CLA Radio 08/01/14: Second Anniversary

CLAR104-2ndAnniversaryBanner

The next ConservativeLA Radio show (on Duane FM in the Hughniverse, Friday night, 08/01/14, 7:00 Pacific/10:00 Eastern) will celebrate the 104th edition of the show.

I don’t cheat and count reruns, so to heck with the calender. This will be 52 episodes x 2 = Second Anniversary, thus applying the GAAP modifying convention of conservatism to my little music show.

The selections will attempt to provide an incoherent overview of the semi-organized chaos that has occurred weekly since the show began.

Hope you can stop by, listen to the show, and join us in chat!

Spoiler set list:

CLAR Faux Ad: Cyniloft
CLAR Jingle: Mary Katherine Ham
Patsy Cline and Chris Matthews: Crazy
The Penguins: Memories of El Monte
Barack Obama: Far More Eloquent
The Big Lebowski: Jeffrey Lebowski Has a Question
Gillian Welch & David Rawlings: Dusty Box Car Door
Johnny Cash: Lionel Train Ad
Alison Krauss: Miles to Go
Blazing Saddles: Where Are the White Women?
Tommy Lasorda: Thoughts On Kurt Bevacqua
Emmylou Harris with Buddy Miller: Why I’m Walkin’
CLAR Jingle: James Lileks
The Who and John McCain: Eminence Front
Richard Thompson: Bear Swim
Frank Sinatra: High Hopes (JFK)
Ed Wood: Sweaters
Miranda Lambert: Time To Get a Gun
Spinal Tap: Well and Truly Rocked
Sunset Boulevard: The Pictures Got Small
Chris Knight: If I Were You
Al Sharpton: An Easter Message
Slingblade: ‘Taters
Ray Wylie Hubbard: The Messenger
Duck Soup: New Business
CLAR Jingle: Larry O’Connor
Spinal Tap: Great Rock ‘n Roll Should Hurt
Sonic Youth and Chris Matthews: Schizophrenia
Airplane!: Wrong Week to Quit
CLAR Promo
Chip Taylor & Carrie Rodriguez: Was That For Me
Gillian Welch & David Rawlings: By the Mark
The Better It Gets: Normal CLAR
Beach Boys: Good Vibrations (Mono)
Dr Strangelove: Telephone Call
Dial M For Murder: Hello?
Mothers of Invention: Holiday In Berlin, Full-Blown
Dragnet: Putrid Sludge
Michelle Obama: Hooray For Hollywood
Magnum Force: What Really Makes Me Sick
Danny Barnes: Caveman
Ed Wood: Problem With the Door
Gillian Welch & David Rawlings: One More Dollar
The Big Sleep: Trailer
Guys And Dolls with Barack Obama: Sue Me
Daddy Cool: Eagle Rock
Young Frankenstein: I Think I Love Him
Chuck Berry: You Never Can Tell
Drag the River: Strange
Ornette Coleman and Kathleen Sebelius: Lonely Woman
CLAR Jingle: Dennis Prager
Merle Haggard: Lonesome Fugitive
Billy Joe Shaver: People and Their Problems
CollegeHumor.com: Look At This Instagram

JournOlister is Gobsmacked

Better make that juicebox a double! Ezra Klein’s having a ‘Rodney Dangerfield moment’

KleinNelson

A Modest Tax Proposal

A quick hit:

My proposal is nothing new, nor is it so outrageous that it requires the invocation of Jonathan Swift. Elements of this have been discussed by many people over time. But here’s my synthesis:

Flat tax; single nominal rate, not to exceed 20%. (See Hauser’s Law for the underlying rationale behind the maximum.)

Poverty floor. Earnings equal to or below that floor are not subject to income tax. No carryforward/carryback.

Elimination of all tax credits.

Elimination of all deductions/adjustments except:

Charitable deduction. Phase out over time–say twenty years. The sudden elimination of this deduction would be catastrophic for private charities.

Home mortgage interest deduction. Phase out over time–at least twenty years. Possibly a quicker phase-out for non-primary resident property residences. Suddenly eliminating this deduction, in addition to being politically impossible, would seriously harm those currently holding mortgages. The deduction is priced into the price of housing, and into the cost of borrowing, and people have made the biggest investment decision of their lives based on that pricing, and on the expectation of the home mortgage interest deduction remaining intact. (See also, “Sacred Cows: The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.”)

Adjustment for family size, head of household, along those lines.

The only other deduction to possibly keep intact that comes to mind might be some sort of catastrophic medical expense adjustment–or at least a deferral of tax liability.

Treat capital gains as regular income AND eliminate the corporate income tax. If corporate income tax is not eliminated, capital gains would continue to be taxed at a lower rate than regular earnings (perhaps around half the nominal regular earnings rate). Elimination of the corporate tax eliminates double taxation, would spur economic growth, and would have the side benefit of eliminating the most of the controversy surrounding 501(c) tax entities, since taxation would no longer be an issue. (501[3] contribution deductibility might still be a sticking point though–I haven’t really thought this all the way through.)

If the states want to get cute on a state level, say with a progressive state income tax, they can knock themselves out. All of this only pertains to federal taxation.

I may expand on this later, but that’s pretty much my proposal. Again, none of it is very new.

And no, I am not a fan of a national sales tax. That’s a discussion for another post. Suffice it to say that a national sales tax would seriously screw existing savers by taxing the earnings, and then taxing purchases, thus harming existing savers–the very people who played by the stupid rules that we as a society have constructed vis. policy. There are other issues with national sales tax, as well, but the double taxation visited on existing savers is one of the worst.

And anyway, those who argue for a national sales tax would do well to find the political will to merely institute simplification of the existing tax regime as a starting point toward a complete overhaul–and interim measure, as it were. Otherwise, advocating for a national sales tax is pretty much the usual People For A Perfect World approach to politics and economics–which seldom works out well.

—–

Additional note: Probably the biggest 800-pound gorilla in all this is what to do with social security and medicare.

Rand ‘Paul’s foreign policy views are at best foolish and naïve’

“Pentagon Official: Why Rand Paul’s Ideas Scare Me — And Why They Should Scare You,” Joseph Miller, The Daily Caller, 7/21/14:

….Paul’s narrow interpretation of a libertarian foreign policy theory cannot craft American foreign policy. The interconnectedness of the global economy, and the ability for America’s enemies to attack the country from great distances, render Paul’s policy positions little more than a philosophical fancy that may fly at college libertarian conferences, but are scary to those of us who actually do this for a living.

There is much to be said for limiting military intervention abroad, but the decision should not be determined by Paul’s dogma. The decision to undertake military action must be made after determining 1) If it’s necessary, given other potential solution; and 2) If it serves the just interests of the United States.

The problem is that Paul cannot seem to differentiate what U.S. national security interests are any more so than Obama can, though Paul does so in the name of a noninterventionist dogma, while the Obama administration simply lacks a viable and coherent foreign policy. Amid a crowded GOP field, Rand Paul stands alone in a plain of absurdity, looking over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans he somehow believes will keep our homeland safe….

The senator is best suited to argue his policy in the upper chamber, not from the Rose Garden or the Situation Room. Because given his record, if Paul does find himself calling the world shots from the executive, it will be in world unsafe to live in.

Say What?

Politico: “Clinton: ‘Specific campaign’ on growth”:

“If you look at two Republican two-term presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and two Democratic two-term presidents, Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama, and if I just were to compare Reagan’s eight years with Bill’s eight years, it’s like night and day in terms of the effects, the number of jobs that were created, the number of people lifted out of poverty, 100 times more when Bill was president,” she said….

“You have to know going into this that there is a deep divide between parties and between forces who support those parties about the right way to create growth and tackle inequality,” Clinton said. “I’m not sure there is some tablet somewhere that can be brought down from on high, but I think there are lessons to be learned about the best way to come forward with policies and to run on those policies and to then do everything you can to implement them and to make it very clear who is on the other side.”

What?

CLA Radio 07/25/14: Blues

CLAR103-Blues-Banner

The next ConservativeLA Radio show (on Duane FM in the Hughniverse, Friday night, 07/25/14, 7:00 Pacific/10:00 Eastern) will be all about the Blues.

Hope you can stop by, listen to the show, and join us in chat!

Spoiler set list:

B.B. King: Every Day I Have the Blues
Mamie Smith: Crazy Blues
Mississippi John Hurt: I’m Satisfied
R.L. Burnside: Goin’ Down South
Robert Johnson: Preachin’ Blues (Up Jumped the Devil)
Howlin’ Wolf: Smokestack Lightnin’
Seasick Steve: Down on the Farm
Peetie Wheatstraw: Drinking Man Blues
Taj Mahal: Lovin’ in My Baby’s Eyes
Allman Brothers: Stormy Monday
Jimmy Reed: Honest I Do
Big Joe Williams: Don’t You Leave Me Here
Blind Willie Johnson: It’s Nobody’s Fault But Mine
Skip James: How Long Blues
Bessie Smith: I Ain’t Gonna Play No Second Fiddle
Big Joe Turner: Ooo-Ouch-Stop
Victoria Spivey: Black Snake Swing
Lowell Fulson: Reconsider Baby
David Lindley & El Rayo X: Mercury Blues
Elizabeth Cotten: Shake Sugaree
Jimi Hendrix: Hear My Train A-Comin’
Little Walter: Blues With a Feeling
Muddy Waters: Mannish Boy
Muddy Waters: I Can’t Be Satisfied
Johnny Winter: Rock Me Baby
Johnny Winter & Sonny Landreth: T-Bone Shuffle
Johnny Winter: It’s My Own Fault

FAIR and the Eugenicists?

Well, this is interesting. While looking for something unrelated, this headline jumped out at me:

“Immigration reform: Why Laura Ingraham has done a disservice to conservatives and our nation.”

Far more interesting than the article itself, however, was a link therein: “Hijacking Immigration?” by Mario H. Lopez in The Human Life Review, 2012.

As a former member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), I was surprised to see connections made between the neo-Malthusian eugenics crowd and FAIR. Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised. (I’ve only scanned the piece so far, and will go back and read it after I post this.)

In 2013, NRO said:

Over time, the Human Life Review, a quarterly journal dedicated to the defense of human life, has had several important articles tracing the history of eugenics in America, and its insidious connection to abortion and population control; we have also devoted many pages to the fizzling of Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb.” Thus, although immigration policy is not a subject in our purview, Mario H. Lopez’s article, “Hijacking Immigration,” which asserts that there are disturbing connections between the population-control movement — including abortion and euthanasia advocates — and anti-immigration organizations is appropriate for our pages and our readers.

And a bit more background, from Wikipedia:

The Human Life Review is a quarterly journal published by the Human Life Foundation since 1975. It is devoted to explorations of life issues, primarily abortion, as well as neonaticide, medical genetics, prenatal testing, human cloning, fetal tissue experimentation, euthanasia and assisted suicide, and also publishes articles dealing with more general questions of family and society. It was founded by James Patrick McFadden, formerly associate publisher of National Review, who had also founded the Human Life Foundation, and is now edited by his daughter, Maria McFadden. It was launched from the offices of National Review, with the support of William F. Buckley.

Writers whose work has been featured in The Human Life Review include Nat Hentoff, Hadley Arkes, William McGurn, Thomas Sowell, Wesley Smith, David Quinn, Kathryn Jean Lopez and President Ronald Reagan.

Note that Maria McFadden is the author of the NRO piece quoted above.

Here are some brief excerpts from the much longer Human Life Review piece:

With some notable exceptions, FAIR’s board of directors, national advisory board, and staff include many population-control, pro-abortion, and forced-sterilization advocates. Their statements and membership in other pro-abortion population-control groups reveal their true ideological allegiances.

FAIR’s website openly touts environmentalist and population-control rhetoric….

That extreme population-control rhetoric is unsurprising, because FAIR’s executive director is population-control advocate Dan Stein. He routinely appears on radio and television shows arguing that immigration should be stopped because it increases the total population of the United States. Stein described China’s one-child policy as an “international family planning program.” He is married to Sharon McCloe Stein, the former executive director of Negative Population Growth (NPG)….

Planned Parenthood has many representatives on both FAIR’s main board and advisory board.

Perhaps I should have been paying closer attention to FAIR’s worldview. As it was, I was focused on immigration policy, rather than the underlying ideology that was presumably driving it.

—–

Update: After having read the Human Life Review article, all I can say is…wow. Read it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.