Simple Answers to Simple Questions

Washington asks:

Is EVERY Market Rigged?

Answer:  Yes.

Next question....

[P.S., If you like your blood to be boiling hot, read the whole thing.]

You're Kidding, Right Glenn?

Glenn Greenwald, writing about a controversial Op-Ed that appeared on Al-Jazeera and then was removed without comment, asks a rhetorical question:

No media outlet can possibly do something like this without publicly accounting for what happened and expect to retain credibility.

How can you demand transparency and accountability from others when you refuse to provide any yourself?

You're kidding right?  This characteristic is the hallmark of our media elite.  In fact, I would very much say there is no way you can fit into the VSP club unless you act this way.

It is their defining characteristic.

Corporate Tax Reform

Make no mistake, there is only one reason why corporate America is looking for tax reform - broadening the base and lowering rates. In corporate accounting - in determining the profits that the corporations report to the media and their stockholders - the only thing that matters is the tax rate. A cut in the tax rate from the current 35% to 25% will automatically increase their profits by 15%. And they don't have to do anything at all but pay their lobbyists. Can you imagine what this will do for their bonuses? Nice work if you can get it....

There is a Social Contract. It's Called the Constitution

In reading the comments in this article, I came across this:

I don't see where you get the idea that there is any sort of contract about how our society functions.

I couldn't resist.

My reply:

There is a contract about how our society functions. It's called the Constitution of the United States. It also states goals of the government that it creates. It begins as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

This is the essence of the social contract. And it doesn't discriminate amongst some people and others; it is designed to promote the general Welfare of all of the People.

If the economic system created pursuant to this constitution - and make no mistake, this is the document from which all of our laws flow, including the laws the govern the economic relationships among the people - is not in the view of the People achieving these stated goals, then it is incumbent upon us to make changes to the system so that it does achieve those goals.

My Head is Going to Explode

Ok, so I'm watching Morning Joe this morning and they are talking about the IRS "scandal" that has erupted over the weekend, and I swear by head is swelling to twice its normal size and I'm really surprised there aren't brains on my living room walls at this point. 

Now I guess a lot of my righty friends are going to say, here he goes again.  But really, this is one of those issues that, whenever I talk to someone on the right about this we ultimately agree.  So bear with me please.
First, let's just make sure we know what we are talking about here.
The IRS employees involved in this controversy were examining applications for tax exemptions for so-called "social welfare organizations."  Organizations that meet the definition of a "social welfare organization" are exempt from tax under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.  

Let me emphasize this point. The IRS was not singling these organizations out. Instead, these organizations were singling themselves out.   They filed applications with the IRS essentially saying, "what I am doing is special and deserving of a tax exemption. Please confirm."

Now, social welfare organizations by definition are NOT supposed to be involved in political activities.  They specifically are not permitted to directly or indirectly participate or intervene on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
Remember, this was occurring at the time of the rise of the tea party movement. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that this was a political movement. So we have an explosion of growth in groups seeking a tax exemption with the words "tea party" and "patriot" in their names. Does anybody legitimately think that the IRS cannot go back to the applicants and ask- "well, what exactly are you going to be doing?"  Because, really, that's all that it did here.
Part of the problem here is that while "social welfare organizations" are not permitted to act for or against particular candidates, they are permitted to advocate for or against particular legislation. 

Somebody please tell me how this makes sense. 

Both Crossroads USA and Organizing for America are tax exempt social welfare organizations. 

Of course, the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress are both 501(c)(3) organizations. They are not supposed to advocate for or against candidates AND for or against legislation. 

Yeah right.

Look, I'm not even going to attempt to justify what the IRS did, because in fact I don't know what they did.  Everything I have seen is that the IRS has experienced a huge increase in the number of organizations applying for this exemption.  At most, it appears that the IRS went back and asked these organizations for more information regarding their activities.  And, in 2009 and 2010, with the rise of the tea party type movement, most of them were probably conservative organizations.  I have not heard that they actually denied exemptions or, if they did, that their reasons for denying the exemptions are illegitimate. 

But I will say this: drawing a line between what is and is not improper advocacy is not an easy question.  And it's clear that the "big boys" have been flouting this line continuously.
But of course, the real scandal isn't the way the IRS handled this issue.  What nobody is asking is, why are these organizations exempt from tax at all?

I would go even further of course. I don't think ANY organization should be tax exempt. I have three fundamental issues with the concept of tax exemptions.

1. Non-profit entities don't need tax exemptions.

I mean come on folks, this isn't that difficult. "Profit" and "income" are synonymous. If you don't have a profit, you have no income and if you have no income you pay no tax. So why the hell do these groups need tax exemptions in the first place?
2. Income is income. 

I don't think the government should be making judgments that some kinds of activities are "extra good" so that the income earned from them deserves special treatment. I mean seriously, is this really something we want our government to be doing? Do we really want it to be saying: your income is good and is deserving of an exemption - a judgment which necessarily implies that my income is bad and is not so deserving?

Because that is exactly what the IRS was trying to do here. And they were doing it because the law requires them to do it.

What really galls me is that it is only organizations - read, corporations - that can get exemptions.  Human beings can't.  Seriously, can someone please tell me why a hospital corporation can be exempt from tax, but the doctors who work there aren't? They are both doing the same damn thing - how the hell does that make any sense?

And yes, I am an extremist on this point, but this idea that income is income and should all be taxed applies to everyone, including churches. I don't want my government sitting in judgment on what is or is not a legitimate religion. Yet it has to do that because religious organizations are exempt. The question of whether scientology is a religion has spawned decades of litigation between the IRS and the "church."   
3. My biggest bugaboo: the income tax is a terrible place to effect social policy.

Every time I here about a new jobs tax credit, or a research credit, or a low-income housing credit I cringe.

First, it's just too easy for people to claim the credit or the deduction on their tax returns and reduce their tax payments hoping they don't get caught up in an audit.

Second, do we really want the IRS to be the agency to implement and enforce what are essentially government spending programs?  There are housing credits so implementing housing policy, research credits so it is implementing science policy, education credits so it is implementing education policy, earned income credits so it is implementing anti-poverty policy.  Energy credits and anti-pollution credits and orphan drug credits and railroad track maintenance credits and alternative motor vehicle credit and senior health insurance credits and new market credits and child care credits.  Politicians love using the tax code like this of course. They can give targeted goodies to their patrons and then call them tax cuts.

But if you really want to simplify the tax code, cut out all of this crap. It's nothing but back door patronage at this point.

Seriously, this is not what the IRS should be doing. The IRS is a collection agency. Let it collect. If the government wants to subsidize certain activities for the public good, fine. Do it elsewhere. Let the IRS do its job.

Booman is Right About Plan B

This is really what it's all about:

I suspect that Kathleen Parker has the numbers on her side and that most parents agree with her about requiring parental notification and/or a prescription for underage girls who want access to Plan B contraception. I understand that argument and the sentiments behind the argument, but the science really should prevail here.


Rather than argue with Ms. Parker about the merits, however, I want to take issue with her discussion of parental autonomy. She thinks the court ruling takes autonomy away from the parents and gives it to the government. But that's not quite right. It takes power away from the parents and gives it to the daughter. And that really is the whole point.

As a parent of teenagers and a person who served on a school board for a number of years, let me just say that this is the kind of question that makes me tear my hair out.
From the moment a child can walk, he or she has some semblance of autonomy and the parent’s role is to guide them in how to exercise that autonomy in a way that results in them being happy and healthy and to grow to be responsible adults. At some point in their lives, they are going to be completely autonomous, but really as long as they are still being raised at home, their autonomy is restricted by their parents. And it is a continuum – they get more and more autonomy as they get older and older. It is a constant balancing act between parental authority and the child’s autonomy, with the balance swinging in the child’s favor as they get older. That’s just the nature of the beast.

The big question is what role does the government play in this balancing act? At what point, and with respect to what issues, do we say that parental authority must give way?

The reference to Tylenol in schools is a great one. In NY State, the issue isn’t whether a child can get Tylenol without parental permission. A child can’t bring Tylenol into school and take it on their own without parental permission. If a child is caught taking Tylenol without a note being on file with the school nurse in advance, it’s a disciplinary matter. And it’s not just Tylenol, of course – it’s any medication, with or without a prescription. This is a policy that both enforces parental authority and the school’s authority as well – they damn well want to know what’s going on in their buildings, as well they should.

Whenever a child is caught breaking the rules, whether by school officials on school grounds or by police outside of school grounds, the first thing that happens is that parents are notified. This is an explicit acknowledgment of parental authority being enforced and enhanced by our government. And I don’t know of anyone who thinks this sort of thing ought not occur.

But at the same time, parents cede a great deal of authority over their children’s lives to the government. From the age of 5 we willingly allow the government to supervise, teach, and guide our children in innumerable ways simply by letting them go to public schools. Willingly? Hell, educating your children is mandatory, and home schooling is still relatively rare, and if you do home school the state still tests the students to make sure they are being properly educated.

Bottom line, this is a very complicated issue, one which line drawing is extremely difficult. Tb92 makes a good point – kids do have sex, even when they shouldn’t. But isn’t the real point: why are parents notified if their child is caught drinking underage, but not when they are having sex below the age of consent? I’m not quite sure how we square the two.

I tend to agree with the judge’s decision. The public health concerns should be the determining factor. (Not that there aren’t a lot of issues where we let other factors trump public health - just ask Bloomberg about soda pop). But I’m a squishy liberal from pinko NY, and there are a helluva lot of people who feel differently about it. That’s perfectly understandable in my view.