Friday, March 15, 2013

Personal Experience Means Everything: Rob Portman and Gay Rights

Wikimedia commons photo
Many outlets including the Huffington Post report this morning that Senator Portman - one of the original authors of DOMA - is changing his stance on gay marriage.  About two years ago, his son came out to him and his wife - and he has spent the last two years reflecting, speaking with clergy, and (presumably) praying about the matter.

More and more Republicans are going to have similar experiences.  It is easy to reject something foreign and distant that you only see on television.  But the issue becomes "real" when it affects those we love: our family, our friends, our neighbors. 

I think Portman's got it right, and it's how I have felt for years.  In Matthew, Jesus tells us that the two highest "commandments" are (1) to "Love the Lord" with all the intensity you can muster and (2) to "Love your neighbor as yourself."  (Matt. 22:36-40).  In Portman's own words:

"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue." 

Amen.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Dispatching Krugman and his "Crude Keynesianism" too

At Huffington Post, economist Jeffrey Sachs dissects Krugman's recent claims that we don't have a deficit problem and explains why Great Depression-era thinking does not apply to today's world.  Most importantly, Professor Sachs looks long-term and rejects the approach that "spending is spending" and short-term projects (or tax cuts) are as effect as the real thing.  A sample of the must-read below:

I have argued against short-term stimulus packages. Krugman has supported them, and indeed argued that they should have been even larger. I have been against temporary tax cuts and temporary spending programs, believing that instead we need a consistent, planned, decade-long boost in public investments in people, technology, and infrastructure. Such a sustained rise in public investment should have been paid for by ending the Bush-era tax cuts in 2010, or by adopting a comparable boost in revenues. Instead Obama and Congress have now made almost all of those tax cuts permanent, putting us into a deeper fiscal bind.
Yesterday, Krugman responded to my recent op-ed by digging in deeper on the deficit question. He argued yet again that the U.S. can and should incur more debt to pay for a short-term boost in aggregate demand. While he did not lay out a quantified plan (that has been the case from the start, so it's hard to know exactly what Krugman has in mind in a quantitative sense), the CBO has recently estimated that without the recent deficit-reduction actions of the White House and Congress, the public debt would rise to around 87 percent of GDP in a decade. I presume that Krugman would support that trajectory or something like it (he should tell us by now what path of deficits he actually recommends).


Cuccinelli's Pledge Against Pledges

This week, VA gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli - considered a conservative Republican by almost everyone - is taking a stand against Grover Norquist and ATR.  As Politico reports, Cuccinelli wants to tackle tax reform as governor, and ATR's "pledge" may block any such efforts.  Cuccinelli, therefore, is refusing to sign it.  (Side note: for evidence of Cuccinelli's fiscal conservatism, see his writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy).

For years, ATR has taken a hard line on its "no new taxes" pledge.  The most recent examples have been its repeated claims that it considers closing a tax loophole to constitute a tax hike.  As many GOPers have come to realize, this interpretation of the ATR pledge blocks any meaningful tax reform.  In any tax reform effort - as opposed to a straight tax cut - there's going to be a reallocation of taxes.  Many people believe that rates should decrease but deductions should be cut so more money would be subject to those lower rates.  Others may think that particular segments of society are not paying their share or that certain activities (like driving, drilling, or living near the ocean) are not bearing their full societal costs.

Any way you slice it, meaningful reform means someone might pay more taxes.  This makes sense: the current tax code was largely written for the 1986 economy.  We had just suffered the oil embargo and an era of "malaise."  No one anticipated the "peace dividend," multiple rounds of free trade talks, the internet, and the rise of mobile computing.  Today's economy is significantly different from that of 1986, and it would make sense that good tax policy might demand a different formula than thirty years ago.

For Cuccinelli, assuming he wins in 2013, he's going to be term-limited.  Could this be the first shot-across-the-bow of a future Senate run?  I can see the messaging now: "I'm a conservative, and I have commonsense conservative principles - not silly pledges - to back it up."

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

News flash: unemployed Romney doesn't pay tax at "wage" tax rates

Romney has recently been dogged by his competitors, most notably Newt Gingrich, to release his tax returns. Frankly, I'm not sure why this did not become an issue sooner. Even on the West Wing, (1) releasing tax returns and (2) taking a physical to prove good health were two essential steps in running for POTUS. Nonetheless, the news today is that Romney pretty much pays a 15% rate (Washington Post), the long-term capital gains rate.

Many blogging heads are naming this the next chink in the Romney armor. But, I would ask, should we care? Romney is paying the pervailing tax rate that he himself had no voice in establishing. On that front, I can't imagine why his personal rate should be any matter of concern.

Does it erode his "working man" image? Possibly. But we didn't view him as a working man anyway. He's technically been unemployed since 2006! It's probably more troubling that Warren Buffett pays nearly the same rate while holding a full-time job.

More importantly, it may trigger a larger discussion on tax policy. But that's beyond Romney and the Romney campaign. No one quietly muttered to himself that the Obamas better hide the fact that they earned ~$1.7M in 2010. And debating what portion of the government's revenues should be funded by people who earn over $1M (Obama) OR people who have significant accumulated wealth (Romney) is the essence of democracy. Did we think Governor Romney would neglect to mention his tax policy over the next 8 months?  He's already got a 59-point economic plan (from Politico) and isn't even through the primaries yet!

Whether or not it turns out that way, I think blogosphere's afluttering today is simply silly. More imporantly, I hope that Romney's personal tax rate recedes as an issue and that we collectively engage in a larger debate about how (and where) to fund our massive government. The good of the country demands it.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Tusks and Tails: Assorted Links, Tuesday morning

Just a few interesting links today:

1. The inside dirt on how NYPD fills its lineups - they got a guy, ya know! (NYT)

2. The first corporate 'super-PAC' comes from an unlikely source: a burial-at-sea entrepreneur.  I would have expected it to be FedEx, UPS, or other companies at the top of the PAC giving lists.  (WaPo)

3. New Hampshire paper delivers Romney a veiled threat regarding his influence in Nevada (Union Leader, h/t RCP).  Its worth mentioning, however, that if NH puts its primary a few days before Nevada (the Iowa Caucuses are now Jan 3 and Nevada is Jan 14), I really don't think its going to affect much of NH's influence: (counter to the paper's doom and gloom prediction).  NH's influence and importance come not from a date on a calendar but rather from the retail politicking required and the gravity with which NH natives take their primaries.  

Saturday, October 15, 2011

TED: An Innovative Approach to Recycling Plastic




Great talk about the challenges around recycling plastic, compared to metal, and about an innovative solution!  It makes you wonder, though, what economic incentives are needed to pull through this technology.  I wonder how many jurisdictions in the U.S. have flexible landfill taxes.  I know that several places just charge flat fees to be "on the grid" - that clearly doesn't give you much incentive to control your waste.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Update: Buffett's Tax Returns

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in t...Image via WikipediaThe Atlantic reports that Buffett released his returns earlier today.  He reported $63M in adjusted gross income (AGI), had $40M in taxable income (AGI less exemptions and itemized deductions like donations to charity), and paid $7M in income taxes (and $15K in payroll taxes).  That's his tax rate of 17.4%.

I'm frankly surprised Buffett had the income that he did, given Berkshire's refusal to pay dividends.  Given Buffett's long-standing refusal to pay himself a multimillion dollar salary, he must have liquidated significant stock.