Friday, December 14, 2007

"Ron Paul, at your cervix!"

"Doctor" Ron Paul is a frighteningly stupid man. His myopic and simplistic world view demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of economics and politics. He prides himself on his unique voting record, but it's more a sign of his incompetence than his bravery.

Here are just two examples of his wacky platform.

Tax Cuts

Dr. Paul claims to have never voted for a tax increase. That's all well and good, but his logic is based on a faulty philosophy. Here's how he explains it:
“Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.”
Oh, Ronny, if only the world really worked that way. Along with cutting taxes, Dr. Paul would also cut the programs funded by those taxes. That means that while the mom saves $40/month, she has to now pay for her children's health care (CHIP), her own health care (Medicaid), more money on food (food stamps, WIC) and more for rent (Section 8 housing). So the $40 that she saves doesn't really do her much good. On the other hand, it can save upper bracket payers $10,000/month - now that's savings!

Additionally, it is unclear whether the saved money will be "reinvested" as Dr. Paul claims. History has shown that it is the tendency of corporate directors to pocket saved money rather than reinvest.

I also encourage you to read his take on tips. It's precious how he further demonstrates his total lack of understanding of how the world really works (in this case, how basic economics and the tax code are tied together.)

International Relations

If it were up to the good doctor, we'd build a 90-foot wall around our great land and paint a giant upraised middle finger on it. He is particularly afraid of the North American Union. Don't be surprised if you haven't heard of it because it doesn't exist. . .yet. Even if it were real, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing.

Right now, the three largest economies in the world are the US, Europe and Japan. But that's changing. We simply don't have the population or resources (both labor and material) to compete with the emerging markets in Asia. Without changing something, it's only a matter of time before China completely overtakes us making us just one more failed empire that will pass into the history books. We will not be able to enjoy the same standard of living that we currently do. However, Europe has showed us the way - join or die. Europe was facing economic extinction when it saw the light and banded together into the EEC and eventually the EU. We could do the same with Canada and Latin America, but only if we abandon our 18th century protectionist ways. (We could also take the only slightly less likely alternative of making me the supreme ruler of the country.)

Dr. Paul believes a lot of other crazy things like ending natural birth citizenship, withdrawing from the WTO, lifting all limits on the Second Amendment, that only a few years of mediocre congressional service qualifies you to be president, and that anybody gives a rat's anus about what some no-name group thinks about him. But, to end on a positive note, I do strongly agree with him on one point: the United States should never again go to war without express congressional approval.

In summary, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for an America that neither does nor should exist.

* Dr. Paul has also delivered more than 4,000 babies. In case you haven't already figured it out, that means that he has seen up close more than 4,000 open, bleeding vaginas. That's enough to make anyone crazy.

Monday, December 10, 2007

"Something d-o-o economics...."

This is yet another post in my continued analysis of the various contenders for the US Presidency. Today's victim: Mike Huckabee. There are a lot of things about him that I like. Things going for him are his take on faith and politics, education, globalization, and bits of his take on health care. I really liked his take on energy independence - being the first candidate I've seen to publicly state that our oil dependence is hurting us in the 'War on Terror'. Strikes against him include a ludicrously unworkable immigration plan and, among other things, generalized crazy.

His crazy is primarily centered in his Fair Tax agenda. Fair tax is for conservatives what socialized medicine is for liberals: a magical solution that works only in the land where unicorns prance around a benign Ronald Reagan and an unimpeached Bill Clinton.

(Style note: I use the term 'Fair tax' instead of the trademarked term 'FairTax'. I think the term 'FairTax' is a little fruity.)

Huckabee's Fair Tax - which is not his own idea - seems pretty straightforward. It has two major components:

1. A 23% sales tax on all new consumer goods and services. Notice that used goods would be exempted. This takes the place of all payroll taxes plus corporate income and capital gain taxes.

2. A monthly rebate check is issued to all taxpayers for the amount of tax paid up to the poverty line. As I understand it, the government would calculate the amount of money spent on taxes by a family living at the poverty line (which includes families making less than $22,000 year) per month and then issue a check to every family for that amount. (I haven't encountered anything that explains how that would play out for individuals.)

Huckabee argues that this plan will provide a number of benefits including: 1. reducing our lifetime tax burden, 2. making American products more competitive internationally, and 3. correcting the injustice of taxing the wealthy.

If I weren't a pinko Clintonista, I might buy this crap. Since I don't, here goes:

I have a few complaints with the idea of a fair tax generally. First, income tax deductions are a vital tool in encouraging good behavior. People do a lot of stuff because of the tax advantages involved such as: buying hybrid cars, buying houses rather than renting (which helps the overall economy dramatically), getting married, having children, etc. The sales tax will eliminate all of those incentives. In fact, it will actually decrease many of those incentives, most notably, having children.

Second, it will not simplify the tax code nor remove the need for bureaucracy. Someone will have to determine who gets the "prebates", enforce the honest reporting of taxes, and knock down the doors of non-payers.

A 'fair' tax will not reduce our lifetime tax burden. This plan simply exchanges one form of taxation for another. Even when coupled with the Huckster's plan to "not exactly" "shut down the federal government", people will still have to pay for the services currently funded through the government. Under his plan, all payroll taxes - Soc. Security, Medicare, Income tax, etc. will be eliminated. This means that consumers will need to pay for these services without the benefit of government assistance. Furthermore, under his plan consumers will have to pay for these things at a 23% sales tax premium. When you go to the hospital, you'll have to pay 23% for medical services that would have been provided tax-free under the current Medicare plan. The same goes for retirement planning, higher education and other government services that are funded by the income tax. We'll end up paying the same amount (or more) for those services but without the benefits of itemized deductions.

It will also fail to make our products more competitive internationally. The only way to make this happen is to lower labor standards here in the US, something which is entirely unrelated to taxes. Frankly, I don't want to live in Huckawannabee's sweatshop America.

Finally, he errs by making the argument that under our current system, we punish the rich for getting rich by making them pay higher taxes. It is true that in our progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay. That seems fair to me. The richer you are the more you benefit from the system that allowed you to get rich and stay that way. I don't care if you're paying 50% of your income in taxes if you still have millions of dollars left over - it's a simple matter of marginal value, something Huckabee and his friends from the hive don't understand. (Get it, "bee...hive"? I kill me!)

As Chuck Norris' favorite candidate gains support, it is important that voters remember that he is either pandering or downright stupid. Either way, that's not what I want from my president. Even though Chuck Norris can run so fast that he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head, I'm still not voting for his candidate.

"This book belonged to my wife. I keep it for sentimental value."

As the election season starts up (or at least as I start paying attention to it), I have noticed that one perennial issue has remained on the agenda, but as always, near the bottom: Israel. Israel is a hot-button topic for many people, one which polarizes and invokes strong feelings on both sides.

Personally, I don't care much for Israel's policies. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to support her that I must acknowledge as legitimate. I do sympathize with her position as one of (if not THE) only nations on the Earth whose destruction is called for in the charters of most of her neighbors. Unfortunately, in my experience, this is not the most commonly-cited reason to support Israel. That honor belongs to the following misguided position (this one taken from Mike Huckabee's Campaign Website):

I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region. (emphasis added)
I have an number of problems with this argument, the greatest coming from the italicized text. I will concede for the sake of argument that Israel is "the only fully-functioning democracy" in the Middle Eastern region (even though 'democracy' has been in the 'Middle East' to varying degrees for some time now). Even so, the idea that Israel's democracy will have any positive effect on the region is preposterous. As I stated above, Israel's neighbors generally hate it and it is for precisely that reason that Israel's democracy will have absolutely no effect on the governments that surround it. If the United States really wants to spread democracy in the region, we should actually lessen our relationship with Israel and bolster up other embryonic traces of democracy (Turkey, Egypt, etc.). By continuing this intimate relationship with Israel, we are hurting our credibility in the region.

I do acknowledge the more subtle argument inherent in the offending statement, which is that America has a responsibility to support democracy wherever it may be. While I do agree with that idea, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that we must support democracy above all other interests. There are interests of international peace and security that we must acknowledge which may take precedence over the value of democracy. We cannot practically support Israel alone in the hope that the rest of the Middle East will eventually settle down by itself.

Despite all my feelings against it, I hope that Huckabee and the like are supporting Israel for the valid political reasons I've stated and not in the hope that they will end up on the right side in Megiddo.