Category: Politics

Name your favorite tax

Go ahead. I’m waiting for it. Any time now. What? You don’t have one? I’m not surprised. Taxation has gotten a bum rap since ancient times.

Studies have shown that people are into instant gratification. People will choose the lesser reward right away over a delayed, greater reward (up to a certain limit). So is it any wonder that we have little patience for paying taxes? The reward isn’t just delayed, it’s not always directly associated with having paid the tax in the first place. Three words: “taken for granted.”

In Florida, people are particularly impatient with property taxes… and with good reason. Until recently, property values have gone through the roof, and the taxes have gone up with them. Local governments have reduced the rates somewhat, but with the underlying increases in value, the taxes due have still gone up… in some cases by staggering amounts.

So over the last couple of years local governments have become everyone’s favorite tax-collecting whipping boy. Everyone wants to know where all that money has gone. Why do local governments have to spend so much money? Surely the cost to run local governments didn’t go up that fast… did it?

To be honest, I don’t know the answer to that question… but here’s a little food for thought. Jeb Bush was in office for 8 years in Florida, and in that time he cut state tax collections by an estimated 15 billion dollars. By most accounts, many of these cuts came in the way of corporate, business, an intangibles taxes. What do most of these taxes have in common? They tend to be taxes that people of “means” pay… but I digress.

So Jeb and the legislature did a little belt tightening and cut funding for state services, right? In some cases yes… but not all.

From the March 27, 2003 St. Pete Times:

County commissioners from across the state criticized Gov. Jeb Bush Wednesday for pushing billions of dollars in “special interest tax cuts” and blasted the Legislature for shifting the costs of state programs to local property taxpayers.

Remember when those kinds of stories ran during the Bush years? I do. Bush was in office during the eight years between 1999 – 2006, which means all that tax cutting (and some of that spending shifting) occurred during that time when property values were going up and local governments were spending more money. And it’s not like Florida (state government) was flush with cash when Bush came into office. Compared to other states, Florida ranked 49th in per capita state spending in 1998 – the year before Bush took office. (Florida ranked 47th in 2005.)

So relatively speaking, Florida spent a pittance before Jeb came into office, and from there cut state revenue. Considering how much money Florida was spending per capita before Jeb came into office, it’s hard to make the argument that state government was wasting a lot of money. If that’s the case, there’s only one way to cut that much money… reduce services, or have someone else pay for them. And mind you… they did all of this at a time when Florida was growing at a relatively high rate (in terms of number of people), requiring MORE spending on the kinds of non-recuring infrastructure improvements that are needed to sustain that kind of growth (roads/transportation, schools, etc). Who do you suppose had to pick up those costs while the state was cutting revenue?

So now the special session of the legislature is over, and we’re going to cut off the local government’s revenue too. I wonder how that’s going to work out.

As I’ve mentioned before, the real problem is that Florida has one of the most regressive and grossly unjust tax arrangements in the U.S. It was already bad when Jeb came into office, and it only got worse… and somehow he was wildly popular for this.

From the Jan. 12, 2003 St. Pete Times:

The poorest fifth of Florida’s working families now pay 14.4 percent of their income in state and local taxes, more than five times the rate at which the wealthiest pay. You’d have to go to Washington, at the farthest corner of the continental 48, to find a state that taxes more unfairly. The wealthiest Floridians – the 1 percent earning $289,000 or more – pay a scant 2.7 percent. Only five other states, all of them small, tax their wealthiest people any less.

Here’s what I suspect really happened. Jeb and the boys cut taxes on “wealth,” and passed certain costs on to local governments, who were able to pay for them with increases in property values (property taxes being the main source of revenue for local governments in Florida). Now the masses are waking up to the fact that they’re paying a lot MORE in taxes than they used to, and they’re blaming their local governments for wasting money. Meanwhile, all the folks that shifted those state expenditures (paid for by taxes on corporations and wealth) to local governments (paid for with property taxes, which more people have to pay) have all conveniently been term-limited out of office… and aren’t around to be held accountable. It’s a good thing we’ve got our county commissioners handy to kick around.

Oh I so love Florida politics.

I did what?

I spent part of my last afternoon of recovery in solitude looking at ’08 presidential candidate videos over at YouTube. I know, conventional wisdom says it’s really early. But consider this, with the front-loaded and obscenely early primary season, each candidate will probably be effectively nominated by the end of January. O.K., seven months is still a little way off, but it’s not quite as far out as you thought, is it?

Take a look for yourself. Some of the candidates actually put words to some specifics. I’m not going to tell you which ones… you’re going to have to look for yourself if you really want to know.

Part-time cynic

If best intentions hold steady, I’ll be returning to work in some capacity in less than a week’s time. A week is an important psychological boundary for me. When I thought to myself, “I’ve still got a week before I need to go back,” I felt comfortable in knowing that no matter how tired I felt at the moment, I still had a significant amount of time to build up strength.

I think it’s analogous to the $999 price point for computers… or maybe not.

In either case, I’m down to less than a week; so I decided to put myself to a test, of sorts. I decided to see how my body reacted to a little stress… so I decided to read some news… politics in particular. I’ve stayed away from serious news since that bad episode in the hospital (when rigors of news put me into a fatigue induced slumber for several hours).

I’m happy to report that so far all systems are still functioning.

I also feel compelled to share my favorite quote from today’s foray. There’s a column in today’s Washington Post (by Dan Froomkin) discussing the stink over White House staffers using private RNC email accounts to conduct official White House business… a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act. He brings up the White House defense that staffers used the private accounts in an abundance of caution “… in order to avoid violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government e-mail for overtly political purposes.”

Without further ado, here’s my favorite part, in Mr. Froomkin’s words:

A cynic could even argue that Rove and his operatives have so intertwined politics and policy in this White House that it would be understandably difficult for them to determine whether they should be using RNC or White House accounts.

Indeed.

/ 1 Comment

A broken promise to myself

I promised myself that I would not read anything about politics while I was in the hospital.

Yeah, and a hash enthusiast is going to eschew wacky tobaccy during Hempfest.

Pray tell, what story could be so compelling that I would break my solemn vow of political abstinence? It’s another article in the L.A. Times about the Attorney General scandal… but with a little twist.

It’s been well documented that U.S. Attorneys were fired, in some cases for allegedly failing to follow-up on complaints of voter fraud with sufficient zeal. In liberal circles, “prosecuting voter fraud” is GOP speak for voter suppression… but I won’t argue that point now.

What’s compelling to me is that Tom Heffelfinger, a U.S. Attorney from Minesota, was apparently targeted for firing because he was (gasp) working to fight against voter suppression. Specifically, he tried to protect the voting rights of Native Americans.

From the LA Times (5/31/07):

At a time when GOP activists wanted U.S. attorneys to concentrate on pursuing voter fraud cases, Heffelfinger’s office was expressing deep concern about the effect of a state directive that could have the effect of discouraging Indians in Minnesota from casting ballots.

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver’s licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes’ photo IDs.

So why does this matter? So what if there’s a state law in Minnesota regarding I.D. requirements at the polls. Don’t states have the right to set their own voting procedures under our current morass of election laws? And what business does a U.S. attorney have meddling with matters pertaining to state or local laws?

It matters because it involves a group of people in this country who’ve arguably endured greater injustice than any other minority (or former majority)… treatment which in some cases could be considered genocide. It matters because federal law trumps state law; and because U.S. attorneys are supposed to be allowed to investigate violations federal law, or in this case: The Voting Rights Act.

Here’s an excerpt of a description of the act, courtesy of Wikipedia.org:

Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes is equally accessible to minority voters.

I think any reasonable person can see that the Minnesota law might conflict with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

But how do we know Mr. Heffelfinger was targeted for firing over this matter? Again, from the LA Times:

A hint at why Heffelfinger’s name was on termination lists that Justice Department officials and Bush political strategists put together emerged when Monica M. Goodling, the department’s former White House liaison, testified last week before the House Judiciary Committee about the firings.

Goodling said she had heard Heffelfinger criticized for “spending an excessive amount of time” on Native American issues….

About three months after Heffelfinger’s office raised the issue of tribal ID cards and nonreservation Indians in an October 2004 memo, his name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys singled out for possible firing.

Heffelfinger was never fired. He has maintained that he resigned for personal reasons.

Remember the good old days when the worst Washington scandal involved a blow job? Remember when Bush ran on the promise of “restoring dignity and integrity to the White House?” Do you remember when the Gipper asked if you were better off today than you were four years ago? Do you think there’s more dignity and integrity in the White House than there was seven years ago?

/ 2 Comments

It’s not easy being green

No, this is not an homage to Jim Henson’s famous muppet, although little Kermie was my favorite.

I don’t recall how it happened, but my wife got on Al Gore’s email list, and we’ve had the pleasure of some one-way correspondence ever since. I’m sure we didn’t do anything special to get on the list. The only qualification was probably an address… and we’ve got that covered in spades. But the one-way nature of our exchanges ends today friends. Today I sent a reply.

You see, I am a flawed man. I come before you all today… addicted to ebooks. My Palm is my constant companion, my library in a pocket. Everything from reference materials, to policy documents from work, to favorite fiction, to multiple translations of the Bible (which don’t get nearly as much use as I envisioned they would)… it all travels with me, and is available at a moment’s notice. Have you any idea how handy it is to have the books you’re reading with you ALL the time? Quite simply… it’s damn near nirvana.

Of course, if you’re not a big reader… this is completely lost on you.

Anyway, back to Al. This morning I got his email reminding me that his book was released today. Right away I went to my two favorite ebook retailers (eReader and Fictionwise). Herein lies the problem with the electronic book format… not all publishers/authors have embraced the idea. In fact, some of them are down right hostile. (I think the main concern revolves around copy protection – doesn’t it always?) You guessed it. Al’s new book isn’t available as an ebook.

So I sent a message to Al to let him know about my concerns. He’s a tech savvy guy, right? He’s got a seat on the board at Apple, he saw some of the advantages of the internet before most of our leaders did, and duh… no resources used/wasted printing a physical book… I figure the ebook thing is a no brainer.

Alas, I suspect he doesn’t read all of his own mail. And yet I had to try. Sitting at home hooked up to the chemo drip gives one lots of time to compose harassing emails.

Maybe if I’m going to go to the trouble of harassing someone, I ought to pick a public figure I don’t admire first?

Maybe I shouldn’t do any typing at all on chemo and Compazine.

Here’s something I didn’t know: Compazine used to be used as an anti-psychotic. On the Wikipedia they say it’s 10-20 times more potent than Thorazine.

I can tell you from personal experience… that’s pretty awesome (albeit pretty damn tiring). It’s also a big reason why I’m sitting around goofing on the internet (half awake) rather than logging into the office to do work (I know too well how much trouble I could stir up there).

Buenas noches, luna.

/ 1 Comment

Gored

I really must get over myself with these corny titles…

Anyhoo, most of my pre-chemo reading this evening has been on the un-candidacy of Al Gore. It started with a reference to the Time piece, and concluded with a piece from Politico.com.

Here’s a little piece of the Politico.com article:

Other Democrats note that Gore’s message, with its stinging indictment of both American politics and elements of American culture, isn’t crafted to win votes…

Gore is particularly hard on Americans’ television habit.

“The ‘well-informed citizenry’ is in danger of becoming the ‘well-amused audience,'” he writes.

Maybe my blood’s been pooling in my ass from all the sitting around I’ve been doing, but that alleged comment by Gore makes me more likely to vote for him (assuming he decided to run)… not less. It’s not that I have anything in particular against TV. Heck, I just spent a good portion of my day parked in front of the boob-tube myself. To take Gore’s comment to the next logical step: I think it’s a real indictment of our society when more folks can name the contestants on American Idol than, say: our Secretary of State… let alone what the Secretary of State DOES. (I’ll give you a hint: SHE deals with other countries so your President doesn’t have to.)

Earlier today I was lamenting our tendency to elect charisma over substance, and I feel television is partly to blame (like you didn’t already think of that one). The problem is, I don’t know how we can fix it (like I’m alone on that score). How do we even the playing field so the guy with the most money, or the slickest ads doesn’t always win? It’s not like there aren’t other avenues to get to know a candidate. There are the debates, candidate web sites, and the Sunday morning news shows to name but a few. But those things have been around for a while. We need something that will get to those 50-60 percent that don’t vote. We need to engage their mind, rev up their conscience, and get them involved.

I know… maybe American Idol should host the next debates.

Scared sick

The other night we had a family get-together. Over dinner we discussed the good fortunes of a niece/cousin who won $250K from the lottery. “She’s so lucky, I’ll bet her life is a lot easier now…” one person said. Always the Devil’s advocate, I disagreed. “Does she still have to work? Does she still have to take care of the kids every day? Does she still have to clean the house? If she still has all of the same responsibilities, how is her life any easier?” I asked.

“Well, she paid off the house so she doesn’t have to worry about a mortgage payment, and she bought a new car….”

“Yeah, but most people can’t quit their job over a couple hundred thousand dollars. Well, maybe some do… if they use it to start their own business. But most of the self employed folks I know work more, not less. Plus, they have to worry about insurance. That doesn’t sound easier to me.” I replied.

“Well I wouldn’t turn it down” my fellow conversant replied.

“Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t either. I’m just saying that $250K might make my life a little nicer, but I’m not sure it would be any easier. I couldn’t quit my job. I’d still have to get the kids up early in the morning for school. I’d still have to do… (sigh)… laundry.”

The point I was trying to drive home, and failed, was that we too often confuse luxuries as necessities. The average American replaces their car less than every five years. My family has traveled to New England for vacation almost every year. Many (perhaps most) Americans have mobile phone service in addition to home phone service, cable TV, DVD players, and sneakers produced with more R&D than Eddison put into his light-bulb – or the Wright brothers put into their plane (actually I just made that up, but I wouldn’t be surprised). In that $250K buys you a new car, pays off your house, funds a few more vacations, or provides some financial security… there’s no question it’s really (really) nice. But does it make life easier?

All right, I’ll concede that I may have taken my argument too far. Heck, if two-hundred and fifty large dropped in my lap I’d be down right giddy. Plus, there’s something to be said for not having to worry about some things.

—

This morning I picked up the next book in my queue: Sick, by Jonathan Cohn. It’s the story of the health insurance system in the U.S.A. – specifically: how it’s broken, how it got to be that way, and who it has victimized. So far I’ve read the stories of three middle to upper-middle class families who were victims of our current system. One common theme for these stories was a certain amount of fear. They knew they didn’t have healthcare coverage, they wanted it, they couldn’t get it, and they feared the consequences (this was before they got sick and found out what those consequences really were). Perhaps fear is too strong a word, but it was on their minds. They were concerned, if not a little worried. Personally, I’d be worried if I didn’t have health insurance. It’s one of the reasons I’ve alluded to which makes government employ so attractive (to me). I’ve had my share of struggles with my insurance company; some of which has been described here, but by and large healthcare is one less thing I’ve got to worry about.

I thought back to my dinnertime conversation last night. I thought about needs versus wants, and I wondered what life would be like if more people didn’t have to worry about certain needs. What is it like to live in a country where (presumably) no one has to worry about health insurance? What is it like when no one has to worry about trading a week or two of grocery money for a single visit to the doctor? What is it like when people generally don’t have to worry that they’re one hospital stay away from financial ruin?

I wonder if, controlling for all other variables (if that’s possible), people who live in countries with universal coverage are generally happier? How many people in the U.S. stay at jobs they don’t like because of their health insurance? How many people would be doing the work they loved, rather than the work that happened to come with low insurance premiums, under a universal coverage system? How would that effect overall productivity in the economy? How would that effect the quality of goods produced or services provided if they were born of passion rather than necessity? If people were happier, how would this effect outbreaks of violence, or crime rates? With potentially fewer financial worries (re: 40 million Americans with no coverage of any kind), what would happen to divorce rates? Would we all get along a little better? Perhaps I’m being a bit naive, but it seems like this could have a HUGE impact on a society – potentially for the better (much better).

Even if such a system was more expensive (and I’m not convinced it is), and even if some rationing of care occurred, isn’t it possible that these other (possible) positive effects – combined with more (relatively cheap) preventative care would make Americans (as a whole) healthier? To me, this is how we really could make everyone’s lives easier – not to mention better… much better.

Hypocrisy, Irony, or Empathy

I read an interesting article over at Media Matters: Like rain on your wedding day, by Jamison Foser. The point of the article was to discuss the fairness of attacks on John Edwards in recent weeks for being a wealthy man, living a wealthy man’s lifestyle, at the same time he’s advocating for the poor.

Glenn Beck claimed on his May 9 show to be outraged that a rich man would talk about poverty

BECK: … The thing is, John, I actually agree with you. I think there are two Americas. There’s one America for the spoiled, hypocritical, shady, opportunistic fake tan politicians who will do or say anything to get elected while getting a $400 haircut and the America that comprises of the rest of us. I’m just saying.

So, is it hypocritical for a wealthy person to care about poverty? Mr. Foster:

It is no more an example of “hypocrisy” for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is “ironic” to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn’t what the word means.

An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A “compassionate conservative,” for example. That’s hypocrisy.

A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn’t hypocrisy, that’s empathy.

Living the lifestyle of a wealthy person MAY put that person out of touch with the life of the poor; but what’s better… an out of touch wealthy person who advocates for the poor, or an out of touch wealthy person who ignores the problem?

Calling a politician in Washington wealthy is kind of like calling a tire rubber. How many poor politicians are there in Washington? Is there some block of destitute congressmen that I’m not aware of? You go poking through the receipts of politicians in Washington and I’m confident an expensive haircut will be pretty low (comparatively) on the scandal meter.

As a Democrat, I’ll take a rich guy who’ll try to do something for the poor over a Republican rich guy who won’t. It’s really that simple.

So the real question is: has Mr. Edwards backed up his talk with action? With this question in mind I did a little research (and when I say “a little,” I mean a little – I’m not paid for this you know). According to Project Vote Smart, (as a U.S. Senator) John Edwards voted along with the interests of groups advocating for the poor and hungry about 90 percent of the time (judging by a quick look with my Mark-I eyeball). That’s what we laymen refer to as “putting your money where your mouth is.”

What’s more, conservatives often accuse Democrats of engaging in class warfare. But by accusing John Edwards of being “rich,” in such a way as to insinuate this disqualifies him to speak for the poor, aren’t they themselves guilty of perpetuating “class warfare?” THAT sounds like hypocrisy.

Governance

I was having a light conversation with a coworker this afternoon about the ideal form of government for emergent democracies. I’ll bet you have this kind of discussion about as often as I do… not very.

So imagine my surprise when I opened up The New Republic this evening and saw an article about George Tenet. Well alright, I wasn’t surprised at all. He does have a new book out, after all. No, the real surprise is that I read the article at all. I’ve had my fill of George Tenet stories, three or four times over. The point of the article was to discuss the reason he might have sat on the truth about pre-invasion intelligence, leading up to our debacle in Iraq. Here’s an excerpt:

In a parliamentary system, high officials often have an elected seat in the legislature. If they leave the government, they still have a bully pulpit, maintain a public role, and may even try to supplant the leader they once served. In America, the choices are stark: Return to the Podunk from which you came, join a think tank, or find an office on K Street.

No wonder that they linger in their appointed posts, swallow their pride, and behave like good soldiers. Nearly everyone wants to be invited back to play another day.

There’s a tie in to my water cooler conversation at work lurking in there somewhere. I recalled an article (or now that I think about it, it might have been an episode of The West Wing) which suggested the U.S. system of government was not ideal for fragile or new democracies. The suggested problem was the power we placed in our executive branch of government (re: one person). I thought it was pretty timely to bring up that point… and it made for an interesting discussion.

Then WHAM! I get whacked with another point in favor of someone else’s form of government. My conversation and this article didn’t cover the same ground, but they complimented each other, leading me to a few new conclusions.

I don’t mean to sound un-american, our form of government has served us pretty well for 200 plus years. I just think it’s healthy to remember nobody/nothing is perfect, and our current mess is a prime example. It seems the right (or wrong) combination of imperfect person with imperfect system can occasionally produce a perfect storm – especially when a balance of power is upset…

Six odd years ago we essentially gave one man a little too much power, hoping he would save us from the evil that lurked in our world. I think it’s vital that we recognize this as a mistake. We can’t sit on our high horse (which wasn’t that high to begin with folks) and pretend we are immune to the kind of fervor that casts dark shadows in other parts of the world, and in other times.