prior to the election. The soldiers told Edd that the reporter swooped in for a little while and made up the story.

This is a good site to add to your favorites.

By: Sue Bob @ 8:42 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

January 27, 2005

Genocide by Taxation

I recently wrote about the potential impact of the spiraling costs of Medicare and how it will be exacerbated by the Medicare Prescription Plan here. I told you about a disturbing conversation with my liberal hairdresser:

I had a conversation with my Democrat, fellow-Baby Boomer hairdresser about the medicare prescription plan last week. I stated that I don’t think its fair to force the young who are just starting out, or have children to support, to wholesale pay for the medical care of those who have had decades to build wealth—and that it is particularly appalling when the young are forced to pay for the medical care of those who are actually much wealthier. She countered by saying that her father—who did save and take care of his money—has to take a certain pill every other day because he thinks it’s too expensive to take every day. (I didn’t mention that I remembered that her father bought a Goldwing motorcycle and RV and toured the States with her mother a few years back) I pointed out that it is hardly fair to expect a young 25 year old factory worker with children to pay more in taxes to support this plan.

Then she said something appalling—especially in light of her parent’s RV’ing lifestyle. She said that the 25 year old factory worker shouldn’t have kids if he can’t pay the taxes!!

Pavel Kohout at Tech Central Station is writing on such an issue in an article entitled: Where Have All the Children Gone? (HT The Corner) The article discusses the reasons for low European birthrates.

The first reason discussed is the fact that the social security and pension system as done away one of the reasons for having children:

To put it straightforwardly, and perhaps a little cynically, in the past children used to be regarded as investments that provided their parents with means of subsistence in old age. In Czech the word “vejminek” (a place in a farmhouse reserved for the farmer’s old parents) is actually derived from a verb meaning “to stipulate”: in the deed of transfer, the old farmer stipulated the conditions on which the farm was to be transferred to his son. Instead of an “intergenerational” policy, there used to be direct dependence of parents on their children. This meant that people had immediate economic motivation to have a sufficiently numerous and well-bred offspring – whereas today’s anonymous system makes all workers pay for the pensions of all retirees in an utterly depersonalized manner.

Second, this creates a “free rider” situation. Because those with high incomes carry the freight for those with low incomes—the former feel they can’t afford children and the latter feel they don’t need them because someone else will be footing the bill.

Going back to my hairdresser’s statement that the young factory worker shouldn’t have children if he can’t pay the taxes required to keep her RV’ing parents in prescription drugs, look at this part of the article:

When a modern young European has to choose between setting up a family of his own and a comfortable life without children, he is very likely to pick the latter option—unless he belongs to a social class which regards children chiefly as a source of social benefits. A high amount of taxation combined with ill-functioning labor and housing markets is a truly genocidal mix. That is the case of Italy, but also Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. Its impact cannot be corrected by all sorts of government subsidies paid out to young families. On the contrary, under certain circumstances the benefits for families may even lead to a drop in birth rate. (Me: look above at the “free rider” part of the article above)

A third reason is:

The payroll-tax and social security contributions are up, while investments in capital equipment are made tax-advantageous. The government support of the existing families comes at the cost of heavier tax burden for young people who have not yet founded a family. The so-called “support for families” thus hinders the creation of new families, and effectively reduces birth rate. If a young unmarried person is left with mere pocket money after his salary has been taxed, he will hardly be able to make sufficient savings to set up a family. The politicians of most European countries are living in a reality gap if they cannot see this trivial economic connection.

Is it possible that someday our young people will be denied the opportunity to have families of their own because of such economic straits? I think so. Especially if people with views like those of my hairdresser are in power. To them, every human being is no more than a cog in machinery whose only purpose is to feed the beast that is Big Government.

By: Sue Bob @ 1:52 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

January 25, 2005

Medicaid And Cannibalism

I wrote about Medicare here. Now, I want to address Medicaid. It’s in terrible shape and some states are trying to solve Medicaid funding shortfalls by taxing health providers who accept Medicaid—even though the actual reimbursements don’t cover the cost of the treatment. In Texas, there have been proposals to assess such a provider tax on nursing homes. And get this—the tax would apply to facilities who don’t even accept Medicaid recipients. Thus, those who had the foresight to adequately prepare for their futures through investments, saving or purchase of long-term care insurance—will end up footing the bill as costs are passed on. But, the whole idea of provider taxes is bad economics.

Dr. Bob at The Doctor Is In analyzes this approach as his state of Washington contemplates taxing physicians to make up Medicaid shortfalls. He first explains the realities of Medicaid (and Medicare for that matter):

The large majority of Washington physicians would prefer to see Medicaid patients, but are quite simply financially unable to do so. For years, both Medicare and Medicaid have operated under an unspoken and hidden tax, paying for less than the cost to provide services while relying on providers to make up the difference from their insured patients. As insurance carriers have progressively ratcheted their reimbursements down in response to spiraling health care costs and insurance premiums, subsidizing patients insured under Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid is no longer feasible.

He then explains the economics in understandable terms:

Imagine you are selling computers. You build a computer with a supply cost of $1000 (not including your time and expertise to make it), and must sell it retail for $620. Needless to say, this business model will not win you any Nobel prizes in economics. Now the State comes in, and wants to buy a large number of your computers, and offers to pay you $750 a computer—but is going to nearly double your tax on that $750. Such a deal! It is not hard to see what you will do: you are going to stop selling computers, or sell them only to someone who will pay you more than $1000—or go out of business. The end results of this brain-dead legislation is simple: physicians in large numbers will simply stop seeing Medicaid patients, as they will be increasingly unable to afford to do so, no matter how strong their desire to care for the poor.

But—since when has economic reality ever stopped a bureaucrat?

By: Sue Bob @ 4:57 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

More on the Terror Nation to the South

Relevant to what I wrote about Hugo Chavez here, Juan at Paxety Pages writes about Hugo Chavez and his downright weird attack on Condeleeza Rice and links to The Sixth Republic:

Juan says:
In case you didn’t know, megalomaniac and dictator-wannabe hugo chavez of Venezuela has his own national television show. This Sunday, he used it to show his low regard for women in general and Secretary of State designee Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Juan quotes The Sixth Republic as follows:

“The government of President Chavez has demonstrated during the past few years a great lack of respect towards women. The worst repression against the marches centered on women; military officers used gestures and obscene language against the women who didn’t share their political ideas; and President Chavez himself, on Valentine’s day, sent his wife through television a vulgar sexual message. Today, during the event organized against “foreign intervention”, [President Chavez] sent several messages to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, insinuating that “Condolence’s” problem with him was sexual frustration. Furthermore, he consulted with the ‘his people’, to decide if by marrying her he would resolve it. When people screamed “No”, Chavez finished his joke saying, ‘Poor Condolence, she doesn’t know what she’s missing!’”—D r. Maruja Tarre, Political Scientist and University Professor

Chavez is cuckoo.

By the way, Juan wrote an excellent entry for Hugh Hewitt’s Vox Blogoli. He recounts what the power-grabbing Leftists did to the rightfully selected Georgia Delegation during the 1968 Democratic Convention. I was only thirteen at the time—so this was news to me. Go read it.

By: Sue Bob @ 1:05 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

Ignorance or Willful Misrepresentation?

Hugh Hewitt, sponsoring the first Vox Blogoli of 2005, invites commentary on the following excerpt from an article in The Atlantic (subscription required). Jonathan Rauch wrote the article.

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

Hugh poses the challenge: “I invite comments on this passage, what it says about the author, The Atlantic, and the left’s understanding of the Christian culture in America in 2005.”

Are journalism majors required to take Logic and Rhetoric? Do editors for The Atlantic screen for logical fallacies? Does The Atlantic employ any conservative Christians—or any Christians? These are questions that come to my mind when I read the excerpt.

To me, this excerpt says that the Author, The Atlantic, and the left are either woefully ignorant of or willfully misrepresenting Christian culture in America.

My lawyer’s mind— which by training is suspicious—suspects that it is mostly the latter—though also a bit of the former. Examine the first two sentences:

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics.” (emphasis added)

Rauch has utilized a rhetorical device or logical fallacy (depending on his motivation), coupled with overheated language, to insinuate that Christian conservatives are violent. This is called a Hasty Generalization, which is: when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.

Is Rauch so blind or ignorant that he believes that violence is the predominant modus operandi of Christian conservatives? That is hard for me to believe. I see motivation in the method of his writing and in his very visible agenda—the advancement of “Gay Rights.”

I conclude that Mr. Rauch is engaging in the familiar tactics of the left as prescribed by the Marxist Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals which I wrote about here. I further conclude that Mr. Rauch understands that Christian Conservatives stand in the way of his agenda—and he seeks to demonize them through tricky rhetorical devices.

Thus, to directly answer Hugh’s question, I believe that Mr. Rauch and the Left (in large part) see Christian Culture as an obstacle to their agenda and ability to impose their worldview. The Atlantic may be part of that—I don’t read it enough to know. At the very least, the editors at The Atlantic are sloppy.

But, Rauch, The Atlantic and the left also fool themselves about American Christian culture. They underestimate the determination of Christians to resist, rather than appease evil. They do so because they project their own willingness to appease evil onto us.

Mr. Rauch demonstrates his willingness to appease evil by his admonition to the Democrats to embrace and assimilate violent nihilists and malicious propagandists. He advises that the Democrats appease evil for the sake of “social peace.”

He is ignorant of the fact that Christians know that Jesus came to save us, in part, from Rauch’s sort of “social peace.”

Update:

Got Design writes a wonderful explanation of the role of Christians versus Rauch’s

By: Sue Bob @ 8:28 am in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)

I just sent this e-mail to Mr. Gratz whom I mentioned in this post:

Dear Mr. Gratz,

I am writing you as a result of the response that you gave on behalf of the SPJ regarding the CBS 60 Minutes coverage of Bush’s National Guard Service. The Code of Ethics for Professional Journalists states:

Journalists should:
Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

As a member of the public, I would like to initiate a dialogue with SPJ over this issue and to express a grievance regarding the response that you wrote on behalf of the SPJ. Specifically, you state the following: “Perhaps the only silver lining is the report’s conclusion that the panel “does not believe that political motivations drove the September 8 Segment.””

Mr. Gratz, that is incorrect. No where in the report does the bolded quote appear. I have done a search to confirm that. Did you quote a secondary source?

The report simply does not exonerate CBS regarding the issue of whether the segment was driven by political motivations. The report actually states:

The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the airing of the Segment is
one of the most subjective, and most difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention in terms of possible political agendas. Both strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment. The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof.

The Panel does not find a basis to accuse those who investigated, produced, vetted or
aired the Segment of having a political bias.

I am certain that you, as a professional journalist, agree that words have specific meanings. Saying that one does not have adequate proof or a basis to accuse is not the same as saying that the Panel does not believe that political motivations drove the September 8 Segment.

Regardless of whether the evidence marshaled by the Panel constitutes adequate proof of political bias, the report is rife with examples of where your Code of Ethics was violated—yet you make little mention of specific ethical duties that were violated. To aid you in an analysis of CBS’s conduct juxtaposed with Journalistic Ethics, I invite you to read such an analysis which was written by William Dyer, an Attorney in Houston. His analysis can be found here.

Perhaps you should invite Mr. Dyer to be a speaker at an event during the SPJ’s Ethics Week. I believe that would be of value to your profession as it appears to me from browsing the site that your members exhibit very little concern for the outrageous conduct by a major network of using documents that the overwhelming evidence suggests are forged. (I have not seen one post on this subject in the Discussion Boards regarding this subject—even under the Ethics topic) It is distressing to me that I have heard journalists on television actually try to downplay and excuse using probably forged documents by asserting that, even if the documents are forged, the “facts” presented by the documents are true. Were these journalists trained in the Soviet Union by Stalin? It is my opinion as a member of the public that your members are due an extensive re-training in the area of ethics.

In conclusion, I must agree with the following statement made by you:

However, given the subject matter and the timing, those who believe it was politically motivated are unlikely to be convinced of this. It is why, in journalism, nothing quells suspicion like facts.

You are absolutely correct. Contrary to the apparent opinion of major media, we the people are quite able to read this report independently and with intelligence. Despite the conclusions of the Panel, it is apparent that the report contains a plethora of evidence circumstantially establishing that political bias did, indeed, motivate the actions of Dan Rather and CBS. Indeed, it is very troubling to me as an attorney that the Panel when coming to its conclusion on the issue of political bias does not even specify what kind of burden of proof it employed. Did it use a preponderance of the evidence standard or beyond a reasonable doubt? This is certainly an important question that I have yet to hear a journalist ask.

Getting back to your public statement on behalf of SPJ, I would request, as a member of the public and in the interest of accuracy and truth as well as to underscore the seriousness of the ethical breaches outlined in the report, that you revise your response to quote the actual report and point out these breaches. I believe that it is important for your organization to lead the profession out of an ethically challenged position and into a new era. Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours

If I get a response, I will report back.

Update:

I want to discuss one point that I made in my e-mail to Mr. Gratz. Specifically where I said:

Indeed, it is very troubling to me as an attorney that the Panel when coming to its conclusion on the issue of political bias does not even specify what kind of burden of proof it employed. Did it use a preponderance of the evidence standard or beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think that this is an important point. The report cites page after page of evidence that, at least circumstantially, supports the conclusion that the segment was politically motivated. When reaching its conclusion, the Panel must have used some standard by which to judge the proof. For goodness sakes, look at the signature page of the report—the Panel had its own lawyers. Surely a standard or burden of proof was adopted by the Panel, wasn’t it? What kind? A preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Why doesn’t the report tell us?

Another Update:

Drew at Darn Floor has been doing some tremendous blogging on the Rathergate issue. I want to address one of his issues in the context of the Code of Journalistic Ethics. Drew says:

On page 153, the report identifies the Free Republic message board, Power Line, Little Green Footballs, and The Drudge Report as sources that initially challenged the authenticity of the memos. What may be of interest is how the report characterizes this criticism. The report says that CBS underestimated the “ferocity of the assaults” on the documents, and refers to the “attacks” that followed the 60 Minutes II segment. The report mentions that “further attacks” followed the next day by “bloggers with a conservative agenda.” Drudge is said to have joined the “fray” and the “onslaught of attacks” is called “unrelenting.” The word “attack” is used four times on that one page to describe the criticism.

I’d say that the Panel violated Journalistic Ethics itself in this passage. Note what I quoted above from the Code:

Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

Is what Drew quotes from the report in line with Journalistic Ethics? I don’t think so.

By: Sue Bob @ 4:46 pm in: Uncategorized | Discussion (0)