End of the Session and Tax Cuts.

    With Congress nearing the end of its session, there has been a whole slew of legislative activity taking place which is great.  After a period of harping by the Republicans that acting during the lame duck session was somehow immoral, Congress managed to act during the lame duck session.  Now, there are some legitimate arguments to be made about how Congress should not do anything while waiting for a new Congress, namely that it might enact legislation that is counter to what the voters want as indicated by the recent batch of representatives elected.  Congress managed to pass a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; an extension of tax cuts for the Middle Class and an extension of unemployment benefits; food safety regulations, and other such policies that were favored by Democrats with a few left out.
    I want to point out that the tax deal is not nearly as bad as everyone says it is.  First, there was no way to get the middle class tax cuts without giving the upper class tax cuts as well.  Democrats in the Senate were not going to use reconciliation to pass that bill, too many moderate senators happen to like wealthy people more than the rest of society.  Furthermore, I think everything that can be done, should be done with regards to demonstrating that no one cares about the deficit.  I'm just disappointed that the media keeps calling people in Washington fiscally conservative, because no one is.  They love spending money on things, they only care about the deficit when that money goes to groups that aren't their own constituents or don't support them.  In addition, how pissed off would the country be if taxes went up for everyone AND unemployment benefits weren't extended?  I maintain that there was no realistic way to get the middle class cuts extended and get unemployment benefits done at this point, and maybe not even earlier for that matter.  In an ideal world, Obama and Congressional Democrats would have passed the Obama tax cuts which affected only those making under 250,000 while letting the Bush tax cuts elapse because the people who passed them were shortsighted.  They could do this with only 50 votes, Biden could provide the tie breaker.  Some might blame this not happening on Obama, I squarely place the blame on the fact that there are a number of conservative Democrats who enjoy posturing about the subject and who frankly are more supportive of he affluent.
   

Brian's BCS Breakdown

    The college football season is ending, meaning that in order to get my fix I'm watching Appalachian State take on Villanova.  I figured I'd discuss a few of my problems with the current system of FBS football and how they handle their championship.  By and large, I am opposed to the BCS not necessarily because it doesn't set up a good match between 1 and 2, it usually does to some extent, but because it really messes everything else.  It's a system in which you can win all your games and still be left out of a good bowl or the national championship.  Let's look at Auburn a few years back, or Michigan State this year.  They beat Wisconsin, have the same record, but because Michigan State's loss came later in the year they miss out on the Rose Bowl.  I have a word for that, idiocy.  Think of the reaction were that to occur in a professional sport.  Let us say that the Pats and the Jets have the same record at the end of the year and the Pats own the head to head tie breaker.  If the Jets got into the playoffs over the Pats because of random computations by a shadowy cabal of nerds there would be rioting in the street.  Things should be settled on the field, not by the perceptions of coaches, sports writers, and others who pay no more attention to the game than looking at scores, records and the name of the school in a newspaper. 
    Many would argue that the implementation of a play-off would diminish the regular season, that if teams didn't have to go undefeated the games would be less thrilling.  There is some truth to this, emphasis on some.  Not every game is important for every team and different games have different levels of importance.  It turns out that Virginia Tech, Stanford, Arkansas, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Oklahoma didn't have to win every game, as long as they lost earlier in the year everything was peachy keen.  Virginia Tech and Connecticut both lost to more teams and to inferior competition than Boise State and Michigan State yet both get to attend prestigious bowl games with large payouts.  To say that every game matters is to be disingenuous.  If every game mattered, only undefeated teams or teams with better records would be represented in the bowls. 
    I happen to be an ardent supporter of a playoff though there would be less excitement for some teams.  Auburn or Oregon or another highly ranked team could likely drop a game and still get a good seed in the playoff.  Other teams though, would still have the excitement of having to play there way in, still making every game important.  The same number of games would likely still be important, people would still have stayed up late to watch Boise State vs Nevada because it would have determined whether or not that Boise State could have gone to the playoffs, most current projections for a playoff would have the top eight teams competing, a distinction that Boise State lost when it lost the game.  I personally like the idea that the individual ranked conference champion gets in with a few at large bids.  With the current standings, that would mean that Oregon, Auburn, TCU, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Boise State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and UCF would all receive automatic bids, add in 5 wild-cards that would probably be Ohio State, Stanford, Arkansas, Michigan State, and Boise State.  Oregon and Auburn would receive a first round bye making for thirteen games to be played in total over four weeks, which is about how long the bowl season lasts as it stands presently.  Are teams left out of this system?  Yes.  Do some lower ranked teams get in over higher ranked teams?  Again, yes.  But, this view completely disregards the fact that there are competitive disadvantages between certain conferences that make this plan better than the current one.
    Over the course of the last season, many complained about Boise State being included in the same breath as Oregon or Auburn, claiming that Boise would never be able to compete week in and week out with the rest of the SEC or Pac 10.  My problem with this argument, is that I don't think that Auburn or Oregon could compete in their respective conferences if their funding and facilities were at the same level as Boise's.  The NCAA is not like the NFL, there is no larger revenue sharing or salary cap.  Certain conferences make a lot more money and the schools that belong to it benefit more from it.  I'm for more amenable to the argument that the champion of the NFC West should be left out of the playoffs than I am that the champion of the Mountain West should be left out.  Besides, I think that a robust playoff like this might actually put a huge dent in the perceptions that people have of rankings and the mega conferences.  Right now I'm watching unranked Villanova convincingly outplay #1 ranked Appalachian State.
    Many would argue that this would interfere with the studies of the students etc etc.  These are unconvincing arguments because every other sport has playoffs and they manage to do just fine.  If the University Presidents were actually concerned about the impact that playoffs would have on academic performance they would schedule their games to take place in the Summer.  Besides, I guarantee Villanova has great academic achievements and that they still manage to win a playoff match up to get a national championship.  Furthermore, if the University presidents actually cared about student part of the student athlete, they would have academic performance and graduation rates factor into the BCS computation, likely pitting Stanford and TCU in the championship game.  These are student-athletes, so being good students should result in some kind of tangible reward for them on the field.  
    Really, the attachment to the bowl games has everything to do with money but here's the thing, these schools would still make a ton of money if there was a switch to the playoff and there's nothing that says that the various bowls can't still be utilized.  There could be a two tier structure like we have with NCAA Basketball, the good teams get to go into the playoffs and the bad teams get to go bowling.  Most of the bowls are really stupid anyways and are only important to the teams that are in them. 
    As a final note, I want to touch upon the Cam Newton scandal.  This feels like the height of hypocrisy to me.  Bush loses the Heisman because the NCAA held that the actions of the parent are not to be held distinct with the actions of the child.  If the parent does something wrong, the child did something wrong.  The NCAA decided not to do it that way this time and argued that Cecil Newton acted independently of Cam Newton so Cam should not be punished and found disqualified.  That's pure idiocy, even if he did not know, he may have materially benefited from his father's actions, which gives him a competitive advantage that is against the rules.  Not to mention that this makes it way easier to cheat in the future, athletes can just claim they didn't know what there parents were doing.  The only reason why the NCAA went all limp-wristed on this issue was because Auburn is getting ready to play for the National Championship and Cam Newton is up for the Heisman, if the team sucked you know they would have found him ineligible.  Frankly this just seems like an event where the NCAA will punish Auburn and Cam after it's no longer important anymore. 

DADT Repeal (I wish my Exasperation Would Come Through Better)

    I just found out that the US Senate failed to past DADT repeal as part of the Defense funding bill with a vote of 57-40.  That's right, 57% of our elected officials in the Senate were in favor of allowing Gays to openly serve in the military, something that many advanced armies  have done throughout the world without any kind of disruptions to unit cohesion or efficacy.  Were 57% vs 40% of the population to vote for one presidential candidate it would be a landslide of historic proportions.  What kind of world is this when something like this doesn't pass?  It's immoral, and frankly does not bode well for any kind of legislative efficacy in the future. 

    A couple of other blogs have touched upon the subject.  Joshua Bernstein has wondered why Reid would try to bring this to a vote without absolute surety that it would have sufficient votes.  Something that I can understand to an extent but still doesn't address the key issue that something like this is obscenely inefficient and counter-intuitive.  Bradford Plumer over at The New Republic takes the view that this is an example of extreme senatorial malfunction. 

   Hopefully there will be some kind of change to the workings of the Senate that will make it less of a place where legislation goes to die despite receiving a majority of the vote along with holding rather wide public support.  The Senate's rules can be reformed at the beginning of a new session and conceivably at any time Reid could reform the rules regarding filibusters or placing holds with a simple majority vote.  I'm torn between my desire to remove the filibuster (or at least amend it) and my concern that doing so would turn the Senate into a more conservative House.  I say more conservative because the Senate is structurally set up to favor rural states and will often have Senators who were elected under a different political climate than the one that the public currently has.  In a few years I might favor the filibuster of a Republican bill that I oppose just as I'm sure there are a number of Republicans who are really excited about the ability to block Democratic policies.  Still, at the end of the day, I'm tired of having legislation that is clearly popular being blocked because of even the threat of a filibuster.  I'm tired of Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana having the ability to place a hold on a nomination just so she can extort something from the Obama administration.

The Tax Cut Deal

    As you all undoubtedly know, the Bush Tax cuts for both the upper income bracket as well as the other brackets have been extended.  In addition to the extension of these cuts, unemployment benefits have been extended, payroll taxes have been cut, and the estate tax has increased the level which can be writ off.  A lot has been written on the subject from the liberal perspective that has been to a certain extent bemoaning the lack of political spine of Obama.  An individual blogger than I read quite frequently has a pretty good take on why this deal was eventually reached and it basically comes down to the fact that the two groups both wanted something: Democrats wanted the extension of middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits, and Republicans wanted the extension of Upper Class tax breaks.  What happened?  They did what we all say we want from our elected officials, they compromised and created a bill that would meet the demands of both groups.  It's bipartisan!

    This particular agreement goes a long way towards demonstrating my belief that no one cares about deficits, but I'm not going to go on about that.  Anyone who still believes that these individuals care about deficits is deluding themselves.  This plan will in fact increase the deficit/debt/ whatever we want to call it because it combines spending with massive cuts in potential revenue.  I will say that I don't actually think this matters because the deficit is something that is not an issue now, all of this posturing about the deficit is really just an excuse to cut government services.

    What this deal really says about the state of American politics is that individuals in power are incapable of raising taxes on anyone, for any reason, at any time.  We have a party that is nominally dedicated to the Middle Class and refuses to make them pay more taxes (Democrats), and we have a group that refuses to raise taxes on corporations or the Upper Class (Republicans).  Given that these two groups will always be exchanging power while holding large majorities when they are not in control, that is a recipe for no raised taxes.  We as a society have elected officials that will not raise taxes, will not cut spending, and generally tell us how someone else will pay for what we want without any kind of impact on our everyday lives or pocketbook.  We're a society of having our cake, and eating it to.  One need only look at the Bowles-Simpson plan that was produced.  Within it, a number of spending cuts were introduced but no tax hikes.  Taxes would actually be reduced for upper income earners in favor of greater price controls for health care.  When we are more willing to talk about cutting Medicare or Social Security instead of increasing taxes on the wealthy or closing corporate tax loopholes, we have discovered a new third rail.

    I would like to finish with the idea that, though this plan should represent the end of talks about fiscal restraint or reducing the deficit, it won't.  Also I want to say that overall this isn't the worst thing in the world that could have happened to Obama or the Democrats.  They actually got two key policy goals, extension of unemployment benefits and the middle class tax cut, out of this agreement that would have hurt them if they hadn't done anything.  Can you imagine what would happened had Democrats not made a deal and let all of the tax cuts lapse?  We'd be burning them in effigy in all likelihood.  One area of complaint that I actually have is that more could have been gotten out of this by Obama and Democrats.  Republicans have to cut taxes, they are ideologically compelled to, especially for upper income earners.  Reid and Obama should have packed a few more things into this, DADT Repeal would definitely have passed if linked with tax cut extension because Republicans care more about carrying water for corporate interests than Gays.

Someone's Been Reading My Blog (Other Than My Parents.)

    This just in, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips has adopted my proposal to have Sarah Palin be the next chair of the RNC.  I'm waiting for him to start calling for the limiting of who can vote, which I actually should make an addendum to.  Ala Starship Troopers, we should only allow soldiers to vote because clearly the only individuals who are worthy of deciding are political fate are those who are defending it.  

    I'll have a post later today about something else but I just wanted all of my readers to know that someone important is reading this blog. 

Why Extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

    I've already posted earlier that people don't actually care about the deficit in any meaningful manner despite what polls may say.  An interesting thing keeps popping up with regards to these tax cuts that proves quite well that no one in Congress cares about the deficit.  Republicans have been claiming that we should extend all of the tax cuts because you should never raise taxes during the middle of a recession and also their belief that lowering taxes increases revenue, something that is demonstrably false.  (The link discusses how revenue actually increases when taxes are higher tangentially because it really talks about how you can lie with charts.  The chart shows that during the Clinton years when he raised taxes, revenue increased for the government.)  They have simultaneously been refusing to extend unemployment benefits because it adds to the deficit.  Interestingly enough, both add to the deficit, tax cuts just do it more so because they are so much greater.

    Why do congressional Republicans and some Democrats want to extend tax cuts?  It has nothing to do with fiscal policy, nothing to do with ideology, it has nothing to do with any kind of concern with the deficit, (because NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE DEFICIT) it has everything to do with the fact that they would be raising their own marginal tax rates if they voted not to extend the Bush tax cuts.  How come no one has made this point?  People vote their interests and this includes congressmen.  There are people who would choose to increase their tax burden, this has to be the case because congressmen and Presidents do work to increase the tax rates at times.  Let's face it though, people who tend to make a lot of money vote Republican because they know that their taxes are likely to decrease.  Guess what?  Most Congressmen are wealthy, so obviously they'll tend to vote to lower their tax burden if presented with the opportunity.  This incoming class of congressmen is wealthier than usual by current standards apparently.  If you were to ask average everyday people to raise their own tax rates voluntarily, I'm curious as to how much success you'd find.  Why should we expect Congressmen to behave any differently?

    

*     I did say earlier that ideology is not important, that's not quite true because ideology does influence how people vote.  I really just meant to say that material interests will tend to outweigh ideological ones.  This explains why conservative elderly people still support socialized healthcare for the elderly.  (Medicare)