Obsidian Wings

The Unbearable Triteness of Whiteness & Why The Term "Political Correctness" Must Die

by Gary Farber

Always read Ta-Nehisi Coates.  He's one of the best.  In The Unbearable Whiteness of Pro-Lifers and Pundits, he reminds us of how Santorum became a Savage Google bomb.

And Rick Santorum is still running for the Republican plum.

Santorum has said he is considering candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 presidential election. On September 11, 2009, Santorum spoke to a group of Catholic leaders in Orlando, Florida. He told the leaders, "I hate to be calculating, but I see that 2012 is not just throwing somebody out to be eaten, but it's a real opportunity for success." He also scheduled appearances with political non-profit organizations that took place in Iowa on October 1, 2009.

Santorum re-iterated his consideration of a 2012 run in a e-mail and letter sent on January 15, 2010 to supporters of his Political Action Committee saying, "After talking it over with my wife Karen and our kids – I am considering putting my name in for the 2012 presidential race. I'm convinced that conservatives need a candidate who will not only stand up for our views, but who can articulate a conservative vision for our country's future," Santorum also writes. "And right now, I just don't see anyone stepping up to the plate. I have no great burning desire to be president, but I have a burning desire to have a different president of the United States."

He gives me different burning desires. 

Coates: 

Last week Rick Santorum proved himself to be Rick Santorum:

One Way To Connect

by Gary Farber

ONE WAY TO CONNECT can be this:

This is America:

This is something we can do:

To Beat Back Poverty, Pay the Poor:

The city of Rio de Janeiro is infamous for the fact that one can look out from a precarious shack on a hill in a miserable favela and see practically into the window of a luxury high-rise condominium. Parts of Brazil look like southern California. Parts of it look like Haiti. Many countries display great wealth side by side with great poverty. But until recently, Brazil was the most unequal country in the world

Everything connects:

Taxes, Simplified for Better Government

-by Sebastian H

Part II.  Part I Can Be Found Here

One of the main reasons why the US tax code is so complicated is that it has tens of thousands of policy choices as tax deductions, tax credits, and other forms of tax breaks.  I obviously can't comment on all of them individually (though I will comment on the top 5) but I can comment on them as a whole.  For the most part, putting policy decisions in the tax code is a bad idea.  It does a number of things that are not conducive to good government.

1) It hides subsidies.  Things can get tucked away in the tax code which probably wouldn't survive as open subsidies--especially because it isn't always as obvious how much money is in the subsidy unlike budget items for direct subsidies.  

2) It allows recipients of the subsidies to feel like they aren't getting anything special from the government.  This particular problem tends to exhibit itself in the idea that many of the rich are paying without getting much in return..  As we will see, many of the largest tax-oriented subsidies end up being directed to the rich and very rich, who don't see them as subsidies.

3) It makes taxation more complicated and distorts people's decisions.

My proposal is simple.  We don't make subsidies through the tax code.  If something is important to subsidize, do so directly.  Otherwise don't.  Now admittedly this is a long term goal.  It isn't fair to cut tax subsidies that people have been relying on immediately, but we certainly could phase them out.  

So here are the top 5 tax breaks according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation: (hat tip Jeanne Sahadi).

 The Mortgage Interest Deduction is a clear subsidy.  It is worth about $573 billion.  It was part of the strong government effort to get more people to own their residences.   It has also turned into a pretty clear subsidy for the rich:

Of those who had mortgages in 2008, roughly 72% claimed the mortgage deduction. But those who benefited most were higher-income households, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Almost half of the returns claiming the deduction were from filers with incomes over $100,000, and roughly 75% in foregone revenue that year went to them.

Meanwhile, 32% of the money went to households with incomes over $200,000, even though they accounted for only 11% of the returns claiming the deduction.

Moreover, since housing is treated more favorably tax-wise than other investments such as stocks, some economists believe the home tax breaks distort people's investment decisions. By making the mortgage deduction less valuable, they argue, that could make the economy more efficient overall.

Now I can't prove that a mortgage interest subsidy which was sold as going 75% to people with incomes over $100,000 would not pass in Congress.  But I strongly suspect it wouldn't.  It is effectively a $430 billion subsidy to people with large mortgages and incomes over $100,000.  It probably isn't a good idea in general, and certainly not scaling all the way up to one million dollar mortgages.  I would propose that the mortgage interest deduction be removed and replaced with a similar (but to be phased out) subsidy.  And the only reason I would do that is because it wouldn't be fair to those who relied on the deduction when making purchasing decisions.  

The next large subsidy is the health care subsidy for work based plans.  It is also enormous (though if I understood the health care debate properly it is at least partially on the way out).  It strikes me as much more defensible policy than the mortgage deduction, but it makes much more sense as a direct subsidy rather than a tax treatment.  

The exclusion of retirement plan contributions doesn't strike me so much as a subsidy, as a choice about when to tax the money.  I'm open to either treatment really.

The lower tax rate on dividends/cap gains is definitely a subsidy but would be better dealt with under my forthcoming "What is Income" post, so I'll defer discussion of that item.

The EITC is a subsidy, but it is one of the few that actually works more efficiently through the tax system than outside of it.  It operates on a sliding scale based on income, and is designed to automatically reduce the subsidy as your income goes up--a method which lends itself well to being integrated directly into the tax structure.  Since federal taxation is on income, and the subsidy is directly connected to income, it isn't any more distorting to put it directly in the tax code.  My earlier proposal (linked above) has EITC properties in the ramp up to the basic tax rate.  

Taxes

--by Sebastian H

April is always a good time to think about tax policy, and I see Kevin Drum making fun of the idea of a very short tax code.  Now I'm not entirely sure that we could reduce the tax code all the way to the size of the Constitution.  But it would probably be interesting to try.  But for now, I would put down what I see as principles of a good tax system:

1. Realize that some people are just too poor to effectively pay taxes.

2. Admit that there is a marginal difference in dollars: it hurts the rich less to tax them somewhat more than the middle class.

3. Work under the realization that people who will vote for spending plans that they think they can make other people wholly pay might not consider them as carefully if they expect to pay.  People are more careful about spending when they know that they are also the ones paying.

4. Make the connection between spending and taxing MUCH more obvious.

 

To do that, exempt some percentage of the income earners from taxation entirely. I propose 10-20%.

 Some large plurality of the population pays the Basic Tax Rate (BTR). I propose that the middle third of the population pay the BTR.  

In order to not deincentivize finding a job, the span between the exempt bottom fifth and the BTR will be bridged by and even curve--EITC-style. 

In order to fulfill principle 2, we have a progressive tax rate past the middle third.

 In order to fulfill principle 3, this rate will cap out at some point--I propose 15-20 percentage points above the BTR. This will tax the rich at a higher rate, without allowing the general voting populace to become disconnected from the fact that higher spending equals higher taxing. 

 In order to avoid disincentivizing steps, the curve from the BTR to the top rate shall be a nice smooth one. (maybe slope of about 3/2x), beginning just above the top earners for whatever percentage of the middle we decide are paying the BTR

 Each year the government shall post spending. That will set the rate of the BTR for two years hence. (I'm not as sure about this time frame. I feel like setting the rate in December for the April taxes is too short of a time, and wouldn't allow for keynesian spending in recessions). Setting it three years out would seem to allow for too much gaming. Anyway, the main point is that the BTR fluctuates to meet spending. If we vote to cut things, the BTR goes down.   If we vote to increase spending, it goes up. IMO the number one problem in this country is some majority of voters want increased spending while another majority (and no that isn't a contradiction, and that is the problem) wants decreased taxes--and both political parties try on some level or other to please both.   One of the nice features is that it makes Keynesian government spending possible on the recession side, and enacts the part of Keynesian analysis that almost all politicians want to ignore (the cutting spending and increasing taxes side when not in a recession part).  

The last time I looked at the specific numbers, I figured the BTR to be about 18-20%.  And unsurprisingly, this number wouldn't change much without enormous changes in the tax rate of higher earners, but could change quite a bit based on different spending assumptions.  

Confederate History Month, The Conclusion (?)

by Robert R. Mackey

crossposted from the Huffington Post

This is the third, and unless there is a major gaffe tonight from Richmond, the final part of my writing on the serious problems with Confederate Heritage Month in Virginia.

In the first entry, I noted the slight "omission" by Governor McDonnell of the institution of slavery in his proclamation. It was corrected by his office, which was kind enough to note that slavery was a distinctly unpleasant thing. Thank you Governor.

The following day, I wrote that the Governor should correct the entire document, rename it "Civil War Heritage Month" and note the involvement of Virginians, black and white, who fought and died for the United States. That, sadly, has been ignored by the Governor's office and many others. I expect that it will continue to be ignored by many.

In this final part, I want to discuss the entire issue of "why" from both an historical view and from a modern political view. Why should we remember the American Civil War? What should we study about it? And why would a modern politician, well aware of the impact that announcing "Confederate Heritage Month" would have on not only his constituents but the media-blogosphere as well, do such a thing?

First, let's discuss the history. Simply put, the Civil War was about slavery. It was not about anything else. Had there been no slaves, there would have been no Civil War. For those who cry that the causation of the war was "States Rights" I have to ask--which right were they seceding over? The right to print their own money? The right to issue letters of marque and reprisal? The right to sign treaties with foreign powers?

No. The 'right' that so strongly defended, and by doing so murdered 650,000 Americans, was the right to own other human beings and their labor. That was the State Right so steadfastly defended. If you do not believe me, just read the collective writings of Jefferson Davis, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger B. Taney, or of the 'moderate' plutocrats of South Carolina. It was obvious to those men why they were fighting. Or put in a more accurate way, why they were sending poor white Southern men to their deaths by the tens of thousands--to protect their property and their 'way of life.' These tyrants cared nothing for the men they were sending to die. First person accounts of the era show how many of these die-hard secessionists soon were less concerned with the Glorious Cause than they were in making sure that no one took their property away from them--to include the Confederate government.

So why should we study and discuss the Civil War? Military historians study the war as a perfect example of early Industrial Age conflict, technological change, logistics, operational art and grand strategy. For social historians, it is a moment of great change in American society, from the role of women and minorities to shifts in immigration and urban/rural issues. Political historians can see no better example of the issues, strengths and weaknesses of a representative democracy than in a conflict like the Civil War; great statesmen, speeches that still resound, the impact of assassination on a government.

Yet there is another reason to study the war. We need to study the Civil War--objectively and factually--in order to finally heal the rift that the war and slavery caused. Young people need to discuss, without propaganda or Lost Cause mythology, why the war started. Older students need to study the great decisions that put the nation on the road to disunion. And modern political leaders need to study the mistakes that were made before the war that split the nation in two and murdered a generation.

What were those mistakes that our present day political leaders need to reflect upon? I list a few for your consideration:

• The false idea that individuals in a republic are only responsible for themselves and their well-being, that they owe nothing to their fellow citizens past a grudgingly paid tax for national defense, and the associated false idea that somehow everyone will be just fine without laws, regulations, or taxation and that our responsibility is for the upholding of not human rights but the upholding of 'property' rights;

• The false idea that one race or one group is "American" when all others are not, including those with different beliefs, ideas, lifestyles, background and origin, for along those lines lies the belief that one group is not only more American, but morally superior to another and has both the right and responsibility to oppress another;

• The false idea that God is always on your side...which leads to a firm conviction that whatever you do, you are doing "God's Will" and all others are not only against you politically, but against God--a quite convenient situation for immoral and unethical leaders and one that Confederate leaders used to motivate an entire generation of poor white Southern men to die on the battlefield for slavery;

• The false idea that the Federal government is somehow inferior (or ineffective or inefficient) when compared to local or state governments, that local government "always knows best"; this view of reality quickly leads to localized suppression of civil rights, destruction of liberties, and violates the most hallowed compact of our Republic, the Constitution; and lastly,

• That the American people can be fooled only part of the time; even those that gain the most from a society but believe themselves to be the most downtrodden will ultimately discover the extent of the lies told to them by their political leaders. To paraphrase one Confederate soldier after the war, "I fought for my country [the C.S.A.] but I'll be damned if I ever fight for it again."

So, it is up to you Governor and the members of the Virginia Legislature to do the right thing and learn some of these lessons of the great American bloodletting. And if you do
not, it is ultimately up to the voters of Virginia to decide whether you should be the elected representative of the all the people--white and black, descendant of Union soldier or Confederate--and not just a small, unhappy portion of the electorate.

May God bless our beloved Union.

The Most Powerful Lobby in Washington

by von

I have a policy:  avoid debating Israeli policy via blog.  I have some experience with deeply-contested histories (obliquely referenced in my St. Patrick's Day post, below).  Contested histories are nuancy.  But the blog format isn't long enough, or interactive enough, to allow for any nuance.  Reduced to spurts of 200 or 500 words, everyone becomes a caricature.  And I'm not interested in debating, or being, a caricature.*

Obviously, with that lead up, I am now going to violate my policy in spectacular form.  Moreover, for maximum effect, I'm going to violate my policy with a headline that is 100% certain to be misunderstood. (This is called assuming the risk, and then raising it one.)

We start with Abe Foxman of the ADL, who claims:

Israel should immediately battle a charge emerging in the US that its actions are endangering the lives of US soldiers, because it is a particularly “pernicious” argument that “smacks of blaming the Jews for everything,” Anti-Defamation League National Chairman Abe Foxman said on Monday.

Andrew Sullivan responds:

The man with the fax machine has declared that Petraeus' recent comments on Israel "[smack] of blaming the Jews for everything.”  Yglesias yawns. ...

....

Reality is meeting a lobby. In Washington, that usually means the lobby wins. But this time, we are at war and America's vital interests are at stake. This will be a struggle - but that there is a struggle at all is progress in a way. I'd be more worried if no sparks were flying.

Two points need to be made here.  First, it is not clear that Foxman is responding to Gen. Patraeus' recent testimony.  That linkage is assumed by Sullivan, Yglesias, and Ackerman -- and then deployed for maximum effect -- but it's not in Foxman's reported comments.  Rather, it seems more likely from the context that Foxman is responding to Biden's comment last week.  Biden's off-the-cuff statement was a good deal stronger than Patraeus' prepared testimony (and Biden may have been misquoted). 

The second point, however, is possibly more important.  Sullivan frames this debate as "Reality is meeting a lobby [e.g., AIPAC]." Let's be perfectly clear on one point:  The most powerful lobby in Washington is not AIPAC, Abe Foxman, the Weekly Standard, "neocons," their allies, or any combination of the foregoing.  The most powerful lobby in Washington is the United States Military.  And it's not even a close call.

That is the true import of Patreaus' measured statement.  If the Department of Defense concludes that a particular Israeli strategy is likely to injure or kill US troops, no one on Capitol Hill is going to stand up for that Israeli strategy.  No one will argue that a settler should build a new home in East Jerusalem at the expense of an American life.  That game is over.  No number of faxes will change it.  And everyone knows it, which is why any gentle pressure from Patreaus will alter US policy more than the harshest words from the usual combatants.

Whether you find this terrifying or exciting depends on your views on the Netanyahu's current governing coalitiation.  And, perhaps, your views of Gen. Patreaus.

Finally, for what it's worth, I think that Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting has been spot-on throughout these recent contretemps.   I also think that Goldberg is absolutely correct that Obama's long-game is to force Netanyahu to ditch the far right parties that make up his coalition.  A goal that I support, by the way.  (Indeed, my second policy is:  The first thing to do is, ditch the crazies.) 

*The exception to my first policy is Ta-Nehisi Coates, who has somehow found and/or created a way to talk about complicated things on a blog.

Weekly Pulse: Obama gives GOP rope to hang itself at health care summit

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Tomorrow, President Obama will gather with Republicans for the long-awaited televised health care summit. Obama will promote his health care proposal, the Republicans will demand that we start over.

Even House Minority Leader John Boehner dimly senses that the GOP is walking into a trap. The public is thoroughly sick of the health reform process, but people still like the idea of health care reform. So, the GOP can't just say "kill the bill" in public. Instead, Republicans have to make disingenuous speeches about "starting over," knowing full well that if health care reform dies now, it'll stay dead.

Boehner must realize the prospect of starting over is about as appealing as National Root Canal Week at the DMV. But what can he do? The Republicans have no ideas beyond "tax cuts cure cancer." And they can't boycott the summit, or they'll lose the "bipartisan" blinking contest.

So, when Obama gets on TV and lays out his reasonable-sounding plan, complete with protections against private insurers who want to hike your premiums 39% overnight, he's going to sound good and the Republicans are going to sound crazy.

Brilliant tactician Boehner is now exhorting Republicans to "crash the party" they've already been invited to.

It's a trap, alright.

Bayh-partisanship = Giving your seat to a Republican

By Lindsay Beyerstein

In this week's Pulse we look at the implications Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-IN) decision not to seek reelection. As an incumbent, he could have easily won another term. But Bayh says he's fed up with partisanship in Washington. So, he's quitting and handing his job to a Republican. Blue Dog bipartisanship in a nutshell.

Will the Senate Democrats finally snap out of their stupor and resolve to do something with their dwindling majority before it's too late? They're scared because they're unpopular, but they're unpopular because they're too scared to pass anything.

Anti-ACORN "pimp" O'Keefe arrested in attempted bugging of senator's office

James O'Keefe, the conservative filmmaker who dressed as a pimp to sting the activist group ACORN, has been arrested for allegedly assisting in the attempted wiretapping of the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu:

The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.

FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes alleges that O'Keefe aided and abetted two others, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who dressed up as employees of a telephone company and attempted to interfere with the office's telephone system. [Times-Picayune]

Chill Out: Pelosi Hasn't Given Up on Health Reform

By Lindsay Beyerstein

People are getting way too worked up about Nancy Pelosi's announcement that she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate's health reform bill right now.

"In every meeting that we have had, there would be nothing to give me any thought that that bill could pass right now the way that it is," Pelosi said yesterday, "There isn't a market right now for proceeding with the full bill unless some big changes are made."

Now, maybe Pelosi doesn't have the votes right now, but such is the life of the Speaker of the House. Just because she doesn't have the votes in hand doesn't necessarily mean she can't get them.

If Pelosi does have the votes right now, she'd be a fool to say so. In the wake of Martha Coakley's defeat, all eyes are on the House. If health care reform is to survive, the House will have to pass the Senate bill "as is." But that wouldn't necessarily be the end of the story. The Senate could still fix some stuff the House doesn't like through budget reconciliation, which can't be filibustered. In theory, the Senate could even put the public option back in, though I'm not holding my breath.

Pelosi would be foolish announce that the House could pass the Senate bill right off the bat. She'd lose all her leverage with her Senate colleagues. If Pelosi assures them she has this all wrapped up, the Senate won't change a thing.

Pelosi's using the oldest negotiating trick in the book: "Sorry, guys, my hands are tied. The yahoos in my caucus will never accept your deal. I guess the whole thing goes down in flames. That is, unless you give them X. Then maybe I can talk some sense into the hoopleheads."

Realistically, Pelosi needs some major concessions in order to get the votes. For example, she might be able to bag some hardline House Democrats if the Senate first passed reconciliation instructions abolishing the so-called "Cadillac plan" tax. Getting rid of the tax is a high priority for the labor movement.

I've been told by several experts on legislative procedure that it is possible to pass the reconciliation instructions first as long as the president ultimately signs the health care bill first.

So, don't panic. Pelosi has shown no signs of giving up on health reform. She's just doing her job.