An Opposing View

November 11, 2012 § Leave a comment

There is an old complaint about lawyers:  Frustrated clients often complain that they want to find a one-armed lawyer so they will not hear “On the other hand”.  Randy Miller, Business Manager for the Teamster Local in Houston in the 50’s and 60’s,  used to argue that labor lawyers’ function was not to advise clients how to stay out of trouble, but to get them out of trouble.  Chris Dixie never agreed, but I remember a bar-room conversation between him and a  friend:  Chris made some statement about criminal law.  His friend said, “Mr. Dixie, I thought you were a labor lawyer, not a criminal lawyer.”  Chris replied, “Hell, when I started practicing labor law, it was criminal law.”

Well, this is about “On the other hand”.

First, let me explain something about the way I see things.  Beginning in my twenties, while I was in college, I consciously and sub-consciously (as I now look backward) rejected absolutes and doctrines and philosophies that offered purity and certainty.  I am not referring to the way I perceived the world, but to the way I perceived myself.  This self-perception was not an event, but a life-long process.

I was attracted to the ideas of Carl G. Jung, who taught that every person  is an amalgam of good and evil -angel and demon – light and shadow.  He believed that acknowledging and claiming the shadow was essential to a balanced and mentally healthy personality.  I was drawn to the Taoist ideas of Lao Tse and the I Ching, a book of changes translated by Richard Wilhelm, for which Jung wrote a long introduction.  Taoists  teach that reality is always a result of opposites, but not opposites in conflict with each other, but continually changing opposites tending toward each other.

Now, I want to be honest about this.  These are slippery and morally dangerous concepts.  They are capable of being used to excuse and rationalize trashy behavior, a convenience that, at times in my life, I have employed fully in stupid and self-destructive ways.  I think I have survived those episodes in a two-step process:  First, I  stopped drinking alcohol.  [This didn’t happen until I was 55 years old.  I’m a slow learner.]  Second, I had to spend several thousand hours painfully reviewing and reexamining the rationalizations that caused me and several others much pain and harm.

But, having made some progress, I still have to pause sometimes and remind myself that my judgments are always subject to review and reconsideration.

The reason for all this prelude is that my attack on the loophole solution to re-balancing our tax system drew spirited blow-back from people whose opinions I respect.  I am not persuaded, but their ideas deserve consideration, especially because the loophole solution is probably most likely to be the one we get, whether we like it or not.

The great advantage of closing loopholes designed specifically to benefit the wealthiest 1% is that it would target those who have benefited most from the unfair taxation policies of the last decade or so.   An increase in the top rate, on the other hand, would hit many who have not benefited from the loopholes and who have attained their level of wealth through personal effort and determination.  For example, compare Barack Obama and George Romney.   Is it fair for Obama and Romney to have identical increases in their taxes as a result of the current effort?  Obama’s wealth results from two books and a lifetime of effort.  Romney’s wealth results from cleverly taking advantage of every tax crack and crevice known to taxation experts and schemers.  Should their wealth be treated the same by the tax code?

Also, consider the fact that state and local taxes vary widely between states and municipalities.  An increase in the top federal income tax rate will affect equally those with high and low state and local taxes.  Does that raise a fairness issue?  The scalpel versus the meat-ax solution would mitigate this problem.

The specific facts about these issues are not yet public or, at least, not known to me.  I assume that, during the next few weeks, we will have an avalanche of data to absorb concerning the relative results of these solutions.  That may require us to re-assess our present preferences.

For now, although I acknowledge the above-stated arguments, I still believe that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the top rate to expire will be the best solution.  I don’t trust the Congress to revise the tax code’s complexity in ways that will balance the kind of cuts in safety-net programs that Republicans will demand.  The term “loopholes” fails to describe the kind of carefully crafted corporate welfare that has been stealthily inserted into the tax code.   When that welfare is threatened, lobbyists will descend on Washington like locusts and  threats to political careers will resemble the kind of “offer you cannot refuse” fictionalized in The Godfather.

Even more important, I don’t believe the loophole solution can be explained to the average American family like the top rate increase can.  The top rate increase is simple and easily grasped, even by working  people who have no time or inclination to become taxation mavins.   I am hopeful that President Obama will make full use of his ability to stay in touch with the American voters who just re-hired him.   If he does, I think he can negotiate from strength rather than weakness.

I have already heard from John Boehner and Lindsey Graham that “The President should lead by adopting Simpson-Bowles.”  This apparently will be their version of a compromise.  I have a proposal about that:  The Simpson-Bowles recommendations should be re-analyzed according to a new set of facts.

Instead of analyzing them according to projections of dollars “saved” and available to pay down the deficit, they should be analyzed according to how many people will die as a result of inadequate health care; how many young people will be denied a college education as a result of cuts in grants for that purpose; how many children will go to bed hungry as a result of cuts in food stamp money; how many elderly people who do physically demanding work will be required to continue that work after they reach the age of 67.   There are other consequences that I cannot think of now, but this suggests the idea.  This information should become part of the public discussion about changes in so-called “entitlements”.   Let those who insist on the cuts take responsibility for the human as well as the financial consequences.

On another note:  I have looked at the present tax brackets.   The top rate  of 35% does not apply until adjusted gross income exceeds $388,250 for taxpayers filing jointly.  Why is President Obama talking about people making “more than $250,000”?  If allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would raise the top rate from 35% to 36.9% only on taxpayers filing jointly with adjusted gross incomes of over $388,250,  why not say that.  That would at least avoid opposition from most people making between $250,000 and $388,250, a $138,250 tranche.  There may be something I’m missing here.  If anyone reading this knows the answer, I’d appreciate it.  Just leave me a comment.

Advertisements

Some More Thoughts On Veep Candidate Ryan

August 11, 2012 § 1 Comment

First, I want to take back my vow to “read” the research report on Paul Ryan.  When I wrote that I did not realize the mothah was 290 pages long.  Also, it is not a narrative report.  It is like an encyclopedic scrapbook of Paul Ryan’s war on the poor, the vulnerable and the United States government.  It is not designed to be read from front to back.  Its like a rap sheet.  The index-like table of contents enables you to pick out which outrage you want to find out about and then click on that page reference and find clickable references to the evidence against Ryan.

A few minutes of playing around with these references, produced these examples.  I learned that it was not some Democratic Party partisan that accused Ryan of  proposing to “abolish medicare”.  It was the Wall Street Journal.  I also learned that Ryan likes to hunt with bows and arrows.  So, he sponsored a bill to give a tax break to manufacturers of bows and arrows.  Stop and ponder that.  He was a Congressman, braying incessantly about balancing the budget by cutting money for Pell Grants, food stamps, Medicade, etc. etc. etc. .  But, because he likes to shoot things with bows and arrows, he proposes a tax paid gift to companies that make bows and arrows.  Is he hypocritical and bereft of compassion  and common sense or just nuts?

One more example:  Here is a passage from the research:

“RAISES RETIREMENT AGE WHILE LEAVING NO SAFETY NET
Ryan Budget Would Raise Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, But Also Repeal Affordable Care Act
 –
  Thereby Leaving 65 And 66-Year-Old Individuals Without Any Guarantee Of Health Insurance.
 According to theCenter for Budget and Policy Priorities,
 The CBO analysis states that the Ryan plan would raise the age at which people become eligible for Medicare from 65 to 67, even as it repeals the health reform law’s coverage provisions. This means 65- and66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at anaffordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer coverage into the individual insurance market, where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be extremely high thereby leaving many of them uninsured. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, many 65- and66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition would not be able to purchase coverage at any price.”

[Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12 ]”

Perhaps this is Ryan’s plan to “save” Social Security:  The minimum eligibility age for Social Security is to be raised to 67.  So, just kill off a few thousand 65 and 66-year-olds before they become eligible.  No, don’t worry.  I haven’t lost my mind.  I’m just kidding.  But, seriously, how in hell can people consider voting for a person who thinks this would be a good idea?  Or for a person who picks this guy to be the understudy for President of the United States of America?

Bob

Alan Simpson and The National Debt

July 29, 2012 § Leave a comment

I just spent about an hour and a half watching and listening to a talk by former Senator from Wyoming Alan Simpson stating his views about the national debt.   He spoke to an event sponsored by Rice University’s  Baker Institute in  October, 2011.

I am posting a link to this talk on this blog because I think his candid thoughts about the debt and some of the political issues surrounding it deserve a wider audience.  I doubt that I would agree with some of his proposed solutions, but I am very impressed with his blunt assessment of the issues and some of the political figures who will be involved in dealing with them.

Here is a link to his talk:  Simpson  .

When you click on this link, you will be transferred to a page concerning the event.   If you scroll down, you will find a video link to his talk.  He is an entertaining speaker with a sharp wit and no hesitation about speaking his mind.  I think you will enjoy the talk, regardless of whether you agree with everything he says.

Bob

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Alan Simpson category at Robert Hall.

%d bloggers like this: