In response to this (typical) column by Paul Krugman in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  "Austerians" holding sway over US economic policy

In predictable form, Paul Krugman is again advocating forcefully in favor of more government spending in the name of "creating jobs" and criticizing those who dare suggest that government spending not only isn't the answer to our economic woes, but that massive deficits and burgeoning national debt could actually inhibit prosperity.  This time, however, he adds a new twist:  he brands those calling for fiscal discipline as "priests of some ancient cult" and likens spending restraint to "human sacrifice".

It's an interesting comparison, since Dr. Krugman himself seeks to venerate an approach -- increases in government spending and regulation of the economy coupled with tax increases on job producers -- that would seem to be based solely on faith.  Such an approach was attempted by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression, Japan in the 1990s, and, most recently, Greece.  That's not a track record of success, would seem to give little reason to expect different results from the same approach by President Obama.

So Dr. Krugman is putting his faith in policies that have not worked in the past, but he's convinced they would be successful now... and he's accusing others of acting like a cult?

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this Paul Krugman column in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  Lights are going out across America

In decrying cost-cutting measures by local governments, Paul Krugman seems either to lack understanding (doubtful) or willingly ignoring (more likely) a simple concept of the approach of many politicians to budget "cutting".  All too often, when politicians see shortfalls coming that require belt tightening, they don't tend to exhaust every effort to cut the non-essential costs.  Instead, they go straight for the things that should be cut last — like police, firefighters, and teachers. Why?  To drum up public support for raising taxes instead of cutting spending.

For example, look at the average salary for teachers in school districts that are cutting back on teachers and educational programs, then look at the average salary of administrators, and in particular, the salary and benefits of the superintendent.  Compare the total amount spent per pupil to the amount actually spent in the classroom.  But cutting back on the number of, or compensation for, administrators, cutting back on travel, and selling off unnecessary assets doesn't cause a public outrage. Cutting teachers, classes, and enrichment activities does, and thus helps facilitate requests for higher taxes and more revenue instead of belt-tightening.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX  77002

When the health care "reform" bill — aka "ObamaCare" — was being debated in Congress, one of the (many) criticisms of it was the sheer size and complexity of the legislation.  The bill weighed in at over 2000 pages, and was filled with taxes, bureaucracies, mandates, prohibitions, regulations, and definitions to the point that no one — even its supporters — knew exactly what was in the bill.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's famous response was that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy".  Now that the "fog" is clearing, the hits just keep on coming — hits to the wallets of taxpayers, to the liberties of citizens, and to the bottom lines of employers.

The latest, courtesy of the Associated Press [emphases added]:

Tucked into the nation's massive new health care law is a requirement that could become a paperwork nightmare for nearly 40 million businesses.

The rule: They must file tax forms for every vendor that sells them more than $600 in goods.

Thegoal is to prevent vendors from underreporting their income to theInternal Revenue Service. The government must think vendors are omittinga lot, because the filing requirement is estimated to bring in $19billion over the next decade.

...Businesses already must file Form 1099s with the IRS when they purchasemore than $600 in services from a vendor in a year. The new provisionwould extend the requirement to the purchase of goods, starting in 2012.

The requirement would hit about 38 million businesses, charities andtax-exempt organizations, many of them small businesses already swampedby government paperwork, according to a recent report by the NationalTaxpayer Advocate. It would also create an avalanche of paperwork thatcould strain the IRS itself, wrote the advocate, an independent watchdogwithin the IRS.

Keeping in mind that the health care "reform" passed without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate, the following sounds amazingly Orwellian:

For their part, Democrats blamed Republicans for Friday's failure to eliminate the provision.

"Despite all of their rhetoric about the need to eliminate this reporting requirement, Republicans walked away from small businesses when it mattered most," said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

The reason?  Democrats proposed raising taxes on corporations and gifts to "pay for" removing the requirement.

The platform for the advocates of government-centric health insurance "reform" is this:  put higher taxes and more paperwork requirements on employers — the businesses that create jobs and economic growth.  It's little wonder that in spite of spending hundreds of billions on bailouts and "stimulus", even during the Administration-proclaimed "Summer of Recovery ", Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner still expects the unemployment rate — already around 10% — to continue to remain high and possibly to rise.

Expect more onerous discoveries as the "fog of controversy" continues to clear away, and the "Summer of Recovery" becomes a November of discontent.

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle by Paul Krugman , I sent the following letter:

re:  "The 'new normal' for the economy"

Paul Krugman is rightly worried about the current unemployment rate(still hovering around 10% despite over $800 billion in "stimulus"spending) and the prospects for future job creation; however, he shouldn't be surprised.  Dr. Krugman is a vocal advocate for the establishment of European-style government in the United States:  higher taxes, more intrusive regulation, and costlier, more expansive social welfare programs.  He was a cheerleader for the recently-enacted "ObamaCare", financial regulation overhaul, and is a proponent of a "cap-and-trade" energy tax system.  The result of similar schemes in European countries like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom has been... unemployment rates hovering around 10% for several years.

It would appear that what Dr. Krugman fears could become the "new normal" in the US economy is simply "normal" in countries that implement the policies he advocates here in America.  While he may be brilliant in studying "the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity" (for which he won his Nobel Prize), he appears to engage in cognitive dissonance when discussing political economics.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  Approval deficit:  It's ironic that the more good bills Obama signs into law, the lower his job ratings sink

The Chronicle editorialists seem perplexed by public approval of President Obama following passage of the economic "stimulus" bill, health care "reform", and now the new financial regulation overhaul, asking the public is having "such negative reactions to measures aimed at improving Americans' lives" and exhorting the President as knowing "the right thing to do for America".

It would seem obvious that President Obama's ratings are sinking because people are disagreeing with his vision of what's right for America — one of a federal government even more expansive and expensive than that left to him by his predecessor.  Neither a President nor any other politician should be judged on what his measures are "aimed" at doing, they should be judged on what they actually do.  Even the editorial writers admit the facts:  despite President Obama having "made unemployment a priority" and enacting measures "aimed" at improving the economy, the unemployment rate continues to soar.  Results, not intentions, are what count.

I have no doubt that Mr. Obama truly believes that his dramatic expansion of government intrusion on the marketplace and forthcoming tax increases are steps in the right direction; however, history and experience show otherwise.  It isn't ironic that the public finds his performance lacking as he continues to pursue well-intentioned but ineffective policies — it's simple common sense.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this editorial in the USA Today , I sent the following letter:

re:  Our view on death and taxes: Loopy estate tax policy highlights D.C. dysfunction

Regarding the estate tax, the editorialists of the USA Today assert that "It makes sense to tax inherited wealth, derived simply by having the right parents, at a higher rate than money acquired through hard work or investment" and that it doesn't impose on the deceased person because "heirs are the ones still alive to feel its effects."

This attitude ignores the property rights of the person leaving behind an estate.  Whether it is a farm, business, property, or cold hard cash, a person spends his lifetime accumulating property — after paying taxes on profits, income, property, transactions, dividends, and interest.  To not allow a person to leave behind his property to the person of his choosing without government confiscation is nothing more than legalized plunder.  Property does not belong to the government, it belongs to individuals who should be allowed to leave it to whomever they want without government interference.

It is laughable for advocates of the estate tax to throw up the smokescreen of "lost revenue".  President Obama's proposed 2011 budget is $3.69 trillion; the amount brought in by the estate tax is only approximately $15 billion — less than half a percent, enough to run the federal government for about a day and a half.  Finding that money without raising taxes on anyone — rich or poor — should not be a problem.

The editorial board does get one thing right:  rich and poor alike  "are entitled to a rational, predictable tax system"; add to that one that is fair, reasonable, and just.  Ending the estate tax permanently would meet all of those criteria.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this article in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  Houston police to motorists:  Give us space or pay a fine

As a regular commuter to and from work on I-10, I have witnessed several "tight" lanes when police have motorists pulled over for various offenses (see "Houston police to motorists:  Give us space or pay a fine, July 12).

Rather than pulling over even more motorists to write citations as per the "Move Over or Slow Down" law, perhaps more forethought should be put into when and where Houston police officers are pulling over drivers.  Often, speed traps are purposefully setup in areas where the officers are hard to see — around corners, over rises, etc.; however, this also makes it more difficult for other drivers to see the vehicles that have been pulled over until right on the scene, which in turn can make it extremely difficult to slow down or switch lanes in a safe manner.  Of course, pulling even more people over for not changing lanes or slowing down sufficiently would mean even more cars along the shoulder and in potential harm's way.

Choosing locations where speeding motorists can be pulled over more safely, for example, on service roads instead of the main highway, or on areas where the shoulder is wider or visibility greater, might result in fewer overall citations and, by extension, less revenue into city government coffers.  However, the stated purpose of the traffic patrol — enhancing public safety — would be met more completely.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Seemingly hearkening back to the days of the Cold War, the Associated Press is reporting that the 10 people charged with spying for Russia against the United States are being deported in a "spy swap".  Under the terms of the swap, Russia would send back to the US several convicted American spies currently imprisoned in Russia, while the ten "sleeper spies" who were arrested in the US and have now pleaded guilty to conspiracy not to register as an agent of a foreign country in America.

From several accounts, it would appear that the United States is getting the better end of the deal:  the Russian-jailed American spies were caught passing secrets, while reports are that the American-charged spies provided no actual information to Russian authorities.  But President Obama has a great opportunity to negotiate further.

According to Amnesty International , there are currently 71 "prisoners of conscience" being jailed in Cuba.  Their crime?  Dissent against the Castro regime.  Why not make the "spy swap" really count, and get the Russians to pressure Cuba to release some or all of those dissenters?  It would cost the Russians nothing, but would be a major public relations coup for Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, as well as for President Obama.

In brokering such a deal, President Obama could show that he's a tough negotiator, and that he takes human rights and right of political dissent seriously.  How better to deflect claims that his Department of Justice is soft on political intimidation that have arisen with the voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panthers than to show a steely spine in getting political dissenters freed from Communist Cuba?  Human rights advocates on both the left and the right — from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to National Review — would hail Obama's act.

What would the Russians get?  For one, it would deflect away from Putin's own heavy-handedness at home, as well as provide a symbol of moving away from the Cold War mentality of Cuba as a Communist arm of the Soviet Union.  It would also draw attention away from the embarrassing nature of the spy-ring bust.

President Obama should grab this opportunity to make the "spy swap" really count — to improve the lives of political dissidents, and use his supposed personal magnetism to accomplish something great for human rights and individual liberty.

According to the online journal Politico , South Carolina Democrats are going on the attack against the Republican gubernatorial nominee, state legislator Nikki Haley.  Her crime?  The perceived chink in her armor?  She's too popular.

According to the report, the South Carolina Democratic Party has developed a web site devoted to criticizing Ms. Haley for appearing on national media outlets like Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.  It also "shows the recent Newsweek cover story featuring Haley, 'Woman on the Verge,' with the word 'woman' scratched out and replaced with 'celebrity.'"  Who knew that being a celebrity had such a gender-sensitive effect?  The ad also features Ms. Haley in a picture with the blogger who claimed to have had an affair with her (a claim Haley denies, and one for which no corroborating evidence has surfaced) and disgraced current SC Governor Mark Sanford, himself a known adulterer.  So much for subtlety.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican nominee John McCain tried a similar approach, producing an ad comparing Barack Obama to vacuous celebrities like Paris Hilton.  The ad was greeting with near unanimous criticism, and provided no traction for McCain in the campaign.  Then-Senator Obama had reached celebrity status, but it wasn't because he was vacuous or born rich, it was based on his soaring rhetoric and electoral success.  The effect of McCain's ad only served to turn people off to McCain's substantive message — that a vote for Obama was a vote for a bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government.  It also lent a sense of "is that the best you can do?" to the campaign — if the worst thing that one could say about Obama is that a lot of people liked him, that doesn't exactly make a great case to vote for his opponent.

In a similar manner, Nikki Haley has hardly achieved celebrity status for superficial reasons.  She is young (only 5 days older than this author), energetic, articulate, and intelligent.  An accountant, Ms. Haley worked in her family business, and has been a regular recipient of awards and honors since joining the South Carolina legislature.  Like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, she is of Indian heritage, and is one of a noteworthy number of Republican women candidates in this year's election cycle.  In short, she's no Paris Hilton; she's now a celebrity because of her intellect, her uniqueness, and the buzz that she's created.  Consider the story:  an Indian-American woman being elected governor of South Carolina.

On the playground, a common retort to an insult that has no real substantive comeback usually involves hurling pejoratives at the offenders mother, or some circular nonsense like "I know you are but what am I?"  "Woman Celebrity on the Verge" seems about equal in intellectual timber. 

If this is the best South Carolina Democrats can do, State Rep. Governor Haley seems a pretty sure bet.

In response to this article in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  Climate bills test Senate's commitment

In her article advocating the imposition of a tax on carbon — ostensibly to wean American consumers off their alleged "addiction to oil" — Ms. Carolyn Lochhead makes some rather curious assertions and ignores some economic tradeoffs (see:  Climate bills test Senate's commitment, June 27, 2010).

First of all, she asserts that somehow our purchase of oil from overseas results in a "hidden cost" in "wealth and jobs".  Petroleum is purchased from foreign countries because we are unable to produce enough of it ourselves here in the US.  Some of that is because the government restricts the ability to produce oil from known reserves; whatever the reason, buying oil from overseas increases the market supply of this commodity, which reduces the price of energy here in the US.  We use petroleum precisely because it is the most economical source of energy; if we were to spend more on energy, we'd have less money to spend on other goods and services.

Secondly, petroleum processing doesn't just result in energy-based products.  Petrochemicals are used to make a variety of products, from drugs to medical devices to construction materials.  Government action to artificially raise the price of petroleum would also increase the cost of health care, homes, and appliances, and would negatively impact our standard of living.  How's that for a "hidden cost"?

Thirdly, Ms. Lochhead ignores the hidden costs of alternative energies.  For example, material for use in producing batteries or solar panels must be mined, which has its own environmental and safety impacts.  Windmills can result in bird deaths.  Batteries can produce hazardous and toxic wastes that must be disposed of.  Windmills, solar panels, and other products also employ the use of plastics and other petroleum-derived materials; raising the cost of petroleum would increase the cost of alternative fuels as well.

Contrary to the assertions by Ms. Lochhead and former President Bush, we are not "addicted" to oil and its derivatives.  If a more efficient, effective, and economical source of energy and other products were to come available, we would shift towards it — we moved towards carbon-based energy sources precisely because they provided a more economically efficient outcome.

Ultimately, we should trust private enterprise and free market innovation to help provide us with the best technologies — not government-imposed taxes, more bureaucrats, and giveaways to special interests.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle , I sent the following letter:

re:  Death and Taxes

There's an old saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure.  In the case of the estate tax (or, for this year, the lack thereof), what the Chronicle editorialists lament as a "quirk", "bad news", and a "fluke", I consider ideal — the estate tax should always be 0%.

Consider:  during his lifetime, Dan Duncan worked to build his substantial wealth.  Along the way, he paid income taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes.  He created jobs and wealth through his business enterprizes and touched lives through his philanthropy.  The estate he accumulated is his property — not the government's, not the public's, but his; as such, it should be distributed in accordance with his wishes — not those of the government or the Chronicle editorial board.  Government confiscation of that property simply because he passed away is not a just acquisition, regardless of how abundant his treasure may be.

The economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat pointed out that life, liberty, and property are not created by laws; rather, laws are created to protect life, liberty, and property.  Arbitrarily imposing the "death tax" simply because an estate is considered too big, or that someone is considered to have "enough" wealth, suggests a lack of understanding of the very nature of those inalienable rights upon which our country was founded.

Like the Chronicle writers, I hope that Mr. Duncan's heirs "put their windfalls to good use" — just as I hope the Hearst Corporation puts its profits "to good use".  However, I have no more just claim on what the Chronicle's owners do with their profits — their property — than any of us have on the property of the late Dan Duncan.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Last weekend, the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) had its biennial convention.  Among the functions of the convention are the debate on and passage of the platform, the election of the Committeemen and Committeewomen of the State Republican Executive Committee, and the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the RPT.

The contest for Chairman was a much-anticipated, hard-fought battle among three candidates:  Steve Munisteri, quasi-incumbent Cathie Adams, and Tom Mechler
Ms. Adams was elevated to the position last fall after the abrupt resignation of then-Chairman Tina Benkiser, who left to take a position in the Rick Perry gubernatorial campaign; she previously held the spot of National Committeewoman, a representative of Texas to the Republican National Committee.  Adams is probably best described as an old-guard, establishment social conservative.  Her background was as an advocate, having led the Texas Eagle Forum.  The TEF is an affiliate of the national group of the same name (minus the "Texas" of course) that aims to support "pro-family men and women" in working towards "public and private virtue", among other things.  Her resume was one of decades of issue advocacy for "conservative" and "family values" concerns.

Challengers Munisteri and Mechler, on the other hand, both had business and management experience as well as advocacy and campaign experience.  A lawyer, Mr. Munisteri built and sold a large law firm and had various other business interests (including management of professional boxers and providing television commentary for boxing matches).  He also had extensive campaign and advocacy experience, having founded the Young Conservatives of Texas and serving at various levels in political campaigns over the years.  Mr. Mechler was active in oil and gas as well as serving in various governmental positions.

The race was a classic case of insurgents taking on the establishment; Ms. Adams ran the classic insider campaign -- collecting establishment endorsements and touting her record of service in advocacy and long-held positions on issues.  As a candidate, she emphasized stands she had taken and, largely, what she was against rather than outlining a specific path forward.  She even criticized her opponents for their business and private sector experience, implicitly suggesting that while they were out making money in the private sector, she was there fighting against the liberals.  Her tone was strident and combative.

Mr. Mechler's campaign was less visible here in Houston.  I received a few mailings from him, but he seems to have spent much less money on mailing out literature and seemed to be less vigorously campaigning.  His campaign literature was more compare-contrast, outlining where he had experience and a record of accomplishment on particular issues versus questions about his opponents.  He also emphasized his private sector experience and its relevance, and he laid out a proposed path for the RPT.

The Munisteri campaign was visible, and seemed to spend a lot of money on literature through the mail and at the convention.  Like Mr. Mechler, Mr. Munisteri emphasized his private sector experience, highlighting his management skills both in business and in campaigns (illustrated by pictures of him with political heroes like Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan).  Like Mechler, he emphasized a specific plan, particularly with regards to fund raising, as the RPT is still hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (a fact I find nearly unbelievable -- the largest Republican-dominated state in the US should have a party flush with cash).  He emphasized unity, pointing toward the 2010 elections as pivotal (a point all three candidates made).

A key difference in strategy was apparent once the convention was underway.  One of the first actions is that the delegates caucus by Senate District.  Each SD elects officers to run the caucus, as well as representatives to the various committees -- Platforms, Credentials, and Nominating Committee.  The Nominating Committee does the initial voting on the officers of the RPT, almost like an Electoral College (although their vote is non-binding -- more on that below); thus, it is important for a candidate to have a supporter elected in each caucus.

In SD13, of which I am a member (as is Munisteri), there was no Adams candidate for the Nominating Committee.  That's not to say that she didn't have supporters in the district -- nearly every caucus officer endorsed Ms. Adams, and she ended up getting roughly 1/3 of the caucus vote -- but she was not prepared to even present a candidate.  On the other hand, Munisteri had a candidate prepared to run; he had resumes ready to distribute and a speech ready to give.  Now the SD Nominating Committee member is required to vote on the first ballot for whomever receives the majority of votes in the SD; however, following that ballot, he (or she) can vote for whomever he wishes.  Munisteri was prepared with candidates in every district, and even though Adams had establishment support -- people with years of experience, who ostensibly understand the process thoroughly -- there was no Adams candidate.

In the first round of Nominating Committee balloting, Munisteri had the most votes, but not the required majority.  After the first round, the committee members then have the option of voting their own wishes.  But there was another twist:  Munisteri and Mechler had reached out to one another and determined that if there was no majority, one would support the other.  In the second round, Munisteri won handily.  It was a win based on organization and preparedness... but it wasn't over yet.

The Nominating Committee presents its report to the convention at-large.  At that time, nominations can come from the floor, so long as they have the support of at least three Senate Districts.  A good vote-counter would know whether a floor fight would be worth the time and effort.  Ms. Adams and her team chose to initiate a floor fight, meaning that every delegate's vote would then be recorded.  At this point the candidates would get 10 minutes for a nominating speech and a speech by the candidate.  The candidates could choose anyone to give the nominating speech.

Ms. Adams chose her Vice-Chairman Robin Armstrong to give her introduction, then she spoke.  As in previous speeches, she again highlighted her years of advocacy and of the need to stop the "liberal agenda".  It was in this speech that she seemed to be criticizing Munisteri's private sector credentials.  It was a backward-looking speech that retained the combativeness of her earlier tomes, and it was well-received as "red meat" for her vocal supporters.

While Armstrong's introduction of Adams was expected -- they had run as a team throughout -- Munisteri's was a question.  He had chosen not to run with as a ticket with a Vice-Chair candidate.  But then the masterstroke:  out strolled the third candidate, Tom Mechler, to introduce Munisteri to the delegation.  It was a pretty powerful sight when Mechler removed his "Mechler for Chairman" sticker... and replaced it with "Stand with Steve"... and encouraged his supporters to do the same.  Munisteri's speech started with his own roots in advocacy, but then shifted to the importance of party unity moving forward -- an ideal already established with the Mechler endorsement.

The final floor vote was not even close -- 60% for Munisteri to 40% for Adams.  The fact that the vote wasn't emphasized further the importance of preparation and of deed over word:  a well-organized campaign would at least have a good idea of probable vote counts and whether or not a floor vote had a chance of success.  It appeared that Ms. Adams used her time gathering supporters, while Mr. Munisteri was evidently spending his reaching out to broaden his base among those that only hours earlier were in another candidate's corner.

In the end, the winning candidate was the one whom came with a more thorough understanding of the process, tailored his campaign to meet the environment, spent time building coalitions among competing factions, had the most diverse group of supporters, and knew how to count the votes.  That sounds like a pretty relevant skill set for a political party chairman.  The race was a case study in political campaign management and strategy.

The human mind has some strange foibles, presumably left behind from our hunter-gatherer days.  One such eccentricity, widely held, is the fact that we have a hard time putting things in perspective.  Instead, whatever is in "the now" is superlative, and our lives are measured in "ever"s:  the football game was the most exciting ... ever; winter was the coldest, or the snowiest, or the windiest... ever; summer was the warmest, or the rainiest, or had the worst Hurricanes; that movie was the best, or the funniest, or the scariest, or the worst; and so on down the line.  While it is easy to remember events, and with important ones (9/11 for my generation, the Kennedy assassination for my parents') nearly impossible to forget where you were when they happened, it seems difficult for humans to put things in proper perspective.

As a result, we end up with people juxtapositioning "good ol' days" with walking to school uphill (both ways, according to the cliche) and "these kids today" with dissertations on the superiority of the contemporary athlete.  It's a curious characteristic we seem to share, and perhaps does nothing more important than keep us entertained.

All that said, is it just me, or are famous people -- celebrities, actors, coaches, you name it -- dropping like flies at the fastest rate, well, ever?

Some of this perception on my part is perhaps related to an understandable peculiarity of the human mind:  the seeming increase in quickness in the passage of time, the feeling that every year passes more quickly than the one before.  This is easily explained by the fact that the longer one lives, the smaller the marginal increment of each passing day, year, etc. -- a year to a 40-year old is only 2.5% of his life, while a year to a 15-year old is 6.7%.  Congruently, the longer one lives, the longer one has the exposure required to acquire an attachment, revulsion, or just a familiarity with a larger swath of people.  It makes sense that, all other things being equal, that the older one gets, the more famous or influential people seem to be passing away.  And, well, I am getting older.

Again, though:  all that said, it still seems that over the past year, an inordinate number of notable individuals have passed away, and it seems that they hail from diverse fields, crafts, and professions.  And it seems that we are on the cusp of losing more.

Consider:  in 2009 and 2010 -- regardless of what you think of each of them -- we lost icons in entertainment:  director John Hughes, the remaining actresses of the "Golden Girls" (save Betty White), Patrick Swayze, Fess Parker (Davy Crocket!), Dixie Carter, and Peter Graves; trailblazers:  singer Lena Horne, civil rights activist Dorothy Irene Heights, and former Philippines President Corazon Aquino.  There was Eunice Kennedy Shriver -- founder of the Special Olympics -- and Senator Ted Kennedy.  The classy Dixie Carter, the reclusive JD Salinger, the iconoclastic Dennis Hopper, and the newsman Walter Cronkite.  Nobody will ask "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis"; Gary Coleman is gone, a sad testament to what happens to too many child stars.  There's no more "My Sharona", Billy Mays, "the rest ... of the story" (Paul Harvey), or Titanic survivors.  Two great voices of sport, Harry Callas and Ernie Harwell, are silenced.  The "King of Pop" is gone, and David Carradine took his own life.

Just last weekend, the "Wizard of Westwood", John Wooden, joined the group.  He lived a long, full life -- he was 99 at the time of his death -- and without dissent every person he mentored, coached, or befriended spoke of his character and integrity.  It was interesting to see an old man from rural Indiana being eulogized, at times in tears, by men as varied as Bill Walton, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, coaches who worked for him, and journalists who covered him.  His was the most decorated coaching career in all of college sports.  He won 10 national championships (including 7 in a row) and sent countless players to the NBA.  Yet even though he retired from coaching in 1975, he remained relevant for the next 35 years as people sought his mentoring, his perspective, and his company.

My mother always said that famous people die in threes, an assertion at which I formerly scoffed.  It seems now that has increased, because we seem to be losing them in droves.  Perhaps it is just me and a lack of perspective.  But it sure does seem like it.

In a surprise move -- and one that goes against official Obama Administration policy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed a cut in the top income tax rate from 35% (slated to return to 39.6% next year after the expiration of the so-called "Bush tax cuts") to 27.5%.

Ok, well, not exactly.  Here's what actually happened.  In a speech to the Brookings Institute , Sec. Clinton first admitted she was speaking for herself, not the Administration.  But what she did say was interesting on several counts.  She claimed that "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they're growing like crazy..."  She further claimed that here in the US, "the rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever taxation forms".

Well, as it turns out, what she said was not only questionable on the economic philosophy front -- since when does taking more money out of the private sector, out of the hands of companies and entrepreneurs who actually employ people and make goods and services that consumers want to purchase create more employment? -- but it was also wrong on the facts she stated.

Now granting that the tax structure is different overall in Brazil than it is in the United States, the Cato Institute's Daniel J. Mitchell found that Brazil's "overall tax burden of about 24 percent of GDP is slightly below the aggregate tax burden in the United States. ...Moreover, there’s no doubt that the tax burden in Canada is significantly higher than the Brazilian burden."  For those less-schooled in geography, both the United States and Canada are, in fact, located in the Western Hemisphere.  Brazil's highest income tax rate is 27.5% -- also lower than that in the United States.  The lowest Brazilian income tax bracket is taxed at 7.5% while capital gains are taxed at 15% and dividends to individuals are not taxed at all; in the US the rates are 10% and 15%, respectively for low-income and cap gains.  With the sunset of the "Bush tax cuts", cap gains taxes will rise to 20% (President Obama has suggested even higher rates) and dividends will be taxed again at the same rate as regular income.  In suggesting we should be more like Brazil, Sec. Clinton is (apparently inadvertently) advocating for an overall tax cut.  And, according to a study for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has a more "progressive" tax system than any other member country (note:  Brazil was not included in this study).  This hardly provides evidence towards Sec. Clinton's assertion that "the rich" are somehow "not paying their fair share".

Secretary Clinton did get one thing right:  Brazil does, in fact, have a lower unemployment rate than the US:  7.3% in April 2010 versus 9.9% in the US ; however, interestingly enough (if one wants to play with statistics) it is telling that during the 2000s, the Brazilian unemployment rate was higher than that in the US until the Democratic takeover of Congress following the 2006 elections .  So in addition to seemingly endorsing a tax cut he in the US, apparently Mrs. Clinton is also endorsing a Republican victory in the 2010 Congressional Elections.  Sounds like breaking news to me.

Speaking on the environmental disaster that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has become, President Obama blasted the "cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill" and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the spill a "collective responsibility", admitting of his regulatory body that "[w]e need to clean up that house" in an Associated Press article headlined "Interior secretary acknowledges lax oil regulation".  Interestingly, the quote from President Obama cited above was headlined "Obama assails oil industry's 'cozy relationship' with government".  Implied:  any cozy relationship between government and big corporations --whether petroleum companies or Wall Street firms, another favorite target of late -- is the fault only of the business, not of the government claiming to hold them responsible for following the law.

It seems that the more information is uncovered about that "cozy relationship" between government and business, the more there is to question what we see.  Countrywide Financial offered special mortgage deals to former Fannie Mae executives and Senators involved in writing financial regulation, including Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND); Sen. Conrad was named as Time magazine's "10 Best Senators" in 2006.  Whether it is Jack Abramoff and his mostly Republican cohorts , or an alleged romantic relationship between Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and a Fannie Mae executive, or Archer Daniels Midland and corporate welfare , or the oil spill in the Gulf, the contagion goes deep and wide in our government.

It is beyond obvious to state that there is wide disagreement on to what extent our government should intrude on the economy and on the rights, liberties, and freedoms of our citizens and residents.  But where the government is involved, it is certainly not asking too much to expect our government not to be on the take from businesses big or small.  Politicians like to refer to themselves as "public servants" -- just Google the term and you get over 2.5 million references -- but serving the public shouldn't involve jumping into bed (figuratively or literally) with the very special interests seeking special favors and benefits at the cost of individual liberty and voluntary exchange.

All of this, particularly in the light of immense efforts of government expansion in terms of cap-and-trade, financial and health care "reform", economic "stimulus", and bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit automakers, begs the question:  why in the world would we trust politicians with even more power?  A famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein comes to mind:  "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."