Tax Policy -- Romney Has One, Obama Has A Whiny Complaint

The biggest advantage of Mitt Romney's tax plan is that he has one, unlike his opponent, who seems to be running a campaign in favor of Big Bird and against "binders of women."  The Wall Street Journal actually discusses something substantive -- namely, the deduction cap.  Elizabeth Price Foley over at Instapundit makes a good point about it...

It would operate essentially as a cafeteria plan, where taxpayers get a certain maximum dollar amount of deductions– say, $17,000– and then are allowed to select from a variety of deductions up to the maximum amount.  

This is brilliant because it allows each taxpayer to take those deductions he needs/wants the most. For those who own expensive homes or multiple homes, they could use the mortgage interest deduction (up to the maximum limit). For others– perhaps those who rent–other deductions would be prioritized, such as those for student loans, medical expenses, or business expenses.

I haven't spent much time thinking about that or the other major point she mentions -- that the cap and cafeteria style element would end the battle among lobbyists over which deductions to preserve whenever tax reform efforts are initiated. They're all preserved, but with a cap and a simpler, flatter code. The only people who might object would be tax lawyers.

It's amazing how much flak Romney is taking right now when he actually has an idea that will accomplish something, whereas the other guy seems to be obsessed with raising tax rates on "the rich" and little else. Obama keeps criticizing Romney's tax plan on two grounds: it will blow up the deficit, and it's not fair because "the rich" don't pay enough.   The first is silly coming from a guy who's run four trillion dollar deficits in succession, as Romney noted last Tuesday; it's even more ridiculous when we consider that Obama's suggested contributions to tax policy would barely dent the deficit, and that's under a static analysis that assumes tax hikes won't stunt economic growth.

But it's the fairness point that's most nutty.  It's the cry of a child, not an adult, to invoke "fairness" when it comes to tax policy.  How fair is it that I need to pay more money into the system simply because I make more than someone else?  The basis for tax policy should revolve around figuring out ways to raise more revenue while encouraging more productive economic activity by taxpayers.  Of course, a guy who thinks it's worth raising the capital gains tax rate even if it would generate less revenue probably doesn't care -- it's all about class warfare to him.

Whish is why he shouldn't be President much longer...

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I'm pretty sure this song was created to be part of this feature... assuming Gotye reads this blog.  Which he clearly does -- I think the sadness in the song comes from a one year gap between blog posts.



You're welcome.

Well, Maybe He Can Still Claim, "My Foreign Policy Is Way Better Than My Domestic Policy

When you start trying to figure out why President Obama's foreign policy is so screwed up, this article at Foreign Policy is a good guide.  Particularly when you consider that the author is a former member of Obama's foreign policy team...

Despite some successes large and small, Obama's foreign policy has disappointed many who initially supported him. The Middle East initiatives heralded in his 2009 Cairo speech fizzled or never got started at all, and the Middle East today is more volatile than ever. The administration's response to the escalating violence in Syria has consisted mostly of anxious thumb-twiddling. The Israelis and the Palestinians are both furious at us. In Afghanistan, Obama lost faith in his own strategy: he never fought to fully resource it, and now we're searching for a way to leave without condemning the Afghans to endless civil war. In Pakistan, years of throwing money in the military's direction have bought little cooperation and less love.  

The Russians want to reset the reset, neither the Chinese nor anyone else can figure out what, if anything, the "pivot to Asia" really means, and Latin America and Africa continue to be mostly ignored, along with global issues such as climate change. Meanwhile, the administration's expanding drone campaign suggests a counterterrorism strategy that has completely lost its bearings -- we no longer seem very clear on who we need to kill or why.  

Could Obama have done better?  

In foreign policy as in life, stuff happens -- including bad stuff no one could have predicted. Nonetheless, to a significant extent, President Obama is the author of his own lackluster foreign policy. He was a visionary candidate, but as president, he has presided over an exceptionally dysfunctional and un-visionary national security architecture -- one that appears to drift from crisis to crisis, with little ability to look beyond the next few weeks. His national security staff is squabbling and demoralized, and though senior White House officials are good at making policy announcements, mechanisms to actually implement policies are sadly inadequate.

Brooks goes on to criticize Obama for failures in strategy (he doesn't have one), structure (it's crumbling), process (no comment needed), and personnel. The last is most entertaining, as Brooks notes that many positions in the national security and diplomatic infrastructure have been filled by campaign aides who don't really know what they were doing.  It's telling that so many of the criticisms in her article are ones that tell the story of the Obama Adminsitration as a whole -- a lack of strategy and failures in process and personnel seem to be the hallmarks of this presentation.

The closing section may be my favorite, however, when Brooks recommends that Obama reinstate a rule from his 2008 campaign -- the "no assholes" rule.  I'm stunned to think that the members of Obama's campaign staff may not be the biggest assholes associated with the President. 

It's Beer -- Even When It's Bad, It's Good

I'm guessing the "researchers" were using this as an excuse to meet women...

Scientists claim to have cracked the code of every drinker's dreams - what makes a perfect pint. 

Based on surroundings, music volume and the number of drinking partners, researchers have devised a formula that can calculate what makes a perfect pint for any given individual.  

The equation also takes into account the availability of snacks, the ambient room temperature, and the number of days until you are required back at work. The resulting formula is: E = - (0.62T2 + 39.2W2 + 62.4P2) + (21.8T + 184.4W + 395.4P + 94.5M - 90.25V) + 50(S + F + 6.4). 

Researchers calculated that the higher the final score for ‘E’, the greater the enjoyment of the pint will be. The complex formula was devised after researchers polled 1,000 volunteers from up and down the country on what conditions they preferred when drinking their pint.

Let me make this simple -- it's beer. It does not require an equation for someone to enjoy it.   And if you do need an equation to enjoy your beer, then I don't want you drinking with me.