Obama Misery Index hits a record high - BostonHerald.com

This op/ed by Mitt Romney has the usual political rhetoric, but think that he has some very good points in talking about the debt, creating private sector jobs, and that only increasing the taxable income - NOT by increasing the tax rate, can we bring the deficit down and sustain an economic recovery. 

You might or might not agree, but I hope that seeing the name of a GOP leader doesn't preclude anyone from reading through the points he makes about what he feels needs to be done.  THAT is what we need today, the ability to talk civilly about what must be done to solve our serious financial problems. 

Anyway, I found his suggestions very much worthwhile.  

Obama Misery Index hits a record high - BostonHerald.com

Technorati Tags: Obama,Misery Index,Mitt Romney,Federal Debt,economic recovery

Why the Slippery Slope Argument is Not Always Wrong

For years we’ve heard the sneering directed at the ‘slippery slope’ argument made by the NRA that they must contend every perceived infringement of what they view as a Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms or the first chink in the armor would simply be a beachhead to further restrictions and ultimately to a complete elimination of the private gun ownership.  Pragmatists have often argued that the NRA could make minor concessions in situations where the perceived infringement of gun rights were in the public good and would not harm legal gun owners.  This slippery slope view was a constant source of derision by many, who saw it as a silly and inflexible argument – a revealing sign that the NRA was extreme and unwilling to be reasonable in the gun debate.

Over the last few years I have begun to wonder if the slippery slope was, after all, more prescient as an analysis than I’d thought.  When the governments at all levels began to take action against smoking to protect people who were being exposed to second-hand smoke, that seemed a good and proper thing.  It was harmful to them, in whatever degree, and it seemed appropriate to ensure that people who did not wish to be exposed to smoke would not be forced to do so in public places.  Next, however, we began to see specific taxes directed at penalizing people who smoked and I began to wonder “Who gets to decide which behaviors our society will target, and restrict the individual right to eat, drink, drive, smoke, exercise or not exercise, etc., as he or she sees fit.  Where does the public or government point of view begin to supersede the individual person’s choices for their own behavior and lifestyle?  Who gets to decide what free citizens are allowed to do with their own bodies? 

Well, the answers are beginning to seem to me to argue that the slippery slope view was more correct than I had believed.  Legislatures have begun debating financial penalties (read: new taxes), criminal penalties and product restrictions when those government elements reach a decision that those substances, behaviors or activities are ‘wrong’ or ‘harmful’. 

Should Big Macs be taxed at say, $5 a piece, because too many will promote obesity and heart disease?  How about Twinkies?  Or perhaps just the deep fried Twinkies at the fair?  Obesity?  Should we refuse to provide expensive treatment for adult-onset diabetes because a person’s behavior contributes to the contraction of the disease?  Should we ban advertising for foods or other products that some legislator or mayor or governor thinks adversely affects this amorphous ‘public good’?  Some argue that the tax would be a constant reminder to people that what they were buying wasn’t ‘good for them’.  Maybe I should be allowed three days in a county jail to re-think my choices if I don’t document that I got at least twenty minutes of aerobic exercise three times each week.  After all,  exercise is good, right?  And if I don’t do it then it would clearly be in my best interests to do whatever is needed to ‘help’ me do what is best for me.  What if, like dear old Dom Delouise, food makes one happy?  Perhaps we should amend the Declaration to say “the pursuit of happiness (if said pursuit includes only behaviors which are deemed ‘healthy’ by appropriate authorities).  Even if a person is making poor choices, is it the role of government to intervene?  Should we be made to buy food with cards that track the items we buy and refuse to allow us to go over some caloric, or fat content value that has been determined by the government?  Or maybe we should create devices to attach to the naughty bits and be required to gain approval before engaging in ‘adult behavior’ with a partner.  That way, if both partners didn’t have recent and approved STD results on file, a jolt (note that I am assuming an unpleasant and deterrent jolt) would be issued to the bits of the party not approved for whatever form of intimate congress.  In fact, when you think about it, things that were far-fetched a decade ago are actually being considered now.  Is that not a slippery slope?  Perhaps we could put controls on the car that refuse to start the vehicle if the person in the drivers seat hasn’t had a minimum of six hours of REM or deeper sleep – that would end the scourge of drowsy driving, right? 

I could go on and on, and looking up I think I have.  But I am definitely beginning to wonder if the slippery slope is in fact the best logical argument for the incredibly rapidly expanding intrusion of government into personal, private lives and choices.  What worries me more and more each day are these questions, and the variety of proposals I am reading and hearing about almost every day on the news:

• Who decides what is best for me?  When the city/county/state/federal government needs new tax revenues will they come up with a new way to ‘help’ me and all Americans by taxing me – say a 50% excise tax on processed meats, which would help me to avoid the hot dog at the baseball game, or fund the latest underfunded stimulus package item?  Isn’t it a public service when I am stupid and self-destructive with a Hebrew National in one hand and a Red Hook in the other at the ballpark?  Taxing me for that behavior, rather than putting me in the corner to “think about what I have done”…is that responsible parenting by my new parent government entities of all levels? 

“Thank you sir, may I have another?”

• What means are appropriate to ‘help’ me do what is best for me?  Taxes?  Fines? Jail time?  Public humiliation (a la prostitute patrons whose names are published)? 
• What if I am not instilling properly healthful habits in my kids?  Say junior comes in at 20 pounds overweight, should the tax deduction I get for him be withdrawn?  Or maybe we should both have to take classes on parenting and growing up appropriately?
• Am I crazy in wondering if this sort of tax-the-behavior-that- costs-money-in-health-care reasoning might one day lead to taxing people who reproduce if they have genes that increase the risk of increasing health care costs? 
• If in fact, research proves that caloric restriction over a lifespan not only extends life expectancy meaningfully, but reduces health care costs as well, would it be reasonable for government to restrict calories?  Or tax overeating even when it did not produce overweight?  Or might we want to then encourage overeating so that we wouldn’t have the costs of people living longer?

The slippery slope reasoning seems to be a slippery slope itself, and I have now officially given myself a headache.  Which makes me wonder:  might we tax blogs that cause stress, headache, anger, irritation or anxiety?  After all, those things all drive up health care costs.

As always, the problem with regulation is less about the idea of regulating, and much more about who does it, how they do it and what means are allowed.  I would once have thought these things stupid and extreme thoughts.  But then, they weren’t in the Congressional Record and every major newspaper then.  I disliked the Nanny State talk almost as much as the slippery slope argument – thinking them sort of paranoid.  The events of recent years are making me wonder whether the folks warning about both have been on to something all along.

Links:

Taxing cosmetic surgery - is it because it is vain, or because rick people don't need to be prettier than the rest of us?

Plain drinks are fine, all that flavored stuff is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Incentives for 'healthy behavior' - will your salary be tied to your weight, exercise habits, sufficient sleep, eating habits...perhaps good blood pressure or cholesterol numbers?

http://www.freemarketproject.org/articles/2009/20090527121042.aspx

http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/nassau-proposes-2-percent-fast-food-tax-for-next-year-1.1258316

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=49658

(Do a couple of quick Google searches and you’ll be amazed at how many proposals there are right now.  I was.)

PS---Isn’t this the same sort of argument that was made early in the AIDS epidemic?  Didn’t we hear that money shouldn’t be wasted finding cures for a disease that people ‘brought on themselves’? 

Technorati Tags: Fat tax,behavior taxes,Nanny State,sin taxes,politics,health care tax increases,fast food tax,flavoered drink tax,punishing unhealthy behaviors

Good Advice on Tax Policy

"A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handles." 

                                                        --Winston Churchill

Technorati Tags: politics,Obama tax plan,taxes,tax policy,Churchill quotes,Churchill on taxes

Obama's New Attack on Those Who Don't Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’

From the ABC News blog:

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

October 31, 2008 10:58 AM

On the stump this week, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has pushed back against Sen. John McCain's description of his tax policies.

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

It's unclear if this was a nod to the Ayn Rand book "The Virtue of Selfishness," with all that the invocation of Rand implies. 

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand's work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as "selfish."

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

Technorati Tags: politics,polls,Obama tax plan,Ayn Rand,Atlas Shrugged,election,Presidential election,Jobn McCain,Barack Obama

AP FACT CHECK: Obama Ad Avoids Budget Realities

The Associated Press takes a look at the details in Obama's prime-time ad

AP

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's...vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are -- beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years -- and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals -- the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more -- cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged -- although not in his commercial -- that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Technorati Tags: Politics,fact-check,Obama tax plan,Obama infomercial