Tax cuts

Here's a good one. I've talked about how taxes are historically low right now, which also means the government raises proportionally less money than ever. But does everyone share those cuts equally?


Nah.

The chart is pretty self-explanatory - people up to the top 80th percentile pay almost exactly the same as they have for the past 50 years. Some a little more, some a little less, but it's all very marginal differences.

It's only the top 20%, and really significantly the top 1%, that have seen any real cuts to their tax rate. Put another way, the tax cuts over the past 30 years have almost exclusively benefited the top 20%. That's not the coolest.

Taxes

I really like Ezra Klein. This morning, he wrote about what kinds of taxes different regions of the US pay to raise their revenue:

Here's the takeaway - not all taxes are created equal. Income taxes are progressive, in that the more money you make, the proportion of your income you pay; sales taxes are regressive, in that everyone pays the same flat tax (say 6%) on a new pair of socks, whether they make $20,000 a year or $20million.

Obviously, regressive taxes favor rich folk - it means they'd pay less money - and hurt poor folk - if you're poor paying an additional 6% on everything you buy can be a real burden, whereas if you're rich you often don't give it a second thought. I don't really have a point beyond that it's important to keep in mind the different ways we tax people, not just whether or not we tax them. Progressive tax systems are by and large fairer, because they impose a more equal cost relative to each person's earning power.

Priorities

What should be the domestic policy priorities of the US government? It's pretty important to think of things in this way - if all our conversation is on the 7th most important issue, we're by definition missing some big things. My list would probably be...

1) Unemployment/jobs
2) Strength of economy
3) Rising cost of Medicare
4) Climate change/energy policy
5) Social Security payment gap
6) National debt
7) Education
8) Immigration reform
9) Criminal justice/sentencing issues

That's generally how I feel in my gut, but it's hard to make a list like this. The big takeaway to me is that focusing on the deficit at the expense of or even at cost to the unemployed is really dumb. What's your list?

You know what's interesting about llamas?

Llamas that are well-socialized and trained to halter and lead after weaning are very friendly and pleasant to be around. They are extremely curious and most will approach people easily. However, llamas that are bottle-fed or over-socialised and over-handled as youngsters will become extremely difficult to handle when mature, when they will begin to treat humans as they treat each other, which is characterized by bouts of spitting, kicking and neck wrestling.

(Grace Hong provided research for this post)

Libya and American Exceptionalism

Obama's Libya speech was one of his better efforts. He rises to the occasion with foreign policy subjects, possibly because he doesn't have to hedge his bets. His domestic policy speeches generally have a "liberals believe X, conservatives believe Y, they're both somewhat right, so we'll do some of each," nature to them. Nothing wrong with that - the most memorable example was the whole "there is no red America and blue America, there is the United States of America!" from way back when.

I digress. His foreign policy speeches are usually more forceful "I believe X and this is why I am right." That's good too -- he's fairly persuasive and usually right. On Monday with Libya, the theme was American exceptionalism: the notion that America stands unique as a force for good in the world, and we have unique capabilities to stand up for freedom, self-determination, and the prevention of mass slaughters. Conservatives love American exceptionalism (although they generally think it means that Jesus loves America more than other countries, a pretty odd claim on a lot of levels) and liberals are fairly skeptical of it on the grounds that a) it makes us seem arrogant and b) we should focus on our own problems first, not go out solving everyone else's.

Anyway, the middle ground (I guess Obama did go middle ground again without saying it!) is that America should be humble and modest when it interacts with other countries, but we do fundamentally have the power to help those in need much more than almost any other nation - and under certain circumstances we should not hesitate to lend our aid, whether it be civil or military.  I think most people would agree with this - it's the justification for why we fought Hitler in World War II.  But taken too far in the wrong extreme you get situations like Iraq or Vietnam - wars that should never have been fought.  The other side of this is that the method of the fighting matters as well - Iraq I (Desert Storm) worked because our missions was just to push Saddam out of Kuweit; Iraq II failed because we occupied the entire country.

The point is, this shit is complicated. I am about 75% convinced that we should be involved in Libya helping the rebels fight the mad dog of Africa, Gaddafi. I'm not convinced we should be directly selling them weapons. And I'm disappointed that all of this has been done without congressional authorization - but that's really a critique of Congress at least as much as it is about Obama. So far, the war has been going well, but we need to be very cognizant not to get drawn too far into the conflict. I trust Obama's instincts of knowing when enough is enough - we'll see if he validates my trust. But this is one of those times that America should stand up for what is right.

Joe Klein

You know who I like? Joe Klein. He's a journalist who isn't afraid to call bullshit. Full disclosure - his politics are mostly Democratic, but he doesn't hesitate to criticize his party or Obama (see: education, unions, deficit, Libya).

Anyway, today he had a nice long post about how just plain nuts the Republicans running for President are -- and makes the pretty clear point that these folks aren't inherent nutjobs, but they're saying crazy things to pander to the nutjob far-right wing of their party. The whole post is worth reading, but the money quote is as follows:

This is my 10th presidential campaign, Lord help me. I have never before seen such a bunch of vile, desperate-to-please, shameless, embarrassing losers coagulated under a single party's banner. They are the most compelling argument I've seen against American exceptionalism. Even Tim Pawlenty, a decent governor, can't let a day go by without some bilious nonsense escaping his lizard brain. And, as Greg Sargent makes clear, Mitt Romney has wandered a long way from courage. There are those who say, cynically, if this is the dim-witted freak show the Republicans want to present in 2012, so be it. I disagree. One of them could get elected. You never know. Mick Huckabee, the front-runner if you can believe it, might have to negotiate a trade agreement, or a defense treaty, with the Indonesian President some day. Newt might have to discuss very delicate matters of national security with the President of Pakistan. And so I plead, as an unflinching American patriot--please Mitch Daniels, please Jeb Bush, please run. I may not agree with you on most things, but I respect you. And you seem to respect yourselves enough not to behave like public clowns.
Please, in the name of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, run.

Guest Post by Adam Sadowsky on Nuclear Power and the Repurcussions of Japan

For the context, Adam's comments are in response to this article, but I think they're pretty cogent all on their own. Adam used to be a nuclear engineer so he knows his shit. Take it away, sir!

Adam: You bring up a lot of really good history in this argument, and it does appear that the response of the government regulatory agencies and other recent government decisions do not seem to be impacted by the nuclear reactor disaster in Japan.  My personal opinion of what this country should be doing as far as energy policy aside, I would like to play devil's advocate on a few points that were brought up.

 

Looking at the disaster in Bhopal, the BP oil spill, and other disasters, including Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, there is one very key difference that separates these disasters from the Fukushima disaster.  The big difference is that all of the mentioned previous disasters were easily preventable (and predictable), and the Fukushima disaster was not.  The Fukushima plant was built and engineered in accordance with all of the regulatory guidelines that are in place in Japan (and these guidelines and requirements are all consistent with United States construction codes).  The plant was also maintained and operated as it should have been.  There were no operator errors that resulted in the disaster, nor could there have been any operator actions that could have prevented or mitigated the melt-down.  Previous nuclear disasters and industrial disasters are all rooted in poor operation and companies taking shortcuts in training, maintenance, and engineering.  These shortcuts all had the typical warning signs that upper management in the associated industry chose to ignore, which is why government regulations are so vital to industries that can affect public health.

 

What happened in Fukushima is a worse-than-worst-case-scenario.  An earthquake and tsunami of this magnitude were never predicted to likely occur in our lifetime.  That is why the plant failed, as did many other buildings and major structures.  Nuclear power plants (as well as buildings, cars, airplanes, boats, trains, stadiums, etc.) are designed to withstand a certain magnitude of environmental disaster.  This could include hurricane wind speed, earthquake seismic magnitude, water current speed, among other parameters.  The maximum magnitude that everything is designed to withstand is based upon a probabilistic assessment that essentially states, "the odds are so small (like 1 in 30,000) that a (insert disaster) greater than this size will occur, we will only design to that maximum size disaster."  Eventually over-designing components becomes expensive and unmarketable, inhibiting technological progress and quality of life.

 

Thus, the only lesson that can be learned to prevent disasters like Fukushima is to raise our construction standards even higher, to withstand an even more unlikely dusaster.  The thing is, why should this lesson be exclusive to nuclear power plants?  Plenty of office buildings collapsed and killed members of the general public, but no one is pushing to cease and hold all construction of new office buildings.

 

So finally, my personal opinion:  I understand your concern as to why we aren't holding up progress with developing our nuclear energy assets.  The important thing to keep in mind is that since the Fukushima disaster occurred because there was a beyond-design basis catastrophe, this doesn't make nuclear power any less safe than any other type of power.  There will always be uncertainty as to if that unthinkable (very small probablity) disaster will occur.  The certainty is in the fact that nuclear power is greenhouse gas free and the effects of global warming are far more harmful to a much great population than any nuclear disaster would be.  Because if this fact, I am not at all upset that our nation is not letting the disaster impact it's energy policy as much as other countries have.

 

Thanks Adam!

If you want to know things about the budget/deficit...

You should click this. I got 9/12 right. That's only one worse than Matt Yglesias, one of my fave nerdy policy bloggers!

In non-political news...

Don't be a drag, just be born in America, or Democracy vs. Republic

First of all, Donald Trump is not actually running for president, and anyone who thinks he's serious about this is being delusional. He's just getting publicity (and more power to him for that!).

But his spokesman did say something today that is a pretty common fallacy among politicians. He's lately "discovered" (i.e., learned that he can get lots of publicity for discussing) that many people think Obama wasn't born in America. Since Trump's "campaign" is all about publicity, he has of course aligned with these crazy folks -- birtherism is a great way to get publicity. So don't take what he has to say all that seriously. Anyway, his spokesman just said that one of the reasons he is raising the birth certificate issue is that "A solid plurality of Republican primary voters AGREE with Trump [that Obama wasn't born in America]."

Now, c'mon. Living in a democracy does not mean that the people are always right. Just because a lot of Republicans think that Obama wasn't born in America doesn't in any way make this a valid point, any more than the fact that a lot of Republicans don't believe in climate change, despite the fact that 99% of scientists think it is real. We live in a republic, which means that we elect the best and most wise among us to be our leaders. Anyone who justifies a policy solely because lots of "the people" think it's true, even in the absence of any factual basis, is being disingenuous and dangerously demagogic.

Willard & Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV

Did you know that Mitt Romney's actual first name is Willard? I really don't want to have a president named Willard in my lifetime. That would be embarrassing.

Also, did you know that today Obama would beat Willard Romney in ole Mitt's homestate of Michigan? Maybe we'll avoid President Willard Romney after all.

Lastly, did you know that Florida Republican kind-of-up-and-comer Connie Mac's real name is Cornelius Harvey McGillicuddy IV? That is fantastic!

Birth Certificates & Strategy, a.k.a. Born This Way

Just a reminder, but Barack Obama HAS released his birth certificate. Here's a picture. It's everywhere. Republicans are so good at just trumpeting lies that they even convince liberals that he hasn't. Even some of my liberal pals who know Obama was born here still say "Why doesn't he just release his birth certificate?" Well, he has.

Still, I really think Obama has intentionally kept the issue somewhat alive. He released the birth certificate way back in 2008 and has said it's a moot point since then. That's smart! Even though a lot of conservatives don't think Obama was born here, they are, not to mince words, nuts. They represent a long line of relatively deranged conspiracy theorists on the right -- the same people that thought Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and was brainwashed by the KGB.

Obama and his people know this -- and they know that most Americans think this line of questioning the validity of Obama as a person is relatively radioactive to Republicans. Most Americans either think that's crazytalk or just don't care -- and the ones who believe he isn't an American wouldn't vote for him anyway. I doubt there's a single person who would've voted for Obama but now isn't because they think he is not a citizen.

Obama's strategy going into the reelection campaign is that he is the serious, mature figure and that the Republicans are crazy nincompoops. Exhibit A will be that they don't even believe he's a citizen. It's a good strategy!

Why Libya and not Sudan/Ivory Coast/North Korea/Iran/Syria/Congo/etc.

There are a lot of valid arguments for and against the military intervention in Libya. That's what makes Obama's decision to use US forces there so difficult, and why anyone who comes down as an absolutist on this issue ("We should definitely intervene" / "War in Libya is horrible") are both flawed premises. Everyone should concede that this is a complicated issue.

But one argument against intervention that I find utterly invalid is that we shouldn't intervene in Libya because we haven't intervened in other places with equally or greater humanitarian concerns. For example, Congo presently has a massive human rights catastrophe where civilians are "killed, raped, arbitrarily arrested, pressed into forced labor, and looted, with nearly 2 million people displaced and a further 145,000 as refugees in neighboring countries." Some say that it is inconsistent to intervene in Libya when we refuse to take action in places like Congo.

This is a false dichotomy. Think of a doctor who has dozens of patients with a variety of serious ailments, some of whom were terminal - but who could only save some of the lives. Of course, the doctor would choose to help the patients that had the greatest chance of survival, and in a way best targeted to help them. Libya, Obama has I think correctly calculated, represents the humanitarian that America can best help, with the least harm to American interests. It's a weighing of interests, and it means taking action in some places and standing idly by in others. But it is not inconsistent.

Probably my favorite historical picture ever

Libya

Libya is too complicated for a blog post, but I'll do my best.  Most of the commentary I've read on it is either ideologically self-serving ("yes we should intervene in Libya, because military interventions are good!" or the opposite of that) or tortured, cautionary, and inherently skeptical. 

I fall more in the latter column, but I also can say that I categorically support (a) the way Obama has brought about the military action there (b) the method that force is being deployed, and (c) the proposition that we have both a human rights and realist interest in intervening in Libya.

I'd tell you why but I have to go to dinner with this nerd

You know who's the worst?

This guy!

Newt! He's probably running for President, I guess, and he has between 1 and 2% chance of winning the republican nomination and between .1 and 1% chance of winning the presidency, according to my based-on-nothing-but-probably-true-calculations.

Some people take Newt seriously. They think he has cool ideas or something. He's a "big thinker." I don't know where that meme has come from, but he hasn't said anything too useful in pretty much the 10 years that I've been paying attention to the world. He's really good at saying a LOT of things, but basing them on absolutely nothing. And he's clearly just making shit up.

Exhibit A: (from last week)
VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?
GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. ...The United States doesn't need anybody's permission. We don't need to have NATO, who frankly, won't bring much to the fight. We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening. And we don't have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.

Exhibit B: (from this week)
GINGRICH: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qadhafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Then he said that Libya is the worst-executed military intervention since WWII, which means that it's worse than Bay of Pigs, Guatamala, Iran hostages, Iraq War, Afghanistan etc. even though not a single American or allied person has yet to die, we've probably killed the bad guy's bad son, and have already neutered the Gaddafi's army. NEWT 2012!

Reelection

Yesterday Dick Morris said there is no way Obama gets reelected. For background's sake, Dick Morris maybe sort of helped Bill Clinton get reelected in 1996, but was caught cheating on his wife with a prostitute (she may have been underaged, I can't remember) and there was some creepy business involving feet. He's gross. Look:

Anyway, he now hates Democrats for some reason and is all over Fox making dumb predictions. He's an idiot.

Anyway, Obama will probably be reelected. The only reason he wouldn't is if the economy craters again. That's possible! This Middle East revolution business and Japan super-catastrophe can only hurt. But the fundamentals of the economy are looking much better. Anyway, to buttress that point, check this out:

Pew survey finds 47% of registered voters would like to see Obama reelected, vs. 37% who want a GOPer.
More: In better shape than either 43, 42 at same points in presidency.


Not bad, not bad. Sorry, Romney!

I have a lot of work

So I guess I should blog while I talk to Westlaw. Oh wait they're gone so I guess I'll work again.

Elizabeth Taylor died. She always kind of weirded me out. RIP though.

Charlie Sheen or Gaddafi?

We report. You decide. Take the Quiz.

Sample: I have defeated this earthworm with my words – imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists. 

Who said it?! I don't know.