S&P Blames GOP

Interesting insight in a quote from the S&P Ratings Board on why they downgraded US Treasury debt - "Compared with previous projections, our revised base scenario now assumes the 2001/03 tax cuts, due to expire, now remain in place. We have changed our assumptions because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenue."

Strangely, that hasn't been getting much press. I would have guessed the liberal media would have heavily promoted that. And, it looks like a moot point anyway, because in the sell-off investors continued to go to T-bills, even though other countries still have AAA-ratings. Guess we still are the big dog. At least the market got up today and regained some sanity. Overall, the Dow has way too much influence on our psyche anyway. Even as the market moves along - fast or slow - wild swings in daily trading bring about talk of doom and gloom. And even as the Dow was rising the last two years and companies were posting record profits - which in turn drove up their stock prices - unemployment and the misery index remained high.

Thus, I am curious the proposal to put a minor - like .0025% - tax on stock transactions? Some are proposing it as a way to cut down on speculation and the wild swings in the market. It could raise some revenue at the same time it regulates the uncertainty. Ultimately, it'll be a no-go - but it's a reasonable idea.

T-Bills and the "Full Faith and Credit" of the USA

Wow!

How about that market play yesterday and today?

Isn't it fascinating that yesterday, amidst all the hysteria, investors sought refuge in T-Bills ... still ... even when returns went slightly negative for a short time?

Do you think that will convince radical pundits, extreme think tanks, and truly naive congressman to never, ever, ever f*%# around with the "full faith and credit" of the United States government again?

I would certainly hope so - but I doubt it.

Are Taxes Wrong?

One of my favorite bloggers, Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast, occasionally posts about how the safety net programs of the US government are not Christian. In this post, which links to an article of similar mindset, he argues it again. If you check the comments, you'll see Darren and I have hashed this out on various occasions, and we simply disagree. However, I am somewhat baffled by his line of thought in some areas.

For example, I am curious about his occasional references to taxes as money "taken forcibly" or under the "threat of violence." This sentiment has been voiced by longtime TeachersView commenter Steven, who opposes all taxes - and pretty much all government - on the basis that it stems from threats of violence and confiscation. In his recent post, Darren says taxes and social programs are "not Christian" and other times he's said taxes, because they are taken against some citizen's wills are "not moral." I am wondering about the issue of taxes and morality.

Of course, Darren argues it's not Christian for the confiscated money to be given to the poor. Is it then also "not Christian" and "immoral" to use that money to inflict violence against other nations and peoples? Is using tax money to fight wars that not all people support wrong? Immoral? Un-Christian? Or are we just picking and choosing what we think is OK to use that "forcibly taken" money?

Darren also wondered what the Pope would say about taxes and social programs in terms of morality and Christianity. The pope has publicly condemned the War on Terror. So, clearly, using taxes to fund that would seemingly be un-Christian - especially since man was called upon by Christ to "turn the other cheek." However, the Pope hasn't publicly condemned "taxes" or "Social Security" or "unemployment compensation" or "food stamps." And, of course, Christ never said that "individuals" should be charitable but governments shouldn't. He made no distinction. I have a hard time believing that Christ would have admonished the Roman government if it had a safety net. He said pay your taxes.

Are taxes, as I believe Darren is arguing, immoral? If so, is by nature the Constitution immoral. For one of the first and primary powers given to the government in the Constitution is the authority to "levy taxes." The people went a step further with an amendment to specifically "levy taxes" on income. Thus, the authority to collect taxes is a founding tenant of the Constitution. And, as I've argued before, Christ had no opposition to taxes. Though he did exhort corrupt tax collectors to not take more than was due.

Just wondering.

Artistic License and the Disappointing Harry Potter Conclusion

*SPOILER ALERT*

Movies are rarely - or so rarely to mean never - better than the books. The only two major films that I recall being better than the book from which they are derived are Dances With Wolves and The Godfather. Thus, I had no great hope for a truly masterful final movie in the Harry Potter saga - one which honored and satisfactorily concluded the story. None of the previous films impressed me much - and some, like Goblet of Fire with a strangely aggressive and menacing Dumbledore, really disappointed me. Yet, I went to see the final installment of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - and I felt somewhat flat afterward.

I just don't understand the artistic license that the screenwriter and directors of the Harry Potter films have taken with the story. Why do they change scenes for seemingly inexplicable reasons? Why do they think they can tell a better story? Why does Rowling agree to such changes. Why? Of course, I understand some of the justifications. Some scenes simply don't translate well onto the screen - some scenes are too expensive or not visual enough. Sometimes directors want just a little more action - and sometimes they just want to make the product their own (even though it isn't).

But what was up with that final battle? How disappointing. Why were Voldemort and Snape in the boathouse (?) instead of the Shrieking Shack? Why wasn't Nagini balled up and protected in the giant orb? What was up with Snape crying his memories into tears? These sort of minor changes just make no sense - and some come across as actually quite stupid.

Why was final battle during the day? And why were Harry and Voldemort fighting outside - and all around - Hogwarts? And what the heck was that flying dive off the tower? What did Harry say - something about "ending as it began?" Whatever. And when Harry and Voldemort both hit the ground, how does it make sense that they crawl and struggle for their wands. Accacio wand, anyone? Voldemort crawls for his wand? Really? What the ...? Ultimately, that final battle between Harry and Voldemort was epic in the book - and as bland as any Tom-Cruise-movie-fight in the film. Boring. Boring. Borrr .....

The final conversation between Harry and Dumbldore was so pivotal and emotional in the book - and it left me quite flat in the movie. Thus, I walked away from the saga feeling a bit let down. And, of course, I haven't watched most of the movies for all the same reason. Yet, I did have hope - and it wasn't terrible. Just not all that great.

I am, of course, a traditionalist and a purist, meaning I don't really like change that much. Especially change for change's sake. I guess it's the conservative in me.

Borders Closing and the New Economy

The somewhat surprising - and disheartening to book lovers - failure of Borders Books to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy represents a bellwether of the new economy as a result of the creative destruction that comes from improvements in technology. The failure of this business wasn't about corporate taxes or the national debt or a decline in literacy habits or poor management decisions. It was bound to happen the minute Amazon arrived on the scene - and Congress exempted online retailers from any state taxes where they didn't have a physical presence. Ultimately, brick and mortar retailers face an incredible challenge to compete against companies with much lower cost overhead - or underfoot as the case may be.

The closing of the Borders simply represents a new direction in a new economy that has yet to really define itself. Who knows what the landscape is going to look like as companies like Amazon continue to take more of the retail effort? Who knows where the people who worked at Borders are going to work? Who knows how an entire corporate structure simply vanishes and leaves in its wake a group of people and a pile of assets that must be reapportioned around the economy?

Even now as Congress begins serious discussion of a national solution to the online retail tax issue, the economy is unfolding and redefining itself. It is going to be uncomfortable and confusing and messy, but it is the new face of the retail world.

Debt Ceiling Referendum

Well, I did my part.

Yesterday I called my senators and congressman and informed them of my desires as a voter in regards to the debt ceiling hike and deficit reduction plans being debated in Congress. At heart, I am worried about a government default and the loss of our AAA-rating - which is probably a lost cause at this point. Thus, like a majority of Americans I simply want a deal done, and I expect that it include a plan for long-term spending cuts. At the same time I am not opposed to revenue increases - though I would prefer them to come through the end of some deductions and subsidies, rather than any rate increases. In fact, the 2001/03 tax cuts will expire next year anyway, so there is no need to do anything with rates right now. The one thing that needs to be done is the debt ceiling needs to be raised - and it should be raised by at least $2 trillion to prevent another crisis just around the corner.

One idea that I proposed to my representatives is that a deal should simply be made to increase the debt ceiling devoid of any other plan. This plan would be intended to simply alleviate the immediate fiscal crisis and then set up the debt ceiling issue as a referendum in 2012. Make next year's election a referendum on the debt ceiling. I am sure President Obama and the Democrats would be willing to accept this deal. And many pragmatic Republicans probably would, too. The problem is GOP members who fear such a compromise in their next primaries. That is really sad. They believe that absolute rigidity on taxes is the only way they can survive challenges from their own party and their own voting base. Reagan would be saddened by such intransigence.

The reality is that the debt ceiling absolutely and unequivocally must be raised, now. And any sort of crisis is being created by people who refuse to accept that reality.

Freedom from Pledges

Have to admit I heard a valid point from Bill Mahr the other night.

Politicians who sign pledges are sacrificing the very freedom they tout as the foundation of this country. Thus, the pledge that Grover Norquist and his gang have used to tie the hands of GOP candidates in Congress over taxes has actually stripped them of their freedom to vote their consciences or adapt to each and every unique situation.

Pledges are for wimps who are afraid to stand on their own.

Debt Ceiling Absurdity

OK, now I am officially nervous about this impasse on raising the debt ceiling.

A majority of Americans in countless polls want debt and deficit reduction. A similar majority want it without cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And a similar majority want the deficit and debt reduction to come from a mix of spending cuts - though where is the question - and, AND, tax increases. Yet, we are at a stalemate because the GOP leadership appears just crazier enough to risk worldwide economic calamity and a staggering unprecedented default on the most trusted debt in the world simply because they won't agree to any, ANY, tax increase. Even a tax increase that is matched three-to-one on spending cuts. A majority of Americans want this as the plan, a majority of Americans simply want the deal done, nearly all interested parties from the Chamber of Commerce to the ratings agencies say this is the only answer. And, yet, the GOP balks.

I am nervous, and this is a damn shame.

Unemployment from Convenience

On a recent trip to the city of Chicago, I encountered two situations which clarified the idea of creative destruction and its role in unemployment. We decided to enjoy a day at the races, so a trip to Arlington Park Race Track was in order. And I realized how long it has been since I went to the track when I ran in to trouble trying to place a bet. The problem? No cashiers.

The clerks at the betting windows have been replaced by computerized machines where you insert some cash and push a few buttons for the bet. And it was actually kind of complicated ... and you get a voucher for any money you don't spend .... and you can't ask any questions or get any feedback on how to make various bets ... and it was a bit disappointing. How many people lost their jobs for the convenience of computerized betting?

The unemployment became more clear on a trip into the city when I visited one the numerous city parking garages. There is not a clerk to be found. And that is quite frustrating when I pulled into the wrong garage and attempted to turn around. The machine wouldn't let me out for less than fourteen dollars .... after turning around thirty seconds after entering the garage. Who are you going to appeal to? No cops, no attendants, no cashiers. I wonder how many city attendants have been laid off.

Of course, that's the nature of creative destruction. And I'm sure these people who formerly had jobs took advantage of their unemployment to return to school for graduate degrees or, better yet, probably went out and started their own businesses.

Now, do I think the race track or city owed these people jobs for life? No. But is this sort of automation part of our problem? Oh yeah.

Thoughts?

No Hiring Not about Govt

Well, it's official. Even the Wall Street Journal is arguing that the stagnant employment numbers have everything to do with a lack of consumer demand. Well, duh. Businesses hire when business expands and they need to produce more product and/or service. Period. It's, for the most part, that simple.

Yet, for the same twisted ideological reasons that influence most of their naivete about the economy, many "conservatives" argue that business are simply uncertain about government policies and taxes - so they are delaying hiring.

Yeah, right.

As if a business would turn down increased commerce and orders resulting from demand because they are worried about taxes going up. It's supply and demand, people. And demand impacts hiring. That's the way it works.

Great Resort in the Perfect Mountain Town

I love Breckenridge, Colorado.

I mean I know we all do - but for me I think it goes beyond that. Since moving to Colorado eight years ago, Breckenridge has been my family's choice to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday. From its festive parade and run/bike race activities to the kids water fight courtesy of the fire department to coffee and pie at Clint's to wading in the river all afternoon to the free concert and fireworks on the Town Center lawn, an Independence Day in Breckenridge is a truly wonderful experience.

Each year, we drive up for the day and then head back down the mountain with the crowds. This year we decided to stay for a couple days and check out a time-share opportunity at the new Grand Lodge of Peak 7. Having toured it a bit last summer after eating at Sevens Restaurant, we conceded to take a closer look at the resort - and, alas, we became time share owners in Breckenridge. Despite never believing that we could, should, or would buy a place in Breck, the Grand Lodge enabled us to take our first step to becoming more regular visitors and potential long-term residents of Colorado's perfect mountain town.

In addition to having a week-long stay at a great mountain resort in one of my favorite parts of the world, being owners at the Grand Lodge offers us opportunities to use the resort any time we take a day trip to Breck, as well as providing great discount prices for stays outside of our normal time slot. The prices beat any other accommodations we would find in the area, and we're paying less for a condo suite than we would for a hotel room. Additionally, because Breckenridge is such a desirable vacation destination, we have some great bartering room to exchange our time for any of 2,600 resorts worldwide. That seems like a deal we will most likely take, considering we can access rooms at the resort for great prices anyway.

Thus, if you happen to be in Colorado, I highly recommend taking advantage of a great deal to stay two nights in Breck and tour the fabulous accommodations and vacation living at the Grand Lodge of Peak 7.

Haters on My Tax Argument

As you can probably imagine, the email responses to my article on taxes in Colorado were heated. Sadly, many people felt that because I am an English teacher, I have no right to voice an opinion about tax policy - or that my argument could have merit. Many called me a "union thug," though I am not in a union. Others charged me with corrupting the youth with liberal propaganda - though my piece was in a newspaper and not even during the school year. The reality is I made a simple argument about one temporary tax increase proposal and its effect on Colorado.

I wonder if any people bothered to read the study commissioned by the CSPR whose findings I challenged I read the study. I also called the economist and quizzed him on his conclusions for more than an hour. The "economist" predicted that this 0.5% income tax increase and 0.1% sales tax increase - for an expiring limited three-year window - will cause thousands of wealthy Coloradans to literally pack up and leave the state. Do you seriously believe that? He extrapolated their exodus - including any businesses and personal money they spend - to have a subsequent effect of additional tens of thousands of job losses. Do you seriously believe that? If so, then we can dispense with much conversation - because it is an absurd conclusion that thousands of Coloradans will move out of state to avoid these minor taxes that expire in three years.

I challenged the "study" by the CSPR precisely because of the lack of causation that it was "a proven job killer. This point which was conceded to me by the economist when, after reading the actual study, I called him and had an hour-long conversation with him. During this conversation, he acknowledged my point about the lack of causation. He could, in fact, provide no justification in terms of his algorithms, and he backed away from the assertions made by the CSPR. Thus, I'm pretty confident in my criticism of the study.

After my research, I composed my credible argument by citing specific facts about economic growth and taxes during the past forty years. As I noted in my commentary, tax policy cannot be expected to influence the economy in any predictable way. Case in point about those most responsible for stimulating the economy - In 2004, corporations were given a one-year tax amnesty program to repatriate billions of cash reserves held abroad with the expectation that they would "stimulate the economy" by hiring people. Pfizer brought home more than a billion dollars, and then proceeded to cut 10,000 jobs in the next two years. That was two years before the '08 meltdown. GE did the same thing. They dropped their tax burden to effectively zero and cuts thousands of jobs. After the recent 66% tax increase in Illinois, United Airlines moved 1300 back home to Chicago - many came from their offices in "no-tax" Houston. It's not so simple - and thus my point about a lack of causation is pretty indisputable. Wouldn't you agree?

Colorado is not heading the same way as California or Illinois with a modest and expiring tax increase - for our government spending is still quite limited, and no one in the GOP could identify cuts. Thus, I ask my critics: where are your facts? What is your model? Where is the causation? We can go tit-for-tat on states that add and cut jobs, but as I argued very effectively, that is a fallacy about correlation and causation. The economy is far more complex, and you can't count on companies to hire simply because taxes are low - or stop hiring if they go up. It doesn't work that way. Thus, voters and politicians should consider the needs of the community and stop trying to play the "grow the economy" game.

I made a basic argument about how an incredibly small sales and income tax increase for a couple years in Colorado won't cause a determined number of job losses - especially a 150,000. I stand by my assertion.