State-sponsored gambling disgusts both sides of my political personality. My cold, rational, libertarian side is completely offended by the idea of the state banning a commercial activity between consenting adults in order to have a monopoly over that activity and use it to raise money from the population. It just aggravates the offense that (1) the gambling ban is based on moralistic principles, which principles are then conveniently forgotten in the pursuit of lottery money; and (2) not only do we have the lottery, but my tax dollars go to finance ads encouraging people to gamble in them.

And then my warm, fuzzy, liberal side is absolutely disgusted by the idea that my tax dollars are going to ads to encourage people to gamble away their livelihoods via lies like “everyone deserves a bonus! daily scratch is the best way to get a bonus!” (yes, that’s more or less a quote from a radio ad). Okay, if people want to go out and piss away money they can’t really afford gambling, it is their right to do so, but do my taxes have to be used to entice them to do it? And does my very own government have to be the agent of their corruption?

( Read the rest of this entry » ) 

Please suspend any audits against regular citizens and focus exclusively on senators, congresspeople, and other high-prestige public servants and potential public servants. That is obviously where all the tax criminals are.

Thank you,
The American People

Suck it, Elizabeth Dole.

On the subject of the bailout, specifically: "We can't have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down."

Elizabeth Dole is running ads about Kay Hagan calling her godless. As they say, let's Bachmannize her. I just did!

voting is kind of unsatisfying. you don't feel like you're having much impact, and by the time you get to vote it's often too late to have much effect. which is why I started donating money this year (actually, I donated in 2004, but just once, to edwards). basically, every time obama seemed to be having trouble (or I just got pissed off at his opponents), I sent him $50. hillary wins a state? $50 to obama. bill spews racist garbage? $50 to obama. palin? $50 to obama. racist assholes at mccain rallies? $50 to obama.

but obama has a lot of money at this point, and, as some of you have pointed out, others could use some help. I took my last obama-bound $50 and sent it to some local candidates instead. and after reading about this moron, I just sent his opponent a little cash. now I'm actively looking for more stories of idiocy, so I can donate to their opponents. it's fun!

luna: im sarah palin and i tolerate gays
skye: all of them?
luna: even the ones that suck each others dicks in airport bathrooms
skye: those are the most patriotic kind imo
optic: i think she means that there may be specific gays that she tolerates
optic: in that she wishes them no specific harm

I really enjoyed this Slate article about the duty of representatives to their constituents. The basic takeaway: it's not just the job of representatives to echo their constituents' preferences in congressional votes; it's their job to work with other representatives to forge solutions that are best for the country as a whole.

I didn't realize this, but this exact question was considered by the founders. They considered a "right to instruct" amendment to the constitution that would let citizens meet and vote on a binding position for their representative to take on a particular vote. This idea was eventually rejected, and the Slate article outlines the reasons why. It's pretty interesting.

1. Mitch McConnell: "We have clearly shown that we can come together and... solve a crisis in a very difficult time -- just before an election." Yes, that is why this is a difficult time, because there is an election.

2. Congress is trying to pass a massively expensive financial "rescue" package that, perhaps, we can't afford. Hey, let's tack on some tax cuts!

3. Some other senator: "The American people might make money on this 'investment' and almost certainly will not lose money." (paraphrase). So this is a good, non-risky investment, with a potentially strong upside and virtually no downside? Then why is no one willing to come anywhere near it except for congress (who are not, of course, spending their own money)?

Dear The Government,

Please stop taking away my hard-won money and giving it to large, irresponsible financial institutions. I worked hard for that money and, if it's all the same, would prefer to spend it irresponsibly myself.

Sincerely,
Michael A. Taxpayer

PS: also please don't take away more of it and give it to irresponsible car companies, as we all know you are about to do. Again, I am perfectly capable (and more than willing!) to spend it irresponsibly on cars myself.

Great story about incompetent DOJ officials trying to destroy evidence on a guy's laptop.

Next, Miguel tried attacking the hard drive with his homemade tool. Soon he'd managed to pry off the hard drive cover and commenced scratching at the components. Meanwhile, Hogarty took the memory board and began banging on it on the floor with a chair leg. The memory board was weaker than the hard drive and cracked in several places. Then she held the memory board in her hands and tried bending it, but Miguel stopped her, warning that he'd seen someone get cut badly doing that--evidently they'd done this sort of thing before.

I've been rooting for the Sonics to win their trial, so they would give the city some money and get out of here before somebody figured out a way to bribe them to stay with taxpayer (i.e. MY) money (presumably by renovating or replacing Key Arena). So imagine how excited I was to read that the Sonics and the city had settled, with the Sonics paying $45-75 million to get out of their lease and leave. But what's this? That extra $30M is conditional on the city trying and failing to get another NBA team by... renovating Key Arena. We, the people (and politicians, this time) of Seattle already declined to renovate Key Arena for a team that was ALREADY HERE. So now that they're leaving, what's the tune? Let's renovate Key Arena! Makes sense. The NBA is leaving because, in large part, not enough people were interested enough to keep it here. Why spend money to bring back a failing business? I personally will be bringing torches and pitchforks to any city or state politician who furthers this nonsense.

If some dipshit billionaire wants to pay for an arena himself, go right ahead. But the NBA (and MLB and NFL) has become a racket wherein billionaire team owners and their millionaire players extort cities into buying them zillion-dollar stadiums with the threat of taking their teams and their "prestige" to another, more gullible, city. So enjoy your not-the-sonics, Oklahoma City. I look forward to the day when the novelty wears off and you can't fill the seats either, and Clay Bennett starts to work you over for $400M or so. And I'm sure Seattle or some other idiot city will be there, billions in hand, to take them off your hands.

chaircrusher: if you don't know what the fuck you're doing, don't bother voting.
optic: someone had a big rant yesterday about people who dont vote. i was tempted to point out what a waste of time voting is and suggest she give money instead, by why get into it
optic: giving money is the new voting imho
rich: voting matters in local politics
rich: imho
rich: and in tight races
optic: sure, the smaller the pool of voters the more likely your vote will count
optic: but even in a local race thats tight the probability that your 1 vote will make a difference is miniscule
optic: if you can magnify your vote by convincing others or getting them to turn out, a bit more. or magnify it by donating money for ads and gotv
optic: but 1 vote is pretty unlikely to matter
( more... )

Alex Tabarrok kicks off an interesting discussion about federal taxes and progressivity with this post showing who pays how much by income quintile. The interesting stuff is really in the comments rather than the original post -- people dissect the table, add additional information, and argue the economics and the politics. One comment I especially, liked, from someone responding to the fact that the people at the low end of the economic scale account for very little of tax income, was this:

As a mild libertarian I have to ask what is the point of taxing the poor and middle class. Why not just start taxing income over 80 K at a flat 15 percent rate and leave it be. Why do we need to tax people making below 80 K when obviously their tax contributions are meaningless to the federal government?

keph, please read and tell me what you think.

I've been leaning this way for a while, but I think I really am a John Edwards supporter again this year (I actually went to the bother of caucusing for him in 2004, god knows why). I came to this realization while reading this. It's less that that article convinced me than that it made me realize that I keep hoping something unforeseen will cause Edwards to catch up to the frontrunner(s), and that both Obama and Hillary have major minuses for me. So, go John. I guess in Maarten's spirit I should now put my money where my mouth is and send the guy some money.

I find this whole SCHIP thing kind of entertaining. I mean, beyond whatever political interest I may have in the actual outcome. Whatever your view of the merits of the thing, the fact that Bush actually said the words "it provides health care to too many children" is hilarious. What next, he goes on tv to announce that, in fact, apple pie is overrated and baseball is sorta gay? He really misses Karl Rove, huh. Like, if I were some kind of Democratic strategist, or just someone who liked being a wealthy smartass, here is the commercial I would air on TV (except with actual numbers plugged in instead of the ones I made up):

Visuals: Stacks and stacks and stacks of money. Some kind of chart showing trends going up stratospherically.
Voiceover [a trustworthy sounding male voice, who you instinctively believe and respect]: Since gaining power, President George W. Bush and the Republican-controlled congress have increased discretionary domestic spending by 500 billion dollars, the largest increase in our history.

Visuals: posh-looking seniors playing golf. Businessy looking fellows (somehow obviously drug company executives) chomping on cigars and literally hauling bags of money, with the traditional dollar sign on the side, out of the white house and capitol building. Pharmaceutical factories running at full tilt.
Voiceover: In 2003, the Republican congress passed, and President Bush signed into law, a 200 billion dollar drug plan for seniors, which includes the wealthiest retirees in its coverage and has paid out billions of dollars to drug companies.

Visuals: hollow-cheeked poor children on crutches. A small child with some kind of ghastly wound being literally turned away from a hospital door by a well-dressed beancountery guy holding what appears to be an extremely expensive looking diagnosis. More cigar-chomping fellows actually unable to fit all their dollar-sign-decorated bags of money into their oversized Bentleys and like having their chauffeurs shoving the money in the door a la those commuter-stuffing guys on Tokyo trains during rush hour. A family apparently selling off their children (ill-looking and/or horrifyingly wounded with incredibly large brown eyes filled with tears and looking pleadingly at the camera), whose health care they cannot afford, off to a wealthy family from the city.
Voiceover: This year, President Bush vetoed a bill, and congressional Republicans helped him sustain that veto, which would provide health care to an additional 10 million poor and middle class children, because they considered its 5 billion dollar price tag too high.

Visuals: stack of 200 billion dollars (very large) next to stack of 5 billion dollars (noticeably smaller). Pie-chart-type graphic showing what a tiny percentage this is of the annual budget. Possible reiteration of sick/wounded children visual motif in background.
Voiceover: [emphatic pause]

Visuals: Bush delivering speech
Bush: It provides health care to too many children.

Visuals: sick-looking and possibly injured child (crutches?) in foreground looking unhappily confused.
Voiceover: what the fuck?

I'd usually rather not bother talking/posting about politics, but my center-left libertarian principles are driven to utter disgust. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick pretty much captures the utter contemptibleness of congressional democrats' utter surrender on alberto gonzales and warrantless wiretapping. Their current message is basically: "alberto gonzales is a lying sack of shit who should be fired, therefore let's give him the power to spy on anyone he wants with absolutely no external checks". Most of the republicans at least follow a consistent principle (with which I utterly disagree) that security trumps privacy/liberty. The only consistent principle I can find among democrats is idiocy. It's disturbing that the executive branch would make this kind of power grab, but power grabs are natural, and much of the constitution is based around the knowledge that they will happen and that bureaucratic checks and balances are the best protection. And so it is an utter abdication of congress's constitutional duty to allow such a blatant violation of the constitution as the power of domestic spying with zero oversight. and yes I know that contemptibleness isn't really a word.

Slate's Daniel Gross spells out in detail why switching from group (employer) health care to individual would be a disaster.

They want to replace a bunch of giant, sophisticated consumers possessing limited bargaining power with a mass of unsophisticated consumers possessing no bargaining power. For some reason, they think you and I can do a better job negotiating with Oxford and Aetna than Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola can. ... The overwhelming majority of individuals lack the resources, time, and fortitude to confront well-funded, profit-obsessed bureaucracies. Nor do they have human resource staffs or outside consultants that can act as advocates.

pretty compelling reason to buy insurance in groups, whether it's by employer or another way.

optic: that immigration bill sure seems to have gone down in flames
optic: hurray
** lens what what **
chaircrusher: i wonder what would be a sane thing to do about immigration
( more... )

I'm sure everyone who voted for the Washington state smoking ban (or bans elsewhere) will appreciate this Slate news item:

New Zealand researchers proposed to ban smoking in cars when children are inside. Rationale: Even with the windows down, you get as much secondhand smoke in a car as in a smoky barâ”and the country already bans smoking in bars. Six months ago, Arkansas banned smoking in cars when a child is strapped into a car seat. Next: The legislator who spearheaded the Arkansas ban wants to ban smoking by pregnant women, since the womb is another place where a child can't escape a parent's smoke.

Yep, gotta protect the children.