a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life
You are here
Creativity!
Get it!
I like it!
Fun stuff!
About me...
Random Quote
Never save anything for your next book, because that possible creation may not be properly shaped to hold the thoughts you're working with today. In fiction especially, anything that could happen, should happen. -- Tam Mossman
I'm up late working on the development project, and during a break, I read that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D) of New York wants to raise the taxes of the top income bracket.
The bill may propose that high-income filers would pay at least a 4 percent surtax on adjusted gross incomes above $100,000 ($200,000 for joint-filers).
Now, I wonder why this is necessary, because I recently read that the budget deficit is the lowest it's been in 5 years because of rising tax revenues at the current tax rates. If current tax revenue is getting closer to bringing about a balanced budget, why increase the tax rates?
Part of Rangel's proposal is to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) - a mechanism by which upper-income people pay more tax than normal rates. The problem with the AMT is that it hits a lot of voters. Hey, I'm good with the idea of dropping the AMT.
But again, I argue: why raise rates at all? If the budget gets closer to being balanced, why not drop the AMT and stave off higher taxes for everyone? A tax hike is unnecessary - unless of course Democrats plan on a Democrat president and increased government spending in 2009. Oink.
Look... the highest income folks pay the most in taxes already. The top 1% pay more income tax than the bottom 90%, according to the IRS. So why penalize the successful? Since when was that what America was all about?
Answer: It's not.
ETC: Pale Rider chimes in with a great comment. I'll quote him in full...
Get ready for socialism courtesy of Hillary. Dems have been wanting this for years. If they get both houses and the presidency they may finally get their wish. To be fair though they should run as a socialist party. Although the republicans have slid so far left they should run as democrats. There really aren't any conservatives left. Kind of funny to watch them argue about who is more republican.
Seeing how I am of fair mind today I'll also say we don't have to wait until 2009 for more spending. Bush has spent more than Bill Clinton ever dreamt of.
To pave the way for Iowa to elect Hillary Clinton, I guess someone figured that an article needed to be written to goad us into it.
Iowa is one of only two states - Mississippi is the other - that have never sent a woman to Congress or the governor's mansion.
That may be true, but it's not due to a glass ceiling. Iowa has a greater percentage of women in its statehouse than the US Congress does - by about twice.
Here in Iowa, most of the managers with whom I've worked have been women. In fact, most of the managers where I now work are women, including the president of the company.
If Hillary gets into office, let it be for the fact that she is the best person for the job (she's not), and not for the token that she happens to be a woman. Iowa typically votes Democrat in its choice for president anyway, so I don't know why this article was necessary, but evidently someone thought so.
This guy's take on the Republican debate last night kills me.
Paul tried to interrupt, but failed. His voice was so high this time, that my dog went nuts and wet on the carpet.
Romney is fielding yet another question. He's smoother than a smoothie smoothed over with fine-grit sandpaper, then sent out for further smoothing to Kruger Industrial Smoothing.
Second commercial break, third martini. Can I keep up this pace? Can I hear a hallelujah?
I've been doing some thinking lately about Instinct, Choice, and Habit, but before I finish scribing that one out, I read on Glenn Reynold's Instapundit site today about the problems in campaign financials. The good professor says that allowing unlimited campaign contributions is a better approach. Being the free market guy that I am, that appeals to me, but actually I think it allows the White House - or any office - to be purchased. Which probably happens today anyway, but I'd like to suggest a different approach.
Why not let those campaigning to be president enter a microcosm and show us how they would lead? The federal government is not a place where the finances available are unlimited. No, they're limited. In fact, the more limited, the better. What I would rather see is to give the candidates a fixed budget - say $1 million - and that's the maximum. They can show us then how they can stretch that budget. What creativity would they employ to get their message out? Because if they frivolously spend unbelievable sums to get there, isn't the habit of spending spending spending a hard habit to break? And that's a huge problem in Washington.
Keep in mind, if our nation did something like this, I don't think that citizens should be at all limited in their free speech. If they choose to create ads, purchase radio or TV time, and air what they want to say, I'm all for it. If they choose to write about their political views, I'm all for it.
But the campaign? It has to live within its means, because that's what Washington should do, yet never does. Why not start that habit before you get there?
"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.
I have to jump in here and correct him. Properly phrased, he should have said, "The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what happened a single time in Iraq." But he didn't. He thinks an act like this is par for the course and happens all the time. Note his use of present tense.
Then he says:
"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.
Ah, he has an agenda. See - he's not out to tell the truth about what's happening - present tense - in Iraq. He picked a really ugly incident that happened - past tense - once and uses that to paint our guys with a broad brush.
Relatively nobody in America will see this movie.
Distributor Magnolia has planned a limited U.S. release for later this year, and the film may be easier to sell to European audiences rather than to the American public.
Brian De Palma last directed The Black Dahlia, a really good book that Brian screwed up when bringing it to the big screen. (See the comment "De Palma Falters with So-So Take on Film Noir" at the link.) He's like the Ed Wood of his generation.
But here's the thing... as the left tries to tar and feather our soldiers in Iraq, they forget that our soldiers - the oh so vast majority of them - are really good people. Who have familes back home. Who have relatives and friends. And all of these people get the side of the story from our soldiers and from journalists like Michael Yon, who is actually out there reporting from the front lines with the troops. Meanwhile these armchair delusionists try to tell us a different story.
As a nation, we're smarter than that. We won't put up with folks who lie about the troops.
De Palma thinks he's doing a good thing, but he's only looking the fool in doing this. While Redacted addresses a real event, it's not even close to the real day-in and day-out story, which very few in the media want to tell. Good news doesn't make them money.
On Saturday, Tamara, Nick, and I went to Ames, Iowa, to volunteer at Newt Gingrich's American Solutions tent.
That's Tamara greeting a smiling Newt as he exits his van.
The straw poll was cool. As we drove there, we saw lots of Ron Paul signs littering the interstate shoulders. Iowa State troopers were tediously pulling them from the roadside. I had to laugh at one point though - under one Ron Paul sign was someone else's custom sign, asking the important question: "Who is Ron Paul?"
Indeed.
We stayed around long enough to listen to Mitt Romney's speech. He's easily the most media-friendly politician for the Republicans. The three of us voted for Mitt. He floated the idea of having zero tax on capital gains. He contrasted that with Edwards' idea of leaving the first $250 as tax-free. "$250?" Mitt quipped. "That wouldn't even pay for John Edwards' haircut."
He also proposed forcing computer manufacturers to install a "porn-free" button that would begin to filter out porn. Serious faux pas on several levels.
Who decides what porn is?
If he believes that government should be smaller, how does this infiltration into the private sector demonstrate that?
The technology would never work. Unless images can be screened for content - which they can't - there is no filtering of porn. Any image can be named anything we like and still posted, hosted, and sent by email. He's blitheringly naive to suggest this. But I suppose it makes for great soundbite...
That said, I still think he's the most capable executive and media-savvy candidate in the race. That's why I voted for him. He also showed an knack for turning out voters. Yeah, people might poo-poo his methods. I don't think that matters. He achieved what he needed to achieve, and at the end of the day, that's what matters for any candidate - or president.
Back to Newt...
I like Newt. I think he's a very smart guy. He proposes that instead of soundbites and short-form debates, the candidates give lengthy speeches that outline the what and the how of their future administration. I love that.
Under a new immigration bill, Gingrich wants the Department of Homeland Security to outsource the creation of a secure, accurate system to quickly check legal status of people who commit serious crimes. He wants the bill to require that anyone arrested for a felony be checked for legal status. Lastly, he stipulates that any city, county or state that refuses to do so would lose all federal funding.
What sane American would disagree with that? Good for him.
ETC: And more pictures with Newt from the Iowa Straw Poll...
A week ago, I said that Barack Obama's campaign is over due to his serious foreign policy gaffes.
Today, news of exactly this, as Hillary Clinton holds not just a double-digit lead over Obama, but a 22% lead. Clinton is too smart to blow a lead that big with her own gaffe. I mean, even if her husband had, you know, like an affair or something, it wouldn't change anything.
UPDATED: As if on cue, there's this today: "I have it on very, very good authority that major opposition research has already been conducted on Bill Clinton, and it's going to be a massive smear campaign against him," he says. A group of former intelligence officers, he says, is "going to try to cripple Hillary through Bill." - I don't think this will stop her nomination.
Plouffe also pointed to Obama's prowess at raising money from 258,000 individual donors as a sign of his strength. Obama raised about $5 million more than Clinton during the second quarter.
And you can spend more money than the competition for marketing, but if the product is bad, it's wasted money.
He'll learn and he'll come back later and be smarter. Maybe his supporters can look at this as an investment in the future.
So if Hillary's the nominee, who's it for the Republicans?
It ain't McCain. He blew that with McCain-Feingold's chokehold on free speech and his support for amnesty.
Thompson? Maybe. Let's how he runs once he's actually in the dang thing.
Giuliani? I would love to see Giuliani get it, just to tweak the religious right. And I believe that any enemy who would try to hurt us would suffer in hell for it because he wouldn't put up with any crap. But I have no idea how he'll govern.
Romney? I think he's the most qualified executive running. A very impressive guy. Can he get enough traction? Here in Iowa, he got into a row with a local rude talk-show host, Jan Mickelson. I watched this video, and Romney handles the incessant interruptions really well.
(I've listened to Jan's show in the past, and I like Jan, but he was utterly pompous in this "interview." Bad form.)
I can't guage who the Republican nominee might be. I'd say that Giuliani and Romney have equal chance, with Thompson as a dark horse, and I think that in his own way, Newt Gingrich will factor into this somehow - though I think he has no chance whatsoever of getting the nomination.
My America: Self-Sufficiency - The Bedrock of Democracy
If I could sum up in a single sentence what I think the foundational principle of America is, it would be this:
America is a place where each person is free to live their own life without adversely impacting the lives of others.
What do you think of that? Agree? Disagree?
The founding fathers said it in their own way:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Emphasis mine. They're saying, quite openly, that anytyhing that interferes with a man's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is worthy of partial or total rebellion.
Earlier this week, I received something from a friend of mine, quoted from Garrison Keillor.
This is Democratic bedrock: we don't let people lie in the ditch and drive past and pretend not to see them dying. Here on the frozen tundra of Minnesota, if your neighbor's car won't start, you put on your parka and get the jumper cables out and deliver the Sacred Spark that starts their car. Everybody knows this. The logical extension of this spirit is social welfare and the myriad government programs with long dry names all very uninteresting to you until you suddenly need one and then you turn into a Democrat. A liberal is a conservative who's been through treatment.
This is like a volleyball setup and spike: (Setup) You wouldn't drive by someone lying in the ditch, right? (Setup) You wouldn't avoid helping your neighbor get their car out of the snow, would you? (Spike!) Then obviously you agree with myriad goverment programs, right?
Paraphrased: if you're a good neighbor and a good person, you espouse social welfare. Right?
If I compare the two statements of Garrison Keillor and Thomas Jefferson, I don't think they're much the same. One says that people should be free to live their own lives and the government has no right to interfere with that, and the other says that people ought to help others live via myriad government programs.
Keillor's words are democratic bedrock? Not at all. They're socialist bedrock. I'll stick with Jefferson, thank you very much, who helped author the documents of democracy.
Between John Edwards' economic "tax-the-rich" populism and Hillary Clinton's "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," what American principle are they following? They're in lock-step with Garrison Keillor, but not with John Adams, Ben Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson. It's not the government's right to take money from people to give to others. Nor is it the right of anyone to take money from anyone else. Jefferson viewed government as a "dangerous necessity" for this very reason, and felt that the federal government should have its powers circumscribed.
Freedom is the fundamental concept of this country. The limitation of government to intrude on the lives of its citizens is a very close second. The Bill of Rights isn't a declaration of freedoms allowed to us, so much as a declaration of limitations on the government:
Congress shall make no law...
...shall not be infringed
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...shall not be violated...
No person shall be held to answer...
[Exception]
[Exception]
Excessive bail shall not be required...
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
All of these but two expressly limit government. And the other two give rights to people held for trial.
In My America, this country is a place where each person is free to live their own life without adversely impacting the lives of others. It's a place where each person has a social obligation not to provide welfare, but to live on their own, provide for themselves, and provide for those for whom they are responsible.
Occasionally, some will stumble. I'll save that for another day.
You know, instead of funding a Bridge to Nowhere, why not fund Bridges to Somewhere? Because 70,000 bridges in the US are rated as deficient. Replication of the horrible tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse can be avoided, I think, if we drop the stupid earmark / pork spending and fund rightful improvements.
ETC:This money could have gone toward something useful, like - you know - infrastructure repair. (Via Glenn Reynolds)
(Why does John Murtha have any credibility at all with anyone?)
