I can't vote for anything without thinking of the late great Gilda Radnor playing Emily Litella on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update".
"What's all this fuss about a presidential erection?" Classic.
Spent half an hour this morning looking for a clip of it on the interweb but can't find it. Maybe Santa will bring me a collection of old SNL shows that has a copy.
In the meantime, Emily Litella has her own Wikipedia page. I did find web videos on "violins on TV" and on "buying Puerto Rico a steak". Very funny.
Never mind.
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
When Times Are Good
Peggy Noonan can always be counted on. In reference to Michelle Obama's quote earlier this week, "you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?"
In other words, if Michelle Obama is proud of America now just bc. we're gaga for Hubby and we're demanding change, will that mean she'll go back to being ashamed of America if things go bad for him and his poll numbers drop? Gotta love that question.
Here's the whole read.
Will
In other words, if Michelle Obama is proud of America now just bc. we're gaga for Hubby and we're demanding change, will that mean she'll go back to being ashamed of America if things go bad for him and his poll numbers drop? Gotta love that question.
Here's the whole read.
Will
Monday, February 18, 2008
Obama's Soc. Sec. "Coverage"
Hopped on Obama's issues website after hearing the rumor that he wants to eliminate the cap on Social Security wages. If you're not familiar, right now we all pay SS taxes on the first $97,500 we earn. That figure is matched by our employers so that we pay $6045 out of the first $97,500 and the employer pays $6045 more.
The theory behind the cap is that SS was originally intended to be a supplement to retirement. We would get back according to what we put in. It was not meant to be a welfare-type program where the folks who didn't pay much in (or any in) would get back as much as everyone else.
Senator O says this on his website:
"The first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
I love the use of the word "covered" here! That's not "covered", that's "taxed".
And then here in a op ed piece he wrote last fall:
"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
I take that to mean that all income would now be "covered"--the sky's the limit on this "coverage". I also take that to mean that this extra cash from the new "coverage" would be used to "virtually eliminate" the existing shortfall. I guess employers would have to match the "coverage" as well--call it double coverage, like in the NFL.
What might some unintended consequences be?
Let's take Dick and Jane. Dick teaches high school and coaches football in the 'burbs of New Jersey and makes $60,000 a year. Jane sells computer widgets, makes a base of $110,000, and had a great bonus/stock options reward last year of $40,000. I bet that's not uncommon for a good number of folks living in a metro area on either coast. What would Senator O's extra "coverage" mean to them?
An extra $6045 a year in taxes.
Now, how might that affect Dick and Jane's spending habits? Well, they're a little nervous these days bc. their house value is down over the last two years, their 404(k) is down over the last two months, and they're really worried about Jane's bonus this year bc. everyone's talking recession.
My guess is that they'll do two things. First, cut back on the doo-dads. They'll put off replacing the car, building a new deck, or buying that flat screen at Best Buy. They'll go to Six Flags instead of the Grand Canyon. This reduction in discretionary spending will only add to the "recessionary pressure", as it's called it on CNBC.
Second, they'll freeze or cut or, at the very least, give second thought to their charitable giving. They're already one of the decent givers at church with a $4,500 contribution to the annual fund. They were happy to do it. They're being asked to increase their pledge by ten percent. But with with an extra $500 a month going to SS, and house prices still falling, and the market in a tizzy. . . . .
And the YMCA that's doing a capital campaign for an addition? D & J will wait a year to commit just in case the the market hasn't found a bottom yet.
It's easy for Senator O to say he's just going to erase that cap. It might even be true that it's no big deal, Junior's SS in more important and D & J can "afford it".
It might not be so easy to deal with the opportunity costs and unintended consequences $6045 of extra "coverage" for Dick and Jane.
Just another way of looking at things. . . .
The theory behind the cap is that SS was originally intended to be a supplement to retirement. We would get back according to what we put in. It was not meant to be a welfare-type program where the folks who didn't pay much in (or any in) would get back as much as everyone else.
Senator O says this on his website:
"The first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."
I love the use of the word "covered" here! That's not "covered", that's "taxed".
And then here in a op ed piece he wrote last fall:
"One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
I take that to mean that all income would now be "covered"--the sky's the limit on this "coverage". I also take that to mean that this extra cash from the new "coverage" would be used to "virtually eliminate" the existing shortfall. I guess employers would have to match the "coverage" as well--call it double coverage, like in the NFL.
What might some unintended consequences be?
Let's take Dick and Jane. Dick teaches high school and coaches football in the 'burbs of New Jersey and makes $60,000 a year. Jane sells computer widgets, makes a base of $110,000, and had a great bonus/stock options reward last year of $40,000. I bet that's not uncommon for a good number of folks living in a metro area on either coast. What would Senator O's extra "coverage" mean to them?
An extra $6045 a year in taxes.
Now, how might that affect Dick and Jane's spending habits? Well, they're a little nervous these days bc. their house value is down over the last two years, their 404(k) is down over the last two months, and they're really worried about Jane's bonus this year bc. everyone's talking recession.
My guess is that they'll do two things. First, cut back on the doo-dads. They'll put off replacing the car, building a new deck, or buying that flat screen at Best Buy. They'll go to Six Flags instead of the Grand Canyon. This reduction in discretionary spending will only add to the "recessionary pressure", as it's called it on CNBC.
Second, they'll freeze or cut or, at the very least, give second thought to their charitable giving. They're already one of the decent givers at church with a $4,500 contribution to the annual fund. They were happy to do it. They're being asked to increase their pledge by ten percent. But with with an extra $500 a month going to SS, and house prices still falling, and the market in a tizzy. . . . .
And the YMCA that's doing a capital campaign for an addition? D & J will wait a year to commit just in case the the market hasn't found a bottom yet.
It's easy for Senator O to say he's just going to erase that cap. It might even be true that it's no big deal, Junior's SS in more important and D & J can "afford it".
It might not be so easy to deal with the opportunity costs and unintended consequences $6045 of extra "coverage" for Dick and Jane.
Just another way of looking at things. . . .
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Vote for Bill
I live in a safe Dem district. Our guy won over 76 percent of the vote in 2004. 76 percent! That's not because he is so good that he is that much loved. It's because they drew this district just for him.
It pisses me off. The gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts is quite simply a threat to democracy. Districts are too white or too black, too Dem or too GOP--they're simply too safe. They're not drawn to be representative, but to protect incumbents. I find that to be particularly undemocratic.
Our representatives have no incentive to get anything done, no incentive to cooperate with comrades on the other side of the aisle. These districts drive representatives to the extremes of the political landscape. Think about it: if you represent a district that votes 76 percent Dem, what incentive do you have to make decisions based on what's right for the country? None. Instead, you make legislative decisions based on what it is that Dems think is right. Thus the Dems raise money, the GOPs raise money, challengers haven't a prayer, everyone gets re-elected, and nothing gets done. And the folks get frustrated and give Congress a 22 percent approval rating.
If a congressional district is gerrymandered to create a black majority district, what does that do to the surrounding districts? It makes them even more white. Those surrounding districts then are represented by Congressmen who no longer have any incentive to address concerns of the black community because the lines have been drawn to move black constituents out of their districts into the black majority district. Sure, you end up with a black congressman, but you also end up with congressmen in surrounding districts who have no interest in addressing the black agenda. In fact, they probably can raise more money and get more votes by standing against the black agenda.
Worse than any of that is the feeling of frustration and alienation that leads people to do silly things. Like what I did on Tuesday. I doesn't matter what I do in this safe Dem district--it's Democrat. So I switched my voter registration to Dem so I could vote in the Democratic primary. My hope was that I could make a difference and land a blow against the Billary Machine.
Funny thing happened on the way to the polls, tho. People decided (according to the polls, anyway) that they really don't like Billary any more. So my original plan--to vote Obama in order to throw a wrench in the Billary Machine--wasn't working. I couldn't vote for Obama if he had a chance of winning: he's a fluffernutter. I was really, really worried walking up to the polls. Had I been too clever in changing my registration from GOP to Dem? Was I really going to have to vote either for Billary or Obama? What was I going to do?
Imagine my surprise and delight when I got to the computerized voting machine (backed up by a paper ballot, of course) and found out that the other Dem candidates were still on the ballot. Yeeha! One of my fantasies has always been to vote for a dead guy. Here was my shot! I voted for Bill Richardson.
I do think I'll go ahead and switch back to GOP for the general. . . .
Will
It pisses me off. The gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts is quite simply a threat to democracy. Districts are too white or too black, too Dem or too GOP--they're simply too safe. They're not drawn to be representative, but to protect incumbents. I find that to be particularly undemocratic.
Our representatives have no incentive to get anything done, no incentive to cooperate with comrades on the other side of the aisle. These districts drive representatives to the extremes of the political landscape. Think about it: if you represent a district that votes 76 percent Dem, what incentive do you have to make decisions based on what's right for the country? None. Instead, you make legislative decisions based on what it is that Dems think is right. Thus the Dems raise money, the GOPs raise money, challengers haven't a prayer, everyone gets re-elected, and nothing gets done. And the folks get frustrated and give Congress a 22 percent approval rating.
If a congressional district is gerrymandered to create a black majority district, what does that do to the surrounding districts? It makes them even more white. Those surrounding districts then are represented by Congressmen who no longer have any incentive to address concerns of the black community because the lines have been drawn to move black constituents out of their districts into the black majority district. Sure, you end up with a black congressman, but you also end up with congressmen in surrounding districts who have no interest in addressing the black agenda. In fact, they probably can raise more money and get more votes by standing against the black agenda.
Worse than any of that is the feeling of frustration and alienation that leads people to do silly things. Like what I did on Tuesday. I doesn't matter what I do in this safe Dem district--it's Democrat. So I switched my voter registration to Dem so I could vote in the Democratic primary. My hope was that I could make a difference and land a blow against the Billary Machine.
Funny thing happened on the way to the polls, tho. People decided (according to the polls, anyway) that they really don't like Billary any more. So my original plan--to vote Obama in order to throw a wrench in the Billary Machine--wasn't working. I couldn't vote for Obama if he had a chance of winning: he's a fluffernutter. I was really, really worried walking up to the polls. Had I been too clever in changing my registration from GOP to Dem? Was I really going to have to vote either for Billary or Obama? What was I going to do?
Imagine my surprise and delight when I got to the computerized voting machine (backed up by a paper ballot, of course) and found out that the other Dem candidates were still on the ballot. Yeeha! One of my fantasies has always been to vote for a dead guy. Here was my shot! I voted for Bill Richardson.
I do think I'll go ahead and switch back to GOP for the general. . . .
Will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
