Archive for 2012

TAX DEDUCTION REFORM, CAFETERIA STYLE:  Romney’s plan to lower tax rates while simultaneously capping deductions is truly brilliant, though little understood.  It would operate essentially as a cafeteria plan, where taxpayers get a certain maximum dollar amount of deductions– say, $17,000– and then are allowed to select from a variety of deductions up to the maximum amount.

This is brilliant because it allows each taxpayer to take those deductions he needs/wants the most.  For those who own expensive homes or multiple homes, they could use the mortgage interest deduction (up to the maximum limit). For others– perhaps those who rent–other deductions would be prioritized, such as those for student loans, medical expenses, or business expenses.

Not only is this cafeteria-style plan individually customizable and flexible, it avoids the nasty politics typically associated with any attempt to reform deductions.  In all other reform efforts, special interests/lobbyists have screamed about the consequences of reducing or eliminating their own deductions.  Romney’s cafeteria approach avoids these screaming fests, for the simple reason that no existing deduction would be targeted for reduction or elimination.

It is a win, win approach for everyone.  Brilliant.

OBAMA’S CANDY-PROMPTER:  LOL.

OBAMA: POLARIZER-IN-CHIEF:  Stephen Moore at the Wall Street Journal nails it on the head, “His presidency has been polarizing because his redistributionist ideas are polarizing, and it is hard to see how things would be any different over the next four years.”

JIM TREACHER: What’s The Big Deal About Benghazi, Anyway? “Come on, you guys. It’s only an American ambassador and three other Americans who served their country, murdered by Islamic terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. In a country our president invaded unilaterally and, arguably, illegally. And our government only ignored the copious warnings of an impending terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, and actually reduced security there, despite the since-murdered ambassador’s entreaties. And our president has only been lying about it for over a month because it reflects very badly on his self-evidently disastrous foreign policy. It’s not like it was a hotel break-in.”

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: Choosing Social Media Over Sex. On the other hand, the study was done at the University of Chicago: “The study is obviously skewed because that school houses more geeks than you care to imagine.”

ROGER KIMBALL: Why People Now Ignore Paul Krugman. Now? “To respond to Paul Krugman is like staring at the poor chaps who stand on street corners shouting obscenities at imaginary enemies. It just isn’t polite, and mothers are right to shade their children’s eyes and hurry them by such pathetic scenes of mental anguish. . . . I suspect that Paul Krugman is going to find his street corner more and more lonely in the weeks to come.”

RELATED (From Ed): Personally, I’ve been ignoring Krugman since World War II.

NOT OPTIMAL: Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens warned the State Department about security problems… the day he was murdered.

BAY AREA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TEST DRONES, the local NBC affiliate reports:

They began as tools in military combat. Now aerial drones are being considered by Bay Area law enforcement agencies as a cost-cutting way to replace helicopters, and use technology to fight crime and save lives.

Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern first tested one of these Unmanned Aerial Systems or UAS about a year ago. Now he’s looking into possibly bringing a drone here. His office would be the first in California to do it. Armed with live-video-feeding capabilities and different features, like infrared devices, these drones can cost in the ballpark of 50- to 100-thousand dollars or more.

Given San Francisco-area voters love of big government, I assume nobody there is shocked by this development. Given that Salon is quoting the “Occupied Oakland Tribune” (no, really) in response to the story though, I’m reminded a bit of this awesome ad by the Libertarian Party a few months ago:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: THE GREAT GAFFE.

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama, there is one more debate — next week, entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.

No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.

The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.

Read the whole thing. And has anybody heard from Mr. Nakoula lately?

ARE THE WHEELS COMING OFF? Love the Photoshop at the top of the post.