Number 1 on my fucket list: I never want to parachute. I don't like heights but I don't mind flying. There is no reason to leave a perfectly good plane.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Fucket List
The fucket list is a new and interesting concept that I've found via another blog that I follow. What is it? "Things you have no desire to ever do, the opposite of a bucket list".
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
How politicians flex their political muscle
There are many ways that politicians flex their muscles and earn new friends that they use to support their future election efforts. You only have to look at a chart like this from the Heritage Foundation to see one aspect of how politicians earn friends. Over the last 20 years, total federal spending (adjusted for inflation) has increased from just over $2 trillion to $3.5 trillion. This spending increase could be caused by many different factors but in the end, "statesmen" in Washington DC won't take ownership of the total spending increases.They blame it on the "other guys" on the other side of the aisle that want to grow welfare or military spending or what ever. Both sides do it and very few of those who don't blame the game are elected
But later in front of their hometown crowds and the organizations that support them, the elected official will crow about the funds they've brought home, the grants their constituents have received and that newest bridge project that is being funded. Increased spending is just the first method of flexing their political muscle is the most transparent and easiest to track.
A second form of politicians flexing their muscles are when they assist their future friends navigate the federal labyrinth of rules and regulations. The 2010 Federal Register was 81,405 pages long. The federal tax code reached 72,536 pages in 2011. To navigate this morass takes professionals whose entire careers comprise of holding the hands of the uninitiated and unconnected through the rules and regulations that everyone encounters.
But later in front of their hometown crowds and the organizations that support them, the elected official will crow about the funds they've brought home, the grants their constituents have received and that newest bridge project that is being funded. Increased spending is just the first method of flexing their political muscle is the most transparent and easiest to track.
A second form of politicians flexing their muscles are when they assist their future friends navigate the federal labyrinth of rules and regulations. The 2010 Federal Register was 81,405 pages long. The federal tax code reached 72,536 pages in 2011. To navigate this morass takes professionals whose entire careers comprise of holding the hands of the uninitiated and unconnected through the rules and regulations that everyone encounters.
Elected officials have staff in both Washington and their home district that their sole job is to assist their constituents. While I am supportive of this in general, in practice politicians are able to shirk responsibility for over-complicating the act of complying with federal law or empowering bureaucrats with rule-making abilities that only empower their agency while proclaiming they are working for the common good.
Politicians gain and exercise power through helping friends through the regulatory messes they make.
The third (and what I believe is the most insidious) form of politicians flexing their muscles are by picking their favorite pet cause, corporate pork or accounting gimmick and tweaking the tax code to pick winners and losers. This a multistage process that doesn't happen overnight.
The first step is a clearing of the decks. This happens through tax reform that is well-meaning and goes through a process of stripping out special perks, credits and deductions that politicians put in the law over the years (See the Tax Reform Act of 1986). Almost immediately after a flattening of the tax rates and removal of special perks, politicians start clamoring for special treatment for their pet projects. (Additionally they will work behind the scenes for less-defensible tax changes.) These changes are sometimes favored by many that you would never suspect of working hand-in-hand (windmill manufacturers and green groups for energy tax credits for example).
These tax changes drive a need for higher and higher tax rates that increase the marginal rate on taxpayers who don't do exactly what politicians want them to do.
Whats the solution? I don't know. There will always be a battle between tax simplification and a tax policy that picks favorites. While I was not a huge fan of Mitt Romney during his run for the presidency (I am and will always be a Phil Gramm-fan), I do believe that Romney understood that spending was only one part of the problem. The other problem was government picking winners and losers via tax policy and needlessly lowering total tax revenue. Romney and Ryan also understood that you could never take on each and every tax credit or deduction and survive in DC.
His solution was inelegant, misunderstood, and would have been brutally effective. By placing a total cap on deductions that taxpayers would have been able to take, it essentially negated the ability of tax planners to minimize or negate tax liabilities for many. By stacking specialty deductions for accelerated depreciation, earning tax credits for wind-farms, buying legions of electric cars, or buying tradable tax credits (film, low income housing, historic restoration, and energy efficiency for example), federal tax liability is negated to a large extent. This does nothing to the need for revenue and other taxpayers (that are not as adept as tax planning) pay the price.
By capping the total deductions and credits; Romney was wiping out many of the efforts of the politicians, lobbyists, and tax planners. This would have knocked out one of the ways that politicians flex their muscle.
And this would have been a very good thing.
Otherwise you see continued back-alley dealing such as what we have seen in the "fiscal cliff" bill. Just after we've heard all about shared sacrifice and the need for more revenue, the media is now reporting favors made to special interests and the corporate friends of both parties. But don't worry, its only $76,000,000,000 spent... or about $225 for every man, woman and child in the US.
While I am not sure if the final bill was a win or a loss for the Republicans (like other bloggers), I think this small part was a victory for President Obama and the most special of interests, the corporatists.
I believe it's time for a drink.
The first step is a clearing of the decks. This happens through tax reform that is well-meaning and goes through a process of stripping out special perks, credits and deductions that politicians put in the law over the years (See the Tax Reform Act of 1986). Almost immediately after a flattening of the tax rates and removal of special perks, politicians start clamoring for special treatment for their pet projects. (Additionally they will work behind the scenes for less-defensible tax changes.) These changes are sometimes favored by many that you would never suspect of working hand-in-hand (windmill manufacturers and green groups for energy tax credits for example).
These tax changes drive a need for higher and higher tax rates that increase the marginal rate on taxpayers who don't do exactly what politicians want them to do.
Whats the solution? I don't know. There will always be a battle between tax simplification and a tax policy that picks favorites. While I was not a huge fan of Mitt Romney during his run for the presidency (I am and will always be a Phil Gramm-fan), I do believe that Romney understood that spending was only one part of the problem. The other problem was government picking winners and losers via tax policy and needlessly lowering total tax revenue. Romney and Ryan also understood that you could never take on each and every tax credit or deduction and survive in DC.
His solution was inelegant, misunderstood, and would have been brutally effective. By placing a total cap on deductions that taxpayers would have been able to take, it essentially negated the ability of tax planners to minimize or negate tax liabilities for many. By stacking specialty deductions for accelerated depreciation, earning tax credits for wind-farms, buying legions of electric cars, or buying tradable tax credits (film, low income housing, historic restoration, and energy efficiency for example), federal tax liability is negated to a large extent. This does nothing to the need for revenue and other taxpayers (that are not as adept as tax planning) pay the price.
By capping the total deductions and credits; Romney was wiping out many of the efforts of the politicians, lobbyists, and tax planners. This would have knocked out one of the ways that politicians flex their muscle.
And this would have been a very good thing.
Otherwise you see continued back-alley dealing such as what we have seen in the "fiscal cliff" bill. Just after we've heard all about shared sacrifice and the need for more revenue, the media is now reporting favors made to special interests and the corporate friends of both parties. But don't worry, its only $76,000,000,000 spent... or about $225 for every man, woman and child in the US.
While I am not sure if the final bill was a win or a loss for the Republicans (like other bloggers), I think this small part was a victory for President Obama and the most special of interests, the corporatists.
I believe it's time for a drink.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Too many have left us too soon.
A friend died yesterday. I know death happens everyday to about 7,000 Americans but for too many it happens far too soon. The friend who died was about a decade my senior but he wasn't even in his mid-50's yet. His health over the past 10 years was not the best but the last 2 years it had improved. The funny part is that I had only talked to him 4 times in two years but still believe that we each would have moved heaven and earth if the other needed it. He had moved a few hours away and it was difficult to get together. I guess we all sometimes lose track of those things that are important.
The reason I start my blog with this post is to remind us the message from "Auld Lang Syne" remains true. While we are all familiar with its use on December 31 every year, its important to remember that its also used for many other things including farewells and funerals. I recall its message is that for the sake of our long friendship we should join hands and share a drink together in the spirit of good will on New Years Eve. To extend that meaning to other occasions, I believe it means that we should not forget our old friends and celebrate reunion with them.
The reason I start my blog with this post is to remind us the message from "Auld Lang Syne" remains true. While we are all familiar with its use on December 31 every year, its important to remember that its also used for many other things including farewells and funerals. I recall its message is that for the sake of our long friendship we should join hands and share a drink together in the spirit of good will on New Years Eve. To extend that meaning to other occasions, I believe it means that we should not forget our old friends and celebrate reunion with them.
It is also never too late to reach back out and try to reconnect.
Almost everyone makes resolutions each year. Some are minor changes to the normal actions of day-to-day living and other resolutions are unrealistic, unattainable goals. The difficulty I have faced in the past is finding a realistic balancing act but this year I believe I have found a good balance. My resolutions this year will be detailed in the future but the first one that I will attempt to document is to find someone each week that I haven't talked with in the past year and attempt to reconnect. If possible, I will also attempt to get together for a meal or a drink to reconnect in person. Otherwise, a simple phone call may have to do. Each of these efforts will be detailed here.
Almost everyone makes resolutions each year. Some are minor changes to the normal actions of day-to-day living and other resolutions are unrealistic, unattainable goals. The difficulty I have faced in the past is finding a realistic balancing act but this year I believe I have found a good balance. My resolutions this year will be detailed in the future but the first one that I will attempt to document is to find someone each week that I haven't talked with in the past year and attempt to reconnect. If possible, I will also attempt to get together for a meal or a drink to reconnect in person. Otherwise, a simple phone call may have to do. Each of these efforts will be detailed here.
Step 1: Remember and celebrate your friendships, past and present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)