The G-Word, and Why We Should All Just Drop It

Maybe it's short-sighted of me to say this, or maybe it exposes my Americentric viewpoint, but for the love of God, why does 1) Turkey and 2) the United States Congress care so much about this resolution that labels the deaths of a million Armenians in the time of World War I as "genocide"?

1. We'll start with you, Turkey. The alleged genocide happened 90 years ago, so there can't be more than a few hundred Armenian survivors still left, so it's not like there will be altogether too many petitions for reparations, if that is even legal in your system. The resolution is "non-binding", according to CNN.com, even though I don't even know what that means in this context. I guess there will be no sanctions against the Ottoman Empire then. Good news for Mehmed VI.

Plus, rather than stonewalling and denial of past wrongdoings, admitting past genocide can help out with your admission into the EU. If Germany can be in there, so can you, Turkey. Their genocide was much more recent than yours. Repent now, and ye shall be allowed into the secret EU club, which gets ye half off admission to Tivoli Gardens and a free pass to steal jobs away from hard-working Britons.

Additionally, so what if the United States calls your actions against the Armenians genocide? They don't own the world. They have nothing to do with any of these 90 year old killings. If it makes you feel better, you can try to edit out any reference to genocide in your Wikipedia entry and let bygones be bygones.

2. Moving on to you, United States Congress. Think about military bases, and go find a globe. Now point to the best location for a potential base that could respond to a threat from and is located really close to Iran and Syria, and Iraq too, should it become a full-fledged puppet state of Iran within the next decade. Now, get rid of any location inside a country that A) supports terrorism, or B) is under the thumb of Vladimir Putin. Why look, you're left with Turkey! Hey, good news. We already have two bases there. Let's try and keep our access to them.

Okay, so we know Turkey is serious about this resolution for some reason. How do we know this? After France's parliament made a similar resolution last year, Turkey severred military ties with France. Even though they really shouldn't care, Turkey sees this kind of thing as a punch in the geopolitical nads. The United States would have a lot more to lose than to gain if it tried to excoriate the most important secular Muslim pro-democratic nation in the Middle East, both now (our need for stability in northern Iraq; 70% of our wartime supplies for Iraq come through Turkey) and in the future (Iran? Possibly Russia?).

And hey, maybe it wasn't genocide anyways. Turkey has acknowledged all those Armenian deaths, but they claim it was all part of the horrors of many millions of worldwide war deaths, more specifically a part of the power struggle between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Most regimes don't often take credit for killing millions of people, but Turkey already has. They just don't like the term "genocide".

And who gave you, the United States Congress, the power to non-bindingly define conflicts as "genocide"? The United Nations? NATO?

Look, I know Bush is all against this resolution, and normally that would be enough reason for anyone to be for said resolution, but in this matter, he's got a point. It's best not to butt our noses into something that happened 90 years ago, especially when the issue has nothing at all to do with us, and especially when it all boils down to a war of terminology rather than substance.

Having said that, let us now stick it to the Chinese by welcoming the Dalai Lama with open arms.

- QP

Obligatory Debunking of Supply Side Economics by Liberal Blogger

Jacob mentioned something last week that I had never heard of before: the Laffer Curve. Alas, if only I had been taught economics by Ben Stein, like Ferris Bueller was. The Laffer Curve theorizes that at some rate of taxation, the revenue from taxation will reach a maximum. It is derived from this information:

1. Going up from a tax rate of 0%, the revenue from taxation will increase.
2. Going down from a tax rate of 100%, the revenue from taxation will increase (people will actually have a reason to work and invest).
3. The rest of the function is a continuous, second order equation with one and only one maximum (this is probably not true).

Those emphasizing supply-side trickle-down economics always assume that our nation operates on the high side of the curve. This was the rationale for the series of tax cuts that Ronald Reagan proposed in the early '80's, and you can still hear echos of this sort of thinking from conservative presidential candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

Unfortunately, they say it is impossible in real life to empirically determine this magic tax rate, if it even exists (many think it does not). The position of the maximum revenue will be at a different rate depending on the state of the economy and government involved. But assuming the Laffer Curve is an appropriate model, we can see where on the Laffer curve we are by tracking the years where income taxes are cut and seeing if income tax revenue goes up or down as a function of gross domestic product (in order to normalize the data for good and bad economic periods). Or at least, that's what I'm going to try to do right now, with data from my favorite source as of recent, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Tax Foundation.

Methodology: I identified 8 times since 1962 where the tax policy changed from one year to the next. I tried to look at all statuses and all incomes to determine if the intent of the policy was to generally raise taxes or generally lower taxes. I then compared the income tax slash or hike with the change in income tax revenue from the effective policy year to the next.

• Bush had two tax cut bills, in '01 and '03, effective in '02 and '04. In both '02 and '04, income tax revenue went down, by 1.6% and 0.3% of the GDP, respectively.

• In '90 and '93, Elder-Bush and Clinton raised taxes. Income tax revenue went up in '94 0.1% of GDP, but went down in '91 by 0.2%.

• Reagan slashed taxes seemingly every year from '81 to '84, which resulted in a 1.5% decrease in GDP-normalized revenue from '82 to '84.
  

• In '78, taxes were raised, and the revenue increased 0.5% the following year.

• In '69, taxes were lowered, and the revenue decreased 0.3% the following year.

• In '64, taxes were lowered quite a bit, and revenue decreased 0.5%.
  

Thus, in every event (except for Elder-Bush's tax hike on the rich in 1990), economic data showed that we were in fact operating on the low side of the Laffer Curve, since tax rate increases always yielded more revenue, and tax rate decreases always yielded less revenue. This even occurred in '64, when those in the top tax bracket were taxed at an astounding 91%. Why is this important? If any presidential candidate tries to insist that they can pay for their tax cuts by the economic gains created for businesses, we should all know now that this is hog-wallop.

- QP

The Solution for Iraq: Lots and Lots of Sick Kids

President George W. Bush decided it would be much too expensive to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, designed to provide insurance to children who live in households with incomes higher than Medicaid levels but lower than middle class levels. So he used his fourth veto in office to keep a bipartisan health insurance bill from becoming law, because he wants everyone to know how fiscally responsible he is. In January, our hypocrite-in-chief will once again ask for more money to continue funding the war in Iraq. Would we save enough money by denying expansion of SCHIP to be able to spend another year killing Iraqi thugs and miscreants at will? Can we just consider this a way for our children be able to sacrifice a part of themselves for the good of our nation's security?

Sadly, no. Far from it, in fact. According to the CBO, the plan that Bush vetoed would have cost on average $7 billion extra per year on top of existing coverage until 2012 in order to make sure that 3.8 million children who were previously uninsured could become insured, an average of 760,000 children a year. Also according to the CBO, the U.S. government will spend $113 billion this year on the war in Iraq. In other words, by denying health care coverage to 760,000 American children, our government is able to buy 22 days of gun battles and IED's in Iraq. That's not nearly enough to win the global war on terror. We are going to need a lot more uninsured children in order to pay for this thing. At this rate, the only way we could win in Iraq is if our government could figure out a way to deny health insurance coverage to 12.3 million children a year. We're going to need a lot more vetoes.

Oklahomans Can Start Working Again; Our Income Taxes are Low

Recently former U.S. Senator and current University of Oklahoma president David Boren made a statement calling for a halt to attempts by the Oklahoma state legislature to cut taxes even further. His reasoning was that the existing tax cuts have already eaten into the budget so much that funding for public institutions like the University of Oklahoma has suffered. He went on to use an economic rationale, saying that more investment in higher education creates a knowledge-based economy that will produce long term benefits including new business and good jobs. Which is sort-of true, but also so obviously self-serving.

If the comments were directed at anyone, they were directed at representative Randy Terrill, the Republican chairman of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee. Terrill thinks the state income tax is still too high, although currently there are no proposals to lower it further after the already-passed legislation takes effect in 2008, but there are proposals that would repeal state taxes on overtime pay and groceries. Last Thursday, state representatives heard from advocates on both sides of the issue; David Blatt, a public policy analyst from Tulsa, argued against further income tax cuts, and Phil Kerpen, national policy director for the conservative tax-slashing organization Americans for Prosperity, argued for further income tax cuts. It was Kerpen who made an absolutely terrible analogy between cigarette taxes and income tax.

States tax tobacco heavily because they want to discourage its use, and the income tax rate can work in the same way.

"It makes perfect sense: If you tax people more, then they have less reward for working, saving and investing, so they'll do less of those things,” Kerpen said.

I don't understand the analogy at all. I don't think the tax rate factors into anyone's decision on whether or not to work. I dare Phil Kerpen to show me the gentleman who chose to wait until the state lowered their income tax rate by half a percent in order to take that job at Starbucks, or the lady who quit her job at Wal-Mart when the state decided to impose a tax hike to fund roads and bridges. People are going to have to work to earn a living, whether the state income tax is at 5% or 15%. People, however, don't have to smoke.

One final note: according to this chart on MSN, Oklahoma has the 40th highest state taxes in the nation, on average. So it's not like our taxes are outrageous or anything. Plus our oil-rich state economy has been doing really well recently due to high energy prices.

- QP

The Piper at the Watergates of Dawn

I'm not a big fan of the prevalent use by the media of the word "gate" at the end of any scandal involving the government for two reasons. First, it implies that the scandal is a much bigger deal than what it usually turns into. "Watergate" deposed a U.S. president, vice president, and a host of other politicians, and made the citizens of the United States extra leery of lawyers, judges and politicians for a good ... year or two. I'm afraid "Closetgate" just can't compare.

Second, and more importantly, the practice is so derivative and cliche now that it shows a real lack of imagination on the part of those who coin the term. It started out, according to Wikipedia, with some French scandal called "Wine-gate", which was an acceptable play on liquids. But then some yahoo coined the term "Koreagate" for an Abramoff-like congressional bribery scandal in 1976, and the precedent for every single scandal since then was set.

In my perfect world, I would ban the use of "-gate" to name any scandal, with one exception. As much as I don't like the overuse of the suffix -gate, I do enjoy plays on words. Therefore, I would create an exception to the ban when the scandal involves the word "water" or possibly some other beverage. Which is why it astounds me that I have yet to read anything about "Blackwatergate".

The Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics

In a busy news week last week, what with the impending Ahmadinejad visit, the ongoing Jeffs and Spector trials, the reemergence of O.J., and Britney’s “adorable mistakes” that aren’t related to lack of underwear, a commonplace occurrence like George W. Bush saying something stupid can easily be glossed over.

President Bush was awkwardly holding a press conference involving the nation’s economy. When asked if there was a risk of a recession in the U.S. economy, the President replied, “You know, you need to talk to economists. Uh, I think I got a B in Econ 101, heh heh.” Well he obviously wasn’t talking about his college classes at Yale. It has already been shown that at Yale, Bush got a 71 and a 72 in two semesters of economics. But he wasn’t done yet! He goes on to say, “I got an A, however, in Keepin'-Taxes-Low, and Bein'-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money.” I don’t think Yale even offers classes with those titles. What school did Bush think he had attended?

Well, through some internet research, QP has found that apparently President Bush has an associates’s degree from the Bushie School of Positive Thinking and Economics, a 2-year community "internets-only" college located just outside Waco, Texas (he’s also head groundskeeper for his alma mater). But clearly, at the Bushie School, they participate in rampant grade inflation. Therefore, QP will try to correlate the grades given by the Fightin’ Tax Slashers of the Bushie School with more real-world grades.

Econ 101: The Basics

Anyone who got a C- in Economics should be able to tell you that when you increase spending (Iraq War, $600 billion since September 11, 2001) and you decrease revenue from taxes, you’re going to be in trouble financially speaking. Since Bush is not able to tell us this, it must be assumed that he would have done no better than a D in the real world.

BUSHIE GRADE: B
QP GRADE: D

Econ 201: Keepin’ Taxes Low

Well, he certainly did slash taxes, and this year the richest 1% will pay 3.1% less in income taxes than they did in 2000. The poorest 99% of us will only pay on average 1.4% less than we did in 2000. (Source: CBO) That’s $600 savings for the median income earner, and at least $10,850 in savings for the top 1%. Not to mention all the capital gains taxes and dividend taxes that President Bush cut, which benefit only people who invest money (not the poor). But it seems Bush studied hard for this class

BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: A

Upper division course
Econ 301: Bein’ Fisky Fiscally Responsible with the People’s Money

His Bein’-Fisky-Fiscally-Responsible-with-the-People’s-Money course must have been a total blowoff, because he has certainly not demonstrated his capability to lessen government spending. The day Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993, the total outstanding public debt was about $4.1 trillion. Due to prior administration decisions, the debt grew in 1993 and 1994, but an economic boom and wiser money management kept the debt at about $4.9 trillion for most of 1995. The public debt lurched over $5 trillion for the first time on February 23, 1996. From then until September 11, 2001, a period of 67 months, the debt only grew by about $700 billion. Since that infamous day, the total public debt has skyrocketed. $6 trillion was reached for the first time seven months later, on March 14, 2002. $7 trillion was passed 22 months later on January 15, 2004, and $8 trillion was reached 21 months after that on October 18, 2005. Another 22 months went by before $9 trillion was reached for the first time last month. (Source: Treasury Dept.) It will take at least four more years to achieve surpluses again, according to the CBO, and that’s assuming that Bush cuts troops in Iraq substantially and doesn’t push for making his tax cuts permanent, which is unlikely.

BUSHIE GRADE: A
QP GRADE: F

BUSHIE GPA: 3.67
REAL-WORLD GPA: 1.67

Conclusions:

That degree's worthless.

- QP

My Presidential Guarantee

I've been telling my dad this for months, so I'll go ahead and say it here. I'm going to guarantee that a Republican will win the 2008 presidential election.

I think it's really a pipe dream that we Democrats cling to that the Democratic nominee could really appeal to the majority of the country. It seems to me that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be seen as too liberal by the center of the country. Barack Obama actually is too liberal, while Edwards and Clinton are merely perceived as too liberal. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is loved by all who remember September 11, even if he is a New Yorker. McCain is always called "the maverick", even though he's the hawkiest candidate of the bunch. Even political hack Mitt Romney has gone from one side to the other and might be seen as some kind of centrist to people who don't pay attention to things, i.e., Americans.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are mostly perceived as "too liberal", even if they're not, while the Republican candidates are mostly perceived as "centrist", even if they're not. Like my dad has frequently said, if it comes to a choice between "Hillary Clinton" and "Satan", he'd rather choose Satan himself. I fear that he's not alone in his viewpoint.

- QP