Thursday, July 12, 2007
Please check out my actual blog!
Just in case anyone ever ends up here by some fluke, please check out my actual blog at Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Ltd. There you'll find reviews, articles and commentary on a wide variety of topics, including anime, movies, tv, religion, and education. Thanks.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Tax Freedom Day...
Well, according to the Tax Foundation, yesterday, April 17, was Tax Freedom Day. Every day that we've worked so far (on average) was just to pay taxes, so from here on out, we're actually working for ourselves!
We definitely pay too much in taxes. People need to be aware of what they're paying.
We definitely pay too much in taxes. People need to be aware of what they're paying.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Taxes...
I suppose with today being tax-deadline day, a lot of people are thinking about the tax system, and if there's anyway to fix the problems we have now. On the radio today (I usually listen to KXYL 96.9 fm here in Brownwood) someone mentioned the national sales tax idea. Specifically they said that if people could see the exact rate that they were being taxed and had to feel it with each purchase, they would demand that the government reduce spending. While people really do need to realize what they're being taxed, I definitely don't think that's the way to go about it.
The chief problem with a national sales tax is that the burden would be evenly distributed. At first glance, that seems like a fair thing; everyone pays the same rate (the same is true, btw, of a flat tax). However, if you look closer, you'll realize that those less able to pay, especially those in the poverty tax bracket, would be paying relatively the same as someone in a higher bracket. In other words, those people who already struggle to provide the basics for their family would have an even harder time.
Perhaps I lean a bit toward an almost socialist system on this issue, but the idea of "From each according to their means, to each according to their need" is a laudable goal. I'm not saying that we should milk the rich until their take-home earnings are the same as everyone else's. I'm also not saying that we need to continue rewarding people for not working even though they're capable. Rather, we need a progressive tax system that doesn't further impoverish those who are already struggling.
Furthermore, we need to reduce the tax burden on those in the middle bracket who are currently shouldering most of the burden (maybe it's because this is the first year my wife and I will be in that tax bracket ^_^). In addition, we need to reduce spending; the federal government needs to be reduced to its constitutionally mandated role. Finally, we need tougher enforcement of the current tax code, especially on those who earn plenty but aren't paying what they owe because they have an army of accountants helping them find any hole they can.
A national sales tax or a simple flat tax are not the answers; they simply punish those who are already less able to pay. At the same time, we must reduce the complexity of the tax code, tighten up the holes, and reduce government spending. While none of this is simple, it is necessary for the continued prosperity of our nation.
The chief problem with a national sales tax is that the burden would be evenly distributed. At first glance, that seems like a fair thing; everyone pays the same rate (the same is true, btw, of a flat tax). However, if you look closer, you'll realize that those less able to pay, especially those in the poverty tax bracket, would be paying relatively the same as someone in a higher bracket. In other words, those people who already struggle to provide the basics for their family would have an even harder time.
Perhaps I lean a bit toward an almost socialist system on this issue, but the idea of "From each according to their means, to each according to their need" is a laudable goal. I'm not saying that we should milk the rich until their take-home earnings are the same as everyone else's. I'm also not saying that we need to continue rewarding people for not working even though they're capable. Rather, we need a progressive tax system that doesn't further impoverish those who are already struggling.
Furthermore, we need to reduce the tax burden on those in the middle bracket who are currently shouldering most of the burden (maybe it's because this is the first year my wife and I will be in that tax bracket ^_^). In addition, we need to reduce spending; the federal government needs to be reduced to its constitutionally mandated role. Finally, we need tougher enforcement of the current tax code, especially on those who earn plenty but aren't paying what they owe because they have an army of accountants helping them find any hole they can.
A national sales tax or a simple flat tax are not the answers; they simply punish those who are already less able to pay. At the same time, we must reduce the complexity of the tax code, tighten up the holes, and reduce government spending. While none of this is simple, it is necessary for the continued prosperity of our nation.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Secrecy and the Election of the Pope...
I was reading this story on Yahoo! (from Reuters) about the former Archbishop of Boston Bernard Law giving a memorial mass for Pope John Paul II when a paragraph caught my attention. It read
"Andrew Greeley, sociologist and religious affairs commentator from Chicago, sharply criticized the cardinals' silence in the period before the conclave."
The article just mentioned this almost in passing and didn't elaborate, so I did a quick Google search and came up with this article that Greeley, apparently a regular contributor to the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about the secrecy of the cardinals before the conclave to elect the next pope.
Now, I am not Catholic and have certain problems (based on my understanding of Scripture) with even the idea of a pope, but this article demonstrates to me a more pressing issue. Greeley seems to be of the opinion that the Catholic Church has an obligation to make their deliberations public. While I do not argue that the cardinals are not obligated to Catholics to pick the best pope they can, I do not believe that those deliberations should be made public.
When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in Philadelphia, the delegates there decided that it was in the public interest to have their meetings in secret, and that none of the delegates would make any public statements regarding the Convention while it was still ongoing. Why did they decide such a thing? The purpose was that when the Constitution was unveiled, the delegates would appear united behind it. The public would not have been aware of whom disagreed and argued with whom, although they knew that arguements and disagreements must have taken place. It was important for a young, barely united nation to have leaders who were united in spite of their differences, and for this reason they kept meetings that had a very public impact private.
The situation is not much different for the Catholic Church today. Catholics, especially in America, are divided on any number of issues. The cardinals are charged with an obligation that is no smaller than the one the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were charged with. They must appear united in their decision, despite any differences and disagreements they may have.
For this reason, their secrecy is not only understandable, but necessary.
"Andrew Greeley, sociologist and religious affairs commentator from Chicago, sharply criticized the cardinals' silence in the period before the conclave."
The article just mentioned this almost in passing and didn't elaborate, so I did a quick Google search and came up with this article that Greeley, apparently a regular contributor to the Chicago Sun-Times wrote about the secrecy of the cardinals before the conclave to elect the next pope.
Now, I am not Catholic and have certain problems (based on my understanding of Scripture) with even the idea of a pope, but this article demonstrates to me a more pressing issue. Greeley seems to be of the opinion that the Catholic Church has an obligation to make their deliberations public. While I do not argue that the cardinals are not obligated to Catholics to pick the best pope they can, I do not believe that those deliberations should be made public.
When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held in Philadelphia, the delegates there decided that it was in the public interest to have their meetings in secret, and that none of the delegates would make any public statements regarding the Convention while it was still ongoing. Why did they decide such a thing? The purpose was that when the Constitution was unveiled, the delegates would appear united behind it. The public would not have been aware of whom disagreed and argued with whom, although they knew that arguements and disagreements must have taken place. It was important for a young, barely united nation to have leaders who were united in spite of their differences, and for this reason they kept meetings that had a very public impact private.
The situation is not much different for the Catholic Church today. Catholics, especially in America, are divided on any number of issues. The cardinals are charged with an obligation that is no smaller than the one the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were charged with. They must appear united in their decision, despite any differences and disagreements they may have.
For this reason, their secrecy is not only understandable, but necessary.
Fish...
On my way to work today I ended up behind a guy with one of those Darwin fishes on his car. Now, there are very few things that really make me angry, but this is one of those. I can understand if someone's an atheist and believes in evolution; heck, if they want to have all the bumper stickers they want on their car proclaiming to the world their belief, then so be it. But it betrays a hostile attitude to take one religion's symbol and to bastardize it. The Darwin fish has no other purpose but one of mockery, and this, I think, shows the spirit of atheism to be one of cynicism and spite.
Correction on Mitch Hedberg...
According to this story from MTV News, the exact cause of Mitch's death is unknown, but that his family has been told that he had a heart attack... My wife had told me that it was related to cancer, but I couldn't get the link she sent me to load, so I can't confirm that. Here are some one-liners from Mitch, included in the MTV article:
"Rice is great when you're hungry and want 2,000 of something."
"I would imagine if you understood Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy."
"When someone hands you a flier, it's like they're saying, 'Here, you throw this away.'"
"Rice is great when you're hungry and want 2,000 of something."
"I would imagine if you understood Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy."
"When someone hands you a flier, it's like they're saying, 'Here, you throw this away.'"
Monday, April 11, 2005
John Bolton...
According to this story on Yahoo!, there's a lot of "controversy" over President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. I certainly believe that we need a process to screen appointments and that senators have a responsibility to weed out inappropriate appointments, but I think that in this case, like so many others, the criticisms are politically motivated. President Bush and his administration have a stated view of the United Nations, that it is a body in great need of reform that could be effective but isn't. People can disagree with that assessment, but they cannot expect President Bush to nominate someone who doesn't believe the same as he does on this issue; that's the point of being able to nominate people. Otherwise, we'd just have Congress make the appointments.
I don't know much about Mr. Bolton myself, but I have heard his views on the UN; I think he's right. What I don' understand is how certain people in the Senate can see the things that have been going on at the UN over the past several months and think that it doesn't need some reform. Being critical of the UN should not be a bar to being the UN ambassador. Even his "top ten floors" comment isn't really all that extreme; I'm sure we've all said similar things about Congress or another legislative body when we get frustrated about it. I suppose some people may have interpreted that to mean that he literally wants to blow up the top ten floors of the UN building, but those people are obviously not intelligent enough to warrant listening to if they take something like that literally.
Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats want someone appointed to the UN who believes the way they do. While they have a right to disagree with Mr. Bolton and President Bush, they do not have a right to block the appointment of a highly qualified individual simply because his views don't line up with theirs. They want to act as if they won the election rather than lost it.
I don't know much about Mr. Bolton myself, but I have heard his views on the UN; I think he's right. What I don' understand is how certain people in the Senate can see the things that have been going on at the UN over the past several months and think that it doesn't need some reform. Being critical of the UN should not be a bar to being the UN ambassador. Even his "top ten floors" comment isn't really all that extreme; I'm sure we've all said similar things about Congress or another legislative body when we get frustrated about it. I suppose some people may have interpreted that to mean that he literally wants to blow up the top ten floors of the UN building, but those people are obviously not intelligent enough to warrant listening to if they take something like that literally.
Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats want someone appointed to the UN who believes the way they do. While they have a right to disagree with Mr. Bolton and President Bush, they do not have a right to block the appointment of a highly qualified individual simply because his views don't line up with theirs. They want to act as if they won the election rather than lost it.
Mitch Hedberg dies...
My wife just e-mailed me today to let me know that Mitch Hedberg died of cancer on March 30. Mitch was a wonderful comedian that I got to see several times on Comedy Central. He also did several guest spots on one of our favorite shows, Home Movies. He had a great method of delivery, very dry. One of my favorite jokes by him is "Escalators can never break down... they can just become stairs." While not all of his language is "family friendly", I don't remember anything particularly crude; he was just a extremely funny guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
