Why raising taxes on unearned income makes sense.

Regardless of what term you use to describe investment income, this income is not currently subject to social security or medicare taxes. Earned income is already taxed at a higher level in most cases than investment income, which is a disincentive to work. Rationalizing our taxation system will require increasing the taxes on capital gains to at least the same level as taxes on earned income. This is entirely normal and healthy.

The truly nonsensical notion was identified by Warren Buffet.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

The solution to this problem is very simple – raise the tax rate on unearned investment income. Anything else is truly nonsensical.

The Nonsensical Notion of ‘Unearned Income’

GOP Pretending to be Peaceful

How large is the audience that believes this garbage? This Godwin-baiting meme of Hitler as a leftist is would be merely silly if it were not so sinister.

Claiming that the left is the source of political violence does not make it so. A quick review of history reveals the ignorance of this assertion. People are not motivated to violence by democratic collectivists. They are motivated to violence by authoritarian leaders who harness nationalistic and religious memes to further their own political power.

The characterization of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro as somehow representing democratic socialism only demonstrates the ignorance of the author.

Science is fine. What's wrong with the GOP?

AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views. That’s why I was not surprised that the first “reference” in the article is to a commercial outlet for Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is a Professor of Mining Geology with a background in the mining industry. His expertise in climate science is questionable, to be generous – his financial and career interests are transparent.

Although his book has proven popular with a certain segment of the public, it has been widely panned in the scientific community, simply because the “science” content is nothing but a series of cherry-picked primary sources, selected without regard for accuracy or veracity.

The “technological revolution” that is needed to halt global warming is not “unimaginable” except to those whose imaginations have ceased to function. Without engaging in the work to bring about this revolution, we are doomed to a future of dwindling fossil fuel resources, ongoing climate disruption, and eventually a very nasty and rapid rise in sea level worldwide due to continued carbon emissions.

There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place. Wholesale rejection of mainstream scientific thought (”I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming.”) is one of the sure signs of late-stage global warming denial.

If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that refutes the well-documented long-term warming that has been observed since the beginning of scientific measurements, and the broad consensus supports theories that recognize the impact of human activity on the global environment.

It is the best of times, in the sense that science can identify and propose remedies for the damage that humans do to their environment, and technology provides the tools to made these changes. It is only the political mechanism that is paralyzed by oligarchy. But even the biggest players in the fossil fuel game can see the their future will be very different. It is not possible to deny the science forever, as the consequences of warming are becoming more obvious every year.

Abortion is health care! PJM Exclusive!

It’s pretty clear the author does not understand the principles he espouses.

Government-owned health care will place bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options. This is wrong. Health care decisions must be made by you and your doctor.

If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?

It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.

Americans who are morally opposed to abortion should not have to pay for abortions with their tax dollars against their will.

I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.

Banning Burqas is Bad

So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?

Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?

This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.

I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear - or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.

Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.

Why Palin Will Fail - Jennifer Rubin is Right (for once)

The central message is that serious times require serious candidates.

I couldn’t agree more.

Surprised?

Sarah Palin is a gift that keeps on giving for the left. Watching frantic & confused GOP response is quite entertaining. She has 0 chance of winning a national election, but it will be great sport to watch her cripple the GOP for a generation.

A party with so little remaining credibility shows that even when you may think you have reached the bottom of the barrel, somebody will find a way to keep digging. I hope Palin remains prominent - nothing but a bonus for the Dems.

Party on!

Fundamentalism: Iran v. USA

Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.

Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.

Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement - all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary - it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.

Tea Party Cancellation

This is just a simple case of a business owner defending his interests. Simon apparently has a legal right to refuse access to this property, and that right trumps the protest.

The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.

Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?

Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.

There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.

Union Renaissance?

I think it’s about time that workers got their right to organize back.

When an employer can refuse to certify a union, regardless of the workers’ decision, that’s a failure of democracy.

Card check is one thing that could very much improve the lives of lower income workers, who have been losing ground for decades now. If the Democrats can make it happen, they deserve their rewards.

Hate Speech and Conservative Vigilantism

The big problem is that so much of what passes for political discourse now depends on hyperbole. “Baby Killer” would be the recent pertinent example. Talking points and language are important.

The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.

Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.

So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.

Bumpy road for card check?

I don’t see this as any big difficulty for Democrats. Passing some version of card check is a “pro worker” bona fide that is not likely to be a net loser for the Democrats. Labor has supported the left through a long stretch of GOP governance, and they will extract a reward of some kind. Whether card check and arbitration survive in the final bill is hard to say - but labor will get a bill.

There may be some temporary setbacks in isolated elections, but success on this issue is not likely to bite the left very hard. Opposition to unions is weak because of a depressed labor market and faltering economy. Job security and stable wages are starting to look a lot more attractive to the right-to-work folks that are now standing in the unemployment line.

Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed before the end of August, and big labor will probably get their bill in time for Thanksgiving. It will be a merry xmas for the Dems.

Media Bias? Oh, yes there is...

There is not a double standard, despite continued protests from the fringe such as this.

The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.

One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.

I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.

The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?

Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.

Tiller Murder is Not Fiction

The pattern is pretty clear. Religious fanatics, whether Taliban or Born-again, appear to be losing the long-term cultural battle. Rather than try to adapt to a changing world, the response of the religious fanatic is to lash out in violence against the “other”.

Women’s rights, freedom of speech and thought, and other “liberal” values are simply not compatible with the backwards thinking of right wing zealots.

Economic justice is still justice

Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.

Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.

Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.

If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.

It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.

Stopping Sotomayor?

I hope the GOP does try to stop this nomination. It would be a boon for the Democrats. There is no cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment, as she is much more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments. An attempt to attack this appointment would demonstrate the bankruptcy of the GOP, and make 2010 much more attractive for the Democrats.

If the GOP is smart, they will let her go without too much fuss, and save their ammunition for a fight that can be won, or at least one that does not involve repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. The next nominee will probably be much further to the left, and with a much more forceful legal personality. If the GOP objects here when there is no reason, they will be the party that cried wolf, and future filibusters will be doomed to fail.

Obama may get more SCOTUS appointments than any president in decades - it should be fun to watch.

Sotomayor's race

Sotomayor came from a single-parent household, and grew up in the projects, yet she applied herself and achieved in academia and beyond. There is little doubt that her perspective on the challenges faced by average Americans is somewhat more informed than the previous two justices appointed to the court. Sotomayor was appointed by GHW Bush, and has been a moderate and restrained judge throughout her tenure on the bench. There is no reason to suppose that her life experience makes her a sexist - and certainly not a raving one. There is good reason to believe that she is familiar with facets of the human condition that the other justices may not be.

GOP retrenching

Colin Powell represents what the Republican Party could have been if it had stuck to the rule of law and properly administered the government. That opportunity was wasted, but driving him from the party is nothing but a gift to the left. He was one of the few principled and respected Republicans left - that’s why he could not endorse McCain-Palin.

Independents are the only way to win elections - if even Colin Powell cannot be accorded a conscience, then woe be to the party. It will indeed be a long road home.

GOP not entertaining enough? That's laughable...

Apparently some folks here are too close to the comedy to see that the GOP itself has become an incredibly "entertaining" organization. I don't think this is the big problem that the GOP needs to address - as many other posters noted, there is lots of entertainment being produced with a right-wing perspective.

What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.

The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:

If conservatives want to win this battle, they need to put more energy into creating entertainment that strikes a responsive chord with the majority of Americans who are “sick of politics” because they don’t see how government and public policy matter to their lives. I believe that a majority of Americans, if they get a chance to see both sides of the argument presented in a way that entertains them, will come over to the conservative side in a decisive way. But conservatives have to make the effort. Right now, the left is winning the battle because they are creating entertainment — and the other side is just boring them.

Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.

Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.