The Big Fat Idiot Establishment Republicans Like Rush Limbaugh Won't Replace Your Tax Deductions

When deductibility of interest expenses in a wide variety of vehicles was eliminated for income tax purposes in the tax reform act of 1986 under Ronald Reagan, those deductions ended up being replaced by deductibility of interest if incurred through HELOCs (home equity lines of credit) shortly thereafter.

Deductibility of interest expense on consumer loans, car loans and credit cards went the way of the dodo, only to be shifted to HELOCs. It was a fateful decision which made overleveraging of housing as routine as taking out the trash. But that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

In 1987 Congress quickly acted to expand deductibility of HELOC interest expense because the 1986 act cut people off at the knees and they didn't like it one bit. It was a consumer society accustomed to deducting credit card interest, and it didn't like the new rules at all. The 1986 act quickly proved to be a futile attempt to curb consumer spending and encourage savings. The political fallout was so great that the interest expense from HELOC borrowing was dramatically expanded to fill the gap the next year.

I quote from The New York Times, here, February 2, 1988:

BORROWINGS AGAINST EQUITY: In addition, homeowners will be allowed to claim mortgage deductions for up to $100,000 in borrowings against the equity in their house - no matter what the loan is used for. 

A veritable chorus of voices today on the right and left, including Rush Limbaugh who is simply phoning it in these days, is appealing to this period to urge the country to get behind a Republican Super Committee plan to raise revenues by closing loopholes like the mortgage interest deduction for wealthier taxpayers, "just like we did in 1986."

Oh yeah? What's in it for us?

Once the camel gets its nose under this tent in the name of making the rich pay more, you can bet the precedent will be used down the road to deprive the middle class also of the deductibility of interest on a home mortgage.

And you'll get nothing to replace it except an empty promise to lower your overall tax rate, which the next Congress will rescind in a heartbeat. Few of you remember that the top tax bracket from 1988 to 1992 was 28 percent. Bill Clinton and the Democrats made short work of that.

Real conservatism is about using federal tax policy to promote property ownership, ordered existence and family formation. The current crop of establishment Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, is a bunch of phonies. Rush can't even remember 1986:

The Republicans are offering a plan which would take away itemized deductions for anybody making over $174,400 a year. In exchange for that they would lower the top tax rate from the current 35 down to 28%. We've done this before. We did this in 1986. This was part of Reagan tax reform except the top marginal rate then was 50. Wait a minute. No. All itemized deductions for people who make the... Stick with me on this. All itemized deductions for everybody who makes $174,000 or more -- home mortgage interest, charities, all of that, gone in exchange for a lowered rate from 38, 28%. Now, we've done this before.  Back in 1986, top rate was 50, took it down to 28, there was a bubble of 31 percent for few people, and we got rid of some deductions.

There will be no future America without the traditional family.

Too bad Rush Limbaugh has never had one.

Iowa Republicans Fall Big Time For Fake Conservative Newt Gingrich

In a new Rasmussen poll, here.

They don't call them hayseeds for nothing.

Good Lord Jeeves. Surely not Newt!?

I'm afraid so, sir.

ObamaCare's Truly Amazing and Perverse War on Traditional Families

ObamaCare will require employees to accept single affordable coverage when offered, making their dependents ineligible for federally subsidized coverage;

that in turn will encourage divorce or shacking up so that dependents are, voila!, no longer dependents and thus qualify for federally subsidized coverage;

it will create a perverse incentive for such employees to seek employment in smaller companies with fewer than 50 employees which are not required to provide health coverage in order to qualify for federally subsidized coverage;

that will perversely affect employment growth because some businesses will want to stay lean and mean to avoid coming under ObamaCare's umbrella;

it will create a perverse incentive for employer coverage to be unaffordable in order to qualify employees for federally subsidized coverage;

and that in turn will make pay-cuts acceptable to employees whose employers must pay a fine for offering unaffordable coverage.

Read all about it from Diana Furchtgott-Roth, here.

Doh! Central Banks Are Supposed to Lend to Solvent Banks, not Sovereigns, Dummy!

"It is very clear from its origin that lender of last resort by a central bank is intended to be lending to individual banking institutions and to institutions that are clearly regarded as solvent. And it is done against good collateral, and at a penalty rate. That's what lender of last resort means.

"That is a million miles away from the ECB buying sovereign debt of national countries, which is used and seen as a mechanism for financing the current-account deficit of those countries . . .."

-- Mervyn King, Bank of England, quoted here

Even Ron Paul Does The Mussolini

What Fun! Bailouts Crash! Treas. Dept. Says Autos Cost Taxpayers $80 Billion, TARP $57 Billion

So The Detroit News here:

The Treasury Department dramatically boosted its estimate of losses from its $85 billion auto industry bailout by more than $9 billion . . ..

In its monthly report to Congress, the Treasury Department now says it expects to lose $23.6 billion, up from its previous estimate of $14.33 billion.

The Treasury now pegs the cost of the bailout of GM, Chrysler Group LLC and the auto finance companies at $79.6 billion. ...

[For TARP t]he government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the full cost of the housing program, up from $36.7 billion. The new estimate means the government doesn't believe it will make an overall profit on its bailouts.

In other words, the bailouts were a failure, and the taxpayers got stuck with the bill. But you already knew that.

With ObamaCare About to Pass, Elena Kagan Wrote to Harvard Plagiarist Laurence Tribe to Exult !!

She should recuse herself from hearing any case involving ObamaCare.

David Harsanyi weighs in here:

Nor, as we learned this week, is it reassuring to find out that while the House was debating passage of Obamacare, Kagan and well-known legal scholar Laurence Tribe, then in the Justice Department, did a little dialoguing regarding the health care vote, and according to documents obtained by Media Research Center, Kagan wrote: "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Nothing says impartiality like double exclamation points!!

Private Equity Performance Proves Public Markets Are Not Efficient

So says Brett Arends, here:

If you’d invested $100,000 in the Standard and Poor’s 500 index 25 years ago, and stuck it out through all the turmoil that followed, you would have made about $800,000 in profits in return for all your trouble.

Sound good? Try this. If you’d invested in a typical basket of private-equity funds you’d have made $2.1 million. No kidding.

As ObamaCare Goes To The Supremes, Will It Stand Or Fall On Tax Grounds?

The individual mandate which is at the heart of ObamaCare insists that everyone buy health insurance in every state.

Once the mandate was challenged by opponents after passage, however, the Obama regime quickly began defending its penalties as a tax, which it was loathe to do in selling the law to the public for political reasons. While the law contains tax provisions, the penalty associated with not securing coverage is not a tax.

The tax argument raises important constitutional questions of fairness and substance. If the penalties really are taxes, aren't also the premiums, since the penalties take their place? And will everyone in every state pay the same premium tax for coverage? If some pay only the penalty, which is low compared to the premium, doesn't the law enjoin inequity?

Another question is whether anyone can avoid the tax. This in turn touches on the distinction between direct and indirect taxation. If the tax can be avoided, it is an example of indirect taxation which is permissible, but which must still be uniform. If it cannot be avoided, then the tax must be apportioned according to population so that everyone, rich and poor alike, everywhere pays the same tax, which would be easy for the rich, but not for the poor. But presumably under ObamaCare plans will vary from state to state as they do now, with premiums which vary according to coverage, so Americans will be forced to pay, and pay unequally.

Consider the income tax. If you take no ordinary income in the form of salary and wages, you are not liable to pay it. Wealthy individuals regularly take income in the form of capital gains, which is taxed under different rules with lower rates than ordinary income. The same avoidance obtains when taking income from municipal bonds and other tax-free bond investments. In important respects the federal income tax is thus indirect, and therefore does not need to be apportioned according to population.

Similarly with excise taxes. If you choose to drink wine over spirits the tax you pay per bottle will be substantially less for wine. You pay the tax on the wine, but you have avoided the tax on the bourbon. But if you drink neither at all, you avoid the excise taxation altogether. Hence the popularity of stills.

Some of these points get an interesting airing here as they apply to Obamacare:

The legal wrangling over whether a particular tax is direct or indirect, as Willis and Chung discuss, has been complicated and persistent for more than two centuries. In 1794, for example, Congress passed a tax on carriages, which opponents considered a direct tax and thus invalid because it was not apportioned by population. The Supreme Court found it was an indirect tax on the use of carriages, valid so long as it was uniform.

Obamacare imposes an annual penalty of $95 per adult, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, in 2014. The annual penalties are the greater of $325 or two percent of income in 2015 and the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016 and subsequent years.

Willis and Chung argue these are not indirect, but instead direct taxes, unconstitutional because they are not apportioned by population. It could also be argued, though, this provision is a mixed bag. The fixed annual penalty portion, for example, could be viewed as indirect and uniform and thus constitutional, while the income percentage amounts could be deemed direct but not apportioned and thus unconstitutional.

The tax could therefore be unconstitutional for those who pay income percentages but constitutional for those who pay a fixed penalty. This may be a ridiculous and unprecedented view, but it does illustrate the complexity of this issue—leaving us with a tangled legal web indeed.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is expected next June after oral arguments in March 2012.

Fireworks are expected.

Adam Davidson of NPR Wants to Increase Taxes on It, But What Really is The Middle Class?

In The New York Times, here, where he expansively defines the middle class as everyone making between $30K and $200K:

To solve our debt problems, we have to go to where the money is -- the middle class. People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes . . .. [M]ost economists acknowledge, and most politicians privately concede, that the middle class will have to give up some benefits . . . or it will have to pay more in taxes. Actually, it will probably have to do both.

It's a frequently repeated myth that the middle class includes many of the people in the top income quintile, that is, those making in excess of $100,000 per year, but it just isn't true no matter how often it gets repeated.

Richer men and women don't want to be called rich, of course, so they make believe they're just like the rest of us and call themselves middle class when they're anything but.

That this myth is getting repeated so often these days, however, and not just in liberal quarters like The New York Times but also in places like The Wall Street Journal, should make your antennae stand up.

I say this is all part of a softening-up operation to get the rubes ready for a big fat tax increase.

That uncomfortable feeling you get reading the article above might as well be because the author is using one of these to blow smoke up your rear end:

In all seriousness, though, the fact of the matter is that in 2010 there were 99.5 million wage earners making less than $40,000 a year, according to the latest information from Social Security, here. That's fully two thirds of all the wage earners in the country, and a long way from the earners in the top quintile.

The next tranche up from there, namely wage earners making between $40,000 and less than $80,000 a year, is really small by comparison, just under 35 million wage earners.

And fewer than 10 million wage earners inhabited the next level up in 2010, those who made between $80,000 and $120,000.

The $120,000 to $160,000 set is hardly a crowd by comparison, just over 3 million wage earners strong.

Between $160,000 and $200,000 there were 1.25 million people.

And beyond that: 1.75 million wage earners, making to infinity and beyond.

Asserting that middle class extends all the way up to $200,000 when nearly 90 percent make less than $80,000 a year is quite simply ridiculous. It's obvious that the middle is below $40,000 when the average wage of all 150 million workers in 2010 was $39,959. Worker number 75 million from the bottom made just $26,363.

A more meaningful metric for middle class is what kind of housing income can buy at that great dividing line of $40,000.

For example, when I bought my first real traditional home way back in the nineties, the seller's attorney congratulated us at closing by saying, "Welcome to the middle class." I might have said we'd never left it, seeing that we had been owners of other kinds of dwellings twice before, but the attitude represented the cultural consensus that single family home ownership with a lawn to cut defines the socio-economic middle. Being able to afford such a place has been synonymous with achieving the American dream since WWII, after a long period of economic upheaval which quite literally unsettled millions.

So who can afford what when it comes to housing today is an important measure for judging whether the American dream continues intact.

Consider that the median price of an existing single family home in the US stands at $165,400 in September 2011, according to the National Association of Realtors, here. The lowest median price is in the Midwest at $137,400, and the highest is in the Northeast at $229,400.

Assuming one can come up with the 20 percent down payment of $33,080, which is a tall order for someone making $40,000 a year in today's economy, $132,320 financed at 4 percent over 30 years means a principal and interest payment of $631 a month. Add $300 a month for taxes and insurance and the $931 monthly payment means, at a maximum percentage of income of 28 percent, income must be $3,325 a month, or $39,900 a year.

Another way to put this is that the maximum price of a home which can be afforded by a $40,000 income is the current median price of $165,400. Anything beyond that is out of reach.

So, for how many people is that out of reach?

Based on the numbers from Social Security above, for easily 66 percent of the workforce, or nearly 100 million workers who individually couldn't buy more home than the median priced home without more income. But of course many households have two earners who combine their incomes to do just that.

Nevertheless tax data from 2009 more than support the conclusion that a clear majority of Americans cannot afford housing at the median price level.

The latest information indicates that half of the country, nearly 69 million tax returns in 2009, had adjusted gross incomes of less than $32,396.

The next tranche up from there, consisting of 34.5 million more tax returns, takes us up to 75 percent of the whole country, and adjusted gross income of less than $66,193.

(And contrary to Mr. Davidson, the combined adjusted gross income of the first 75 percent of taxpayers is only $2.7 trillion. Of the first 50 percent, barely $1.1 trillion. The money is most definitely not in the middle. It's in the top 25 percent, with $5.2 trillion in AGI last year).

In other words, somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the country would have to settle for housing which falls well below today's median price level if they had to buy today, despite the 16 percent decline in the median price from $198,100 reached in 2008.

Many who already own a home under these circumstances are desperately trying to keep theirs because they know their chances of being able to buy another one are not very good. Incomes are flat to declining and unemployment and underemployment are widespread. With home prices depressed, many who purchased during the bubble from 1998 to 2007 wouldn't walk away with enough from a sale for a down payment on another home. Some estimates put that number of underwater mortgage holders at 25 million, fully half of Americans with mortgages.

They dare not sell, because to do so is to leave the middle class.

Indeed, according to the Census Bureau here home ownership rates have fallen almost 4 percent from peak, back to 1998 levels.

And the liberals' solution to this middle class implosion is to raise their taxes.

It's not just crazy. It's mean, because increasing taxes on the real middle class will turn it into the working class, which, I gather, is the whole point of socialism.

Sharon Bialek Lived In Same Building As David Axelrod And Knew Him

An important article connects all the dots showing that the Herman Cain smear campaign bears all the marks characteristic of Obama's favorite m/o against political opponents and just happens to be centered in Chicago:

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in [David] Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Don't miss one word of it here.

What I See When I See Newt Gingrich

Don't Forget: To Newt Gingrich Paul Ryan's Budget Was Radical Change From The Right

When it was nothing of the sort:

"I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Gingrich made the remark last May, seen here, clearly attempting to mark himself out as the moderate voice of sweet reason between the extremes of the Obama regime and the House Republicans.

If he's treating his own party that way now, imagine a little presidential power behind that attitude.

Republicans would be nuts to go for Newt.

Democrat Dominated Coasts Are Most Debt-Ridden, Republican Heartland Least

So says Meredith Whitney, here:

Said Whitney: "You haven't seen anything yet in terms of selling (state and municipal) assets."

Alabama Municipal Bankruptcy to Surpass That of Orange County California

As reported here:

[C]osts ballooned as interest rates rose and since 2008, Alabama's most-populous county has teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. With more than $5 billion in total indebtedness, a Chapter 9 filing would surpass that filed in 1994 by Orange County, California.


At $3.7 trillion, the US municipal bond market is about 10.5 percent of the entire US bond market. The Alabama failure is barely over one tenth of one percent of the whole municipal market.

CNBC Won't Stream Tonight's Republican Debate Online

The Easiest Mortgage Loan Bailout Program Would Let Taxpayers Do It Themselves

According to the Federal Reserve's latest Statistical Release in September, here, the current value of all residential mortgages outstanding is $9.935 trillion.

That's down 5.8 percent from the 2007 peak of $10.542 trillion.

It is estimated that half of all residential mortgages are effectively underwater, meaning homeowners, if they could sell under current conditions, would not make enough from the sale to have 10 percent down for the purchase of a new home. This situation traps people in their homes, keeping them from moving to  take employment or retirement elsewhere.

The easiest solution to this problem is to allow holders of 401K, IRA and similar retirement accounts to withdraw funds without penalty, and perhaps even without taxation, if expressly used for the purchase of a new home, or for retirement of an outstanding mortgage or home equity loan. If not a complete tax forgiveness, government could settle for a flat tax at a low rate on such withdrawals in order to stimulate activity and help solve problems associated with indebtedness.

Holders of IRAs already know only too well that there are few exceptions to withdrawals without penalty. Perhaps the most useful of these few exceptions at present has been withdrawals permitted in certain circumstances for health insurance premium expenditures. Some people who have lost their jobs and their insurance have found this provision particularly helpful during this most severe period of unemployment since the 1930s. It has enabled them to purchase their own health insurance for themselves and their families with the funds.

The provisions permitting such withdrawals should be expanded to permit use of these funds to buy homes elsewhere, or pay off existing mortgages, which would do more than anything government has tried to do to date to stimulate velocity in the housing market.

People have saved plenty of dough to do it, too: $18 trillion.

Here's recent testimony about this from the Investment Company Institute:

Americans currently have more than $18 trillion saved for retirement, with more than half of that amount in defined contribution (DC) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). About half of DC plan and IRA assets are invested in mutual funds, which makes the mutual fund community especially attuned to the needs of retirement savers.

Of course, not all of this money may presently be in the direct control of the individual taxpayers themselves to do with what they please, but a significant portion in IRAs and defined contribution plans, over $9 trillion, might very well be, according to ICI's latest data:

The risk to the retirements of people going forward if they are allowed to liquidate some of these monies is very real, but so is the prospect of a stagnant market of underwater mortgages devolving into bankruptcy, or even precipitating severe economic depression.

People should at least be given the choice under the current circumstances, perhaps with a sunset provision expiring in five years in order to spread out the effect.

A tip of the hat to John Crudele of The New York Post, who continues to argue for this solution in his columns.

Fortune Editor Geoff Colvin Thinks Flat Tax is Good Idea Which Need Not Be Partisan

As reported here:

[D]on't call it a flat tax. Call it a top-to-bottom overhaul that will put people to work, close loopholes that serve only certain corporations and the rich, make America more competitive globally, and improve life for people who work hard and save money. A flat tax, done right, can achieve all those benefits and more. Nor is it just theory. Several Eastern European countries have successfully used flat-tax systems for years.

Emphasize that it's a big change, bigger than most people first realize. Asking whether your taxes would go up or down under a flat tax is too small a question. Such a system would change your income, your taxes, interest rates, the value of assets, and prices of things you buy. All those changes combined would determine whether you'd be better or worse off. If it's done right, most people would be better off.

A flat tax can be a good idea. Let's hope it can escape the campaign war zone and get the serious attention it deserves.

New Losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Boost Bailout Total by Taxpayers to $169 Billion

With no end in sight.

Story here at Reuters.

Kathleen Willey Says She Believes Herman Cain's Denials

Just now on WLS AM 890 with Don Wade and Roma.

See some of her controversial history, here.

Tony Blankley Just Had A Bloody Mary on the Acela

He was on live with Don Wade and Roma on WLS 890 AM this morning, a Wednesday, at about 0915. A lousy Wednesday.

Out here in fly over country we at least wait until 1700 hours. 

Cain's Accuser Bialek Was Accused by Father of Her Son of Mental Problems

As reported here:

The father of Bialek’s now-13-year-old son sued in an ugly paternity fight to win sole custody of the child, accusing her of “significant mental and emotional problems,” court papers from 2000 show.

Cain Accuser Kraushaar Can't Remember Complaint Filed at Subsequent Job

As reported here:

Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship.

Underwater Mortgages: Effectively Half of All, or 25.5 Million, Says Mark Hanson

Because it's not just a matter of selling for a price which pays off the current note. It's a matter of also paying the realtor 6 percent and having enough left over for 10 percent down on the next purchase.

Half of all mortgage holders are in the situation where they would not have enough left over for 10 percent down on the next home. This is the key problem according to Mark Hanson:

"Because repeat buyers have always carried the market as the foundation, this is why demand has not come back. It's as if half the potential buyers in America died over a two-year period of time."

Read the full story about negative equity from Diana Olick here.

Technically 14.6 million are in negative equity on the note alone, but that's only 28.6 percent of homes with mortgages. 50 percent is more like 25.5 million homes with mortgages which cannot be sold without bringing money to the table for the next purchase. People are quite literally stuck.

To paraphrase Jonathan Swift:


Mortgages, the lifeblood of the nation,
Corrupt and stagnate in the veins,
Unless a proper circulation
Their motion and their heat maintain.

Bill Bennett Should Just Shut Up About Herman Cain

What does he want Herman Cain to do? Some kind of magic dance to make the accusations stop? 

"Four women are not an insignificant number. One or two anonymous charges, perhaps. Three anonymous charges (where, as I understand the story, Cain knows of at least two of the women) plus one woman who went very public and opened herself up to all manner of investigation are a lot. It is no longer insignificant. Neither is it insignificant that the Cain campaign discounted the charges in the initial stories, saying they were based on anonymous sources, only to make a mockery by blaming other campaigns with less substantiation than the original stories."

It's all here, but I look in vain for a defense of the rules of evidence, fair play and the like, all of which one would expect one's allies to marshall at a time like this in defense of one of their own.

But Bill Bennett is not a reliable ally.

Democrats on the one hand know Herman is the real threat to Obama, not Romney. Moderate Republicans, on the other, know Herman is the real threat to Romney.

Their joint mission is to destroy the source of Herman's success, which is his likeability. Relentless below the belt stuff will be tried until something sticks. Herman isn't even that important. It's the Tea Party he represents. Dispirit that and you automatically depress the turnout. Meanwhile Democrats can count on the individualist vein in Republicanism to cause Republicans to hang Herman out to dry as a matter of principle, the last refuge of the scoundrel.

"A man big enough to run for president should be big enough to have a full and candid press conference on all of this."

One important difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when a Democrat gets attacked, Democrats circle the wagons around their wounded, but when a Republican takes a hit, Republicans either run and hide like sissies, or join in the attack.

The electorate respects party unity, not because it's often right but because it's logical and predictable. Republicans aren't unified and haven't been since Reagan, which is why no one trusts them. They're insane, and occasionally fly off the handle and hurt somebody in the process.

And right now it's Herman Cain Republicans want to hurt.

Red State's Erick Erickson Says Romney Will Be The Republican Nominee

Because Perry blew it on immigration and Newt and Cain blew it with women.

There are many money lines in the post, here.

Oh, and Romney will lose to Obama, and conservatism dies.

And that means now we should rethink . . . John Huntsman (!).

Doesn't that mean conservatism is already dead?

The real conservative in the race is Cain, who likes $400 wine and a national sales tax. Therefore the argument is social, that is, with the women, who gave us their opposites: Prohibition and The Income Tax. Real conservatives like Phyliss Schlafly support Cain's ideas to unleash American business.

What we need is more women like Phyliss Schlafly, and fewer like Ann Coulter.  

Gloria Allred, Representing Cain Accuser, Made Light of Sexual Touching by TSA

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: "Did they touch your body parts?"

GLORIA ALLRED: "Yeah, they did and it was a first time anybody touched them in a long time and frankly, I liked it."

Video here from November 2010.

I Got Your Sexual Harassment Right Here, Pal

According to The Chicago Sun Times, here, Herman Cain's latest accuser was awfully chummy with the so-called scoundrel only a month ago:

"[Cain and Bialek had an] encounter a month ago while backstage at the AM 560 WIND sponsored TeaCon meeting in Schaumburg Sept. 30-Oct. 1 at the Renaissance Hotel and Convention Center."

The very attractive one time reporter for NBC's WMAQ in Chicago, Amy Jacobson, is the source for the story. She is now on AM Radio Station WIND in Chicago.

Peter Morici Says Herman Cain's 999 Plan 'Makes Great Economic Sense'

Here, but doesn't explain why in the same breath he criticizes Cain for being short on explanations (!):

Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax proposal makes great economic sense but when pressed, he cannot explain why it does or how it would work. For example, when asked about how the nine percent sales tax would treat imports, he doesn’t know—this despite the fact that European countries have extensive experience with this issue, economist and lawyers have studied those issues ad nauseum, and the treaties the United States and EU have signed permit applying sales taxes to imports and refunding the same on exports to maintain neutrality in competition between foreign and domestic products.

I think Herman is being coy about treatment of imports because he intends to apply tariffs wherever necessary to level the playing field to make American exports more competitive.

Herman can't be entirely candid about that sort of thing at this stage because Republicans have been hooked on free trade since at least the 1960s. In the general campaign against Obama, however, Cain could conceivably make a bid for the Democrat union vote with such a tariff threat as part of an overall strategy to form a broader coalition not unlike Reagan put together in the 1980s.

Chinese Communist Calls Europe a 'Worn Out Welfare Society'

China's slave labor camps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, well yours is a worn out slave labor society.

Jin Liqun, quoted here:

"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack. ... [A] welfare society should not induce people not to work hard."

Sarkozy and Obama Caught Dissing Bibi Netanyahu on Open Microphone

"I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

Story here.

Barry Ritholtz Can't Take It That Fellow Liberal Bloomberg Blames Congress For '08 Meltdown

In The Washington Post, here.

In the end, I think this is because of two things. One, a bias toward liberalism, the finger prints of which are all over the current crisis, so Barry can't stand it when one of his own departs from his version of the accepted narrative and puts the blame on liberalism's institutional face. And two, a widespread intellectual failure affecting liberals, conservatives and independents alike, which conflates the free market and the banking sector:

The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative.

The banks are beholden to a fiat currency mediated by a fiat central bank fed by a government printing press. They are by no means a private sector player, and haven't been since 1913. Banking isn't a free market, it does require adult supervision, and the taxpayers should be outraged by the on-going failure of it every goddamn Friday night. Congress willingly acceded to this failure in the 1990's under Clinton and the Republicans when they gave banks free reign over money creation. The Federal Reserve became beside the point. It only took a decade to implode.

To paraphrase Russell Kirk: Free markets aren't a failure, they just haven't been tried recently.

Off the Hook

Remove the taxpayer guarantee and put bankers personally on the hook, and that will change things for the better in a hurry. 

Seal Target Geronimo Insists bin Laden Was Not Murdered, Obama Blew Intel For Political Gain

Read all about it, here.

Famous Serial Monogamists of Conservatism

(source)

The Anti Heritage Foundation Line of the Day

"Heritage’s economic policies are reasonably free-market, at least when Democrats are in power."

-- Ryan Young, here 

The Broadest Tax Base Which Can Possibly Be Imagined Implies a Tax Rate of 6.2%

Herman Cain's 999 Plan is focusing attention on the perennially perplexing problem of taxation for the American electorate in 2012. His plan has brought questions about broadening the tax base for tax reform front and center, including: What tax base is large enough to generate adequate federal revenues? and: What rate of taxation is fair?

Herman's big idea is to scrap the entire tax code and start over with three new bases taxed at the same low rate for a temporary period of time, eventually transitioning the country permanently to just one of these bases, taxed at a much higher single rate.

His scheme is quite conventional in that it looks to the existing traditional bases of taxation with which we have been familiar for decades: corporations and individuals.

What is new, however, is the national sales tax, the base for which was fairly sizable in 2008 at $10.1 trillion in personal consumption expenditures [PCE], and running at almost $10.8 trillion annualized through August 2011.

Currently the overwhelming burden of taxation falls on the individual filer whose personal income is taxed in order to provide Social Insurance and Federal revenues, which in 2011 are currently running at an annualized rate of $2.3 trillion, as shown here by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Corporations, excises and tariffs provide puny sums by comparison: less than $500 billion in 2008.

This means that in 2011, Herman Cain's ultimate idea of taxing consumption to replace current revenues of approximately $3 trillion would imply a national sales tax rate of 28 percent on $10.8 trillion in goods and services expenditures this year. That's a pretty hefty rate by comparison with present conditions.

Currently the personal income base on which we exact that $2.3 trillion in Social Insurance and Federal taxes is just over $13 trillion. This implies an overall tax rate of 18 percent. If personal income in that aggregate amount had to do all the pulling to generate the full $3 trillion in revenues, personal income would have to be taxed at a rate of 23 percent to do the same thing as the consumption tax. Not as high, but still much higher than the 9 percent Herman Cain has called for currently, if only temporarily, in deference to the God of the Bible who asked for just 10 percent from his chosen people.

By way of comparison, if there were some way to easily tax GDP, currently running at $15 trillion, the effective tax rate would have to be 20 percent.

So is there a tax base which is broader still, from which we can derive the necessary sums and get that rate even lower?

Given that people by definition receive income in consequence of the conduct of business of one kind or another (aside from gambling, prostitution and bank robbery), it seems reasonable to look at the size of the various tax bases available strictly from businesses, without whom none of the other tax bases would exist in the first place. If we really mean it when we say we want to tax income only once, we need to go to its source, and for nearly everyone in our society, that source is business.

Corporations in 2008 had total receipts of $28.5 trillion, 2.8 times the size of Herman Cain's PCE tax base. It would have taken a gross receipts tax of merely 10.5 percent on this sum to have generated $3 trillion in tax revenue in tax year 2008, a year when revenues were actually lower at $2.5 trillion. That implies a gross receipts tax of only 8.8 percent on corporations in 2008.

In such a world, there would be no more income taxes on individuals, no Social Security or Medicare taxes either, and no capital gains taxes nor taxes on investment income or savings of any kind, and government would not go wanting. Nor would business be constrained by other taxes and fees imposed on it if we were to throw out the current code and replace it with this simple levy.

But the base could be made broader still in order to lower the effective rate even more.

Add in partnerships, which had $5.9 trillion in total receipts in 2008. And S corporations, which had $6.1 trillion in total receipts in 2008. Both of these added to corporation total receipts yields a gargantuan tax base for 2008 of $40.5 trillion in gross receipts.

All of that could have been taxed at a mere 6.2 percent to meet the federal revenue of $2.5 trillion collected in 2008.

No more talk of a flat income tax, nor of a progressive income tax, nor of a consumption tax. No more compliance costs of $450 billion because of the current code. No more lost time equivalent to 3 million full time jobs.  Just one, low, simple, rate on business. That's it.

In addition to God, John Tamny might go for it, too:

"The answer as always is for the government to simply get out of the way. If it must tax corporations, its taxation should be blind in the way that justice is. A flat gross receipts tax would make all corporations equal before the IRS. That would ensure the most economic allocation of capital on the way to rational, market-driven growth."

Herman Cain's Consumption Tax Is Firmly Rooted In The Framers' Original Intent

Lawrence Hunter for Forbes provides an excellent primer on the Framers' argument for indirect taxation, which is to say taxation on consumption, showing how such taxation was chosen by them on purpose because it is by nature self-limiting, which is a necessary predicate to limited national government:

Hamilton’s exposition in Federalist #22 illustrates the sophistication of the theory of political economy that informed the original constitutional design, which gave rise to a constitutional pincer holding the national government firmly in check.  History has borne out the Framers’ expectations that taxes on consumption are to a large degree self-limiting, while direct taxes know far fewer limits.  In the case of the original Federal design, the self-limiting tendency of indirect taxes on consumption augmented the other arm of the constitutional pincer—limiting the national government solely to the exercise of delegated powers—to make unnecessary other specific constitutional limitations on the national government’s taxing and spending authority, i.e., explicit taxing, spending and borrowing limitations.

The whole thing, here, is must reading.

31 Percent of Occupy Wall Street Protesters Support Violence to Advance Agenda

Doug Schoen has the results of his survey, here, concluding that Occupy Wall Street is:

a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal.

Establishing a Motive for the Norway Shooter's Crimes

The motive appears to be a political response to left-wing anti-Semitism, if the details of the alleged shooter's biography reported widely are accurate.

The bombing in the land of Quisling looks like an elaborate diversion designed to provide cover for the real operation, which was to murder as many members as possible of the youth arm of the left-wing, anti-Israel Norwegian Labor Party, being groomed at their summer camp for future service:

The Workers' Youth League (Bokmål: Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking, Nynorsk: Arbeidaranes Ungdomsfylking, or AUF) is the youth organization affiliated with the Norwegian Labour Party.

AUF was formed in April 1927, following the merger of Left Communist Youth League and Socialist Youth League of Norway. It's [sic] ideology is social democracy and democratic socialism. The current leader is Eskil Pedersen. Many former leading figures in AUF have gone on to serve in significant positions in government, such as the incumbent Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg.

A survivor of the shooting explains what all those kids were doing on that island where the murders occurred:

What can I say? The last normal thought in my head was about the AUF´s organization of students. I had just been to a political workshop (that´s what we do at Utøya) – and was on my way up tp [sic] the AUF-shop where I was going to take a shift. ...

Blowing up important buildings in Oslo and killing the future politicians of the Arbeider-party (ed. AP) who are attending summercamp at Utøya. What wrong have we done?

Those who resort to violence have run out of arguments. How could he do this to my AUF-friends? It seems so surrealistic. I don´t understand. I can´t comprehend.

She doesn't understand because she has been taught not to. This formal, political indoctrination of the young is designed to pave the way for the strident, anti-Semitic views of the Norwegian Labor Party, as detailed here, here, here, here and here. Which goes far to explain what could possibly motivate an extremist fanatic of the opposite persuasion, equally misguided, in this case a loner with delusions of grandeur.

[A] young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.

-- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.3, here

Progressive Taxation: What Would Jesus Take?

The short answer is: all of it.

The long answer is more complicated.

Rush Limbaugh was a little ticked off a while back because liberals were asserting that Jesus would raise taxes, especially on the rich, which is, of course, a complete caricature of Jesus' teaching. Jesus wouldn't just raise taxes. He'd have made them completely irrelevant. For everyone.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus advocated complete liquidation of one's assets as a condition of discipleship. And after one did so liquidate, one would have no job to tax, either, because one would have to leave one's job to follow him.

Read the famous story about the rich man in Mark 10, paralleled in Matthew 19 and Luke 18, whom Jesus instructed to "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." Liberals like to stop right there, with the obligations this story places on the rich.

Few like to reckon, neither liberals nor Christians it must be said, with Luke 14:33: "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple."

Or with the calling of The Twelve Disciples, who left all and followed Jesus at his command, wandering around Galilee and Judea for something between one and three years until Jesus met his coup de grace, leaving their families unsupported for the time and becoming deadbeat dads in the process. A fine lot, they.

The truth is Jesus had only these 12 takers, and all of them proved to be something of a disappointment in the end, to say the least. Everyone else he called to discipleship found it a bit of a stretch, and followed at a distance, as it were, especially if a miracle feeding looked to be in the offing. The analogy would be to the Jewish proselytes to whom Paul preached his gospel, which they found rather more attractive than that whole circumcision thing required to become Jews.

Jesus' radicalism makes a certain kind of sense if the end of the world and The Final Judgment is just around the corner, which, of course, would make practical concerns beside the point. "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." "Some of you standing here will not taste death before you see the kingdom of God come with power."

This is the sort of stuff from which progressive liberalism, inspired by 19th Century liberal Christianity, tried to salvage something, denuded as it was of its supernaturalism and its apocalypticism. Inappropriately inserting their interpretation of a timeless Christian religion into American life, the progressives advocated a moral sensibility based on an unhistorical reading of the history of the religion, pretending all the while that only fundamentalists sought to impose a theocracy on America. In view of the high rates of taxation they came to advocate starting from 1913 (see here), one would almost gladly settle for the fundamentalists' theocracy with its tithe. What rich man in America wouldn't kill for a 10 percent tax rate?

Progressive taxation is a Christian heresy, arbitrarily ratcheting up the cost of discipleship citizenship the richer one gets, but never quite taking all the money, and never really justifying the varying costs in any given year, nor from year to year. Why is the price of entry at a lower rate for a relatively poorer rich man than for a richer rich man? Oh, progressivism tries to pretty this up with sayings of Jesus such as "To whom much is given, much is required" and the like, but at the expense of the full record which shows that Jesus demanded the same from everyone: a complete turning of one's back on one's former existence, no matter how great or how small by human standards of measurement. The Christian conception for this turning was summarized in a single word: "repentance." By contrast the paying of taxes in America is merely with reluctance.

In addition to this heresy, progressivism offers a related one which asserts that a better, improved future is just around the corner for all, if only the rich pay their fair share. This promise of an immanentized eschaton is a bastardized version of Jesus' belief in the coming sudden end of the world and of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. But the reality is, like the prediction of the end of the world before it, the progressives' expected bright future never arrives, no matter how much money they throw at it.

The message of Jesus was much more stern and demanding than you will find in any church in America, or in the tax-writing committees of the Democratic caucus for that matter. Jesus' message was both much more pessimistic and much more undemocratic than most Americans would care to hear, which is why you don't hear it. It assumes that though many may be called, few end up being chosen. "Narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it." (Note to Rev. Rob Bell).

To a significant degree, that pessimism about human nature naturally animated the American founding generation, which ever sought to restrain human evil by recourse to divided government and divided powers within it. They were as familiar with the weaknesses of human nature through their reading of ancient history, literature and philosophy as they were through their reading of the Gospels and St. Paul.

They knew better than most men before them or since that you can't make men good simply by passing laws.

Paul in particular had written that sin was not counted where there was no law, but that when the law came, sin revived, and he died. The analogy from the tax world is similar: If you want to witness tax evasion, multiply the taxes. So funding the new government was going to be at best a tricky business. Which is one reason I think the founders decided to export the sorry business of taxation the way they did, imposing tariffs on foreign trade to generate government revenues, instead of taxing the population directly. They knew it was better to raise the ire of the alien who could be kept at bay than the ire of the countryman who could not.

It's a lesson we need to relearn, and fast.  

Annual Cost to the Taxpayers of Earned Income and Child Tax Credits is $109 Billion

So admits the liberal Tax Policy Center, here:

Each year the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC) deliver more than $109 billion of cash assistance, mostly to families with children.

There's corporate welfare, and then there's . . . well . . . welfare!

By contrast, the mortgage interest deduction costs the Feds about $88 billion in lost tax revenue annually.

And the rich don't pay Social Security taxes on any compensation beyond $107,000 in wages and salary each year. I estimate that loss to the Treasury at about $100 billion annually.

So, Solomon, which is worse?

Phyliss Schlafly Likes Herman Cain's Corporate Tax Reforms

As reported here:

We should reduce or eliminate taxes on businesses that employ Americans producing goods and services inside our own country, while increasing taxes on the profits that corporations earn by outsourcing or manufacturing overseas.

Above all, we should eliminate the foreign tax credit, a self-destructive provision that allows corporations to pay China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia the money they would otherwise owe the U.S. government. Let's also cut out the deductions that U.S. corporations take for hiring foreigners to do work that Americans can do. ... 

Of Republican presidential candidates, only Herman Cain and Rick Santorum understand that what corporations need is lower taxes on their operations inside the United States rather than on the profits they earn in other countries.

The Economic and Social Value of the Joint Income Tax Return Produced the Baby Boom

So says Phyliss Schlafly, who thinks Texas Gov. Rick Perry's flat tax plan flattens the traditional family and rewards kinky couples, here:

The joint income tax return for husbands and wives was landmark legislation. The Republican Congress passed it in 1948 over President Truman's veto.

As originally designed, the joint return recognized a husband and wife as two equal partners, even if the husband earned all the family's income. Each tax bracket, deduction and exemption was equal to twice that of a single person.

Subsequent tax reform bills, especially the one signed by Richard Nixon in 1969, which also introduced the hated Alternative Minimum Tax, reduced the value of a joint return to only about 1.6 persons, while increasing the tax benefit of an unmarried "head of household" to about 1.4 persons. Simple arithmetic shows that a single parent with an unmarried live-in "partner" gets more favorable tax treatment than respectable married couples struggling to support their own children.

And by the way, the postwar "baby boom" happened during the 20-year period when married couples were fairly valued in the federal income tax. That's not coincidence; incentives matter, and America's marriage rate and birth rate plummeted after the value of the joint return was reduced.

Direct Taxes Are Limited To Taxes on Land and Improvements, and to Capitations

According to the opinion of Chief Justice Salmon Chase in Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 1869:

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was the constitutional validity of an act of Congress in 1866 imposing a 10 percent tax on the issuance of circulating bank notes by nationally chartered banks or by state chartered banks. ...

Chief Justice Salmon Chase delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court held the tax to be constitutional. ...

Chief Justice Chase turned to the historical record.

He pointed out that Congress had enacted taxes that were acknowledged to be direct. Those taxes were enacted in 1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, and 1861. In each instance the sums collected were apportioned among the states. The subjects of those taxes were, variously, lands, improvements, dwelling-houses, and slaves. Chief Justice Chase pointed out that Congress never considered taxes on personal property, contracts, or occupations to be direct taxes. He observed that slaves were not an exception because, even though many of the slave states had considered slaves to be real property, slaves were, of course, persons and subject to a capitation, which was direct.

Therefore, Chief Justice Chase concluded, Congress understood direct taxes to be limited to taxes on land and improvements, and capitations.

-- Alan O. Dixler, 2006 (here)

Kalle Lasn Thinks Anti-Semitic Viewpoints Deserve Free Speech Protections

Kalle Lasn said the following, quoted here, in response to a controversial photo spread in Adbusters Magazine pulled from Canadian magazine shelves last year:

"If you think that publishing side-by-side images of the Gaza and Warsaw ghettos is a valid expression of free speech, email the Canadian Jewish Congress and tell them to back off," Lasn wrote. "In Canada, we should be free to choose from a diversity of viewpoints and decide for ourselves what is anti-Semitic and what is a legitimate critique of Israel's occupation of Palestine."

The trouble with Kalle Lasn is that one gets the impression from him that Jews shouldn't occupy anything, including their own homeland.