Obtuse Observer

October 4, 2012

The Party of Tolerance?

Filed under: 2012 Budget,Liberal Intolerance — Obtuse Observer @ 2:41 pm

Can we finally dispense with the absurdity that the Democrats are the party of tolerance and inclusion?  The most common, ugly and public displays of intolerance have been coming from the left.  Here’s yet another example.

SECURED payday loans

A Pennsylvania teacher kicked a student out of class for wearing a Romney t-shirt saying that the Republicans are like the KKK.  She later apologized and claimed it was a joke. 

From the article

Samantha Pawlucy, a 16-year-old sophomore at Charles Carroll High School in the Port Richmond section of the city, says she wore a pink Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan T-shirt last Friday during the school’s dress-down day.

No one made an issue of Samantha’s political T-shirt until she got to geometry class.

“The teacher told me to get out of the classroom, I said no,” Samantha said.

“She told me to take off my shirt and said that she has another one if I need one. And then the teacher asked me… ‘Are your parents Republican?’ I said, ‘I don’t know.’ She said that’s like her wearing a KKK shirt.”

February 14, 2012

Taxes and Fair Share

Filed under: 2012 Budget,Fair Share,Taxation — Tags: , — Obtuse Observer @ 2:24 am

President Obama tells us everyone must pay their fair share.  I think he’s exactly right.  But I don’t think he means what he is saying*.  Everybody would include more than the roughly 53% of Americans who actually pay federal income taxes.  The President wants to make federal taxes more fair by eliminating deductions utilized by “the rich.”  He has never defined the term rich.  Although he often refers to millionaires, proposed tax changes have applied to those earning at most 25% of what millionaires earn.  To President Obama “fair share” means taxing a smaller group of tax payers from the shrinking pool of those who actually pay federal income taxes.  Increasing demands on fewer and fewer people does not conjure the word “fair” immediately to the mind of most sane people.

What would be fair? 

1)  Take the entire Internal Revenue Code and burn it.

2)  If you have income you pay income tax; unless you are not part of everyone.  If you are not part of everyone you are no one.

3)  There will be two tax brackets.  15% and 25%

4)  Income brackets will be established by an “over/under” number and the number pegged to the rate of inflation. 

5)  There will be four deductions as follows:

  • Mortgage Interest: federal income tax policy should encourage home ownership.
  • Child Credit: federal income tax policy should encourage and support families.
  • State Income Taxes (or high state sales taxes where no income tax): federal income tax policy should not take a second bite from the apple.
  • Charitable Giving: federal income tax policy should encourage charitable giving.  Not only is it right and proper but helps relieve the burden on tax payer funded programs.

The problem with a simplified tax structure like this is that it eliminates thousands of pages of code and the need for hundreds of thousands of experts to interpret it, it eliminates the opportunities for politicians of every political stripe to embed arcane deductions aimed at preferred constituencies and it would eliminate the need for probably 99% of the IRS.  Sadly, while President Obama does not mean what he says, enough Congressmen agree with him to make it not matter.   And so, we will continue to hear a lot about this issue that says nothing, at best, and misleads more commonly.

 

*Just for clarity, because Obama is President and not Governor, Mayor etc, I presume he is talking about taxes within the control of the federal government; that is to say federal income taxes and so my comments address federal income taxes.  It is awful that I need to say that but with people like Warren Buffet intentionally confusing the issue it becomes necessary.

January 31, 2012

Why (knowing) History Matters

In the busy year of 1956 Gen Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt seized the Suez Canal.  The French and British, who relied on the canal as a link between vital economic and geopolitical interests, were not pleased.  There was much political intrigue regarding regional events following WWII that lead to the seizure.  They are too numerous for the purposes of this blog but a short regional list includes:  the Algerian War, Soviet support for the FLN and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov‘s offer to French Foreign Minister Guy Mollet to withdraw same in exchange for French withdrawal from NATO, Soviet offers to finance the Aswan Dam, American opposition to the Anglo-French redrawing of the middle-eastern map after WWI which established two Hashemite Kingdoms, how to deal with the new State of Israel, and the Hungarian revolution.

Diplomacy failed.  The British and French allied with the Israelis, attacked Egypt and seized the Suez Canal.  The well planned and executed military operation was accompanied by a poorly planned and failed political operation.  The seizure was broadly condemned. 

The simplified and condensed factor resolving the conflict:  The Anglo-Franco Israeli coalition was made to collapse by a threat from President Eisenhower to sell the American holdings of UK Pound Sterling Bonds.  The threat if carried out would quickly and catastrophically collapse the British economy.  The threat was believed, the Canal returned and forces withdrawn.

Why is this important?  The United States used their economic leverage, massive amounts of UK war debt not fully paid off until 2006, to force to reverse a British policy the Eden government believed to be in their geopolitical best interests.

Why does this matter to the US today? 

Our 2010 estimated GDP was $14,660,000,000,000.00 ($14T)

As of today our outstanding debt is $15,236,231,788,440.22.   ($15.2T)

Debt held by China is $1,132,600,000,000.00 ($1.1T) or roughly 25% of our sovereign debt as of November 2011.  With a couple subsequent debt ceiling raises of $1,200,000,000,000.00 and Europe in economic crisis the cash total and debt ratio held by China is most wisely assumed to have increased.

Holding 25% of our debt which is the equivalent of 25+% of our GDP gives China a veto on American policy.  That is not a good thing.

 See also, Why Our Debt Crisis Matters

Powered by WordPress

6 visitors online now
4 guests, 2 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 10 at 01:59 am CDT
This month: 18 at 05-16-2013 12:49 pm CDT
This year: 31 at 02-01-2013 11:52 am CST
All time: 145 at 04-02-2012 04:43 pm CDT