50% Surtax on Former Government Employees Say What!?

The other day I came across a suggestion that was posted on Pajamas Media's Instapundit blog by a Glenn Reynolds.

The author jokingly suggested that perhaps a good way for Obama to raise revenue would be to place a 50% surtax on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay $12,500 in excise tax (half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years.  While I must reaffirm that the author said this jokingly, I assume that his suggestion was posted with the intent that it would "scare" people out of going to work for the government.

While it is obvious that there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed from the government's payroll, I take strong issue with that suggestion. This guy seems to imply in his post that working for the federal government should be penalized.  If you read between the lines, it seems like he thinks it is a bad thing or that it is offensive for somebody to work for the federal government.

I'm not exactly a lobbyist for federal workers.  For example, in a recent post I said:

While I actually have a hard time believing that government employees deserve a better retirement than everybody else, I can understand the argument.  Firemen rescue, policemen protect, sanitation workers sanitize..., etc. I understand that our lives would not to be the same if public employees didn't show up to work.  Then again, our lives might change just as drastically if all the nation's Walmart employees decided to stay home for a week or two.

But arguing that public employees are not any more crucial to society than private ones is not the same thing as degrading them by implying that their existence should somehow be penalized.

Ben Stein, one of my favorite commentators, stated once:

There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything...To put it mildly, this is unfair and not even in the ballpark of what's true...I am sure there are many government employees who waste money but so are there wasteful private sector people. Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

While we were arguing from different directions. Our point is the same, I believe. Employees in both private and public sectors serve vital roles in our society. Without them, our lives would undoubtedly be more difficult and both groups should be treated well.

I do still believe, however, that since the private sector basically funds the public one. Everybody's best interest is served in increasing effiiciency and lowering costs within the public sector - as long as effectiveness is not lost.

So in rebuttal to the condescending suggestion of Reynolds, I suggest the following:

A 50% deduction on the taxable income on the first 5 years of income of former government employees above what they made at their position within the government. This deduction would be applicable to up to 50% of that employee's actual salary in his former government position.  For example, if an employee leaves a government job that pays $50,000 for a job that pays $75,000 in the private sector, then he should pay income tax on $62,500 of his income ($12,500 less, or half of the $25,000 difference between his government job and his private sector job) for the next 5 years, but is not eligible for a tax deduction of more than $25,000 (half of his original $50,000 paycheck).  Of course, in order to qualify, they would have to be hired before today's date and leave their position in the government after today's date.

I contend that this solution would have a more positive impact on our economic situation. We all know that it is tax revenue that pays for the government worker's salary, so incentivising a departure from the public to private sector would in the end save the taxpayers money and in fact increase revenue to the government. There is also no stigma against public employees created by this kind of a policy. It's in effect a way of saying, "Thanks for your service to your country, now let me give you a head start on your venture into the private sector."

What say you?
 

How Sacred is Your Cow?

The other day I caught a snippet of Frank Luntz' focus group on the Fox News program Hannity. Luntz's workshops are of great interest to me. It's a chance to escape the noise of the media and focus on what concerns real live Americans. In this focus group, Rand Paul was invited as a guest. He spoke regarding deficits, spending, the military, among other things.

While watching the video, you probably noticed that Rand Paul's 2010 advertisement polled extremely well, and he continued to poll well in the focus group.

I had to ask myself, "Why does this guy poll so well?"

He's not exactly a centrist.  He opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest, wants to eliminate the federal reserve, wants to get rid of the Department of Education, and opposes all forms of gun control.  He's about as right wing as they come.

I understand why he would poll well among strong conservatives, but why among people who are more centrist or left-leaning? I know the focus group was on Faux News, as some call it, but Frank Luntz's focus group's are designed to have a good spread of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. How could the democrats find him as appealing as the republicans do?

Now, I had to remember that the guy wasn't speaking about gay marriage or gun control, but about the economy and our military, and he polled especially well when speaking on the economy.  So I decided to analyze that particular point (I'll open the can of worms that is the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lybia later). Apparently, Rand Paul's position regarding the budget appeals to a lot of Americans - Democrat and Republican.

So what is it that is so appealing about Rand Paul's economic view?  I believe it is the fact that he appears to be without Sacred Cows.  Rand rejects the proposition that there is any government program that is so great or so important that there is no way on earth that we can possibly afford to cut, modify, or eliminate it.  He strikes the note that we all know in our guts - If we're to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget, then ALL spending must be put on the table.

While a conservative politician might think that a strong national defense is more important to our nation than food stamps, if he is to sound credible to the American people who are dead serious about deficit reduction and a balanced budget, he must be willing to put even his "pet programs" on the chopping block.  Until he is willing to do that, he won't be seen as genuinely determined to get spending under control.

Today conservative radio host Mark Levin linked to an article in the Washington Post entitled: GOP Compromise on Debt: Cut Military Spending?  When posting the link, Levin says: GOP debt reduction plan. Unilateral disarmament?

I have no problem with Levin saying that. He's a commentator. But if a politician had equated cutting wasteful military spending (it does exist, just ask anybody who has spent some time in the military) to unilateral disarmament, he might score points with some conservatives, but he would also succeed in alienating himself from the millions of Americans who know that wasteful spending can be found even in the defense budget.

As most warm-blooded creatures with a pulse know, we are entering campaign season.  The politicians who are vying at the chance to become the leader of the free world can take a cue from little old Rand Paul.  They might want to look at their fiscal policy and ask themselves, "Just how sacred are my cows?" If they find that they are unwilling to even have a conversation regarding cuts in spending in a specific program, whether it's social security, medicare, or defense spending, then they may have just uncovered a serious stumbling block to their campaign.
    

Soak the Rich (in blood)

See what would happen if we took Michael Moore's advice and took every penny that belongs to the Uber-Rich and ran with it.

Class warfare debunked.

H/T Nate.
                       

Passing the Budget Buck

Passing the buck just may not work anymore.

Only 2 days remain for the guys on the hill to reach a compromise that will bridge the $28 Billion gap between the democrat's $33 Billion cutting budget proposal and the republican's $61 Billion cutting budget proposal before the looming government "shutdown" occurs. Even as a shutdown looms, I can't help but feel that many in our capital that seem to be gearing up to use it for political gain.

Howard Dean was quoted recently as saying that he would be "quietly rooting" for a shutdown, because "[he knows] who's going to get blamed."  Chuck Schumer let slip that he'd been "instructed" by his caucus to label Boehner and the GOP as "extreme" for proposing $61 Billion in cuts from a bloated $3.8 Trillion budget that has a $1.4 Trillion shortfall.  Scott Brown called the cuts "irresponsible".

Extreme?  Irresponsible?  Let's talk about that for a second.

Isn't a $1.4 Trillion deficit irresponsible?  Isn't it irresponsible for the democrats to fail to present a 2011 budget at all when they controlled the house, senate and white house?   Isn't it a bit extreme for those same democrats to turn around and take pot shots at the republican-led congress that is spearheading the effort to salvage what should have been their budget in the first place?  Isn't it extremely irresponsible to prefer to use a shutdown as political fodder instead of confronting your failure to perform your basic duty as my public representative in the first place?

But the old-school political class is counting on our poor memory.  They are hoping that they can peg the blame for a shutdown on the more conservative republicans.  They'll say, "The Republicans didn't compromise with us, and failed to pass a budget.  They forced the government to shut down."  Obama would undoubtedly campaign on that lie.  What they don't realize is that the American public's memory is improving.  We know who's budget this is.  And we know who's trying to salvage it.  They also don't realize that the American public is increasingly aware of the severity of the mess that our debt problem has created.  Their nefarious plan to manipulate this potential crisis might just backfire.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans would prefer a shutdown to increased spending.  Only 36% think averting a shutdown is more important than reducing spending.  Another poll shows that while 37% of people would blame republicans for a shutdown, a total of 42% would blame democrats and President Obama.

The old-schoolers don't seem to realize just how serious Americans are about debt reduction.  The fact that Paul Ryan is willing to take the debate from talks of tens of billions of dollars on this budget to talks of TRILLIONS of dollars with next year's budget is testament to that.

The heart of the matter is, the political landscape has changed.  More Americans are serious about reducing the deficit than ever.  And those who fail to recognize that fact may just suffer the political consequences.
 

Crappy Regulations

A couple days ago I read an article by John Stossel in which he referred the reader to a rant that Rand Paul, well, ranted, at the Energy Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary.

What exactly is a deputy assistant secretary anyway?  Couldn't a deputy be defined as an assistant to one in authority?  And isn't secretary another way of saying "office assistant"?  Does that make a deputy assistant secretary an assistant assistant assistant?

Anyway, Rand Paul tore into the Assistant Assistant Assistant of the Energy Department because he feels that in its effort to protect the environment it restricts consumers' choices.  He complained that he now had a toilet that he had to flush repeatedly because it doesn't work right.  His old toilets worked, but the new ones don't.  Now, I too laughed to myself and silently suggested to Rand that if he eat less meat, drink fruit juice, and try to regulate his bowel movements instead of holding it in until the last minute he would find that his toilet works better.  But Rand is really on to something.  His somewhat comical rant shed light on the unintended consequences of the elitist "ruling class".

Now before you call me anti-intellectual or think that I'm opposed to smart people in the government, let's get something straight.  "Elitism", in my intended use of the word here, is the notion that a specific group or class of people is somehow superior to the general population and therefore should make the decisions for everybody else.  I'm not exactly in favor of failed "hookt on fonix" students running our country.  But then again, maybe that's why congressmen won't read the bills that are presented to them.

Back to my point.  Rand is upset really because he is a full-blooded libertarian.  And, as a libertarian, he feels that he should have absolute freedom of choice.  He feels it is his right as a human being to be free to do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm or infringe on the rights of others.  While I might not be as strong a libertarian as Rand is, I also have quite the libertarian streak.  Honestly, where does the executive branch of our government get the right to tell us how many gallons of water are in our toilets, what kind of lights to use, how much water comes out of our shower heads, what kind of washing machines we buy, or how much corn is in our gas?

Now, I honestly believe that the EPA, Energy Department, and other regulatory bodies mean well when they regulate the world to death, but just because they mean well doesn't mean that all ends well.  I already mentioned earlier that in their attempt to save mother earth, these regulatory bodies restrict our choices and, consequently, our freedoms - one unintended consequence that irks many (myself included) -  but are there other unintended consequences as well?

I would have forgotten about the Rand Paul potty rant if not for something I found in my hotel room tonight.

That's right, Rand Paul sneaked a sign into my hotel room just so I'd blog about poop disposal machines.  Crap!

The saddest part of all of this is that the toilet really required one of those "courtesy flushes" when I said goodbye to yesterday's pizza.  (I really do say goodbye sometimes)

And that got me to to thinking.  As the sign alludes, my low consumption toilet was created to save the environment.  Yet I wonder how flushing my 1.6 gallon toilet twice, instead of flushing my 3.5 gallon toilet once really does anything to save the environment.  Was saving a cup and a half of water when I use the toilet really worth the time, effort, and money involved in the making of and compliance to this regulation?

Are there other counter-productive, albeit well-intended regulations out there?

In a previous blog entry, I went into great detail about how in its effort to "clean up coal", the EPA suspended one of the most effective CO2 reduction and waste recycling programs in existence (the Coal Combustion Products Partnership).  Is this not another example of the unintended consequences that come with over-regulation?

And don't forget ethanol:

I imagine that there's quite an exhaustive list of counter-productive government programs and regulations.  It's probably a lot longer than the list of productive ones.