Keynes thought so:

“We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its own merits, and the wisdom, experience and self-control to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdoms. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term immoralists. We recognized no moral obligation upon us, no inner sanction to conform or obey. Before heaven we claimed to be our own judge in our own case….Yet so far as I am concerned, it is too late to change. I remain, and always will remain, an immoralist.””

Two Memoirs, John Maynard Keynes (Published in 1949)

James Capretta (former Assoc. Director at OMB) presents an interesting argument that Obama’s “plan” for his second term is basically:

” …higher marginal tax rates on the successful, no reforms to entitlement programs, and more government spending on selected “investments.”

Barack Obama 49 by David Wagner

Of course, we already have no reforms to entitlement programs and already spent billions of tax dollars on selected investments.  So that just leaves the targeted tax increases.  Is that enough to fix the problems we face in the next 4+ years?

Money to Burn: For Sale

April 20, 2012

$528 million in a Department of Energy loan for this:

Details here

“Even Obama is doing worse …”


Nonsequitur: Tax Fairness

April 11, 2012

We have a huge deficit.  We have huge national debt.  We have new programs that will cost a lot of money to enact and enforce.  So we need to raise taxes on “the rich,” right?  We need the Buffett Rule.  Sounds great but …

  1. According to the White House, the Buffett Rule won’t significantly impact the deficit.
  2. Since the minimum tax isn’t linked to decrease spending, it won’t affect the public debt at all.
  3. It does not eliminate loopholes, so “the rich” can do what they always do and move their money where it can’t be taxed.

In other words, it probably won’t affect revenues.  If it doesn’t affect revenues, it won’t affect programs or benefits.  It won’t decrease the deficit or public debt.  It certainly won’t help grow the economy. The only reason to do this is “fairness” or the principle of shared responsibility.  But if it doesn’t make life better for “the poor” (that’s you and me), why bother?

Here’s another way to put:

And another:

And another:

And (my favorite) another: