Regarding the Bill O'Reilly/View flap over Muslims and the firing of Juan Williams from NPR over his comments about Muslims:
I am trying to figure out what is so awful about what they said. O'Reilly said that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That is factually accurate, yet progressives are astonished and offended by the remark. He also said that there is a Muslim "problem" in the world. He's right. There is. Williams said that when he gets on a plane and sees people in Muslim garb it makes him nervous. Williams, though I disagree with him on many issues, is no bigot. And I'm willing to admit that if I get on a plane and see some obvious Muslims, I will entertain thoughts about whether that plane is in trouble. Given the fact that virtually all terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims, it seems to me that one would have to be obtuse to the point of being brain dead to not have the thought pass through one's mind.
But apparently giving voice to such a rational thought is a firing offense at NPR. And stating the obvious about who attacked us on 9/11 is sufficient for ladies on the View to storm off in a huff. I'm reminded of Jesse Jackson's comment years ago that when he hears someone behind him on the street and he looks back, he is relieved to see the person is white. That was Jackson's rational assessment of the odds of being mugged by a black vs. a white. Evidently such rational assessments are no longer tolerated.
It seems that for progressives Muslims are simply the latest group to be protected against anything that they deem to be "hate speech". Yet another example of how progressives are so much more enlightened. Might we one day have to refer to jihad as the "j-word"?
Maybe I'm just a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, but I don't get why certain folks cannot abide opinions that have a basis in empirical experience.
October 22, 2010
Simple and Good Advice
WSJ Monday Oct. 18 2010
Mr. Chambers is chairman and chief executive officer of Cisco Systems. Ms. Catz is president of Oracle Corporation.
During last year's "Jobs Summit," President Obama said he was open to any good idea to get the economy moving again. Today he should be especially so, since Washington's many monetary and fiscal policy decisions have not been able to spur the robust growth or job expansion that we all would like. And yet there is a simple idea—the trillion-dollar elephant in the room—that has apparently been dismissed for no good reason.
One trillion dollars is roughly the amount of earnings that American companies have in their foreign operations—and that they could repatriate to the United States. That money, in turn, could be invested in U.S. jobs, capital assets, research and development, and more.
But for U.S companies such repatriation of earnings carries a significant penalty: a federal tax of up to 35%. This means that U.S. companies can, without significant consequence, use their foreign earnings to invest in any country in the world—except here.
The U.S. government's treatment of repatriated foreign earnings stands in marked contrast to the tax practices of almost every major developed economy, including Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Australia and Canada, to name a few. Companies headquartered in any of these countries can repatriate foreign earnings to their home countries at a tax rate of 0%-2%. That's because those countries realize that choking off foreign capital from their economies is decidedly against their national interests.
Many commentators have pointed to the large cash balances sitting on U.S. corporate books as evidence that the economy is still stalled because companies aren't spending. That analysis misses the point. Large cash balances remain on U.S. corporate books because U.S. companies can't spend their foreign-held cash in the U.S. without incurring a prohibitive tax liability.
Especially with corporate bond rates falling below 4%, it's hard to imagine any responsible corporation repatriating foreign earnings at a combined federal and state tax rate approaching 40%.
By permitting companies to repatriate foreign earnings at a low tax rate—say, 5%—Congress and the president could create a privately funded stimulus of up to a trillion dollars. They could also raise up to $50 billion in federal tax revenue. That's money the economy would not otherwise receive.
The amount of corporate cash that would come flooding into the country could be larger than the entire federal stimulus package, and it could be used for creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment, and other uses. It could also provide needed stability for the equity markets because companies would expand their activity in mergers and acquisitions, and would pay dividends or buy back stock. And when markets go up, confidence increases and businesses and consumers begin to spend.
The $50 billion boost in federal tax revenue, meanwhile, could be used to help put America back to work. For example, Congress could use it to give employers—large or small—a refundable tax credit for hiring previously unemployed workers (including recent graduates). The tax credit could equal up to 50% of a worker's first-year and second-year wages, capped at $12,500 per year (or $25,000 total per new hire).
Such a program could help put more than two million Americans back to work at no cost to the government or American taxpayers. How's that for a good idea?
October 21, 2010
Obama is Smarter Than You
The editorial below from today's Washington Times is an excellent take on Obama's attitude toward those who oppose him.
Editorial: Obama is smarter than you
President Obama was elected by a country that doesn't deserve to be ruled by someone as enlightened as he is - or so he thinks. Last weekend, as it became increasingly evident that the president's party is headed for historic losses in the midterm elections, Mr. Obama offered his explanation for the electorate's thanklessness. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," he told attendees at a Democratic fundraiser. "And the country's scared, and they have good reason to be."
This is Barack at his most self-absorbed. On his side are facts, science and argument; his opponents, by implication, appeal to myth, irrationality and demagoguery. His brain trust brings moral clarity and intellectual certainty; his opponents are backward-looking knuckle-draggers. This is the only way he can explain the ingratitude of the American people toward his benevolent regime.
It's not a new tone for this president. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama sniffed at those sad unfortunates who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." During April 15 tax protests, a smug Mr. Obama said he was "amused" at the rallies, snickering, "You would think they would be saying 'thank you.'" To the philosopher king who occupies the White House, those who oppose his wise rule are selfish, insolent dolts.
Mr. Obama's strange pseudo-biological assertion that people are "hardwired not to always think clearly" when they are scared isn't true. Fear can be a rational response to an imminent threat, and for some people a crisis brings clarity. The "fight or flight" instinct kicks in, and what puzzles Mr. Obama are the vast numbers of Americans who have chosen the former.
This is the first time Mr. Obama has had to cope with reasoned and principled opposition to his fashionably leftist ideas. Barack Obama has lived in a bubble of acclaim where he was always the kid being praised for how bright he was. He was elevated through a formal education process in which his race, glibness and charisma were more than adequate substitutes for hard work. His professional life as a "community organizer" and machine politician in heavily Democratic areas required nothing more than appealing to those who already agreed with him. His entry to the White House came in the wake of an unpopular presidency and in the midst of an economic crisis, and he floated into office on waves of hope and change rhetoric promising miracles that perhaps even he believed he could deliver.
It makes twisted sense that Mr. Obama has no idea why the electorate has rejected his sincere efforts on their behalf. Because he and his party's policies cannot be blamed, he seeks succor in the notion that the voters opposing him are simply red-state redneck rubes. As Vice President Joe Biden recently bellyached, they would tell the doubting public how good they have it, but it's "just too hard to explain."
We can at least agree with the president that the country has good reason to be scared. The last 22 months have seen a riot of government expansion into every aspect of American life. The housing crisis has not abated and by some measures has grown worse. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Government debt is at record levels and will remain there for the foreseeable future. The economy is sputtering, the stimulus failed to stimulate, job losses are deeper and will last longer than any economic downturn since World War II. Mr. Obama blames this continuing mess on the Bush administration, on factors out of his control, or on anyone but himself. Facts, science and argument disagree.
Editorial: Obama is smarter than you
President Obama was elected by a country that doesn't deserve to be ruled by someone as enlightened as he is - or so he thinks. Last weekend, as it became increasingly evident that the president's party is headed for historic losses in the midterm elections, Mr. Obama offered his explanation for the electorate's thanklessness. "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," he told attendees at a Democratic fundraiser. "And the country's scared, and they have good reason to be."
This is Barack at his most self-absorbed. On his side are facts, science and argument; his opponents, by implication, appeal to myth, irrationality and demagoguery. His brain trust brings moral clarity and intellectual certainty; his opponents are backward-looking knuckle-draggers. This is the only way he can explain the ingratitude of the American people toward his benevolent regime.
It's not a new tone for this president. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama sniffed at those sad unfortunates who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." During April 15 tax protests, a smug Mr. Obama said he was "amused" at the rallies, snickering, "You would think they would be saying 'thank you.'" To the philosopher king who occupies the White House, those who oppose his wise rule are selfish, insolent dolts.
Mr. Obama's strange pseudo-biological assertion that people are "hardwired not to always think clearly" when they are scared isn't true. Fear can be a rational response to an imminent threat, and for some people a crisis brings clarity. The "fight or flight" instinct kicks in, and what puzzles Mr. Obama are the vast numbers of Americans who have chosen the former.
This is the first time Mr. Obama has had to cope with reasoned and principled opposition to his fashionably leftist ideas. Barack Obama has lived in a bubble of acclaim where he was always the kid being praised for how bright he was. He was elevated through a formal education process in which his race, glibness and charisma were more than adequate substitutes for hard work. His professional life as a "community organizer" and machine politician in heavily Democratic areas required nothing more than appealing to those who already agreed with him. His entry to the White House came in the wake of an unpopular presidency and in the midst of an economic crisis, and he floated into office on waves of hope and change rhetoric promising miracles that perhaps even he believed he could deliver.
It makes twisted sense that Mr. Obama has no idea why the electorate has rejected his sincere efforts on their behalf. Because he and his party's policies cannot be blamed, he seeks succor in the notion that the voters opposing him are simply red-state redneck rubes. As Vice President Joe Biden recently bellyached, they would tell the doubting public how good they have it, but it's "just too hard to explain."
We can at least agree with the president that the country has good reason to be scared. The last 22 months have seen a riot of government expansion into every aspect of American life. The housing crisis has not abated and by some measures has grown worse. The value of the dollar has plummeted. Government debt is at record levels and will remain there for the foreseeable future. The economy is sputtering, the stimulus failed to stimulate, job losses are deeper and will last longer than any economic downturn since World War II. Mr. Obama blames this continuing mess on the Bush administration, on factors out of his control, or on anyone but himself. Facts, science and argument disagree.
O Canada!
Who among you knew that in the 90's, when our economic situation was generally good, Canada was in worse shape than we are now? I didn't. So of course I had no idea how Canada turned its financial ship around. The article below spells out how they did it. While there are some elements of Canada's approach I might take issue with, our politicians would do well to study what they did. It's basically the opposite of what we've been doing for a while now.
A little lengthy, but it's an easy read.
O Canada! John Mauldin's "Outside the Box"
A little lengthy, but it's an easy read.
O Canada! John Mauldin's "Outside the Box"
October 3, 2010
Tax Cuts
Some random thoughts on the current debate on taxes...
No one who pays taxes knows what their tax situation is going to be come January 1, 2011. This includes not only individuals but small businesses who pay as individuals. For small business owners, that uncertainty means their ability to plan for the future is handicapped.
Which makes them less likely to hire new employees till they find out what's coming.
The debate in Congress rages over whether to extend all the Bush tax cuts, or only those for the middle class. That's odd, because for years Democrats have described the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy", period. Apparently Democrats have just discovered that the middle class got tax cuts as well.
While it is astonishingly irresponsible for Democrats to fail to bring the tax cut issue to a vote before the elections, there is method to their madness. They do not really want to extend the tax cuts for anyone. How do I know this? Well, Obama keeps claiming that extending cuts for the wealthy will "cost" $700 billion over ten years. He says we cannot afford this cost. According to figures I keep seeing, and per Obama himself, the cost of extending tax cuts for everyone is being pegged at $4 trillion (wow, the middle class must have made out pretty well with the Bush tax cuts). If we can't afford the former, we sure as hell can't afford the latter. My, what are we to do?
Here's what's coming, and in my view this is why Pelosi, et al, have put off a vote on tax cuts. Obama's debt commission is due to issue its report on December 1. I opined earlier this year that they would recommend, among other things, a Value Added Tax. If one buys the bizarre theory that allowing people to keep more of their money is a "cost" that must be paid for, and if extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost $4 trillion, then, according to the theory, we have to come up with $4 trillion somewhere. The commission will propose that if the tax cuts remain in place we must institute a VAT to pay for them.
The end result is that while income tax rates will not have gone up, and Obama will claim that he kept his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, everyone will in fact be paying much higher taxes. They just won't see those taxes, because they will be embedded in the cost of everything they buy.
Of course, my prediction may prove to be wrong. But I will wager that we will not see a vote on tax cuts till after December 1.
No one who pays taxes knows what their tax situation is going to be come January 1, 2011. This includes not only individuals but small businesses who pay as individuals. For small business owners, that uncertainty means their ability to plan for the future is handicapped.
Which makes them less likely to hire new employees till they find out what's coming.
The debate in Congress rages over whether to extend all the Bush tax cuts, or only those for the middle class. That's odd, because for years Democrats have described the Bush tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy", period. Apparently Democrats have just discovered that the middle class got tax cuts as well.
While it is astonishingly irresponsible for Democrats to fail to bring the tax cut issue to a vote before the elections, there is method to their madness. They do not really want to extend the tax cuts for anyone. How do I know this? Well, Obama keeps claiming that extending cuts for the wealthy will "cost" $700 billion over ten years. He says we cannot afford this cost. According to figures I keep seeing, and per Obama himself, the cost of extending tax cuts for everyone is being pegged at $4 trillion (wow, the middle class must have made out pretty well with the Bush tax cuts). If we can't afford the former, we sure as hell can't afford the latter. My, what are we to do?
Here's what's coming, and in my view this is why Pelosi, et al, have put off a vote on tax cuts. Obama's debt commission is due to issue its report on December 1. I opined earlier this year that they would recommend, among other things, a Value Added Tax. If one buys the bizarre theory that allowing people to keep more of their money is a "cost" that must be paid for, and if extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone will cost $4 trillion, then, according to the theory, we have to come up with $4 trillion somewhere. The commission will propose that if the tax cuts remain in place we must institute a VAT to pay for them.
The end result is that while income tax rates will not have gone up, and Obama will claim that he kept his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class, everyone will in fact be paying much higher taxes. They just won't see those taxes, because they will be embedded in the cost of everything they buy.
Of course, my prediction may prove to be wrong. But I will wager that we will not see a vote on tax cuts till after December 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)