Rain, Pain and Taxes

It is still wet. And when it rains, it pours. It's tough to see friends, co-workers and family members go through hard times. And lately, it is raining hard times.

Mike Huckabee is touting his "fair tax" in Florida, on the eve of the Republican primary there. His plan is to replace the income tax with an increased sales tax. Now, I personally know people who have a strong and averse reaction to this proposal. And I think their reaction stems from being daunted by the prospect of unimaginably large wholesale change to a massive bureaucracy which directly impacts the private sector. The IRS would be eliminated. Tax lawyers, accountants, bookkeepers and so forth would be largely displaced. So, a foundational question is -- Are the short-term displacements offset by long-term results?

Secondly, naysayers are daunted by the potentially negative consequences of such a tax on the economy. So the additional question is "Would the resultant change be better or worse than what we have now?"

What we have now is a two-fold system. First, your employer is a tax collector, who works on behalf of the government. Second, each individual, married couple and each corporation [and some other business entities] file a tax return to clean up what their employer missed. Meaning, you get some additional deductions or penalties, some in the name of fairness and some that are just there. Under Huckabee's plan, employers would get out of the tax business [as it pertains to the employee]. Companies that sell anything [products and/or services] would now be in the business of collecting very large amounts of tax. So, the first benefit to taxpayer is that you would keep your money for longer. Instead of having it deducted from your check, you'd see the money [all of it? Would the deductions for Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance and so forth still exist? Or no?]. The second benefit to the taxpayer: no more yearly return ... aside from your state return, if your state has an income tax. And most do.

However, in lieu of the Federal tax filing and a employer deduction, Joe Taxpayer would face the following scenario: the car that cost $19,000 plus sales tax [which used to add about $1,400 to the bill] would now cost another $5,700 [that $1,400 is a state and local tax. The new tax would be incremental.] So your sales tax bill for that purchase would be $7,100. So be prepared to pay $26,100 instead of $20,400. That's about 27% more - not an insignificant amount.

Steve Landsburg, in Slate, argues that that the net result would be small -- that, in effect, the National Sales Tax is really an unlimited IRA in disguise.

What is unstated [or, at a minimum, understated] by Mr. Landsburg is that this plan does three things. First, it encourages saving. You only pay the man when you buy something. Second, necessarily, it discourages spending [duh!]. Intelligent people avoid paying taxes. So, purchases, especially major ones, would be put off as long as possible. Third, it would encourage every sort of underground barter and purchase-evasion economy imaginable.

Now, it appears that I have slammed the Hucka-plan to the mat. Not true. I despise paying taxes. I think our government should be much, much smaller than it is currently. We have far too many stupid regulations, and corporate America has influenced the drafting of laws such that the regulations that do exist are flimsier than Michael Jackson's nose cartilage. So I say that any plan that encourages people to save, and discourages spending - until such time as such spending is a necessity - is a plan that works for me.

Would it grind the economy to a halt? It would slow it down, definitely. Would it cause a depression in prices? In the short term, again, yes [until people adjusted psychologically to the new schema]. Is it regressive? Punitively so! But would the long-term net effect be positive? Hucka-hell yes!

Sunday Morning Comin' Down

And it is comin' down. Rain, that is. In buckets like it can here in the Southland. So I can safely say this Winter, that I've seen fire and I've seen rain. And when you see both, you also are likely to see mudslides [coincidentally, Lame James had an album named "Mud Slide Slim."]

Senator Obama [Hillary never calls him "Barack", it's always SO] won the South Carolina primary yesterday. But significantly, he captured only 1 of 4 white [non-black] Democratic votes. Among non-blacks, Hillary got 37% of the vote, and Edwards got 39% of the vote. Despite besting Clinton among white voters, Edwards lost because he received virtually no support [3%] from the black Democratic voters.

What does this mean for Obama? Well, in states where black Democrats do not have numerical hegemony, Obama has to do better than capture only 24% of the non-black vote. He simply has to. Why? Because 76% of non-black Democratic voters did not vote for him -- 3 of 4 white Democrats chose another candidate [I would like to talk to the people who voted for John Edwards over Clinton or Obama. These people need adult supervision and/or guidance]. The reality, going forward, is that in a country where about 13.1% of the population is black, carrying 78% of the black vote while only getting 24% of the non-black Democratic vote is a marginal victory at best. Obama's camp has to be concerned about those numbers.

The reality is, on Super Tuesday [Feb. 5th], it will come down to California, New York and Illinois. And I see two of three of those states going for Clinton. But as the Dems do not have a "winner takes all" system, all three of the candidates should continue piling up delegates in this strange and divisive political process. We shall see what happens.

Little Dog got into another scrap. I was parking the car in my garage, and a dog in a neighbor's yard, some 100 yards away became a white blur as she came running towards Little Dog. And before I could scoot her butt into the house, dog fight! And again, Poops was putting the beat down on the neighbor's dog, but I was able to break it up pretty easily. Lucky for the other dog, because my dog is the Chuck Norris of dogs. In a nice gesture, the neighbor came over to check on my dog. She was fine, of course. Poops is 3-0, and looking for a contender.

Cold

It's freaking cold here. Not North Dakota cold, to be sure. But cold all the same. I'll be glad to fly to California tomorrow afternoon and leave this sorry, frozen mess behind.

Got a lot done today. Feels good.

I have a very short definition of what constitutes an adult. To be an adult requires two behaviors, one a positive act, one a negative act. On the positive side, being an adult means one has to engage in sacrifices. One does not always get one's way. One does not always get what one wants. One has to give up things. One has to do things one does not want to do. That is reality. On the negative side, one has to not complain. Complaining is a sign that one does not realize the appropriateness of sacrifice, hardship, declining health, the finiteness of life.

I do not mean to state that I engage in either behavior to the degree that I aspire. But I am better than most, and worse than some.

Some notes: The economy is in a controlled free-fall. Why? There is a tipping point. When productivity cannot be relied upon for aggressive growth, when oil prices [which drive so many other metrics] rise at aggressive levels, when thousands and thousands of jobs get shipped overseas, the economy cannot always backfill quickly enough to shore up these factors. And that is what has happened. Keeping money cheap will do two things: (a) it will prohibit investment in the dollar [but it will make trading with the US more attractive], and (b) it will create inflation to the extent that it increases the availability of credit, and thus dollars chasing goods. So, inflation is inevitable, and I for one would welcome inflation for 2 - 3 years. Why? It served to make our parents' house payment a non-factor in their income, which -- more than any other factor -- fueled the recovery of the 1980s. More discretionary income was created. People were able to spend more [once inflation slowed.] We'll see what happens this time.

Additionally: Heath Ledger died today at 28. The talented actor was found dead, presumptively of an overdose. He starred in "I'm Not There", the fantastic movie about Bob Dylan. Sad news.

Also ... Blogger is now publishing in Arabic, Persian and ... Hebrew? Coincidence? I think not. Can one say "fomenting controversy?"

Right Said Fred Thompson dropped out of the presidential race today. Didn't he just announce? I think he proved all the pundits right who said that he didn't have the work ethic to do the job [of running for President? or being President? Where are those pundits? I need answers.] So, Mike Huckabee, Christmas came late for you ... maybe one state too late [He surely would have won South Carolina had Thompson not split the Christian Kook vote. I mean ... the evangelical vote. Sorry, God!]

Supposing that Heath did off himself [which is already being disputed by his family], what does one make of the fact that Australia has, for its national song, a little ditty about a vagabond drowning himself rather than surrender his ill-gotten catch to the authorities? One could do better ...

Lost Him In the Sun

I'm here again in Indiana, where it is 20 degrees more or less, less if you add wind chill. Which it does: chill. Anyone with half a brain would have moved away from here eons ago.

Some notes: Sadly, one of my favorite singer-songwriters has died. John Stewart passed away during the weekend in his native San Diego at age 68. You may know that he wrote "Daydream Believer" which was famously recorded by the Monkees [they changed the lyric "now you know how funky I can be" to "now you know how happy I can be." Wise change] Did you know that he replaced Dave Guard in the Kingston Trio? His late 60s albums, particularly "California Bloodlines", were my first introduction to him. I grew up in Northern California, Central California really, and I listened to KNBR 68 in the early 1970s. They played the song "Mother Country" by Stewart, and I can safely tell you that it was the first song that really affected me deeply. It's a song about turn of the century San Francisco, about some characters reminiscing about the old days, about E.A. Stuart driving the Old Campaigner stone blind one last time on parade. And it's a song that cuts right through you. He was a master songwriter, on par with anyone. He wrote such great songs as "Armstrong" ["Young girl in Calcutta barely eight years old. Flies that swarm the marketplace will see she don't get old, Don't you know she heard it on that July afternoon, she heard a man named Armstrong had walked upon the moon"], "Lost Her in the Sun", "Kansas Rain" and so many, many others. Never a false note, never a false word. And as Stewart wrote so aptly, "day by day, one by one, we fall like candles in the sun." Sadly.

Additional thoughts. Obama really does have to fight two Clintons. That's not fair. Can he trot out anyone to help? Where's Al Gore on this one [scratching chin].

Good news for Mitt Romney in Indiana: I checked the drawer of the nightstand here at the Marriott. There is a book of Mormon. [If you're reading this, Mitt, please have them remove my name from your rolls. You know what I'm talking about.]

Allan Melvin died last weekend, as did Suzanne Pleshette [whom everyone I know found sexy. Men and women alike adored her.] Melvin must've really had to do some soul searching when his agent called around 1970 and said "Got a part for you. Brady Bunch." Okay, I'll bite, he probably said, and which point his agent had to break it to him that he would be cast as Alice's love interest. That's an ego deflater. "Uh, can't Sam have a brief fling with Florence Henderson? Marcia? Anyone? How about Bobby?"

So, go check out John Stewart on YouTube and enjoy the master. But really, go out and buy some of his music.

Taking Sprint to Multitask

The new Sprint commercial commits multiple sins. First, the guy who has the lead in it looks like a homeless painter. Second, the visual depiction of the ad's concept - multitasking - is creepy. People doing some act of work [a women carries groceries to a car, another women rides a bicycle, a man waits for a commuter train] are surrounded by smaller clones of themselves. That's disturbing. And what is more, aside from the first guy, both the women have clones who are doing the same exact thing they are doing. That's not multitasking. That's doing more of the same thing. So boo to Sprint.

The Frank Caliendo guy who does all those impersonations is neither funny nor good at impersonations. He did a David Letterman [and Paul] that was so unfunny that when they cut back to the studio [this was during an NFL broadcast, and Terry Bradshaw, Jimmy Johnson and Joe Buck were in the studio], the talking heads sat stunned for a second.

Speaking of stunning, I read an article on the impending South Carolina Republican primary. As one would expect, they interviewed some regular folk. Here's the quote that I found interesting:

"I'd be comfortable with four of the six of them," said Steve Folks, 56. He considers former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani too liberal on social issues and said he "just hasn't connected with" former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon.

So this dude would be just fine with any of the following: Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, John McCain or ... Ron Paul? Go figure.

Another Year

So, I'm 45.

I had a dream the other night about Jane Siberry aka Issa. I was talking to her, and I told her that she accomplished the rare feat wherein she is the artist who has become the art. She has been recreated by herself, almost totally, as a conceptualized artist.

That's high concept. Like Andy Kaufman. Her whole life is performance.

I have a few resolutions this year. Watch less sporting events on TV, and listen to less sports talk. Talk a little less. I'm going to Europe this Spring. Don't know if that qualifies.

The Men Who Killed Rock and Roll

For some reason, today I have been reflecting on why Simon & Garfunkel are so damn odious.

First, a little history. I grew up garnering my early musical education through a variety of sources. The radio, my Mom, Casey Kasem's American Top 40 every Saturday, record stores, friends, the hip music teacher who loved the Beatles, the babysitter, and the television, such as it was.

I moved to Southern California when I was 13, in 1976. I met new people, record store managers, new radio stations etc. And I read music magazines.

When I was about 16, Rolling Stone published a record guide. It was the first time, in my knowledge, that someone tried to put together a comprehensive guide to the whole musical enchilada. In that first edition, the Rolling Stone Record Guide gave every later work of Simon & Garfunkel 5 stars. That was the highest ranking. I think only "Bookends" got 4 stars.

The critics agree: Simon & Garfunkel are the pinnacle of the art.

Not so fast.

To me, Simon & Garfunkel took all of the form of folk and nascent rock and roll and stripped it of anything resembling sex. No swagger. The only moods they were really capable of expressing were righteous indignation, self-righteousness, self-pity, and a certain type of really chaste longing.

Don't get me wrong, I think Paul Simon is a songwriter of great talent. But compare him to Laura Nyro, a contemporary. She swung. She brought blues and jazz into the mix. She was barrel house, she was a little naughty, and yes, sometimes a little precocious, but she lived in her music. Simon, on the other hand, was as restrained and neutered as any Wally Cox character. You get the impression that if he played a flatted 5th, his audience would start crying. Art would have wet his pants, at the very least.

S & G concerts are a sad hoot to listen to. Garfunkel breathlessly introduces the songs, and clearly he is Simon's biggest fan. He recites how many songs Paul has written. He speaks of Paul as some sort of significant cultural event.

Now, I have seen Paul Simon on TV. He seems genuinely funny and self-effacing. This whole late 60s weirdness had to play a large role in Paul's decision to "break up the act." I mean, to get treated like some sort of deity by your performing partner had to be disconcerting.

But, in terms of an impact on music, S & G introduced a swaggerless intellectual preciousness that has never really gone away. Don Henley and Sting embody that value, and get accolades for it. It's fine to have intellectual pretensions. But rock music and pop music should not be tools by which the self-proclaimed intellectually superior remind us how dumb we are. And if you're going to do that, at the very least, please allow us to dance.