Business Week: The idea that the human species could alter something as huge and complex as the earth's climate was once the subject of an esoteric scientific debate. But now even attorneys general more used to battling corporate malfeasance are taking up the cause. On July 21, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and lawyers from seven other states sued the nation's largest utility companies, demanding that they reduce emissions of the gases thought to be warming the earth. Warns Spitzer: "Global warming threatens our health, our economy, our natural resources, and our children's future. It is clear we must act."¶ 10:58 PM 1 comments
click here for full story
Christian Science Monitor: Humanity has the hardware in hand to halt the rise in heat-trapping greenhouse gases it pumps into the atmosphere and forestall the worst effects of global warming projected for the end of this century.The goal could be achieved within the next 50 years by more widespread use of a portfolio of at least 15 approaches - from energy efficiency, solar energy, and wind power to nuclear energy and the preservation or enhancement of "natural" sinks for carbon dioxide such as rain forests, or the conservation tillage techniques on farms worldwide, say two Princeton University researchers in a study published Friday
click here for full story
Al Gore book review of 'Boiling Point': The blend of passionate advocacy and lucid analysis that Ross Gelbspan brings to this, his second book about global warming, is extremely readable because the author's voice is so authentic. When Gelbspan first encountered the issue as a reporter nine years ago, he writes, he had no inkling of how it would change his life. But as he put together the evidence of the global climate crisis he describes in this book, he found himself pulled inexorably to do more than simply write about it. So he now feels called to a kind of mission: to describe what is happening, to single out the specific failures and misdeeds of politicians, energy companies, environmental activists and journalists who share responsibility for our predicament, and then propose bold solutions that -- unlike more timid blueprints already on the public agenda -- would in his view actually solve the problem.
click here for full story
From the Washington Times: "People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say, 'I think that's a great thing to do for future generations,' " Mr. Hastert told the Associated Press yesterday.Bruce Bartlett, a Senior Fellow at the conservative Center for Policy Analysis, argues against a national sales tax. His particualr critism is of a bill by Rep. John Linder.
He said he had talked in general terms with President Bush about his proposals.
"I think that's a piece they don't want to bite off in the campaign. They have other things they want to talk about."
Mr. Hastert's spokesman, Peter Jeffries, said the speaker has complained for years about "the billions of dollars wasted every year in tax preparations."
Mr. Hastert doesn't advocate any particular tax measure. Mr. Jeffries said his real goal is to start a national dialogue.
In 1998, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican, and Rep. Billy Tauzin, Louisiana Republican, toured the country debating tax-reform plans.
Mr. Tauzin advocated a national sales tax to replace the income tax, while Mr. Armey supported a flat income tax of 17 percent with no loopholes, tax breaks or social engineering.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, strongly backs a national sales tax, while Democrats strongly oppose a flat tax.
"[Mr. DeLay] has for a long time supported a national sales tax," said Jonathan Grella, spokesman for the majority leader.
In April, Mr. DeLay excoriated the Internal Revenue Service and the tax burdens placed on Americans.
"The tax system in this country is an unmitigated mess. The Internal Revenue Code is a 1.6-million word, job-killing monstrosity that has to go," he said, adding that under a national sales tax, "we can free the national economy from the stranglehold of the IRS, and unleash a new era of American growth, job creation, and competitiveness, with a chance to double the economy in the next 10 to 15 years."
The Democratic National Committee in a statement released Monday said the flat tax would squeeze the middle class and favor the rich.
"According to tax analysts, replacing the current, progressive income tax with a flat-rate tax would dramatically shift the tax burden away from the wealthy — and onto the middle class and the poor," said Jano Cabrera, DNC spokesman.
¶ 10:55 PM 0 commentsBartlett: House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) created a flurry of excitement in Republican circles the other day when it was reported that he is proposing abolition of the Internal Revenue Service in a new book. This would be accomplished by eliminating all existing federal taxes and replacing them with a national retail sales tax.
There is no indication of what tax rate Speaker Hastert thinks would be necessary to replace all federal revenue. A current proposal by Rep. John Linder (R-GA) says that a 23 percent rate would be adequate. But such a low rate can only be sustained by making completely absurd assumptions about what would be taxed. Every serious economist who has ever looked at this question has concluded that a vastly higher rate would in fact be needed.
First, an unstated assumption is that the 23 percent rate proposed by Mr. Linder is comparable to existing state and local sales taxes, where the tax comes on top of the purchase price. Thus, a 5 percent sales tax on a $1 purchase comes to $1.05.
But that’s not the way the Linder plan works. He deceptively calculates the rate as if the tax is part of the purchase price. He calls this the tax-inclusive rate. Calculating the rate the normal way people are accustomed to with state and local sales taxes would require a 30 percent tax rate, not 23 percent.
When Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation scored the Linder proposal 4 years ago, it estimated that it would actually require a tax-inclusive rate of 36 percent, not 23 percent, to equal current federal revenues. Calculating the rate in a normal, tax-exclusive manner would mean a 57 percent rate.
Economist Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution notes that supporters of the sales tax assume that there will be no tax evasion under their proposal and that the size of government will not grow, even though they would send a large annual check to every American in order to offset the regressivity of the tax. Making realistic assumptions, Mr. Gale estimates that the tax-inclusive rate, comparable to Linder’s proposed 23 percent rate, would actually have to be about 50 percent. A rate comparable to existing sales taxes would be close to 100 percent.
And let us not forget that state and local sales taxes would come on top of the federal sales tax, pushing the total rate even higher.
Obviously, the federal government is not going to impose tax rates this high, nor would anyone pay them if it did. There would be a massive tax revolt.
The Linder bill (H.R. 25) is also deceptive in its basic assumption that all consumption of goods and services in the U.S. would be taxed. Implicitly, Americans would be taxed on, among other things, all medical care, purchases of new homes, and services provided by state and local governments if Linder’s bill became law.
This means that if you are sick and have large doctor bills, you are going to pay 30 percent on top to the federal government. (Alternatively, you would pay 30 percent more for health insurance.) If you buy a new house listed for $150,000, your actual purchase price is going to be $195,000, including the sales tax. (Alternatively, there could be a tax on the imputed rent homeowners pay themselves for living in their own homes.) And if your children receive $20,000 worth of education each year from the local public schools, somehow or other you are going to have to pay an additional $6,000 to the federal government.
Of course, it is completely idiotic to think that the American people will ever allow this to happen. The idea of taxing all consumption sounds nice in theory until you realize just how broad the definition of “consumption” would be under Linder’s plan.
Economist Evan Koenig of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas makes the point that any new sales tax is going to raise prices by that amount. If the Federal Reserve accommodates it, we are going to have 30 percent inflation the year the tax is introduced. If it is not accommodated, then producer prices are going to have to fall by 30 percent, which will cause a severe recession and greatly reduce the tax yield.
Somehow or other, Mr. Linder has gotten 54 House members to cosponsor his proposal. They should all pray that their opponents overlook their poor judgment. When last the national retail sales tax was a major campaign issue—in the 1996 senate race in Louisiana—the Republican sales tax supporter was crushed by his anti-sales tax Democratic opponent. That may explain why only two senators support Linder’s plan, one of whom is retiring this year.
With all due respect to Speaker Hastert, trying to eliminate the IRS by adopting a national retail sales tax is a very dumb idea.
Fifty-seven percent of workers who were displaced from full-time wage and salary jobs and who were reemployed in such jobs had earnings that were lower than those on the lost job. About one-third experienced earnings losses of 20 percent or more.¶ 10:12 PM 0 comments
Michael Kinsley: L.A. Times: It turns out that Democratic presidents have a much better record than Republicans. They win in a head-to-head comparison in almost every category. Real growth averaged 4.09% in Democratic years, 2.75% in Republican years. Unemployment was 6.44%, on average, under Republican presidents, and 5.33% under Democrats. The federal government spent more under Republicans than Democrats (20.87% of GDP, compared with 19.58%), and that remains true even if you exclude defense (13.76% for the Democrats, 14.97% for the Republicans).¶ 10:07 PM 0 comments
What else? Inflation was lower under Democratic presidents (3.81% on average, compared with 4.85%). And annual deficits took more than twice as much of GDP under Republicans than Democrats (2.74% of GDP versus 1.21%). Republicans won by a nose on government revenue (i.e., taxes), taking 18.12% of GDP, compared with 18.39%. That, of course, is why they lost on the size of the deficit.
Personal income per capita was also a bit higher in Republican years ($16,061 in year- 2000 dollars) than in Democratic ones ($15,565). But that is because more of the Republican years came later, when the country was more prosperous already.
There will be many objections to all this, some of them valid. For example, a president can't fairly be held responsible for the economy from the day he takes office. So let's give them all a year. That is, let's allocate each year to the party that controlled the White House the year before. Guess what? The numbers change, but the bottom-line tally is exactly the same: higher growth, lower unemployment, lower government spending, lower inflation and so on under the Democrats. Lower taxes under the Republicans.
But maybe we are taking too long a view. The Republican Party considers itself born again in 1981, when Ronald Reagan became president. That's when Republicans got serious about cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and making the country prosperous. Allegedly. But doing all the same calculations for the years 1982 through 2002, and giving each president's policies a year to take effect, changes only one result: The Democrats pull ahead of the Republicans on per capita personal income.
Day in the Life of Joe Republican¶ 1:17 AM 0 comments
By John Gray, Cincinnati, Ohio
jgray7@cinci.rr.com - July - 2004
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joes employer pays these standards because Joes employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed hell get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some Liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joes money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark!)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the hosts keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.
Author John Gray - jgray7@cinci.rr.com
The AP reports: Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.The White House declined.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
Asked if the White House knew about the ad or helped find financing for it, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."
McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, later said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, "I can't believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt."
In 2000, Bush's supporters sponsored a rumor campaign against McCain in the South Carolina primary, helping Bush win the primary and the nomination. McCain's supporters have never forgiven the Bush team.
McCain said that's all in the past to him, but he's speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because "it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal."
"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
To hear it for yourself click here
¶ 7:54 PM 0 comments
[Alan Keyes] has been described as the "rising star" of American politics, generating deep and passionate support wherever he speaks and inspiring people at the grassroots to work tirelessly for the American cause.Who knew?
Has demonstrated exceptional ability to educate his fellow citizens about America's founding ideals, upon which we as a people must stand if we are to survive as a free nation.
Possesses invaluable knowledge and experience in international relations that America sorely needs as we face the global uncertainties of the new millennium.
Is capable of leading our country to widespread moral and political renewal, once all of America has chance to see and hear, first-hand, his self-evident brilliance.
Keyes has been asked by the Illinois Republican party to run against Barack Obama for the Illinois Senate seat. ABC News
To read more about Keyes, see the Aug. 4th post from Talking Points Memo.
|
|
Excerpts from Reuters: Ohio resident Bob Stewart says of President Bush: "He's been a world-class polarizer. I don't know if I can stomach four more years with him as president. He misled us into the war in Iraq and has mismanaged everything since."¶ 1:17 AM 0 comments
A raging Democrat? No, Stewart is a Republican, one of an unknown number of such voters who plan to back John Kerry, out of despair over the war in Iraq and disappointment over budget deficits and social policies.
Stewart, 44, an insurance agent from Anderson Township near Cincinnati, voted for Bush in 2000 and is a registered Republican."I just have a gut feeling that Kerry can be trusted to make the right courageous decisions and will make a good president. He showed that with his heroism in Vietnam," he says.
Bush is "supposed to be a conservative and yet he's run up the biggest federal deficit in history. One thing that really turned me (away from Bush) as a lifelong Catholic ... was to see Bush go to the Vatican and try to get the pope to come down hard on Kerry for his stand on abortion. That is absolutely appalling."
In Michigan, Dan Martin has run for local office as a Republican. He says his biggest disappointment is that Bush's reputation as a "compassionate, conservative" governor of Texas hasn't proven true in the White House.
"The foreign policy is a mess. The offensive in Iraq is reckless and built on bad decision making. On the domestic front I understand that terrorism has struck and he's occupied but any real progress on a domestic agenda has ground to a halt," added Martin, 32, a customer service manager at a health maintenance organization who lives in Rochester Hills.
In Tennessee, Brian Boland, a young music company manager shopping at a market near Nashville, said: "I've always voted Republican and my folks will just kill me if they find out I'm switching to Kerry this year ... but I am just frustrated with the way Bush has mishandled everything. All the untruths."
His wife said she too was switching. The Republicans carried Tennessee in 2000, even though it was the home state of Democratic nominee Al Gore.
At the same market Ron King, a black Vietnam Veteran, said: "I always voted Republican before but I'm against Bush ever since I found out that he doesn't love this country. His so-called military record is a sham. And the worst part is that he lies so much. He lied about weapons of mass destruction."Lloyd Huff, 64, retired director of the Dayton Research Institute in Ohio, says he has "voted for a Republican in every presidential election I can remember" but it will be Kerry this time because "the Bush administration has been the most deceitful, duplicitous, secretive administration this country has ever had."
"Going to war in Iraq was a horrible, horrible mistake," he said. He accused Bush of "an arrogant, swaggering cowboy mentality ... he has done more than anyone to inflame the Muslim world by his words and actions,"
