The Statesman has an article about Rex Rammell and his apparent effort to improve his political position by courting fellow members of the LDS church. The church has been trying to maintain its distance from this effort.
Rammell has focused on a couple of quotes of obscure origin that say, essentially, some day the US Constitution will be in big trouble and elders of the church will have to step in and save it.
I don't know much about that, but it's interesting to me because it depends on "Elders." I get 19 year old kids in white shirts and suits occasionally knocking on my door to talk to me about Mormonism, and every one has a name tag identifying him as "Elder Smith," or whoever. I just find the idea of a 19 year old "Elder" to be a bit amusing.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tax fairness
With many Republicans trying to exploit our budget woes to cut taxes and shrink government even further, I’d like to propose a novel idea; tax fairness. Our taxes fall pretty heavily on the middle class and those lower on the economic scale, so the first thing I’d do is make the taxes a bit more progressive. If we lower taxes, lower it for middle and lower income folks. The wealthy don’t need them lowered (and no, trickle down doesn’t work).
But what I really mean is let’s stop giving certain groups favored status; repeal all sales tax exemptions, extend the tax to services, and lower the overall tax. I know the sales tax is regressive, but I’m hoping this plan would spread out the taxes and lower income folks would end up paying less overall.
Of course, the former will never happen. I do have another idea (that won’t happen) that I’d like to toss out for consideration. It has an advantage of raising revenue in, I think, a very fair way, and the further advantage of addressing a big and growing problem in the state.
First off, consider what our Republican friends have been using as a reason that Idaho should lower it’s taxes; Washington, Nevada and Wyoming all have no income tax. Well, WA has a high sales tax, NV has gambling, and WY has oil and extraction taxes. Idaho won’t allow gambling nor rise the sales tax, but we can get some extraction taxes.
I propose a tax on one of our most precious resources; water. Pure and simple, a really tiny tax on each gallon of water consumed that EVERYBODY pays. Those folks making the most money off water, like farmers and industry, would pay the most. Folks like me and you who just drink it and wash with it would pay some, but not a lot.
The reason this is a good idea is that it will spur water conservation, which Idaho desperately needs in some years. Also, it is in the nature of a user fee, which do seem to be favored.
Even with all the talk of “it’s not a good idea to raise taxes in a recession,” the State Board of Education has just allowed higher education to raise tuition over 10%. They haven’t done it, yet, but if they do that is in effect a user tax. I’ve got two kids in Idaho colleges, so I could end up paying about $1,000 more per year. That’s one hell of a tax increase.
I doubt the wisdom of making it harder to educate our work force. I prefer investment in human capital. Taxing water and using the revenue to keep tuition low and award scholarships would give Idaho the educated work force necessary to grow, and would go a long way toward solving our perennial water shortages. A win-win. The losers are the folks who have been getting a free ride on water since, forever.
But what I really mean is let’s stop giving certain groups favored status; repeal all sales tax exemptions, extend the tax to services, and lower the overall tax. I know the sales tax is regressive, but I’m hoping this plan would spread out the taxes and lower income folks would end up paying less overall.
Of course, the former will never happen. I do have another idea (that won’t happen) that I’d like to toss out for consideration. It has an advantage of raising revenue in, I think, a very fair way, and the further advantage of addressing a big and growing problem in the state.
First off, consider what our Republican friends have been using as a reason that Idaho should lower it’s taxes; Washington, Nevada and Wyoming all have no income tax. Well, WA has a high sales tax, NV has gambling, and WY has oil and extraction taxes. Idaho won’t allow gambling nor rise the sales tax, but we can get some extraction taxes.
I propose a tax on one of our most precious resources; water. Pure and simple, a really tiny tax on each gallon of water consumed that EVERYBODY pays. Those folks making the most money off water, like farmers and industry, would pay the most. Folks like me and you who just drink it and wash with it would pay some, but not a lot.
The reason this is a good idea is that it will spur water conservation, which Idaho desperately needs in some years. Also, it is in the nature of a user fee, which do seem to be favored.
Even with all the talk of “it’s not a good idea to raise taxes in a recession,” the State Board of Education has just allowed higher education to raise tuition over 10%. They haven’t done it, yet, but if they do that is in effect a user tax. I’ve got two kids in Idaho colleges, so I could end up paying about $1,000 more per year. That’s one hell of a tax increase.
I doubt the wisdom of making it harder to educate our work force. I prefer investment in human capital. Taxing water and using the revenue to keep tuition low and award scholarships would give Idaho the educated work force necessary to grow, and would go a long way toward solving our perennial water shortages. A win-win. The losers are the folks who have been getting a free ride on water since, forever.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Marvelous Marv's marvy plan
Listening to KBSX today I heard Rep Marv Hagedorn talking about taxes, and his brilliant plan to lower state income tax by 3% and thereby stimulate the economy and increase overall state revenue. As Humungous said in The Road Warrior, “What a puny plan.”
Hagedorn explained it like this. State lowers income tax by 3%, residents have 3% more money and they’ll spend it, maybe going out to dinner or on their families or whatever, and the state will rake in sales tax revenue from all the spending. Really. That’s how he explained it.
I used to think Hagedorn was fairly smart, but he’s disappointed me with this bit of deep thinking. Let’s look at an example. Person making $50,000. 3% of $50k is $1,500. So after Hagedorn’s tax cuts, this person has $1,500 more to spend.
Assuming that none of it is saved, that the entire $1,500 is spent in Idaho, the 6% sales tax on it would be $90. So, state gives up $1,500 in revenue, gets $90 back.
“I do not think your plan will do what you think it does.”
Also, most of that $1,500 is promptly headed out of state. Where’s that family likely to go to dinner? Applebees, maybe? A national chain. Bye bye in state money. Or, maybe Wal-Mart? Some will be spent locally. Marv would say, I guess, that with all the increased business the stores will hire more employees and raise employment. I suppose some of that will happen, but, how many more checkers will it take at Target if sales go up by 3%? Will they hire more checkers, or will the ones they have just be busier? I just don’t think the state will get its full $1,500 back, much less $1,800 or $2,000.
Hagedorn also said “it’s been proven time and time again” that cutting taxes increases state revenue. No, sorry Marv, just the opposite. You’re offering up supply side economics, just like Reagan and George Bush, and both those guys managed to massively increase the federal deficit without growing the economy. I mean, just look around. Look at the recession we’re in. Bush aggressively cut taxes, and the economy certainly didn’t take off.
Also, how is it possible that when the economy is humming and government revenue is quite high, as in 1999 – 2000, the proper thing to do is cut taxes, yet when the economy is in a recession, as now, the proper thing is to cut taxes?
Hagedorn explained it like this. State lowers income tax by 3%, residents have 3% more money and they’ll spend it, maybe going out to dinner or on their families or whatever, and the state will rake in sales tax revenue from all the spending. Really. That’s how he explained it.
I used to think Hagedorn was fairly smart, but he’s disappointed me with this bit of deep thinking. Let’s look at an example. Person making $50,000. 3% of $50k is $1,500. So after Hagedorn’s tax cuts, this person has $1,500 more to spend.
Assuming that none of it is saved, that the entire $1,500 is spent in Idaho, the 6% sales tax on it would be $90. So, state gives up $1,500 in revenue, gets $90 back.
“I do not think your plan will do what you think it does.”
Also, most of that $1,500 is promptly headed out of state. Where’s that family likely to go to dinner? Applebees, maybe? A national chain. Bye bye in state money. Or, maybe Wal-Mart? Some will be spent locally. Marv would say, I guess, that with all the increased business the stores will hire more employees and raise employment. I suppose some of that will happen, but, how many more checkers will it take at Target if sales go up by 3%? Will they hire more checkers, or will the ones they have just be busier? I just don’t think the state will get its full $1,500 back, much less $1,800 or $2,000.
Hagedorn also said “it’s been proven time and time again” that cutting taxes increases state revenue. No, sorry Marv, just the opposite. You’re offering up supply side economics, just like Reagan and George Bush, and both those guys managed to massively increase the federal deficit without growing the economy. I mean, just look around. Look at the recession we’re in. Bush aggressively cut taxes, and the economy certainly didn’t take off.
Also, how is it possible that when the economy is humming and government revenue is quite high, as in 1999 – 2000, the proper thing to do is cut taxes, yet when the economy is in a recession, as now, the proper thing is to cut taxes?
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
BCS = BS
I know, not original, but at least it’s heart felt.
“Strength of schedule” is used to diss the BSU Broncos, and to justify a lower rating than their on-field performance would seem to justify. You know, two unbeaten regular seasons in a row, and they still can’t get a full BCS slot (they’ve got an “at large” spot that reduces the amount of money they’ll get, as compared to the other schools). Here’s why strength of schedule should not be used to assess the Broncos (or any other team, for that matter).
First, it’s not a legitimate means of assessment because the Broncos can’t do anything about it. They’re in the conference they’re in, and have to play those opponents. Assessing the Broncos by looking at the other teams is a bit like judging my job performance, or setting my pay, by saying my co-workers are slugs. I can’t affect their performance. It’s also a bit of an ism (racism, ageism, sexism, etc). It’s discrimination based on something the Broncos did not choose and cannot do anything about. (Well, at one point they may have chosen to join the WAC, but it was a constrained choice. It’s not like they can just join the PAC 10 any time they want.)
Also, strength of schedule is misleading. Just because the Broncos play some weak team does not necessarily mean they are not the best team in football. Evidence of a defendant’s prior robbery is inadmissible to prove he did this robbery. Just because he did a prior robbery doesn’t mean he did this one. Likewise, just because the Broncos play some weak teams doesn’t necessarily mean they are a weaker team.
“Strength of schedule” is used to diss the BSU Broncos, and to justify a lower rating than their on-field performance would seem to justify. You know, two unbeaten regular seasons in a row, and they still can’t get a full BCS slot (they’ve got an “at large” spot that reduces the amount of money they’ll get, as compared to the other schools). Here’s why strength of schedule should not be used to assess the Broncos (or any other team, for that matter).
First, it’s not a legitimate means of assessment because the Broncos can’t do anything about it. They’re in the conference they’re in, and have to play those opponents. Assessing the Broncos by looking at the other teams is a bit like judging my job performance, or setting my pay, by saying my co-workers are slugs. I can’t affect their performance. It’s also a bit of an ism (racism, ageism, sexism, etc). It’s discrimination based on something the Broncos did not choose and cannot do anything about. (Well, at one point they may have chosen to join the WAC, but it was a constrained choice. It’s not like they can just join the PAC 10 any time they want.)
Also, strength of schedule is misleading. Just because the Broncos play some weak team does not necessarily mean they are not the best team in football. Evidence of a defendant’s prior robbery is inadmissible to prove he did this robbery. Just because he did a prior robbery doesn’t mean he did this one. Likewise, just because the Broncos play some weak teams doesn’t necessarily mean they are a weaker team.
Friday, December 04, 2009
George the Dragon Slayer
Tara has a post about George Hansen, recalling his name George the Dragon Slayer. That reminded me that I have a comic book put out by George around 1984. Front and back covers below.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Dress Blues
I was noticing the uniforms worm by the soldiers in attendence at President Obama's speech at West Point. Currently, the Army's equivalent of a suit is the Class A, or Dress Green uniform. It's the one you usually see them wearing when they testify before congress, for example. See below. (Click any image to enlarge.
At West Point for the speech they were all (except the cadets, who have their own uniform and wierd rank) wearing their Dress Blues, stepping it up a notch.
BTW, there is an even dressier uniform, called the Dress Mess uniform.
At West Point for the speech they were all (except the cadets, who have their own uniform and wierd rank) wearing their Dress Blues, stepping it up a notch.
BTW, there is an even dressier uniform, called the Dress Mess uniform.
Who's sorry now? Senator Malepeai
Unfortunately, Democratic State Senator Edgar Malepeai (Pocatello) was arrested at 1:46 today for DUI.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Unintended consequences
Like New Jersey, Idaho limits the number of liquor licenses in a municipality, based on the population. As Atrios notes, this limit is one reason there are so many chain restaurants.
And of course, profits by chain restaurants go out of state, though admittedly not entirely, depending on the franchise setup. Still, even with a local franchise owner, the owner is sending money to corporate headquarters through franchise fees and mandatory purchasing of franchise inventory. So by limiting liquor licenses, the legislature is shifting money out of the state.
If the legislature is serious about "Buy Idaho," they'll abolish the liquor license limit and allow more local restaurateurs to have a go at it. This will help by lowering up front costs (don't have to cough up $250,000 for a license), and by allowing the restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages, which for some diners is part of the experience they seek when dining out. This should allow for more dining variety, should help grow local business, and should help lower prices at the restaurants because it won't have to pay for an expensive license.
State law dictates that a municipality is entitled to one package store license per 7,500 people and a restaurant or bar consumption license for every 3,000 residents.One consequence of having more chain restaurants is that there are fewer local ones. There are only so many dining out dollars to go around, obviously, and each dollar that goes to a chain is one that does not go to a local restaurant.
Faced with the tight population quotas, national chains like Applebee’s used larger wallets to win auctions or buy inactive licenses, driving up prices, said Tim Delaney, president of Delaney Restaurant Realty.
And of course, profits by chain restaurants go out of state, though admittedly not entirely, depending on the franchise setup. Still, even with a local franchise owner, the owner is sending money to corporate headquarters through franchise fees and mandatory purchasing of franchise inventory. So by limiting liquor licenses, the legislature is shifting money out of the state.
If the legislature is serious about "Buy Idaho," they'll abolish the liquor license limit and allow more local restaurateurs to have a go at it. This will help by lowering up front costs (don't have to cough up $250,000 for a license), and by allowing the restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages, which for some diners is part of the experience they seek when dining out. This should allow for more dining variety, should help grow local business, and should help lower prices at the restaurants because it won't have to pay for an expensive license.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)