A Level Gaze

A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg

Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Search Hits

I win. Somebody wound up here on "free naked pictures Early retirement Incentive Illinois" (#2!). Pay up.

posted by David at 12/17/2002 10:39:00 PM ::

If it's a strike, don't workers have to be involved?

Charles Dodgson at Through the Looking Glass has an insightful post about the "general strike" in Venezuela, and the Bush Administration's response to it.

Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C., our petroleophile administration, not ordinarily a great friend to labor movements at home or abroad, might be expected to express grave concern and call for the restoration of oil shipments and civil peace, not necessarily in that order. For one thing, the current disruption of Venezuelan oil shipments is a real strategic issue for the United States, which gets 13% of its oil imports from Venezuela. Instead, they have issued statements publicly calling for elections --- effectively, lending the full support of the U.S. government to the demands of the leaders of the general whatever-it-is, which is causing disruption of oil shipments.

I'd like to know whether the administration would suppport Chávez if he were to win the election they're calling for.

posted by David at 12/17/2002 12:21:00 PM ::

Monday, December 16, 2002

Rising tax burden on the rich? What about tax benefits?

Via Atrios, this article in The Washington Post, in which Bush & Co. lament the “rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor.”

Early this month, J.T. Young, the deputy assistant treasury secretary for legislative affairs, lamented in a Washington Times opinion article: "[Higher] earners cannot produce the level of revenues needed to sustain the liberals' increasingly costly spending programs over the long-term. . . . If federal government spending is not controlled, then the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder."

The “[higher] earners” do not include corporations, which are not mentioned anywhere in the article, and which are certainly capable of producing high levels of revenues, and whose share of tax revenues has fallen over recent decades.

[Rep. Jim] DeMint [R-SC] and his allies have called for a national sales tax to replace the income tax. For those below the federal poverty line, sales taxes paid would be refunded, but under the system, at least they will have seen the cost of government, he said. The working poor would accept a higher tax burden because they would be relieved of the need to file a tax return.

Really? Ya think? Steve Forbes proposed a 17% flat tax rate in 1996. That would equate to $3,077 for a family of 4 at the 2002 poverty line of $18,100, which they would get back at the end of the year. In return for the convenience of not having to fill out a 6-entry 1040EZ form, such a family would be giving the federal government an interest-free loan of $3,077. I suppose the private sector will step in and grant them interest-free credit to tide them over. Such families would still have to absorb Social Security, disability, state, and local taxes.

A shift in the tax burden toward the poor carries with it no incentive for employers to increase wages, and so will increase poverty. Having larger numbers of people living in poverty isn’t good for anyone, rich or poor. It brings about higher violent and property crime rates, increased civil unrest, worse public health and deterioration of property values.

Likewise, a reduction of middle class net income isn’t very helpful, either. Dollar for dollar, members of the middle class are far more likely than the rich to consume, start small businesses, and invest in education for themselves and their children.

An examination of who is paying for the federal government is disingenuous at the least without an examination of who benefits from its activities.

We’ve got (minimal) health care for the poor who, as defined in the programs themselves, cannot pay for it. I’m waiting to hear a republican get on the soapbox and tell the public the sick among the poor should be allowed to suffer and die untreated. If health care is further reduced, the labor supply will decrease, poverty will increase, crime will increase (to pay for medical care), and communicable diseases will spread further. Who benefits? Everyone equally. Additionally, we as a society will retain the ability to look at ourselves in a mirror.

We’ve got the civil judicial system, which functions mostly to protect the assets of individuals and corporations. Who has the vast majority of assets? The rich.

We’ve got the criminal judicial system, which functions to protect our persons and to ensure domestic tranquility. Who benefits? Everyone benefits from the former, and the benefits of the latter skew towards the rich, as it enables them to carry on the commerce and production from which they disproportionately benefit.

We’ve got national defense, which, in addition to protecting the life and liberty of all American citizens, is also deployed to protect American commercial interests and property. Of the second and third of these, who has them? The rich.

We’ve got the national network of roads and transit. The rationale for federal subsidies is that they enable the movement of goods and labor. Who owns the goods? The rich. Who gets the benefits of the labor? Split between employees and their employers.

We’ve got the Federal Reserve, the chief function of which is to keep inflation to a sustainable minimum. Inflation reduces the value of money. Who keeps money? The rich.

We’ve got funding for education, which benefits the poor and middle class, but also gives (rich) employers a pool of skilled labor with which they can make profits. Both rich and poor benefit.

We’ve got the drug war, which keeps illegal drug prices high (benefit: rich high-level drug dealers, who don’t even have the decency to pay taxes), throws largely poor drug users and low-level dealers in jail (benefit: nobody), and contributes to crime (benefit: nobody).

The entirety of the premise that the poor do not pay “their share” of taxes is a crock of shit if implicit in it is the idea that all should be obligated to pay equally for unequal benefits.

Edit: I forgot, criminal courts also protect property. Advantage: rich.

posted by David at 12/16/2002 12:21:00 PM ::

Friday, December 13, 2002

"Last but not least, I'd like to thank my 10th-grade history teacher"

Dwight Meredith at PLA has an announcement:

We have, therefore, decided to make Koufax Awards for the best of left of center blogs. For the non-sports fans, Sandy Koufax was, in our estimation, the greatest left-handed baseball pitcher of all time.

We will accept votes by comment or email. A Blue Ribbon panel consisting of Arthur Anderson, Katherine Harris and Ken Lay will tabulate the results. Ari Fleischer will announce the winners shortly after the turn of the year. If we can locate one, each winner will receive a free link to Sally Fields’ Oscar acceptance speech (“you like me, you really like me…”).

posted by David at 12/13/2002 12:55:00 PM ::

Et Tu, Nicholas?

I'm rather a fan of Nicholas Kristof. Although overshadowed by Paul Krugman, with whose column Kristof's usually shares the Times' op-ed page twice a week, he's generally objective and logical. What, then, are we to make of his latest?

Every evening at 8 p.m., middle-class Venezuelans pour out of their homes to bang pots to demand the resignation of President Hugo Chávez. If I were Venezuelan, I'd be with them. Mr. Chávez is an autocratic leftist demagogue who is running the economy into the ground, manipulating the Constitution and fostering hatred between rich and poor. Venezuela would be much better off if he resigned.

I honestly don't know. Although I don't think I'd like to share an apartment with him, Chávez gives every appearance and evidence of trying to do right by his country and the vast majority of its people. While an argument from someone of Kristof's standing and track record could change my mind, he has not chosen (or is unable) to muster the requisite evidene to do so.

Kristof speaks of Chávez' "manipula[tion]," of the Venezuelan Constitution, and quotes Admiral Daniel Comisso that Chávez has "systematically violated" it, but offers not even one concrete instance of it. Although Chavez has pushed for changes to his country's constitution, he has proceeded within the law and has moved only with public and legislative approval. On the record, however, is his opponents' coup attempt last April, which was decidedly not constitutional. Through all of his opponents' agitation, Chávez has ruled with a relatively light hand and left intact media outlets determined to remove him.

Prior to his election, Venezuela had been run by a tiny elite that had left 4 in 5 of its citizens in poverty despite its status as the world's third largest exporter of oil. His attempts to wrest power from this elite have, predictably, led to unease in global capital and business markets and a vast outflow of foreign investment. The alternative, he believed, was a continuation of the status quo, so he pushed forward. Change is hard, and always meets resistance. Look at what the U.S. had to go through to make (more) actual the constitutionally mandated civil rights of its black citizens. Chávez is attempting something far bigger, to break the 100+ year hammerlock on political and economic power enjoyed by a tiny segment of his population, and he's doing it without kangaroo courts, firing squads, martial law, or even squelching dissent.

As for "fostering hatred between rich and poor," how does that compare with prior administrations empty promises and utter disregard for the poor? It's a dead cinch that if Chávez is ousted, there will be no improvement in the lives of Venezuala's impoverished, only a return to the cozy, corrupt oligarchy of the past.

So what is Kristof's beef? Why would he prefer the return of the cronies? Is it because Chávez fostered ties with Cuba? Because he isn't the compliant lapdog of Big Oil? Because he criticizes U.S. policy in Colombia and Afghanistan? Because he's (gasp!) a "leftist?"

I'm having a Clara Peller moment here, Nick. Help me out.

posted by David at 12/13/2002 10:23:00 AM ::

HOME

Links