The Absolute Dumbest Wall Street Journal Story Ever. Really

"We should emulate the best of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia (our best and smartest friends) and roll over any CORPORATIONS standing in the way."

You sound like a fascist.

"I see nothing wrong with a 60% tax, for instance, on income (including on capital gains) for incomes over ten million a year that thousands of people "earn" by power of fame, or by CEO's coercing their boards, or by such society-draining activities as short-selling securities. We would raise a lot of revenue, and even more likely discourage some outrageous excesses (paid for by less-wealthy citizens) from ever developing in the first place."

Of course, who is to decide what income qualifies as "society-draining", excessive, or unearned? Not the people who receive it, or the people who agree to pay it. In fact, the only people that seem to object are YOU, as well as other uninvolved third parties. Mind your own business.

I have an awesome idea - increase the tax on registered Democrats. Say, roughly 80% (the pre-Reagan level) for any Democrat making more than $1 million.

of TN @ May 16, 2008 14:32:48 PM

"We should emulate the best of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia (our best and smartest friends) and roll over any CORPORATIONS standing in the way."

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about these countries and little about the country he lives in. Yeah, this is an attack, but when illogical statements make little sense, there's nothing logical that you can say to try and correct it.

"Taxes are a matter of VOTERS' WILL."

Uh, no. Taxes are a matter of government's will, never of an individual's. If they were a matter of voters' will, then voters would pay taxes voluntarily and without default. But we all know this is not the case. And on a point of taxes, did you notice the race hustler, Al Sharpton, a certifiable big government individual, has over $1 million in unpaid taxes? So much for taxes being a matter of voters' will.

Chris of AZ @ May 16, 2008 14:08:27 PM

Some more thoughts.

Speaking to several above, and speaking against glorifying EITHER Reaganism or the unionism he sought to flatten by firing the PATCO workers, here are some thoughts:

I don't blame Bush for "everything" and did not mention him in my post above.

We once had a more progressive income tax with rates sliding to very high on incomes sliding to astronomical. We were both more solvent as a country at the federal level when we had that, and far more socially conscious too. I see nothing wrong with a 60% tax, for instance, on income (including on capital gains) for incomes over ten million a year that thousands of people "earn" by power of fame, or by CEO's coercing their boards, or by such society-draining activities as short-selling securities. We would raise a lot of revenue, and even more likely discourage some outrageous excesses (paid for by less-wealthy citizens) from ever developing in the first place. Quarter-billion dollar athletic contracts (paid for by fans) come to mind. So does "Girls Gone Wild" and "Red Bull". So does the $210,000,000 "severance" package for a poor CEO to quit Home Depot. Taxes are a matter of VOTERS' WILL. We have erred since Reagan, who was one of those "fame" guys himself.

In the richest nation on earth, there is no reason for any person to go bankrupt over an illness, or a wife's illness, or a child's illness. There is likewise EVEN LESS reason for health "insurance" to be marketed in manners similar to the AFLAC duck and the GEICO gecko. Yet that is where Republicans now want to go.

We should emulate the best of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia (our best and smartest friends) and roll over any CORPORATIONS standing in the way.

We are wrong on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. We are overboard on corporate "rights" over citizen "rights". We are overboard on what we allow patented by corporations in genetics and health care. We are wrong for not demanding that TV cable service be sold on flat rate per channel (for benefit of both social conservatives having "choice" of what they allow in a home and for benefit of citizen thrift). We are wrong to give "accreditation" bodies a monopoly on education, including college education. We are wrong to be on a track of state licensing of so many occupations to the effect of allowing bigger or older players to discourage competition. We were wrong to let Reagan help us laugh at Carter and his energy-conserving "sweater" ideas. Carter was right. "Morning in America" was nonsense.

We are wrong on free trade when we let corporations write the agreements to their own advantage on both sides of borders. We are on "wrong track" on many, many things, and 75-80% of voters answer the poll question just that way.

I'm more than ready for a nation suddenly re-defining our errors and addressing them one by one. There is nothing I'd rather see this year than Obama as president, Clinton as Vice-President, Edwards as Attorney General, a liberal Congress and our nation WAKING UP.

Daniel David of NM @ May 16, 2008 13:36:42 PM

RE: Daniel David

Daniel raises some legitimate gripes, he just gets the remedy wrong.

* Health care costs ARE out of control. This is because we have a system in which there is no incentive to control for costs or to shop around. Health insurance should be for situations that you can't anticipate -- basically catastrophic events. You don't use auto insurance to pay for oil changes. We need to get to a system in which insurance is both divorced from employment (a legacy of government wage controls during WWII) and everyday health events. Note that cosmetic surgery, which insurance does not cover, has not seen the insane price increases. Lasik, for example, has seen quality improve and price decline over the past 10 years.

* College costs are also out of control. Demand is outstripping supply. As long as the government keeps subsidizing the cost of college there is less incentive for consumers to shop around. And with so many BAs floating around out there why shouldn't employers require one for a secretarial position? There are a lot of people out there going to college who probably shouldn't or have no need to. We have truly arrived at an insane state of affairs when Harvard, with its multibillion dollar endowment, is charging students $45K a year.

* Our national debt IS out of control. This has a lot more to do with silly farm bills and entitlements than war spending and tax cuts however. The answer here is to slash government spending. We've gone from a $1 trillion budget to a $3 trillion budget in 20 years. Spending is at absolutely insane levels.

* Credit cards -- not sure what the problem is here. I pay mine off every month and get 1% back to boot in addition to the float I get. Pretty good deal.

* Don't get the 401k criticism. I get a much better deal on that than the returns offered by social security.

* The price of gas IS high. For this you can thank in small part the lack of drilling in Alaska and offshore in the US and in large part the fact that oil companies are government owned in much of the world (Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Russia to a large extent, etc.). These government owned entities are inefficient, unresponsive to market signals and lack the proper technology to boost oil output. Lack of output means higher prices.

In short, for almost every problem cited the government has played a huge role in making the mess. As Ronald Reagan said, government IS the problem.

http://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.com

Colin of DC @ May 16, 2008 11:42:18 AM

living standards in Kansas

One should examine the basic factors in qualilty of life.

Even in the older distrcits of Kansas City, Kansas (probablyl the poorest area of the Kansas City metro area,) people have all the basics necessary for a full life: food, shelter, sanitiation.. Some of these have been problems for the past two or three generations, but are definitely constantly improving.

From this base, one sees an increase in the variety, style of offerings but certainly no deprivation. On up this 'ladder' of availabilty to Mission Hills (Mr. Frank's home), one finds more variety, styles, larger decorated yards ( other evidence of income larger than thalt needed for basics),

But through this entire gamet of income variance, one finds the basics are available.

Stanley Goldman of KS @ May 16, 2008 11:30:27 AM

"There is a silly notion that kids earning bachelor's degrees should start life $20,000 in debt."

Why?

I went to a state college for undergrad and came out relatively debt free; with a C average mind you. Then went to a private college for grad school at $25K per year. The majority of us did it on student loans. I finished $34K in debt in 1996 and others walked out with over $100K. At $60K per year, it didn't take us long to work that debt down.

I don't understand the problem with being responsible for your own future and your debt?

If it is the college endowments in the Billions that have you troubled then maybe we agree. Just by taking a small percentage of the interest earned on the Billions, these colleges could take on students for free. I find the $35 Billion Harvard endowment offensive, for example.

The state of Massachusetts is probing a tax on that endowment. Harvard responded: "You can't do that. That would be like taxing success". "It would put us at an unfair competitive advantage".

Priceless.

Bob B of WI @ May 16, 2008 11:30:15 AM

Daniel David...

...you're always quick to point out the negatives and perceived negatives of the economy and try to say that this is all the doing of the Bush Administration. However, why don't you try dumping some of this negativity in the lap of the Democrats? For example, you point out that gas prices are going to stay at $4.00 a gallon. Where were you when the GOP tried to pass legislation to allow drilling in ANWR and off the west and east coast to help increase supply? Or how about passing new legislation to build a new refinery, of which this country haven't seen in over 30 years, to help increase refining capacity to bring down gas prices? Or how about starting diversification, such as building proven energy technologies such as nuclear energy, to help in conserving oil, and not just sticking to "throw energy solutions to the wall" alternative energy in which some are potentially viable (solar) to some that are just a financial boondoggle (wind)? The government is not solely run by Republicans, and if, IF, in the chance there is a veto and filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, you will no longer be able to blame the GOP for any of the potential economic messes that will be coming along, should there be a President Obama (god, I hope not).

Chris of AZ @ May 16, 2008 01:33:24 AM

Since when did protectionism raise living standards?

I too read Frank's WSJ article and thought it rather misguided. Examples of regimes with protectionist trade barriers, rigid labor laws, self-interested trade unions and highly regulated economies have existed for many years. The consensus among development economists is that this reduces (rather than increases) living standards for the masses.

Something else that Frank fails to appreciate is the way working people also benefit from the flow of low-cost goods from abroad. In addition, the living standards of working class families (and the poor) are much better than 30 to 40 years ago (see Cox and Alm; Myths of Rich & Poor).

Devon M Herrick, PhD of TX @ May 15, 2008 19:01:40 PM