16 August, 2008

The Candidates and Abortion

This is the twentieth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) plans regarding abortion.

Perhaps no topic is quite so divisive in our country as abortion. I'm not even sure that the gun rights debate has the level of heat and fire as in the debate over abortion. And Democrats have been using this topic to scare voters since 1973. "They're going to try to overturn Roe v. Wade!". You're guaranteed to hear that at some point during every election cycle.

Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned. Stop being scared about that. Abortion rights may be reigned in a bit from time to time, but they're here to stay, just like gun rights.

But, I digress. The topic here is not stare decisis nor "settled law". It's the candidates and their views on abortion rights.

Let's start with Obama.

Obama is probably the closest thing there is to an "all abortion, all the time" candidate. He is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act. It's hard to find any information about this bill that's not bursting with hyperbole and extremism, but what it aims to do is this:

The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.

In fairness to Obama, the bill has quite the list of co-sponsors including Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT).

Obama has said that he would make signing that bill one of his first priorities in his administration.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," he said.

Obama supports partial-birth abortion:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

The quote is interesting. Despite his words, I can find no instance of him ever voting for a bill restricting partial-birth abortion.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has a perfect lifetime rating from NARAL. If possible, Obama's position is to the left of hers on this issue.

He believed that the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act somehow undermined Roe v. Wade.

The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.

Note that NARAL didn't oppose this bill, and yet Obama did.

Well, I think that about covers Obama. Let's look at McCain.

McCain supports abortion in cases of rape and incest and feels that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He has often been represented as pro-choice, but does not appear to be so:

Many Republican voters, however, seem to believe, incorrectly, that the current Republican front-runner, Arizona Sen. John McCain, supports abortion rights, too.

The misperception is interesting, considering that McCain has not attempted to keep his pro-life views a secret. Here's how he put it on an appearance last year on NBC's Meet the Press:

"I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the rights of the unborn — that I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career.

He has a similar answer to how he'd handle his daughter wanting one to mine:

KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference.

I can't find anything on McCain and the Freedom of Choice Act, but it's hard to believe he'd do anything other than veto it.

I did find at least one instance where he voted for a pro-choice bill.

Grades:

Obama: A+. If there was a grade higher than A+, Obama would get it. This is the first A+ I've given either candidate and I can't see how he could possibly receive any other grade.

McCain: D. He gets a D because of his exclusions for rape and incest and his statement that he'd let his daughter make the decision, and that he has voted for pro-choice bills. Without those three he'd get an F.

Results so far:

Obama McCain
First Amendment* F
D-
Second Amendment D- C-
Third Amendment B B
Fourth Amendment D+ D+
Fifth Amendment D+ B-
Sixth Amendment B B
Seventh Amendment C C
Eighth Amendment C B
Eleventh Amendment B+ B-
Thirteenth Amendment D+ B+
Fourteenth Amendment D+ C+
Fifteenth Amendment B B
Nineteenth Amendment B B
Twenty-First Amendment A- A-
Twenty-Third Amendment A- B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment B B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment B B
Taxes D B-
Abortion A+ D

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.


UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

W.

Oliver Stone's W. will be released in the United States on October 17th, about 3 weeks before the Presidential election. The timing is no coincidence I'm sure. The movie paints a young George W. Bush as a directionless boozer and apparently a drug user as well, and someone that used his daddy's connections to get out of serving in Vietnam.  I'm sure the point is to show us how deplorable it is that someone with such a past could become President of the United States. Let's face it, Mr. Stone is no friend to Republicans, and particularly to the Bush family.

That seems like the wrong point to be making considering the candidates this year, though, unless you're a supporter of Senator John McCain (R-AZ).  One of our candidates has a history much like the one represented in W., and it's not the Republican.

UPDATE: I can see it now.  Some newsie tries to score points against McCain: "Senator, have you seen W.? What do you think of it?" McCain: "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youthful indiscretions."

TalkStraight.Org Launches

TalkStraight.Org is kind of a FightTheSmears for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Not much content yet, but unlike the content at FightTheSmears, at least it's truthful. Check it out.

Interesting National Poll Numbers

I periodically take a peek at the Real Clear Politics polling averages, and there's some interesting things in the time-based chart today.

First of all, it's apparent that despite the claims of many bloggers, there has definitely been a tightening in the race.

On June 29, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) led Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by 7.1 points. Today he leads by 3.0. Now while many of the polls have Obama leading by a number within the margin of error, it's stretches credibility to the extreme to think that the error is in the same direction in all of them. So, Obama still leads, and by a respectable margin if you compare to the last two elections. Still, to say that the race hasn't changed is denying reality.

However, that's not the main point I want to make.  I'm more interested in the individual numbers than the differences. Currently the RCP average has Obama at 44.8 and McCain at 41.8. These are near record low numbers for both.  Obama has only been below 45 a handful of times and only below 44 once, way back on January 17. McCain's lowest is 40.4. So, the race is tightening, but it's tightening by increasing numbers of people going to the undecided column.  And they're leaving both candidates.

I don't know what that means for McCain.  Maybe it means that independents are turned off by his "negative" ads. Maybe he's the real "flip-flopper" this time around and people don't like that. And I don't know what he can do about it. Realistically, not much. This has been and continues to be Obama's election to lsoe.

But, I do know what it says about Obama.  It says that people still view him as the riskier choice. It also says that people still worry about him as Commander-in-Chief.

The debates are crucial for Obama. He's in a similar position to then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) in 2000. People like him, but they're just not sure they trust him to run the country. He must appear Presidential in the debates. He doesn't have to win, but he can't be made to look weak or confused by McCain. I think the bar is a little higher than it was for Bush in 2000, because he doesn't have the advantage that Bush had in the press lowering expectations for him. Instead, the press has continuously raised expectations for Obama, telling us (wrongly) what a great orator he is and (rightly) how intelligent he is.

Still, I don't think he has to do much in the debates, just not commit any serious mistakes. If McCain hasn't convinced enough people to dislike Obama by that time, then Obama probably wins the election easily. I think McCain is probably a better debater than Obama, because Obama clearly doesn't think well on his feet.  However, he has the advantage of having gone though the 84 debates the Democrats had in the primaries (what? it wasn't 84? sure felt like it).

Of course, there's always the chance that something could change the race dramatically.

15 August, 2008

Battleground States 2008 - 08/15

I was planning on revisiting this post about once a week, but obviously have not done so up until now.

Since the last post, things have improved for Senator John McCain (R-AZ) but definitely not to the point where he and his wife can start picking out curtains for the White House.  Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) still controls this race.

Here's the current standings with difference since July 23 in parentheses):

  • Michigan (17): Democrat last 4 elections, Obama currently leads by 7 pts. (+2)
  • Indiana (11): Republican last 4 elections, Obama by 1 pt.
  • Ohio (20): Picked winner in last 4 elections, McCain by 2. (-4)
  • Missouri (11): Picked winner in last 4 elections, Mcain by 7. (+7)
  • Pennsylvania (21): Democrat last 4 elections, Obama by 5 (+1)
  • Iowa (7):Picked Winner in 3 of last 4 (had Gore in 2000), Obama by 5. (-5)
  • Virginia (13): Republican last 4 elections, currently tied.
  • Florida (27): Picked Winner in last 3 elections, McCain by 4. (+2)
  • Colorado (9): Republican last 3 elections, McCain by 2. (+9)
  • New Mexico (5): Picked Winner in 3 of last 4 (had Gore in 2000), Obama by 5.
  • Montana (3): Republican last 3 elections, McCain by 1.  (+6)
  • North Dakota(3): Republican last 4 elections, McCain by 3. (+3)
  • Nevada(5): Picked winner last 4 elections, McCain by 3. (+5)

Bellwether states (EV totals in parenthese):

McCain: OH, FL, NV, MO (63)
Obama: IA, NM (12)

Battleground EV Totals (diff since July 23 in parens): McCain 78 (+31), Obama 61 (-17), Tied: 13 (-14)

Rest of map: McCain 172, Obama 214

Totals: McCain 250, Obama 275

My source is always Andrew Tanenbaum's Electoral-vote.com.

Worries for McCain: His lead in OH has shrunk dramatically, one of only three states he's lost ground in, the others are MI and PA. He still trails in IN, but to be fair, there hasn't been a new poll there. FL is looking better, but still too close. The earlier close poll there does not appear to be an outlier. Quite a few of these battleground states are traditionally Republican, IN, VA, CO, MT, ND, and NV.  Also, the biggest fear in the McCain camp is that all of these polls may be undercounting Democrats, and it may turn out much worse than it currently looks.

Worries for Obama: He now only can claim two "bellwether states", and both of those went to Gore in 2000. He lost ground in MO, IA, CO, MT, ND, and NV.

Good news for McCain: He's now leads in several of the states that I earlier mentioned are "must win" for him.  Winning VA and flipping IN puts him in the White House. He has a statistically significant lead in MO. Taking this off the battleground list would be a severe blow to Obama. He's doing very well in "bellwether" states and now leads in the EV count in the battlegrounds. Of course, he has to, since he's giving Obama a 42 EV head start on the rest of the map.

Good news for Obama: He can still claim a winning position in EV. If the map stays precisely as it is now, he'll have a new place to live next January. There are only two traditionally Democratic states listed as battlegrounds and he's expanded his lead in both of them. This means he can force McCain to play defense in several states. At the moment, Obama isn't really playing defense anywhere (despite the poll numbers, PA appears to be a long shot for McCain), and it doesn't look likely that he will be anytime soon. Also, the Democratic convention is right around the corner, and that will likely give him a boost in several of these states.

Here's what I said in July:

In the end, I think that the 4 states we’ll be talking about right up until election day are IN, VA, OH, and MO. If either candidate can pick up some momentum in these 4 states and take any of them off the battleground list, it is bad news for the other camp. Unfortunately for McCain, it currently looks like he has to go 4 for 4 in them, and still pick up another state.

Still true, but McCain currently has found that other state, NV.  Actually, in June I even narrowed it to IN and VA, and those still look the tightest to me. As I mentioned above, McCain's lead in MO has to be troublesome to Obama, just as troublesome as Obama's position in IN is to McCain. I can't see any scenario where McCain wins and loses IN.

Still, despite everything on the map that looks bad for McCain and good for Obama, this is the closest the race has been. McCain supporters should take solace in that, and Obama supporters may start chewing their nails soon. The Democratic convention could not be coming at a better time for Obama.

The EV count here is much closer than the national polls.  Could we have a repeat of 2000 where Obama wins the popular vote and McCain the EV? Seems doubtful, but that possibility does exist.  A month ago I would've said "impossible". Now I'm down to "doubtful".

14 August, 2008

The Candidates and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment

This is the eighteenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I skipped the Twenty-Fifth Amendment as it deals with Presidential succession. I will also be skipping the Twenty-Seventh and most recent amendment as it deals with Congressional pay. Therefore, this will be the last of this series to deal with Constitutional Amendments for a while. I still have to return and do the Ninth and Tenth, but those will be handled at the end of the series (assuming I ever get there). After this I will turn my attention to other civil rights, such as abortion, small government, etc.

So, what's the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? It's one of the amendments which may enable Barack Obama to win this year's Presidential Election. Here's the text:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This standardizes the age for the right to vote to 18.

Unsurprisingly, neither Obama nor McCain have anything bad to say about it, or in fact, anything to say at all. Obama has certainly courted the youth vote, but there's nothing that I have seen that indicates that McCain wants to steal those votes away from him.

Grades: B's for both.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment: No Advantage.

I apologize for the brevity of the last few posts in this series, but there hasn't really been anything to say. Despite that, I wanted to give full coverage to each of the civil rights amendments. So, I felt it necessary to go ahead and make a "say nothing" entry. There will be much more to talk about in the upcoming posts in the series.

Results so far:

Obama McCain
First Amendment* F
D-
Second Amendment D- C-
Third Amendment B B
Fourth Amendment D+ D+
Fifth Amendment D+ B-
Sixth Amendment B B
Seventh Amendment C C
Eighth Amendment C B
Eleventh Amendment B+ B-
Thirteenth Amendment D+ B+
Fourteenth Amendment D+ C+
Fifteenth Amendment B B
Nineteenth Amendment B B
Twenty-First Amendment A- A-
Twenty-Third Amendment A- B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment B B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment B B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.


UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

13 August, 2008

The Candidates and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment

This is the seventeenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964. It's pretty sad that it took almost 200 years to get this amendment passed. I consider it one of the more important post-Bill-of-Rights ones.

So, what's the Twenty-Fourth Amendment? Here's the text:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Simple. No poll taxes in federal elections or primaries. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that all poll taxes were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. So, perhaps that makes the 24th Amendment moot.

There's currently a movement (which I support) to require presentation of some sort of state or federal ID to be allowed to vote. Indiana has such a law, and it was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court did not look at this law with respect to the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and there are many sites out there that claim that was a mistake. My position has always been that there are no good, ethical reasons to oppose a Voter ID law. However, it's not too much of a stretch in my opinion to call such a law a poll tax (ID's are provided free of charge in Indiana if needed, but it does take time and effort to do so), and I wonder why the Supreme Court did not at least address the issue from this perspective.

So, how do we judge this? Is a Voter ID requirement a kind of poll tax or not? This decision will definitely affect the grades given here. The Supreme Court didn't even mention the Twenty-Fourth in any of their writings in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that I can see. Does this mean they felt it quite obviously didn't apply and wasn't worth mentioning? I would've thought if that were the view, they should've at least added a comment to such. So, I'm left to wonder what the absence of any discussion of the 24th in the decision means.

My decision? I have decided to straddle the fence. I will side with the Supreme Court that it is not a poll tax, but I will look at the candidates and Voter ID in a future post.

I guess I'm siding with the Court. I'd know for certain if they'd bothered to give their opinion on the subject.

If we exclude Voter ID from this discussion there's no reason to believe from their writings or speeches that either Obama or McCain support any kind of poll tax in federal elections.

Grades:

Obama: B

McCain: B

Twenty-Fourth Amendment: No Advantage

Results so far:

Obama McCain
First Amendment* F
D-
Second Amendment D- C-
Third Amendment B B
Fourth Amendment D+ D+
Fifth Amendment D+ B-
Sixth Amendment B B
Seventh Amendment C C
Eighth Amendment C B
Eleventh Amendment B+ B-
Thirteenth Amendment D+ B+
Fourteenth Amendment D+ C+
Fifteenth Amendment B B
Nineteenth Amendment B B
Twenty-First Amendment A- A-
Twenty-Third Amendment A- B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment B B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

The Candidates and the Twenty-Third Amendment

This is the sixteenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Twenty-Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I skipped the Twenty-Second Amendment since it sets term limits for the President and Vice President of the United States.

What's the Twenty-Third? Anyone remember? Sadly, even though we're getting to newer and newer amendments (the Twenty-Third was ratified in 1961), they seem to be known by fewer and fewer people.

Well, here's the text:

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ahh...giving Washington, D.C. representation in federal elections. As far as I know, there's no movement to limit or to curtail the rights granted by this amendment, and even if there were, I seriously doubt that either Obama or McCain would support such an initiative.

However, there is a movement to expand this amendment. In fact, Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. McCain opposes such legislation.

Grades:

Obama: A-. This would be higher if there was more to go on, Senate voting rights, for example, or statehood, or incorporation of D.C. into another state.

McCain: B. I pushed Obama's grade up for supporting the House Voting Rights Act, but it doesn't seem fair to lower McCain's grade, since such an act is an extension to this amendment, and McCain hasn't done anything to limit it. His grade can be higher since he hasn't made any statements in support of the Amendment. Neither has Obama, but it's reasonable to infer such support from his support of the House Voting Rights Act.

Results so far:

Obama McCain
First Amendment* F
D-
Second Amendment D- C-
Third Amendment B B
Fourth Amendment D+ D+
Fifth Amendment D+ B-
Sixth Amendment B B
Seventh Amendment C C
Eighth Amendment C B
Eleventh Amendment B+ B-
Thirteenth Amendment D+ B+
Fourteenth Amendment D+ C+
Fifteenth Amendment B B
Nineteenth Amendment B B
Twenty-First Amendment A- A-
Twenty-Third Amendment A- B

* Obama's First Amendment grade lowered as documented in this post.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

12 August, 2008

FairTax Fraud?

A commenter recently argued against my support of the FairTax and pointed me to a site called www.fairtaxfraud.com.

For review:

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:

  • A progressive national retail sales tax.
  • A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
  • Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
  • Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.

I'm not going to try to explain the FairTax here in any more detail than that except for the particulars necessary for rebuttal.  The post will be long enough. Go here for some more information.

Unfortunately, it's hard to take the FairTaxFraud seriously. You're greeted with hyperbole and misinformation on the very first page, before you even enter the site, with lots of marquees scrolling "information" about the FairTax. I think I copied them all down.

  • Fair Tax Fraud
  • LIES
  • Un-Fair Tax
  • Does NOT cut taxes
    • Does NOT eliminate the IRS
    • EVERY DAY is Tax Day!
  • Everyone gets a welfare check from the government every month
  • Money worked for an earned is taxed
    • Unearned money is not taxed!
  • The Definitive Guide to Understanding the Biggest Tax Ripoff in the History of America
  • The children of the rich inherit mansions tax free...
    • ...Poor couples pay a 30% tax when they buy a home
    • ...and lost the home mortgage deduction!!!
  • Don't Get Sick!
    • You'll Have to Pay
    • a 30% TAX on your Surgery!!
  • Created by and backed by billionaires,
    • promoted by hate radio and neocons,
    • the FairTax puts huge new taxes on
    • food, shelter, clothes, and medicine,
    • while making billion dollar estates, capital gains, and expensive gifts COMPLETELY TAX FREE!

These marquees are in various font sizes and colors and scrolling in various directions.

I don't like "shoot the messenger" type of arguments, but, seriously, if they want to be taken seriously, the opening page needs to be better than this. I know when I see lots of exclamation points and CAPITAL LETTERS in

LARGE FONTS

that I'm unlikely to be seeing a well-reasoned argument.

Sadly, the rest of the website lived up to my initial expectations.

Their page on The FairTax Book (entitled The Book, The Crook, and the Followers) seems mostly devoted towards attacking one of the authors, Neal Boortz, and for propagating wealth envy. Now, there's plenty of reasons to dislike Neal Boortz, and if you don't like him, fine. But the merits or issues of the FairTax should stand on their own, not the messenger. It doesn't matter who supports it and who doesn't. A good idea could even be supported by David Duke and still be a good idea.  Conversely, a bad idea could've been supported by Mother Teresa and yet still be a bad idea. Don't shoot the messenger.  Learn the message.

The link to the second page (The Real Supporters) has pictures to some of the supporters. Interestingly, one of the pictures is of President George W. Bush (R-USA). I guess anything supported by Bush must be bad, but he's not actually a supporter, and isn't listed as such on the actual page you're redirected to by the link. Despite being called "The Real Supporters" the page spends only a little time on the supporters, although that's actually a good thing. Because then I'd have to point out again the validity of "shoot the messenger" type arguments, but it does accuse FairTax supporters of belonging to a cult. There's little of relevance on this page except for some more wealth envy.

Then there's the next page, which finally has some "real" criticisms of the tax. The titles of this page is "Fairness VS. FairTax" with the subtitle "Fairtax is Fair and Balanced in the Fox News sense - like giving equal time to holocaust deniers." Ahh...the site brings up "hate radio", neocons, has a couple pictures of Bush for no apparent reason other than to make the FairTax look bad, and now it ridicules Fox News. So much for objectivity, but at least I now fully understand the slant. However, there are some points on this page worth debating.

Progressive & Regressive taxes describe taxes; not morals or political opinion. In a progressive tax, the more you earn, the higher your tax rate. In a regressive tax, the less you earn, the higher your tax rate.

Except that's not true, and even the linked articles don't claim that (you really should read the things you link to). The definitions of "progressive" and "regressive" have nothing to do with "earnings" but with wealth. An important difference as we'll see later.

The clever but dishonest presentations of the FairTax Book never tell the reader that there are two tax rates that the FairTax is proposing. Under the old income tax, your individual tax rate varied but covered everyone's income (100 percent) minus deductions. Under the FairTax we have two tax rates: 1. A sales tax rate of 30 percent for everyone.  2. An income tax rate that depends entirely on how much you consume.

I think this is never told to the reader because it's completely untrue. Then there's a nice little chart where they try to tie income levels to tax levels and "convert" the FairTax into an income tax, suggesting that a person making $30,000 is taxed at 92.5%. This is only true using the most bizarre definition of "tax" that I've ever heard of. Their argument is that since the  person making $30,000 a year is near the poverty level and has to spend all of that money on basic living commodities that he's taxed at nearly 100%. So, when you spend $5 on that Big Mac meal at McDonald's that's a $5 tax on you. Yeah. Right.

Then the rest of the page goes back to wealth envy, and some points that claim to show that the evil rich won't pay their fair share under this system. This is a fallacy, of course, but that didn't stop the authors from perpetuating it. The wealthy are very good at avoiding income taxes now, because they don't have income. They have money that's inherited, or capital gains, etc.  The FairTax is better at taxing these people because it's a tax on what they spend, not what they earn. So, if David Rockefeller, Jr. buys a $4M house in the Hamptons, he's going to pay about $1M in taxes under the FairTax plan. Under our current income tax?  $0? He has very little income.

Of course, wealth envy is denied later on:

Question: Should the spoiled, pampered offspring of a self-made man be allowed to get his parent's money and property, totally tax free without ever working for it or earning it just because he was ripped out of the right crotch at birth? (and maybe even run for president some day?)
Answer: Hell NO.

That question and answer speak for themselves on the wealth envy topic, I believe. It's also untrue. See my example on David Rockefeller, Jr., above. But, they had to bring it up, because their preferred tax plan imposes a heavy tax on inheritances. Because that's fair. Their idea of the "American Way" is that everyone has to start out from square one, with no advantages from their parents. I suppose that's fine unless you're a parent trying to give advantages to your children.

Here's an interesting excerpt.

It's a fact that drug dealers, prostitutes, and other assorted criminal types do a lot of cash-based transactions, but contrary to popular belief, this does not take place in a vacuum. When a criminal eats at McDonalds he still pay sales taxes. When a gang-banger wants some new bling or the latest shoes he pays taxes. When a prostitute rents an apartment she pays a portion of the property taxes. Is this going to change under the fair tax? No.

I guess this is meant to be a criticism of the FairTax, but I don't see how. This IS one of the merits of the FairTax. The criminal does already pay the sales tax at McDonald's. This is why the FairTax works. Since all revenue comes from sales, and not non-taxable income, it's all taxable. So, the criminals pay taxes, the "idle rich" pay taxes, international tourists pay taxes, and even illegal immigrants pay taxes. The taxable base is much larger under the FairTax plan.

Next comes one of the standard whines about the FairTax. It doesn't balance the budget and it doesn't reduce spending.

Ok, that's true.

So?

No, I mean that, really.

So?

Not that those aren't admirable goals, but should I expect a "tax plan" to do that? No, that would be a "government reform" plan. You want to talk about that? I'm all ears, and will gladly jump in and join the discussion, but let's not be foolish enough to confuse two entirely different issues.

The link to next page, entitled "The FairTax Effect" has a nice picture of a nuclear warhead exploding. This is to represent the fallout of the FairTax plan, I guess.

They have two interesting sections. The first is "What You Lose Under the FairTax":

    1. The Home Mortgage tax deduction - no more deduction your mortgage interest - no incentive to buy a house.
    2. The Per-Child tax deduction for dependants - no more help for large families.
    3. The deduction for State and Local taxes - tack on the taxes.
    4. The College Tuition tax deduction - sorry kids.
    5. Roth IRA - will be taxed twice because your money is taxed again when you spend it.
    6. Charitable Contributions deductions - no help for the faithful.
    7. Child Care Credits - no more help for single moms and poor families with kids.
    8. Refinancing Points deduction - no more incentive to refinance.
    9. Health Insurance Premiums deduction - no more help for the sick.

There are varying degrees of truth and varying degrees of idiocy here.

Let's take this one at a time.

  1. Mortgage tax deduction -- Yes, you're right.  There's no income tax deduction on your mortgage payment.  Because you no longer pay income tax.  Of course, you'll be paying your mortgage out of pre-tax dollars (because your income isn't taxed), so why should you care anyway? Also, it's generally believed that the FairTax would cause interest rates to fall dramatically, letting you lower your payment considerably. As for the mortgage payment deduction being the only reason to buy a house, if you really believe that, stop reading now.  You're incapable of logical thought.
  2. Per-Child tax deduction -- Yes,you're right. There's no income tax deduction for your children. Because you no longer pay income tax. The monthly pre-bate however is based upon the size of your family, so while this claim is technically true, the "benefit" remains the same.
  3. Deduction for State and Local Taxes -- Yes, you're right. There's no federal income tax deduction of your state and local taxes. Because you no longer pay income tax. In all likelihood, once the FairTax is adopted at the federal level, your state will follow suit.
  4. College Tuition Tax Deduction -- Yes, you're right. There's no income tax deduction for college tuition. Because you no longer pay income tax. And your tuition is not taxed under the FairTax, so you'll actually save money here.
  5. Savings -- Yes, you're right.  You've already paid taxes on this money and it will be taxed again when you spend it.  Somehow that's different from the way it is now, I take it?  Remember, when you buy gasoline or food or your Nintendo Wii, the corporation doesn't pay taxes! Your price is adjusted so that you pay the tax for them. Nothing changes here. A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
  6. Charitable Contributions -- Uh huh.  You really think people contribute to charities because of the tax deductions? So, I give $1,000 to the United Way so I can deduct $1,000 from my AGI and lower my tax bill by about $300? If you actually are a person that spends $1,000 to save $300, then you're right.  The FairTax is not for you.
  7. Child Care Credits -- Yes, you're right. You no longer get a credit on your income tax for child care. Because you don't pay an income tax. Also, see above, as this is just a repetition of the incorrect statement about the per-child deduction.
  8. Refinancing Points Deduction -- Yes, you're right. You no longer get a refinancing points deduction on your income tax. Because you don't pay an income tax. As for incentive to refinance, I would hope that the lower interest rates would be incentive enough.
  9. Health Insurance Premiums Deduction -- Yes, you're right. You no longer get this deduction on your income tax. Did I mention that you no longer pay an income tax? Of course, doctor's charges to insurance companies are not taxed, only direct charges to you are. This means your premiums will drop.

This isn't that hard to figure out.

Now, for the next section.  "What You Gain Under the FairTax:

    1. New 30 percent tax on every New House or property you buy.
    2. New 30 percent tax on Cars, Boats, Campers, Home Appliances, TV's
    3. New 30 percent tax on Food, Clothing, Shelter, Rent, Electricity, Gas, Phone Service
    4. New 30 percent tax on Medicine, Surgical procedures, Hospital stays, Dental Services
    5. New 30 percent tax on Legal Services, Trial Services, Legal Advice, Legal Winnings and losses.
    6. Double Taxation on Roth IRA's or retirement money you took as a lump sum.
    7. Your consumption is now directly linked to inflation - prices go up - your taxes go up.
    8. Interest on Credit Cards, Loans, and Mortgages now taxed at 30 percent on top of what you owe.
    9. You now have to pay the government for permission to live in America by paying taxes on all you consume.
  • 1-5 are just different ways of saying the same thing. As I've mentioned before, you're paying all of those taxes now. They're embedded in the purchase of everything you buy. #4 is moderately interesting. I pointed out earlier that doctors won't charge insurance companies the FairTax, but this says that you do pay the FairTax for medical expenses.  Ah ha! I've been caught in a lie! No, it's very simple, really, B2B transactions aren't taxed (mostly), but B2C transactions are.
  • Double taxation on savings -- we've looked at this before.
  • Tax is tied to inflation -- This is technically true, but that would cause an increase in overall tax receipts meaning a smaller debt, or even a surplus. This is a bad thing, how?
  • Loan interest taxed -- This is not quite correct. The only part of interest that is taxable is the difference in your interest rate and the prime rate. And, as I said earlier, interest rates should go down, so this should be a wash. This is possibly a valid point. The only one I found on the entire site.
  • Pay taxes to live -- Ok, fine. I have no answer to this. Other than to say that you a) already are, b) don't have to tell the government incredibly personal details about yourself once a year (or four times a year for your small business), and c) you could avoid most of the tax entirely buy purchasing only used goods if you are terribly concerned about this.

The next section has more wealth envy and plants FUD by worrying about what will happen when the FairTax fails. Since it will make the U.S. a business haven, which will grow the economy greatly, that seems unlikely.

The pre-bate section is loaded with bad math. It assumes that everything is going up in price by 30% with no real basis to support such a claim. This quote is also interesting.

If fact, the excuse used in the FairTax Book for not making food tax-free is that it would benefit the wealthy disproportionately. Give us a break. Who do they think they are fooling? You would have to be an uneducated moron to believe that.

Then I'm an uneducated moron. Who spends more on food? The millionaire or the person living at the poverty level? Since poverty level expenses are essentially untaxed due to the prebate, it sure looks like to me that the millionaire is going to pay a lot of taxes on food that would go away if we didn't tax that.

There's a section on salary that's worth addressing. Your salary may be reduced due to the FairTax. It will be reduced to approximately what your current "after-tax" amount is. Your company may elect to do that so it can lower it's prices. Or, your company may not, and your salary may stay the same, giving you a very large raise, in effect. Most likely, it will take a little while for the dust to settle here. That's a legitimate criticism (Note that my criticism here is not exactly the one on the page, which isn't legitimate).

The FairTax plan calls for people to stop paying social security - both the employees and employers share. That's it...just stop paying it. Just take it out of the general fund.

True, but we've been doing that since the Reagan administration. We just pretend we're not by having two different line items on your paycheck.

The rest of the page has already been debunked.

I've never claimed the FairTax was without warts, just that it has fewer warts than anything else I've seen to date.

The rest of the site lists some of the authors preferred alternatives to the FairTax. I haven't investigated these alternatives thoroughly. Some of them may be better than the FairTax. I doubt it, though, because they clearly either don't understand the FairTax, or are deliberately spreading misinformation on it. Either way, it makes it difficult for me to believe any of their other claims.

11 August, 2008

The Candidates and the Twenty-First Amendment

This is the fifteenth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Twenty-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I skipped the Twentieth Amendment since it deals with starting and ending dates for Congressional and Presidential terms as well as dealing with scenarios where no President-elect is able to take office.

As a historical note, had the Supreme Court not "interfered" in 2000, it may have fallen to the House of Representatives to elect a President according to Section 4 of this amendment. Section 4 would also apply if no candidate receives the required majority of electoral votes.

No doubt a Republican controlled House would've elected President George W. Bush (R-USA), so would he still have been "selected, not elected"?

But, I digress.

We all know the Twenty-First Amendment, right? It repealed prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment. And that's settled law, right? No point in bringing it up. Well, it's worth bringing it up even if it's settled for two reasons. It does relate to a civil liberty, and it was the last time supporters of "states rights" can claim any kind of victory against the federal government.

Now to the text:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Another historical note relates to Section 3. This is the only amendment ever ratified by state conventions.

What do we have when we look at the candidates?

Obama apparently has a very large wine cellar. He's also said that he's against lowering the drinking age to 18 from 21. The drinking age matters since the federal government ties funds to states based upon the states support of it, skirting the edge of the amendment.

McCain's wife is chairwoman of the board at the distribution center for Anheuser-Busch. His son Andrew is CFO. And he was once the company's chief publicist.

He's not given an unequivocal answer on his views on the drinking age, but apparently believes that 21 is correct.

Last October, McCain was asked by a student in South Carolina whether he favored lowering the drinking age. He responded that he was "divided on the issue," noting that people can fight for their country at 18 but can't drink legally until 21. Later, McCain told reporters that it was a "tough decision" but that he supported keeping the 21-year drinking age.

That's all I've got. Grades? I'm going to give them each an A-, having dropped them a little bit for not supporting a lowering of the drinking age.

Twenty-first Amendment: No Advantage

Results so far:

Obama McCain
First Amendment* F
D-
Second Amendment D- C-
Third Amendment B B
Fourth Amendment D+ D+
Fifth Amendment D+ B-
Sixth Amendment B B
Seventh Amendment C C
Eighth Amendment C B
Eleventh Amendment B+ B-
Thirteenth Amendment D+ B+
Fourteenth Amendment D+ C+
Fifteenth Amendment B B
Nineteenth Amendment B B
Twenty-First Amendment A- A-

UPDATE: There was a typo relating to Cindy McCain's position at Anheuser-Busch. Corrected.

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.