About Me

Name: Dave
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Dave's Weekly Riff, 11-30-07

Posted by Dave on Friday, November 30, 2007 5:59:34 PM
In a rare display of prolificity (is that a word?  If not, it should be!), and in the nick of time (since the week is nearly over), I'm posting twice in one day and getting in my weekly random musings...


The CNN/YouTube debate from the other night might not have made much news from the candidates (other than intensified bickering between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney), but it provided plenty of news about the hosts.  Often derided by Republicans as the "Clinton News Network" for perceived leftward bias, CNN lived up to its derision by allowing a question from a Hillary Clinton supporter.  It also turns out that other questions, all of which were supposed to be from Republicans, came from others affiliated with various Democratic candidates.  At best, CNN looks sloppy and incompetent; at worst, it appears to be an agenda-driven advocacy group lacking journalistic objectivity.  Democrats refused to appear in a Fox News debate due to a perceived rightward bias (and loud chatter from the liberal grassroots); CNN's performance lays the groundwork for analogous action by Republicans in the future.
________________________

For those fans lucky enough to have access to the NFL Network last night, the Dallas vs. Green Bay matchup was everything it was advertised to be.  It had the feel of a playoff game, and with good reason:  these teams are by far the class of the NFC, and both entered the game with 10-1 records, with the winner likely to have home field advantage throughout the playoffs (including the predicted rematch in the NFC Championship).  The game itself played out like a heavyweight boxing match, with big play after big play, punch and counterpunch.  Terrell Owens seemed at times to run wild, and Tony Romo threw the ball deep time after time.  In the end, Dallas won, but the game was certainly entertaining.
________________________

Flying under the radar isn't all that bad.  Just ask Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has seen himself morph into a target since claiming his "top tier" status.  Now that he matters in the polls, people are examining his record as Governor of Arkansas and finding that although he talks "conservative", his record is one of increased taxes and increased spending.  He is running on a platform that includes advocating replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, yet he never attempted to make the conversion in his own state despite serving over 10 years as governor.  His platform also includes leftist populist anti-free market rhetoric and calls for increased government intrusion into trade and the marketplace.  He is definitely not a candidate of liberty.  Here's hoping that the flurry of examination will result in his returning to the second tier of candidates.
________________________

As part of his plan for government health care, John Edwards wants to band pharmaceutical advertising for 2 years following the release of a new drug.  Never mind that getting approvals for new drugs is already an over-bureaucratized, incredibly expensive process.  Never mind that the incentive for drug companies developing new drugs is to make a profit, and advertising informs the public that new drugs are available.  Never mind that people might benefit from new drugs.  No, instead of promoting new drugs as a great benefit, Edwards instead chooses to follow the playbook of bashing drug companies and playing into fears.  Apparently, individuals and their doctors aren't capable of looking at the information and choosing the best treatment; rather, the government needs to intrude.  It is a typical anti-market response for Edwards.  One expects he'd not be so enthusiastic about, say, a 2-year ban on excessive lawsuits of drug companies.
________________________

Speaking of Edwards, he's come out in favor of "localization", which, among other things, places a premium on buying locally-grown produce and locally-manufactured products.  The theory is that doing so would decrease transportation of goods, thereby reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions.  However, the theory seems to ignore that crops tend to be grown in areas where they are most efficiently produced; encouraging crops in less efficient locations can result in an increased reliance on pesticides and fertilizers.  I don't know what the "break even" point is as far as total environmental impact, but I seriously doubt that Mr. Edwards has calculated it either.  In general, however, the free market tends to gravitate towards greater efficiency of resource allocation.
________________________

United Nations AIDS researchers have admitted to overstating the size of the AIDS epidemic.  They have cut the estimate of new infections by 40% and the number of global HIV-infected people by 7 million (approximately 20%).  This is simply a shining example of why government "studies" are to be viewed suspiciously:  they are incentivized towards showing a problem to be more widespread than it is, thus necessitating more government "action" and, of course, more government funding of additional research.  It plays into the hands of non-governmental organizations as well:  the more dire the problem, the more funds they can raise.

Of course, I'm sure there are no other worldwide "crises" that are likewise being overstated by a "consensus" of scientists...
________________________

I am still predicting that Ron Paul is this election's version of Howard Dean in 2004.  He is simply relying too much on people who have no history of participating in the election process.  He's raising money, he's got internet "meetups" and Facebook hits and MySpace friends -- just like Howard Dean in 2004.  He's working the "new media" better than any of his competitors -- just like Howard Dean in 2004.  There's a buzz about his campaign -- just like Howard Dean in 2004.  He's got lots of college students fired up -- just like Howard Dean in 2004.  I'm guessing that his support will crash when it comes time to brave the cold Iowa night to sit in a caucus and will flame out completely in New Hampshire -- you guessed it, just like Howard Dean in 2004.

I do doubt, however, that we'll get a "yeeeeeeeoooooooooowwww" from him at his concession speech.
________________________

I have mentioned previously how no major industrialized country has a national sales tax (although many in Europe do employ a value-added tax, which is similar although much more complicated and intrusive).  There are, however, several countries that have implemented a version of the flat tax, similar to that on which Steve Forbes campaigned in 1996 and 2000.  Countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, and Hungary have seen huge success and economic expansion since moving to a flat tax system.  Perhaps we should concentrate on models that work.  Our tax code is certainly too intrusive, too inefficient, too restrictive.  It holds our economy back.  Politicians enjoy power too much to relinquish it, though, so don't expect a flat tax in America any time in the near future.  Unfortunately.
________________________

Has anyone noticed the writers' strike?  I haven't.  I've read about it in the news, but I haven't noticed at all.
________________________

Go Vols tomorrow in the SEC Championship Game!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Decides What's "Fair"? Part Two

Posted by Dave on Friday, November 30, 2007 4:30:19 PM
The sudden, unexpected, and most likely ultimately meteoric, rise to prominence of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in pursuing the Republican Presidential nomination has brought one of his campaign issues back into the public sphere of debate.

Replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax is not a particularly new idea, having been proposed in various forms for at least the past 12 years or so.  The most popularly-discussed and best-marketed version of a national sales tax plan was developed by a group known as Americans for Fair Taxation, and has been widely promoted by talk show host Neal Boortz.  It has been submitted as a bill in Congress several times by Congressman John Linder.

Under the "FairTax", all income, corporate, and payroll taxes would be replaced by a single rate levied on all retail purchases.  The rate is marketed as a 23% "embedded" tax, replacing all other current taxes that show up as "embedded" taxes in the price of retail sales items (which the authors claim is approximately 22% of the price of any item).  Thus, by doing away with the other tax rates and replacing them with the national sales tax, proponents of the "FairTax" claim that prices would not rise, people would keep more of their money (there would be no withholding taxes levied on paychecks), and the intrusive IRS would be abolished.  To remove the inherent regressivity of the tax, each family would be issued "prebate" checks at the beginning of every month to cover a reasonable (as determined by the government, of course) estimate of the sales tax paid on "necessities" (also determined by the government, of course).

Proponents of the national sales tax claim that it would save billions in tax compliance costs (no more tax returns to fill out) and would capture tax money from many who aren't paying taxes now -- drug dealers, illegal immigrants, cash-only businesses, etc.  Further claims of unshackling the economy and improving American manufacturing competitiveness are made, and at some point proponents seem to be promising better health, happier children, and a chicken in every pot.  The sales tax plan is brilliantly marketed, as who could be against a "FairTax"?

As is typical, however, whenever "fair" and "government" are used in conjunction, the devil is in the details.  The so-called "FairTax" is no different, with the exorbitant claims falling prey to real world economics, human nature, and the law of unintended consequences upon further inspection.

The first problem with the national sales tax is the most difficult to overcome:  a Constitutional amendment would be necessary -- not to establish the tax, because it meets Constitutional muster itself.  Instead, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution to repeal the 16th Amendment establishing the federal income tax.  Failure to do so would result in us ultimately having both; we'd be right back where we started, only worse.

Another problem is with the reported income tax rate.  Under current state-imposed sales taxes, the rate reported is what is added on to the price of a taxable good or service; a sales tax of 10% adds on $10 to every $100 purchase.  However, with the "FairTax", the reporting is different, as it is reported as an embedded tax.  The 23% embedded tax rate becomes a whopping 30% when reported similarly to other sales taxes.  Therefore, that $100 item becomes $130 after application of the tax; however, because the tax is embedded, you only see the $130 price tag.  Because the tax is $30 on a $130 total price, the tax is said to be only 23%.  Reported in the same manner, that $110 purchase in the example above would only represent a 9% rather than a 10%; proponents of the "FairTax" claim that it is an unimportant detail, and that the tax is embedded so it doesn't matter anyway.  I would propose that a person buying a $150,000 house that suddenly gets a $45,000 tax bill might disagree; the fact that the price tag becomes $195,000 would probably not go unnoticed.  Likewise with that $30,000 car that suddenly has a $39,000 price tag.

Central to the benefits of the "FairTax" is simplicity:  the IRS would be abolished, and gone would be costly compliance costs, tax returns, and a government bureaucracy known for its intrusiveness.  The advocates of a national sales tax are correct in their diagnosis of the problem:  the IRS is probably the most intrusive government agency in the history of the Republic, and our current tax code is hopelessly conplex.  Billions of dollars and untold efficiency are sucked from our economy each year by our current tax code.  In addition to collecting revenue, the tax code is used by government to dispense favors, engineer certain behaviors, reward supporters, and punish enemies.  It is a corrupt boondoggle and should be scrapped.

While the sales taxers offer a correct diagnosis, their prescription is off the mark.  There are several million income tax filers each year; however, there are several billion retail sales transactions each year.  That means more government intrusion, to ensure that each transaction is taxed properly, to root out the underground economy sure to emerge, and to prevent the inevitable fraud involved with collecting the prebate checks.  A check sent out each month is sure to encourage identity theft, lying about household size, and even additional illegal immigration.  Of course, on paper no illegal immigrants would be eligible for the payout, but do we really trust the government to police against widespread fraud?

It is human nature to try to avoid paying taxes, and we've become rather ingenious at doing so.  There is some debate whether or not services would be taxed, such as doctor's visits and such.  But assume that they aren't, there would suddenly be a big rise in "free" stuff included with services.  Get your oil changed at Jiffy Lube, and they'll throw in the filter and the oil for free, just part of the service... get your hair done at Sport Clips and get "free" shampoo ... get your car repaired for labor only, parts are included as part of the service, etc.  Suddenly, the government has to expand the bureaucracy and/or make the code more intrusive to prevent these "loopholes".

Now consider the impact of a national retail sales tax on the economy.  It seems self evident that if new home, auto, and other item sales are heavily taxed (30% add-on to the price) yet used item sales are not taxed at all, then the market would drop out of new item sales and the used item market would boom.  People would move towards buying used houses or renting.  People would lease or rent vehicles, with new rental-type arrangements probably springing up to take advantage of the tax laws, and used cars would become much more prominent.  With construction and manufacturing tanking, likewise would ancillary industries -- plastics, steel, mining, etc. -- can anyone say "recession"?  With a drop in sales would come a drop in revenue, leading the government, as governments always do, to raise the tax.  The economic impact would be disastrous.

Finally, government doesn't like to give up power.  Currently, as mentioned above, the tax code is used to encourage (or discourage) all sorts of behavior, whether its buying a home (mortgage interest deduction), higher state taxes (state tax deduction), or buying hybrid cars.  Soon, the national sales tax would be used similarly as complaints began to roll in.  Certain businesses would lobby Congress for favorable sales tax treatment (for example:  the automobile industry, once new car sales plummet); other special interests would lobby for tax incentives for "good" behavior (buying hybrid cars) or tax disincentives for "bad" behavior (buying unhealthy junk food).  Advocates of the poor would decry the sales tax on food (despite the "prebates"), and the class warfare types would complain that "the rich" get a prebate check just as big as "the disadvantaged".  Because the tax would be embedded rather than a separate line item, nobody would know how much tax they were actually paying, and retail businesses would be stuck with sorting out the various byzantine laws.  Yes, this is an extreme scenario, but can anyone who has watched government in action declare that it wouldn't happen?

Our current tax code stinks, there's no debate on that.  But a national sales tax is not the way to go.  No major industrialized countries have a retail sales tax, and the reasons are many.  We should focus on tax reform that limits government intrusion and promotes economic growth and prosperity, and the "FairTax" is not the answer.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dave's Weekly Riff, 11-21-07

Posted by Dave on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:29:43 PM
Some hump-day observations for you......


In a previous blog post, I mentioned Barack Obama pulling even with Hillary Clinton in Iowa, and that being at least related, if not the impetus for, the anti-Obama behavior on which Robert Novak reported.  Now the results have been updated, and Obama is actually leading Clinton in Iowa.  Perhaps there is a real horserace after all on the Democratic side.
_________________________________

There are some commercials that are just so bad that it makes me refuse to buy products.  My nominations to the "Hall of Shame" for advertising include the Sonic commercials with those two idiots and the Charmin commercial where one bear is cleaning toilet paper off the back of the other bear.  If I never see that commercial again, it's too soon.
_________________________________

I saw an interesting story on Kudlow & Company last night on CNBC.  Apparently there's a guy in Indiana who started his own currency, the "Liberty Dollar", backed by gold and silver.  His operation was raided by the government for counterfeiting, although he claims to be honest about the fact that his "currency" (the "second most popular currency in the United States" with over $20 million in circulation) is not legal tender and is not minted by the government.  If his claims are true, his actions should not be criminal:  consenting individuals should be free to engage in commerce on terms mutually-agreed upon, free from government interference, as long as fraud and coercion are not involved (and of course as long as the individual liberties of another are not infringed upon).

I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the details of the case, but based on what I understand I hope Bernard Nothaus is found innocent and the Liberty Dollar continues circulating, caveat emptor.
_________________________________

If you're looking for good, free market capitalist commentary, look no further than Cafe Hayek .  Named, of course, in honor of classical economist and Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, Drs. Russell Roberts and Don Boudreaux (professors of economics at George Mason University, both) provide commentary that explores free market capitalism and individual liberty.  I highly recommend checking them out.
_________________________________

Reading through another blog the other day, I read a comment about one of the candidates for US President that denigrated him for having "no energy plan".  My response was that the last thing we need is a government "energy plan".  So far, the government "plan" involves subsidies to corn growers that distort the market, increase the price of food, and encourage the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can pollute the environment. All this for an energy source that is at best a break-even in total fossil fuel consumption over the entire life cycle.  Further, we have known deposits of oil and natural gas that we are prohibited by law from obtaining. 
In general, we need fewer government "plans", and more individual choice, competition, and free markets.
_________________________________

Along the same lines, why in the world is the government still involved in agriculture policy?  The Department of Agriculture is a socialist boondoggle that raises prices for food, distorts the market, and leads to pollution of the environment.  We would be better off just taking the entire agriculture budget, dividing the dollar amount by the number of total farmers, and writing a check.  Or, better yet, just disband the Department of Agriculture and have no "farm bill", and let us keep more of our own money.
_________________________________

The Federal Reserve has released its updated forecast on the economy, and still no recession in sight.  Basically, the forecast calls for slower economic growth, no real inflation (outside of energy costs), and stable unemployment.  Still not an opportune time, however, for the tax increases being touted by all of the Democratic candidates for President.
_________________________________

Speaking of taxes, it is past time for a huge decrease in the corporate tax rate, and I would advocate for further cuts in personal income tax rates.  Republicans in Congress should be submitting bills every week that cut taxes and force the Democrats to vote against tax relief for American families and businesses.  The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5%; in the US it is 35%.  Where would you start your business?
_________________________________

The protectionists are still at it, trying to raise the prices we pay for goods and services with which they don't approve (i.e., not "made in America", whatever that means) and trying to "protect" favored industries from competition.  Unfortunately, the calls for more government intrusion in the marketplace are coming from the left AND the right; the trade policies of candidates Duncan Hunter and John Edwards are indistinguishable in their calls for less individual choice and more government interference.  Regardless of whether it is Pat Buchanan or the AFL-CIO calling for a return to the trade policies of Herbert Hoover, the call should fall on deaf ears.  Free market capitalism, which includes free trade, is the best way to go in terms of liberty AND prosperity.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Game ON for the Democrats

Posted by Dave on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:37:47 AM
The first shot across the bough occurred nearly a year ago, in a much-publicized but untrue article in Insight magazine.  The information it purported was already making its rounds on the internet via emails.  The target:  Barack Obama.  The charge:  that he is some sort of Manchurian Candidate, an Islamic fundamentalist posing as a liberal Christian, just waiting to get into the White House so he can begin the Islamification of the United States.

Rather than accept the story at face value, the Associated Press and CNN decided to do some actual reporting, determining that the story was pure paranoia:  there was no evidence that Obama is a Muslim, and he did not in fact attend a madrassa as claimed.  Insight magazine was duped.  Either cynicism or realism prompted me to think at the time that the boomlet had the Clinton Machine's fingerprints all over it, using the paranoid right-wing magazine as "useful idiots".  It was brilliant:  get a negative view of Obama out there (even being proved wrong, those little morsels of doubt are hard to eradicate completely), and discredit a right-wing publication at the same time.

Now the Clinton Machine is at it again.  A new Robert Novak column claims that the Hillary campaign is making it known in Democratic circles that they have some pretty explosive and scandalous information about Senator Obama.  Mind you, they aren't willing to use it, but those evil Republicans might, and they just wanted everyone to know so they can make the "right" decision in the Democratic primaries.

Of course, the campaign is denying the accusations, blaming them on the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was obviously so successful in preventing two Bill Clinton presidencies, two successful Hillary Clinton senate elections, and has Sen. Clinton leading the pack for the Democratic nomination (and the odds-on favorite to be the next President).  Bob Novak, they claim, is simply fronting false information, and Sen. Obama is showing his inexperience by rising to the bait.

A problem with this spin is that Novak has covered Washington for 50 years and his integrity is not questioned.  Yes, he has an ideological agenda, but he has numerous contacts in both parties, and he consistently breaks news based on information he gets on deep background (typically he has information from a "senior" staffer, administration official, or campaign consultant).

Another problem with the Clinton spin is that the Clintons have a reputation for doing just this sort of thing -- would anyone actually be surprised if Novak's story were proved to be true?  To the Clintons, politics is war, and anyone caught in the crossfire is simply collateral damage.  Get in their way, and you'd better be prepared.

Back in January, I predicted that as the election drew closer, if Obama was seeming like too much of a threat we'd see something like this again.  Over the weekend, new polls suggest that Obama has pulled even with Clinton in Iowa; on Monday comes this revelation for Novak.  Coincidence?  I think not.  It is "Game ON" in the race for the Democratic nomination.  Senator Obama had best be ready for the coming storm.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dave's Weekly Riff

Posted by Dave on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:18:07 PM
It's been awhile, but here we go again with some midweek musings on the passing scene...

I find it increasingly amusing that Senator Hillary Clinton simultaneously tries to emphasize her toughness while playing the victim card and claiming she's being "picked on" by the others seeking the Democratic nomination.  Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher ever complaining about the other candidates being too hard on her?
_________________________________

I always understand that there are issues on which intelligent and well-meaning people can disagree, but there are two issues I simply can't get my mind around the opposing side, and they ultimately are related on the margin.

The first is giving valid state drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.  How in the world is this a good idea?!?  Unless those licenses happen to say "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" on top, thus making it easy to deport them without resorting to racial profiling or violating the 4th and 5th Amendments, this one just makes absolutely no sense to me, and the only justification I can see for it is just pure political pandering.

The second issue that is seemingly a no-brainer is that of requiring photo identification to vote.  Few things are more sacred than a person's right to vote, and if someone else is voting illegally then that right is violated egregiously.  I understand that there is a legacy of racism in the South (and I'm sure throughout the nation) where identification requirements, poll taxes, literacy tests, and other abuses were used to keep minorities from voting; however, that's not the purpose of voter identification efforts today.  I have no problem with the state providing photo ID cards for those that can't afford them as a compromise to enacting this needed reform, and I'll even go along with the Georgia plan of going to a person's home to take the picture if a person is unable to leave (although it would beg the question of how he or she will be able to get out and vote in that case).  But let's have some security in the vote.  Let's have some integrity in the process.

Which leads me to where these issues collide:  if most states consider state-issued drivers licenses as valid forms of ID, then it means illegal immigrants receiving driver licenses have a greater chance of being able to vote... illegally of course.  Slightly less troubling (but still highly infuriating) is that a valid state identification also increases the chances of illegal immigrants getting access to government programs -- i.e., access to tax money confiscated from me.

I just can't put my mind around these interconnected issues.
_________________________________

We had elections here in Texas last week, and there were several ballot propositions on which to vote.  Most of them were more minutiae-esque, like getting rid of some sort of government agency dealing with animal hides (I'm not kidding).  But one of them passed that on the surface sounds like basically approving of Mom, America, and apple pie.  Proposition 15 gave the state the authority to establish $3 billion in bonds to finance cancer research.

Figures such as Lance Armstrong, a personal hero of mine who has, as a private citizen, raised countless dollars for cancer research, campaigned vigorously for the measure.  To oppose it seemed almost cruel -- are you for cancer?  Against a cure?

Of course not.  But with the time, effort, and money spent in getting Prop 15 enacted, I believe a lot of worthwhile privately funded research could have been supported.  Instead, taxpayer money will be confiscated, with the likely result being grants doled out based on political alliances rather than merit, with millions spent on government overhead. 

If something like this is inevitable, I think maybe it would be better to offer some sort of a prize; how about $1 billion payable to the first team to develop a breast cancer vaccination or cure, with strict qualifications that must be met to claim the prize?  At least then the government bureaucracy would be left out of the funding, and some good old-fashioned competition and entrepreneurism would be cultivated.

Of course, the best option is for people to use their freedom of speech to try to persuade others to donate to cancer research and their freedom of association to band together with like-minded people to increase their voice.  And, of course, let's not forget the pharmaceutical companies, for whom profit is the motivator.  New cancer drugs will be developed based on a profit motive; let's keep government out of the health care business to ensure that motive stays in place.
_________________________________

The Tennessee Volunteers continue their roller-coaster season, currently in the "driver's seat" to win the SEC East and win the right to be demolished by LSU in the SEC Championship game.  It appears that Phillip Fulmer has solidified his hold on the head coaching position for at least another year, barring an absolute collapse against Vanderbilt and/or Florida; however, he needs to produce an SEC championship soon.  The last Vol conference title was in 1998 -- the national championship year.  The last time they were truly in the national mix was 2001 (when, incidentally, they lost to the underdog LSU in the SEC Championship Game).

The Big Orange has a young team with some exciting talent, so I suppose I'll concede another season's opportunity to Coach Fulmer.  I would say that regardless of what happens this year, he's still on the "hot seat" as far as I'm concerned.
_________________________________

You had to search long and hard to find it, but there was good news from Iraq in the past week.  Apparently the troop "surge" has seen positive effects, as violence has gone down in areas where the surge was targeted.  One news report even said that al Qaeda has been driven from Baghdad altogether.  Don't hold your breath waiting to see that on the front page, however.
_________________________________

If you don't watch South Park, you should.
_________________________________

I wrote a few weeks ago about Aung Sang Suu Kyi, a brave woman fighting against tyranny in Burma.  Add another woman to the list of the courageous crusaders for liberty and democracy:  Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan.  She's already survived one attack on her life, and there are sure to be more.  Yet knowing the risks, she returned to Pakistan.

Yes, there were charges of corruption during her tenure as Prime Minister; I have no way of knowing whether those were trumped up accusations meant to weaken her politically or valid complaints.  Every leader has her flaws, however, and whether or not she has been guilty of corruption in the past makes her no less transcendent now.
_________________________________

Speaking of Pakistan, it is hard to know what exactly to think of Pakistani President Musharraf's latest crackdowns.  Is he stifling dissent, or is he moving against jihadist elements?  Are our condemnations of his actions sincere, or merely window dressing?  I feel confident there's more than meets the eye, else the words from Condoleeza Rice and President Bush would have been much more forceful.  I just get the feeling there are things that happened behind the scenes that would help explain a lot.  We may never find out the full story.
_________________________________

It is stupefying to me how many so-called "conservatives" who ostensibly believe in free market capitalism are so quick to advocate isolationist policies.  It seems far too many people don't understand that economics is NOT a zero-sum game, nor are trading partners adversaries -- when trade takes place without fraud or coercion, both participants "win".  Unlike in a military war, in an economic "war", each side basically punishes its own citizens rather than those of the other side, as increased taxation and increased government interference in the marketplace results in more expensive products for the consumer, less competition, less innovation, and less efficiency.
_________________________________

Van Halen is coming to Houston!  Tickets go on sale December 1, and the concert itself is December 28 -- 3 days after my birthday (hint, hint).  From what I've seen of the set list, they are playing classics indeed.  It is simply hard to beat those first five albums (Van Halen through 1984) and I can't wait to hear those songs live.
_________________________________

The so-called "death tax" on inheritances is scheduled to be repealed completely in 2010, but based on the way the phaseout was written, it returns in full splendor in 2011.  Thus, someone dying on December 31, 2010 at 11:59 PM passes along his inheritance with no taxes, while someone
 dying 1 minute later faces a potential 55% tax (how's that for perverse incentive?).  One major proponent of a high inheritance tax is multi-gajillionaire Warren Buffett, supposedly in the name of altruism.  As anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist points out, however, Mr. Buffett has a financial stake in a high inheritance tax.

Under current tax law, life insurance payments are not considered under the inheritance tax; therefore, a higher inheritance tax incentivizes people to buy bigger life insurance policies.  Guess who has made (and continues to make) a fortune on life insurance policies...  if you said "Warren Buffett", you would be correct.  Also, high inheritance taxes result in many heirs of family-owned businesses selling the businesses to pay the tax bill.  Guess who has made (and continues to make) a fortune buying family-owned businesses at fire-sale prices then selling them for a profit...  you get the idea.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Art: New Orleans, MoMA, etc.

Posted by Dave on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:51:52 AM

I've never been an expert at art, and until just a few years ago, I didn't really even take an interest in enjoying it.  When I moved back to Baton Rouge in the late 1990s, I started going over to New Orleans quite often, and I found myself enjoying looking through the various galleries in the French Quarter, just enjoying the various works (typically while sipping on an "adult" beverage of some sort).

Over the years, I have really come to enjoy looking at art in general, and some of my favorite time spent in the Big Easy still involves walking around the galleries, usually during the day on a Saturday or Sunday of a long weekend road trip.  Since moving to Houston, I've been able to get on various mailing lists for openings at a couple of different galleries; sipping wine and looking at art is a great start to the evening.

I've found that I prefer works that aren't "obvious"; I'm not a big fan of the Impressionists.  Fields of flowers or bowls of fruit just don't do it for me.  What really pulls me in are typically paintings that make you wonder what's going on outside the painting, off the edges, or paintings where the use of color is very striking and evokes a certain mood, or paintings that are a bit bizarre and might have something different each time they are viewed.

There are a few artists that always seem to catch my eye, some obvious, others maybe less well known and not so obvious.  Robert Cook comes to mind as someone who uses colors so adeptly that even the most stark painting catches your attention.  Similarly, Jose Basso paints what is essentially the same landscape in Chile in every painting I've seen by him, yet the colors draw your eye each time.

My real favorites, however, seem to be Surrealists, so of course I have become a huge fan of Salvador Dali.  I love the way his paintings typically hold such bizarre elements, but still invite the viewer in for more (in some cases, to discover things even more bizarre).  I was, most likely like most fans, first drawn to Dali by the painting Persistence of Memory, which I would say is his most famous.  Typically when I mention it to someone, if they don't recognize the painting by name they instantly recognize the "melting" clocks.  Something about that painting never fails to catch my eye -- not just the clocks themselves but the desolate scenery.  It is my favorite by far.

When traveling, I now try to catch a Dali (sounds like there should be some sort of pun there, doesn't it?) whenever possible; I even went to the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg (Florida, unfortunately, not Russia) -- I highly recommend it, even if you don't consider yourself a big "fan" of his work, because he has so many different styles that I think there's something for everyone and anyone there.

Other surrealists I've come to like (I'm using the "small 's'" designation because I'm not necessarily sure whether or not the artists are considered "formally" part of the Surrealist movement; forgive my ignorance, but I'm speaking more in terms of tone and style than strict definition) include Rene Magritte and Jordan Ivanov.  The Menil Collection museum in Houston has a great exhibition of surrealists taking up nearly 3 rooms; I'm told they have a Dali as well but it hasn't been on display when I've visited.

My last trip to New Orleans featured one of my aforementioned strolls through the galleries.  It was, perhaps, the most fruitful such trip I've ever had, as I walked into a rather nondescript-looking gallery and found a treasure trove of etchings:  by Matisse, by Picasso, and, yes, by Dali himself.  Each of these works was for sale (the least expensive Dali I saw was about $10,000; the one I liked best was something around $100,000.  I don't expect to get it for Christmas although you can bet it'll be on my list).

This gallery also introduced me to an artist mentioned above:  Jose Basso.  If you've never seen his work, I highly recommend it.  The proprietor of the gallery was very excited about his future, and from what I saw it was with good reason.

Further down the street, I came upon some more enjoyable works, but my last trip was into a place with several works by another artist I mentioned previously, Robert Cook.  I had first seen Cook at a couple of galleries in the Quarter a few years ago, before Katrina.  His name had slipped my mind, but I had vivid memory of several of his works.  Seeing his paintings again scratched the itch of remembrance.  All-in-all, it was a great afternoon.

Then, this past weekend, I found myself in New York, home of the famous Museum of Modern Art.  I decided to check it out and to finally see Persistence of Memory.  While wandering through the rooms past some paintings based on the Civil War that reminded me of ink-blot Rorshach tests and -- I'm not kidding -- plain white canvases that supposedly speak of the starkness of existence, I came upon a famous work:  Starry Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh.  I mentioned above my dislike for Impressionists, so it shouldn't be surprised that I was basically unimpressed.  Yet the next two paintings were great and much more interesting.  One was by Edvard Munch, famous for The Scream, and while I don't recall the name I thought it was more interesting than his more famous work.

Finally I made it to the 5th floor, where Persistence is supposed to be.  Supposed to be, because I was greeted by an announcement that Persistence is on loan.  In Los Angeles.  So I didn't get to see it, but did get to see their "other" Dali, which was pretty cool:  it was a series of paintings on glass plates, arranged to invoke a 3-D effect.

I don't know a lot about art (as I'm sure many have realized long before now), but I do know what I like, and I think that's good enough.  Snobbery is overrated in a lot of areas, and as long as a person is at least open to expanding his horizons, I think that's a positive thing.  Some artistic works, whether songs, paintings, movies, or books, are made simply for enjoyment, to better our lives.  Others have a more serious, deeper purpose.  To me, a single piece of art can be either one or both, depending on the viewer, and I do believe that a work can take on new meaning to the beholder beyond or even unrelated to what the artist originally intended.  That's perhaps what I enjoy most.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just One Question...

Posted by Dave on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:50:47 AM
The mini-brouhaha over Senator Clinton's planted questions (Ok, I'm no Hillary supporter, but anyone who doesn't believe that ALL candidates do this is fooling himself) got me thinking:  if I had the opportunity to ask any candidate one question, what would I ask?

Here are some I came up with.

Tancredo:  You have advocated nuking Mecca and Medina if Muslim terrorists were to destroy an American city.  Whom would you advocate nuking if an American city were destroyed by in a suicide attack by terrorists that were not Muslims?

Giuliani:  In the past you have advocated restriction of liberties in terms of gun ownership and political speech (McCain-Feingold).  Have you changed your position in these two areas, and if so, how and why?  Do you regret your previous positions?

Huckabee:  You advocate a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax.  Why did you not advocate doing so in Arkansas during your ten-year period as Governor?

Obama:  Nearly all of your proposed "solutions" involves investing greater power and influence with the government.  Name one issue other than abortion where you would advocate for greater individual choice, less government intrusion, and freer markets.

Hunter:  You have advocated greater government intrusion into commerce and trade, mirroring the trade position of the AFL-CIO.  Can you name one civilization where isolationism and protectionism have resulted in greater prosperity?

Clinton:  During your husband's second term as President he signed free trade agreements and tax cuts.  You've advocated greater government intrusion in trade, canceling free trade agreements, and raising taxes.  Was your husband wrong to enact these policies?

Edwards:  You've spoken of "two Americas", particularly in the education system, and have demonstrated this concept by sending your own children to elite private schools.  Would you favor sending federal education dollars to parents in the form of vouchers that could be used at public or private schools, thus enabling children from the "other America" to attend elite schools like those you've chosen for your own children?

McCain:  Your government experience is vast, but has been entirely in the legislative branch, which requires a different skill set than the Presidency.  What experience do you have that suggests you'd make a good executive?

Romney:  You've spoken a lot about "values" in your campaign.  Do you believe the purpose of government is to promote "values", or to protect individual liberty?

Richardson:  You've advocated immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and spoken out against the "surge".  How do you respond to the news of positive results from the troop "surge", and how would you prevent Iraq from becoming an al Qaeda haven following the withdrawal of US troops you say you would mandate?

Paul:  Do you believe that jihadist terrorists like those in al Qaeda would pose no threat to the United States if we pulled our troops out of the Middle East immediately as you've advocated?


That's my first pass at some questions I'd really like to hear answered.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »