It's official. On May 9, 2013, the level of the infamous greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has reached 400 ppm, the highest level in all of human history. This record-high level has not been reached since at least 2 million years ago, and possibly even 10 million years ago. Scientists consider this a scary trend since the increase in CO2 levels is still accelerating and if unchecked can bring catastrophic climate change in the not-too-distant future after crossing the "climate tipping point." And there is no longer any reasonable doubt that this increase is essentially 100% due to human activity. We are literally cooking the planet, and we will all pay a heavy price for it if we continue to do so.
The climate change deniers are flat-out wrong since it has been a matter of scientific consensus since at least the 1990s. The only serious debate is
about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It
is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to
assume it is a real and urgent problem. We absolutely need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. If we don't do it soon, the result can easily become catastrophic and irreversible.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other
ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same
root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty
energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong
ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics,
most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e.
fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of
the revenue generated from this tax. The tax rate would be low at first (e.g. $10/ton) but will gradually rise every year. Yes, prices for many things would
undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the
dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase and possibly even come out ahead. The average
American would in fact completely break even, but those who (directly or
indirectly) consume less energy than average will effectively pay less,
while the energy hogs will effectively pay more, as they should be.
Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly
progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce
carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to
mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge
is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them
(in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such
as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better
verison of the Kyoto treaty. Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources such as solar and wind.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back
in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar,
a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the
air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of
soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear
power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and
even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly,
it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation
than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those
dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to
build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute for renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we still need some sort of continuous power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's
irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the
Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner
conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become
lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will
reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The
TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to
1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration
dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures
of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less.
But the current tax and
benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be
jettisoned at once. We cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to
shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite the fact that growth is now uneconomic) is also part of the problem. Growth
for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions
our nation (and world) has ever had, and it is the ideology of the cancer cell. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
What is the Best Tobacco Policy?
Cigarettes have been in the news a lot these days, mostly as a result of the recent push to raise the smoking age from 18 to 21 in NYC as well as New York State. We have already noted (on Twenty-One Debunked) that we oppose such a plan, for many of the same reasons that we oppose the 21 drinking age. However, the more basic question of what to do about tobacco in general is seldom discussed, and the debate over whether the minimum age should be 18 or 21 is really just window-dressing and a convenient distraction from the real issue.
It is a well-known fact that tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in the world, and that cigarettes are the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it. The death toll is roughly six million people per year worldwide, with nearly half a million of them in the USA alone. As historian Robert N. Proctor repeatedly notes in his book Golden Holocaust, the merchants of death known as tobacco companies have not only designed the world's deadliest product (and most addictive drug) but willfully lied about its dangers while making it far more dangerous (and addictive) than it has to be. He actually makes an excellent case for banning cigarettes completely, and one cannot simply dismiss him as just another puritanical prohibitionist. For example, he points out that not only are cigarettes the deadliest artifact of human civilization, they are defective by design (killing more people than they need to), they are not particularly useful, and they are not environmentally sustainable. And unlike alcohol or cannabis, cigarettes are not a recreational drug since the vast majority of smokers want to quit. Clearly, we can agree that if alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all currently legal and we had to pick one of them to ban, tobacco would have to be it since it is the least useful and most harmful of the three.
While the TSAP believes that a (relatively) tobacco-free world would most likely be better overall than the one we live in now, we do not believe that a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products is the best way to achieve such a goal, particularly in a country like the USA. Given our nation's bitter experience with alcohol Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs, there would be many foreseeable unintended consequences (black markets, crime, etc.) with such an approach, albeit not quite as severe. Virtually all serious endgame proposals for tobacco involve a gradual phase-out of some sort, though there is some disagreement on the best way to do it and how to define "victory."
As of 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP currently supports is to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and roll-your-own tobacco. That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future.
The TSAP also recommends the following measures be taken as well:
So that is basically the TSAP tobacco policy as of 2013. Except for our new endgame strategy, our views on tobacco-related issues have really not changed significantly since our founding in 2009.
The tobacco industry has dug its own grave. Time to push them in there.
It is a well-known fact that tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in the world, and that cigarettes are the only product that, when used as directed, will kill half of those who buy it. The death toll is roughly six million people per year worldwide, with nearly half a million of them in the USA alone. As historian Robert N. Proctor repeatedly notes in his book Golden Holocaust, the merchants of death known as tobacco companies have not only designed the world's deadliest product (and most addictive drug) but willfully lied about its dangers while making it far more dangerous (and addictive) than it has to be. He actually makes an excellent case for banning cigarettes completely, and one cannot simply dismiss him as just another puritanical prohibitionist. For example, he points out that not only are cigarettes the deadliest artifact of human civilization, they are defective by design (killing more people than they need to), they are not particularly useful, and they are not environmentally sustainable. And unlike alcohol or cannabis, cigarettes are not a recreational drug since the vast majority of smokers want to quit. Clearly, we can agree that if alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis were all currently legal and we had to pick one of them to ban, tobacco would have to be it since it is the least useful and most harmful of the three.
While the TSAP believes that a (relatively) tobacco-free world would most likely be better overall than the one we live in now, we do not believe that a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes or other tobacco products is the best way to achieve such a goal, particularly in a country like the USA. Given our nation's bitter experience with alcohol Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs, there would be many foreseeable unintended consequences (black markets, crime, etc.) with such an approach, albeit not quite as severe. Virtually all serious endgame proposals for tobacco involve a gradual phase-out of some sort, though there is some disagreement on the best way to do it and how to define "victory."
As of 2013, the endgame strategy that the TSAP currently supports is to let tobacco phase itself out by gradually reducing the nicotine content of cigarettes to a (relatively) non-addictive level. Since 2009, the FDA now has the authority to set a legal limit on the nicotine content of tobacco products, as long as the limit is not zero. Much research indicates that there is a threshold level of nicotine required to create and sustain addiction, and if all cigarettes were to fall below this threshold, smoking rates would plummet precipitously. In fact, one tobacco executive was quoted as saying, "‘If our product was not addictive we would not sell a cigarette next week." This idea was originally proposed by Henningfield and Benowitz in 1994, and has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and several other experts including Proctor himself. Malcolm Gladwell also discussed it in his aptly-titled 2000 book The Tipping Point. Thus, the TSAP recommends reducing the maximum nicotine content (not delivery) of cigarettes from the current level of 1-2% to less than 0.1% within 5 years, and doing the same for quasi-cigarettes (i.e. little cigars) and roll-your-own tobacco. That alone would reduce smoking prevalence by as much as 80% within a fairly short timeframe, with further reductions possible in the more distant future.
The TSAP also recommends the following measures be taken as well:
- Ban the use of additives in cigarettes, especially those that are harmful or increase the addictiveness of tobacco.
- Ban the use of any radioactive fertilizers or harmful pesticides for growing tobacco.
- Improve the quality control standards for tobacco products to be at least as high as for food.
- End all government subsidies for tobacco farming and production.
- Divest completely from Big Tobacco at all levels of government.
- Vigorously enforce the current age limit of 18 for tobacco sales to achieve 100% retailer compliance.
- Continue to allow widespread availability of reduced-harm tobacco and nicotine products (i.e. snus, electronic cigarettes, etc.) so that smokers can easily switch to less dangerous alternatives.
- Improve education and smoking cessation programs, funded by tobacco tax revenues.
- Give out free nicotine patches, gum, etc. to any smokers who want to quit. NYC already does this.
So that is basically the TSAP tobacco policy as of 2013. Except for our new endgame strategy, our views on tobacco-related issues have really not changed significantly since our founding in 2009.
The tobacco industry has dug its own grave. Time to push them in there.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Simpson and Bowles Have Been Debunked
It's official. The questionable study that was used to justify draconian austerity measures in several nations (including our own) and repeatedly cited as gospel by fiscal hawks like Simpson and Bowles has been debunked. The shoddy Reinhart and Rogoff study was exposed by 28 year old grad student Thomas Herndon, who found that the authors had made a coding error in their Excel spreadsheet that they didn't bother to correct. Correcting this error changed the results entirely, in a way that does NOT support the original specious claim that austerity is good for the economy.
But that did not stop Simpson and Bowles from continuing to promote ruthless austerity policies. How ruthless you ask? Well, there's a reason their commission was nicknamed the Catfood Commission, since that is what the most vulnerable Americans would end up having to eat if such policies come to fruition. This time around, they are focusing even less on new revenues and more still on spending cuts, including raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Note also how even in their first two plans they conspicuously took off the table the option of raising the top marginal tax rate even by a little. Basically, everyone's ox gets gored except the ultra-rich of course. Because apparently growth for the sake of growth is good no matter what the cost (not), and the Simpson-Bowles plan promotes growth (not).
The TSAP plan does indeed call for spending cuts along with new revenues, but we are careful to distinguish between wasteful and useful spending, and we are well aware that cutting too much too soon will seriously hurt the still-too-weak economy (as we have noted about the sequester). We are also aware that raising taxes on the rich (even by a lot) will not significantly hurt the economy, while raising taxes on the bottom 90% (even by a little) can and will hurt the economy if it is done while the economy is still weak. And we recognize that the jobs deficit is a much more urgent problem than the budget deficit, though both problems eventually need to be solved.
We must remember that the draconian, sequester-on-steroids cuts that Simpson and Bowles are calling for will inevitably lead to a massive number of workers losing their jobs, period. So before we even think about going down that road, let's start by firing the now-discredited Simpson and Bowles before their policies send the rest of us packing.
UPDATE: Looks like Europe is finally starting to abandon austerity, now that the damage it has done is crystal clear. Also, in the USA the February jobs number was higher than originally thought, implying that it is actually the sequester, not the tax hikes that began in January, that is hurting us right now. Congress really needs to answer the "clue phone," as it is ringing louder than ever.
But that did not stop Simpson and Bowles from continuing to promote ruthless austerity policies. How ruthless you ask? Well, there's a reason their commission was nicknamed the Catfood Commission, since that is what the most vulnerable Americans would end up having to eat if such policies come to fruition. This time around, they are focusing even less on new revenues and more still on spending cuts, including raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Note also how even in their first two plans they conspicuously took off the table the option of raising the top marginal tax rate even by a little. Basically, everyone's ox gets gored except the ultra-rich of course. Because apparently growth for the sake of growth is good no matter what the cost (not), and the Simpson-Bowles plan promotes growth (not).
The TSAP plan does indeed call for spending cuts along with new revenues, but we are careful to distinguish between wasteful and useful spending, and we are well aware that cutting too much too soon will seriously hurt the still-too-weak economy (as we have noted about the sequester). We are also aware that raising taxes on the rich (even by a lot) will not significantly hurt the economy, while raising taxes on the bottom 90% (even by a little) can and will hurt the economy if it is done while the economy is still weak. And we recognize that the jobs deficit is a much more urgent problem than the budget deficit, though both problems eventually need to be solved.
We must remember that the draconian, sequester-on-steroids cuts that Simpson and Bowles are calling for will inevitably lead to a massive number of workers losing their jobs, period. So before we even think about going down that road, let's start by firing the now-discredited Simpson and Bowles before their policies send the rest of us packing.
UPDATE: Looks like Europe is finally starting to abandon austerity, now that the damage it has done is crystal clear. Also, in the USA the February jobs number was higher than originally thought, implying that it is actually the sequester, not the tax hikes that began in January, that is hurting us right now. Congress really needs to answer the "clue phone," as it is ringing louder than ever.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Reflections on the Boston Marathon Bombings
On April 15, 2013, a horrific terrorist attack occurred at the Boston Marathon, killing 3 innocent people and injuring at least 180 others. Let us begin by first extending our deepest condolences to the victims of this tragedy, as well as their loved ones. And let us hope that the perpetrator(s), whoever they are, will be brought to swift justice in the very near future.
We still do not know who is responsible for the bombings, why they were done, or even whether the terrorist(s) were foreign or domestic. However, we do know that several partisan hacks on both sides are already trying to exploit this terrible tragedy for political gain. The TSAP fully condemns any such opportunism, and we would have hoped that our nation, and especially its leaders and their media mouthpieces, would be mature enough not to do so. But much to our chagrin, that has turned out not to be the case.
Finally, we must not let fear run our lives, for when we do so, the terrorists win. And that is especially true when such fear induces us to give up our most basic civil liberties in the name of security, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently noted.
UPDATE: As of April 19, the two suspects have been identified and neutralized. The two brothers were from Russia and had been living in the USA for several years, and it is still not known why they did what they did. One was killed by police in a firefight, while the other is now in police custody.
We still do not know who is responsible for the bombings, why they were done, or even whether the terrorist(s) were foreign or domestic. However, we do know that several partisan hacks on both sides are already trying to exploit this terrible tragedy for political gain. The TSAP fully condemns any such opportunism, and we would have hoped that our nation, and especially its leaders and their media mouthpieces, would be mature enough not to do so. But much to our chagrin, that has turned out not to be the case.
Finally, we must not let fear run our lives, for when we do so, the terrorists win. And that is especially true when such fear induces us to give up our most basic civil liberties in the name of security, as Benjamin Franklin so eloquently noted.
UPDATE: As of April 19, the two suspects have been identified and neutralized. The two brothers were from Russia and had been living in the USA for several years, and it is still not known why they did what they did. One was killed by police in a firefight, while the other is now in police custody.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Sequester, Part Deux
The sequester has now been in place for over a month, and it is already beginning to do damage to our still fragile economy. As we have noted in a previous post, the sequester is a bad idea overall and must be repealed or replaced ASAP. Both its direct effects as well as the fear it has created is hampering what little recovery our economy has experienced, and the worst is yet to come.
President Obama has now unveiled his new budget for 2014, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that, if approved, the budget would stop the sequester, implement alternative spending cuts, raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes, increase much-needed infrastructure spending, and still shrink the deficit. The bad news is that, as a concession to Republicans, it would change the inflation indexing formula for Social Security and other programs in a way that would understate inflation, which would hurt the most vulnerable Americans unless other measures are taken specifically to protect them from such benefit cuts. Although Obama says that he will find ways to protect the vulnerable, this change in indexing (the so-called "chained-CPI") would make him the first Democratic president to even consider making any significant cuts to Social Security in the entire program's 78-year history. Unsurprisingly, the budget has angered many Democrats in Congress along with Republicans.
While it is good that Obama is serious about entitlement reform, there are far better ways to do it, which include raising or eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes, indexing initial benefits to prices rather than wages, limiting benefits for the wealthiest retirees, and very gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 for future retirees born after 1960. Even better still would be replacing FICA entirely with an alternative funding source, such as the Universal Exchange Tax, along with the other tweaks listed above. As for Medicare and Medicaid, which are in far worse shape than Social Security, the best way (if not the only way) to effectively reform them would be to create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the civilized world. But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and greedy Republicans, it is unlikely that any of these better alternatives will come to pass in the foreseeable future, and we will be left with a false choice between screwing "merely" one or two generations versus screwing several future generations.
Although Obama's budget clearly leaves much to be desired, it is still far better than the sequester, and it may be the only way for our incompetent Congress to be willing and able to stop it before it's too late. The budget's flaws can be (hopefully) solved at some point in the not-too-distant future, while the sequester is already doing real damage right now and must be jettisoned at once.
President Obama has now unveiled his new budget for 2014, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that, if approved, the budget would stop the sequester, implement alternative spending cuts, raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes, increase much-needed infrastructure spending, and still shrink the deficit. The bad news is that, as a concession to Republicans, it would change the inflation indexing formula for Social Security and other programs in a way that would understate inflation, which would hurt the most vulnerable Americans unless other measures are taken specifically to protect them from such benefit cuts. Although Obama says that he will find ways to protect the vulnerable, this change in indexing (the so-called "chained-CPI") would make him the first Democratic president to even consider making any significant cuts to Social Security in the entire program's 78-year history. Unsurprisingly, the budget has angered many Democrats in Congress along with Republicans.
While it is good that Obama is serious about entitlement reform, there are far better ways to do it, which include raising or eliminating the wage cap on FICA taxes, indexing initial benefits to prices rather than wages, limiting benefits for the wealthiest retirees, and very gradually raising the full retirement age from 67 to 70 for future retirees born after 1960. Even better still would be replacing FICA entirely with an alternative funding source, such as the Universal Exchange Tax, along with the other tweaks listed above. As for Medicare and Medicaid, which are in far worse shape than Social Security, the best way (if not the only way) to effectively reform them would be to create a single-payer healthcare system similar to Canada and most of the rest of the civilized world. But as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and greedy Republicans, it is unlikely that any of these better alternatives will come to pass in the foreseeable future, and we will be left with a false choice between screwing "merely" one or two generations versus screwing several future generations.
Although Obama's budget clearly leaves much to be desired, it is still far better than the sequester, and it may be the only way for our incompetent Congress to be willing and able to stop it before it's too late. The budget's flaws can be (hopefully) solved at some point in the not-too-distant future, while the sequester is already doing real damage right now and must be jettisoned at once.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
An Idea Whose Time Has Come
There has been much in the news lately about raising the minimum wage. For those who are unaware, the TSAP believes that the federal minimum wage should be raised to at least $10/hour, and then indexed to inflation (or average wages) from then on. Less talked about, however, is the idea of a maximum wage, and we feel it is an idea whose time has come.
We at the TSAP feel that it would be a good idea to do what this petition calls for: to cap CEO pay at 50 times the salary of the average worker at his or her company. Thus, if the average worker earns $50,000 per year, then the maximum the CEO can earn is $2.5 million per year. Currently, the average Fortune 500 CEO makes about 380 times what their average employees make, and that is clearly outrageous. And it was not always this way. In 1980, when the top 1% owned "only" about 20% of the nation's wealth (instead of about 40% today), the average CEO made "only" 42 times as much as the average worker. Back then, of course, America had much higher top marginal tax rates (which were generally north of 70% from 1933-1981) and more sensible regulation of business practices, so a maximum wage was unnecessary. However, times have changed, and such a policy couldn't come at a better time.
The naysayers may claim that doing so decreases incentives to work harder and that CEOs somehow deserve their outrageously high compensation packages due to their supposedly higher intelligence and work ethic. To that, we note that while many CEOs are indeed smarter and/or harder-working (not to mention luckier) than the average American, it is highly doubtful that a CEO is 380 times smarter or works 380 times as hard as the average worker. Making 50 times what the average worker earns is still extremely generous to CEOs, especially compared with the pay ratio in more equal societies such as Japan. And as for supposedly decreasing incentives to work harder, remember that, as Robert Reich notes, the economy exists to make our lives better, we do not exist to make the economy better.
So consider it part of our party platform from now on, in combination with our call to raise the minimum wage and also raise the marginal tax rate to at least 50% on incomes above $1 million.
We at the TSAP feel that it would be a good idea to do what this petition calls for: to cap CEO pay at 50 times the salary of the average worker at his or her company. Thus, if the average worker earns $50,000 per year, then the maximum the CEO can earn is $2.5 million per year. Currently, the average Fortune 500 CEO makes about 380 times what their average employees make, and that is clearly outrageous. And it was not always this way. In 1980, when the top 1% owned "only" about 20% of the nation's wealth (instead of about 40% today), the average CEO made "only" 42 times as much as the average worker. Back then, of course, America had much higher top marginal tax rates (which were generally north of 70% from 1933-1981) and more sensible regulation of business practices, so a maximum wage was unnecessary. However, times have changed, and such a policy couldn't come at a better time.
The naysayers may claim that doing so decreases incentives to work harder and that CEOs somehow deserve their outrageously high compensation packages due to their supposedly higher intelligence and work ethic. To that, we note that while many CEOs are indeed smarter and/or harder-working (not to mention luckier) than the average American, it is highly doubtful that a CEO is 380 times smarter or works 380 times as hard as the average worker. Making 50 times what the average worker earns is still extremely generous to CEOs, especially compared with the pay ratio in more equal societies such as Japan. And as for supposedly decreasing incentives to work harder, remember that, as Robert Reich notes, the economy exists to make our lives better, we do not exist to make the economy better.
So consider it part of our party platform from now on, in combination with our call to raise the minimum wage and also raise the marginal tax rate to at least 50% on incomes above $1 million.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The Sequester: A Small, Dull Meat Cleaver
It looks like the sequester will go through, at least for a while, before Congress gets their act together (if they ever do). Republicans refuse to budge on the issue of tax giveaways for the rich (which makes them responsible for any fallout the sequester may bring to the economy), and Democrats are simply not bold enough to do what really needs to be done. But what exactly is the sequester, and why is it so bad for the economy?
First of all, the sequester consists of across-the-board, inflexible, automatic budget cuts as far as discretionary spending is concerned. Half of the cuts will come from defense spending, and the other half from non-defense spending. The size of the cuts (5% overall across the board each year for the next 10 years, 8.2% for defense) may not seem large, but the indiscriminate nature of these cuts won't just cut out the fat, but also bone and muscle as well. If the doctor tells you that you need to lose weight, you wouldn't chop off one of your hands. But that's exactly the kind of effect the sequester would have, and it won't be pretty.
Secondly, our economy is still very weak, and cutting too much too soon would likely push our economy back into recession. The direct effect of these cuts would mean at least 750,000 public sector jobs would be lost this year alone, and the multiplier effect would mean that many private sector jobs would be eliminated as a result, making the total of jobs lost well over 1 million in 2013. And we need that like we need a hole in the head.
Thirdly, many of the so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the growth of spending over time. Thus, even if the sequester remains in effect for a whole decade, the net effect is that federal spending (and the national debt) will continue to grow significantly over the next decade. But it would still do significant damage to the economy since these "cuts" are indiscriminate and inflexible.
Finally, although Congress clearly has a problem with spending like drunken sailors (regardless of who is in power), there are better alternatives to the sequester that would not only reduce but eliminate the deficit rather quickly. The TSAP has repeatedly proposed better ways of balancing the budget and dealing with our massive national debt. Right now, the deficit is really not our biggest problem, but it still must be dealt with. And while our ideas will probably not come to fruition in today's Congress, the sequester is still one of the worst possible ways to deal with the deficit and any alternative must be put in place very soon. For example, simply modifying the sequester to allow the heads of various agencies the flexibility to decide how to make their cuts (as long as the overall amount cut remains the same) would achieve the exact same effect on the deficit, but with far less collateral damage. And Obama's plan to combine spending cuts with increased revenues (from removing various tax loopholes for the rich and corporations) is better still, though not quite as good as the TSAP's plan.
But it looks like the sequester will go through nonetheless, much to our chagrin. The Republicans have rejected Obama's last offer for an alternative deficit-reduction plan, and in doing so they have revealed (yet again) that they really only care about the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. Hopefully Congress will wise up before too much damage is done.
UPDATE: The sequester has already begun as of noon on March 1. While most of the impact will not be immediate (it will take at least several weeks to feel it), the pain will be real for those affected. And millions of Americans will be affected in one way or another eventually. But the silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats now have the upper hand should a belated deal be made in the days to come. And the Republicans would get blamed for any fallout should a deal not be made in the near future.
If no deal is possible in the near future, the least-worst choice of all would be for Congress to simply repeal the sequester entirely with no strings attached. Yes, they can do it if they want to, and at this point it is clearly in America's best interest to do so. But they probably won't unless a critical mass of Americans credibly threatens to vote every single one of them out of office in 2014.
UPDATE II: Looks like the sequester is already starting to kill jobs as of the first week of April, one month after the sequester began. And the much-anticipated furloughs have officially begun. But remember, the worst is yet to come if the sequester remains in effect.
First of all, the sequester consists of across-the-board, inflexible, automatic budget cuts as far as discretionary spending is concerned. Half of the cuts will come from defense spending, and the other half from non-defense spending. The size of the cuts (5% overall across the board each year for the next 10 years, 8.2% for defense) may not seem large, but the indiscriminate nature of these cuts won't just cut out the fat, but also bone and muscle as well. If the doctor tells you that you need to lose weight, you wouldn't chop off one of your hands. But that's exactly the kind of effect the sequester would have, and it won't be pretty.
Secondly, our economy is still very weak, and cutting too much too soon would likely push our economy back into recession. The direct effect of these cuts would mean at least 750,000 public sector jobs would be lost this year alone, and the multiplier effect would mean that many private sector jobs would be eliminated as a result, making the total of jobs lost well over 1 million in 2013. And we need that like we need a hole in the head.
Thirdly, many of the so-called "cuts" are not really cuts at all, but reductions in the growth of spending over time. Thus, even if the sequester remains in effect for a whole decade, the net effect is that federal spending (and the national debt) will continue to grow significantly over the next decade. But it would still do significant damage to the economy since these "cuts" are indiscriminate and inflexible.
Finally, although Congress clearly has a problem with spending like drunken sailors (regardless of who is in power), there are better alternatives to the sequester that would not only reduce but eliminate the deficit rather quickly. The TSAP has repeatedly proposed better ways of balancing the budget and dealing with our massive national debt. Right now, the deficit is really not our biggest problem, but it still must be dealt with. And while our ideas will probably not come to fruition in today's Congress, the sequester is still one of the worst possible ways to deal with the deficit and any alternative must be put in place very soon. For example, simply modifying the sequester to allow the heads of various agencies the flexibility to decide how to make their cuts (as long as the overall amount cut remains the same) would achieve the exact same effect on the deficit, but with far less collateral damage. And Obama's plan to combine spending cuts with increased revenues (from removing various tax loopholes for the rich and corporations) is better still, though not quite as good as the TSAP's plan.
But it looks like the sequester will go through nonetheless, much to our chagrin. The Republicans have rejected Obama's last offer for an alternative deficit-reduction plan, and in doing so they have revealed (yet again) that they really only care about the ultra-rich and mega-corporations. Hopefully Congress will wise up before too much damage is done.
UPDATE: The sequester has already begun as of noon on March 1. While most of the impact will not be immediate (it will take at least several weeks to feel it), the pain will be real for those affected. And millions of Americans will be affected in one way or another eventually. But the silver lining is that Obama and the Democrats now have the upper hand should a belated deal be made in the days to come. And the Republicans would get blamed for any fallout should a deal not be made in the near future.
If no deal is possible in the near future, the least-worst choice of all would be for Congress to simply repeal the sequester entirely with no strings attached. Yes, they can do it if they want to, and at this point it is clearly in America's best interest to do so. But they probably won't unless a critical mass of Americans credibly threatens to vote every single one of them out of office in 2014.
UPDATE II: Looks like the sequester is already starting to kill jobs as of the first week of April, one month after the sequester began. And the much-anticipated furloughs have officially begun. But remember, the worst is yet to come if the sequester remains in effect.
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Ideal Tax
What exactly is the ideal type of tax? It depends, of course, on your definition of "ideal", but most folks would probably agree that the ideal tax is one that would would meet all of the following criteria:
Enter the Universal Exchange Tax (UET). This idea, taken from an anonymous website by a mysterious stranger, is very similar to Dr. Edgar Feige's idea for the Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APT), which we have discussed in a previous post. It would be a very tiny tax, likely somewhere between 0.05% and 0.1%, on all automated (electronic) transactions between entities, period. With a tax base of over $4 quadrillion dollars, such tiny rates can raise impressive sums of revenue:
0.01% = $400 billion per year
0.025% = $1 trillion per year (nearly the entire federal deficit)
0.05% = $2 trillion per year (half the federal budget)
0.1% = $4 trillion per year (the entire federal budget)
This idea is the logical conclusion of the ideas of economists such as Tobin and Keynes, since it is the lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base. And while it may not appear to be progressive at first glance, it is actually highly progressive in practice since the rich have a much higher volume of transactions than the rest of us, while the poor have a relatively low volume of transactions. Or, as the mysterious stranger would put it, "the more you play, the more you pay". And the tiny rate would be painless and barely even noticeable, unless of course you're a rabid speculator. Then it hurts a bit, as it should since excessive speculation imposes negative externalities on the rest of us. Finally, something both progressives AND libertarians can embrace as far as fiscal policy is concerned.
The TSAP supports the introduction of the UET at the federal level (and possibly even at the state and local levels) as revenue-positive replacement for many of our current taxes. Specifically, we would like to see a massive overhaul of our tax code in which the following changes are made along with the UET:
It's time to adopt a 21st century tax code, and to '86 the obsolete Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
- Lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base
- Painless for virtually everyone, yet everyone has some "skin in the game"
- Progressive (the rich pay a higher proportion of their income than the poor)
- No loopholes
- As simple as possible (but not simpler)
- Efficient (raises lots of revenue without hurting the economy)
Enter the Universal Exchange Tax (UET). This idea, taken from an anonymous website by a mysterious stranger, is very similar to Dr. Edgar Feige's idea for the Automated Payment Transaction Tax (APT), which we have discussed in a previous post. It would be a very tiny tax, likely somewhere between 0.05% and 0.1%, on all automated (electronic) transactions between entities, period. With a tax base of over $4 quadrillion dollars, such tiny rates can raise impressive sums of revenue:
0.01% = $400 billion per year
0.025% = $1 trillion per year (nearly the entire federal deficit)
0.05% = $2 trillion per year (half the federal budget)
0.1% = $4 trillion per year (the entire federal budget)
This idea is the logical conclusion of the ideas of economists such as Tobin and Keynes, since it is the lowest possible rate on the broadest possible base. And while it may not appear to be progressive at first glance, it is actually highly progressive in practice since the rich have a much higher volume of transactions than the rest of us, while the poor have a relatively low volume of transactions. Or, as the mysterious stranger would put it, "the more you play, the more you pay". And the tiny rate would be painless and barely even noticeable, unless of course you're a rabid speculator. Then it hurts a bit, as it should since excessive speculation imposes negative externalities on the rest of us. Finally, something both progressives AND libertarians can embrace as far as fiscal policy is concerned.
The TSAP supports the introduction of the UET at the federal level (and possibly even at the state and local levels) as revenue-positive replacement for many of our current taxes. Specifically, we would like to see a massive overhaul of our tax code in which the following changes are made along with the UET:
- The income tax for individuals is drastically simplified and truncated to apply equally to all forms of income with no loopholes, but no tax on the first $100,000 per year. Suggested marginal rates are 10% for each dollar over $100,000 and 50% for each dollar over $1 million.
- The income tax for corporations is drastically simplified and truncated to apply equally to all forms of income by all entities with no loopholes, but no tax on the first $1 million per year. A good rate would be 20-25%, and only undistributed profits would be taxed.
- The FICA (Social Security and Medicare) payroll taxes are eliminated entirely for both employers and employees, since the UET would replace these taxes as well.
- All giveaways (tax expenditures) in the old tax code would either be jettisoned entirely or replaced by direct (and transparent) subsidies from the spending side of the ledger.
- State and local governments should give serious consideration to adopting the UET as a full or partial replacement for their own sales, income, and property taxes. It would not be difficult to "piggyback" on the federal UET once it is in place, and the feds should make it as easy as possible to do so.
It's time to adopt a 21st century tax code, and to '86 the obsolete Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
The American Dream is Dead
It's time to face the brutal truth. The so-called American Dream is dead. Finished. Defunct. Kaput. C'est fini. Except for the top 1% of course. And it has now turned into a nightmare for the rest of us.
Why do we say this? Just look at the facts:
Why do we say this? Just look at the facts:
- Unemployment remains persistently high despite over three years of "recovery", nearly double what it was in 2007.
- Even as unemployment has begun to slowly ebb and people are returning to work, they are taking lower-wage and less secure jobs than before.
- As a result, poverty has increased in recent years, especially among the working poor.
- The middle class continues to shrink nearly every year.
- Meanwhile, the rich continue to get richer. Corporate profits and the Dow Jones are at or close to record highs. And the top 1% now owns over 40% of the nation's financial wealth.
- In fact, a mere 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50% of Americans combined.
- Statistically, an individual is more likely to go from riches to rags than rags to riches. Social mobility has mostly one direction now--DOWN.
- The problems of unemployment, poverty, inequality, and downward mobility are especially true for today's under-30 generation, as America continues to ruthlessly eat its young.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
State of the Planet Address 2013
On February 12, 2013 (Lincoln's Birthday), the President will give his annual State of the Union
Address. Every year since 2011, the TSAP has been giving our
annual State of the Planet Address around January 20. Yes, we know it is a bit of a
downer to say the least. So sit down, take off your rose-colored
glasses, and read on:
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. We need look no further than Superstorm Sandy (which was partly caused or at least enhanced by global warming) to see how crazy our weather has become lately.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. NOW.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and possibly including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress". Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to 1.9 (though that is probably just due to the bad economy rather than a secular trend). But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Our planet is in grave danger, and has been for quite some time now. We face several serious long term problems: climate change, deforestation/desertification, loss of biodiversity, overharvesting, energy crises, and of course pollution of many kinds. Polar ice caps are melting. Rainforests have been shrinking by 50 acres per minute. Numerous species are going extinct every year. Soil is eroding rapidly. Food shortages have occurred in several countries in recent years. Weather has been getting crazier each year, most likely due to climate change. We have had numerous wildfires, floods followed by long periods of drought, and a "storm of the century" at least once a year for the past few years. We need look no further than Superstorm Sandy (which was partly caused or at least enhanced by global warming) to see how crazy our weather has become lately.
None of this is an accident of course. These problems are man-made, and their solutions must also begin and end with humans. We cannot afford to sit idly by any longer, lest we face hell and high water in the not-too-distant future. Our unsustainable scorched-earth policy towards the planet has to end. NOW.
While we do not invoke the precautionary principle for all issues, we unequivocally do for the issue of climate change and any other environmental issues of comparable magnitude (we support the Rio Declaration's version, to be precise). With no apologies to hardcore libertarians or paleoconservatives, in fact. We are not fazed one bit by the Climategate scandal as it does not really "debunk" the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. The only serious debate is about how fast it will happen, and when the tipping point will occur. It is not a matter of if, but when. And the less precarious position is to assume it is a real and urgent problem. We need to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the CO2 concentration is at or below 350 ppm. And it is currently at an unsustainably high level, and growing.
Solving the problem of climate change will also help to solve the other ecological crises we are facing, for they all ultimately have the same root causes, not least of which is our insatiable addiction to dirty energy. However, there is a right way to solve it, and several wrong ways.
The TSAP endorses the ideas embodied in Steve Stoft's new book Carbonomics, most notably a tax-and-dividend system that would tax carbon (i.e. fossil fuels) at the source, and give all Americans an equal share of the revenue generated from this tax. (Note that our proposal to tax natural resources and pay out an Alaska-like citizen's dividend already includes this.) Yes, prices for various things would undoubtedly rise due to this tax, all else being equal, but the dividend will allow Americans to pay for this increase. The average American would in fact break even, but those who (directly or indirectly) use less energy than average will effectively pay less tax, while the energy hogs will effectively be taxed more, as they should be. Thus it is certainly not a regressive tax, and may even be mildly progressive. This is both the simplest and most equitable way to reduce carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution, not to mention waste of dwindling non-renewable resources. The real challenge is getting the feds to accept something that won't directly benefit them (in the short term). Carbonomics also includes other good ideas, such as improving how fuel economy standards are done, and crafting a better verison of the Kyoto treaty.
Though not a part of Carbonomics, we also support raising the federal gasoline (and on-road diesel) tax, raising it a penny a week for two years until it is a dollar higher than it currently is but using that to fund alternative energy sources and public transportation along with highway funding (and possibly including a limited prebate). We call this idea "a penny for progress". Another good idea to further the development of alternative energy would be the use of feed-in tariffs for renewable power sources.
We support ending net deforestation completely, and putting carbon back in the ground through carbon sequestration. One method is known as biochar, a type of charcoal made from plants that remove carbon dioxide from the air, that is subsequently buried. This is also an ancient method of soil fertilization and conservation, originally called terra preta. It also helps preserve biodiversity.
We've said this before, and we'll say it again. We need more nuclear power plants as well. Nuclear emits no greenhouse gases directly, and even indirectly it pales in comparison to fossil fuels. Done properly, it is just as green as solar photovoltaic power, produces less radiation than coal power, and is much safer than in the past (and even those dangers were exaggerated). Since nuclear plants take many years to build, we need to get cracking ASAP. Nuclear power is not a substitute to renewables; it is a necessary complement to them since we need a base-loading power source, not just intermittent power. Our nation's irrational fear of all things nuclear needs to die NOW. Right now.
But the biggest elephant in the room (make that the elephant in the Volkswagen) is overpopulation. It does not make for pleasant dinner conversation, but it must be addressed or else all other causes become lost causes in the long run. We absolutely need to have fewer kids, or nature will reduce our population for us, and the latter will NOT be pleasant to say the least. The TSAP believes in voluntarily reducing the total fertility rate (TFR) to 1.5-1.9 children per woman to do so, along with reducing immigration dramatically, but let us be clear that we do NOT support draconian and/or coercive measures of population control (like China has used). We believe more liberty is the answer, not less. But the current tax and benefit incentives that perversely reward having more than two children need to be jettisoned at once. Fortunately, America's TFR has recently dropped to 1.9 (though that is probably just due to the bad economy rather than a secular trend). But we cannot keep growing and growing, that's for sure (in fact, we need to shrink). And our insatiable addiction to economic growth (despite being recently decoupled from well-being) is also part of the problem. Growth for the sake of growth is clearly one of the most asinine obsessions our nation (and world) has ever had. Put another way, we need to leave room for nature, lest it not leave room for us.
Bottom line: we need to take the environment much more seriously than we do now. We ignore it at our own peril.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
What About Guns?
Let us first begin this fairly controversial post by extending our deepest condolences to the victims (and their loved ones) of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, CT. This tragedy was the single worst school shooting in American history, and words cannot describe just how horrible it was. Clearly, it's right up there with Columbine, Virginia Tech, and even 9/11 as far as being a horrific wake-up call that something must be done to prevent it from ever happening again.
Where the TSAP begs to differ is the question of what that "something" actually is. Our party is generally not a big fan of gun control, and we strongly support the right to
bear arms. We believe that guns don't kill, people do. The finger pulls
the trigger, not the other way around. As noted in our party platform, we also believe that all
law-abiding citizens over 18 should have the right to carry concealed
weapons, with the burden of proof on the state to show why a particular
individual should not be allowed to have a gun. And rounding out the
standard libertarian position on the issue, we believe that we should
throw the book at anyone who commits crimes with guns.
That being said, I think we can all agree that fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, and poison gas have no useful self-defense or sporting purpose and do not belong in the hands of civilians. (These weapons are already generally illegal for civilians to own.) And I think we can also agree that no one should be allowed to sell or give away guns to convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, or those known to be psychotic. Thus, background checks are justified by that rationale.
That being said, I think we can all agree that fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, and poison gas have no useful self-defense or sporting purpose and do not belong in the hands of civilians. (These weapons are already generally illegal for civilians to own.) And I think we can also agree that no one should be allowed to sell or give away guns to convicted felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, or those known to be psychotic. Thus, background checks are justified by that rationale.
As for what should be done to prevent future tragedies like this and other mass shootings, we do NOT believe that more gun control is the answer. Instead, for the short-term we recommend having armed guards in schools that do not already have them. (Our nation guards our gold with guns, but not our children?) In the medium term, we recommend repealing or amending the Gun-Free School Zones Act to allow properly-trained teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons on the job, since there really is no such thing as a "gun-free zone". In fact, nearly all mass shootings in recent years have occurred in so-called "gun-free zones". At the same time, we need to improve the way background checks are carried out (e.g. requiring them at gun shows) to reduce the chances of firearms falling into the wrong hands.
Of course, in the long run we need to properly address the root causes of tragedies like these. We know that the killers are typically mentally disturbed individuals, and that (as we have noted before) our mental healthcare system is seriously broken and must be fixed. There are also other serious social pathologies that need addressing as well, such as inequality and bullying, but mental illness seems to be the factor most closely linked to these types of tragedies.
So, are there any gun control laws that the TSAP does support? Yes, but a very limited few. Among existing laws, we support the original National Firearms Act of 1934 as well as some (but not all) parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and encourage increased enforcement of these laws. The same goes for background checks. As for new laws, we would support the following ones only: 1) requiring background checks at gun shows, 2) a ban on high-capacity magazines (i.e. more than 10 rounds), 3) a one-gun-a-month rule, and 4) an excise tax on bullets. We do not support bringing back the incorrectly-named "assault weapons" ban because it is largely based on cosmetic features and really has nothing to do with the kinds of true military weapons that are already banned (or severely restricted) by the National Firearms Act. Granted, banning some of the previously banned semi-automatic weapons may be justified, but the 1994 ban was too broad and in any case did not seem to have any discernible effects on actual rates of gun violence.
Above all, we must not let fear rule our nation. For when we do so, the terrorists win.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Fiscal Cliff Averted--For Now
It's now official. The so-called fiscal cliff that had nearly everyone (especially Republicans) nervous has been averted due to a bipartisan deal in Congress. The deal contains the following provisions in a nutshell: no income tax rate hikes for those making less than $400,000 per year (but the top marginal rate is hiked back to Clinton levels on those making above that threshold), various tax deductions are capped at $250,000, the so-called "Obamacare taxes" are left untouched (and thus go into effect), unemployment benefits are extended, spending cuts are postponed by two months, and the payroll tax (i.e. FICA) rates are raised back to pre-stimulus 2009 levels. So although most Americans will see slightly smaller paychecks in 2013 (due to the 2% payroll tax hike), thanks to the deal there will not be a massive amount of aggregate demand sucked out of the economy, and there will most likely not be another recession as a result--at least for now.
However, the deal only addresses one side of the ledger--revenue and taxes. The other, bigger side--government spending--will not even be touched until February at the earliest. Just in time for when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, most likely in March. So we can expect another "cliffhanger" around that time, albeit a somewhat smaller one. But I guess that's the price we pay for kicking the can even further down the road.
To the President and everyone in Congress: Please listen to what the True Spirit of America Party has to say, at least about economic policy and the national debt. Our nation's future depends on it.
However, the deal only addresses one side of the ledger--revenue and taxes. The other, bigger side--government spending--will not even be touched until February at the earliest. Just in time for when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again, most likely in March. So we can expect another "cliffhanger" around that time, albeit a somewhat smaller one. But I guess that's the price we pay for kicking the can even further down the road.
To the President and everyone in Congress: Please listen to what the True Spirit of America Party has to say, at least about economic policy and the national debt. Our nation's future depends on it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Now, Back to that "Fiscal Cliff"
Deal or no deal? That is the question that still hasn't been answered.
But remember, no deal is better than a bad deal. Obama is still holding firm thus far in the face of the Repugnicans who want to slash our social safety net to give millionaires and billionaires more undeserved and unnecessary tax breaks. And Boehner seems to be sweating bullets. If no deal is reached, it will not lead to financial Armageddon like the right-wing plutocrats claim. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is really not a cliff at all--it's more like a staircase. The full effect of the tax hikes (which occur on next year's income) and automatic spending cuts (which are phased in over a period of a few months) will not be felt right away, which clearly gives Obama the upper hand especially after January 1, 2013. No wonder Boehner and his ilk are so nervous.
Even more importantly, the budget deficit is actually NOT the biggest economic problem our nation is facing. The more pressing issue, of course, is the jobs deficit--the whopping 9 million Americans that are still out of work at the end of 2012, five years after the recession officially began (December 2007) and over three years after the recession officially ended (June 2009). We are clearly stuck in a vicious cycle of persistently high unemployment and inadequate consumer and aggregate demand (remember that one person's spending is another person's income and vice-versa). Remember that 70% of our entire GDP is consumer spending, and 20% is government spending. And cutting the budget deficit too much too soon (at least by traditional means) would only make the jobs deficit worse, and the relative lack of revenue from the still-struggling economy is one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit. Basically, any significant tax hikes on the bottom 90% of Americans and/or any significant cuts in non-defense spending would only hurt our economy and make our future deficits (and national debt) that much worse in the long run. If it turns out that these hikes and cuts must be done, and that is a very big "if", then they must be postponed until our economy is back to normal (i.e. two consecutive quarters of 3% GDP growth or higher and less than 6% unemployment). Congress, you have been warned, so don't drink the Repugnican Austerity Kool-Aid.
But remember, no deal is better than a bad deal. Obama is still holding firm thus far in the face of the Repugnicans who want to slash our social safety net to give millionaires and billionaires more undeserved and unnecessary tax breaks. And Boehner seems to be sweating bullets. If no deal is reached, it will not lead to financial Armageddon like the right-wing plutocrats claim. The so-called "fiscal cliff" is really not a cliff at all--it's more like a staircase. The full effect of the tax hikes (which occur on next year's income) and automatic spending cuts (which are phased in over a period of a few months) will not be felt right away, which clearly gives Obama the upper hand especially after January 1, 2013. No wonder Boehner and his ilk are so nervous.
Even more importantly, the budget deficit is actually NOT the biggest economic problem our nation is facing. The more pressing issue, of course, is the jobs deficit--the whopping 9 million Americans that are still out of work at the end of 2012, five years after the recession officially began (December 2007) and over three years after the recession officially ended (June 2009). We are clearly stuck in a vicious cycle of persistently high unemployment and inadequate consumer and aggregate demand (remember that one person's spending is another person's income and vice-versa). Remember that 70% of our entire GDP is consumer spending, and 20% is government spending. And cutting the budget deficit too much too soon (at least by traditional means) would only make the jobs deficit worse, and the relative lack of revenue from the still-struggling economy is one of the biggest drivers of the budget deficit. Basically, any significant tax hikes on the bottom 90% of Americans and/or any significant cuts in non-defense spending would only hurt our economy and make our future deficits (and national debt) that much worse in the long run. If it turns out that these hikes and cuts must be done, and that is a very big "if", then they must be postponed until our economy is back to normal (i.e. two consecutive quarters of 3% GDP growth or higher and less than 6% unemployment). Congress, you have been warned, so don't drink the Repugnican Austerity Kool-Aid.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Stoned in Seattle
Today is truly a historic occasion. In Washington State, the initiative that legalized cannabis goes into effect, marking the first time any US state fully legalized the herb since it was federally banned in 1937. In Seattle, there was plenty of celebration of this occasion, with hundreds of people toking up under the Space Needle. Colorado also legalized it as well, and that goes into effect on January 5, 2013 December 10, 2012 (see update below). In both states, the first legal retail outlets for weed are scheduled to be set up in early 2014 as the new laws are phased in. Looks like Cypress Hill finally got his wish in two states, even if California was not one of them.
Of course, cannabis is still illegal under federal law, and it is still not clear exactly what the Feds will do. While they say they will still enforce the current law, the situation is very similar to how NY ended alcohol Prohibition in 1923, ten years before national Prohibition was repealed. Basically, the only ones enforcing it there were the feds, and they did not have nearly enough manpower or resources to do it alone (and they still don't). That spelled the beginning of the end for Prohibition, and we hope that is true this time around for cannabis as well. We will be closely watching this story as the next few months progress.
For the record, the TSAP supports full legalization of cannabis in all 50 states as well as federally. By that we mean it should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco, with an age limit of 18, and no one should be arrested or jailed for simple possession of small amounts. Growing one's own weed (within reason) should be treated like growing one's own tobacco or brewing one's own beer, and passing around a joint should be treated like passing around a tobacco cigarette or a bottle of beer. Driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol, though the penalties should reflect the fact that the latter is far more dangerous than the former. And we hope this will all become reality sooner rather than later.
UPDATE: On December 10, Colorado Governor John Hinckenlooper signed an executive order that made the initiative currently official. Thus, cannabis possession is now legal in both states for all people over the age of 21, while sale remains at least technically illegal for now pending the creation of a regulatory framework for such sales.
Of course, cannabis is still illegal under federal law, and it is still not clear exactly what the Feds will do. While they say they will still enforce the current law, the situation is very similar to how NY ended alcohol Prohibition in 1923, ten years before national Prohibition was repealed. Basically, the only ones enforcing it there were the feds, and they did not have nearly enough manpower or resources to do it alone (and they still don't). That spelled the beginning of the end for Prohibition, and we hope that is true this time around for cannabis as well. We will be closely watching this story as the next few months progress.
For the record, the TSAP supports full legalization of cannabis in all 50 states as well as federally. By that we mean it should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco, with an age limit of 18, and no one should be arrested or jailed for simple possession of small amounts. Growing one's own weed (within reason) should be treated like growing one's own tobacco or brewing one's own beer, and passing around a joint should be treated like passing around a tobacco cigarette or a bottle of beer. Driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol, though the penalties should reflect the fact that the latter is far more dangerous than the former. And we hope this will all become reality sooner rather than later.
UPDATE: On December 10, Colorado Governor John Hinckenlooper signed an executive order that made the initiative currently official. Thus, cannabis possession is now legal in both states for all people over the age of 21, while sale remains at least technically illegal for now pending the creation of a regulatory framework for such sales.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Now, About that "Fiscal Cliff".....
With President Obama's re-election already won, the next hurdle to face is the so-called "fiscal cliff", which is a set of tax hikes and spending cuts that will automatically occur on January 1, 2013 if no action is taken. While such a thing would clearly reduce the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that it would also likely trigger another recession given the already weak economy. Specifically, it would be the middle-class tax hikes and some of the spending cuts that would be the real problem, not the tax hikes on the rich. However, if we don't address the deficit at all, then we're in financial trouble as well, at least in the long run. And to top it off, the debt ceiling will have to be raised yet again in late January or early February. Seems like we're stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Not really, though. As UC Berkeley professor Robert Reich so cleverly points out, the real problem is House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of the Repugnicans in Congress who are willing to play chicken with the economy. They will apparently do anything to avoid even a modest tax hike on the top 1% of Americans, even if it means ruining our country's credit rating and/or crashing the economy. Basically, everyone's ox would get gored except the ultra-rich if the Repugnicans had their way.
The best thing for Obama to do is to start out bold and aim high, rather than start out with a compromised position. According to Robert Reich, this means the following:
1) Raise taxes on the rich--by a LOT. Enough so the average millionaire would pay an effective rate of about 55% after all deductions and credits, as it was 60 years ago. (The top marginal rate would have to be at least 70%, and every dollar above the first million would have to be taxed at 50% or more)
2) Create a 2% wealth tax on the net worth of the top 0.5% of Americans.
3) Create a 0.5% financial transactions tax.
4) Raise the capital gains tax to match the rate on ordinary income, and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 per year.
5) Eliminate special tax preferences and subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agro, Wall Street, and so-called "defense contractors."
6) Last but not least, let the Bush tax cuts expire for incomes between $250,000 and $1 million.
Doing all of these things would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years (the same as what Simspon-Bowles proposed), but without cutting any vital programs or raising taxes on the middle class. This is the crucial difference between what Professor Reich proposes and what the Repugnicans propose. And it wouldn't crash the economy, as the best studies have shown.
While Professor Reich acknowledges that some sort of compromise is inevitable, he also notes that any such "grand bargain" to avoid the cliff must contain the following stipulation: any sort of tax hike on the middle class and any sort of spending cut must only be permitted with a triggering mechanism of two consecutive quarters of 6% unemployment or lower and 3% GDP growth or higher. This caveat would ensure that we really are out of the woods before sucking any significant amount of aggregate demand out of the economy, echoing Keynesian economic theory. It is also very important to note that, unlike last time, progressives actually have the upper hand right now--so let's not squander it. No deal is still better than a bad deal.
Of course, there are other ways of accomplishing a similar or even greater deficit reduction, as the TSAP has repeatedly proposed. In fact our own proposals would eliminate not just the deficit, but the entire national debt as well. But much of what we have proposed dovetails rather nicely with what Professor Reich suggests, and that is an excellent start. What better time than now?
Not really, though. As UC Berkeley professor Robert Reich so cleverly points out, the real problem is House Speaker John Boehner and the rest of the Repugnicans in Congress who are willing to play chicken with the economy. They will apparently do anything to avoid even a modest tax hike on the top 1% of Americans, even if it means ruining our country's credit rating and/or crashing the economy. Basically, everyone's ox would get gored except the ultra-rich if the Repugnicans had their way.
The best thing for Obama to do is to start out bold and aim high, rather than start out with a compromised position. According to Robert Reich, this means the following:
1) Raise taxes on the rich--by a LOT. Enough so the average millionaire would pay an effective rate of about 55% after all deductions and credits, as it was 60 years ago. (The top marginal rate would have to be at least 70%, and every dollar above the first million would have to be taxed at 50% or more)
2) Create a 2% wealth tax on the net worth of the top 0.5% of Americans.
3) Create a 0.5% financial transactions tax.
4) Raise the capital gains tax to match the rate on ordinary income, and cap the mortgage interest deduction at $12,000 per year.
5) Eliminate special tax preferences and subsidies for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agro, Wall Street, and so-called "defense contractors."
6) Last but not least, let the Bush tax cuts expire for incomes between $250,000 and $1 million.
Doing all of these things would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years (the same as what Simspon-Bowles proposed), but without cutting any vital programs or raising taxes on the middle class. This is the crucial difference between what Professor Reich proposes and what the Repugnicans propose. And it wouldn't crash the economy, as the best studies have shown.
While Professor Reich acknowledges that some sort of compromise is inevitable, he also notes that any such "grand bargain" to avoid the cliff must contain the following stipulation: any sort of tax hike on the middle class and any sort of spending cut must only be permitted with a triggering mechanism of two consecutive quarters of 6% unemployment or lower and 3% GDP growth or higher. This caveat would ensure that we really are out of the woods before sucking any significant amount of aggregate demand out of the economy, echoing Keynesian economic theory. It is also very important to note that, unlike last time, progressives actually have the upper hand right now--so let's not squander it. No deal is still better than a bad deal.
Of course, there are other ways of accomplishing a similar or even greater deficit reduction, as the TSAP has repeatedly proposed. In fact our own proposals would eliminate not just the deficit, but the entire national debt as well. But much of what we have proposed dovetails rather nicely with what Professor Reich suggests, and that is an excellent start. What better time than now?
Friday, November 9, 2012
Time for a Victory Dance!
The 2012 election was largely a victory for us, since Obama won re-election and the lesser-evil party (aka the Democrats) regained control of the Senate (but unfortunately not the House). As we have noted before, Obama has been our only hope for keeping America from falling completely into the plutocrats' (and kleptocrats') hands yet again. We thank everyone, especially in swing states, who chose NOT to feed the vultures this time around. And fie upon those who did!
Ballot initiative results were generally favorable this time around, especially as far as civil rights are concerned. For example, three more states legalized same-sex marriage, and one state rejected a constitutional amendment banning it. This is the first time any state has legalized gay marriage via a ballot initiative. Perhaps direct democracy isn't so bad after all.
Also, it looks like "California dreaming" has finally become a reality. Though not in California or even in Oregon, but rather in Colorado and Washington. Those two states were the first to legalize cannabis for non-medical use since it was banned in the 1930s. This is nothing short of historic and groundbreaking. However, before you go and book that flight to Denver or Seattle, keep in mind that it still remains illegal at the federal level and the feds say they will still enforce the federal law for the time being.
In other news, it looks like Puerto Rico wants to become the 51st state. We hope Congress and the President will agree to make it happen. Imagine if Puerto Rico actually was represented in Congress and the Electoral College, that could be a game-changer in the 2016 election. And the people there would be paying federal income taxes as a result of statehood, so federal revenues should increase. However, this is the fourth time that the island tried to change its status, so we don't know if this attempt will succeed.
Thanksgiving is coming up soon, and we clearly have a lot to be thankful for. Power to the people!
Ballot initiative results were generally favorable this time around, especially as far as civil rights are concerned. For example, three more states legalized same-sex marriage, and one state rejected a constitutional amendment banning it. This is the first time any state has legalized gay marriage via a ballot initiative. Perhaps direct democracy isn't so bad after all.
Also, it looks like "California dreaming" has finally become a reality. Though not in California or even in Oregon, but rather in Colorado and Washington. Those two states were the first to legalize cannabis for non-medical use since it was banned in the 1930s. This is nothing short of historic and groundbreaking. However, before you go and book that flight to Denver or Seattle, keep in mind that it still remains illegal at the federal level and the feds say they will still enforce the federal law for the time being.
In other news, it looks like Puerto Rico wants to become the 51st state. We hope Congress and the President will agree to make it happen. Imagine if Puerto Rico actually was represented in Congress and the Electoral College, that could be a game-changer in the 2016 election. And the people there would be paying federal income taxes as a result of statehood, so federal revenues should increase. However, this is the fourth time that the island tried to change its status, so we don't know if this attempt will succeed.
Thanksgiving is coming up soon, and we clearly have a lot to be thankful for. Power to the people!
Saturday, October 6, 2012
New Study: Taxing the Rich Won't Tank Economy
We've been saying this before, and we'll say it again. Contrary to what the top 1% and their lackeys like to claim, tax cuts on the rich do NOT create jobs or boost economic growth, and tax hikes on the rich do NOT destroy the economy. And now a new study proves it yet again.
In a nutshell, a 1%-of-GDP (i.e. $150 billion) tax cut on the bottom 90% of Americans boosts GDP by 2.7 percentage points over a two-year period, while a tax cut of the same size on the wealthiest 10% of Americans gives a statistically and practically insignificant boost of merely 0.13 percentage points (while significantly increasing economic inequality). So, if we really want to boost economic growth, we would cut (or perhaps even eliminate) the income tax on the bottom 90%, while raising rates on the top 10% and especially the top 1%. That makes sense since 70% of our GDP is consumer spending, and the middle class are the ones who drive such spending. The less money they have, the less they will spend. And businesses will avoid hiring and making new investments and instead choose to sit on their excess cash (like they are doing now) when the consumer demand is simply not there. It's not "class warfare," it's simple mathematics.
But plutocratic Republicans never let mere facts get in the way of their greedy goals.
In a nutshell, a 1%-of-GDP (i.e. $150 billion) tax cut on the bottom 90% of Americans boosts GDP by 2.7 percentage points over a two-year period, while a tax cut of the same size on the wealthiest 10% of Americans gives a statistically and practically insignificant boost of merely 0.13 percentage points (while significantly increasing economic inequality). So, if we really want to boost economic growth, we would cut (or perhaps even eliminate) the income tax on the bottom 90%, while raising rates on the top 10% and especially the top 1%. That makes sense since 70% of our GDP is consumer spending, and the middle class are the ones who drive such spending. The less money they have, the less they will spend. And businesses will avoid hiring and making new investments and instead choose to sit on their excess cash (like they are doing now) when the consumer demand is simply not there. It's not "class warfare," it's simple mathematics.
But plutocratic Republicans never let mere facts get in the way of their greedy goals.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Romney Is Digging His Own Grave
Looks like Mitt "the Twit" Romney has put his foot in his mouth yet again, this time by insulting nearly half of America, and even has the audacity to defend his remarks rather than apologize. His secretly recorded comments basically say out loud what most Republicans only think in their heads:
Romney is clearly digging his own grave. Time for the voters to push him in there on Election Day.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."This may very well be the quote that sinks Romney in the election this November (hopefully), and Obama is now ahead by 5 points in the polls. But is what he said actually true? It is technically true that 46.4% of Americans pay no federal income taxes in 2011. But this does NOT mean that they pay no taxes at all, and it does NOT mean that they are freeloaders. Just think state and local income taxes, FICA, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, and the numerous hidden taxes built into the price of virtually everything they buy. And it's not like most of them are particularly well-off financially; 4 out of 5 of these folks earn less than $30,000 per year. The rest of his obnoxiously insulting quote is mere opinion rather than fact. And he conveniently ignores the fact that 2/3 of large corporations paid zero or even negative income taxes, and quite a few millionaires and billionaires also paid zero income taxes. Also, a disproportionate share of the 47% of Americans that pay no federal income taxes live in red (Republican) states, not blue (Democratic) states. Romney is clearly entitled to his own opinions, but he is NOT entitled to his own facts.
Romney is clearly digging his own grave. Time for the voters to push him in there on Election Day.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Billy Joel Was Right
Looks like Billy Joel was right all along. Working too hard actually can give you a heart attack.
A recent study found that too much work-related stress, especially when workers have little to no control over their stress levels (like retail workers), can raise the risk of a heart attack by 23%. This risk persisted even after other variables such as lifestyle were controlled for. While it does not completely prove causation, this study is quite reliable since it combines the results of 13 prospective cohort studies and adjusts for several confounders. Another recent study found that working more than eight hours a day may raise the risk of heart disease by as much as 40-80%. Thus, it's really not all that surprising that New York City and its surrounding suburbs have some of the highest death rates from heart disease in the nation, and also that the USA tends to be worse than other developed nations in this regard.
Of course, it's mainly the bottom 99% of Americans that are likely to be affected, but that does not make the top 1% completely immune. And next time someone claims that raising marginal tax rates or some other policy will cause at least some workers not to work as hard as they otherwise would, remind them of these studies. The life you save may be your own.
A recent study found that too much work-related stress, especially when workers have little to no control over their stress levels (like retail workers), can raise the risk of a heart attack by 23%. This risk persisted even after other variables such as lifestyle were controlled for. While it does not completely prove causation, this study is quite reliable since it combines the results of 13 prospective cohort studies and adjusts for several confounders. Another recent study found that working more than eight hours a day may raise the risk of heart disease by as much as 40-80%. Thus, it's really not all that surprising that New York City and its surrounding suburbs have some of the highest death rates from heart disease in the nation, and also that the USA tends to be worse than other developed nations in this regard.
Of course, it's mainly the bottom 99% of Americans that are likely to be affected, but that does not make the top 1% completely immune. And next time someone claims that raising marginal tax rates or some other policy will cause at least some workers not to work as hard as they otherwise would, remind them of these studies. The life you save may be your own.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Don't Feed the Vultures!
The 2012 presidential election is fast approaching, and much to our chagrin there will be no chance for any third party candidates. Though not an ideal candidate, only Obama has any sort of chance of beating Romney the Vulture Capitalist and Paul "Throw Granny Off a Cliff" Ryan. Only Obama has any chance at all of stopping 1,000,000 Americans from receiving pink slips (due to Romney) and then facing a shredded or nonexistent social safety net (due to Ryan). And if they do manage to find another job later on, they will then be kicked in the teeth with higher taxes (you read that right) while watching the richest 1% pay even less than they do now. We simply cannot support that, period. As a result, the TSAP has no choice but to endorse Obama this time, and thus we will NOT be running a candidate of our own. It is such a dead heat in the polls that a vote for any progressive third-party candidate will effectively be a vote for Romney-Ryan, as much as we hate to admit it. And not voting at all is like rolling over and playing dead just so the vultures can eat you alive.
So let's all shout it from the rooftops: DON'T FEED THE VULTURES!!! VOTE FOR OBAMA LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!! Because in many ways, it does.
So let's all shout it from the rooftops: DON'T FEED THE VULTURES!!! VOTE FOR OBAMA LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT!!! Because in many ways, it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
