Monday, October 27, 2008

IOKIYAR Wall Street Journal edition

IOKIYAR- Ee- oh-kee-yar.

Its OK If You Are A Republican.

I love that one. My Father in Law sent me this op ed from the Wall Street Journal by one Pete DuPont called the "Europeanization of America." I point out some of the problems with his list of horrible things that will befall us below. But let me make a metapoint. When it comes to questions of curriculum or culture, the Conservatives are usually quick to invoke the idea of a deep and abiding continuum of "Western" thought from the Greeks through to our own superior culture and soceity. I point out that much of that Western traditions happened, in, you know, Europe. Of course, when it suits their purpose, they are quick to use "Europe," historically and currently a place marked for its unity and homogeneity of peoples, languages, culture, and for its ability to get along just hunky dory without wars of words or weapons, as the qunitessential example of degenerate, misguided and dangerous cultural, social,a nd economic precedent.

Contradiction? IOKIYAR.
Argumentation marked by selective cherry picking of ideas to meet pre-conceived notions? IOKIYAR.

Anyway, back to Mr. Du Pont's list of baseless assertions and falsehoods. My responses come after the arrows --> .

I don't know where they get this stuff. Off the top of my head...

* The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.
--> The Iraqi government has signed on to this, so it is what they want. If victory is a sovereign Iraq, then that is prima facie evidence of their sovereignty isn’t it?

* Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.
--> he has said that we should strengthen environmental and labor protections. Ricardo himself, the grandpa of free trade theory, wrote that the factors that matter are natural factors like climate and not artificial ones like costs of labor. Why not have a global wage floor pegged to currency differences. Or at least one for companies operating in the global economy? We have other global regulations for the flow of capital or copyright protection. Fair trade is a real policy agenda, even if he wants to put his fingers in his ears.

* Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."
--> Out of context quote. Obama said we all benefit when there is a middle class that ahs money to spend. Also, is he arguing for an end to progressive taxation? Also, the proportion of the federal budget that comes from payroll taxes has been GOING UP. There is wealth transfer-from the working classes UP, compared to what it was in the past.


* Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).
--. Is he arguing for a contraction of spending in the face of a classic Keynesian fall in aggregate demand? Has he factored in any reductions in military spending?

* Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.
--> I guess because he said so and because Democrats and liberals are the boogey man. BOO!

* The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.
--> I have mixed feelings about labor organizing and secret ballots vs card checks. However, I don't see the unalloyed evil of increased Union power relative to corporate power.

* Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.
--> As a liberally and free speech lover, I would not favor a return to the fairness doctrine, but more openness of broadband for more forms of communication. Also, we need to stop using copyright as a knee jerk reaction to bolster Disney's profits. In the digital era, everything is a copy, so we need to rethink the balance between fair use and private interests. Anyway, again, has Obama said he wants the fairness doctrine to come back?

6 comments:

Jove said...

Re: Fairness Doctrine

I haven't done a whole lot of digging, but according to the comments on this site, Obama does not want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. His press secretary was quoted as saying:

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Jove said...

Also, re: taxes.

I was having a vigorous debate the other night with relatives about progressive taxation. I accept that it's the only strategy that makes sense, but I'm not particularly good at explaining why, and don't think it's immediately obvious to many people why progressive taxation is good or fair. They think, "Why can't we all pay the same %?"

Has anyone found an effective way to explain why we have a progressive tax code instead of a flat tax?

Also, Jordi, do you have a source that shows (succinctly) what you said about payroll taxes making up an increased % of the federal budget?

Ben Vollmayr-Lee said...

I'd start by explaining that in fact, we do all pay the same percentage. David Cay Johnston (highly regarded journalist who gets numbers right, according to economists) showed that when you combine all taxes - sales, FICA, state, local, property, income - then each quintile pays roughly the same percentage. If I recall correctly, the top quintile pays the least.

So, the income tax needs to be progressive just to offset the regressive nature of the other taxes.

FICA, for example: because of the cap, the rich pay a much lower percentage of their income in FICA taxes. The rich spend a smaller fraction of their income, so pay less sales tax. Etc. When you're in a discussion with someone about taxes and they want to limit to income taxes, then they usually have an agenda.

There is a different philosophical point to make about the value of a progressive tax system. That argument is basically that children, given more opportunities, do better, and given fewer opportunities, do worse (I know - that's really deep!) Children in richer families have a success rate that is uncoupled to the income of the family. Children in poorer families have a success rate that is highly coupled to the income of the family (I should back that up with some links - I'll try to track them down tonight and post a follow up). So society as a whole improves if we give disadvantaged children more opportunities.

But the key point (to me) is that a progressive tax system is something we'd LIKE to have, not something that we have.

Anonymous said...

I also have some mixed feelings about doing away with the secret ballots in union elections. (I've signed cards twice, voting yes once and no the other time.) The key point people seem to be missing is that signing a card now simply means asking for a vote. What has happened in my experience is that as soon as a vote is called, employers doing many things (some clearly outside the bounds intended by the law, aka illegal) to get the idea voted down.

If signing the card is automatically a yes vote, employers might be more proactive in deterring unionizing efforts. Given how much ground unions have lost in the 40 years or so, a change in the law probably is not going to be a big shift in the balance of power. I would prefer to leave the secret ballot in place but come down much harder on companies that violate the law by subtly and not so subtly intimidating employees who want to unionize.

jordi comas said...

Here is an overview of current practice of employers:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11839.html

Money quote:
Employers legally can force workers to attend anti-union meetings, including “one-on-one conversations” with supervisors, which happens in over 90 percent of organizing campaigns, according to a Cornell University study. And according to research by University of Oregon professor Gordon Lafer, workers often are pressured by employers to reveal their private preferences for the union. This takes the “secret” out of the “secret ballot” — the most common conservative mischaracterization of current union organizing rules."

jordi comas said...

Jove, thanks for digging that up about fairness...

I think opening up more avenues for expression and ownership is better than imposing fairness, although, I would like to see free advertising to all qualified candidates.

You know, more voices, marketplace of ideas, avoiding unnecessary regulation,liberty... crazy socialist stuff like that. I like it.