Month: August 2004

I actually like the idea President Bush threw out there yesterday of a US value-added tax (VAT) or national sales tax replacing our federal income tax.

“It’s kind of an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously,” Mr. Bush said in response to a question during an “Ask President Bush” session in Niceville, Fla.

Though the president’s remarks were informal, he made them at a time when some of his advisers, though by no means all, are urging that his speech at the Republican National Convention include a proposal for a vast overhaul of the federal tax system.

Mr. Bush’s comments were followed Wednesday by a conference call with reporters, arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign, in which the chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California, said that he favored looking at “well-thought-out alternate tax structures” and that the committee planned to do so.

“We have one of the more regressive tax structures in the world today that basically is a 19th-century concept,” Mr. Thomas said, adding, “We should get that revenue from people in the least destructive way possible.”

Critics, including John Kerry, argue that such a national sales tax would “punish the poor and the middle class, who typically spend a larger share of their income than the wealthy on consumption.” Supporters argue that it’s simpler and fairer than our traditional income tax “because it would not provide the opportunities for loopholes and sophisticated tax-reduction schemes that tend to favor wealthy taxpayers.” If you buy a humungous SUV or a Hummer, you’re taxed on it fully, no loopholes.

As an anti-materialist, this suits me fine. Anything that encourages Americans to spend less money on frivilous products, many of which are only partially consumed before discarded, strikes me as a step in the right direction. Only problem being, our economy’s recovery is supposedly dependent on consumer spending:

Read more

If I could have one moment with President Bush, just one conversation about the way he’s running the government, I’d ask him to take one very simple step that would improve the performance of the federal agencies under his control: read the agencies’ pre-existing mission statements and follow them. It ain’t rocket science. In fact, the statements are usually right there on the agency/department website.

Take for example, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration. Their mission statement reads:

The mission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is to administer the provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines. (emphasis mine)

In choosing who to head up this office, Bush only needs to read the mission statement to potential candidates and ask whether they believe they can fulfill that mission. Anyone who has a track record suggesting they don’t believe in that mission should be considered an unwise choice for the job.

Take for example David Lauriski. Back in 1997, as an executive of a mining company, he wanted to allow much* higher levels of coal dust than current federal regulations allow. I assume this would save coal mining companies money. It would also put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease.

It would seem to make sense that anyone willing to put miners at greater risk of black-lung disease might not be an ideal choice to “to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines.” But Bush made Lauriski the head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration anyway.

Now, as the New York Times is reporting, in direct opposition to the MSHA’s mission, Lauriski has revived his higher coal-dust levels idea.

Read more

In today’s New York Times, David Brooks complains that neither Bush nor Kerry really talks about the issues confronting us. Here’s his evidence:

“John Kerry and the Democrats spent their convention talking about broad values like unity and military service and almost no time talking about specific proposals. And if you peek in at a Bush campaign event, it’s like a traveling road show of proper emotions. Bush will remind the crowd of the feelings we all experienced on Sept. 11. Then there will be several paragraphs on the importance of loving thy neighbor, and several minutes spent reciting the accomplishments of Term 1.

No offense, but where’s the beef?”

Read more

(Crossposted, as usual)

…that would be the Democratic hawks, you understand. Peter Beinart over at the New Republic is still swinging, at least:

Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention drew rave reviews. So did Bill Clinton’s. But my nominee for best oration of the week goes to Senator Joseph Biden. On Thursday night at about eight o’clock–long before the networks began their broadcasts–Biden laid out the most compelling Democratic foreign policy vision I have yet heard. I just wish more of it had found its way into John Kerry’s acceptance speech two hours later.

Read more

Here is an interesting article from last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. It’s about the efforts of some Democratic donors to create a liberal infrastructure, parallel in some ways to the network of conservative institutions and organizations that cater to the GOP. I think this is wonderful news, and not just because I am a Democrat: I think it’s unhealthy for only one party to have a network of organizations working to promulgate its ideas, since those ideas will tend not to be challenged as much as they should be. Moreover, to speak to an area I know something about, there are a lot of really interesting political philosophers on the left, and they have at present no organized way to run their ideas past, say, legislators and opinion-makers. Their colleagues on the right, by contrast, can get involved in any number of conservative organizations, and this can lead, if they’re good and articulate and interesting, to their ideas getting much broader exposure. (Sort of a system of farm teams.) Providing liberals with something similar would, I think, make our public discourse much richer. Likewise, providing progressive lawmakers and others with a coherent set of ideas, or better yet, several coherent sets of ideas to choose among, would be great.

However,

Read more