Bailout brouhaha

I'm no expert on the economy, but the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan makes me a little skeptical. Because I think the government should cut taxes as low as they possibly can, I tend to oppose almost anything that involves the government spending money. $700 billion sure seems like a LOT of money.

I also tend to be a strict constitutionalist: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to do something, the government probably doesn't have a right to do it. I wonder, when did it become the government's job to make sure the economy does well and to prevent recessions and depressions from happening? My best guess is around the time of the Great Depression, when president Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and other social programs to help fight the Depression.

Although the Depression began to lift during FDR's presidency, I doubt that his social programs were the cause. The economy, just like the seasons, goes through cycles: sometimes it does well, sometimes there is a recession, and once in a great while there is a depression. Obviously, economic downturns aren't good, but in time they will reverse themselves. Is avoiding a recession worth creating unjust, expensive, possibly unconstitutional programs?

The last thing we need is a bigger, more powerful government. That's why I think the government should always err on the side of doing too little rather than too much.

Tax increases are not patriotic

Today Joe Biden said on "Good Morning America" that it is patriotic for rich people to pay more taxes than they do now. When anchor Kate Snow asked him if those making over $250,000 a year should have their taxes increased, he replied,

"You got it. It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut, and the way to do that is they're still gonna pay less taxes than they did under Reagan."

Biden's comments are really, really wrong, and it scares me that he could become vice-president. First of all, by saying that wealthier people should "jump in" and "help out," Biden is implying that they aren't contributing their fair share. The opposite is true.

In my opinion, the fairest tax would be a lump sum tax: every person pays the same dollar amount. It would be simple, easy to administer, and would treat everyone equally. Another tax system that is sometimes used is proportional taxes, which means that everyone must pay the same percentage of their income. Most people would disagree with me, but I believe that this is less fair than a lump sum tax because poorer people would end up paying lower dollar amounts than wealthier people. Such a system rewards people for being poor and punishes them for being successful. Today, America uses an even more discriminatory and unjust tax system: progressive taxes. This means that rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people. The unfairness is taken to a whole new level.

So it is poor people, not rich people, who aren't paying their fair share in America today. Successful people are being robbed of half their incomes, while many poor people don't have to pay taxes at all! Plus, the vast majority of government services, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized education, and subsidized health care, are only available to the poor. Well-off people pay all the taxes and get none of the benefits. Poor people pay no taxes and get all of the benefits. I agree with the Democrats that our system is unfair, but for precisely the opposite reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the poor have it easy. I'm just saying that poor people do not have a right to rich people's money. I have a right to my money, I have no right to anyone else's money, and no one else has a right to my money. The way to help the poor would be to raise the minimum wage or to set price ceilings to make goods more affordable. The government simply has no right to take people's money and give it to other people.

The patriotic thing would not be to pay more taxes, but to protest this unjust system. The government has gotten out of control and desperately needs to cut its budget, not to raise taxes.

P.S. Biden later defended his comments, saying

"Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most. Now it'd be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut. Tell me how everybody is better off. And the point I want to make to you is, and I mean this sincerely - wealthy people are just as patriotic, patriotic as poor people. We just have not asked anything of them."

You haven't asked anything of them? Really? Hmm, I thought asking them to fork over enormous amounts of money would count as something. I guess not.

Get better, Elliot!

Elliot Weinstein, the defense attorney probably best known for representing Neil Entwistle, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was scheduled to undergo surgery yesterday.

So this is just a short post to wish him good luck and a full recovery. Based on what I observed at the Entwistle trial, Elliot is an excellent lawyer and a great person. Hopefully he'll be back in the courtroom or working on Entwistle's appeals soon!

Source: Boston Herald and Mass. Lawyers Weekly

Palin has more experience than Obama

On TV, on the radio, on the Internet, and in newspapers, I have heard way too many people criticizing Sarah Palin for having too little experience. What makes it even worse is that these are usually the same people who gush about how much they love Barack Obama.

Let's compare the two in terms of experience:

Palin:

• Wasilla city council (1992-1996)
• Mayor of Wasilla (1996-2002)
• Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2003-2004)
• Governor of Alaska (2006-present)

Obama:

• Community organizer (1985-1988)
• Directed Illinois Project Vote (1992)
• Taught constitutional law (1992-2004)
• Lawyer (1993-2004)
• Served on board of directors of various organizations (1993-2002)
• State legislator (1997-2004)
• Senator (2004-present)

Their levels of experience seem about equal to me, but I think Palin has a slight edge. She's served in government positions since 1992, while Obama got his first government job in 1997. Also, being a governor is better preparation for the presidency than being a senator. Governors are basically in charge of a state, which is a mini version of what presidents do. Senators are just one member of a large body that drafts legislation and votes on laws.

Plus, Obama's running for president, while Palin is only running for VP!

So if you have to criticize Palin for not being experienced enough, be consistent and criticize Obama too.

Thanks to Wikipedia for the facts used in this post.