Five [mythical] myths about taxes

Steven R. Weisman writes in the NYT, "Let’s topple some tall tales about taxes before writing checks to — or getting refunds from — the dreaded Internal Revenue Service."

#1: The income tax is a big-government Democratic scheme.
Weisman thoughtfully rebuts himself: "Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed the tax into law that year — and Democrats have been more inclined than Republicans to raise rates since." It may be historical fact that Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax to fund the Civil War, that was actually repealed after the war, or that Progressive, big-government Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. Taft supported the federal income tax over 100 years ago. But none of that dispells the FACT that the income tax IS a big-government Democratic scheme. If you and Mr. Weisman are still confused on this point, I refer you to the behavior of the Democrats currently pushing bigger government and higher taxes in Congress and the White House.

#2: The income tax dampens work and entrepreneurship.
Weisman presents 2 arguments to support his myth:
a. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in December that, for upper-income taxpayers, at least — “job creators” — cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” "

Non sequitur alert. Weisman separates this non sequitur from the purported myth so that casual readers don't notice that 1- the report is about taxes in general, not income taxes specifically, 2- the 'myth' is about imposing, not cutting taxes and 3- the report doesn't address entrepreneurship, which may or may not  be reflected in savings, investment and productivity growth.

b. His second argument is that: "Whether tax cuts generally spur economic growth and tax increases generally dampen it is debatable, however. Economic expansion was significant in the 1950s, when tax rates were at historic highs. Tax cuts signed by John F. Kennedy and Reagan were followed by sustained growth. But growth that followed tax increases under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton was greater than after George W. Bush’s tax cuts."

A term popular in discussing the effects of a particular factor on the economy is "all else being equal." Of course in the real world, all things are never equal. On their face, Kennedy's and Reagan's tax cuts were considerably different from the modest increases perpetrated by Bush and Clinton.

#3: Taxes became less progressive because of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts.
Less progressive than what? Than before the Reagan tax cuts, I presume. No other reading would make much sense. Then why does Weisman write that the tax code has maintained "roughly the same progressivity in the federal tax system throughout most of the post-1980 period.” What does he prove by saying that the tax code since 1980 is no less progressive than- the tax code since 1980?

#4: The U.S. corporate tax — the highest in the world — makes the United States less competitive.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't satirical.

I think my teen-aged daughters could see the logic in the proposition that a corporation considers the amount of its earnings that the government takes away from it to be a decisive factor when deciding where to do business.

Weisman concedes, "The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission said last year that the tax “hurts America’s ability to compete.” (A study by my colleagues at the Peterson Institute for International Economics uses a different calculation to make the same point.)"

Not decisive, but certainly facts worth considering before calling the idea a 'myth.'

And then wrap things up with another non sequitur. No, it isn't a non sequitur. I don't know what it is, it's such a muddle:

"the taxes paid by U.S. corporations are tiny compared with their peers around the world — only 1.9 percent of the national economy, compared with an average of 2.8 percent for other advanced countries."

Our economy is considerably larger than other advanced countries, so the amount of taxes paid by US corporations is certainly not 'tiny' in comparison. But even when compared as a percentage of GDP, 1.9% is hardly "tiny" compared with 2.8%. 1.9% of the US economy makes 2.8% of Sweden's economy look "tiny."

"partly because of the proliferation of limited partnerships and other businesses not subject to the tax. "

Ah, the taxes paid by US businesses isn't really that high because so many US businesses are limited partnerships that pay potentially HIGHER personal income tax rates. Yeah, that makes sense...

"In fact, less than half of U.S. business income is generated by corporations subject to the tax, down from 80 percent in 1980."

So, let's run this out to its logical conclusion. A 100% corporate income tax would result in 0 economic activity by corporations in the US. 0 US business income would be generated by corporations subject to the tax. Would that mean, then, the tax had no effect on US competitiveness? Weisman seems to say so, and to use that as support for his argument.

#5: Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no taxes.
Mercifully, we are reaching the end. But this is a doozy.

I suppose we can forgive him from rounding up from 46.4%. And when convenient, 0.6% is negligible while 0.9% is the difference between 'tiny' US corporate taxes and the rest of the developed world.

And I do have to thank Weisman for making it easier to critique him by providing links.

Weisman writes: "The Tax Policy Center’s estimate that 46.4 percent of households pay no federal income tax blew up in the face of 2012 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney after he cited it in a talk to donors. 

Except the TPC report clearly states, "

46.4% of Households Paid No Federal Income Tax for 2011

And the NYT carried the transcript of the tape of Romney that was clandestinely recorded by a relative of the 2nd worst president in history:

"These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."

So, this one really IS a myth. But it is a myth created by Obama sycophants at the NYT and elsewhere by intentionally misrepresenting what the report cited and what Romney actually said in order to create a controversy during a presidential election. Not like the NYT has ever done that before.

"Civil" Debate or Civil War?

Stephen Prothero commented on the CNN Belief Blog about the existence of Catholic politicians on both of the major party's presidential ticket: "A century and a half ago, Americans engaged in a collective conversation about the Bible and slavery that was both civil and informed. Is it too much to hope that an intelligent debate about Christianity and the economy is now in the offing? If so, we will likely have Ryan (and Romney) to thank."

A century and a half ago, "Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith begins an invasion of Kentucky as part of a Confederate plan to draw the Yankee army of General Don Carlos Buell away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to raise support for the Southern cause in Kentucky."
The unspoken corollary to this is of course, that the Democrats who made the conversation uncivil in 1862 in order to defend their power over living souls will once again turn the debate uncivil in 2012 in order to defend their power over living souls.

What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

What does it take to be a successful President of the United States?

Hard to say, we’ve had so few.

Democrats point to Clinton and Roosevelt. Republicans tout Reagan. Historians, political scientists and journalists continually compile rankings and polls. Washington, Lincoln and FDR are most commonly put at the top of lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Given the great number of dummies with the right to vote in US elections, it comes as no surprise that there is a Guide for Dummies for evaluating US presidents:

Evaluating U.S. Presidents

By Marcus Stadelmann

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evaluating-us-presidents.html

“U.S. presidents are evaluated in many ways. The major characteristics that academic and public polls use to evaluate the 44 U.S. presidents vary from survey to survey, but the main standards remain consistent.”

Policy leadership

Crisis management

Presidential appointments

Foreign standing

Character and integrity

Public persuasion

Presidential vision

They seem like pretty reasonable criteria for evaluating whether a president is relatively successful or not. But the characteristics we use to evaluate a presidency aren’t always apparent when we are evaluating candidates for the office.

To take the current president for an example, we can see that he has done a poor job of policy leadership. His policies have been abysmal and he has too often “led from the rear.”

Crisis management: He has had plenty of crises to manage, many of his own making. He has mismanaged almost all of them. In each case, the president’s response seems to have diminished the standing of the US in the world and made the US less safe and less secure. From the Bailout that bailed out Democrat constituencies rather than the nation, to Fast and Furious, ad nauseum, this administration has exacerbated or prolonged crises. One begins to wonder: what was Rahm Emanuel thinking when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste?” Of course he knew that crises are useful for autocrats. A crisis focuses public attention on something other than the government. Progressives back to Henry James saw the value in creating a ‘moral equivalent for war.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Jimmy_Carter%27s_Moral_Equivalent_of_War_Speech

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Presidential appointments: Van Jones, Timmy Geitner, Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder. ‘nuff said.

Foreign Standing: From dissing England and Israel in his first weeks in office through “Reset” or something with Russia to spending 3 years to the Arab Spring which has sprung anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel Islamist autarkies across North Africa and the Levant to Iran, North Korea and China who are all becoming more hostile to the US. The current president has been a failure at home and abroad.

Character and Integrity: Tony Rezko on line 1, Rod Blagojevich on line 2, Mr. President.

Public Persuasion: He still has 26% of the nation persuaded: “The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Presidential Vision: Sorry, anyone who envisages “fundamentally transforming America” has the wrong vision.

The problem is that at least half of those attributes cannot be known until it is too late. We are dealing with that reality today.

What are the traits, attributes, beliefs etc. that we may discern from the public record of candidates for the office of president? What can be discerned from what they’ve said and done in prior positions and on the campaign trail that may give us some understanding of how they would each do in the office when their legacy and the future of the country is played out.

IMHO, the characteristics a person needs to even have a chance to succeed in the presidency are:

Vision – No. I don’t mean “a vision” as in “having a vision for the country.” That’s the sort of thing that got us into this mess. I mean the ability to see and think abstractly and creatively; to grasp the important things in the welter of data, incomplete information, and conflicting opinions. The ability to see the pattern amid the clutter and grasp the interrelatedness of apparently disparate things. To see the essential thread that must be addressed to untangle the knot. Reagan saw that modernizing our nuclear forces and deploying tactical nukes to Europe was the best path to nuclear arms reductions and the end of the Cold War.

Sound principles – In our Constitutional Republic based on Natural Law and Christianity; that means adherence to the principles laid down by the Founders upon the bedrock of Natural Law. Principles are different from ideology; which is brittle, shallow, narrow and inflexible.

Judgment – This may be a result of Vision and Principles. It may be its own trait. I would place management ability under the broader category of Judgment. Prudential Judgment should naturally lead to good choices of staff and to effective leadership – maybe not inspiring leadership, but effective leadership.

Personal Integrity – Do I really have to explain this one?

I cannot score the current president highly in any of these four areas.

How do the major candidates remaining measure up? None of them score significantly high in all four characteristics. Each of them scores well in at least one. All of them score better than Obama across the board.

Romney scores well in Vision as understood as the ability to understand complex problems – strategic leadership. I believe he has personal integrity. I thought he had good judgement. But I am unconvinced of his commitment to sound principles.

Santorum’s Personal Integrity and Sound Principles are nearly unquestionable. His reputation as a supporter of big government is worrisome, but I think he has a clearer understanding that the government you nurture as your pet inevitably becomes a monster at someone else’ hand. Best to starve the beast and keep it caged even when it means you can’t use it for what you think are good purposes. I do worry about his executive management ability.

Gingrich is a very mixed bag. He may be a visionary, but I’m not sure he has strategic vision. He didn’t cover himself in glory while Speaker. Although he did accomplish some historic things, it didn’t take long for the Republican caucus to fall apart. That speaks poorly of his judgement. His personal integrity remains iffy, too. 3 wives? I’ll gladly accept that he has repented and has a firm resolution to avoid the near occasion of sin. But he does seem to have a politicians love of dancing the side-step when he gets called on things. His lame explanation of his work for Fannie Mae is an example.

I thought Ron Paul had impeccable integrity, until I heard about his evasions over his old newsletters and his possibile colusion with Romney on behalf of Rand Paul. While I concede that he is probably closest to the principles of government held by the Founders, I do question his judgement. He shows no evidence of possessing strategic vision or exectutive management ability.