Friday’s political round-up

November 30, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Barack Obama has been trading shots for a few weeks with the Clintons, but that doesn’t mean the senator has any ill will towards the former president. In an interview with Time magazine, Obama said he’d offer the former president a job in his administration “in a second,” adding, “There are few more talented people.”

* There’s no reason to believe it was anything but an informal chat, but meetings like this tend to raise eyebrows: “New York may be Sen. Hillary Clinton’s home turf – but the man in charge, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, met this morning with Barack Obama, one of her chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. The pair sat down for coffee and eggs in midtown Manhattan…. The mayor might be a billionaire, but Obama still paid, and left a big tip — almost 60 percent.”

* Rudy Giuliani’s latest ad makes a variety of claims about New York City before and during his tenure as mayor. As it turns out, many of those claims aren’t true.

* John Edwards went into detail yesterday, explaining the mechanism through which he would require health insurance mandates for Americans. Paul Krugman is impressed (he calls Edwards’ approach a “terrific idea”); Kevin Drum isn’t (he says it’s “an albatross and substantively it’s meaningless. It’s just a mistake all around.”).

* Speaking of health care, Krugman thinks highly of Edwards’ proposal, but forcefully rejects Obama’s policy.

* New York Daily News: “Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton made a rare visit to an evangelical megachurch Thursday to burnish her image with the religious right. Clinton took pains to quote scripture, invoke her White House prayer group and recall her devout Christian upbringing during a speech to 1,000 attendees of the Global Summit on AIDS at California’s nationally influential Saddleback Church. ”

* Already lowering expectations? “‘It would be nice if Romney won,’ said Doug Gross, the 2002 GOP nominee for governor and a member of Romney’s Iowa campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. ‘If he finishes in the top two, he’s fine.'”

* I think everyone saw this one coming: “Louisiana GOP state Treasurer John Kennedy announced Thursday he will challenge Sen. Mary Landrieu, who is considered the most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection in 2008. In a statement on his website, Kennedy, who switched parties in August, said he would file the necessary paperwork to run for the Senate. He said he would run an aggressive campaign on how he would help move Louisiana forward ‘in tandem with our new reform leadership in Baton Rouge.'”

* And Nicholas Beaudrot reminds us of just how ridiculous Mike Huckabee’s tax policy really is: “The FairTax idea is beyond silly, and in the unlikely event that Huckabee is the GOP nominee, right-of-center economists will be committing professional malpractice if they don’t rise up en masse to debunk this malarkey. Bruce Bartlett provides a good template: ‘In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it.'”

Barack Obama has been trading shots for a few weeks with the Clintons, but that doesn’t mean the senator has any ill will towards the former president. In an interview with Time magazine, Obama said he’d offer the former president a job in his administration “in a second,” adding, “There are few more talented people.”

See, that’s cool.

  • The Neil Boortz/FairTax groupies scare me (Governor Huckabee included).

    A 30 percent federal sales tax would be horrible on so many levels, but its advocates (the most famous of whom is a right-wing radio talk show host) have found multiple approaches to misrepresent this sales tax proposal including literally applying false bumper sticker logic (e.g. “Eliminate the IRS”). Unfortunately, many independents decide who and what to support based upon what they read on bumper stickers.

  • Anyone who thinks that its a good move to use the IRS to force people to sign up for a health care plan misses why Clinton’s previous plan was rejected and why the Democrats lost control of Congress. We’ve finally reached the point where scare stories about “socialized medicine” don’t cause people to reject the entire idea of reforms to make health care more affordable.

    This time around opponents of Democratic plans won’t need any Harry and Louise ads. All they will need are clips of John Edwards talking about using the IRS to force people into their plan, or how he will make preventative care mandatory.

  • Bloomberg is a fucking hypocrite. He says that people want security cameras everywhere but opposes regular citizens carrying video cameras around NYC.

    Done.

  • The Fair Tax and flat tax and any other Republican tax reform proposals will simply exacerbate income and wealth disparity in America, and that is precisely why they are being put forward. The richest Americans are not satisfied with the obscene cuts of the Bush administration, and want to grab an even larger slice of the economic pie. It’s not enough that the top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

    What is so ironic and frustrating is that many working class Americans fall for the tactics used to sell these schemes. Perhaps the silliest is the notion of tax simplification, as if filling out a simple tax return once a year is some kind of insurmountable burden. It can’t take the average tax payer half an hour to fill the thing out. They have nothing but a W-2 form, maybe a 1099 with interest on it, and no itemized deductions, capital gains, business expenses, income and profits, or rental income to worry about. It’s the rich who have the problem with the complex tax code, and it’s complex precisely so they don’t have to pay their fair share, so there are plenty of loopholes and special rules and treatment for them that don’t apply to ordinary folks.

    I’ve yet to see anyone come up with arguments against the Fair Tax or flat tax that don’t make people’s eyes roll when you start explaining the real facts to them. And that’s a real danger.

  • Yes, JKap, Bloomberg has put fluoride in the water and stolen our precious bodily fluids. Thankfully, a superheroic doctor from Texas–I won’t type his name, lest the Bots swarm–is here to thwart the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the ZOG. And all it’ll cost us is half the government, including things “liberals” tend to care about like Education and the FDA.

    I’m equally thankful that we have you, with your always well-reasoned and non-hyperbolic contributions, to keep us focused and honest. God bless.

  • I’ve looked at the FairTax.
    It has the key advantage that gray and black market economies are forced to pay taxes too.
    Drug dealers, whores, illegal immigrants, fences… all pay sales tax when they buy things with their profits.

    Administration could prove less costly as there are fewer

    The other advantage was to get rid of the complexity of the income tax system with its myriad loopholes.
    The problem is I can foresee Congress passing hundreds of sales tax loopholes in the coming decades that would eliminate that benefit in short order.

    The regressive argument can be eliminated through some of those loopholes like exempting used goods, food, and perhaps clothing.

    I have yet to see a compelling argument that could explain why the FairTax is much worse than the absurd maze of regulations that exists now. The best I’ve seen is an argument that switching over could prove costly and it could grow to be just as complicated.

    That is the argument that takes the wind out of my sales for the Fairtax. I think within a decade we’d be back in the same boat. Instead of the IRS, we would demonize the federal sales tax boogeyman.

  • Isn’t the upshot of today’s Krugman column this: If you like Social Security and want health care for all Americans, Hillary and John Edwards are good, and Obama (cuddling up with Republicans on talking points and policy) is bad?

    Are Democrats in Iowa listening? In New Hampshire? Or are the rhetorical skills of Obama and the celebrity of Oprah so deafening that the policy explanations of economist Paul Krugman can not be heard?

  • Hey dajafi,

    You got me –it’s a conspiracy theory –I’m exposed. However, that does not change the fact that Michael Bloomberg is a foecking hypocrite.

    “We live in a dangerous world, and people want to have security cameras.” –Michael Bloomberg

    City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography

    Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.

    New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

    The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

    Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.

    Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.

    “These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

    […]

    But show us all your hard-on for Bloomberg anyway.

  • Hey JKap, I agree you. I’ve had with the “cult of personality” lovers like dajafi (Bloomberg) and Swan (Obama).

  • Mike Huckabee as a former Baptist minister doesn’t even believe what the Baptist church believes that the Bible is the infallable word of God. He believes it’s made up stories. Look up the definition of Allegorical or Allegory as Mike Huckabee describes the Word of God.

  • Slip kid, I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

    If you think your comment has something to do with my comment at the top of this thread, you should explain it.

  • Wow, JKap, devastating smackdown of Bloomberg there.

    Unless I’ve missed something, though, I don’t get how this makes him a “hypocrite”… or even what your particular objection is to this, aside from your usual unhinged blathering.

    And for you of all people, scanning the skies for a glimpse of the Superheroic Libertarian to characterize anyone who likes another candidate as having a “hard-on” is a bit rich. I suggest you repair to your Paul-postered Unabomber shack and leave the rest of us to try and be rational about things.

    slip kid, sorry I’ve bugged you, but please never lump me in with Swan. Seriously.

  • So what are studies from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Rice U., as well as business giants like Nobel economist Vernon Smith and Alan Greenspan missing about the Fairtax exchange (not hike) that you brilliant bloggers get?

  • dajafi,

    OK, as a fellow long time reader I will avoid the “lumping” with Swan in the future.

    Now, only if my comment (#10) could be bandied about.

  • How exactly would grey and black market people pay sales tax if they don’t pay income tax?

    They still don’t pay the fucking tax.

    It’s easier to get them on their income than on each of their sales or purchases.

    Ugh.

    Sales tax is a horrible maze. And VAT, while it’s good at getting businesses in theory, mostly makes people whine when it’s collected. See the thousands of EU citizens whining when they find out that VAT is supposed to be paid on income gained from foreign markets.

  • A black market only exists if store goods are more expensive. The FairTax goods will be practically the same as now, because the Fairtax is simply an exchange of the embedded, current corporate tax (22%) you now pay for the 23% sales tax. Except now you have your entire paycheck to buy the same-priced goods. Brilliant. Also, It’s quite easy to skirt the income tax, but everybody eats, goes to movies, buys cars, bling, etc. The FairTax gets them all!

  • Yes, dajafi. You’re right. There’s nothing hypocritical about a mayor of a major city saying that “people want to have security cameras,” but suggesting a policy to criminalize people with cameras in said city.

    No, nothing hypocritical about that whatsoever. Just unhinged blathering.

    After all (and I think your idol Bloomberg would agree), we’re fighting a Global War On a Psychological State.

  • “Can you say, ‘hit piece,’ Mr. Bartlett?” According to Bruce Bartlett’s WSJ article:

    BB (hereinafter meaning Bruce Bartlett, with apologies to a true great, BB King): “It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service”

    Me: This seems like a scientific approach to the review of FairTax; Scientologists are kooks, the FairTax must be a kooky idea.

    BB: “In reality, the FairTax rate is not 23%. Messrs. Linder and Chambliss get this figure by calculating the tax as if it were already incorporated into the price of goods and services. (This is known as the tax-inclusive rate.)”

    Me: Hmmm, I wonder what income tax rates begin to look like, if calculated, “externally” – as a percentage of what’s left of taxpayers’ income? Care to tell us THAT, BB?

    BB: “This is only the beginning of the deceptions in the FairTax.”

    Me: Oh, like their website, FairTax.org, hasn’t already thoroughly debunked most of these “straw men” that have been floated (all, that is, except this newest Scientology angle – and I doubt that they’ll spend much time on that one – preposterous).

    BB: “the federal government would have to pay taxes to itself”

    Me: The idea here is to prevent government from competing with the private sector. But why even mention this, when later you say, “but its tax collection will also be … higher.”

    BB: “The FairTax rate, however, is not high enough to finance the higher spending it imposes.”

    Me: Didn’t do your research: “…The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, have teamed up to provide a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate. Their paper demonstrates that the 23 percent rate specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible and suggests what led Gale and the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform6 to reach the opposite – and incorrect – conclusion. (See Paper )” See also: Tax Panel rebuttal + Wm Gale rebuttal

    BB: (Regarding the blanket 30% increase attributed in multiple places in your article, “tanks,” “newly-constructed homes,” the added amount that would be paid by “state and local governments.”)

    Me: Nowhere do you point out the price efficiencies that would be gained under FairTax. Kotlikoff and associates found that these ranged from 20% – 30%, and averaged them to 22% across the economy. Thus, we’re ALREADY PAYING an embedded 22% in our retail prices. If you believe in market competition (do you?), then you must allow for the elimination of these embedded taxes – which means relative price stability (due to lower costs of doing business – for every business entity contributing at every stage of production). Thus, representing an add-on of 30% is blatant demogoguery.

    BB: “Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American’s monthly income — and creating a de facto national welfare program — the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate.”

    Me: The only purpose for tracking income, is for social security payouts. That “incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracing every American’s … income” – last time I checked – is what the current income tax system, and theIRS, are all about. FairTax bases “prebates” on family size. Prebates are sent to ALL American families to untax the necessities, thus eliminating wasteful bureaucracy,and corruption-producing tax code rules and regulations.

    BB: “the FairTax does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate.”

    Me: Somebody told ya wrong – like Prego spaghetti sauce, “It’s in deah.” That extra 5% you then introduce is the amount that Kotlikoff DEDUCTS from the 23% to derive the rate sans prebate.

    BB: “Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters…”

    Me: Hey, you calling me a trickster?

    BB: “…professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%.”

    Me: Then, why hasn’t William Gale, and the president’s Tax Panel, delivered their economic methodology (substantiating higher quoted tax rates) to Kotlikoff or FairTax.org? Hmmm?

    BB: “Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits.”

    Me: Huh? What’s to deceive? Individuals do not file income tax returns. Businesses don’t either; businesses will file basically an expanded state sales tax return. Individuals would keep financial records, but not for the purposes of filing a return. And working families would not be subject to audit unless they ran a business.

    BB: “the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal”

    Me: Duh. Like that’s bad to get out from under the thumb of an intrusive government that has been proven arbitrary in the manner in which it administers the current tax code?

    BB: “In short, the FairTax is too good to be true, and voters should not take seriously any candidate who supports it.”

    Me: Sorry, BB. Your commentary is too bad to be credible. Next time, at least familiarize yourself with the research and rebuttals to the demogoguery that is sure to assail it.

    Readers should expect these assaults on FairTax to increase as this eminently workable – in fact, URGENTLY REQUIRED – tax plan gains adherents. Not mentioned by Bartlett is how removing embedded business income and payroll tax compliance costs from prices, together with assessing the FairTax on imports, will help correct trade inequities brought about by this ABSURD income tax system.

  • I get so tired of hearing that the FairTax proposal is really a 30% tax not 23%. I don’t understand what is so difficult to understand. If you cut an apple into 100 pieces, and you give Bill 77 pieces and Joe 23 pieces, Bill got 77% of the apple and Joe got 23%. This is the way a national sales tax works. If something costs $1.00 the seller will receive 77-cents and Uncle Sam will receive 23-cents. I know a state sales tax is a percentage that is added on to the selling price, but to have a true comparison of a federal sales tax to an income tax, the sales tax must be included in the price of the item. If you are and average American, you are in the 15% income tax bracket. When you add on the 7.65% that is withheld from your paycheck for S.S. and Medicare, you pay approximately 23%. This 23% is deducted from your paycheck before you have a chance to buy anything. This means your dollar becomes a 77-cent dollar. If you buy something that cost $1.00 it will take one of your 77-cent dollars and 30% of another. If you say the FairTax is 30% then you must also say your 23% income tax is really 30%. Which ever way you cut the cake, the FairTax will taste better.

    For all you misinformed people who believe the FairTax is for the rich only. Here are a couple of reasons why you are wrong.

    Under our income tax system, even if someone has no income tax liability, 7.65% of their income still goes to Uncle Sam for S.S. and Medicare. Plus, they still pay all the embedded taxes when they buy something. With the FairTax, they will be completely untaxed. If they are earning the poverty level or less, which currently is $34,340 for a family of four, their monthly prebate check will cover their eitire tax burden. Doesn’t this make you wonder why most liberals are against the FairTax and most conservatives are for the FairTax. The only reason I can see for this roll reversal is power. Liberals don’t want you to know how much of your money ends up in the governments hands.

    With the FairTax it will be easy to figure the amount of tax you pay. If you have a family of four and you earn $50,000 during the year and you spend your entire earnings, all you need to do is take $50,000 times 23% which is $11,500. And don’t say this percentage should be 30%. Every time you spend a dollar, 23 cents goes to the government. Next you subtract your rebate which is $658 per month times 12 months or $7896. Your net tax for the year will be $11,500 less $7896 or $3604. Do you realize that with our current income tax system, $3,825 would have been withheld from your paycheck just for S.S. and Medicare? This is more than your entire tax burden under the FairTax system. But, with our income tax system, in addition to this withholding, you would have paid approximately $8000 for embedded taxes in the things you bought; plus you would have paid at least another 15% on the taxable portion or your income. Even if you had no income tax liability at least $11,000 of your $50,000 would have ended up in the government’s hands. You would really be upset if you had to write a check to the government for $11,000, but our good old withholding and embedded tax system keeps us from knowing exactly how much of our hard earn money ends up in the governments hands.

    • Comments are closed.