Just in time for dinner, here are your top stories:
- Kyrgyzstan opposition sets up ‘people’s government’ — Bloody clashes leave 12 dead in a country most Americans can’t pronounce, which is weird when you think about it — folks over there care that much, whereas over here Joe Sixpack is thinking, “Whoever is in charge, they need to go on the international market and buy a few vowels.”
- Finlay faces Benjamin in runoff for mayor — This is way old — you read it first here on bradwarthen.com not long after polls closed — but it’s important, and it happened since our last front page.
- Fed Chief Bernanke Says U.S. Must Address Soaring Debt — South Carolina’s own Fed chairman says enough’s enough. Meanwhile, Greenspan says he did NOT screw up, either…
- Virginia Gov.: ‘Confederate History Month’ Is ‘Something That Should Be Done’ — In South Carolina, we’d just shrug at this. But elsewhere in the nation, it’s big news.
- Tiger Woods comeback dominates Masters build-up — As I’ve said before, if the BBC cares this much about something just down the road from us, I’ll put it on my front. Personally, I suspect it’s getting this play because some toff at BBC got a trip to the Masters out of it.
- There’ll be no Okra Strut this year! — This just in from Irmo…
Related Posts
FYI, I almost included this piece speculating whether Hamid Karzai’s recent bizarre behavior was because he is a heroin addict.
But I thought I’d wait and see if that one firms up…
You missed this story:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-04-07-income-taxes_N.htm
Nearly half of U.S. households pay ZERO federal taxes.
If you want to understand what the Tea Party group is mad about, that’s a good starting point.
Until we have a tax system into which EVERYONE pays, I don’t care to hear anyone talk about fairness or regressive taxes. There’s nothing regressive about paying no taxes. Everyone should pay something. In fact, everyone should pay the same percentage on every dollar earned. Eliminate all the loopholes, credits, deductions, etc. Give 5 cents of every dollar earned and let the politicians fight over how to spend it.
Also, the Virginia governor had to do some major backpedaling and amend the resolution regarding Confederate History Month to include this:
“WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history; and”
You think that little addition would go over very well in this state???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/07/AR2010040705100.html
Don’t you mean zero federal INCOME taxes? Most people still pay other federal taxes, such as payroll taxes I think.
Doug, Take a moment. Calculate what your income per month would be on minimum wage. Subtract $500.00/mo. or so for rent (I don’t think you can get a hovel for less). Subtract your monthly grocery bill, transportation costs, and average medical bills. Throw in a little something to keep clothes on your back. I’d be interested to know how much you have left. Unless I miss my guess, you’d be in the negative numbers, without throwing in child care (if you’re a single working mother you can’t do without this item), hair cuts, or any recreational funds. It may well be that some people who aren’t paying income tax should, but many more can’t. If you want a flat tax make sure that items that you have to have to live and to raise your child(ren) are available to you. The alternative, of course, is to raise minimum wage to an actual ‘living wage’.
That’s a little bit comforting to learn of the addition to the Virginia proclamation. Frankly, I think they should engrave those words in large print around the base of the Confederate monument on our State House grounds.
Tourism
See today’s column by NY Times columnist Gail Collins “A Confederacy of Dunces.”
“[F]or McDonnell, Confederate History Month was all about “tourism,””
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/opinion/08collins.html
Interestingly, here in South Carolina, our legislators’ devotion to the Confederate flag costs us tourism dollars because of the NAACP tourism boycott which is supported by the NCAA through a tournament ban.
See Ron Morris’ column “Morris: Flag still costs state NCAA spotlight” in sports in The State.
“The state of South Carolina should take note. Instead of earmarking $8 million for destination-specific tourism through the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, as it did this fiscal year, the state could push for an NCAA tournament and enjoy the economic benefits.”
http://www.thestate.com/2010/03/21/1209711/morris-for-sunday.html
What’s ridiculous is that our state flies the Confederate flag out in front of the State House AND our state is well-known all around the world because of this fact AND we are told to just ignore this action by our legislature.
I mean, really, shouldn’t our state use this action by our legislature in ALL of our marketing for travel and tourism?
If it’s really so important that we in South Carolina distinguish ourselves from our neighboring states by being the only state to fly the Confederate flag out in front of our State House, then shouldn’t we try to capitalize on this distinguishing brand?
Shouldn’t we use our definition as “South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies” to bolster tourism and economic development? For example, Columbia wisely spent a lot of money for “Famously Hot,” and Columbia should use this brand slogan in ALL of the marketing for Columbia.
Recall that Atlanta successfully argued for the 1996 Olympics by saying that Atlanta and the South are quite a different culture from Los Angeles and California. But, of course, Atlanta was then, and is still, known as “The City Too Busy to Hate.”
It seems to me that our state legislators think that South Carolina’s first priority is to foster racial hatred. And then our legislators pretend that all their effort on this priority, which brands our state as “South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies” has nothing to do with South Carolina. It’s amazing.
So, SC state legislators, if you want to fly the Confederate flag, then please take advantage of the branding that this action provides and use this branding to promote tourism and economic development.
Tell tourists and businesses to come to South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, and see the heritage and the history and the racial hatred, in person. Tell tourists and businesses to come and spend their money and see the 19th Century alive and flourishing/floundering in South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies.
And if you legislators do not intend to use this rather expensive branding to foster tourism, then please, change your priority and take the flag down.
Karen,
I don’t care how much money a person makes. Every citizen should contribute taxes to pay for the services they receive. The fact that half of America pays no income taxes is ridiculous.
If you want me to work so I can provide for your military, highways, national parks, etc., just say so and I’ll claim you as a dependent.
As for payroll taxes, they are SUPPOSED to go for one thing: Social Security.
Too many people get a free ride (in fact, get money for doing nothing).
We used to worry about taxation without representation. Now we have representation without taxation for half of America. It’s a bad trend that will only get worse.
After welfare reform, there is no free ride for anyone except custodial parents of children, and then only for three years.
Doug, we don’t pay for services with our taxes–it’s not a quid pro quo. We contribute to the common fisc and allow government to do its job. A government that does its job is good for everyone, especially the well-off. Where do you propose these people get money to pay taxes from? Are we then going to have to turn around and subsidize their food and housing or are they supposed to steal to eat or live on the street when the money they make doesn’t stretch far enough?
Kathryn,
If someone has a cell phone or cable TV, they can pay income taxes. If you have a job, you should pay income taxes. It should be that simple.
And your definition of “well off” apparently means the 50% of Americans who pay taxes. It’s an unfair system that allows the rich to avoid paying taxes and the poor to pay none. It’s why there are many of us in the middle aren’t happy.
It IS unfair that the rich avoid paying taxes–I’m all for closing loopholes and eliminating “incentives”and so on that are just really tax cuts for the rich….and I do agree that if one can afford cable, one maybe isn’t that poor–cellphones are pretty much necessities if you have certain jobs and don’t have the credit to get a home phone.
I know all about the people who can’t pay child support but have Duallies dripping in chrome, and TVs as big as refrigerators. I do think most of them pay income taxes.
How much money do you think the head of household for a family of four should be able to make before he or she owes taxes? Any money at all? Poverty line? Do people get deductions for dependents under your plan? Child care tax credits? Business expense deductions?
Well I don’t think most of the rich are avoiding taxes as much as one would think.
But Kathryn is absolutely right, in my opinion, about taxes not simply being fees for services. Is protecting the inherent rights of man a service? Is promoting the stability of society as a whole a service? In a way I guess you could say so, but I’ve never thought of it that way. Besides, how do you measure the cost of these “services” anyway?
“Ok, Mr. Doe, you lived in a major city, so we’ll have to charge you an extra fee for defense of a high-risk area of terrorist attack. You bought a gun, so there’ll be a 2nd Amendment fee. You freely assembled 472 times during the year. And let’s not forget that invoice your congressman sent us for the time he spent writing a response to your letter complaining about the new health care bill. Looks like your total is going to be $x,xxx.xx.” And you thought the IRS was bad now.
But seriously, I think most of us could agree that it’d be nice to have a system where we all pay the same low flat tax rate. But it isn’t reality. Taxes are already too low to pay for the government we have. And, in my opinion, if limiting government is your thing, raising taxes — not lowering — to match spending would be what the doctor ordered. Nothing would get people more interested in limiting government than telling them they are going to have to start paying for it in full. After all the Republicans tried to “starve the beast” already by lowering revenues. It didn’t work.
As for a flat rate which would make everyone pay “their share”, I agree, in principle, that that would be the fair thing to do. But in reality is it the best thing to do for our society? I love this point that Kathryn makes:
“Are we then going to have to turn around and subsidize their food and housing or are they supposed to steal to eat or live on the street when the money they make doesn’t stretch far enough?”
I think it’s better for me to pay more in taxes myself than to have people living on the streets (I use those streets!) or stealing (possibly from me!).
And Doug, I know you realize that many of those who don’t pay income tax couldn’t afford to contribute much anyway. After all, when I suggested that I would favor a carbon tax, you called me out because of the effect it would have on the working poor.
I do think that the reality of this country’s future dictates that federal spending be held in check, but taxes have to go up — and that includes taxes on the sacrosanct middle class. Thus, I find both a flat tax and a lower tax to be unrealistic, if not completely utopian.
You’ve really hit that nail on the head, David…
Many of the arguments I have with folks of a libertarian bent — particularly the school choice crowd — relates to a fundamental difference in the way we see ourselves in relation to the rest of society.
They see themselves as CONSUMERS; I see myself as a CITIZEN. I pay taxes because it is my responsibility as a citizen to support fundamental public functions that benefit us all as a community or society, such as public schools. In our form of self-government, our republic, understanding that relationship is fundamental.
Those who think of themselves as consumers don’t understand that relationship or that responsibility. They think, “I don’t have any kids in public schools; why should I pay the tax to support them?” That’s because they think of it as a fee for service. They are also, inexplicably, unable to grasp the fact that we don’t have a system of universal education for the benefit of the particular, individual kids who attend them or their parents. We have them because an educated population benefits us all, in terms of having a vibrant economy with a qualified workforce and fewer young people on the streets who are unemployable and tending toward crime.
I don’t know what’s at the root of this notion that one is a completely independent entity who should only interact with others through the purchases one chooses to make. I don’t understand why such people don’t understand that there can’t BE a marketplace undergirded by the concept of private property if there weren’t a health public infrastructure of laws and institutions making that possible. Without the kinds of things that government provides in a liberal democracy, you end up with Somalia, where if there were a mall to go to (highly unlikely), you’d have to take an AK-47 with you to shop there…
Thanks, David, I agree with your analysis, especially the part abut how we will need to start paying more taxes–all of the middle class–to ensure the continuation of the society and basic infrastructure we have come to take for granted.
Brad–I almost wrote that “Brad is going to have to repeat his community vs. consumer analysis.” You really just ought to keep that on file and copy it in as needed.
Amen to both of you.
Y’know, one thing that I have long thought about the young male libertarians I run into–the ones who are healthy and strong and don’t want nobody tellin’ them nothin’–how different is that from the young man in the ghetto who sees that he can grab more than he can earn? Survival of the fittest, right?
Just because you were born into the right class, and the right color (which is still largely regrettably true) and possibly the right sex, why do you get to freeload on society–the society that makes it possible for you to earn the big bucks that enable you to have a large amount of economic freedom, legally?
I run into few female libertarians–is that because women can get pregnant and need some community to help them? Hormones (oxytocin–the “tend and befriend” juice)?
Ah, but in that sense, doesn’t feminism (particularly of the “do me” variety) promote female libertarianism?
Yes, women need a support network — call it community if you will — to raise healthy children ready to deal with the world. One of the main functions of this thing we call “civilization” is to bend young men to the purpose of helping with that, against so many of their animal instincts. It’s why we have marriage and all sorts of conventions and taboos aimed at persuading young guys not to be such total asses.
But for it to work, we need it to be acknowledged that there ARE differences between boys and girls, and that they have different developmental needs. For instance, the military model of the Citadel — ahem, is specifically aimed at breaking and rebuilding young males. It’s the time-honored formula: The boy acts up, send him to military school (or into the Army — they know what to do with him). Putting young females into that environment is forced and unnecessary. And making a big cause of it, just because it’s a “barrier” (and all barriers must fall, an axiom that is accepted without question), is counterproductive.
As one who represented a fair number of delinquent females, I think you are extrapolating from your own narrow experience.
“Do me” ?
Not sure what exactly that means unless it is referring to stiletto-heeled shoes.
I think MOST feminists want equal access to make their way if they can. They want the right to make decisions about their own bodies and the right to at least try out for any job.
The fire departments that simply say, “You can be a firefighter if you can haul the hose (or whatever other physical requirements the job entails) are far more reasonable than those that simply refuse to consider a female.
The Citadel is appalling, imho, and many men and boys would be eaten alive there, and many girls will thrive–outliers, maybe, but they ought to have the right to try, especially when we hold Citadel grads with such reverence in this state.
Hey now, Kathryn! I’m young and male and consider myself to lean libertarianish at times. I just don’t see government as a constant obstacle. And of course I do believe strongly in a social safety net and a progressive income tax system. And I certainly don’t want Brad’s oft-mentioned “bathtub” government. So maybe I’m really a conservative who doesn’t agree with our overly agressive foreign policy, opposes social or cultural conservatism, and thinks the Republican Party is a disaster in more ways than one. Of course that might just make me a liberal who cares as much about how we implement that social safety net as I do about having one to begin with.
And Brad, I’m getting married in a couple weeks but I don’t know that that’s going to make me less of an ass.
[insert smiley faces]
You all keep missing the key point. If we all are citizens, we all should contribute to the cause. I don’t mind paying for public schools but shouldn’t everyone in the community pay for them as well? And you will never convince me that I should pay more for public schools than my neighbor does just because I have one more bedroom in my house than he does.
If you can buy a lottery ticket, you can pay income tax. If you can buy alcohol or cigarettes, you can pay an income tax. If you truly want a community, then let everyone contribute – not establish and foster and environment of haves and have-nots. The incentive should be for each individual to maximize his or her own income by working hard, getting educated, being frugal. Our tax system does none of that.
As for the comments about raising taxes, you all have the opportunity to write a check to the Federal treasury in excess of your tax obligations. Why don’t you do it? It would help the community, wouldn’t it. Oh yeah, I forgot, you want to make EVERYONE (except the poor) pay for the government you think we should have.
“Do me” feminism was very much the subject du jour sometime back in the 90s, and it still crops up from time to time:
http://www.alternet.org/sex/103035/
@ David–you are clearly not one of the overly independent libertarians I wrote about–it’s okay to disagree with me on how much government we should have, but when one’s approach get fairly pre-Hobbesian–no social contract, just survival of the fittest, I lose respect.
I see your point, Doug–it’s kind of like the homeless people who just want to contribute something, even when they have nothing. It’s a responsibility mindset–do what you can.
I just heard a public radio pledge drive point that some college student said she stayed in one night and was able to make a contribution of $20, which she felt was the least she could do because she listens all the time.
We don’t want to create a society, or an underclass of society that is all takers–but maybe that means we need to ensure that children have quality daycare and that affordable, safe housing and food are available to all, and then we can make sure that everyone also gives back as well as he or she can, but something. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Sounds like what Jesus would recommend.
Brad–[shakes head]–I believe the strain of feminism of which you write is about making sure that women’s sexual needs are not ignored or shamed—parity in the bedroom as well as the boardroom. And yes, some extremists take that to mean women can do as many guys as they like just like guys can do as many women as they like without being shamed.
I tend to agree with the brilliant Carolyn Hax who points out that before every sexual encounter a woman should assume she’ll get pregnant and the man should assume she’ll keep the baby and work from there. She then adds in the possibility of picking up a virus–all by way of saying “Posture all you want, but there are real consequences to your choices.”
I’m not a fan of libertinism any more than I am a fan of libertarianism.
What??? Brad is now reading Alternet(see above post).
What is the world coming to?
I think our Brad is an omni kind of guy.
It’s what came up when I Googled the phrase…
You googled “omni kind of guy” and got “Brad” or vice versa?