A Tax Proposal

Romney/Ryan are proposing a revamp of the tax code, which certainly resonates with the public as it always has. But their plan largely follows the Reagan template of lowering tax rates with a corresponding elimination of various tax credits and deduction.

No one reveres Ronald Reagan and the revolution he wrought in the 80's more than me. However, this particular line necessarily leaves Romney open to the standard Democrat demagoguery of being simply 'tax cuts for the rich.' I would propose a different approach, one that is transparently progressive, as is required by our particular political era, but also bonafide attractive to every American of every tax bracket.

From a supply side perspective, the tax code as presently constituted is problematic because of the marginal cost of going from one tax bracket to another. To put some imaginary numbers out, if you know that it will cost you $1,000 to go from $2,000 of income to $3,000, then you will not be very motivated to put out the effort required to get that increase.

So all conservatives since Reagan have focused on reducing the number of tax brackets, to decrease the disincentives across the income scales. I suggest, however, the solution is to go in reverse: increase the number of tax brackets and make the tax rates only incrementally larger over each bracket. That way, the movement up the income scales becomes less onerous.

For instance, here is the result of a tax system that increases the tax rate over each $1,000 of additional income after an individual exemption of $25,000.00:

Income:	26,000	27,000	28,000	29,000	30,000	31,000	32,000	33,000	34,000
Taxes:	250	500	750	1,000	1,250	1,500	1,750	2,000	2,250
Rate:	0.96%	1.85%	2.68%	3.45%	4.17%	4.84%	5.47%	6.06%	6.62%

See how that works? This progressive rise in the tax rates would continue until $2,000,000 of income, when the $25,000 exemption would phase out. As per the policy behind the Alternative Minimum Tax, anybody with income above $2,000,000 would be taxed at a 25% rate with no deductions or exemptions.

Politically, I like the clear progressivity of it all, the simplicity, and the tax relief it affords the average - and below average - person.  And by the way, it will produce the same tax revenues we currently receive, and that's using the standard Washington static analysis of the effects of tax rates. You, me, and everybody with any common sense know that tax revenues will increase under a properly constructed system.

But what, you ask, about my children; don't I deserve a tax credit for each of them? Presto! you've got a $25,000 exemption for your first dollars of income.  

Okay, but how about two earner families?  Well, under the old system, for numerous reasons, it seemed like every political season there was a debate about some sort of marriage penalty/benefit problems. Under this system, if your spouse makes less than $25,000 - Poof! she/he pays nothing under this system. It's free cash for you and your family.

So wudda ya think? Should we get Romney to install an Income Tax Czar on January 20th and get this thing going?

Just the Stats, Ma'am

Our economy is in collapse and the world burns, and yet the Chief Buck-Stopper magically remains at near 50% in the polls. Why? Republicans ask; How? Conservatives moan; What? bewails the Tea Parties.

I will leave the green eye-shade analysis of the polls to Chase, but herewith an attempt to resolve this seeming political paradox.

First, here are three recent comments about both the reliability of polling and the state of the race: 1, 2, and 3.

Second, the whole matter is actually much simpler than even these wise men make it. My entire life, the common political wisdom has been that the Republicans and Democrats will each get their base vote of 36-42%, leaving the remaining 30-40% of Independents up for grabs.  This means there are two keys to winning: (1) each candidate must maximize the turn out of the base, and (2) each candidate must win a majority of the Independents.

Unlike much common wisdom, this one is almost tautologically true, and has proven out in every election I have witnessed. So where does Mr. Romney stand on the two keys to winning?

We can dispense quickly with the first. There is simply no doubt that Romney's base (that's us, people) will turn out in historic proportions (x-ref: 2010 mid-terms).

As for the Independents, what can I say? The polls have consistently shown for more than six months that the Independent vote has turned against the President, often by percentages as high as 15% or more.

Don't believe me? Here are some links for you, here and here and here and here and here.

In short, these numbers indicate that Romney-Ryan will not only win, but win by a landslide. It will not even be close. And that's as of today. The wishy-washy votes almost always break for the challenger come election time, so today's landslide might very well transmogrify into a Tsunami come November 6th.

"But the Battleground States. What about the Battleground States? Obama leads in almost all of those!" I've said my piece, and refuse to engage in wonkishness just for the sake of wonkiness.

I'll give you a hint as to the answer, though: here's a recent poll from Ohio indicating Obama has a slight lead. However, Christopher Bedford points out in my DC Morning email today that this poll oversamples Democrats by 10 percentage points. He then goes on to say, "Meanwhile, in November 2010, the GOP won every single Ohio statewide contest. Hmm."

Hmm, is right. 

Re: Paul Ryan, VP

As Chase says, a truly excellent, exellent selection by Mitt Romney. Paul Ryan is the whole package: budgetarily brilliant at a time when our deficits are at the existential crisis level, he also effectively encapsulates  conservative principles in real world policies and ably communicates and defends those principles. He also has that indefinable 'aw shucks' everyman demeanor that at once attracts people to him and blunts the inevitable cartoonish demonization that will pour out of the Left.

All of this bodes well for our prospects this fall, but I am more enthused about our prospects long term. The one thing about Romney that worried me was what kind of legacy his (hopefully) 8 years would leave behind. If his administration persisted in glossing over the differences of the parties, as has been the Republican default mode in power (see e.g. Trent Lott's willingness to share power with Democrats in 2002 when we had a Senate majority), then I foresaw serious problems in 2020 for anyone running conservative. The 'brand' would be enervated in the public mind, and the Dems would have an opening to regain power and reverse any gains we will have made.  

Think I worry too much? Well, you must not have lived through the Bush 41 years when that man managed to deplete the good will and political capital left over from the Reagan years. Let's see, you are the appointed heir to the man and the policies that brought about the biggest single economic expansion in human history and the fall of the the Berlin Wall and the historic collapse of 20th century Communism. Then you prosecute and win the first major war since World War II with the backing of nearly the entire world in a brilliant display of diplomatic prowess. Astonishingly, however, Bush through all these advantages away when he caved to the Democrats braying away in Congress and raised taxes in an infamous betrayal of promises he made in 1988. And to seal his own fate, Bush then crafted a reelection campaign with the theme 'The Education President?' The bold colors of the Reagan years are now the grey and greyer of the Bush years, and an obscure Governor from an obscure state does the typical Democrat two-step (prevarication and demonization) and beats him soundly in 1992.

But, as Doris Day told us, what will be, will be. 

Paul Ryan, VP

It's official, Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Congressman, will be Mitt Romney's Vice-Presidential running mate. A truly excellent, excellent selection. Everyone talks about him as a 'policy wonk,' and he is, but he is much, much more than that. He is the single best articulater and communicator of the ideals and principles his policies embody. To call him dynamic and electric would be to underrate his very special talents.

His selection, however, puts a giant bullseye on Mitt Romney's back: Medicare reform. This is because Paul Ryan proposed (and passed) a budget plan in the House whose centerpiece was Medicare reform. Medicare reform (or Social Security reform) is not called the 3rd Rail of Politics for nothing. Traditionally, any Republican who dared put 'Medicare' and 'reform' in the same sentence was immediately tarred, feathered, and dragged out of town on a rail faster than you can say Hope and Change. Simply put, the CW (Common Wisdom, not the TV network) is that Medicare reform is political death, period. So what should our Republican standard bearers do?

It's amazing that I have to even mention this, but they need only follow one rule: never begin a sentence that includes Medicare without saying a minimum of three times, "We must save Medicare. Save Medicare. Save Medicare."  And never end that sentence without saying again, "We must save Medicare. Save Medicare. Save Medicare." There must be no instance in which any Medicare proposal is mentioned that is not, over and over, put in the context of saving the program.

That's it. So simple, and yet if you look at the debates of the last 20 years on Medicare or Social Security, Republicans have never evinced even a hint that they understand that this is their soft spot. And this, even after the Democrats, without fail, always respond "They are destroying Medicare. Destroying Medicare. Destroying Medicare!" 

In other words, the Democrats get it, the Republicans don't. In my opinion, Medicare and Social Security reform have only been the 3rd rail of politics these many years because of the particular imbecility that only Republicans can exhibit. Let's hope they finally get it this time. 

Re: Equally Gay

"Framing problem" is right, Whit.  Because of the way this issue is approached, it produces all kinds of confusion - even (if not especially) on the Conservative side.

Here is Aaron Goldstein in The American Spectator: 

Now I happen to support same sex marriage.

What he really supports, if I may peer into his heart of hearts, is the same thing I support: Gays can do anything they want, including committing to a life-long relationship and calling it a marriage. This comes from that All-American strain in me of libertarianism, which is decidedly non-interventionist when it comes to what my neighbors want to do with their lives.  Live and let live, I say, to each his own, and etc. and so forth.

But because of the way the debate is framed, Goldstein and others translate the issue as if there are some sort of laws suppressing Gay choices, and feel compelled to associate themselves with the "freedom" side of the issue.  But Gay "freedom" in the political sense is not the freedom to marry, which they already have, but the additional right to sue people (insurance companies, employers, hospitals, and governments, to name a few) for refusing to give lip service (and preferences and dollars and tax breaks) to their personal self-concept.

Well, I want lip service, preferences, dollars, and tax breaks, too.  But my own personal self-concept has gained little approbation over the years, and I don't expect society to change much in the future.  So I say to Gays, welcome aboard! Get over it and get on with your life. And quit bothering the rest of us about it.

Equally Gay

Since our President has finally finished his deep meditations on the question of Gay marriage, it would seem apropos to reiterate some thoughts I have had on the subject. First, this line from President Obama's recent remarks:

I've just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

I also note all of the headlines and commentary on the passing of Amendment 1 to the North Carolina Constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which describe the Amendment as "banning" Gay marriage.

Tut, tut to all of this. Contra the President, same-sex couples right now, today, have the right to get married in every State in the Union. In 2010, I posted the following:

Gays in California (and every State of the Union) have every right to get married, whenever they want, with whoever they want. They can go out and start their own church - or get a friend, like Joey Tribiani of Friends, to go on the Internet and become a bona fide priest of the "Church of Agnostic Hope" or some such - get a group together and have a solemn ceremony. Bingo, marrried. And then they can cohabitate to their hearts content and tell everyone that they are married.

Continue.....

Re: The End is Near

Hey, Chase!  Your thesis that Obama drops in the polls whenever he gets out in front of the public was echoed by Mickey Kause on March 13 here.  Interestingly, Kause cites an article by Sean Trende that supports your theory, with statistics.

Great minds think alike, but it is to be noted that you published more than 4 hours before Mickey did.  So I guess that makes your mind greater (something we all knew anyway).

The End is Near

Prognostication is a dicey business at any time. During heated election seasons, it is doubly so.  But at this point it is undeniable that our President's Presidential prospects this fall are bleak. Herewith one of his major problems.

Over the course of the last three years, we poll watchers have seen a curious, well-nigh unprecedented, phenomena. The President's poll numbers markedly deteriorate every time he gets out in front of the public, and correspondingly improve to the extent he stays out of the public lime-light.

The last few months provide an example. As the Republican primaries turned into a dog-eat-dog spectacle and dominated the headlines and punditocracy, the President's public profile diminished and his approval numbers inched up towards the magical 50% mark. This positive trend was mostly ascribed to the barest hint of economic recovery, but as most of us on the ground knew, the "recovery" was nothing more than the triumph of Democrat hope over the evidence. As the Shaman knows, the entrails must always say what the ruler needs them to say, or else the Shaman will be out of a job. And the Democrats need to see a recovery; oh, how they need it, and so they see it everywhere.

Then came February, and our Narcissist-in-Chief just could not stand being on the sidelines. So he inexplicably forced on the American public an absurd debate on contraception, as if the Republicans opposed universal access thereto, and as if the total ubiquity of low cost contraceptive options did not exist. Leon Panetta, Obama's own insider of insiders, was aghast when he learned of his President's plans on this issue, but not less aghast than the American public which understandably considers, for instance, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and high blood pressure as being more important health care priorities than a fantastically non-existent contraception-access problem.  

But that wasn't all.

Continue.....

Andrew Breitbart RIP

Andrew Breitbart died last night, from natural (and unspecified) causes.

What a loss for the conservative movement.  It is no accident that his first and most influential website was 'Big Hollywood,' as he was one of the few who understood that conservatism was a cultural war as much as it was political, and battle needed to be drawn on all fronts, not just in Washington. 

Does he have able successors to carry on his groundbreaking work, to push his 'Big' websites (Big Hollywood, Big Peace, Big Journalism, Big Government) to the next level in the national debate?  And if so, can they do so with the same zest and infectious enthusiasm that Breitbart brought to the task?

I don't know.  But I do know that Breitbart did his part, and much more besides. 

Rest in peace, Andrew.

Six Degrees of Separation from You to Success

As everyone knows, after passing the most important legislation of the century, Obamacare, the Administration has been spending the last year granting 1,000's of waivers from the most onerous provisions to various and sundry businesses and unions.  Now some details are coming out as to exactly who is getting those waivers.  Would you be surprised to know that a bunch of waivers were expedited for upscale restaurants, night clubs, and anybody else in San Francisco who happens to be a friend of Nancy Pelosi?

This type of stuff gives crony-capitalism a bad name. 

It is said that there are at most only 6 people connecting each of us with anyone else on earth.  If this is so, then everybody better start firming up their links to Nancy Pelosi.