Updating the Candidate's List

Every four years I put myself through the torture of following the candidates for President and if you look at the left column of this page you can see as many of the serious candidates as I can find.

Today Herman Cain announced he is “suspending” his run for the Republican nomination. It’s a technical thing and I can’t imagine he will gain the nomination. Suspending instead of ending his candidacy allows him to continue to raise money (though I can’t imagine anyone contributing) and spend money. I suspect he’s doing this so he can close his books and pay his campaign staffers. More about him later.

I also looked at the links I have for other candidates. For several I’ve updated the links when they’ve changed the URL. Others have broken links and I can’t find a campaign page and I’ve deleted them. Here is that list:

Democrat
Jeff Boss
Republican
Herman Cain
Bob Forthen
Roger Nichols
John Revelis
Green
Winona LaDuke (this was actually a mistake: there is a web page to draft her but no page where she says she wants to be President. There are several names being mentioned for the Green nomination but I haven’t found anyone who has announced).
Libertarian
Jim Duesing
Independent
Jim Duesing
James Cooper
Temperance Alesha Lance-Council (this was also a mistake. Her web page is about her candidacy in 2008)
If you are running for President and have a web page, please email me.
Now onto Herman Cain. My last post spoke of his 9-9-9 tax plan, but it’s been clear for the last several weeks that his campaign was doomed.

Charges of sexual harassment are nothing new in political campaigns and they are always bothersome: they turn on he said/she said. What troubled me about this was that the story was first broken by Politico.com in October and they gave the Cain campaign 10 days notice that they were going to publish the story. You can read the original posting here. With 10 days notice the campaign didn’t have a coherent response; at first they attacked Politico.com without denying the charges. Then they couldn’t explain why the National Restaurant Association settled with women who claimed he harassed them. As the weeks went on it just got worse; his poll numbers fell through the floor and it became clear that he was not electable. I give him credit for figuring this out.

The charges notwithstanding, he should have done a better job responding to this. Our President has to respond quickly and coherently to all sorts of things: world leaders who make stupid and provocative allegations, countries or groups that threaten violence, or just plain bad news. The fact that Herman Cain and his campaign fumbled so badly on this told us that he was nowhere near ready to lead the country. He may have had good management skills, but our President needs the type of skills he showed us he doesn’t have.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 5: Flat Tax: How Flat, How Fair, and How Feasible?

A few of the candidates for the Republican nomination are proposing a flat tax instead of our current progressive tax.

A progressive tax raises the tax rate as income increases; in other words a wealthy person pays a high percentage of his income in taxes than a poor person. Here are the 2011 tax rates on individuals:

Income Tax Rate
$1 to $8500 10%
$8500 to $34,500 15%
$34,500 to $83,600 25%
$83,600 to $174,400 28%
$174,400 to $379,150 33%
$379,150 and up 35%

We also tax corporations, but at different levels (I got this from Small Business, Taxes, and Management web page):

Profits Tax Rate
$0 to $50,000 15%
$50,000 to $75,000 25%
$75,000 to $100,00 34%
$100,000 to $15,000,000 35%
$15,000,000 to $18,333,333 38%
$18,333,333 and up 35%

OK, so far so good. Now here’s where it gets complicated: there are deductions to income. From the time the government taxed income in 1913, interest on your home mortgage could be deducted from your income. We can also deduct money donated to charities, and lots of other places. Every time the President says: “and I call on Congress to give a tax break to people who…” it creates another deduction. We use tax deductions all the time to change behavior. We deduct mortgage interest rates because we want to encourage people to own homes; we deduct charitable contributions because we want people to donate to places of worship, food banks, and other charities.

We also want people to save money for retirement. If you contribute money to an IRA, a 401(k) or a 403(b), that money isn’t taxed when earned but is taxed years later when withdrawn. It is generally assumed that money will be taxed at a lower rate because income is usually lower in retirement.

This means that the money you earn isn’t the money you pay taxes on. The hard work of determining your taxes isn’t figuring out how much you owe; it’s how your taxable income is determined. The hard part of doing your taxes (and the reason most of us have a professional do our taxes) is finding the difference between your gross income and your taxable income. Once that is calculated we can look on a table to see what we owe.

So here’s the rub: the candidates who propose a flat tax argue that it’s fairer than a progressive tax and will make it easier for all of us to do our taxes. I suspect most taxpayers don’t really know what percentage they pay in taxes but have a sense that it’s too much. But I do think that most people think the tax code is way too complicated and don’t like the fact that they either need to pay a professional or spend hours preparing their tax return. Do these proposals do what they promise? I propose to look at the plans of three of the current Republican candidates: Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Rick Perry.

Herman Cain: Mr. Cain proposes what he calls his 999 Plan for Economic Renewal. It is elegant in its simplicity: Personal and corporate income are both taxed at 9%, and a 9% federal sales tax is imposed. That means that if you earn $50,000 this year, your tax would be $4,500. If your corporation makes $500,000 it pays $45,000. If you buy $100 in groceries your bill will be $109. Right?

Not exactly. According to his web page, individuals will pay 9% of their gross income minus money donated to charity. Also there will be tax breaks for people who live or work in an Empowerment Zone (though he doesn’t explain what an Empowerment Zone is or how its chosen). This begins the process of determining the difference between gross income and adjusted gross income. I have a hard time imagining that once this door is cracked open Congress won’t want to add deductions.

Shortly after he announced the 999 plan last month he came under criticism for making even the poorest pay the same rate as the richest. Even though this is the basic foundation of a flat tax, Mr. Cain tinkered with his plan. You can read about it on Fox News: he amended his plan to make anyone at or below the poverty level exempt from the 9% tax, now called 909. Here’s an interesting question: if you’re marginally above the poverty rate but donate enough money (or live in an Empowerment Zone) to adjust your income below the poverty rate, does your tax bill drop from 9% to 0%?

Perhaps the most controversial part of this is the 9% sales tax. There is currently no federal sales tax on most things (though there is an 18.4% tax on gasoline). Many states and localities do have a variety of sales taxes. Where I live there is a 7.75% sales tax on most items, but not on groceries. It’s not clear that Mr. Cain’s plan would add 9% to current local sales tax, or if it replaces those taxes, how states and localities would replace that money.

Ron Paul: This is hard to decipher, but you can look for yourself at his page on taxes. Ron suggests eliminating income taxes on individuals (and, interestingly enough, taxes on tips. I guess he figures that if you work in the restaurant or the hospitality industry, tips aren’t income). In any case, Ron is running for the Republican nomination, but he’s really a libertarian. He calls for a Constitutional Amendment that repeals the 16th Amendment and also calls for the closing of the IRS. He doesn’t worry so much about raising the money to fund the government as to shrinking the government to fit within the available funds. Government funds would be raised by a 15% flat rate on corporations.

Rick Perry proposes a hybrid plan. Essentially he gives the taxpayers a choice: pay your taxes under the current tax code, or choose his New Flat Tax System. That system uses a form called the 1040EZR. You put in your gross income, claim $12,500 for each exemption, deduct mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state/local taxes, and capital gains/dividends. This gives you a taxable income and you pay 20% of that. Governor Perry thinks this 1040EZR will be appealing enough that many taxpayers will use this form over the standard 1040 even if their taxes will go up.

So where does this leave us? The idea of a flat tax appeals to the fairness in all of us, but proponents of progressive tax argue that those who have more can bear a larger share. Right now if Bill Gates and I purchase the same car we would pay the same sales tax, but since he makes more money than I do, he would pay more in income tax.

These candidates, and others, argue a flat tax is not only fairer but also easier. The problem, at least with Cain and Perry, is they have already abandoned a pure flat tax to the extent that both allow deductions for charitable contributions. I also wonder about the pushback any candidate would get (for example) from the National Association of Realtors for trying to eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest.

Housekeeping on My Candidates List

As in 2008 I’m attempting to keep an accurate list of the men and women running for President in 2012. It’s not an easy task as I wish to go beyond the candidates who have enough money and media exposure to be household names (quick, name anyone other than President Obama running for the Democratic nomination). It’s hard sometimes to tell who is really running; many of the candidates I have listed appear to have put up a web page and don’t do anything else. From time to time I click on the pages to see if anyone has dropped out; they almost never say they do and I’m left to wonder.

Tonight I randomly clicked on the page for independent candidate Rajesh Raghavan. His page on blogspot has been removed. I looked to see if perhaps he has moved his page and I haven’t found anything. There is a page connected with the Federal Election Commission; it tracks the money to his campaign. As I write this he has raised $550 (of which $500 is from him) and has spent $347 leaving him a balance of $203. Presumably most of the $347 was the blogspot post.

From time to time a candidate googles himself and finds my page and contacts me. This has already happened with one candidate. If you are connected with Mr. Raghavan’s campaign, let me know what to do with my list. As for now I’m removing it.

Rapture Update: Looks Like the World is Going to Keep On Going

Well, I guess we can all stop hoping for a one way ticket to Heaven and the pleasure of watching the world end. I wrote posts in April, May, and June about Harold Camping and Family Radio. Harold has a program on Family Radio and last winter he proclaimed that on May 21st everyone who is right with God will be taken up to Heaven. From May 21st to October 21st the world will be populated by those left behind and on October 21st God will destroy the world and everyone on it.

This was bad news for everyone, but mostly for Harold Camping: May 21st came and went and nobody disappeared (at least nobody we noticed). Mr. Camping went into hiding for a few days and emerged to say that he was still right. His explanation of this was posted here. Frankly I have a hard time following the article, but here’s what it sounds like to me: May 21st was a “spiritual rapture” where God decides who will be saved and who will not. On October 21st (presumably at the same time) the righteous will be raptured and everyone else will be destroyed.

Unfortunately he did not give a time. On May 21st Mr. Camping claimed the rapture would be at 6PM but did not specify a time zone. He lives in Oakland, California and I took it to be 6PM local time. But here I am, in the same time zone as Mr. Camping, looking at the clock and it’s now a little after 8:30PM. That means it’s 11:30PM in New York, 5:30AM (October 22nd) in Paris, and 12:30PM (October 22nd) in Tokyo. If you’re going to specify a time for the Rapture, please be specific about your time zone.

In any case, Mr. Camping said the May 21st event would leave the world intact, but less populated. But the October 21st event would destroy the world and to the extent that any of us are still here, it appears Mr. Camping is running out of justification. There is a donations button on Family Radio’s web page. I suggest that nobody click on it.

By the way, if you’re looking for another chuckle, here’s where you can buy a rapture survival kit.

Hank Williams Jr., Monday Night Football, and the First Amendment

I’ve been watching Monday Night Football since its inception in 1970. It’s gone through lots of changes, but for since 1989 we’ve heard Hank Williams, Jr. ask: “ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?” Truth be told I thought for the first few years the singer was Eddie Rabbit but he died in 1998.

Back to Hank: he’s an unabashed Republican and does not support President Obama. We disagree on this, but I can appreciate his talent as a musician while disagreeing on his politics.

Alas, last week he went too far. He compared the golf summit between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner as akin to “Hitler playing golf with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu.”

I’m of the belief that it will take about 200 years before any analogy with Hitler won’t inflame people and shouldn’t be used. But as an American I need to accept that any other American can disagree with me, and I have no Constitutional right to not be offended.

Mr. Williams is not of that belief.

ESPN elected to end their contract with Mr. Williams (there’s some dispute over whether he quit or was fired). Hank’s response was to say this:

“After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You [ESPN] stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.

OK Hank, here’s some hard truths:

The First Amendment does not support you. The text of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says this about freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hank, the Constitution states that you cannot be arrested for anything you say in a public setting. It does not mean that you can say anything you want without consequences. For example, if you tell your wife she’s ugly and stupid she can’t have you arrested but that doesn’t mean she can’t make your life a living hell.

Hank: you live in a wonderful country. You should learn more about it.

Michele Bachmann: Pushing the Envelope of Stupid and Scary

Michele Bachmann is a congresswoman from Minnesota who is running for President. She’s one of the favorites of the Tea Party and has been a darling of the conservative press.

She’s also either crazy or stupid (or both). During the debate on the debt limit in July and August she promised to vote against raising the debt limit. She claimed this was the only way to reign in government spending. What she didn’t say was that voting against raising the dept limit wasn’t cutting up the government credit card, it was cutting up the statement after using the card. Fortunately she wasn’t successful.

On Monday night, September 12th, she was participating in a debate with others seeking the Republican nomination and disagreed with Texas Governor Rick Perry over the HPV or Human Papillomavirus. In 2007 Governor Perry signed an executive order mandating the HPV vaccine for 6th grade girls (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend the vaccine for 11 and 12 year old girls) but also provided parents with the opportunity to opt out. The vaccine is critical in preventing cervical cancer, but many oppose it because one of the risk factors of cervical cancer is sexual activity. The opposition fears that by giving this vaccine to girls, it is tacitly giving them permission to be sexually active as teens and young adults. I can’t imagine an 11 year old getting the vaccine and viewing it as a green light to be sexually irresponsible, but that’s their argument. In any case Perry’s decision was one of the few I agree with.

In the debate Bachmann argued against the vaccine and hinted darkly that Perry signed it in return for a campaign contribution from its manufacturer, Merck. Interesting that she didn’t also tell the audience that while she was in the state legislature in Minnesota she voted for mandatory Hepatitis B vaccine, which is also often caused by sexual activity.

OK, so far this is just ordinary politics. Unfortunately Michele couldn’t leave it alone. The next day on the Today Show she claimed that she spoke with a mother in Tampa Bay who claimed the vaccine caused her daughter to become mentally retarded. Of course, we’ve not heard from the mother since.

This is where Michele becomes more than just an annoyance: this is where she become dangerous. I don’t blame her for wanting to be President or for criticizing one of her opponents, but she goes too far when she scares people needlessly. It’s hard enough being an 11 year old girl, and it’s hard enough to be a parent who hopes his or her daughter will be sexually responsible and safe. Parents have to make decisions that will balance their trust and fear and it’s hard enough without added pressure. When Michele Bachmann falsely claims that this vaccine will harm your daughter, it makes a bad situation worse.

Simply put, she’s wrong. She’s giving bad information to a vulnerable audience in the hopes that they will vote for her out of fear. It won’t work (there’s not a chance she will be our next President) but it may cause parents to make bad decisions out of the fear that she perpetrates. I wrote an earlier post on the people who spread lies about vaccines in the hopes that they will benefit. This is just another chapter in that story.

Shame on you Michele Bachmann.

And Now We Have Two (Cats)

Scully In a previous post I talked about the frustration with dealing with the local Department of Animal Services.

As you can see from the picture, it did have a happy ending. I returned on Thursday, September 1st and was actually able to take him home. Now I can be fully honest. When I went to pick him up and they told me he had to be neutered, they also told me that they would have to test him for feline leukemia. If he came back positive I could “pick another cat.” In other words, they would euthanize him. It wasn’t a great ride home.

When I brought him home we had to come up with a name. When Craig and Alison found him they suggested “Slugger” since he was found on a baseball field. Nancy at first suggested “Patches” due to his coat but I found that too common. My suggestion was “TrouvĂ©” which is French for “Found” but Nancy thought that was too obscure. We liked the idea of a baseball theme, and Nancy suggested “Scully” after now famous Los Angeles Dodgers announcer Vin Scully.

Scully came to us with a large measure of enthusiasm and purring, but also with an upper respiratory infection (ie, a cold). A kitten who sneezes constantly is always a cause for concern, but our veterinarian (Dr. John Hetzler) at Ark Animal Hospital believes it will take care of itself in a matter of days. It’s getting better, but still hard to take at 2AM.

You may ask how Scully is relating to our other cat, Missy. It hasn’t been the easiest of introductions but it seems to be working. Missy is playing the role of the older sister who is not happy about having a little brother, but she’s coping. They may end up as pals, but for the time being Missy is giving Scully a wide berth.

More later.

Reflections on The Day, 10 Years Later

Like Pearl Harbor and President Kennedy’s assassination, my generation will ask: “Where were you on 9/11?” I’ve been thinking about that day, and the last 10 years, for some time now.

The morning of the attack Nancy and I were getting ready for work. My parents were visiting from Virginia, and they were staying with us at the house we had purchased 5 months earlier. They were scheduled to fly home on September 12th. Needless to say they didn’t get home until that following Sunday.

I was still working for Vitas Hospice and that Tuesday morning I had to go into the office for a meeting. During the meeting (on the 9th floor of a building in Mission Valley) I noticed that one of my co workers kept steeling glances out the window. I guess we were all wondering if the attacks were really over.

I found many of my patients wanted to talk about Pearl Harbor because they were feeling many of the same things: what does this mean? What will happen next? What do we do now? In both cases we knew that this was the beginning of a long conflict, but in 1941 we at least knew who we were fighting against. When Franklin Roosevelt spoke to Congress the next day, it was clear: we were attacked by the nation of Japan and President Roosevelt asked for (and received) a declaration of war, in accordance of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

On 9/11 we knew pretty quickly that we were attacked not by a nation but by a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) under the leadership of one person (Osama bin Laden). We were also learning that Al Qaeda was located primarily in Afghanistan under the protection of a group called the Taliban. Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war, but the Taliban controlled most of the country by 2001. We had known about all these groups going back to the Clinton administration. The Taliban were known as an Islamic organization that read the Qu’ran (Koran) in such a way as to subjugate and virtually enslave women. Worldwide human rights organizations had been publicizing these events for a while, but while they were committing these crimes in Afghanistan, they posed no immediate harm to the United States.

The Bush administration had a fundamental choice to make: do we treat this as an act of war and ask for a declaration of war against Afghanistan, or do we treat this like a crime and seek out and arrest those individuals responsible for this act. At the time I believed there was a good case to be made for a declaration of war. Our government demanded that the nation of Afghanistan immediate hand over Osama bin Laden and anyone else associated with the attacks, and they refused. I believed then, and believe now, that we could have reasonably declared war on Afghanistan.

But I also believed (and believe more strongly now) that this was better pursued as a criminal case. This is grist for another day, but our intelligence services had mounds of information on Al Qaeda and bin Laden, but they didn’t share this information with each other and there was nobody to put together the pieces to have prevented this. As a matter of fact, the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing predicted the attacks.

Given the intelligence we already had, I believe we could have found and prosecuted bin Laden within the next few months. But I believe the Bush administration committed a series of errors that historians of the next generations will find hard to imagine.

First, to the question of which direction, they choose neither. A declaration of war meant that anyone captured had to be classified as a prisoner of war and have the protections of the Geneva Convention. A criminal case meant that anyone arrested would have the protection of civil law.

Clearly the Bush administration did not want to be constrained by either and so they invented their own path. This allowed them to come up with terms such as “enemy combatant” and “extraordinary rendition.” It also allowed us to arrest anyone, anywhere in the world, take him to Guantanamo, Cuba and hold him there indefinitely with no access to justice. At least at the beginning they were held with no access to council, their own government, or any idea what would happen to them. Many of them are still there.

Unlike President Bush, I have enough faith in our justice system to believe that we could have brought them to trial here. My best example of this is the case of Timothy McVeigh. I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that he didn’t have a spirited defense, or that justice was not served.

Now, 10 years later, I will give credit: Al Qaeda is greatly reduced and isn’t the threat it was. Osama bin Laden is dead, and most of its leadership is captured and unable to cause any more terror.

But we are still at war in two different countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. Again this is grist for another article, but I believe another mistake of the Bush administration is to focus not on Afghanistan, but on Iraq. Nobody seriously believes that Saddam Huessin had anything to do with 9/11, yet we invaded his country in 2003, dismantled the government, destroyed much of the infrastructure, killed thousands of civilians, and are still trying to get out.

And perhaps most troubling to me is the damage done to our reputation, and to our Constitution. President Bush claimed that they attacked us because we love freedom (they actually attacked us because of the presence of our troops in Arab countries and our support of Israel, but let’s not quibble). But what does this say about freedom when we hold people indefinitely and make up terms like “enemy combatant” for the express purpose of not having to deal reasonably with them?

I’m not sure if I’ll write on the 20th anniversary, but I hope we’ve restored much of what we’ve lost.

San Diego County Department of Animal Services: Run Far Away, Run Fast!

OK, almost everyone has a story about the nutty stuff we have to do when interfacing with local bureaucracy. Here’s mine: Last week our neighbors Craig and Alison were walking their dog Buddy about 9pm. Our street ends at a canyon that is full of coyotes; Craig and Alison saw a kitten there. Craig is allergic but they knew that the kitten would be eaten if left there and they called us. We agreed to keep the kitten for the night and suspected that it had been abandoned. But we also wanted him returned if it was lost.

The next morning Alison took him to the Humane Society to see if he had a microchip. Alas, the Humane Society doesn’t check for this and they sent Alison next door to the Department of Animal Services (aka the Pound). When Alison asked about the microchip the DAS took the kitten, told her that they would have to hold him for 5 days, but that Alison could apply to adopt him if nobody claimed him.

Since Nancy and I wanted to adopt this kitten I went down to their offices to fill out an application where I was told that I could have the kitten in 7 days (assuming he wasn’t claimed); when I asked why it went from 5 to 7 days I was cheerfully told that it was 5 business days. I filled out a form and was told that on Wednesday from 10AM to 11AM I could adopt him, but that after 11AM anyone could adopt him.

It was a long week, but I checked on him a few times. I could see him through the window but couldn’t have any contact. This morning I got there at 9:30. I was told that I could indeed adopt him, but when the caseworker saw the carrier I brought she cheerfully said: “Oh you don’t need a carrier. You won’t be bringing him home today.” When I asked why not she said that he has to be neutered and that appointment would be set for Saturday or Sunday (even though they are closed on Sunday).

Never underestimate the power of a well placed glare. Because of my glaring at the caseworker, the operation is set for tomorrow and I can pick him up tomorrow. I tried my best to get them to guarantee that there will be no other delays. We’ll see if that happens.

Here is my question: they have to neuter him by state law before releasing him and I support that. They’ve known for a week (or 5 business days, whichever comes first) that I want to adopt him. Why didn’t they neuter him during the week? Unfortunately this is a department that still euthanizes animals from time to time and I understand that they don’t want to perform an operation on an animal that won’t go home, but they knew this kitten would go home. I also promised them I would have my veterinarian neuter him if I could have him today but that went nowhere (even though I would be willing to pay and save the county money).

Speaking of money, they’ve had to house and feed this kitten for 7 days when I would have willing to take him. I’m not normally one who bangs the drum of government waste, but this is one time when it’s staring me in the face.

Stay tuned.