Europe's Quiet Revolution, a Model for the US?

[BridgeTroll]

I want the candidates to tell me/us... specifically what defense programs they would cut and who will be affected.  I want the candidates to tell me exactly who will get the tax increases and how much it will be... put it into their platform and run on it.  You, me, and everyone else is tired of lip service referring to defence cuts and tax increases in generic and general terms.  EVERYONE wants to cut defense spending... just not in my district.  EVERYONE wants to increase taxes... on that guy over there.

[BridgeTroll]

Here are a list of Florida military bases... Which ones should go?

http://militarybases.com/florida/

Air Force Bases (5)
Eglin AFB Valparaiso
Eglin AFB is operated by Air Force Materiel Command and located in Valparaiso, Florida. The air base...

Hurlburt Field Mary Esther
Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa County, near Mary Esther, Florida. It serves as a support air ...

MacDill AFB Tampa
MacDill AFB is operated by Air Mobility Command and located in Tampa, Florida. It was established in...

Patrick AFB Brevard
Patrick AFB is operated by Air Force Space Command and located in Brevard County, Florida. It is hom...

Tyndall AFB Panama City
Tyndall AFB is part of Air Education Training and Command near Panama City, Florida. It is home to t...

Army Bases
Camp Blanding Starke
When Camp Blanding, Florida, was founded as a Florida National Guard training camp, no one envisione...

Coast Guard Bases (3)
Air Station Clearwater Clearwater
Known officially as the United States Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, this base is located in th...

District 7 Miami
The main headquarters of the United States Coast Guard 7th District is located in Miami Florida. The...

ISC Miami Miami Beach
The USCG Integrated Support Command headquarters in Miami provides support duties for the operation ...

Marine Bases
Blount Island Command Jacksonville
The Blount Island Command is part of the United States Marines Corps’ Maritime Prepositioning ...

Navy Bases (11)
AUTEC Complex West Palm Beach
The Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center is a laboratory tasked with the maintaining the nav...

NAS Jacksonville Jacksonville
Naval Air Station Jacksonville is a military air base located in Jacksonville, Florida. It was estab...

NAS Key West Key West
Naval Air Station Key West is a naval air base located in Key West, Florida. Established in December...

NAS Pensacola Pensacola
Naval Air Station Pensacola is a naval base located in Escambia County, near Pensacola, Florida. Est...

NAS Whiting Field Milton
Naval Air Station Whiting Field is one of only two primary pilot training bases of the United States...

Naval Air Warfare Center Orlando
The Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Florida (NAWCTSD) is located in Orlando. The ...

Naval Hospital Jacksonville Jacksonville
The Jacksonville Naval Hospital is located within NAS Jacksonville. It provides both in-patient and ...

Naval Hospital Pensacola Pensacola
The Pensacola Naval Hospital serves the personnel assigned at the Pensacola Naval Air Station and th...

NS Mayport Duval
Naval Station Mayport is a military base located 7 miles east of Jacksonville, Florida at the mouth ...

NSA Panama City Panama City
The Naval Support Activity Panama City in Florida is a research center in Florida aimed at advancing...

Training Center Corry Pensacola
Corry Station Naval Technical Training Center is a military training base located in Pensacola, Flor...

[Tacachale]

The above exchange made me think, and so I actually went and looked up the relationship between the EU and the United Nations.

Is the European Union its own government?

Is it considered a 'country' like the United States?

Is it a member of the UN?

Here is the answer from the EU mission at the United Nations in New York's webpage.

I didnt know these answers, so I figured I wasnt the only one.

http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/articleslist_s88_en.htm

About the EU at the UN
Overview: the European Union at the United Nations
The EU is the single largest financial contributor to the UN system. The 27 EU Member States fund 38% of the UN's regular budget, more than two-fifths of UN peacekeeping operations, and about one-half of all UN Member States' contributions to UN funds and programmes. The European Commission alone contributes more than $1.35 billion in support of UN external assistance programmes and projects.

The EU works with all UN bodies, agencies and programmes across virtually the entire range of UN activities, from development policy and peacebuilding to humanitarian assistance, environment, human rights, and culture.

As an observer within the UN, the EU has no vote as such but is party to more than 50 UN multilateral agreements and conventions as the only non-State participant. It has obtained a special "full participant" status in a number of important UN conferences.

So.  The EU contributes money as a body to the UN.
The EU is not a state (good call, Jimmy)
The EU is not a member of the UN, but this is kind of a grey area.  It is an official observer (China, for example was an official observer until the 90s, until it was accepted into the Assembly)  Since there are formal relations between the EU and the UN, there are a number of joint missions and treaties between them.
Now an Official Observer has about the same status as the delegates from US territories to the House of Representatives.  Puerto Rico for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Commissioner_of_Puerto_Rico

The Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico (Spanish: El Comisionado Residente de Puerto Rico) is a non-voting member of the United States House of Representatives elected by the voters of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico every four years. The Resident Commissioner is the only member of the House of Representatives who serves a four-year term.[1]

The Commissioner is allowed to serve on congressional committees, and functions in every respect as a Representative except being denied a vote on the final disposition of legislation on the House floor.

In most other U.S. territories, a similar representative position is styled Delegate.

In some important conferences, the EU is granted full participant status, and does have the right to vote in the proceedings.

I would suspect that this will change if Angela Merkel and Sarkozy prevail and this new Eurozone government idea begins to proceed forward.

Here is the wiki entry on non state Observers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_observers

In addition to the current 193 member states, the United Nations welcomes many international organizations, entities, and non-member states (currently only one) as observers. Observer status is granted by a United Nations General Assembly resolution. The status of a Permanent Observer is based purely on practice, and there are no provisions for it in the United Nations Charter.[1]

Observers have the right to speak at United Nations General Assembly meetings, participate in procedural votes, and to sponsor and sign resolutions, but not to vote on resolutions and other substantive matters. Various other rights (e.g. to speak in debates, to submit proposals and amendments, the right of reply, to raise points of order and to circulate documents, etc.) are given selectively to some observers only. So far, the EU is the only international organisation to hold these enhanced powers.[2]

There is a distinction between state and non-state observers. Non-Member States of the United Nations, which are members of one or more specialized agencies, can apply for the status of Permanent Observer state.[1] The non-state observers are the international organizations and other entities.

Non-member observer states are arranged for seating in the General Assembly Hall immediately after the Member States and before the other observers

One note: the EU isn't the only intergovernmental organization that has observer status in the UN by a long shot. Others include Interpol, the Organization of American States, the African Union, and even other European bodies like the Council of Europe, which is bigger but less influential than the EU, and many others.

The EU is the most prominent of the non-governmental observers and sometimes participates in agreements and such while the others usually don't.

[Gators312]

BridgeTroll has a point, that no one is willing to cut Defense Spending or any spending for that matter that is within their sphere of interest.

Too many Americans are too busy being pissed off at the other side to see what is really going on. R's & D's succeed when they keep both sides polarized and working against each other.   I think both are truly evil.  They are happy to pit one side against the other knowing the fervor is what keeps the contributions flowing. 

Also both sides of the aisle are greedy crooks for the most part.   

This story I have posted in another thread, but I think it shows where we go wrong with our Defense spending and why it is BOTH parties fault.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003948586_favorfactory14m.html

Tucked away on Seattle's Portage Bay, a sleek, 85-foot speedboat sat idle for years â€" save for an annual jaunt to maintain its engine.

The Navy paid $4.5 million to build the boat. But months before the hull ever touched water, the Navy gave the boat to the University of Washington. The school never found a use for it, either.

Why would the Navy waste taxpayer dollars on a boat that nobody wanted?

Blame it on Sen. Patty Murray and Congressmen Norm Dicks and Brian Baird. All three exercised their political muscle to slip language into a 2002 spending bill to force the Navy to buy the boat from Edmonds shipbuilder Guardian Marine International.

Year after year, the Washington lawmakers did favors for the tiny company, inserting four "earmarks" into different bills to force the Navy and Coast Guard to buy boats they didn't ask for â€" $17.65 million in all. None of the boats was used as Congress intended.

The congressional trio say they were helping Guardian Marine because it had a great product. But each has also received generous campaign donations from the company's three executives, its sole employees: $14,277 to Baird, $15,000 to Murray, and $16,750 to Dicks.

Earmarks are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers â€" often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.

This can result in earmarks that are wasteful or potentially harmful.

For example, Murray directed $6 million to a Redmond company for high-tech battle gear that the Army had rejected as flawed for its armored-vehicle Stryker Brigade.

Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., directed the Marines to buy $2 million of combat T-shirts from an Oregon company. But they couldn't be used in battle in Iraq due to a subsequent ban on polyester garments that could melt under fire and badly burn the troops.

Until recently, the earmark process was secretive. Congress did not have to publicly reveal the names of companies getting the contracts or those of the sponsoring lawmakers.

The Seattle Times investigated the 2007 defense bill, examining the relationships between who got money in the bill and who gave to lawmakers' campaign funds. Reporters were able to tie nearly half of the bill's 2,700 earmarks to their sponsoring lawmakers.

The Times then built a database of tens of thousands of government records to perform an analysis. It provides an in-depth look at the extent to which these congressional favors and campaign giving go hand in glove.

The Times found:

People who benefit from earmarks generally give money to those who deliver them: Of the nearly 500 companies identified as getting 2007 defense earmarks, 78 percent had employees or political action committees who made campaign contributions to Congress in the past six years.

Though individual contributions are limited by law, people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million.

The 2,700 earmarks Congress put in the 2007 military spending bill cost $11.8 billion. The Pentagon didn't ask for the money in its budget and, because its budget is capped by law, cuts had to be made to find room for the favors.

Nearly all members of Congress dole out earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, an earmark critic, calls the practice "circular fundraising" because of the perception that tax dollars given out as favors come back as campaign donations. "I think that most taxpayers would say that it doesn't pass the smell test," he said.

Winslow Wheeler, formerly a congressional aide who dealt with defense earmarks for years, said no one in Congress asks for campaign donations in exchange for earmarks because they don't have to; everyone understands the process.

"It's not talked about," but if favors are not followed with donations, Wheeler said, "it's noticed â€" you may get a little bit less help the next year."

Murray, Dicks and Baird say emphatically that their favors to defense contractors never come with strings attached. The distinction is critical because soliciting a campaign contribution in exchange for an earmark is a crime.

"People, if they want to support me, they support me," Dicks said. "If they don't want to support me, I still might do their earmark â€" if I thought it was a worthy project."

Earmarking has exploded in the past decade, quintupling from 1996 to 2005, according to the Congressional Research Service.
During "The Season," the first three months each year on Capitol Hill, thousands of favor seekers flood the offices of Congress, asking for earmarks. Appointments stack one on top of the other, tying up staffers for months, as lawmakers winnow through the myriad requests and decide what to buy.

Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist convicted of influence peddling, called the process "the favor factory."

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, who sponsors some earmarks, says that lawmakers find it easier to raise money from people they know from committee work. "I think it's very hard [for the public] not to have the impression that in some way what you do on the committee is some way related to how much money you get."

Officially, the Pentagon opposes earmarks because they circumvent its own efforts to set spending priorities, thoroughly evaluate products and seek competitive bids.

Some military officials, however, eagerly support earmarks that expand their programs. Gerald Darsch, who heads food research at Natick Soldier Systems Center, backed Murray when she set aside money to develop longer-lasting tomatoes and rations, a move that substantially increased his budget.

A senior Army official who fulfills Congress' earmarks said he first learns of them when the defense bill passes. He spoke only if his name was not used.

Often, he said he can't figure them out from the cryptic descriptions in the bill.

"If there's a new mark out there for something we've never seen before, [we go] back to the subcommittee and say, 'Hey, you put an earmark on this line for this amount of dollars. What the hell is it?' Because some of this stuff â€" hell, I've been in the Army for 20 years, and I don't know what some of that stuff is."

Boat gets a lift

The story of how Guardian Marine landed millions of dollars in public funds begins in Edmonds in the late 1990s. Company founder Richard Martinson had developed a "fast patrol boat," a hybrid of a speedboat and a ship, 85 feet long and capable of up to 40 knots, like crossing a sports car with a recreational vehicle.

The plan was to sell the $4 million patrol boat to foreign governments, but Martinson, a former Coast Guard commander, said sales floundered.

Martinson's fortunes brightened not long after he made his first recorded contribution to a congressional campaign in June 1998. He gave $500 to the re-election fund of Dicks, whom he knew when they lived a few doors apart at UW's Terry Hall in the 1960s.

In fall 1999, Dicks and Baird added a line in the defense bill to have the Navy buy Guardian Marine's $4 million boat.

Dicks urged the Navy to assign the boat to the Navy SEALs or other high-speed missions. But the boat was never deployed on any combat missions. It is now in Carderock, Md., "being used to evaluate new and emergent maritime technology," a Navy spokesman said.

Guardian Marine gained another powerful advocate in 2001 in Sen. Murray, who had just become chair of an appropriations subcommittee.

Murray describes herself as a "huge unabashed supporter of the maritime building industry" and boasts that her earmarks have helped to create jobs. She said she remembers hearing the Coast Guard talk about a need for fast boats to chase down drug runners.

Martinson recalls Murray telling him, "Maybe they should look at your boat."

"Senator, it sounds real good to me," Martinson recounts saying. "But remember one thing: You're going to get pushback from these people. The Coast Guard doesn't like any outside entity telling them what they need."

Martinson's prediction came true. Murray "had to work hard to get the Coast Guard to take the boat," he said. "There was a group that was upset because they felt the vessel was shoved down their throat."

Murray added a $4.65 million earmark to the 2002 defense bill and left the Coast Guard no choice about which boat it would buy, specifying in the bill that it had to be "a currently-developed 85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United States."

The Coast Guard's mission shifted after Sept. 11, primarily to homeland security.

Murray said she might not have pursued the earmark "if we had been able to look forward and know that Sept. 11 was going to happen."

But the bill actually passed three months after Sept. 11. Before the final vote, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., attacked Murray's earmark.

"The Coast Guard did not request this vessel, does not need this vessel, nor does this vessel meet the Coast Guard's requirements," he said on the Senate floor. "The Coast Guard's resources are already stretched thin and this will only hamper its ability to meet its new challenges since Sept. 11."

The bill passed with all its pork intact.

After several evaluations, the Coast Guard concluded it couldn't use the Guardian boat. It didn't need it to chase drug smugglers because it uses helicopters to do that more easily and safely.

"It's a fine boat for what it is," said Lt. Cmdr. Bill Brewer, who led some of the testing. "It didn't fit well into what the Coast Guard operates."

The Coast Guard gave it to a sheriff's office that uses it to patrol San Francisco Bay.

At the time of McCain's attack, Murray, Dicks and Baird delivered a third earmark for Guardian Marine, having the Navy buy another boat.

The plan was to have the Navy use the Guardian Marine boat in tandem with another test boat called the Sealion. The lawmakers combined the two boats into an $8.4 million earmark; both would be built by Oregon Iron Works.

By joining forces with Oregon Iron Works, its subcontractor, Guardian Marine gained political muscle. From 2001 to 2002, executives of the two companies would give more than $22,000 in campaign funds to members of their local delegations, including $3,000 to Murray.

But even as the third Guardian Marine boat was being assembled, the Navy decided it didn't want it and transferred it to the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory.

UW researchers concluded it would take $750,000 to make it usable. The university tried to get the Navy to take it back. For years, the boat was docked outside the school.

To maintain the boat, staff ran it at full speed once a year. "We're sort of trapped in doing the routine things that need to be done," Russell McDuff, director of the School of Oceanography, said earlier this year.

The Navy recently assigned the boat to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle.

Although none of the three Guardian Marine boats were used as Congress intended, Murray, Dicks and Baird inserted a $4.5 million earmark for a fourth boat in the 2004 defense bill. This time, they said the speedboat was needed to retrieve torpedoes at the Navy base in Keyport, Kitsap County.

The Navy did buy a fourth Guardian Marine speedboat but assigned it to a base in California for evaluation.

In the past four years, executives of Guardian Marine and Oregon Iron Works have given nearly $125,000 in contributions to Congress members.

Baird stands behind the earmarks. "We didn't just say, 'Oh, a company in our district wants an earmark â€" let's get it for them.' We looked at the mission, we looked at the history of the boat, and we looked at the alternatives out there," he said. "And I think that's pretty good work, frankly."

Murray remains a staunch defender of earmarks. She pointed to Insitu, a high-tech company in Klickitat County that makes aerial drones the Army uses for surveillance in Iraq. She said she helps local companies with good products that may be overlooked by the sprawling Pentagon and its faraway bureaucrats who might favor their "buddies" who they "were having drinks with ... on Friday night."

"People tend to talk about earmarks as something that is a bad thing," she said. "I see it as a way to make sure that the tax dollars that are spent are spent in a very wise way."


Changes needed

Congress members from both parties want to loosen the grip of money on politics. One solution, proposed earlier this year in a bill by senior Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., calls for public funding for congressional campaigns.

McDermott supports the idea but says reform won't come soon. "This is a country that worships at the altar of the free enterprise system, and so the Congress is reflective of that culture," he said.

Congress just recently began requiring lawmakers to reveal each earmark they've sponsored, name its beneficiary, and certify that neither they nor their spouse have any financial stake in them.

But such transparency only works if lawmakers feel "some degree of shame" for doling out favors to their backers, Rep. Flake said. "If you're not embarrassed by that, then transparency doesn't help a lot."

Meanwhile, Congress is approving a batch of new earmarks for next year.

Once again, Rep. Wu wants $1.5 million for InSport to sell T-shirts to Marines in Iraq â€" shirts designed to be worn under body armor but not approved for that use.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, recipient of $15,000 in contributions from Microvision executives since 2005, is seeking $1 million for more work on the company's 10 prototypes.

And Rep. Baird still wants to get patrol boats like Guardian Marine's into Coast Guard hands. During a congressional hearing earlier this year, Baird asked an admiral if they could "chat" about "other alternatives that are available on the marketplace" to the Coast Guard's slower, 87-foot patrol boats.

"Might we do that?" Baird asked.

[Ocklawaha]

...the saber rattling between Chile and Colombia? 

QUE? QUE? I believe you are referring to the sabre rattling of Chavez over in Venezuela and his support for Ecuador's revolutionaries and Colombia's swift response.

While I agree with you as far as wars or 'police actions' we are not involved in, I must tell you there is a hell of a US presence in Colombia, ditto UK advisors and Israeli-French aircraft.

The blackhawks I saw pound guerrilla positions night and day didn't come from the EU.

Just wanted to correct any geographical misunderstanding in my homeland.

Some of the French-Israeli K-fir fighter-bombers of the Colombian Air Force in one of their rather unique formations.

OCKLAWAHA

[Diderot]

I'm not sure if the intent of the OP's message was so much a comparison of 'guns or butter', so much as a call to a more holistic approach to capitalism that balances social responsibility, sustainability, and family values.

Perhaps it only becomes such an argument because of our reluctance to raise tax burdens on the high-income, high-wealth households in order to support a reasonable level of government.

Great article Faye.

[NotNow]

Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

What Faye(and many others) wants is a European style nanny state.  That will be very difficult (read impossible)  with the current Republic. 

And so...

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

[Diderot]

Well, I think Warren Buffet offers one definition:

"But for those making more than $1 million â€" there were 236,883 such households in 2009 â€" I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more â€" there were 8,274 in 2009 â€" I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

Warren Buffet is a pretty bright guy, if he's suggesting the wealthy are not paying enough in taxes, maybe we should listen to him.

If you ended the Bush tax cuts for earners in the top 2% you would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150497/why_we_must_raise_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_asap%21?akid=6803.35690.nnFPit&rd=1&t=24

And to completely shore it up, start taxing churches. 

[BridgeTroll]

Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

[redglittercoffin]

Well, I think Warren Buffet offers one definition:

"But for those making more than $1 million â€" there were 236,883 such households in 2009 â€" I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more â€" there were 8,274 in 2009 â€" I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

Warren Buffet is a pretty bright guy, if he's suggesting the wealthy are not paying enough in taxes, maybe we should listen to him.

If you ended the Bush tax cuts for earners in the top 2% you would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

http://www.alternet.org/story/150497/why_we_must_raise_taxes_on_the_rich%2C_asap%21?akid=6803.35690.nnFPit&rd=1&t=24

And to completely shore it up, start taxing churches.

...and this is why Warren Buffett is wrong.  From http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-16/opinion/miron.buffett.wrong_1_income-tax-code-crony-capitalism?_s=PM:OPINION

In a recent New York Times op-ed article, Warren Buffett asserts that the super-rich do not pay enough taxes. He suggests that any new budget deal should raise rates on the super-rich, especially on their "unearned" income from interest, dividends and capital gains.

Buffett is wrong. Bad government policies play a major role in generating inappropriately high incomes, but singling out the super-rich is misguided. And the policy Buffett criticizes most -- low tax rates on capital income -- should be expanded, not eliminated.


In 2009, the income earned by the 236,833 taxpayers with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income was about $727 billion. Imposing a 10% surcharge on this income would generate at most $73 billion in new revenue -- only about 2% of federal spending. And $73 billion is optimistic; the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield.

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big.

Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

The deductibility of home mortgage interest encourages excess investment in housing. High-income taxpayers get the benefits, since low-income taxpayers own little or no housing and do not itemize deductions in any case.

The favorable tax treatment of employer-paid health insurance generates overconsumption of health care and contributes to rising health care costs. The benefits go mainly to middle- and upper-income households, since those without jobs get no employer-provided benefits.

Numerous loopholes for favored industries in the corporate tax code distort the market's investment decisions and reward the well-funded and politically connected.

And it is not just the tax code that harms the economy while favoring the better off.

Excessive licensing requirements, permitting fees, restrictive examinations and other barriers to entry into medicine, law, plumbing, hair styling and many other professions are bad for economic productivity because they artificially restrict the supply of these services. And these barriers redistribute income perversely by raising incomes for those protected and raising prices for everyone.

Crony capitalism -- the special treatment of favored industries like autos -- runs counter to economic efficiency because it protects businesses that would otherwise fail, and it maintains high incomes for executives and shareholders.

The too-big-to-fail doctrine, exhibited most recently in the TARP bailout of Wall Street banks, distorts efficiency by encouraging excess risk-taking. Meanwhile, bailouts generate huge incomes for the lucky few who keep gains in good times and pass losses to taxpayers in bad times.

In contrast to these and other policies, the one Buffett criticizes -- low tax rates on capital income -- is beneficial for the economy, including lower-income households.

Economists agree broadly that an efficient tax system should avoid taxing income, dividends and capital gains to promote savings, investment and growth. Tax rates on capital income should therefore be low or even zero. The U.S. is far from this ideal, especially given the high tax rate on corporate income and the additional taxation at the personal level.

Buffet asserts that taxing capital income has never deterred anyone from investing. Well, then he has never discussed the issue with me or many of my friends.

More importantly, taxing investment returns plays a huge role in what kinds of investments occur, and where, even if it has minor effects on the amounts. These tax-induced distortions in investment choices then reduce economic growth. High U.S. taxation on capital income drives investment overseas.

So raising capital tax rates will not make the super-rich pay their "fair" share; it will encourage capital flight, driving factories and innovation abroad. The rich will still get their high returns, but U.S. workers will have fewer jobs and lower wages.

Buffett errs, most fundamentally, by focusing on outcomes rather than policies. The right question is which policies promote differences in incomes that reflect hard work, energy, innovation and creativity, rather than reward the unethical, the politically connected and the tax-savvy.

In economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

honestly, you've got me there.  i don't know what i was getting at was let's look at expensive, ostentatious items, look at the people who have them (as they obviously have the money to do what they damn well please), and look at what their income is.  if i knew how much money the people who buy million-dollar houses actually have, i would've simply posted that figure.  i'd also probably cry.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

In economics, as in sports, we should adopt good rules and insist that everyone play by them. Then we should stand back and applaud the winners.

seriously?  someöne actually believes that we should treat what determines whether or not people can afford food and shelter as a game?  that's the most disgusting thing i've heard all year--and i've been subjected to lady gaga songs.

[BridgeTroll]

Define "high income" and "high wealth" persons that you want to tax.  Then explain what the tax scheme is for those definitions and how much revenue it will generate to the Federal government.  Will that make up the $1.5 Trillion dollar deficit? 

we've been basing a ridiculously large part ov our economy on homes, right?  so let's start with people who own $1,000,000.00+ homes--basically, people who consider what most ov us call luxuries to be necessities.

regarding your comment about 'nanny states', what's so terrible about wanting a government that already tells us what to do (and will always do so, regardless ov what the mad tea party would have us believe) do a bit towards taking care ov us, too?  how can a government that does nothing for us expect our loyalty?

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

There are alot of variables but such a person could qualify to buy a million dollar house and only make 250k per year.  Are these the "rich" and "ultra wealthy" we keep hearing about?

[BridgeTroll]

OK... how much money would one have to make to qualify for a 1 mill house?  Payments would be about 6k for a 30 year at 6%.  What is the yearly or monthly income to qualify?

honestly, you've got me there.  i don't know what i was getting at was let's look at expensive, ostentatious items, look at the people who have them (as they obviously have the money to do what they damn well please), and look at what their income is.  if i knew how much money the people who buy million-dollar houses actually have, i would've simply posted that figure.  i'd also probably cry.

This is good.  This is exactly what should be part of the discussion.  There are many here who simply want to know what is meant by "rich" or "ultra wealthy".  Are we talking some one who makes 1 mill per year? 2 mill?  If we are going to tax the rich... I want to know what that threshhold is.  Let us all agree on a definition and use it in these discussions.