The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 by Charles Krauthammer

[HowardCohodas]

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010 by Charles Krauthammer (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/02/05/the_great_peasant_revolt_of_2010)

WASHINGTON -- "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

[akv]

I don't watch Saturday Night Live, but a friend sent me their Obama skits the past few months. They are roasting him for doing nothing, and increasing spending. Obama is no leader and his gaffes are annoying and at times dangerous, but fortunately it appears he doesnt have the stones too actually follow through on anything one way or the other. The irony seems the Dims are even more frustrated with him then the Right. With an overwhelming majority, his hubris, ideology, and elitism seem to be funneling votes away from the Dims, and they will turn on him too if this continues. For someone reputed to be a gifted orator, he offends all sorts of people.

The SNL Obama China skit had me laughing out loud.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/china-cold-open/1178451/

[Team Sergeant]

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

I have never been able to understand how democrats (socialists) think especially when they vote "murders-criminals" such as ted kennedy into office or someone as delusional as nancy pelosi.
Do they understand what's on the line with the defeat in Mass. I doubt it.

TS

[HowardCohodas]

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

I have never been able to understand how democrats (socialists) think especially when they vote "murders-criminals" such as ted kennedy into office or someone as delusional as nancy pelosi.
Do they understand what's on the line with the defeat in Mass. I doubt it.

TS

Search Dr. Krauthammer's archives (http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/). His degree in psychiatry has permitted him to speak eloquently and knowledgeably to that point.

[Peregrino]

I, for one, hope the democrats continue on their present course. It's going to require a lot more discontent before anything meaningful happens to change the status quo.

[The Reaper]

I, for one, hope the democrats continue on their present course. It's going to require a lot more discontent before anything meaningful happens to change the status quo.

Concur.

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.

TR

[bandycpa]

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

TR

TR,

Do you think that letting the tax breaks from 2001 expire at the end of 2010 as they are scheduled to is a step in the right direction?


Bandy

[HowardCohodas]

Concur.

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.

In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.

TR

I hope by raise taxes you mean increase tax revenues not increase tax rates.

Increased tax revenues comes from increasing the number of tax payers. The best way to increase the number of tax payers is to make the place as attractive as possible for tax payers. Increasing tax rates does nothing to attract tax payers. There are many examples where it drives away tax payers. Increasing the number of people removed from the tax rolls does nothing to attract tax payers. It certainly attracts non-tax payers, if that's your goal. More tax revenue is the only way to fund the noble causes favored by the liberals posting here.

Thank you for giving me a chance to ride one of my favorite hobby horses.

BTW, Stewart Varney, on his morning FOXBUSINESS show, read part of this on his show a few days ago when I submitted it via email.

[bandycpa]

Increased tax revenues comes from increasing the number of tax payers. The best way to increase the number of tax payers is to make the place as attractive as possible for tax payers. Increasing tax rates does nothing to attract tax payers. There are many examples where it drives away tax payers. Increasing the number of people removed from the tax rolls does nothing to attract tax payers. It certainly attracts non-tax payers, if that's your goal. More tax revenue is the only way to fund the noble causes favored by the liberals posting here.



It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit. The average tax rate hovers around 12% which is still pretty far left on the Laffer Curve. People will still go to work and earn income if the rates go back to where they were in 2000.

In fact, total income tax stayed below the year 2000 levels from 2001-2006 http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (see Table 4). In these cases, lower tax rates didn't increase income taxes for several years. I believe that the only reason total income taxes has increased above year 2000 levels in the past few years is simply that we have more taxpayers now.

Please understand, I'm all for lower taxes. There comes a point though when the services we pay for are worth more than the price we are paying. The price has to be commensurate with the service we get. Deficits occur when we pay a subpar price, and the services have to be paid for at full price. One way or another, we are going to foot the bill...either through slightly higher taxes, or being saddled with a growing deficit that will hinder us economically for decades to come.

We have to generate the money somehow. And increasing tax rates slightly, in my opinion, would be a step in the right direction.


Bandy

[HowardCohodas]

It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit. The average tax rate hovers around 12% which is still pretty far left on the Laffer Curve. People will still go to work and earn income if the rates go back to where they were in 2000.


I am a great admirer of Laffer. In my view, most who refer to his curve do not understand what it is really communicating.

I tried to put together "a discussion of mechanisms that people would understand" to evoke an appreciation of what is behind that famous curve.

It's back to the drawing board for me as it appears I have failed horribly. :(

[Surf n Turf]

It may take a raise in tax rates (along with trimming expenses) to start eliminating the deficit.

bandycpa,
Sort of like Illegal Immigration --- I want the Borders sealed BEFORE we discuss “comprehensive immigration reform”. When the Congress (either Party) has significantly cut spending, then come talk to me about raising tax rates.

Deficits occur when we pay a subpar price, and the services have to be paid for at full price

Don’t understand – please clarify

One way or another, we are going to foot the bill...either through slightly higher taxes, or being saddled with a growing deficit that will hinder us economically for decades to come.
We have to generate the money somehow. And increasing tax rates slightly, in my opinion, would be a step in the right direction.

First, see above.
Second – define Slightly
Third – which direction – to the left

Until we are sufficiently desperate to put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, prepared to cut benefits and raise taxes, we are not serious about fixing the problem.
In an ideal world, we need to let the Dims remain in power, barely, till the people decide that it is time for drastic measures.
TR

TR,
WADR, these are the same people who elected this commissar into office.
Again, Show me the reduction in spending (benefits, programs, etc.), then talk about raising taxes.
To your last point – The 2010 elections should put the “Dims” in that position. :)
But don’t count on “the people” deciding to fix the mess – between welfare queens, triple dippers, and greedy geezers – “you ain’t going to take our program away".

SnT

[craigepo]

IMHO, the problem inherent with the Laffer curve is that it presumes that we wish to maximize tax revenue. Why the hell would we want to do that? I am very underwhelmed with D.C.'s history thus far of spending tax money. I see no reason to take more money out of the people's wallets to send to DC for them to waste on their pet projects.

That said, I do understand the idea behind the Laffer curve, and the conservative idea that we will increase our tax revenue by decreasing tax rates---I agree with the principle. However, we have a lot of people who are so low on the tax rate scale that they don't "have any skin in the game", which I believe is a problem(disclosure---I think that you should also have some skin in the game to get to vote, but I will save that rant for a different thread).

[Mitch]

Here is what I want

I want our schools to continue to offer band and orchestra like they did 30 years ago. I want our Libraries to be reopened and the ones that are open, have better hours and better books.

I want our state and federal parks to be free like they were 30 years ago.

I want our roads fixed as they need it, not wait for 10 years then patch em.

I want our freeways to remain free - not turn them in to toll roads (Thank you Gov Perry).

I want my grand children to be able to go to college - as it stands now, they will not be able to afford it.

I want an ambulance ride to the hospital, due to an emergency to be free, like it was 30 years ago - now, it can cost you $300 if you are a resident and $1000 if you live in the next county.

And finally, I want all of the above and I want my proportional taxes, needed to pay for all that to be no more than they were 30 years ago.


I guess I want a miracle
.

[HowardCohodas]

<snip>I guess I want a miracle
.

Any yet...

Texas is one of the states that is in the best financial shape. Why do you suppose that is?

Texas is one of the states that is benefiting from the insanity that is prototypically California. Hmmm. Taxpayers leaving California and California-like states and moving to Texas. Sounds like a plan to me. Not perfect, mind you, but what in life is perfect?

[HowardCohodas]

IMHO, the problem inherent with the Laffer curve is that it presumes that we wish to maximize tax revenue. Why the hell would we want to do that? I am very underwhelmed with D.C.'s history thus far of spending tax money. I see no reason to take more money out of the people's wallets to send to DC for them to waste on their pet projects.

That said, I do understand the idea behind the Laffer curve, and the conservative idea that we will increase our tax revenue by decreasing tax rates---I agree with the principle. However, we have a lot of people who are so low on the tax rate scale that they don't "have any skin in the game", which I believe is a problem(disclosure---I think that you should also have some skin in the game to get to vote, but I will save that rant for a different thread).

The Laffer curve illustrates only one dimension in a multi-dimensional tax rate vs. tax revenue world. Even if you limit yourself to this one dimension, suggesting that it presumes the desire to maximize revenue is still limited. I would suggest that it shows you how to raise enough revenue. Enough revenue is determined by political means.

Having skin in the game is a brilliant insight and is precisely what is wrong with continually removing people from the tax rolls. Both parties do it. It makes for great vote getting and for poor citizenship. Of course, in days gone by, one had to have "skin in the game," in order to vote by owning land. That idea, good or bad as you see it, is long past.

[bandycpa]

SnT,

What I mean is that, by demanding taxes to be lower and lower, we eventually are "purchasing" government services (infrastructure creation and maintenance, education, military and law enforcement, etc) at a price far below their worth. If a product or service is worth a definite price, and people refuse to pay that price, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere. In the government's case, we make up that shortfall by creating deficits.

I agree whole-heartedly that government spending must be curtailed. But, that alone won't do the entire job. I feel that we are far enough left on the Laffer Curve that an increase in tax rates (even back to Year 2000 levels) will increase tax revenue rather than decrease it. As Craigepo said, many don't have "skin in the game", but would if the tax rates were increased or the tax brackets were adjusted to include taxpayers with lower taxable income (in a lot of cases, it would simply meaning receiving less of a refund due to earned income credit or child tax credit).

If my utility bill is $400 / month (and, with AEP going wild on price increases, it's been a whopper lately), and I feel it's my right to only pay $200 / month, then I will still owe $200 on my bill. In the short-term, I'm stuck with the shortfall, and have to make up that shortfall in order to eliminate my debt, and more importantly, keep my lights on. In the long-term, however, AEP needs to become more affordable by either improving their product technology or simply trimming the fat in their organization so their prices (hopefully) will come down.

So, in my opinion, to clean up our current mess, we have to raise more tax revenue in the short-term. The government has to concurrently do its part by reducing it's spending as well.



Howard,

Texas has no income tax rate, but it does have a maximum sales tax rate of 8.25%. Could it be that they are helped out by the fact that more people pay taxes through sales tax than they would if they paid a state income tax?



Bandy

[HowardCohodas]

Howard,

Texas has no income tax rate, but it does have a maximum sales tax rate of 8.25%. Could it be that they are helped out by the fact that more people pay taxes through sales tax than they would if they paid a state income tax?

Bandy

And you find this problematic because... ?

Actually, Texas state government has other sources of revenue as well.

One of the things about California that particularly infuriates me is that they spend themselves into a position of being in default without taking money from the rest of us through Federal subsidies. And they do this while refusing to sell assets to willing buyers. And refusing to permit drilling and refining of petroleum products for which the would receive billions in fees and licenses let alone taxes from operations.

What's with that!?! :mad:

[Dad]

Texas does well because we have oil, plenty of cheap land and plenty of cheap labor. We also have a government that never met a lobbyist it didn't like. Texas is strong in spite of our government.

When I ask oil men why they don't build more refineries they say because they aren't f@#$$ing stupid. They are retrofitting but no intention of building more.

[bandycpa]

And you find this problematic because... ?

Actually, Texas state government has other sources of revenue as well.



No problem at all. I'm only making the point that revenue is being raised, and it's being raised via some form of tax. Why wouldn't the same idea of raising revenue (as one piece of the puzzle) hold true for us as a nation to help us get out of debt.


Dad,

Had never heard it put that way before. That makes a lot of sense. Pete Blaber was right, "always listen to the guy on the ground". :)


Bandy

[HowardCohodas]

"It hurts the Earth" as the greenies would say:rolleyes:

That's fine with me. Just don't ask for my taxed dollars to pay for their religion.

Don't most liberals rail against government supported religion? :munchin

[TrapLine]

When the Congress (either Party) has significantly cut spending, then come talk to me about raising tax rates.SnT

I am pretty simple and probably out of my league here, but I have to agree with SnT. A chart of federal spending growth tells me that the rate of spending is growing beyond the rate of incoming revenue at a rate that can not be made up. It seems raising my taxes will do little to help the situation if spending is not slashed. The estimated revenue for 2009 will be 2.19 trillion with spending at about 3.94 trillion. Until those in D.C. are forced to make those numbers match I see no fix. I am not asking to pay a discounted rate for services; I would like a somewhat honest return on my "investment." As long as the government is able to spend millions flying the speaker and her family around while spending hundreds of thousands on booze and food, please do not ask for more from me.

My .02 worth.

[Sigaba]

One reason Texas land is cheap (or California land so expensive) is they do not have such crazy zoning laws like Cali (done in the name of environmentalism)..California zoning laws are not "done in the name of environmentalism."

If one were to spend time helping developers and land owners to navigate the process for getting building plans approved, one would soon find that economic, commercial, political (especially at the municipal level), bureaucratic, social, and cultural concerns drive zoning laws in California.

If environmentalism drove zoning laws:
requirements for building materials would be more stringent,
off-street parking requirements would be significantly reduced,
public transportation would receive more funding,
on-street parking spaces would be rare,
public spaces (as in parks) would be more abundant,
transportation demand management programs would have more incentives,
"sprawl" would be less widespread,
there would be fewer brownfields.

[Penn]

Sigaba, I want to thank whatever gene pool door you processed through, that it substituted encyclopedic recall in place of pitching skills, and meeting here you, no doubt you would have pitched for phuckin Boston....

[Sigaba]

Sigaba, I want to thank whatever gene pool door you processed through, that it substituted encyclopedic recall in place of pitching skills, and meeting here you, no doubt you would have pitched for phuckin Boston....Chef, now there's a nightmarish thought--I could throw in the Show:cool: but only for the Red Sox...:((although I forget the exact source)Broadsword2004--

There are a number of urban planners, professional associations, environmental engineers, architects, architectural engineers, traffic engineers, structural engineers, project managers, analysts, and consultants who wish your broad assessment of zoning and building codes in the Golden State were correct--because many of them would still have jobs.
Mmm...don't know if I agree with that. I understand your opinion, but I don't think that means the zoning laws have nothing to do with environmentalism. I do not think you understand my opinion. So let me be clear. Your argument is that "California's very restrictive zoning laws" are "done in the name of environmentalism." My argument is that such is not the case.

From my experiences that include:
the professional training I've received,
the contracts I have written and negotiated,
the data I've collected,
the reports I've written,
the presentations I've delivered,
the projects I have managed,
the conversations I have had with clients, stakeholders, and government officials, and
the research I have done (and I've got a several hundred sources--Google is a wonderful thing);
I have learned the following--
in California, zoning and building codes are established by municipal officials, not state officials;
these codes are generally borrowed from neighboring municipalities (regardless of their relevance);
economic and political concerns trump all others; and
variances and conditional use permits are often granted if certain aspects of building plans are altered or adjusted.
In regards to point #3, I have direct experience in projects where municipalities with extraordinarily restrictive zoning codes refused to approve plans or grant permits or variances until technical, political, social, and cultural concerns were addressed. During my numerous conversations with my clients, environmental issues were not mentioned although they well could have been used to delay/derail the projects entirely.
Remember, this is a state that was considering:
1) Banning SUVs
2) Banning the sale of flat-screen televisions
3) Centralize control over people's central air conditioning systemsWhat do any of these three examples have to do with zoning? You are changing your argument to say that environmentalism is important in California. Your initial argument was that California zoning laws are done in the name of environmentalism.

As for the L.A. freeway system. The 105, the 118, and ongoing expansion of the 405 between the 101 and the 10, and the California DMV's cessation of the clean air/HOV sticker program all call into question the influence of environmentalists.

[Sigaba]

No, not changing the argument, what I meant was in California, environmental considerations are a big thing, so it would not be surprising that they spill over into things such as zoning laws as well.A suggestion.

When you are developing your knowledge of a group, try to look at individual trees, groups of trees, and the whole forest simultaneously. Sometimes, putting a label on a group such as "environmentalists," "conservatives," or "hardliners" can get in the way of understanding the groups and their constituent members in their own terms.

Sometimes, "they" are not "they" but "those two guys, that guy over there, and that woman across the hall." (If you decide to intensify your study of the Cold War, this point will come increasingly evident.0From what I understand, when they wanted to build more freeway to handle the additional traffic in LA, the environmental groups worked very hard to put a stop to this and succeeded a good degree, which is why there is so much gridlock on the LA freeway system each day.The Institute of Transportation Research at the University of California at Berkeley has about 1,400 documents in its digital archive. While I am not intimately familiar with all of these publications, many of these studies indicate that the problem is not just about freeways. Some urban planners believe that if the number of cars on the road were reduced by just 5%, freeway traffic would ease greatly.

In any case, while environmentalists would like us to believe that they can influence transportation policy, my take is that policy is driven more by the old political standby: NIMBY. YMMV.

[Dad]

Harris County Texas has NO zoning laws. If you think that is so wonderful think again. Our politicians are just as corrupt and idiotic as anyones. It boils down to the fact that the PEOPLE hold them accountable every now and then. The 08 elections were a blood bath for Republicans in Harris Couty. They deserved it. If Perry had been in a two person race last time he ran we would very possibly have a Democratic governor. California? BBBPPPPPTTTTTTT

[Sigaba]

Harris County Texas has NO zoning laws. If you think that is so wonderful think again. Our politicians are just as corrupt and idiotic as anyones. It boils down to the fact that the PEOPLE hold them accountable every now and then. The 08 elections were a blood bath for Republicans in Harris Couty. They deserved it. If Perry had been in a two person race last time he ran we would very possibly have a Democratic governor. California? BBBPPPPPTTTTTTTFWIW, the most restrictive zoning laws in terms of the environment I encountered were in Austin, Texas.:confused:

A client told me that it ended up costing in the low/mid figures by the time his company was done moving one damn tree.:eek: And it still died.:(

[Pete]

Zoning is to protect neighborhoods and allow for ordered growth while protecting sensitive areas.

Around here it is very political with the NIMBY crowd swinging a bit stick. Politicians at the city and county level flip back and forth on spot zoning issues depending on who's greasing their palm. The problem is the vast majority of voters pay no attention to this and come voting time "Zoning? What zoning."

Ever drive up to Cary, NC and try and find a small store you've never been to before? Without a GPS? The locals are very happy with their knee high signs. Hard to see if you're dodging traffic and peeking around shrubs though.

[HowardCohodas]

It is an old rule of politics. When your opponent is in the process of destroying himself, don't get in his way.

[Dad]

Austin--a little bit of California nestled at the foot of the Hill Country.

[Utah Bob]

Austin--a little bit of California nestled at the foot of the Hill Country.

Whereas Boulder is a Lot of California nestled in the Rockies.:D