"Essentially, Krauthammer is committing a fallacy by failing to distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes. Obama is saying that the government plays a necessary role in the success of entrepreneurs (and in Krauthammer's analogy, so does the post office). As Krauthammer eluded to earlier, civil society also plays a necessary role. Yet, this is not a sufficient role."However, I was also very careful not to argue for any particular proposals:
"My purpose in this article is to get the facts straight over what Obama said and what liberals generally mean when talking about this subject. I do not aim to criticize or endorse any solution to the reality observed here. I may do that in a later post."This is essentially that "later post."
As David Frum notes, President Obama appeared to only use the point to argue for the restoration of the 1990's Clinton tax rates for high income earners (although that is not the best way to describe it). Does that mean he is intending to punish high income people for their success, just because luck played a role in that success? Not necessarily.
I, along with other liberals, do not see a pure equality of opportunity arising out of a libertarian free-market (where the government plays an absolute minimal role in regulation, mostly insuring mutual non-violence). Every person was raised by a different family with different incomes and communities. Even under our socialized education system, inequalities abound among schools, both public and private. Humans are not omniscient, meaning there are unforeseen factors beyond everyone's control that can ruin even the most well thought-out plans, as well as lives. Not everyone has access to health insurance. And health is nearly always necessary for success. Free-market-driven opportunity, like any resource, is scarce. And this opportunity does not always discriminate based on individual initiative or intelligence.
As a result of this fact, we liberals tend to see governments as a mechanism for ensuring equality of opportunity. Governments can fund education, as well as provide healthcare and school lunches. Governments can provide a safety net so a string of bad luck can be overcome. Governments are capable of doing this. And we tend to believe they should.
However none of this is cheap. Safety nets in particular have helped contribute to large budget deficits over the last few years. And there is little doubt the United States faces a long term budget crisis down the road. Although the US can provide stimulus funds over the short term to help accelerate the recovery, there is little doubt a plan for addressing long term deficits is needed. This plan needs to either cut spending, increase revenues, or both. Within these plans lies a choice. What can the government target? As I just noted, government programs meant to provide an equality of opportunity are expensive. And spending that benefits lower income individuals will probably have that effect. This means that, if we want to help fix our long term budget issues, maintain a strong defense, preserve American initiatives (ex: research and development), and avoid the kind of lower and middle class tax increases that may exacerbate the problem, tax increases on the highest tax earners (whether in the form of higher rates or decreased expenditures) need serious consideration. Conservatives may argue that these higher taxes will have the effect of decreasing opportunity since the higher income-earners affected by these tax increases are "wealth creators." Yet the recent inverse relationship between corporate profits and employment gives us a good reason to doubt this. Essentially, we liberals are not buying it, especially with tax rates (as well as tax progressiveness) so low by historical standards. However, even if we were not justified in being skeptical of these claims, we would still not want to just punish successful people.
Whether we liberals are justified or not, we see the increase in revenue from high income earners as necessary to help sustain and strengthen the government programs providing opportunity to people who may not have had that opportunity otherwise. There is no need to posit some desire to punish successful people to help explain Obama's call for higher tax rates for the rich. Externals factors, whether you want to call them "luck," are necessary to help determine success. Raising tax rates on high income earners protects the government programs that help provide this luck.
The Roundup:
For the Romney campaign, having "the entrepreneurial spirit" means having wealthy parents:
"Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business" - Romney
Steve Benen summarizes this gaffe:
"If you're a young person who can't afford rising college tuition rates and/or don't have the resources to launch a business venture, the GOP's would-be president has some advice for you: choose wealthy parents."
Success is so much easier when you have wealthy parents eh...I know this sounds like a stupid question, but does Romney not realize many people out there do not have wealthy parents? This is no trivial gaffe. This shows a serious disconnect between Romney and the rest of the population who don't have the kind of parents willing and/or able to give them unlimited opportunities.
And Then All Hell Breaks Loose…
Richard Carrier explains the fall of David Barton:
And then there’s David Barton, who has long been the David Irving of the American Christian revisionism movement (those who argue that this has always been a Christian nation, founded by conservative Christians writing a Constitution based on the Bible, and praying thanks to Jesus and whatnot). Barton’s bestselling book The Jefferson Lies was voted “the least credible history book in print” by the History News Network and exposed as bullshit on NPR, and our own Chris Rodda has been instrumental in fact-checking and exposing his distortion and misrepresentation of the facts (and even the fabricating of quotes).
Now even prominent fellows of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute have declared his book full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.” Yes, you heard that right, even they are now spitting him out of their mouth. Many other conservative Christians have been piling on and confirming Barton a fraud, and have pretty much washed their hands of him. But the final blow was that his own publisher just declared his book essentially fraudulent and has pulled publication. That’s Thomas Nelson, a major Christian publisher. Barton is still defending himself and has a few lackeys punting for him, but his ship has well sunk by this point. (You can read up on all this breaking news as reported by our own Ed Brayton, Al Stefanelli, and Mano Singham.)He then follows up with a point on the 2012 election I've been making for a while:
"This single factor, who picks the next Supreme Court Justice, is literally the single most important decision every voter will be making this November, whether they are aware of it or not. We had all better vote with that on our conscience." (emphasis mine)Indeed this point may have been made most eloquently by Eddie Tabash at FreeOK2012. Sadly I do not have a copy of the video. Please comment if you find one.
The Problematic Use of Skeptics in Supernatural Shows
A MUST-READ on the supernatural-shows' skeptic strawman:
"The problem is that skeptics are treated as a character type which just has a proclivity to doubt even in the teeth of overwhelming evidence. Rather than being judiciously thinking people who believe when they see evidence, and who are skeptical merely of frauds and of the unproven, they are people who remain stubborn disbelievers despite clear and unavoidable evidence or despite knowing about similar kinds of realities within their world, etc."
Election Day impersonation, an impetus for voter ID laws, a rarity, data show
Voter impersonation fraud is virtually nonexistent. Cases of voter fraud almost never include voter impersonation fraud (instead they are often voter registration fraud, which almost never results in actual voting), meaning voter ID laws do nothing to solve the problem. And the few cases where voter impersonation fraud has existed, voter ID laws would still not be effective (absentee voting, etc...). So why again are Republicans trying to hard to enact Voter ID laws?
Democratic Members Of Ohio Election Board Removed For Supporting Voter Rights
If you compare polls of "all," verses "registered voters" and "likely voters," there is a clear trend. The former tends to side with democrats significantly more than the latter. As a result, any attempt to make voting tougher (whether through voter ID laws, suppression of weekend voting, etc...) is going to favor republicans. This is no secret. The GOP is fully aware of this and is also fully aware that Ohio may be the most important swing state in the election.
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
Former climate skeptic Richard Muller continues to evolve his stance on climate change:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming."
...
"We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions." (emphasis mine)Remember this study was partly funded by the libertarian Koch Brothers.
The GOP's Sobering Electoral Math
Although the popular vote is neck-in-neck (Obama +4.0 as of 8-13-12), there doesn't seem to be nearly as much attention drawn to the fact that Obama has a major electoral lead (237-191, with enough swing states to win easily as of 8-13-12).
Mandatory, extended vacation is good for the economy
"Americans have less vacation time than workers in any other advanced economy.
This is absurd. A mandatory three weeks off would be good for everyone -- including employers. Studies show workers who take time off are more productive after their batteries are recharged. They have higher morale, and are less likely to mentally check out on the job."
Paul Ryan Got Federal Funds To Help With Bush-Era GM Plant Closure He Blames On Obama
"The attack has already received a fair amount of ridicule because the Janesville, Wis., plant actually closed during the last year of George W. Bush's presidency. What hasn't really been emphasized is whether Ryan clearly knew this and made the charge nonetheless."
What I built — with government help
Good article, although it focuses on government programs that are a bit more constant rather than non-individualism based variables. The difference is explained here.
California law barring parents from 'curing' gay children moves through legislature
Although the former bill had its issues, the newer bill is very justified. These SOCE treatments are harmful. Although we shouldn't necessarily ban these treatments for consenting adults, it makes sense to ban them for minors legally unable to consent. SOCE is essentially psychological child abuse. While SOCE supporters point to anecdotes and pseudoscience to support their side, SOCE critics point to legitimate research that shows SOCE is neither effective, nor safe.
FiveThirtyEight: Akin Comments Could Swing Missouri Senate Race
"A paper by Nicholas Chad Long of St. Edward’s University examined the performance of Senate candidates running for re-election between 1974 and 2008 who were involved in various types of controversy.
Mr. Long identified 21 cases in which the controversy surrounded a public statement the candidate had made. He found that, on average, these candidates received about 5 percent less of the vote than they otherwise would have on Election Day, controlling for other factors. Since most Senate races are two-way contests, losing five percentage points also implies that the opponent gains five percentage points, meaning that the net swing is equal to 10 points."
...
"Some Republican activists on social media platforms, perhaps going through a similar calculation, are calling on Mr. Akin to withdraw from the race. An effort to replace a candidate on the ballot would create controversy of its own, potentially including legal challenges. But if the swing against Mr. Akin in the polls is 10 percentage points or more, it might be an avenue Republicans would need to consider if they want to maximize their chances of taking over the seat." (emphasis mine)
Charles Negy, Professor, Says Students Showed 'Religious Arrogance And Bigotry' In A Letter Later Posted On Reddit
Donald Prothero reviews Ivan Schwab’s outstanding book Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved.
I predicted Romney would see an initial boost in the polls from the Ryan pick. I may be wrong...
Romney Picked Ryan Over Advisers' Early Doubts
Be careful of campaign tactics that seek to take partisan words and attribute them to non-partisan sources. These tactics are very common.
Romney continues to take Obama's words out of context. And this is the man who demanded an apology from Obama for dishonesty?
No comments:
Post a Comment