The Athletical Is Political
It's a great, if nerve-racking, time to be a Democratic voter and a fan of The University of Texas football. Our boys are Number One, but will they be at the end of the year?
Sit back and enjoy the ride, I think, and my sentiments were echoed by the drunk fan who, being driven away from the stadium after UT's 56-31 victory over Missouri by some (hopefully) sober friend, regaled the gaggle of burnt-orange-clad smilers milling about on the street with the result of the previous week's game: We beat OU!
Yes, take her easy. Relish. We won't always be Number One, so make sure not to let the atmosphere of hope and good feelings be wasted with teeth-chattering and ulcers.
Before the Mizzou game I picked the winner (correctly) and the score (closely, 48-24, deemed optimistic by the consensus). Late in the game, with the score 49-24, I admit to hoping backup Texas quarterback John Chiles's lone pass of the game would fall incomplete instead of being caught for the touchdown. But its catch means more for the quarterback and receiver than the brilliant prediction would have meant for me; I was being childish.
Childish, like an American voter when it comes to tax policy. There is virtually no political discussion of the absolute, ideal tax-rate scale our government should use (except from flat-tax proponents, who are probably wrong). Everything is framed in relative terms to the current (poor) tax-rate scale: are we being given a tax cut or a tax hike - let alone what the damned tax rate should be.
I think that there is an efficacious rate at which to tax each income bracket - one that pays for what Americans want the government to pay for without stifling incentive to do work and expand business. One that will result, at times, in yearly deficits without leading to explosive debt buildup. These rates change with the economy: broadly speaking, you raise taxes when the economy is doing well and cut taxes when the economy falters. Which brackets to cut, and how much (i.e., to favor the rich or the poor) is hotly debated, and we have the economy of the last eight years as evidence of what happens when the rich are favored.
Our economists and politicians should feel free to argue where we are with respect to the ideal tax rate schedule without fear of being electorally castrated if some tax rates are currently too low. A good-faith adherence to the American ideal of never raising any tax rate above 50% should keep any politician from being labeled pro-big-government, that cruellest of labels in a right-wing country. Beyond that, let the politician's record speak for itself: is he a responsible steward of tax dollars?
The economy is now poor, as a result of tax cuts targeted towards rich people. But never mind the reason. Because the economy is poor, our man Obama should raise taxes, even on the highest brackets, at his (and our) own peril. It would be wise for him to freeze the tax rate at the top and, as he has promised, cut taxes for the lower and middle classes.
But Senator McCain's tax argument is the height of inanity, Einstein's insanity: cutting taxes for the rich has gotten us into this hole; let's get out of it by . . . cutting taxes for the rich. The political brilliance of it is that he may now claim that every American deserves a tax cut, and he, and not our man Obama, is the one who will deliver it. That is, Senator McCain uses a premise that is literally correct to support a conclusion that ignores the underlying reality.
Sort of like when my man R. claimed he had been a better prognosticator of the Missouri game's final score when he guessed a common-sensical 37-31 UT: at least he had the score half-right.
Sit back and enjoy the ride, I think, and my sentiments were echoed by the drunk fan who, being driven away from the stadium after UT's 56-31 victory over Missouri by some (hopefully) sober friend, regaled the gaggle of burnt-orange-clad smilers milling about on the street with the result of the previous week's game: We beat OU!
Yes, take her easy. Relish. We won't always be Number One, so make sure not to let the atmosphere of hope and good feelings be wasted with teeth-chattering and ulcers.
Before the Mizzou game I picked the winner (correctly) and the score (closely, 48-24, deemed optimistic by the consensus). Late in the game, with the score 49-24, I admit to hoping backup Texas quarterback John Chiles's lone pass of the game would fall incomplete instead of being caught for the touchdown. But its catch means more for the quarterback and receiver than the brilliant prediction would have meant for me; I was being childish.
Childish, like an American voter when it comes to tax policy. There is virtually no political discussion of the absolute, ideal tax-rate scale our government should use (except from flat-tax proponents, who are probably wrong). Everything is framed in relative terms to the current (poor) tax-rate scale: are we being given a tax cut or a tax hike - let alone what the damned tax rate should be.
I think that there is an efficacious rate at which to tax each income bracket - one that pays for what Americans want the government to pay for without stifling incentive to do work and expand business. One that will result, at times, in yearly deficits without leading to explosive debt buildup. These rates change with the economy: broadly speaking, you raise taxes when the economy is doing well and cut taxes when the economy falters. Which brackets to cut, and how much (i.e., to favor the rich or the poor) is hotly debated, and we have the economy of the last eight years as evidence of what happens when the rich are favored.
Our economists and politicians should feel free to argue where we are with respect to the ideal tax rate schedule without fear of being electorally castrated if some tax rates are currently too low. A good-faith adherence to the American ideal of never raising any tax rate above 50% should keep any politician from being labeled pro-big-government, that cruellest of labels in a right-wing country. Beyond that, let the politician's record speak for itself: is he a responsible steward of tax dollars?
The economy is now poor, as a result of tax cuts targeted towards rich people. But never mind the reason. Because the economy is poor, our man Obama should raise taxes, even on the highest brackets, at his (and our) own peril. It would be wise for him to freeze the tax rate at the top and, as he has promised, cut taxes for the lower and middle classes.
But Senator McCain's tax argument is the height of inanity, Einstein's insanity: cutting taxes for the rich has gotten us into this hole; let's get out of it by . . . cutting taxes for the rich. The political brilliance of it is that he may now claim that every American deserves a tax cut, and he, and not our man Obama, is the one who will deliver it. That is, Senator McCain uses a premise that is literally correct to support a conclusion that ignores the underlying reality.
Sort of like when my man R. claimed he had been a better prognosticator of the Missouri game's final score when he guessed a common-sensical 37-31 UT: at least he had the score half-right.
posted by john at
1:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home