In no way did Wesley Snipes deserve a three year sentence for misdemeanor charges of failure to file his taxes--and a piss poor way of saying thanks for the $5,000,000 in checks that he handed over before sentencing in an effort to show that not only had he learned his lesson, but that he had a newfound willingness to pony up.

As a bonus, I’m also pretty leery of government agents and agencies when they are looking to prosecute harshly in an effort to send a message to the rest of us. That is, quite baldly, a threat. Honestly, I don’t mind “We think it sends a real message” when it’s in the form of high explosives dropped in the laps of terrorists or long sentences doled out to murderers. This doesn’t quite qualify, though, does it?

It’s extremely rare to see a criminal prosecution like this (and remember that Snipes was acquitted of the harshest of the charges) and the prosecution admits to using Snipes’ celebrity to make a point to the rest of us--essentially delivering a different standard of justice to Snipes than I would have faced if I had made the same exceptionally bad decisions as the actor. It rankles when celebrities are given a free pass for stupid (and occasionally criminal) behavior; it’s no less wrong when celebrities are unfairly made into legal targets because of their social standing.

Bill Ritter wants to raise taxes on the people of Colorado. He wants to raise taxes to the tune of an estimated $500 million a year.

Now, get this: he doesn’t want to let the people vote on it and he doesn’t want to call it a tax. How will he work his plan? By raising fees on the 5 million cars registered in Colorado by an “average of $100.” For reference, currently, according to the article, the average car registration in Colorado runs about $142--mine is a good chunk higher on a 2001 Mazda Millenia and I’m curious to see if I’d be right there in the “average” category. A $100 fee would tack about 50% onto my registration fee.

And I don’t have any say in the matter.

What is most frustrating is that since 1992, Colorado has had a “Tax Payers Bill of Rights” (TABOR) which is not only Douglas Bruce’s finest hour, but says that any tax that increases government revenue by more than the combined rate of population and inflation must be approved by a popular vote. There is a lot more to the TABOR Amendment, but this is the part that concerns us here. Ritter’s proposal--regardless of your opinion of the merit of his goal of rebuilding roads and bridges throughout the state--is designed to circumvent Colorado’s constitution and the TABOR Amendment by levying a monumental increase in fees in the state without allowing the voters any say in the matter.

While Democrats praised Ritter’s approach, Republicans said they were “flabbergasted” by his remarks, which followed eight months of study by his commission.

“The governor was unbelievable,” said Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany of Colorado Springs. “Instead of a practical solution, all he wants to do is talk some more. And all he wants to talk about is another de facto tax imposed on the people of this state.”

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, also trashed the registration-fee increase.

“A car tax is a penalty on Colorado families, poor and small businesses,” he said.

Republicans accused Ritter of trying to circumvent voters with a $500 million fee increase and said any proposal to generate significant money for transportation should go to the ballot.

Colorado’s citizens approved the TABOR Amendment because they wanted a hand in the economic decisions of the state--and a half-billion dollar end run around the voting public isn’t just a bad idea, it’s an unethical violation of the spirit of TABOR.

Governor Ritter, who is facing tough funding choices right now (partially because of some of the other interesting features of TABOR--features that I like because in theory it forces our state government to think hard about its funding decisions), should go to the people and make his case. If the roads and bridges are in such bad shape, explain to us why current registration fees, gas taxes, and other state funds aren’t enough to cover maintenance and repairs. If it is so necessary to pile this new spending onto the budget, persuade me and my fellow citizens that a fee or tax increase is the right path to solving the problem.

We may agree and we may not agree, but, ultimately, it’s our money that these folks are playing with.

Governor Ritter, you have an opportunity to back away from your suggestion and do the right thing by letting the people of Colorado vote and choose. We are adults and it would be nice if you would treat us as such.

Read the rest.

Update: Kindly linked by our friend, Robert.

I wasn’t a big fan of the stimulus package because, regardless of the idea of the rebates as tax cut, I can’t imagine that the outlay is going to do much to help people. My own rebate will likely go directly into a savings account to be used to pay my 2008 taxes, which doesn’t work much to stimulate the economy, does it? Perhaps I’ll let someone talk me into buying one of Apple’s new Time Capsules, instead--but if I were to be honest, I would probably be doing that regardless of the tax refund.

I support the business tax cuts, on principle, although, but the rebate outlay is going to be huge and won’t address the underlying problems of our economy. People are more than willing to spend: through the toughest parts of the last few years (and through all of the minor recessions of the last few presidencies), citizens have continued to show a remarkable willingness to spend their money to the point that individual savings are frighteningly low. Is spending really the problem?

Anyway, news of the stimulus deal is further dampening my enthusiasm.

Democratic and Republican congressional leaders reached a tentative deal Thursday on tax rebates of $300 to $1,200 per family and business tax cuts to jolt the slumping economy.

Congressional officials close to the negotiations said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio reached agreement in principle in a telephone call Thursday morning.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the two wanted key members of their parties to sign off on the accord before any announcement.

The accord came as the White House said Thursday an agreement was imminent.

Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during a Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining rebates of at least $300 for almost everyone earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Here’s what bugs me: if a rebate is in any way meaningful, it goes back to the people who have actually paid. This package won’t send money to the people at the top, but it will send to people at the bottom who didn’t pay in. That’s not a rebate, that’s a brand new outlay and another way of piling more debt onto the current deficit. How, precisely, is that a good idea? Another thing that our economy doesn’t need is even more debt from a Federal government that can’t seem to find ways to keep its budget balanced.

Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe the greater good is being served with significant business tax cuts and the trade off is the only way to have made the deal. Maybe, since I’m not an economist, I don’t understand the complex machinery of our economy that will be motivated by giving an extra $300 to those of us earning little enough to receive the bounteous harvest from Uncle Sugar. It would be fair to assert any of the above, and I’m willing to listen to arguments lecturing me in the ways that I’m wrong; but right now I just feel like we’re seeing another bad deal being made that will fail to address the real issues facing our nation’s fiscal future. That just seems like bad math.

At least Pelosi and Co. can now say that they accomplished something over the last few years. Hollow Achievements “R’ Us.

Read the rest.

Update: Investors certainly think that I’m wrong.

U.S. stocks reclaimed higher ground for a second day after a taxpayer rebate plan was unveiled by the White House and the House leadership, lifting an equities market recently battered by worries of an economic recession.

Read the rest.

An article today on Marketwatch is a warning to the wealthy to buy stuff now to avoid rising consumer prices and the dangers of a Democratic presidency.

Presidential candidates see domestic wealth increases as prime pickings for tax increases, meaning that all the wealth that has come the way of the rich may be reduced some.
Obama has a “Tax Fairness for the Middle Class” plan that calls for nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15% to 28%. Clinton, getting advice from Warren Buffett, is in favor of keeping an estate tax in place; the tax is due to expire in 2010, then return the next year in a former incarnation.

John Edwards, too, wants an estate tax and has aggressively proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households altogether. He also wants to close “unfair” loopholes like the tax breaks for hedge funds and private-equity fund managers and unlimited executive pensions—things the other candidates, too, have attacked.

All this means, if you are rich there’s a chance that more capital restrictions could apply in the future. Republican candidates, of course, are more forgiving and tax shy.

All of this also means that if a Democrat does take office next year, we could be seeing seed money for new ventures and development drying up along with a deepened recession and tightening job market. Look for that to happen within the first two years as first year tax increases are guaranteed with any of the Democrats. While I expect Obama or Edwards increases to be the kind that shock the markets, Hillary may have learned from her husband’s first term that baby steps are better when it comes to tax increases both economically and politically.

Again, one of the reasons that I like her as the best option from the left is that she probably learned the power of moderation when it comes to her more progressive instincts. It’s funny: I think her natural political instincts would be somewhere to the left of Obama, and that she really wishes she could shove a very aggressive agenda down our throats. I also believe that her political savvy would lead her to be much more of a centrist in the same way that Bill was and entirely willing to adopt some ideas from the right (like Bill did with welfare reform).

Read the rest.

1. I like that the CU Buffs beat the #3 Sooners. Cool. Surprising. Signs of a resurgent CU team? I wouldn’t quite go that far yet, but it’s obviously going to be a better season than last year.
2. I like the idea of an “eternal net tax ban.” I’m not actually opposed to taxes and I do believe that the government at its many different levels does provide services that are valuable and necessary. But taxes are an eternal struggle--to keep politicians and bureaucratic growth in check, it’s the responsibility of citizens to tug money out of the pocket of the government when they have the chance. An eternal ban on Internet access taxes is one of those things that citizens should support to keep our money from flowing into government coffers (and because network access taxation would likely have an adverse effect on small businesses and consumers).
   

   “Preventing the taxation of Internet access will help sustain an environment for innovation, ensure that consumers continue to have affordable access to the Internet, especially high-speed Internet, and strengthen the foundations of electronic commerce as a vital and growing part of our economy,” they said.

   The officials’ statement is likely geared toward lighting a fire under a U.S. Senate committee scheduled to vote Thursday on a bill that would merely extend the tax ban for four more years, as opposed to making it everlasting. President Bush in the past has also advocated for the tax halt.

   If the moratorium is allowed to expire on November 1, states would be allowed to levy taxes on digital subscriber line, cable modem, wireless and even BlackBerry-type data services. They would also be free to charge different tax rates for goods sold on the Internet and goods sold offline. It’s unclear how many states would have immediate plans to enact such laws, though, if the ban lapses.

   Because none of the pending permanent tax ban bills has been called up for a vote in the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday, a temporary extension appears more likely. That approach represents a compromise of sorts with state and local officials who have balked at the idea of never having the opportunity to revisit the potential for Internet access taxes as a revenue source. (Some states are still allowed to levy such fees because of “grandfather” provisions in existing law.)
   

3. I love my new iPhone. More about it later, but, damn, what a wonderful piece of kit.
4. Speaking of the net tax ban, I don’t like that quiet congressional inaction could kill the idea. In fact, it makes me cranky.
   

   If a lackadaisical Congress does nothing, in other words, Americans soon are likely to be paying more to local governments for the privilege of buying DSL and cable modem service. (These are some of the same local governments that have adopted as their motto: “If it exists, tax it. And then tax it some more.")

   Time’s running out. Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican who does support renewing the moratorium, made a good point in a statement after the nonvote: “We introduced a bill to permanently ban Internet access taxes back in January. I just don’t understand the continued delay in action. The clock continues to tick, placing Internet tax freedom in real jeopardy.”

   You can blame the Democrats for this state of affairs. Not all of them in the Congress, to be sure, but if this was a priority for the Democratic leadership, Majority Leader Harry Reid would make this happen post-haste.
   

5. I really like the idea of BMW bringing back the Triumph marque. They did a damned fine job with the Mini. I doubt it will happen, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt my feelings.
6. I don’t like that TheDenverChannel.com was a little overzealous in protecting their copyright in relation to a story published by Trench. I understand their point; I just don’t agree with it.
7. I like that the Rockies are in the hunt for their first playoff spot since way back in ‘95. Although, to be fair, I’m pretty cranky that it has taken this long for them to really show the potential.

This may be the funniest thing I’ve read all day, especially considering the context of the massive idiocy it references:

We have come to the conclusion that the crisis Michigan faces is not a shortage of revenue, but an excess of idiocy. Facing a budget deficit that has passed the $1 billion mark, House Democrats Thursday offered a spending plan that would buy a MP3 player or iPod for every school child in Michigan.
[...]
We wonder how financially strained Michigan residents will feel about paying higher taxes to buy someone else’s kid an iPod.

Stupid government tricks are not party dependent, but if there were ever a moment to break out the “big government Democrat” stereotype and complain about overspending, this would be the occasion. I won’t lean to heavily on that platform, though, since my own, beloved “party of smaller government” isn’t making me proud on the fiscal responsibility front…

Read the rest.

While obsessively looking through my referrals, I noticed a trickle of traffic from Memeorandum. Having never heard of the site, I followed the link back to see who the hell was linking my stuff. Lo, from the Post-Lastly in the previous post, Memeorandum (which is actually pretty interesting--it might even find its way to the blogroll) linked up my piddly writing and Matthew Yglesias over at Tapped.

Normally, I’d grin a little grin and that would be the end of it; this time, though, I had to comment on what Yglesias wrote.

Obviously, The American Prospect is something I read only when I’m aiming for cranky--the politics don’t exactly mesh with mine. The Yglesias assault on Robert Samuelson’s article (as referenced in the Catallarchy post) is not only disturbing to any fiscal conservative, but indulges itself by labeling Samuelson’s work as “fear mongering” while failing to even attempt to refute the figures that Samuelson offers.

First, I happen to believe that the growing wealth of the nation does not belong to the government. No one but a “progressive” could call me an extremist on tax and spending issues, but the government should be limited to the things that it either does well or tasks that simply can’t be performed properly by individuals. The list isn’t a long one and it is tending to grow shorter in response to so many others’ apparent willingness to put undue faith in our government’s efficiency.

I also believe that wealth created by an individual is generally going to be used more wisely than it would be after the government gets hands of it--and that gathering wealth isn’t the selfish activity that most liberals seem to believe. Building wealth is an activity of guarantying security for individuals and their families--building the kind of financial safety blanket that ensures that a family won’t rely on Social Security, flawed prescription assistance, and heavily subsidized school loans. If more people were allowed to amass wealth, and if more people could see their wealth flow down to their children, then the need for government assistance would shrink.

Less confiscation means more individual wealth and only people like Yglesias see it as otherwise.

But contra Robert Samuelson’s fear-mongering, there’s no serious issue of “generational justice” here. Taxes will—yes—go up. But while my generation will pay a larger proportion of our income in taxes than did our elders, we’ll also have more after-tax income than our elders did. And while baby boomers will get more health care services than the “greatest generation” did (because new stuff’s been invented, and growing public-sector health care programs will pay for it), my generation will get even more health care services than our parents will (because even more stuff will be invented).

The first flaw is the idea that we somehow owe a larger proportion of our paycheck to the government just because we’ll all still be rich on the other side. Especially in regards to the damage that increased taxes can do to an economy--damages that Yglesias doesn’t bother to address--there is also the fear that under this model taxes as a percentage of our incomes would ultimately grow to be the greater portion of our paychecks leaving us with far less than “our elders did.”

Consider the tax increases that would be necessary to salvage our current social programs (Social Security, Medicare, and the like) according to Samuelson:

To cover these costs, we’d have to do one of the following: Raise all federal taxes by 30 to 50 percent (depending on whether today’s budget were balanced); eliminate defense spending and 30 percent of other federal spending, excluding interest payments; run budget deficits three times present levels.

Any of these moves would be disastrous to our economy and our individual wealth--our individual security (not to even delve into the national security issues involved with any of those solutions). Yglesias rushes past without even discussing the numbers, the potential damage, or the inherent unreasonableness of 30-50% tax increases. All he offers is some happy thoughts about how we’re all actually pretty darned rich compared to our parents even after the government gets done raising taxes and spending our money.

Thing is, he’s right. For now. But part of the reason is because of the economy that Reagan created and that Greenspan has shepherded--an economy whose bumps came because of natural disasters, acts of war, one bout of lunacy during the dot-com era, and after significant tax increases. Does he imagine that our economy is sustainable under the kind of taxation necessary to save social programs as they are currently configured?

Of course he does because he isn’t even considering that side of the equation. The only thing he sees is the hopeful benefit on the other side.

This is just the way of the world. Trying to hold expenditure-shares constant as the economy grows would produce preposterous results. Everyone would have way too much computing power and food, but average elementary school class sizes would balloon. The whole thing would be a disaster.

Most of us wouldn’t propose keeping spending constant in terms of absolute dollars, but wonder why the same job can’t be done with a similar portion of our incomes going to taxes. Because if the proportion left behind leaves all of us so much better off, wouldn’t the bit going to the government look similarly enhanced?

Update: Kindly linked by Andy.

I believed that Germany needed Angela Merkel—a moderate conservative who could be a tough-minded economic reformer. I was in love with the idea that she could be the leader to tear apart the broken apparatus of Germany’s overwhelming social programs and build up new structures of commerce and stability.

Trouble is, Merkel isn’t the person that I thought she was and the reforms being proposed by her coalition government could be far more ruinous than Schroder’s incompetent neglect. God help Germany.

The specifics of the proposal aren’t just ugly: they contradict the economic policies that have maintained healthy economies in the US and helped usher in growth in emerging economies throughout the world.

Germany’s plan to cure its self-confessed economic failure by doing exactly the opposite to what modern economics would suggest is certainly a bold and novel idea. Jim O’Neill, the chief international economist of Goldman Sachs, remarked on television last week that German politicians are acting as if they had never seen an economics textbook, much less understood one.

Accordingly, the new German Government has decided to impose one of the biggest tax increases in postwar history and to target the extra taxes on the weakest and most sensitive parts of the economy: consumption, which will suffer a three percentage point increase in VAT, and housing, which will lose tax incentives for first-time buyers. In addition, to fend off accusations that the new consumption taxes will bear unfairly on poorer consumers, the Government will hit the rich as well, increasing the top rate of income tax from 42 per cent to 45 per cent.

What Merkel’s coalition has done, simply, is to wave the white flag. They are admitting that they don’t have the backbone to re-work the social programs that are dragging the economy down, admitting that they have no idea how to broaden the tax base by making an economic climate more conducive to business expansion (and job growth), and admitting that in the absence of other ideas they will simply ask the working class to foot even more of the bill for the unemployed and retired.

Read the Rest...

This is what I wrote a few months ago:

If President Bush doesn’t veto the highway bill, he will be giving up his last shred of credibility on spending issues. He will also lose leverage with the Senate because his domestic policy threat will have been proven to be completely without substance.

This is what’s in the news today:

President Bush opened the gates Wednesday for spending a whopping $286.4 billion on roads and bridges, rail and bus facilities, bike paths and recreational trails, saying the projects from coast to coast would spur the economy and save lives.

Critics said the 1,000-page transportation bill was weighed down with pet projects to benefit nearly every member of Congress. The bill’s price tag over six years was $30 billion more than Bush had recommended, but he said he was proud to sign it.

The bill ended up close to Bush’s $284 billion number (reflect on that number for just a moment) that was the President’s supposed cutoff point. It was close enough, in fact, that he didn’t feel the need to use his threatened veto.

As for me, though, I can’t find a way to be happy about this. I’m glad that he at least came close to holding the line--every billion saved is a billion that can actually stay in the more productive sectors of the economy instead of being gobbled up by bureaucracy. Still, the number is ridiculously high and doesn’t support the idea that there is actually a fiscal conservative left in Washington.

Three million dollars to “documentary about infrastructure advancements in Alaska?”

The President specified a number that he was unwilling to go past ($284 billion dollars), but it isn’t purely the dollar figure that is offensive (although that certainly plays a part). No, what is truly offensive is that the veto should have been as much for irresponsible spending as much as for that arbitrary high limit.

How about nearly a quarter billion dollars for a giant bridge to be built in Alaska? It will be built to link a tiny tourist town of 15,000 to an island with just a handful of inhabitants. Why? Right now the island can only be reached by a short ferry ride, which seems to serve the island’s 50 citizens just fine.

I’m moderating my comments, though, and my opinion about the veto-less President simply because, in context, it really is a vast improvement over the original versions of the bill. The original House bill weighed in at some $370 billion (and included a new five cent tax per gallon of gas), the original Senate version looked to top $318 billion, and the final bill looks downright slender at just $286.4 billion.

Of course, that’s like saying that the 300 pound man looks slender next to the 400 pound man; if those are the only choices, then the one that’s better still isn’t good.

And that’s what we the people got here: something better than it could have been, but it’s still no damned good.

Read the Rest...

I just spent the last few minutes of my life watching Rock The Vote’s infomercial for higher taxes and resistance to Social Security changes. I am stunned by the one-sided, head in the sand, misleading little bit of propaganda.

In case I don’t have the opportunity to put together an extensive response later tonight, I did want to make sure that everyone had a chance to see this thing and understand that the opposition to Social Security reform isn’t based in anything rational. It’s based in ignorance (no, there really isn’t a problem--honest) and a stunning selfishness (not only is there no problem, but there will always be enough new workers to make sure that we all get paid even more than current retirees).

Sheer idiocy.