Archive for April 6, 2009

I Just Can’t Let It Go: The Lameness That Is Republican Tax Plans

Barry Goldwater-esque republicanism requires very low taxes and very small government. Taxes should be collected to provide for national defense and things like roads and that’s about it. Government should stay the hell outta people’s personal business and, especially, outta people’s bedrooms.

As a liberal, I have a great deal of respect for Goldwater. I remember 60 Minutes interviews of him when I was a kid. His philosophy had clarity, a principled approach the senator was unafraid to back up with action. He definitely was a hawk, a real Commie hater, but his militaristic proclivities did not contradict his overall economic platform.

The Reagan Revolution killed Goldwater’s brand of conservatism, what I consider to be the true Republican essence. A Goldwater viewpoint became synonymous with fringe libertarianism as the Republican Party, post-1980, embarked on a crusade to moralize and on a fast-track trip down the rabbit hole of enormous deficit spending.

Unfortunately, the Republican economic platform is not principled. It is frought with contradictions and a pathetic failure to acknowledge facts, both of which make it damn-near impossible to come to the table for substantive debate on, for instance, issues like spending and taxation.

Take the populist rage consuming Glenn Beck fans and House Republicans (when they are on camera) … Apparently Republicans are making a half-assed attempt at resurrecting Goldwater’s brand of conservatism. They’re failing.

Last week’s House Republican Budget Alternative proposed a quasi-flat-tax plan where married taxpayers filing jointly and earning $100K or less would be taxed at a rate of 10%; 25% for married filers earning more than $100K. The plan promises a $25K standard deductions for joint filers and a $3,500 personal exemption. Assuming absolutely, positively no other deductions (which is the intent of a flat-tax plan), although even elementary-school students know the sacred cow deduction of mortgage-interest will likely never go away, a family of four can earn $139K and still qualify for the 10% tax rate.

Republicans also vow to “allow any individual or family satisfied with their current tax structure to continue to pay those rates.”

I thought, well, who the heck would be “satisfied with their current tax structure?” Plenty of people, actually. Way back in late October, I wrote a post on effective tax rates. Turns out, using 2007 progressive tax schedules, married taxpayers filing jointly do not reach a 25% tax rate until their taxable income hits $260,000. As income and wealth increase, so, too, do deductions; it’s an amazing phenomenon. Under the Republican plan, any family whose deductions can bring their taxable income below $260,000 will want to stick with the progressive tax schedule, even when Obama’s evil tax increases go into effect because guess what the effective tax rate is on taxable income of $260,000 under Obama’s terrible return to the dark days of 1990s’ tax schedules … 25.1%. Democrats are so mean!

Of course, there comes a point when even high-income households max out their deductions. It might be tricky, for instance, to take a $900K gross income down to $260K in taxable monies. For these poor souls, the 25% flat-tax rate awaits, at least until they can find a wilier accountant.

With a crap tax plan on one hand, the Republican Party presents no plan to shrink government on the other, except, presumably, by allowing programs and departments to die by attrition. (Their budget alternative proposes freezing non-defense discretionary spending through 2014.) This “if-we-ignore-it-maybe-it-will-go-away” approach to the complexities of modern society makes it so god-blessedly frustrating to forge bipartisanship with these people.

Even though Goldwater was the true conservative today’s Republicans claim to be, I honestly believe it would be easier for liberals and Goldwater to come together, cooperatively, to restore economic health to the country.

From Wiki’s page on Goldwater:

In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?”

Today’s Republican Party is in a philosophical mess, and pointing out the zillions of reasons why is starting to feel like pulling the wings off of flies.

Restricting Free Speech: A Bipartisan Issue in the Culture War

A busy weekend permits only this commentary: Americans on both the far left and the far right, and of all shades in between, ought to agree that this simply will not do:

[A proposed United Nations Human Rights Commission] resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a “serious affront to human dignity” which could lead to “social disharmony”, “violations of human rights” and “incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular”. If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at “local, national and international levels” start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.

As we’ve noted here before, the United States unquestionably continues to lead the world in its respect for free speech. This is not patriotic jingoism: it’s true. Even when it comes to the most uncomfortable, cringe-inducing, or dangerous types of speech (libel and incitements to racial violence, cf. the contrary experience our British allies), we trust our citizens more than most to come to sensible conclusions on their own, and steadfastly refuse to criminalize mere words, except where they threaten more than offense.

Truly free speech is a recent liberty, one that we earned the hard way, after struggling through the intrigue, espionage, and fear of the early twentieth century. Mindful of the importance of this issue, I’m confident our leaders won’t surrender it should this resolution pass, hopefully with a minimum of culture war bluster. Defending the right to free speech in this situation isn’t an anti-Islamic thing, it’s not an anti-religion thing, and it’s not an anti-UN thing. It’s just the right thing to do.