On its 67th anniversary, D-Day stands as one of the great accomplishments in military history. An invasion of necessity, not of choice, dictated by the Nazi takeover of the continent of Europe, the invasion to liberate Europe remains startling in its impact on our world. It is equally awe inspiring in its story, its drama, and its magnitude.
Over two years in its preparation, I am always struck by how the allies pulled victory from the jaws of defeat and changed the face of the world. Despite years of careful planning, training, and mock invasions, before the first Higgins boat dropped its ramp, the D-Day invasion plans were in disarray. Pre-invasion paratroopers were scattered across Normandy, with few in the right DZ, sometimes miles from their objective. Separated from their equipment by a last minute decision to add a tethered equipment bag to the jump, soldiers were in the wrong place, ill-equipped, not ill-prepared, but in a tenuous situation to say the least.
On the beaches of Normandy, bombing raids the nights before D-Day intended to soften the German resistance completely missed their targets. Expected rag-tag German conscripts defending the beaches turned out to be well armed, well trained, highly motivated German units more than ready to repel an attack. Expected fox holes for cover on the beaches weren't there. Units uniformly missed their landing zones. Swimming tanks sunk. The weather was awful, the low tide created hundreds of yards of open killing fields for German defenders, waves of allied units were met with machine gun fire from well fortified German positions.
After years of training, the entire D-Day operation was in tatters minutes after H-Hour. Omaha Beach was particularly disastrous as entire platoons were wiped our before they hit the beach. The boys from Bedford Virginia took the highest casualty toll of any unit in the invasion force. In its early stages, D-Day was a recipe for disaster. Eisenhower had a public statement at the ready stating why the D-Day invasion had failed and restating the allied commitment to the liberation of Europe.
However, D-Day wasn't a disaster. It wasn't the greatest allied set back in WW II. D-Day was in fact our finest hour. Though thousands of slain brave soldiers will be forever young, storming the beaches of Normandy, fighting to liberate people they never knew and would never meet, the story of D-Day is one of "get it done". It is what made America great and what can keep America great. The American soldiers on Omaha beach found ways to traverse the beaches, scale the cliffs, take out German positions, and secure a toehold on the continent of Europe. It was gruesome. It was gutty. It was the shining example of American resolve and the ultimate example of American ingenuity. Lost soldiers regrouped into new platoons, NCOs devised new attack strategies while under fire on the beach, and the expeditionary force that should have been obliterated and shoved back into the sea carried the day and set in motion the ultimate destruction of the German atrocity.
On Monday, when we remember the events of D-Day, when we reflect on the thousands whose final resting spot is marked with a tiny white stone thousands of miles away, I hope we think of American resolve. I hope it inspires us to stand on our own two feet, to cut our own path, and to strive for greatest good. Every day the news paper obituaries read of the deaths of those who served in WW II. These were the ones fortunate enough to return home. They, along with their fallen brothers in arms left a large legacy for all of us to follow. I hope we are up to the task. I hope the leadership of our nation, stops on Monday to reflect upon the magnitude of this event, of the sacrifices made by those who got it done on D-Day. The problems we are facing today pale in comparison. I think a little reflection and perspective might be just what this country needs as we forge ahead. Let's storm the beach, let's climb the cliffs, let's take on the fight. I think we owe it to those who showed us how 67 years ago.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Climate Change...Is there anything it can't do?
If climate change alarmists weren't a threat to economic prosperity and personal liberty they would be very entertaining and highly valued in tense times when we could all use some comic relief.
Active hurricane seasons are caused by global warming. Passive hurricane seasons apparently are also caused by global warming. Lots of snow, global warming. Absence of snow, you guessed it, global warming. Incongruous events of drought and flood are simultaneously the result of global warming and more global warming. Is there anything that is not a consequence of global warming? Red Sox finally break the curse of the Bambino...brought to you I assume by global warming.
When I opened today's RTD to see the front page adorned with an article connecting the tragic tornadoes in the midwest with global warming, I laughed not at the tragedy, but at the predictability of the conclusions drawn by climate change zealots. I knew this was coming, I was only surprised that it had taken this long to find its way into the media.
Apparently the only constant in our lives untouched by the reach of global warming is the perpetual futility of the Chicago Cubs pursuit of a world series championship. Happily something is more powerful than the reach of global warming, and if you have watched the Cubs play this year, I am sure you will agree.
Active hurricane seasons are caused by global warming. Passive hurricane seasons apparently are also caused by global warming. Lots of snow, global warming. Absence of snow, you guessed it, global warming. Incongruous events of drought and flood are simultaneously the result of global warming and more global warming. Is there anything that is not a consequence of global warming? Red Sox finally break the curse of the Bambino...brought to you I assume by global warming.
When I opened today's RTD to see the front page adorned with an article connecting the tragic tornadoes in the midwest with global warming, I laughed not at the tragedy, but at the predictability of the conclusions drawn by climate change zealots. I knew this was coming, I was only surprised that it had taken this long to find its way into the media.
Apparently the only constant in our lives untouched by the reach of global warming is the perpetual futility of the Chicago Cubs pursuit of a world series championship. Happily something is more powerful than the reach of global warming, and if you have watched the Cubs play this year, I am sure you will agree.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Undeniable Truth About Tax Policy
Unfortunately, the presidential election season is in full swing a full 18 months before election day. If any season is going to start early and run longer than normal, I wish it were duck season, but I digress. Since the president has started giving stump speeches masked as policy speeches, republicans have started their predictable implosions, and the three networks have hit high gear backing their man, I suspect there is going to be a lot of commentary about taxes and tax policy. The blather is likely to be intolerable grandstanding. Here are some simple truths to keep in mind to cut through the electioneering coming over the next 18 months:
Tax rates matter less than tax revenues. The optimal tax rates are the rates that generate the most tax revenue. The tax rates that generate the most tax revenue are the rates that generate the most economic activity and the highest sustained rate of growth.
The reality is, no one knows what the optimal tax rate is. There is lots of theoretical discussion and spirited debate, but finding the optimal rate is part art, part science. However, we know a few things for certain:
The highest revenue take in US history occurred in 2007 at $ 2.56T. To give a little perspective on tax revenue growth as well as spending growth, 20 years earlier, tax receipts were $ .854T...yet we are in a spiral of debt spending. The top marginal rate in the 3 largest tax revenue years (2005-2007) in history was 35%. Is that cause and effect? Nope. However, one could easily argue that a lower rate could have generated a larger, more sustained economic growth, generating even higher revenues. The dopes who make comments to the effect that "The 2003 tax cuts were tax cuts we couldn't afford" and "were not paid for" are simply denying the truth of history as tax receipts were never higher than during the Bush years. The Bush tax rates generated a flood of tax revenues. The problem was the government spent every last dollar plus about 15 cents for each dollar collected. The Obama crew has upped the debt spending ante to spending $ 1.40 for every dollar we collect in tax revenue. When the wave of the economic cycle turned in 2008 as is always does, tax revenue declined, yet spending went through the roof, hence our $ 14T in debt.
Tax rates should optimize economic activity. Finding and selling the optimal rate is a difficult act. However, it is part of the historical record that the largest takes in tax revenue history were collected with the current marginal rates. If we had not topped our record collections with record spending, we may not be in the ditch we are in today. Tax policy is important for driving economic growth. Spending policy is important to avoid killing it.
Speaking of seasons...we have a full duck season, almost 2 full baseball seasons, and two 4th of July's to go before we cast votes in the next election. That is not a rosey forecaast.
Tax rates matter less than tax revenues. The optimal tax rates are the rates that generate the most tax revenue. The tax rates that generate the most tax revenue are the rates that generate the most economic activity and the highest sustained rate of growth.
The reality is, no one knows what the optimal tax rate is. There is lots of theoretical discussion and spirited debate, but finding the optimal rate is part art, part science. However, we know a few things for certain:
The highest revenue take in US history occurred in 2007 at $ 2.56T. To give a little perspective on tax revenue growth as well as spending growth, 20 years earlier, tax receipts were $ .854T...yet we are in a spiral of debt spending. The top marginal rate in the 3 largest tax revenue years (2005-2007) in history was 35%. Is that cause and effect? Nope. However, one could easily argue that a lower rate could have generated a larger, more sustained economic growth, generating even higher revenues. The dopes who make comments to the effect that "The 2003 tax cuts were tax cuts we couldn't afford" and "were not paid for" are simply denying the truth of history as tax receipts were never higher than during the Bush years. The Bush tax rates generated a flood of tax revenues. The problem was the government spent every last dollar plus about 15 cents for each dollar collected. The Obama crew has upped the debt spending ante to spending $ 1.40 for every dollar we collect in tax revenue. When the wave of the economic cycle turned in 2008 as is always does, tax revenue declined, yet spending went through the roof, hence our $ 14T in debt.
Tax rates should optimize economic activity. Finding and selling the optimal rate is a difficult act. However, it is part of the historical record that the largest takes in tax revenue history were collected with the current marginal rates. If we had not topped our record collections with record spending, we may not be in the ditch we are in today. Tax policy is important for driving economic growth. Spending policy is important to avoid killing it.
Speaking of seasons...we have a full duck season, almost 2 full baseball seasons, and two 4th of July's to go before we cast votes in the next election. That is not a rosey forecaast.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
My All-Time Great Baseball Lineup...
I have always liked to bounce around the idea of my ideal starting line up if I could pick any players from the modern era (call it 1950 to the present)who would be in my starting lineup. Willie Mays is the only easy decision I had putting my "all-time" lineup togther, the rest were pretty tough and many great players did not make the list. BTW, cheaters like Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Roger Clemens are not eligible, neither is Ricky Henderson because he always seemed like such a pain in the rump - the Ty Cobb of his time. Here we go...
1B - Albert Pujols
2B - Jackie Robonson
SS - Ozzie Smith
3B - Brooks Robinson
C - Johnny Bench
LF - Mickey Mantle
CF - Willie Mays
RF - Ken Griffey, Jr
Some of the decisions are made with the thought of putting a line up together and rating defensive skill as an important decision criteria. It would have been easy to pick Mike Schmidt at the third base, but while a great fielder, Brooks Robinson was better and seemed a better bat control hitter versus having another "bopper" in the lineup. Similar thoughts with SS where clearly Cal Ripken and A-Rod make sense, but no one was a better fielder than Ozzie and he provides additional speed to this line up.
Batting Order....maybe
2B - Jackie Robinson
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Mickey Mantle
CF - Willie Mays
1B - Albert Pujols
RF - Ken Griffey, Jr
C - Johnny Bench
SS - Ozzie Smith
Starting Rotation:
Sandy Koufax
Bob Gibson
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Juan Marichal
The reality is that you could come up with a second line up just as good as this one. Just off the top of my head, an outfield of Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Roberto Clemente would be pretty impressive. An infield of Jeff Bagwell at first (maybe Willie McCovey instead) Joe Morgan at second, Cal Ripken at short, Mike Schmidt at third, and Yogi Berra or Roy Campanella behind the plate makes a formidable lineup.
Baseball is a game of history and statistics. It is what makes it a great game, maybe the greatest game.
1B - Albert Pujols
2B - Jackie Robonson
SS - Ozzie Smith
3B - Brooks Robinson
C - Johnny Bench
LF - Mickey Mantle
CF - Willie Mays
RF - Ken Griffey, Jr
Some of the decisions are made with the thought of putting a line up together and rating defensive skill as an important decision criteria. It would have been easy to pick Mike Schmidt at the third base, but while a great fielder, Brooks Robinson was better and seemed a better bat control hitter versus having another "bopper" in the lineup. Similar thoughts with SS where clearly Cal Ripken and A-Rod make sense, but no one was a better fielder than Ozzie and he provides additional speed to this line up.
Batting Order....maybe
2B - Jackie Robinson
3B - Brooks Robinson
LF - Mickey Mantle
CF - Willie Mays
1B - Albert Pujols
RF - Ken Griffey, Jr
C - Johnny Bench
SS - Ozzie Smith
Starting Rotation:
Sandy Koufax
Bob Gibson
Greg Maddux
Randy Johnson
Juan Marichal
The reality is that you could come up with a second line up just as good as this one. Just off the top of my head, an outfield of Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson, and Roberto Clemente would be pretty impressive. An infield of Jeff Bagwell at first (maybe Willie McCovey instead) Joe Morgan at second, Cal Ripken at short, Mike Schmidt at third, and Yogi Berra or Roy Campanella behind the plate makes a formidable lineup.
Baseball is a game of history and statistics. It is what makes it a great game, maybe the greatest game.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
"At Least It's Clean Dirt" - Mother's Day Tribute to "Boy Moms"
I am convinced that when God makes moms, He has a plan. He knows whether He is creating a "girl mom", a "boy mom", or an "mixed mom". All moms are special people. I am married to a quintessential girl mom which has been a delightful and perpetual learning experience for me. My mom is the mother of three boys. She is, and continues to be, the epitome of a "boy mom", a great "boy mom", and in my opinion the best "boy mom".
"Boy moms" have a special patience, a special understanding, and a special outlook on life. I am not saying it is better than the other kinds of moms, its just a little different when you are the mom in a house full of boys. Things get broken, things get lost, mud and dirt become a routine part of life. Let me explain...
Boys are rarely great communicators, especially when we reach the completely awkward and taciturn adolescent years. One of the first signs that a mom is a "boy mom" starts with complete comfort in being called just that..."mom". Not "mommy" or "mother", but "mom". Mom is the perfect name for boys to call their mother. It is easy for us to say and it can sometimes be grunted as much as spoken. However most important of all, when boys have lost something we really need right away, like a baseball glove or car keys, we scream "MOOOOOMMMM!!!!" at the top our lungs. My mom almost always knew where my glove was, where my shoes were, or where I had left my car keys. The problem was solved, the panic ended, the crisis over. "Boy moms" are great problem solvers...especially for boys' unique, self inflicted problems, that boy moms know really aren't problems at all.
"Boy moms" are the world's best sports fans, whether they like sports or not. They attend an endless number of sporting events on weekends, during the week, night or day. My mom spent countless hours sitting on hard, cold steel bleachers, watching her boys play football and baseball. Cheering when we did well, and still cheering when we didn't.
Probably above all other attributes, "boy moms" know how to roll with the punches and make the best of the ridiculous situations that only boys create.
Occasionally my brothers and I would get to spend the night with our grandparents.(Until I had kids of my own, I didn't realize that this meant my parents had plans for the night and were looking forward to well earned a break from their boys.) My maternal grandmother was a classic southern, christian lady. She made the best homemade applesauce I have ever had, she was an avid fan of Lawrence Welk, and she was a stickler for good manners. She was a great influence on my brothers and me. However, she was not a "boy mom" and my mom knew she was not a "boy mom". Whenever we went to my grandparents house, it was important that my mom drop off boys who were presentable.
I recall one summer day when we were going to spend the night with my grandparents. I think we had specific instructions that day that we were spending the night at "Grandmom's" so don't get too dirty. ("Boy moms" know that instructions to stay clean are acts of folly, so a request for only moderate filth is reasonable) So, my older brother and I spent the day in the woods behind our house digging random holes in the mud, building forts that immediately collapsed, and essentially wallowing in dirt. When we came in, my mom knew she was going to have a tough time making us presentable for my grandparents. After we bathed we were still filthy. I recall my mom getting a brush and soap holding our arms over the bathroom sink, scrubbing us for what seemed like hours. Futile hours at that, as the Virginia red clay ground into our arms, hands and fingernails would not yield. Realizing that the fight was over, that this was one of those times she was just going to have to roll with it, my mom turned off the water, toweled us off and said "well, at least its clean dirt"
I think that is what makes "boy moms" special...at least it's clean dirt. She knew that we were going to show up at our grandparent's house with head to toe mud stains, she knew that she would likely get a call about it after our stay, and she also knew that it was all okay...this is what boys do, and she loved us for it.
It was great growing up with the world's best "boy mom". Thanks mom! Happy Mother's Day! We love you!
"Boy moms" have a special patience, a special understanding, and a special outlook on life. I am not saying it is better than the other kinds of moms, its just a little different when you are the mom in a house full of boys. Things get broken, things get lost, mud and dirt become a routine part of life. Let me explain...
Boys are rarely great communicators, especially when we reach the completely awkward and taciturn adolescent years. One of the first signs that a mom is a "boy mom" starts with complete comfort in being called just that..."mom". Not "mommy" or "mother", but "mom". Mom is the perfect name for boys to call their mother. It is easy for us to say and it can sometimes be grunted as much as spoken. However most important of all, when boys have lost something we really need right away, like a baseball glove or car keys, we scream "MOOOOOMMMM!!!!" at the top our lungs. My mom almost always knew where my glove was, where my shoes were, or where I had left my car keys. The problem was solved, the panic ended, the crisis over. "Boy moms" are great problem solvers...especially for boys' unique, self inflicted problems, that boy moms know really aren't problems at all.
"Boy moms" are the world's best sports fans, whether they like sports or not. They attend an endless number of sporting events on weekends, during the week, night or day. My mom spent countless hours sitting on hard, cold steel bleachers, watching her boys play football and baseball. Cheering when we did well, and still cheering when we didn't.
Probably above all other attributes, "boy moms" know how to roll with the punches and make the best of the ridiculous situations that only boys create.
Occasionally my brothers and I would get to spend the night with our grandparents.(Until I had kids of my own, I didn't realize that this meant my parents had plans for the night and were looking forward to well earned a break from their boys.) My maternal grandmother was a classic southern, christian lady. She made the best homemade applesauce I have ever had, she was an avid fan of Lawrence Welk, and she was a stickler for good manners. She was a great influence on my brothers and me. However, she was not a "boy mom" and my mom knew she was not a "boy mom". Whenever we went to my grandparents house, it was important that my mom drop off boys who were presentable.
I recall one summer day when we were going to spend the night with my grandparents. I think we had specific instructions that day that we were spending the night at "Grandmom's" so don't get too dirty. ("Boy moms" know that instructions to stay clean are acts of folly, so a request for only moderate filth is reasonable) So, my older brother and I spent the day in the woods behind our house digging random holes in the mud, building forts that immediately collapsed, and essentially wallowing in dirt. When we came in, my mom knew she was going to have a tough time making us presentable for my grandparents. After we bathed we were still filthy. I recall my mom getting a brush and soap holding our arms over the bathroom sink, scrubbing us for what seemed like hours. Futile hours at that, as the Virginia red clay ground into our arms, hands and fingernails would not yield. Realizing that the fight was over, that this was one of those times she was just going to have to roll with it, my mom turned off the water, toweled us off and said "well, at least its clean dirt"
I think that is what makes "boy moms" special...at least it's clean dirt. She knew that we were going to show up at our grandparent's house with head to toe mud stains, she knew that she would likely get a call about it after our stay, and she also knew that it was all okay...this is what boys do, and she loved us for it.
It was great growing up with the world's best "boy mom". Thanks mom! Happy Mother's Day! We love you!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
....Then let's just sell Alaska!
I am a big fan of the creative, out of the box ideas to solve seemingly intractable problems. Sometimes when an idea is good enough, you can solve more than one problem with the same idea. I think I have a winner here, a homerun, a grandslam, the idea of the decade, maybe the century.
I think we should sell Alaska.
Look, if we are not going to make the best use of Alaska's resources, dadgummit, let's sell it to someone with enough capitalist moxy who will. Why does this make so much sense?...Easy:
1) Energy and commodity prices are at record highs and going higher.
2) We are drowning in debt.
This is one of those rare opportunities to help solve multiple problems with one stroke of genius. Alaska is chocked full of natural resources....and not just oil. We apparently are too timid or too preoccupied with other things, like congressional hearings into steroid use in baseball or what kind of coffee cups to use on Capitol Hill to get around to making the best use of Alaskan resources, so, our time is up. Time to sell Alaska to a country that will make Alaska the breadbasket (or barrel) of natural resources for the world. We have shown for 50 years that we are not interested in making Alaska all that it can be. Alaska has been misallocated, so it is time to reallocate.
All proceeds from the sale of Alaska go directly to retiring debt. I doubt we will get 14 trillion for it, but who knows, those Chinese have a lot of cash sitting around. The good news for whoever buys Alaska is that at least they will have a tangible asset for their money instead of just a promise by the US Government to pay them back. This will help our debt problem. It will deliver a tremendous supply of oil and natural gas tothe market driving down energy costs. Let's face it, other than a few displaced Alaskans, this is a win/win/win.
I am hoping England can come up with the cash to buy Alaska. They already know how to do the oil business and I feel like we kind of owe them one for kicking their butts in the Revolution.
The only fly in this ointment is how to make 49 stars look good on the American flag. I hope this is not a deal breaker, because I think this idea, once in the market, will quickly get legs.
I think we should sell Alaska.
Look, if we are not going to make the best use of Alaska's resources, dadgummit, let's sell it to someone with enough capitalist moxy who will. Why does this make so much sense?...Easy:
1) Energy and commodity prices are at record highs and going higher.
2) We are drowning in debt.
This is one of those rare opportunities to help solve multiple problems with one stroke of genius. Alaska is chocked full of natural resources....and not just oil. We apparently are too timid or too preoccupied with other things, like congressional hearings into steroid use in baseball or what kind of coffee cups to use on Capitol Hill to get around to making the best use of Alaskan resources, so, our time is up. Time to sell Alaska to a country that will make Alaska the breadbasket (or barrel) of natural resources for the world. We have shown for 50 years that we are not interested in making Alaska all that it can be. Alaska has been misallocated, so it is time to reallocate.
All proceeds from the sale of Alaska go directly to retiring debt. I doubt we will get 14 trillion for it, but who knows, those Chinese have a lot of cash sitting around. The good news for whoever buys Alaska is that at least they will have a tangible asset for their money instead of just a promise by the US Government to pay them back. This will help our debt problem. It will deliver a tremendous supply of oil and natural gas tothe market driving down energy costs. Let's face it, other than a few displaced Alaskans, this is a win/win/win.
I am hoping England can come up with the cash to buy Alaska. They already know how to do the oil business and I feel like we kind of owe them one for kicking their butts in the Revolution.
The only fly in this ointment is how to make 49 stars look good on the American flag. I hope this is not a deal breaker, because I think this idea, once in the market, will quickly get legs.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Stop the Silliness from Washington
Well, the budget debate has morphed into campaign blather a full 18 months before the 2012 elections. I am not sure I can take 18 months of electioneering, but I wish we could at least put to rest some of the inane and silly rhetoric coming out of the mouths of our politicians and particularly our president.
I know the president is a smart guy and I know he knows that the reality of this comment is as ridiculous as it sounds, but the comments continue - to the effect that, "if we could just get back to the top marginal tax rates of the Clinton years...." fill in the blank here because the president and his minions have said them all..."we would solve the budget problem, we would restore economic growth, we would lower unemployment"...I think we solve world hunger too. The reality is, and the president knows it, there is no causal relationship, no magic that made the top marginal rate of just 39.6% the driver for all that was economically good in the United States in 1999. It was just one part of the equation of the economic expansion of the time...that ended BTW, like all expansions eventually end. Who is to say if the marginal rate had been 29.6% the expansion would not have been greater and lasted longer? I don't know, but neither does anyone else. Maybe it would have had the opposite effect (I doubt it)but no one knows. So the proclamations that better times lie ahead if we could just raise the top rate are just silliness.
Here is what we do know. In 1999:
Top marginal tax rate: 39.6%
US population: 278M
Total Federal Spending: $ 1.702T
Federal Spending per Ca pita: $6,123
Here is more of what we know. In 2010:
Top marginal tax rate: 35%
US population: 308M
Total Federal Spending: $ 3.456T
Federal Spending per Ca pita: $11,194
Hmmm, it seems to me that a couple of the variables have changed if we were going to roll back to the 1999 top marginal rates.
While the population increased from 1999 to 2010 by 10.8%, federal spending increased by 202%. If we rolled back tax rates to 1999 levels and rolled back spending per ca pita to 1999 levels then our federal budget would be just under $ 1.9T. I would suggest given the increases in productivity and technological advances over that time period, one could argue that government should be able to deliver more and better services to the population for less money - in absolute terms, not per ca pita. Business across the country are massively more productive and tremendously more efficient now than they were in 1999. So why not the Feds?
The everyday reality is that this is a complex problem with many variables. However, as evidenced by some pretty simple math, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Statements of fantasy about "the Clinton tax rates" as a panacea or even a major part of the solution are not only false, but down right silly. If people support higher tax rates for punitive reasons, if they want to stick it to those greedy rich people and redistribute other people's money to the rest of the country, fine, I don't think it is smart policy, but I respect the point of view. To put out falsehoods that a reversal of policy to the Clinton top marginal rates is part of a serious national get well program is not just misleading, it is dishonest and hides what is likely a broader agenda - it also makes people distrust the rest of the president's agenda because this cornerstone suggestion is so clearly false.
Look, if you want to redistribute wealth, just say so and let's have the debate. Don't mask that objective with claims that are easily debunked in 10 minutes with a couple of Google searches and a calculator. It just cheapens your position. I am all for transparency in math and motives. If we could get this from Washington, it might make the next 18 months a little more bearable.
I know the president is a smart guy and I know he knows that the reality of this comment is as ridiculous as it sounds, but the comments continue - to the effect that, "if we could just get back to the top marginal tax rates of the Clinton years...." fill in the blank here because the president and his minions have said them all..."we would solve the budget problem, we would restore economic growth, we would lower unemployment"...I think we solve world hunger too. The reality is, and the president knows it, there is no causal relationship, no magic that made the top marginal rate of just 39.6% the driver for all that was economically good in the United States in 1999. It was just one part of the equation of the economic expansion of the time...that ended BTW, like all expansions eventually end. Who is to say if the marginal rate had been 29.6% the expansion would not have been greater and lasted longer? I don't know, but neither does anyone else. Maybe it would have had the opposite effect (I doubt it)but no one knows. So the proclamations that better times lie ahead if we could just raise the top rate are just silliness.
Here is what we do know. In 1999:
Top marginal tax rate: 39.6%
US population: 278M
Total Federal Spending: $ 1.702T
Federal Spending per Ca pita: $6,123
Here is more of what we know. In 2010:
Top marginal tax rate: 35%
US population: 308M
Total Federal Spending: $ 3.456T
Federal Spending per Ca pita: $11,194
Hmmm, it seems to me that a couple of the variables have changed if we were going to roll back to the 1999 top marginal rates.
While the population increased from 1999 to 2010 by 10.8%, federal spending increased by 202%. If we rolled back tax rates to 1999 levels and rolled back spending per ca pita to 1999 levels then our federal budget would be just under $ 1.9T. I would suggest given the increases in productivity and technological advances over that time period, one could argue that government should be able to deliver more and better services to the population for less money - in absolute terms, not per ca pita. Business across the country are massively more productive and tremendously more efficient now than they were in 1999. So why not the Feds?
The everyday reality is that this is a complex problem with many variables. However, as evidenced by some pretty simple math, we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Statements of fantasy about "the Clinton tax rates" as a panacea or even a major part of the solution are not only false, but down right silly. If people support higher tax rates for punitive reasons, if they want to stick it to those greedy rich people and redistribute other people's money to the rest of the country, fine, I don't think it is smart policy, but I respect the point of view. To put out falsehoods that a reversal of policy to the Clinton top marginal rates is part of a serious national get well program is not just misleading, it is dishonest and hides what is likely a broader agenda - it also makes people distrust the rest of the president's agenda because this cornerstone suggestion is so clearly false.
Look, if you want to redistribute wealth, just say so and let's have the debate. Don't mask that objective with claims that are easily debunked in 10 minutes with a couple of Google searches and a calculator. It just cheapens your position. I am all for transparency in math and motives. If we could get this from Washington, it might make the next 18 months a little more bearable.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Did I Miss Something? Really?
Thanks to the miracle of Youtube (which was founded, developed, and brought to market with zero government assistance) I was able to watch the president's campaign speech last night...
Did I miss something? Have we all been transported to a parallel universe? Tax rates are now called "spending in the tax code"? I think I need my tin foil cap and some kite string, because we are not in Kansas any more.
First, let's get a few things straight. The current top marginal tax rate is just that, the current top rate. It is not "the Bush Tax Cut". That phrase, so well worn in the media, assumes that the current rates, implemented by former president Bush, broke some natural equilibrium for tax rates that is higher than the current rates. Such an assumption is pure hogwash. The top marginal tax rate has changed over 30 times since 1913. The current rates are not "cuts" that need to be restored to their natural order. They are simply the current rates, that are every bit as legitimate and natural as the 7% marginal rate or the 91% marginal rate. The argument is what rate optimizes revenue - through economic growth.
Second, reducing tax rates is not "spending". At least not in the universe in which we used to live. Apparently, according to Obama's speech, my income belongs to Washington and the amount I am allowed keep is now "spending". Well, that is in interesting turn of events. I guess the post office lost that piece of mail, because no one told me that my income belongs to Washington and that money I don't send to Washington is now classified as spending. Does Obama really believe this or was he just ginning up his base...of loonies who do believe that?
Let's agree on a few things before whatever planet we have been transported to explodes from the sheer madness of the inane budget talking points. First, the United States is broke. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending in the budget that just passed today. At some juncture, the rest of the world will be unable or unwilling to lend us the money we need. Second, the money we are spending today and will spend tomorrow is uncollateralized debt...there is no tangible asset to back this spending other than the promise of the US government to pay. China can't re posses grandma's knee replacement. The rest of the world is lending us trillions of dollars so we can continue to provide unsustainable government commitments. I wonder how much longer that will last? Second, people who are serious about getting the United States fiscal house in order don't hate old people, they don't want people in poverty, and they do not want kids eating dirt for dinner as many on MSNBC, Solon.com, moveon.org, etc suggest.
However, let's agree that there are choices we are going to be forced to make. If a federal school lunch program is our top priority, then fine. Fund it. But what are you going to be willing to give up? If keeping seniors medical care costs low is the best use of our scarce resources, great. What are you willing to give up so granny can get her sugar pills? We have no money, so in order to get those pills, somethng has to give. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The discussion moving forward needs to be centered not around whose pie can we confiscate so we can flush it down the toilet like we have done in the past, but rather deciding what are we willing to fund? What are the priorities of the country? This is the "national conversation" that needs to occur.
Suggestions? Okay, I have a few.
Cut the crap in the tax code. Get rid of loopholes and deductions? Fine, done. Broaden and lower that rates so anyone can file their tax returns with a pencil and paper in 30 minutes.
While we are at it, lower the corporate rate to 15% get trapped earning repatriated to the US and get GE, Google, and Boeing etc back on the tax rolls.
1% national sales tax...I am fine with that as it gets everyone vested in pulling the wagon....but only if we eliminate capital gain taxes to get the economic engine running again. However in order to raise the national sales tax, congress must have a super majority.
Raise the retirement age for Social security and medicare for anyone under 50 to age 70. Let anyone under 50 opt out of both if they so choose.
Base line for domestic spending...pick a year any year....2008...2005...2003. I don't care. Just pick one and that will be the baseline for domestic spending and we will make choices in what we fund and don't fund and go from there.
I can go on, but it is too easy. Hopefully the next time I get transported to another universe it will be one where people let me make the decisions and where UVa football wins at least 8 games a year :) Now that would be way out there.
Did I miss something? Have we all been transported to a parallel universe? Tax rates are now called "spending in the tax code"? I think I need my tin foil cap and some kite string, because we are not in Kansas any more.
First, let's get a few things straight. The current top marginal tax rate is just that, the current top rate. It is not "the Bush Tax Cut". That phrase, so well worn in the media, assumes that the current rates, implemented by former president Bush, broke some natural equilibrium for tax rates that is higher than the current rates. Such an assumption is pure hogwash. The top marginal tax rate has changed over 30 times since 1913. The current rates are not "cuts" that need to be restored to their natural order. They are simply the current rates, that are every bit as legitimate and natural as the 7% marginal rate or the 91% marginal rate. The argument is what rate optimizes revenue - through economic growth.
Second, reducing tax rates is not "spending". At least not in the universe in which we used to live. Apparently, according to Obama's speech, my income belongs to Washington and the amount I am allowed keep is now "spending". Well, that is in interesting turn of events. I guess the post office lost that piece of mail, because no one told me that my income belongs to Washington and that money I don't send to Washington is now classified as spending. Does Obama really believe this or was he just ginning up his base...of loonies who do believe that?
Let's agree on a few things before whatever planet we have been transported to explodes from the sheer madness of the inane budget talking points. First, the United States is broke. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending in the budget that just passed today. At some juncture, the rest of the world will be unable or unwilling to lend us the money we need. Second, the money we are spending today and will spend tomorrow is uncollateralized debt...there is no tangible asset to back this spending other than the promise of the US government to pay. China can't re posses grandma's knee replacement. The rest of the world is lending us trillions of dollars so we can continue to provide unsustainable government commitments. I wonder how much longer that will last? Second, people who are serious about getting the United States fiscal house in order don't hate old people, they don't want people in poverty, and they do not want kids eating dirt for dinner as many on MSNBC, Solon.com, moveon.org, etc suggest.
However, let's agree that there are choices we are going to be forced to make. If a federal school lunch program is our top priority, then fine. Fund it. But what are you going to be willing to give up? If keeping seniors medical care costs low is the best use of our scarce resources, great. What are you willing to give up so granny can get her sugar pills? We have no money, so in order to get those pills, somethng has to give. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The discussion moving forward needs to be centered not around whose pie can we confiscate so we can flush it down the toilet like we have done in the past, but rather deciding what are we willing to fund? What are the priorities of the country? This is the "national conversation" that needs to occur.
Suggestions? Okay, I have a few.
Cut the crap in the tax code. Get rid of loopholes and deductions? Fine, done. Broaden and lower that rates so anyone can file their tax returns with a pencil and paper in 30 minutes.
While we are at it, lower the corporate rate to 15% get trapped earning repatriated to the US and get GE, Google, and Boeing etc back on the tax rolls.
1% national sales tax...I am fine with that as it gets everyone vested in pulling the wagon....but only if we eliminate capital gain taxes to get the economic engine running again. However in order to raise the national sales tax, congress must have a super majority.
Raise the retirement age for Social security and medicare for anyone under 50 to age 70. Let anyone under 50 opt out of both if they so choose.
Base line for domestic spending...pick a year any year....2008...2005...2003. I don't care. Just pick one and that will be the baseline for domestic spending and we will make choices in what we fund and don't fund and go from there.
I can go on, but it is too easy. Hopefully the next time I get transported to another universe it will be one where people let me make the decisions and where UVa football wins at least 8 games a year :) Now that would be way out there.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Ultimately a Win-Win Scenario
Should Virginians support Wisconsin Goveror Scott Walker or the government union workers in the standoff in Madison? As an ardent free market capitalist, I know I should back Governor Walker, however as a fiercely loyal Virginian, I hestiate, just a little.
While Virginia legislators can pat themselves on the back for the comparitively competitive state of the Virginia economy, the reality is that as the northern-most right to work state in the Union combined with anti-tax executive leadership from Governors Wilder, Allen, and Gilmore that mitigated profligate general assembly spending, Virginia's economy has grown sharply in boom times while weathering recessions better than most states and certainly better than all of our union-based bretheren to the north. So, while my free market instincts suggest that I should fully support Governor Walker and his attempts to reign in budget-busting union costs and benefits, I pause when I think that Virginia's future economic success might be less assured if Wisconsin and other union states emancipate themselves from the shackles of union servitude. While I know that Governors Walker, Christie, and Daniels are on the right side of the issue, the loyal Virginian in me recognizes the local value in the success of the unionized government workers and the transient mercinary protesters throwing a 50,000 strong temper tantrum.
The reality is, the situation is a win-win for Virginia. If Governor Walker prevails, it is a triumph for the free market. Virginia and other right to work states will have to up the ante to create an even better business envornment for investment capital that rightly seeks the highest returns with the least risk. If the Union protestors prevail, then Virginia will continue to enjoy a structural market advantage over our neighbors to the north. If Virginia wins either way, I guess we can just sit back and enjoy the show
While Virginia legislators can pat themselves on the back for the comparitively competitive state of the Virginia economy, the reality is that as the northern-most right to work state in the Union combined with anti-tax executive leadership from Governors Wilder, Allen, and Gilmore that mitigated profligate general assembly spending, Virginia's economy has grown sharply in boom times while weathering recessions better than most states and certainly better than all of our union-based bretheren to the north. So, while my free market instincts suggest that I should fully support Governor Walker and his attempts to reign in budget-busting union costs and benefits, I pause when I think that Virginia's future economic success might be less assured if Wisconsin and other union states emancipate themselves from the shackles of union servitude. While I know that Governors Walker, Christie, and Daniels are on the right side of the issue, the loyal Virginian in me recognizes the local value in the success of the unionized government workers and the transient mercinary protesters throwing a 50,000 strong temper tantrum.
The reality is, the situation is a win-win for Virginia. If Governor Walker prevails, it is a triumph for the free market. Virginia and other right to work states will have to up the ante to create an even better business envornment for investment capital that rightly seeks the highest returns with the least risk. If the Union protestors prevail, then Virginia will continue to enjoy a structural market advantage over our neighbors to the north. If Virginia wins either way, I guess we can just sit back and enjoy the show
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Spring Cleaning of the Mind
Every year for about the last ten years I have approached December with the same goal...hang on to my training regimen just enough so that we when the time starts to really kick up the workout intensity in March/April I am not starting from scratch. Every year that has been the objective...and every year I have started a new training routine after 90-100 days of "workouts" that include holiday meals, duck blind food, and krispy kremes. Each year the first 3-4 weeks of training are a little more brutal than the last. I ran last week for the first time in 2011...it was not pretty. I ran again today...still not pretty. I have at least 3 weeks of this before things start to get better.
I checked the "totals" on the runner's GPS my wife gave me a few years ago. It shows a total of 1,672 miles. That is essentially running from my house to Denver. Do you know how many of those miles I ran with an iPod or a training partner? Zero. An appropriate response to that would might be "that's not normal" - no argument here. Another response might be "you are not normal" again, difficult to argue that point.
I think the biggest reason I don't run with an iPod or a companion is that I like the solitude of a solo run. I find that time out for a run, especially and hour plus run, is one of great mental clarity. Alone with your thoughts and the input of the surrounding environment plodding by creates a great environment to think, ponder, and suppose. I think a lot about my family, I think about my work, I think about politics and world events, I think UVa football. I think about blog posts I can write. I am not sure what it is about a run that make for such a good thinking environment for me, but I feel like I clear out a lot of mental clutter when I run. Maybe good food that is bad for me is not the only thing that builds up during my annual exercise hiatus...I think a lot of mental clutter builds up too...clutter that needs to be cleaned out like my garage every spring.
Tomorrow's run will be under an hour for sure, and will not be a think of beauty by any measure, but it will be another step in the spring cleaning of the mind. I am kind of looking forward to it now...a little.
I checked the "totals" on the runner's GPS my wife gave me a few years ago. It shows a total of 1,672 miles. That is essentially running from my house to Denver. Do you know how many of those miles I ran with an iPod or a training partner? Zero. An appropriate response to that would might be "that's not normal" - no argument here. Another response might be "you are not normal" again, difficult to argue that point.
I think the biggest reason I don't run with an iPod or a companion is that I like the solitude of a solo run. I find that time out for a run, especially and hour plus run, is one of great mental clarity. Alone with your thoughts and the input of the surrounding environment plodding by creates a great environment to think, ponder, and suppose. I think a lot about my family, I think about my work, I think about politics and world events, I think UVa football. I think about blog posts I can write. I am not sure what it is about a run that make for such a good thinking environment for me, but I feel like I clear out a lot of mental clutter when I run. Maybe good food that is bad for me is not the only thing that builds up during my annual exercise hiatus...I think a lot of mental clutter builds up too...clutter that needs to be cleaned out like my garage every spring.
Tomorrow's run will be under an hour for sure, and will not be a think of beauty by any measure, but it will be another step in the spring cleaning of the mind. I am kind of looking forward to it now...a little.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)