An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALERT

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Did I mention that this is an opinion piece?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

The Fierce Urgency of Pork

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 6, 2009; A17

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.


Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

[email protected]
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

Well..I'll say this about Krauthammer - he's opinionated.

He's also all over the place... the title of the piece suggests a discussion on park-barreling, but he spends half his space discussing Obama's character, via association. If he'd cut the top half of the article and expanded on the second half, it would be worth a serious read...as such, it sounds like more whining to me..
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

Where is the vision of "hope and change" that was the pillar of his campaign?
He gives no options but fear itself.

And now it turns out that "The Politics of Fear" is only okay when the left does it.


160_chicken_little.jpg
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

Well..I'll say this about Krauthammer - he's opinionated.

He's also all over the place... the title of the piece suggests a discussion on park-barreling, but he spends half his space discussing Obama's character, via association. If he'd cut the top half of the article and expanded on the second half, it would be worth a serious read...as such, it sounds like more whining to me..

The article is about how he states "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." using the fear he stated was behind us when he said "we have chosen hope over fear." in his inaugural. It is about the promises that are starting to build in the "FAILED" column.

It is not about association. It is about his choices in the face of what was promised by him.

He says no lobbyists in his administration and we have a dozen already appointed in the last two weeks.

He promises an ethical administration and he loads the cabinet with tax cheats.

It is about his ethics and how they are already showing in just two weeks while with most administrations it takes about six months for the gild to come off the lily.

It is also about how his signature bill has been loaded with spend, spend, spend directives which do nothing for the economy and everything for government. That, too, is an ethical lapse from someone who promises otherwise.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

tax cheats?

i'm not sure how many of you have had intimate encounters with the internal revenue code, so lemme lay it out for you...

it's fucking complicated.

i've had many, many issues with IRS despite having pricey, veteran tax lawyers and CPAs working on shit that i've been responsible for managing (a family trust). and lemme tell you, jimbo, there's some shit no one will ever get right, no matter how hard they fucking try to comply with the applicable rules or what level of experience they have dealing with IRS. "yes. please, tell me how to send my money to you! i want to cooperate!"

not all of us simply fill out a 1040ez with a walmart w2, dude.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

It is about his ethics and how they are already showing in just two weeks

yep, it's looking like the most ethical in a long time.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

The article is about how he states "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." using the fear he stated was behind us when he said "we have chosen hope over fear." in his inaugural. It is about the promises that are starting to build in the "FAILED" column.

It is not about association. It is about his choices in the face of what was promised by him.

He says no lobbyists in his administration and we have a dozen already appointed in the last two weeks.

He promises an ethical administration and he loads the cabinet with tax cheats.

It is about his ethics and how they are already showing in just two weeks while with most administrations it takes about six months for the gild to come off the lily.

It is also about how his signature bill has been loaded with spend, spend, spend directives which do nothing for the economy and everything for government. That, too, is an ethical lapse from someone who promises otherwise.

The point is that it's all over the place...and the title lends one to think that he's going to talk about pork-barrel. The 2nd half of the article is mostly about the pork...great. A lot of finger pointing with little facts or solid examples to follow-through with. Too weak...it should've been expanded upon.

I'm bemoaning the author's ability to write effectively. His speaking points are lost because he's trying to state too many opinions at one time.

Choose one - write about it, give examples, give your opinion, submit.

The next day, he can choose another - write about it, give examples, give your opinion, submit

The points he's trying to make may very well be valid, intelligent, and individually solid...but the fact that he can't stick to the point and write well makes him sound frantic, disjointed and frankly..like just any another garden-variety web-crackpot. :shrug:
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

tax cheats?

i'm not sure how many of you have had intimate encounters with the internal revenue code, so lemme lay it out for you...

it's fucking complicated.

i've had many, many issues with IRS despite having pricey, veteran tax lawyers and CPAs working on shit that i've been responsible for managing (a family trust). and lemme tell you, jimbo, there's some shit no one will ever get right, no matter how hard they fucking try to comply with the applicable rules or what level of experience they have dealing with IRS. "yes. please, tell me how to send my money to you! i want to cooperate!"

not all of us simply fill out a 1040ez with a walmart w2, dude.

I got me a financial adviser too ... who's legally responsible for ensuring that my tax filing is accurate. If it's not, she takes the heat for it, not me. I've yet to hear the name of any of their tax lawyers in the news. Odd that... unless it's because of the very loophole I'm accountable for ... failure to document. If i don't provide the documentation to my adviser, she's out of the loop.

Now you're not going to suggest that noone knew that he had a car and driver over at that high priced law firm... are you?
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

i'm not sure how many of you have had intimate encounters with the internal revenue code, so lemme lay it out for you...

it's fucking complicated.

If it's too complicated for those who wrote it & ESPECIALLY if it's too complicated for the next boss of that particular beauracracy, then it's too complicated and/or the new boss needs to be denied his position.

How about 4% across the board?
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

tax cheats?

i'm not sure how many of you have had intimate encounters with the internal revenue code, so lemme lay it out for you...

it's fucking complicated.

i've had many, many issues with IRS despite having pricey, veteran tax lawyers and CPAs working on shit that i've been responsible for managing (a family trust). and lemme tell you, jimbo, there's some shit no one will ever get right, no matter how hard they fucking try to comply with the applicable rules or what level of experience they have dealing with IRS. "yes. please, tell me how to send my money to you! i want to cooperate!"

not all of us simply fill out a 1040ez with a walmart w2, dude.

Yeah, but you would think that someone who makes millions of dollars a year, and helped write the tax code, would be able to afford a good accountant that would know that the car and driver is income and not a gift.

Did you ever fuck up your family trust to the tune of $128,000 owing for several years and did they forgive the penalties?
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

I got me a financial adviser too ... who's legally responsible for ensuring that my tax filing is accurate. If it's not, she takes the heat for it, not me. I've yet to hear the name of any of their tax lawyers in the news. Odd that... unless it's because of the very loophole I'm accountable for ... failure to document. If i don't provide the documentation to my adviser, she's out of the loop.

Now you're not going to suggest that noone knew that he had a car and driver over at that high priced law firm... are you?

no i'm not suggesting that.

yeah, it's the taxpayer that takes the heat.

and the tax folks can only work with what they are provided.

however, sometimes the taxpayer doesn't understand what they are really supposed to provide, and there is incomplete information.

sometimes the code is just too stinking complex to where there are going to be errors of interpretation.

i've sent in tax returns that are over an inch thick. fortunately there have been no massive, um, differences of opinion w/IRS. but at some level, that was simply luck. because i've seen many other examples of pretty big discrepancies based on varying opinions of what is taxable and what is not. almost everybody that has significant assets had folks working on their shit trying to interpret things in their favor. and, then, one fine day, an IRS agent with a bee in his bonnet takes his trusty number two pencil and...

yes, gonz, i would love the flat tax thing.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

A consumption tax is far superior to a flat tax for the following reasons:

  • A consumption tax would encourage savings because funds would not be taxed until actually spent.
  • The amount of M1 (The money in circulation) would be reduced thus lowering inflation.
  • All money would ultimately be taxed including under-the-table, black market, and tourism dollars.
  • The banks, flush with money from savings accounts, would be able to loan money at reduced rates while allowing interest rates on those savings accounts to soar.
  • Investment would increase exponentially as invested funds would not be taxed but once and then only when cashed out and spent.
    There would be no filing of forms or tax withholding of wage earners. You would get 100% of your wages to do with as you wish. All taxes would be collected at the commercial retail level by the same people who collect state sales taxes now.

All of this could be done not at the flat tax rate of 17% but at a mere 7.5% tax.

Now, what are the disadvantages? Only one. If there were no repeal of the XVI Amendment because in the absence of that we would end up with both.

Your logical question is this: So, if this is so good, Peel, why hasn't already been done?

For several reasons:

  • It would reduce the size of the IRS by about 90% putting about 25,000 government workers out of a job.
  • The DEA would lose the ability to track black market dollars.
  • The power and fear held over the American people by the IRS, which is the only government entity that you are guilty until proven innocent, would disappear.
  • The government in toto would lose power over the citizenry.
  • The FED would lose its power over the economy.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

totally off-point but hey it's OTC and jimmy needs to show off sometimes.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

All money would ultimately be taxed including under-the-table, black market, and tourism dollars.

why would you want to put that burden on fixed income families, already struggling?
MANY People would get real hungry. Then we're looking a Big BIG trouble.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

why would you want to put that burden on fixed income families, already struggling?

So that we all pay for our own way.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

it's gonna get there anyway, soon.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

totally off-point but hey it's OTC and jimmy needs to show off sometimes.

You were the one who brought up close encounters with the IRS of the worst kind HERE. I'm merely expounding on your segue.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

why would you want to put that burden on fixed income families, already struggling?
MANY People would get real hungry. Then we're looking a Big BIG trouble.

In perfection, the consumption tax would exclude housing, clothing, and food.

In case you have never gotten that part of the tax system wherein most state sales tax departments are called the "Board of Equalization", the key word is "Equalization".

The sales tax is the only fair tax as everyone of all stripes pays the same; but only if they actually spend money.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

You were the one who brought up close encounters with the IRS of the worst kind HERE. I'm merely expounding on your segue.

because it went to the issue of dash-hole and his wanderings. your mini-lesson - for which we are all eternally grateful - didn't have much connexion with the rest of the commentary here.
 
Re: An opinion piece, yes, an opinion piece. ALERT--ALERT--OPINION PIECE--ALERT--ALER

because it went to the issue of dash-hole and his wanderings. your mini-lesson - for which we are all eternally grateful - didn't have much connexion with the rest of the commentary here.

Ummmmmm yeah, it did.

From YOUR POST #11

however, sometimes the taxpayer doesn't understand what they are really supposed to provide, and there is incomplete information.

sometimes the code is just too stinking complex to where there are going to be errors of interpretation.

i've sent in tax returns that are over an inch thick. fortunately there have been no massive, um, differences of opinion w/IRS. but at some level, that was simply luck. because i've seen many other examples of pretty big discrepancies based on varying opinions of what is taxable and what is not. almost everybody that has significant assets had folks working on their shit trying to interpret things in their favor. and, then, one fine day, an IRS agent with a bee in his bonnet takes his trusty number two pencil and...

yes, gonz, i would love the flat tax thing.

MY POST #12 addressed that and started as follows:

A consumption tax is far superior to a flat tax for the following reasons:

ie: I'll see your flat tax and raise you a consumption tax.
 
Back
Top