November 12, 2004

• False Campaign Ads
  Society

  Truth and Non-Truth. An increasingly prominent theme for me is that lies destroy Democracy. For a public vote to have meaning, the public has to have an accurate picture of what their representatives are doing and what the situation in the world is. More and more, it seems obvious that that clear picture simply isn’t there – we have each found our own sources and built what we feel is the most accurate picture, but the fact that our pictures are so different seems to imply that this is failing.

  So, maybe we ought to make lying during campaigns illegal (or lying in general?). I’ll admit, I do believe that deliberately deceiving someone should be considered fraud and be actionable with civil and/or criminal penalties.

  Fact Check has a special report exposing some problems with my opinion.

  I want to talk more about truth and perspective. I want to hear more discussion. Is this a problem? What should we do about it?
  

  ---

  The objective has been achieved?
  National Politics

  Can someone explain THIS to me?:
  

  “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved,” Ashcroft wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush.

  Out of context maybe? I don’t get it.
  

  ---

  Media Consolidation
  Society

  I fundamentally believe that a major part of the problems that our country is facing is due to the “infotainment” media. The right says it is left biased, the left says it is right biased. I say it is profit biased. Large corporations are, in part due to legal requirements, concerned more with the bottom line than with reporting the truth.

  This dynamic causes a great deal more harm when corporations consolidate many media channels over many markets. There is not a lot of money in true investigative reporting – a lot of dead leads must be followed before you hit pay dirt – far easier to report fluff and hype it. Nationally owned media must be concerned about getting nationally owned advertisers. These advertisers are much more likely to be put off by aggressive investigation and reporting – they aren’t going to want to put their products on a channel that is known for bringing controversy to light.

  These are hip-shot comments and have been stated better many times by many people, but I do believe that if we want a healthier country we need a better media. I believe the media of the early 1900s (which was still heavily criticized) was far better than that we have today, and I believe that was partially due to less consolidation.

  In that light, a post from the Minnesota Politics Announcement list (mn-politics-announce@yahoogroups.com):
  

  A “must attend” event is coming: If you’re concerned about media concentration.

  FCC COMMISSIONERS COPPS AND ADELSTEIN ANNOUNCE MEDIA CONCENTRATION FORUM IN ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

  88K PDF file

  Thursday, December 9th, 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  Sundin Music Hall, Hamline University, St. Paul, MN

  If you have ever bitched about the media and live in the twin cities area, consider attending.

  “Everyone may be entitled to his own opinion but everyone is not entitled to his own truth.”

  Democracy can not function without the people having a clear idea of what is truly happening. This last election was in many ways a vote between two perspectives of what the truth is. That this dichotomy exists and is so wide spread is an indictment of our media.
  

  ---

  Flat Tax
  National Government

  Somewhere down deep, I wonder if tax shouldn’t be solely based on property held, but I keep coming up with problems on that theory.

  However, this posting about Flat Tax from Andrew Sullivan’s web log looks pretty good to me:
  

  1) It would truly be simple. Most versions of the flat tax call for the elimination of all deductions except for personal exemptions based on the number of family members. There would be no calculation of mortgage interest, property taxes, health costs, etc. Taxpayers would simply determine their earned income, subtract their personal exemptions, and pay a tax on the balance.

  2) It would ultimately be progressive. While the tax rate would be flat, the effective rate paid would be progressive with income. Most flat tax proposals provide for an exemption of $7,500 per family member, or $30,000 for a family of four. A family of 4 with an income of $30,000 would pay no taxes for an effective tax rate of 0%. Assuming a 17% flat tax rate, a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 would pay a tax of $3,400 ($50,000 – $30,000 = $20,000) for an effective rate of 6.8%; that same family with an income of $100,000 would pay a tax of $11,900 for a rate of 11.9%; and if their income were $1,000,000, they would pay $164,900 for a rate of 16.49%.

  Opponents should give up complexity and lack of progressiveness as reasons not to have a flat tax. They’ll still be able to make opposing arguments such as “I want my mortgage deduction;” rich people should pay more than 17%; and we should always tax people more rather than reduce government spending.
  There’s one other reason for a flat tax with no deductions. Congress loves to tamper endlessly with the tax code. Lobbyists and PACS are forced to wine, dine, and donate to protect their industries, or carve out exceptions that apply only to their clients. Tampering generates millions in the way of campaign contributions. A tamper-proof, flat personal and business income tax would eliminate at least a third of the influence peddling that makes Congress seem so sleazy.” More feedback on the smartest Letters Page on the web.

  Simpler systems allow less corruption, the poor are greatly relieved from the tax burden, and the overhead of the tax system is greatly reduced. Not bad.

  • 1:16 pm
  • 2 Comments