EFFin' Unsound

Would you rather live in Alabama or Connecticut? I mean I’m not saying CT is the best place in the world, but it’s certainly one of our nicer states. I say this because Carl Gipson at the Washington Policy Center is concerned about your taxes.

The Tax Foundation just released their annual Tax Freedom Day analysis. The report points out that, on average, Americans work from January 1st until April 23rd to pay off their taxes and only after April 23rd do they keep what they earn.

This is a very helpful metric because most of us are the average person. Also, at least to me, it seems like there’s a lot of the year still left.

However, Washingtonians are among the more unlucky of the states that actually have to work past April 23rd to pay off the federal and state/local tax liabilities. We Evergreen Staters need to work an extra 6 days, until April 29th, until we start to keep what we make. The worst state? Connecticut, at May 8th. The earliest? Alabama at March 29th.

In case you’re wondering, this means that the first 120 calendar days (33% of the year) are spent funding government and the last 246 (leap year numbers) days working for our families. With looming budget deficits in our state’s future are we going to see Tax Freedom Day move further towards, and eventually into, May?

Remember, Washington, you have a choice: you can be like those hardy New Englanders, or like those racist hillbillies.

Bruce Ramsey is the picture of compassion.

John McCain’s position on unsustainable mortgages, reported here, is the right one: government assistance only to prevent a danger to all, not for individual borrowers or lenders. Individual borrowers and lenders have engaged in a private transaction, and undertaken risks. They might not have understood the risks fully, but unless they were the victim of fraud, the risk belongs to them.

Most of the borrowers who are in trouble are those who put no money down, or almost no money, or who took out loans with teaser rates that they knew would reset in a couple of years. They knew, or should have known, what they were doing. They may have misjudged the risks, but that is their problem. It is not fair or reasonable to relieve them of the consequences of their bad decisions by spreading the costs onto people who who were prudent.

Too many politicians speak about this as if foreclosure meant homelessness. Mostly it doesn’t. Mostly it just means you lose “your” house–really the lender’s house since you haven’t much of your money in it–and you have to go and rent some housing. Millions of people rent housing–and they tend, on average, to have lower incomes and less wealth than people who own housing. Why should renters pay more taxes in order to bail out reckless buyers?

Also: the foreclosed house is still there; it is still useful; and it is in the mortgage holder’s interest to get someone in it quickly so it isn’t turned into a crack house. The same foreclosures that throw people out of houses will make more houses available for other people to buy. Some of those will be people in apartments who take the opportunity to step up into a house. Some might be the foreclosed people who rent houses that were previously foreclosed.

All this may be a shock and an adjustment, but not the sort of disaster that requires government intervention. John McCain is right about that, and Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are not. It is not the government’s job to shield Americans from their economic mistakes.

And that goes for the mortgage companies. It is not the government’s job to save them. A Bear Stearns may be different because its collapse would hurt a huge number of innocent people and start an economic contagion, though it is an argument that, by its nature, will tend to be used more often than is justified. Also I am not for bailing out shareholders. They took a business risk and this is a business result. And that makes me more comfortable with the sale at $2 a share than at $10, unless the public taxpayer is off the hook.

So if you’re a big enough player, OK. But for smaller people, well fuck smaller people: If you’re J.P. Morgan, you can get the government to cover their risk to buy Bear Stearns on the cheap great on them. But someone who bought a shitty loan because they thought they were part of a new ownership society and because they got a teaser rate that they didn’t understand can eat shit.

I think Jonathan Gardner’s John McCain man crush that I had been predicting for a while now may be developing.

Thought:

During the “low point” of the Republican Party in the last century, there was still an awfully good chance that after the November elections, a republican would be once again elected president. Just in the past 28 years alone, only 8 of those were years in which a democrat was president, a president who never earned a majority vote.

Why is this?

My thought, and see if you don’t agree, is that the reason is simply because democrats can’t stand the white-hot heat of inspection.

I mean, look at New York. Eliot Spitzer gets elected. He gets caught up in a prostitution ring breakup, and is forced to resign. The lieutenant governor takes over, and in an effort to perhaps prevent a similar break down, admits to extending extra-marital affairs. But at least he didn’t have to pay with his own money—he had his campaign committee cover the bill.

Up until his appointment to the governorship, Patterson was a relatively obscure character. Now that he is in the spotlight, he seems to be melting. It is a matter of time, I fear, before New York will be governed by a governor that was never elected.

What does this say about the democratic party? Are these just two bad apples out of the bunch, or is the whole bunch rotten and these were just two examples?

Here’s another example: Barack Obama. At first, he seemed like some kind of savior for the Democratic Party. He had been in politics for such a short time he hadn’t earned the scars that people like Ted Kennedy have earned. So it seemed the democrats could finally put forward a candidate that could pass the smell test.

Except it was not to be so. Even while Obama is trying to refute his support of a radical, racist hate-monger for a preacher (giving all of Christianity a bad name, I might add), he is plagued by other nutjobs on his campaign. I won’t divulge the secrets yet, but if you are a strong Obama supporter, imagine all the crazies that show up at the anti-war rallies, except on Obama’s staff.

When Al Gore was put forward, he couldn’t pass the smell test. I mean, he was completely incapable of connecting with the people, and he couldn’t even give a speech without putting to sleep half the audience. Then came John Kerry, who Rush colorfully adds every time his name is mentioned “who served in Vietnam”. Except John Kerry’s service was hardly what he made it out to be. Combined with the Winter Soldier fraud and scam, as well as, “I threw the medals over the fence before I didn’t throw them, and here they are right now because they were really my friend’s medals who couldn’t make it because he was sick”, and you get a collapsed campaign. I mean, wasn’t President Bush Hitler himself? How can you lose against him?

But now we are heading into 2008, with the republicans having nominated not their first choice, or even their second or third choice, but a distant fourth or fifth choice. I mean, this guy is so old even he admits that he probable won’t run for a second term. This is a guy who admitted that he doesn’t know much about economics, and that is precisely the issue we are facing right now.

But John McCain, in poll after poll, is making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama look like second-rate candidates. I mean, even John Kerry at this point four years ago was looking pretty good, but these two challengers are already losing.

More than just the scandals, the parts of a candidate that don’t directly cause concern but imply secondary infidelities that do cause concern, there is the fundamental fact of the democrat’s agenda. This agenda is simply more government, all of the time. It is less human freedom, more government oppression. It is the anti-America, the exact thing America was founded in opposition to. Let alone the question of whether they are right or wrong—they want to make that decision for you, and that in itself is the wrong way.

And America, naturally, understands that this is in opposition to itself, and rightly rejects it.

That’s what I think.

Barely.

No matter who wins the primary it’s still important to elect the Democrat. And work downticket. Just look at what Gary Randall and others on the other side are doing.

Planned Parenthood is gearing up for the 2008 election. They will be spending an unprecedented $10m to help pro-abortion candidates get elected.

I’m not sure it’s unprecedented. I mean given how much the Super Rangers were earning for Bush last time, and that there may be a billion just on the presidency this time around, $10 million for the entire campaign up and downticket doesn’t seem that huge for a national org.

EMILY’s List and NARAL will be spending tens of millions, working in sync with P.P.

Corporate America won’t spend a penny on Republicans. Nor will the Jesocrazies.

They are opening offices across the nation and will be staffing them for the various campaigns. They have told their donors they will be involved, “in federal, state and local elections”.

And only $10 million? That’s the scariest number you could find?

Planned Parenthood has issued a press release and fund raising communication in which they say, “The stakes have never been higher”.

Well, I think 1960, the stakes may have been higher, because they might well have meant nuclear war if Nixon was in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But yeah, the stakes are pretty high this year.

I agree.

I agree.

The choices that are made in this election will set a course for several decades.

Yes, just think of all the rights judges could strip us of if there are 4 more years of a Republican appointing them.

And there may be more at play than some conservatives and people of faith realize.

For instance, we could bring back stoning to death of people who take the Lord’s name in vain. Just like the Bible intends.

Planned Parenthood is a modern day moral tragedy.

Well the situations that bring women to Planned Parenthood often are moral tragedy. Still, having a doctor who can provide a certain relief to that tragedy seems the better course than anything Faith and Freedom are trying to do.

It is well known that they were racist in their beginnings. They continue to target poor and minority neighborhoods.

What? They target low income and minority communities? I think a better way to put that is, “their services are needed more in low income and minority neighborhoods.” And while it’s true that some of the people who worked at PP in the early days supported eugenics, it’s quite a stretch to say they were racist. Let’s see how Wikipedia describes their history, emphasis mine:

Planned Parenthood began as the National Birth Control League, which was founded in 1916 under the leadership of Mary Dennett. The organization was later renamed the American Birth Control League under the direction of Margaret Sanger. The League was influential in liberalizing laws against birth control throughout the 1920s and 1930s before changing its name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in 1942.

The founding of Planned Parenthood is most specifically associated with Margaret Sanger, a birth control and family planning advocate jailed numerous times for breaking New York‘s Comstock Laws against disseminating birth control information. Sanger had fled to England to avoid arrest at the time the National Birth Control League was founded by her friend, Dennett. She was a socialist and an advocate of the availability of birth control to all women, regardless of race or social class. Sanger also supported eugenics,^[3] a controversial view held by a significant number of intellectuals at the time.^[4]

Faye Wattleton was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1978 to 1992. She was the youngest person and first African American appointed to that position in the organization’s history, and the second woman to hold the office (founder Margaret Sanger was the first). During her term in office, the organization considerably expanded its services and became publicly visible in working for women’s reproductive rights.

OK, back to crazy people:

The Kansas affiliate of P.P. is facing at least 107 criminal charges according to a report from Focus on The Family. In Idaho, an undercover investigation has apparently caught P.P. and six other affiliates accepting racist donations. It is an on going investigation. In California, P.P. clinics are being sued for allegedly over charging federal and state governments $180M.

No links are necessary. It looks like PP is being harassed by a nutjob. PP of ID promptly fired the woman who accepted those donations. And, maybe maybe not on PP of CA; They are in the middle of a lawsuit, but the state isn’t even trying to get the money back.

Now they want to influence the election so they can further their agenda under the guise of helping people.

They can further their agenda of helping people under the guise of helping people. I mean don’t even get me started on their cancer screening services. Assholes!

They have told their constituents that they are directing their political activities toward women and youth for this next election.

I’d have thought targeting men and the ancient would be the best way for a choice organization to operate. I guess that’s why I’m just a blogger.

I doubt seriously that any conservative or person of faith would want Planned Parenthood setting the social agenda for the foreseeable future.

Please try not speaking for all people of faith.

It is almost certain that the next President will nominate two Justices to the Supreme Court.

Well those robes seem to be a powerful tonic.

Who do you want to make that nomination?

Hillary Clinton. But I’ll take Obama if he’s nominated.

Obama? Clinton? McCain?

Yes, I’m aware; those are the three people left who might still be president: two are pretty rad, one will be horrible.

If Gregoire is in office, the State Legislature will undoubtedly present a bill for gay marriage in 2009. They are poised to do so and it won’t matter that they will be subverting the will of the people, Gregoire will sign it and celebrate.

I don’t know what “present a bill for gay marriage” means. Will vote on one? Will pass one? Will talk about one? I mean they were kind of tepid even with their near super majority. And in 2004, Gregoire was against marriage equality. In any event it will certainly come up as an issue, so I’m not sure how that is subverting the will of the people.

It is difficult but not impossible to stand against the millions that are being invested in the other side.

Yes, if only the religocrazies had some sort of fundraising mechanism.

Faith and Freedom has had a significant influence in several of the major social issues decisions in the past couple of years.

And they’re doing so well. Way to push your agenda, nuts!

We believe we are better prepared than ever to represent the Judeo-Christian values, but we cannot do it without you and your support.

The rest is a pitch for money, so we’ll stop here.

The EFF has the goods on the hell in Spokane County.

On February 29, 2008, the Spokesman Review reported, “Nearly 500 presidential primary ballots that Spokane County elections workers rejected because of signature problems were opened and counted anyway…”

Wait! Doesn’t having elected auditors make everything perfect? Who knew that things happen in every county. And yes, they can and should improve. Anyway, it’s still a much better job than the Republican caucus.

I can’t say I’ve read through it. But I have looked at the executive summary and the outline. It’s not as radical as I might hope for. There’s no section “end imperialism” that I can find. And really, I’m opposed to re-building our military: Sorry, if we have one just sitting there it’s only a matter of time before another Bush, or Kennedy decides to use it poorly again. But the best indicator that it is in some sense reasonable is that Eric Earling is opposed.

Who Is Darcy Burner Running Against?

What’s his name again?

Josh Feit correct divines the flaw in Darcy Burner’s campaign strategy: she appears to be running against of a Democratic Congress.

No matter how many times you read the paragraph above, “correct divines” and “against of a” won’t make sense. I promise you.

Anyway, what with the Congress so popular right now, I can see why it’s a losing strategy to not go with them lockstep. A better strategy would be to just wait until the leadership comes up with something.

That means she’s essentially running to the left of a Congress that already isn’t very popular. Coming out of the gate talking about Iraq is peculiar given the degree to which the Democratic Presidential nominee isn’t actually going to want to focus on national security issues. It implies Burner’s campaign still has a great connection to the netroots (example here) than the swing voters she needs to change their minds about Dave Reichert.

Well I think it’s important to draw distinctions between the candidates. I actually love that Earling thinks running on the war might hurt Democrats. And that the presidential nominee won’t want to talk about it. Hillary Clinton is by most measures the one less likely to talk about the war in harsh language, and just Monday, she had this to say, “Sen. McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years.” Yeah Democrats don’t want to talk about the war.

Speaking of which, running to the left of this Congress ought to create a fascinatingly leftist domestic agenda. Her stand on taxes was a grievous wound in the last election cycle, as was her own comparative inexperience. She hasn’t done anything to address the former and shows no signs of moderating her netroots extremism in anticipation of the latter.

Sometimes from the breathless commentary from the right, you’d think that Burner was advocating anarchosyndicalism* instead of a slightly higher marginal tax rate, and an end to a failed war.

By all means, Republicans would like to hear more of that agenda. They might even run a commercial or two advertising its content.

I can hardly wait: “Darcy Burner doesn’t want us in Iraq for ever. And who knows, maybe she’ll do something to help with these economic problems we’re facing.”

UPDATE: if the tone of the MSM coverage, here and here, of Burner’s Iraq plan are any indicator, it appears as if she is attempting to re-run last cycle’s race – albeit with an actual “plan” for Iraq rather than running commercials decrying “George W. Bush’s war.” Rematch elections are hard enough for the foe defeated in the first round. Rehashing the same issues usually doesn’t help much.

No doubt it’ll be tough. The district has never sent a Democrat to Congress. But I think now is the time to do it. It’s trending in that direction, and Reichert isn’t really doing much.
(more…)