Still More on Taking Welfare and Hating It

February 20, 2012

It’s somewhat reassuring to know that the things that I read and find interesting enough to write about are also read and found worthy of comment by people I respect. For those interested in what professional writers and good thinkers have to say about the NYTimes article I discussed here, see this from the Democracy in America Blog from The Economist.

and added commentary here


Taxing The Rich; Two Views

October 24, 2011

Below are two letters to the editors of The Economist, reproduced in full from the 8 October 2011 issue.  While each comes at the tax question from different sides, I agree with both Sweeney and Shayer.  The ‘rich” have the lobbyists to make the tax code dance to their tune.  This is why the mortgage interest deduction will always be with us, among other giveaways to the middle and upper classes.

At the same time, it’s always been curious to me how charges of “class warfare” are always trump and unidirectional. It is always talk of increasing taxes that lead to this charge, rarely or never talk of increasing the burdens on those with lower incomes.  Is our denial of class differences that deep?  Yeah, we’re a “classless society” all right.  Any look at an income differential chart will show you otherwise.  Any discussion of where (or if) randomly selected kids are able to go to college will bear witness to the giant schism between the classes in America.   Being shocked, SHOCKED! at the use of “class warfare” simply works in the favor of the favored class.  It’s not a discussion people are comfortable having. Admitting to having classes, let alone having those classes “at war” is not what we aspire to, even though it’s very much where we are.

Read and ponder.


Taxing the rich

SIR – I believe I am classed as one of the wealthy in America, so I took a great interest in your leader on how to get the well-heeled to pay more tax (“Hunting the rich”, September 24th). You advocated a tax system that would make the top rates more equal on wages and capital, eliminate virtually all deductions and get rid of corporate taxes. This, you said, would allow for a much lower top rate of income tax and would actually reap more tax revenues from the rich. You appear to be arguing that I, as one of the rich, would prefer to see lower income-tax rates, and for this “benefit” would be willing to pay more money. What are you smoking?

I do not give a damn about tax rates. My entrepreneurial instincts are in no way discouraged by high marginal rates. But I do care about how much money I have to pay. I like my deductions, all perfectly legal, around which I have structured my life.

Yes, the tax system is unfair. The array of consumption and payroll taxes are regressive and result in the less well-off paying a higher proportion of their total income in taxes. And this will continue as long as we, the rich, can persuade the politicians who write tax laws, and who are also part of the monied class, to structure the tax system to indulge us.

What is there not to like?

Anthony Sweeney
Darien, Connecticut

SIR – Why is it called “class warfare” to advocate raising taxes on the rich, but not when it comes to cutting benefits to the poor?

David Shayer
Palo Alto, California

What I read

March 28, 2010

Probably Enough to Keep Me Busy

My name is Mark and I am an addict.  My drug of choice is information, particularly on current events.

I started really reading in junior high, but it got out of hand in high school.  At first it was two newspapers a day (Chicago Tribune and the Arlington Herald).  Sports first, then the other stuff.  My reading an article about a rape trial got me “the talk” from my dad. I was in Student Congress in high school and there wasn’t a current topic that was off-limits, so preparing meant covering a wide landscape.  The guy behind the periodical desk at the library came to dislike me.  That experience introduced me to the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, as well as a broader range of general and not so general interest magazines.  Foreign Policy, anyone?  It was a gateway drug.

I went into remission in college, then resumed consuming thereafter.  It’s now really out of hand with both internet’s accessibility and my not having a job.  But even when I worked, I still always had about 40 pages of articles I’d reformatted into two-column, 10-point font to carry with me.  Walking to a meeting, waiting for a lunch partner, lunching by myself, on the train, and in other places appropriate or not, my appetite for news could be described as insatiable.  In the last couple years, I’ve fallen in love with podcasting, so now I’ve got news in through my ears and eyes, often at the same time.  If you see me with my headphones, chances are good that I’m tuned into Fresh Air or something similar, rather than Green Day.

I don’t watch much TV; mostly sports and a few entertainment shows (Modern Family tops the list, Wednesdays at 9/8CT).  I only occasionally watch cable news, and that’s only because I like the way certain people write their material, not because it adds much to my knowledge or understanding of a topic.  Cable TV does all of us a disservice by conflating the ideas of “governing” and “politics” and treating both in the same way CNBC treats the stock market or ESPN treats the baseball season.  It’s not a game.  Policy-making, like history, happens over a long arc of time and does not change eight times within 24 hours. I couldn’t help but notice how the so-called conventional wisdom on President Obama turned 180 degrees in the moments following signing the health care bill (and publication of David Frum’s “Waterloo” analysis). One moment, he’s a political blunderer, the next a genius.  It was never either one and there wasn’t a switch magically flipped on Sunday.  While there are addition points made in this this NY Review of Books piece, it encapsulates my feelings on the topic pretty well.

I used to have a business relationship with CNN and conversations with their executives taught me much about how they think and their need to “feed the monster”.  Essentially, their argument was:  We’re on for 24 hours and have to have something to talk about, so we take small things, small differences, highlight them and if we’re lucky, we’ll get a run of a couple days out of a story.  If that happens, it’s that many fewer other little stories that we’ll have to report. It was akin to taking crap and throwing it against the wall to see what would stick, then talking about it until it fell off the wall.  It works great at first (e.g., the first Gulf War), but with the proliferation of channels, the hosts of these shows have to continually come up with unique things to be outraged about, lest they lose their gigs (think Beck and Olbermann; Hannity and Ed).  If there’s nothing to be outraged about, what’s the point of having them on the air?  So outraged they are.  And we lose the concept of rational discourse in the process.

But I digress.

So, I read.  Don’t tell my business colleagues, but reading about business bores me.

I occasionally get asked what I read.  Unlike someone who came to national prominence in the last couple years and was unprepared for that question, I have an answer.  It’s a long one.  I’m exhausted looking at it.  You’ll note that it doesn’t include Time, Newsweek or any of the other “general interest” magazines.  My sense has been that if they’re only going to publish weekly, their analysis had better be excellent because it comes so late; I find their websites generally uninteresting, too (too much celebrity coverage).  The last time I checked, I didn’t think it warranted the effort.

It’s a habit I can’t kick.  I read the occasional book, but while doing that, I’m thinking of the other current things I could be reading about, so it sort of sucks the pleasure out of it.  The only exception is when I get my hands on a good history book, since I can put myself in the historical context and read it as if it was a current event.  It’s more confusing to explain than to do.

So here’s the list.

Physical media:

Online – consistently (I pay for access to the WSJ.  I would pay for content at other providers, too.  The notion that this stuff all has to be free is flawed as far as I’m concerned):

Online – occasional


  • PTI
  • C-SPAN After Words (from Book TV)
  • Fresh Air
  • NPR’s It’s All Politics
  • NPR’s Planet Money
  • PBS NewsHour
  • Slate’s Culture Gabfest
  • Slate’s Hang Up and Listen
  • Slate’s Political Gabfest
  • Countdown
  • This American Life
  • On The Media
  • Today in the Past

No Politico, Talking Points Memo or Daily Beast.

If I’m missing something, let me know.  There’s always room on the browser and in the stack of papers for another view.

%d bloggers like this: