joyfulchristian

Just a general question

I don't have any specific incident in mind, but the following question just occurred to me: On average, when a political figure screws up publicly, which is generally funnier, the lengths to which his/her supporters  will go to argue that this doesn't really mean anything at all, or the stretches his/her enemies will go to argue that this means the politician is really Satan incarnate?

Yeah, I know that's a huge run-on sentence, but I'm too tired to fix it.

Whooh!

The bad news is that the emerald that Nicki wanted as her centerstone on the engagement ring broke today.

The good news is that it was fully insured.

Let freedom ring

One of the primary long-term goals behind the Bush strategy in the Middle East is an environment that will allow popular pressure to build supporting increased freedom in Islamic nations.  I think we're beginning to see this strategy pay dividends:

BEIRUT : Thousands of people defied a government ban and massed in the heart of Beirut as Lebanese parliament held a stormy debate set to culminate in a vote of no-confidence in the pro-Syrian regime.

The anti-Syria rally came exactly two weeks after the assassination of ex-premier Rafiq Hariri which triggered a wave of public opposition against the Lebanese government and its backers in Damascus who are blamed for the murder.
Waving large red and white Lebanese flags and shouting "Syria out!" protesters descended on Martyrs' Square where Hariri is buried as hundreds of heavily armed troops and police guarded surrounding streets but did not prevent the rally.

Many stayed on throughout the night despite the ban on demonstrations coming into force and media reports put the size of the crowds at 50,000, while an army officer said there were about 20,000 demonstrators.

The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is one of the greatest examples of political blindness in recent history; for the most part, world leaders and news agencies seem to be oblivious to the whole situation.  That's part of what makes recent protests in Lebanon so striking.  Despite the fact that their situation is largely ignored, the people in Lebanon seem to have found the courage to speak out almost over night. 

I strongly suspect that the pressure being placed on Syria through the US presence in Iraq is a large part of what's given the Lebanese the confidence to stand up and be counted.  I hope we'll see much more of this.

 

Something's been bothering me

This week I've just been covered up at work.  I didn't leave the office until 9 on Monday and Tuesday wasn't much better.  That hasn't left much time for blogging.  I feel good if I get to talk to the fiancee for 45 minutes or so and get 6-7 hours of sleep.

However, something was bothering me today.  Over the past year I've had several people who have come into my life for a few months, made a significant impact, and then moved on.  Now with all of them I've told myself that I just wasn't going to let the friendship drop.  I'd keep in touch often.  I'd make sure that we'd have plenty of time to catch up now and then.

Right ... Tell me another one self.

The same pattern develops. For a while, you're talking every day or two.  Then it's once or twice a week.  Then it's once or twice a month.  Before you know it, you can't even remember when you talked to them last.

The worst part is that at the same time I'm lamenting not staying in touch, I also know that I'm not going to do anything about it.  Even if that twinge of guilt causes me to pick up the phone, that phone call doesn't change.  Even if it does change things for a couple of weeks, I know I'll backslide again.

This is not a new phenomenon for me.  It's happened before, but I don't generally have quite so many opportunities to observe it in a short time span.  I doubt I'm the only one who experiences it.  In fact, I know I'm not.  Those friends who I keep forgetting to call don't call me much any more either.  We've moved on and made other friends. 

Sure, there are some people who will be life-long friends and you'll stay in touch with no matter what.  That's not the rule though.  There was a couple that used to live here that I spent tons of time with.   He and I had similar interests in recreational activities and his wife and I had similar backgrounds.  I had plenty to do with him and plenty to talk about with her.  They moved away a couple of years ago.  At first, I talked to them very often.  However, when I got engaged I realized I hadn't talked to them in 6 months.  When I called to tell them the good news, I found that they'd moved and forgotten to tell me.

I think pretty much everyone has had this happen to them.  I'm also pretty sure that most people regret it when it happens. 

All of this makes me wonder, do we each have some magic number of close friends beyond which we can't seem to expand?  Do we all reach a point where to add one friend means losing touch with someone else?

I have no idea what the answer is and I don't plan to spend any time looking for the answer.  It's just been on my mind.

Won't see that happen here

Poland's Constitutional Tribunal has thrown out an income tax increase on the grounds that taxpayers were given insufficient time to prepare for the new tax.  Somehow, I doubt the people who argue that the US Constitution needs to be interpreted in light of foreign court opinions will be jumping on this one.

Interesting

I was out of touch with the world during most of the hole Dobson-SpongeBob thing so I didn't really pay much attention to it.  However, Josh Claybourn says Dobson's position was unfairly maligned.

An observation

Note to SK, this is a policy post, but taxes will be discussed.  Read at your own peril. :D

One of the tax law changes enacted last October was one that allows individuals to choose whether to deduct income taxes or sales taxes.  Some of you may remember that prior to 1986 the law allowed people to deduct both sales taxes and state income taxes.   Under that law, sales taxes could be substantiated by receipt purchases or the use of IRS tables to estimate the sales taxes.  The sales tax provision was eliminated in the 1986 tax law restructuring.

Since that point state income taxes were deductible, but sales taxes were deductible.  However, a few states do not have a state income tax. (And some states that do have an income tax tax only business income.)  Instead, they rely on property taxes (which are deductible for everyone) and sales taxes.  As a result, these states generally have higher sales tax rates than those they otherwise might have.

The Senators and Representatives from those states have argued that the removal of the sales tax deduction has placed their states at an economic disadvantage.  Last year they were able to to convince enough of their colleagues to pass a measure that allows people to choose whether they want to deduct sales taxes or state income taxes.  As before, people will be allowed to use actual receipts or estimates from IRS tables.

Opponents of this measure argue that no such disadvantage existed.  I've also heard one such person say, "It's not my fault that your state chose a tax-disadvantaged method of funding."

The problem with the second argument, besides that it doesn't give any reason whatsoever why the law shouldn't be changed, is that most of these states chose their funding structure before the sales tax deduction was revoked.  Changing their tax structure because sales taxes were no longer deductible would have required a major reworking of their entire tax system.  That's always a dangerous thing.  (That's one of the reason that I'm highly skeptical of the idea of replacing the Federal income tax with the so-called "flat tax" or a consumption tax; Congress is almost certain to screw it up.)

As to the first argument, that the older system didn't disadvantage those with no income tax, to be unpersuasive.  To me it seems almost axiomatic that those who live in a state that has two taxes, one of which is non-deductible, pay a larger portion of their tax burden in  non-deductible taxes than those in a state that has three taxes, two of which are deductible.  I would absolutely consider it axiomatic that if they pay a larger portion in non-deductible taxes, that they are at an economic disadvantage.

However, contrary to what the supporters of the new law claim, allowing people to choose to deduct either sales tax or state income tax does not bring the no-income-tax states into parity with the other states;  It gives them an economic advantage.

Why do I say they are now at an advantage?  Simply put, residents of the no-income-tax states are now able to deduct both sales taxes and property taxes, the two primary legs of their tax structure.  Meanwhile, those in other states can still only deduct two of their three primary taxes.  Yes, the ability to choose between sales and income taxes improves their position, but it helps the no-income-tax people much more.

Another argument I've heard against allowing the sales tax optional deduction is ... wait for it ... you can predict this one ... say it with me now ... "IT ONLY HELPS THE RICH."  This argument is based on the fact that you have to itemize your deductions in order to benefit from this deduction.  However, this isn't an effective argument against this particular deduction at all;  It's an argument against the use of the itemized deductions in general.  If people don't like deductions that can only be taken if the taxpayer itemizes, than they should be fighting for the repeal of the itemized deduction rule as a whole.  However, if they cede that itemized deductions in general are sound tax policy, I find it quite hypocritical to argue that individual itemized deductions shouldn't be allowed because non-itemizers can't use them.  This argument is so obviously flawed that I suspect those that promote are really just trying to sway long-term public opinion against itemized deductions as a whole and don't really expect many people to be persuaded on this specific issue.

The other problem with the "It only helps the rich" argument is that it ain't so. The only evidence I've heard in support of this argument is that only something like 25% of taxpayers itemize.   This argument assumes though that everyone who can itemize actually does so.  I seriously doubt that this is so.  The three basic components of itemized deductions are taxes, mortgage interest, and contributions.  In practical terms, what this means is that pretty much everyone who makes enough to pay state income taxes and has a mortgage on their house can itemize.   (Not only that, but even people who don't have a mortgage can often itemize if they have large medical bills.)

I did a quick search and couldn't come up with an estimate of the number of people carrying home mortgages in the US, but I suspect it's higher than 25%.  What could explain people not itemizing if they can?  Well, some people are just sure they don't have enough deductions to matter and some don't want to deal with hassle.  I've seen a few people who won't collect the data to itemize no matter how I try to convince them.  It's true that these people won't be helped by the new law, but that's not the fault of the law.

This argument also overlooks the fact that middle class people who pay sales taxes, but little  state income taxes may suddenly discover that they can if they choose to deduct the sales taxes.  Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that some people may choose to deduct sales taxes even if their income taxes are higher.  Why would they do this?  Well, if you deduct the income taxes this year, you have to include your state tax refund in next year's income.  However, if you deduct the sales taxes, your income tax refund isn't taxable.  I've already had several people who have done this year.  On average, people who made this choice are going to save three times as much taxes next year as they're electing to pay extra this year.  That's pretty significant.

Bottom line?  Well, I've already had several people this year who have benefited from the sales tax deduction and not one of them makes more than $65,000 a year.  Most of them made significantly less than that.  I realize that that's anecdotal evidence, but I suspect it's going to project pretty well.  Most people just aren't going to keep and track every receipt every year unless they know they'll have a huge amount of sales taxes for the year. (Example: They're building a house.)  That means they're going to have to use the tables and the tables are not exactly generous.  The result is that the majority of people using the sales tax deduction are those in states with no income tax, or who pay little or no income tax for the year.

So, do I think the sales tax deduction is beneficial to middle-income taxpayers?  Yes, it certainly can be.  Do I support the current law? No.  I find the arguments that I've heard unpersuasive.  However, as I mentioned, the optional sales tax deduction switches the tax advantage to those states with no income tax.  I believe that the law should be revised to allow both sales and income tax deductions.

Yeah, I know this has really rambled, but I've been writing with sleep deprivation and a headache.  I just hope it makes sense.

Whoo!

Well I know I feel better now:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Friday he was convinced Iran was not trying to build a nuclear weapon and that Russia would press ahead with nuclear cooperation with the Islamic Republic.

Putin's defense of Iran, where Russia is building a nuclear power plant, comes in the face of U.S. concerns that Tehran could be using Russian know-how to covertly build a nuclear weapon.

Hmmmm.  And the reason I should believe Putin is what exactly?  There was a time that I believed that Putin was trying to bring Russia into the 21st Century.  I'm well past that point.  He seems to be dragging Russia back to the bad old days.  At least, if his penchant for arresting billionaires who oppose him is any indication. 

Then of course there's Russia's coziness with Saddam, even after the USSR fell.

Yeah, for some reason, I just don't find their assurances very comforting.

Heads up

There's a recall on for X-Box power cords.  Mine's not affected, but yours might be.  (From PC World.)

Arghh!

Donald sensing points out something disgusting.  I know somebody stole my sticker.

Let's try this again

There's a bill before the State House in South Dakota to ban abortion:

PIERRE, S.D. - Abortion should be a crime in South Dakota if states are given the right to outlaw the medical procedure, a House panel recommended Friday.

The State Affairs Committee unanimously approved HB1249, which would make it a felony to do abortions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is overturned. The bill would allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant woman's life is at risk.

Those who do abortions could face up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The committee changed the bill to remove a provision that would have made it a crime to advise women to seek abortions.

I've seen bills in which  legislatures attempted to find a way around Roe v. Wade.  This measure is different.    Instead of trying to get around  Roe or precipitate a Supreme Court battle, this  bill anticipates  Roe being overturned.  I find this a very interesting strategy, but I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to accomplish.

Of course, Planned Parenthood isn't happy:

Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood said the bill is one of the most extreme measures she has seen. The measure would tie physicians' hands and ignore women's ability to make decisions for themselves, she said.

"Making abortion illegal never has and never will stop women from having abortions," Looby said, urging the committee to reject the bill.

She acts like this is an argument.  Making murder illegal never has and never will stop people from killing each other.  At least, not entirely.   The fact that if an act is made illegal some people will still do it  is not, in and of  itself, an  reason not to ban any activity.

How will this shape up?  I have no idea.

D'oh!

Stupid Democrat Tricks.

So I'm watching Smallville

... and it occurs to me that Jonathan Kent spends an awful lot of time at the hospital.

The sad thing is

... that this Snopes entry even had to be written.

an, it's no, "A Modest Propsal," but it's a pretty obvious example of satire.  Come on people!

Now that's gall

John McCain is sponsoring legislation that would essentially force local television stations to have more local news coverage, especially local politics:

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Lawmakers' pique over the networks' incredible shrinking news hole is prompting legislation that will both shorten the time broadcasters have between license renewals and require full commission review of 5% of all licenses.

What's all the fuss about?

The legislation was introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Tuesday after the release of a report by the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California found evening TV newscasts contained little coverage of local political campaigns last year.

                                                        It also would require broadcasters to post on their Internet sites information detailing their commitment to local public-affairs programming, and it calls for the Federal Communications Commission to complete its open proceeding on whether public-interest obligations should apply to broadcasters in the digital era.

According to the survey, 64% of 4,333 broadcasts examined by the center included at least one election story. A typical half-hour contained 3 minutes, 11 seconds of campaign coverage, the report claims.

While 55% of the broadcasts contained a presidential story, just 8% of broadcasts contained a story about a local candidate race for U.S. House, state house seats, city council seats and other local and regional offices. Eight times more coverage went to stories about accidental injuries, the Lear Center said.

What does all this mean?

"If a local candidate wants to be on TV and can't afford advertising, his only hope is to have a freak accident," McCain said.

So suddenly McCain is concerned about local candidates not being able to  get on TV?  One of the gripes listed hear is that Congressional candidates aren't getting enough air time.  Let me think; what's happened in the last few years that made it harder for Congressional candidates, especially challengers, to afford advertising? 

Oh yeah!  McCain-Feingold.

Arghh!

Now don't get me wrong.  I hate local news broadcasts.  I even made it a category on this blog!  However, no matter how much I despise the broadcasts, I know there's a reason why so little politics is covered on the local news.  That reason is, quite simply, that most people don't care about politics much and don't want to hear more than they absolutely have to.   I see no reason that people who don't care about politics should have it force-fed to them.

This is just another example of McCain's incessant desire to tell everyone else what's good for them.  If he doesn't stop jumping on his high horse, one of these days likely to fall right back off.

 

I liked this

My aunt sent me one of those inspirational e-mails that tend to get forwarded all over the place.  This one talked about how the little things that annoy you when they go wrong  may turn out to be God's way of protecting you from things you can't imagine.  I didn't find it any more inspiring or encouraging than any of the others. (They mostly seem insepid to me, but that's another story.)  I did however like the bit at the end:

Pass this on to someone else, if you'd like.

There is NO LUCK attached.

If you delete this, it's okay:

God's Love Is Not Dependent On

E-Mail !!  

(that's the cool part)

Amen.

Well, I'm back

My computer is up and running again! Yay!  Stupid hard drive crashed, but I've got a new one. 

Unfortunately, I couldn't find much to talk about today.  I did, however, find this post about splitting the procceds from their blog to be pretty interesting.   (There really is something interesting about a pay scale involving square roots.)

Hopefully, I'll be back up to speed soon.

Sorry for the long absence

Sorry I've been gone so long.  I've been out of town followed by violently ill. (The doctor had to give me Vicodin just so I could swallow.)  On top of that, my laptop is down (The hard drive crashed.) and tax season has already started eating my lunch.

I hope to be up and running next week.  Thanks for the concern.