Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Bill O'Reilly said so, it's settled!

[Todd]

Well, tough noogies, Steve, the amendment specifically says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I see this as good, old-fashioned wedge issue politics.  Scott Walker aside, I doubt the Republicans floating plans to scrap the first section of the 14th Amendment think their ideas will gain traction, and use it more as political red meat to appeal to more rabid and/or dumber members of the base.  (There may be some overlap, of course.)  In the case of the 14th Amendment, the Republican authors were unambiguously clear in their intentions and used very specific language on purpose, so interpretation is not really an issue.  It needs to be changed, or it stands as-is.  It is very easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that will kill any proposed amendment dead - and that's provided any proposed amendment makes it out of Congress, which will never happen.  And both are far more likely than a new Constitutional Convention.  Thank goodness the framers made amending the Constitution a very difficult process.

I also see some benefit to the fits of anti-immigration ridiculousness that routinely arise in the US.  It forces public discussion, allows for a political outlet for frustrations (real or imagined, legitimate or not), and results in some occasional entertainment, like the foolish law passed (and now repealed) in Alabama regarding illegal immigrant labor.

I see that you included the current small-l liberal platitude about this country no longer being the country of rich old white men.  Thing is, it still is.  Demographic projections show a white majority until mid-century, so ideas that the white majority doesn't have influence commensurate with their numbers (or even more so, really) strike me as wishful thinking.  In time that will change.  It will change to be a country of rich men, and some rich women, of all races - at least as far as outsize political influence is concerned.

[Karl Henning]

Washington (CNN)—Donald Trump has won his party's trust on top issues more than any other Republican presidential candidate, and now stands as the clear leader in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

[Ken B]

Please, it's hard enough explaining how it works in the USA. But I have heard that those two countries, along with Austria and Japan, are among the hardest to achieve citizenship.

And here I thought you were arguing problems with immigration was uniquely an American problem. In fact it's a problem with any country anywhere at any time. (I believe even Norway had objections to sudden, uninvited, mass immigration 75 years ago.)

I thought this was interesting.
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/17/floodgates-open-top-democrat-professor-says-ive-never-seen-any-politician-with-better-immigration-plan-than-trump/

QUIZ: Which other candidate sounds most like Trump on immigration?
ANSWER: Bernie Sanders.

[Todd]

Let's play spot the exaggeration.

Conservative icon Ann Coulter and author of new book Adios America has called Trump's policy paper, "The greatest political document since the Magna Carta."

[Karl Henning]

In an understandably specific sense, that is beautiful.

[Ken B]

The exaggeration is calling Ann Coulter a conservative icon.
Actually, that's two exaggerations.

[(poco) Sforzando]

And here I thought you were arguing problems with immigration was uniquely an American problem.

I don't see that I said or even implied anything of the sort.

[Todd]

The exaggeration is calling Ann Coulter a conservative icon.
Actually, that's two exaggerations.

Breitbart is not necessarily noted for quality or accuracy or reasonableness.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I see this as good, old-fashioned wedge issue politics.  Scott Walker aside, I doubt the Republicans floating plans to scrap the first section of the 14th Amendment think their ideas will gain traction, and use it more as political red meat to appeal to more rabid and/or dumber members of the base.  (There may be some overlap, of course.)  In the case of the 14th Amendment, the Republican authors were unambiguously clear in their intentions and used very specific language on purpose, so interpretation is not really an issue.  It needs to be changed, or it stands as-is.  It is very easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that will kill any proposed amendment dead - and that's provided any proposed amendment makes it out of Congress, which will never happen.  And both are far more likely than a new Constitutional Convention.  Thank goodness the framers made amending the Constitution a very difficult process.

I also see some benefit to the fits of anti-immigration ridiculousness that routinely arise in the US.  It forces public discussion, allows for a political outlet for frustrations (real or imagined, legitimate or not), and results in some occasional entertainment, like the foolish law passed (and now repealed) in Alabama regarding illegal immigrant labor.

I see that you included the current small-l liberal platitude about this country no longer being the country of rich old white men.  Thing is, it still is.  Demographic projections show a white majority until mid-century, so ideas that the white majority doesn't have influence commensurate with their numbers (or even more so, really) strike me as wishful thinking.  In time that will change.  It will change to be a country of rich men, and some rich women, of all races - at least as far as outsize political influence is concerned.

The problem is that the Latino population is rapidly growing, and it's counterproductive for Republican candidates to alienate this constituency. And if it's becoming a country of rich men and/or rich women, they are a small minority whose outsize gains are leaving behind the rest of the population, and I don't see anyone but Sanders who understands the issue.

[Todd]

The problem is that the Latino population is rapidly growing, and it's counterproductive for Republican candidates to alienate this constituency.

You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections.  I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush), and others who have a potentially long future in politics.  The cold, hard truth is that anti-immigration politics still works as a vote getter for a number of reasons.  The rise of the Latino vote is very real in a number of regions of the country, but there are still areas where it is not as politically potent, so the benefits outweigh the costs, politically speaking.

I'm afraid I have to disagree about Sanders' understanding of the impact of, and ways to adequately address, inequality and other economic woes, especially when looking at some of his policy "proposals".  His twelve point plan is boilerplate Progressivism that's (understandably) light on specifics.  Raise the minimum wage?  Well, OK, to what?  And how to address studies that show it doesn't have the beneficial effects that proponents claim?  (Republicans can address the fact that the threatened job losses, undeniably massive, don't materialize.)  Reform trade policy?  OK, to what?  And then there's his take on tax reform.  Base it on people's ability to pay?  That's exactly what the federal income tax does now, and even when tempered by regressive or flat taxes elsewhere in the system (eg, social security), it's still structurally progressive overall.  He should just say that he wants to raise rates on the rich.  That's simple and honest.  Where he really gets it wrong, though, is on corporate taxation.  The US has too high a corporate rate compared to the rest of the advanced world.  There are more than a few economists of liberal persuasion who support lowering the corporate rate in an effort to actually repatriate funds held overseas.  Promises of strong arming companies will not work as advertised.  And real tax reform would address the $700 billion a year in tax expenditures that go to the top quintile.  I don't see Sanders offering specifics there, because it means taking on things like mortgage interest deductions and health care tax expenditures.  (The last will not fly with unions, period.)  Medicare for all is DOA. Breaking up big banks, sure, do that, but that's more of a safety and soundness measure, not an economic growth and job creation measure, and I've yet to see too many politicians come out against infrastructure spending, especially since highway bills are some of the last remaining ways to reel in pork.  Sanders offers superficially nice sounding blurbs that amount to basically nothing.

[(poco) Sforzando]

You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections.  I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush), and others who have a potentially long future in politics.  The cold, hard truth is that anti-immigration politics still works as a vote getter for a number of reasons.  The rise of the Latino vote is very real in a number of regions of the country, but there are still areas where it is not as politically potent, so the benefits outweigh the costs, politically speaking.

I'm afraid I have to disagree about Sanders' understanding of the impact of, and ways to adequately address, inequality and other economic woes, especially when looking at some of his policy "proposals".  His twelve point plan is boilerplate Progressivism that's (understandably) light on specifics.  Raise the minimum wage?  Well, OK, to what?  And how to address studies that show it doesn't have the beneficial effects that proponents claim?  (Republicans can address the fact that the threatened job losses, undeniably massive, don't materialize.)  Reform trade policy?  OK, to what?  And then there's his take on tax reform.  Base it on people's ability to pay?  That's exactly what the federal income tax does now, and even when tempered by regressive or flat taxes elsewhere in the system (eg, social security), it's still structurally progressive overall.  He should just say that he wants to raise rates on the rich.  That's simple and honest.  Where he really gets it wrong, though, is on corporate taxation.  The US has too high a corporate rate compared to the rest of the advanced world.  There are more than a few economists of liberal persuasion who support lowering the corporate rate in an effort to actually repatriate funds held overseas.  Promises of strong arming companies will not work as advertised.  And real tax reform would address the $700 billion a year in tax expenditures that go to the top quintile.  I don't see Sanders offering specifics there, because it means taking on things like mortgage interest deductions and health care tax expenditures.  (The last will not fly with unions, period.)  Medicare for all is DOA. Breaking up big banks, sure, do that, but that's more of a safety and soundness measure, not an economic growth and job creation measure, and I've yet to see too many politicians come out against infrastructure spending, especially since highway bills are some of the last remaining ways to reel in pork.  Sanders offers superficially nice sounding blurbs that amount to basically nothing.

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply. Perhaps you're right in your conclusion, but at least Sanders recognizes the issue though I don't see that his lack of specifics is unique to him. As for corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero. "While Americans have just been subjected to higher taxes, billion-dollar corporations like Facebook, General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo have all been able to avoid paying any corporate income taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice." - http://www.rt.com/usa/facebook-income-tax-year-342/ (2013)

[Karl Henning]

Could be the darkest headline you ever read:

CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump now competitive in general election

And positive impressions of Clinton continue to fade. Among all adults, the new poll finds 44% hold a favorable view of her, 53% an unfavorable one, her most negative favorability rating since March 2001.

[Brian]

You will get no disagreement from me - at least as it pertains to future elections.  I doubt you'd get a lot of disagreement from Republicans like Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (or any other Bush, including likely future star George P Bush),

George P Bush has one thing in common with Jeb. I know a guy who went to law school with GP, who says that he absolutely never mentioned his last name in conversation, and nobody ever addressed him by his last name either. Apparently the word is he's a good decent guy, at least to be in a classroom with.

[Ken B]

As for corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero. "While Americans have just been subjected to higher taxes, billion-dollar corporations like Facebook, General Electric, Boeing and Wells Fargo have all been able to avoid paying any corporate income taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice." - http://www.rt.com/usa/facebook-income-tax-year-342/ (2013)

Corporate taxes SHOULD be 0. For one thing, they are regressive. A lot of not-so-rich own shares after all. Second, they are subject to manipulation, which is why well-connected companies like Facebook can arrange to pay less than their competitors. And most importantly they impede growth and wealth creation.  What should be taxed is either income or consumption. That way rich *people* pay more.

[Todd]

for corporate taxes, well, many of these large corporations pay an effective rate of zero.

Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures.  No one in his or her right political mind will advocate eliminating all "loopholes" (eg, accelerated depreciation), but eliminate many of them, drop the rate to a few percentage points below the tax rate of countries that hold large shares of completely un-ill-gotten corporate gains (ie, the companies are doing what they should), or perhaps parity for those so obsessed with equality that they want it for corporate tax rates, and there would be more funds coming into the US Treasury.  Enough for Sanders?  Probably not.  That doesn't really matter.

(And RT, really?)

What should be taxed is either income or consumption. That way rich *people* pay more.

Not true when it comes to consumption taxes.  Sales taxes and VATs are regressive.  Per the OECD, some European countries have a regressive structure due largely on a reliance on VATs.  The conservative emphasis on consumption taxes is one of the most misleading sales pitches out there. 

[Ken B]

Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures.  No one in his or her right political mind will advocate eliminating all "loopholes" (eg, accelerated depreciation), but eliminate many of them, drop the rate to a few percentage points below the tax rate of countries that hold large shares of completely un-ill-gotten corporate gains (ie, the companies are doing what they should), or perhaps parity for those so obsessed with equality that they want it for corporate tax rates, and there would be more funds coming into the US Treasury.  Enough for Sanders?  Probably not.  That doesn't really matter.

(And RT, really?)




Not true when it comes to consumption taxes.  Sales taxes and VATs are regressive.  Per the OECD, some European countries have a regressive structure due largely on a reliance on VATs.  The conservative emphasis on consumption taxes is one of the most misleading sales pitches out there.

A VAT is not the same thing as a consumption tax. And you cite examples which are not progressive and claim therefore no such tax can be progressive. (Wellington's Victory is lousy, so the Eroica must be lousy.)

UPDATE. I guess it's worth a link to show that
1) progressive consumption taxes are quite possible logically
2) they are not just a conservative "sales pitch" since there are quite left-wing advocates
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/inequality_and_executive_pay
and 3) they have broad support amongst more than just right or left wing ideologues
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/18/bill-gates-points-to-the-best-tax-system-the-progressive-consumption-tax/

I am not interested in debating the merits of such taxes. I am just pointing out uninformed BS in a comment here.

[Todd]

I am not interested in debating the merits of such taxes. I am just pointing out uninformed BS in a comment here.

A humorous riposte from a person who misused the word "monopoly" when attempting to describe single payer insurance.  (That's a monopsony.)

You purposely misread and misrepresent what I wrote.  I wrote sales taxes and VATs are regressive.  Why would I do that?  Well, it's because I live in the real world of practical policy, and I see the difference between what is touted as theoretically possible and how things may, in fact, work.  (The third and fourth paragraphs briefly describe the practical concerns; the rest of the article describes pro-consumption tax ideas and alternatives, including unlimited IRAs.)  Your hastily put together mini-list of cherry picked articles of dubious value - eg, something referencing Bill Gates - does not convince, nor does it mask the primary goal of many or most conservatives in advocating a switch to, or increased reliance on, consumption taxes.  Now maybe you, specifically, believe that it is the fairest, most equitable, most efficient way to raise revenue.  I'll assume that's the case.  But most discussions I had while in college, and most articles - scholarly and popular - that I've read since, have offered it as a more efficient way to tax while allowing for a decrease in, or elimination of, capital gains taxes.  I get it, more investment is more better, and hence the attractiveness of the Economist article ("If a progressive consumption tax were phased in gradually, its main effect would be to shift spending from consumption to investment, causing productivity and incomes to rise faster"), which I read when it was published.  This would be far more convincing if lack of private sector investment was one of the main problems faced by the US economy.  Consumption taxes, including the items I mentioned and others, are regressive in practice.  They can be part of the mix.  They should be.  They should not become the primary method of raising revenue.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Correct, and part of the cause is the combination of high rates paired with innumerable tax expenditures.

But thanks to a controversial loophole in US tax code, 12 tech companies—including Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin—are poised to avoid paying income taxes on their next $11.4 billion in earnings, netting the companies a collective savings of $4 billion, according to a report put out this week by the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).

The way the law stands now, US companies get big tax deductions when they pay their employees in stock options. For example, if an executive is given the option to buy a million shares of a company at five cents a share and later cashes those options in when they're selling for $20 a share, the company can deduct the price difference in tax breaks, even though they never actually paid that higher salary. This is especially profitable to emerging industries, like tech, where companies give stock options to young executives when they're still coding out of their parents' basements. These tech employees have an incentive to stay with the company over the long-term, and then cash in once the company is profitable. That means that companies get to store these tax breaks until—ta-da!—they're not paying income taxes for years.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/report-facebook-twitter-taxes

I don't see any tax expenditures here. And what is "RT, really," please?

[Todd]

I don't see any tax expenditures here. And what is "RT, really," please?

A tax deduction is a tax expenditure.  From the Joint Committee on Taxation:

"Tax expenditures are defined under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (the "Budget Act") as "revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability." Thus, tax expenditures include any reductions in income tax liabilities that result from special tax provisions or regulations that provide tax benefits to particular taxpayers."


RT.com is a sometime questionable source of information.