President Obama supports higher taxes, but he usually claims he only wants higher tax rates on rich people. Heck, he promised back in 2008 that “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
I guess we’re supposed to forget the higher tax burdens that were imposed on the middle class by Obamacare in 2010 and the SCHIP legislation in 2009.
Obama’s other rhetorical trick is to claim he wants a “balanced approach.” Translated from Washington-speak to English, that means he wants more of our money. But it’s a soothing way to demand more money. After all, who’s against “balance”?
I actually agree with the president---but only if one uses honest math. Needless to say, he wants to use Washington math, where spending increases get redefined as spending cuts if the burden of government spending doesn’t rise as fast as was projected in some artificial baseline.
This is why the budget deals put together by politicians almost always are awful. In order to protect the goodies they hand out to various special interests, the politicians use fake numbers to pretend they’re restraining spending, but when the dust settles, it turns out that the only real result is that taxpayers are forking over more of their hard-earned cash to Washington.
Actually, that statement is incomplete. We need to remember that taxpayers in other nations also get cheated by their politicians. Below the jump is a stunning chart that was shown at yesterday’s Cato Institute conference on “Europe’s Crisis and the Welfare State.” Put together by Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, it shows that politicians across the Atlantic have imposed €9 of higher taxes for every €1 of spending cuts.
That’s the story in today’s Washington Times.
Here’s an excerpt:
Mitt Romney sidestepped questions Wednesday about whether he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes the indefinite detention of terror suspects, including American citizens, saying he didn’t have enough information on the law.
Responding to a question at a town hall style meeting at a large manufacturer here, the Republican presidential nominee said he will take a look “at that particular piece of legislation” and said that when it comes to the issue of indefinite detention he would try to strike a balance between protecting personal liberties and protecting the nation from terrorist attacks.
“Detain” and “detention” are euphemisms for “jail” and “imprison.” Don’t fall for that.
Many Republicans believed after the 2004 election that 11 ballot measures to ban gay marriage brought conservative voters to the polls and helped to increase President Bush’s vote over 2000. There’s good reason to doubt the 2004 story, notably the fact that the increase in Bush’s share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage‐ban states than in the other states.
But now there’s new evidence that this isn’t going to be a winning issue for Republicans. The Washington Post reports:
In February, a poll by the [Des Moines Register] newspaper found that 56 percent of Iowans were opposed to legislative efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same‐sex marriage. That is consistent with other swing states: Voters back gay marriage by 21 points in Florida, 15 points in Ohio and nine in Virginia, new Washington Post polls found.
Read that again: “Voters back gay marriage by 21 points in Florida, 15 points in Ohio and nine in Virginia.”
The poll also found that nationally 63 percent of the tiny number of genuine swing voters support gay marriage.
No wonder Romney isn’t talking about it.
Another Post article gave more details on the swing‐state polls:
In Florida, 54 percent of voters think same‐sex marriage should be legal, while 33 percent say it should be illegal. In Ohio, 52 percent say it should be legal, while 37 percent say it should be illegal.…In Virginia, the nine‐point gap between those who support and oppose same‐sex marriage — 49 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed — represents a significant gain in support compared with a Post poll in May, when 46 thought it should be legal and 43 percent said it should be illegal.
And then there’s this, which is perhaps more important for the future than for next month’s election:
Age is an important factor: About two‐thirds or more of those younger than 40 support legalizing gay marriage in each state. Among voters ages 40 to 49, the figure in Florida is 58 percent, but that dips to under half in Ohio and Virginia. Those ages 50 to 64 appear more divided, with a majority of seniors in Ohio and Virginia opposed to gay marriage.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has been campaigning so enthusiastically for President Obama that she — whoops! — broke a federal law that restricts political activities by executive‐branch officials. Federal employees are usually fired for such transgressions, but no one expects that to happen to Sebelius. Heck, she got right back in the saddle.
Every cabinet official (probably) wants to see the president reelected, and no president relishes dismissing a cabinet official. But in this case, there’s an additional incentive for Sebelius to campaign for her boss and for Obama not to fire her.
ObamaCare creates a new Independent Payment Advisory Board that — “fact checkers” notwithstanding — is actually a super‐legislature with the power to ration care to everyone, increase taxes, impose conditions on federal grants to states, and wield other legislative powers. According to legend, IPAB will consist of 15 unelected “experts” who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Yeah, good one.
In fact, if the president makes no appointments, or the Senate rejects the president’s appointees, then all of IPAB’s considerable powers fall to one person: the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The HHS secretary would effectively become an economic dictator, with more power over the health care sector than any chamber of Congress.
If Obama wins in November, he would have zero incentive to appoint any IPAB members. The confirmation hearings would be a bloodbath, not unlike Don Berwick’s confirmation battle multiplied by 15. Sebelius, on the other hand, would not need to be re‐confirmed. She could assume all of IPAB’s powers without the Senate examining her fitness to wield those powers. If Obama fired her, or the voters fire Obama, then the next HHS secretary would have to secure Senate confirmation. Again, bloodbath. That makes Kathleen Sebelius the only person in the universe who could assume those powers without that scrutiny.
No wonder she’s campaigning so hard. No wonder Obama won’t fire her.
The Brookings Institution held a forum this morning on "Fostering Internet Competition"—at which, oddly, many panelists seemed resigned to the idea that one layer or another of the Internet would not be competitive: The question, as they saw it, was how to regulate the monopoly player at one layer to foster competition at the next layer up.
For Loyola University law professor Spencer Waller, it is online social platforms like Facebook and Twitter and Google that raise the specter of monopoly, and the question is how to regulate them so as to ensure competition and innovation in services built atop these platforms. Harvard's Susan Crawford thought the application layer could probably take care of itself, provided the monopolistic physical infrastructure—the means of providing broadband connectivity to end users—was properly regulated. Only one panelist, media theorist Doug Rushkoff, seemed interested in the possibility of fostering competition all the way down—he was, rather astonishingly, the first to utter the phrase "mesh networking" at the very end of the question and answer period. The others—as revealed by frequent analogies to electric grids and interstate highways—seemed stuck in a model that failed to take seriously what is probably the most important fact about Internet policy: Technology moves faster than politics.
Mitt Romney attempted to refine his foreign policy platform in a speech at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday, but he was again long on rhetoric and short on strategy. What passed for substance in the speech was largely focused on the Middle East. Predictably, most of the reactions to the speech also focused on the Middle East, mainly President Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program and his response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month.
Notably absent from the media coverage and the speech itself was China. In fact, Romney mentioned China only once. This is discouraging since the U.S.-China relationship will likely be the most important foreign policy issue over the next few decades.
In today’s Cato Podcast, Justin Logan, director of foreign policy studies, discusses America’s China policy and the presidential candidates’ lack of focus on the issue. Obama and Romney have each spent time demagoguing China on their currency and other trade issues. But this political rhetoric has been at the expense of any serious effort to discuss at length how the candidates disagree when it comes to the U.S.-China relationship. Instead, the foreign‐policy debate has centered on the greater Middle East, where U.S. interests are much smaller. The candidates exemplify a bipartisan obsession with the Middle East when in large part the consequential issues that the United States will face in the years to come will be much further to the east.
Sometime between 2013 and 2015, Congress will likely take up the issue of reforming the rules that allow the International Trade Commission to operate as a specialized patent court for imports. This is a good thing. The ITC has seen an explosion in the number of new Section 337 cases brought over the last five years. Most of these ITC investigations run parallel to district court cases, and many of them are brought by so-called patent trolls, entities that own patents for the sole purpose of litigating them and benefit from the ITC's quick procedures and powerful remedies.
The need for reform has never been so obvious as it is today. Unfortunately, the rhetoric used by reform advocates and the scope of their proposals misguidedly call for the ITC to return to its protectionist roots.
Some proposals offered to fix the problem with patent trolls include strengthening the domestic industry requirement and the public interest analysis, both of which would limit who could bring a successful case to the ITC. The only reason these tests exist at the ITC in the first place is because Section 337 was designed to protect U.S. producers from foreign competition. Strengthening the tests simultaneously makes the process more protectionist and increases the differences between ITC and district court litigation that have caused the problems reformers are trying to fix.
Perhaps these reforms really will reduce problems caused by patent troll access to the ITC, but they assume that the ITC serves a legitimate function that should be preserved. Before taking this move, reformers need to ask, "Do U.S. manufacturers really need more tools to enforce patents against importers?"