Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Ed Rendell, Other Democratic Bosses In Scheme To Buy The Philadelphia Inquirer, In Time for the 2012 Elections | Main | 32nd Anniversary of US Olympic Hockey "Miracle on Ice"
February 22, 2012

What is the Goal in this Election?

Is this a protest, or do we really intend to win the presidency?

In the comments, I argued with politics about Mitt Romney's statement that he'd make sure the rich "pay their fair share."

Suddenly, it turns out, that's a horrible thing to say. Despite Romney's proposal to drop the top marginal tax rate to 28% (which seems too low, given it produced big deficits), apparently adding in the rhetorical caveat "the rich should pay their fair share" is a deal-breaker, because we cannot possibly "concede any of the left's narrative."

Even if what he means is that by eliminating most loopholes, 28% will mean something closer to 28%. That is, if the public is worried about "loopholes" and wants to gin up the marginal tax rates -- isn't the better solution to address the question of loopholes? And drop the marginal tax rate to something more reasonable?

This is the fundamental premise of calls for "tax reform." The idea is that you close all the loopholes and reduce deductions, and just post a real marginal rate that you expect people to actually pay (or close to it). You don't pump up a marginal rate and then let people dodge it with lots of loopholes.

It's a call for tax transparency -- your rate is what you actually pay. And if you're closing loopholes, you can also afford to lower the marginal rate.

How can anyone be against a "fair" share? The very term is loaded such that you cannot be against a fair share. Because, then, what do you support? An unfair share?

That's why Obama says it sixty three billion times. Because it polls well.

Do you really want our candidate arguing against a "fair share"?

Or arguing: Yes, I want the rich to pay their fair share. That's the point of my tax reform proposal.

I'd rather have it the latter way.

Furthermore, whether or not this is a concern to you, it is a concern of independents -- 57% of which do not think the rich are paying their "fair share."

So is Romney allowed to even rhetorically nod towards fairness?

Or is the plan to run on the true -- but politically toxic -- notion that the poor should be paying more in taxes, and the rich somewhat less?

Here's what I wrote in the email, and what I believe:

I believe the party wants to lose.

I believe the party has decided the problems facing us are so big that they cannot be overcome.

I believe the party has decided, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously, that we are not up to the task, and the best thing to do is just duck out and Blame the Other Guys. Let them Own Their Problems.

If that's the plan, let me know. We don't have to contend very hard at all if our goal is to lose.

Easiest thing in the world, losing. Even easier when you've gotten practice at it.

I believe the party does not think it is capable of working positive good in policy. If so, I take it as knowing itself best, and perhaps it's time for a new party.

If the party is basically taking the position that governance is itself fundamentally unconservative -- the messy compromises and punts that typically occur in politics (and must occur in politics) -- then we're not a governing party any longer.

We're an ideological, protest sort of party -- like the Libertarian Party.

I think most people actually do not want to win, or, at least, do not wish to win in any plausible scenario. What I mean by that is that sure, they'll win, so long as they have a guarantee that there will never again be a single compromise in politics and will never again face a politician who disagrees with him.

That's not realistic, and that's not politics. It's political philosophy. You can be as pure as you like in political philosophy.

I used to make fun of the Libertarians for this.

Are we now all Libertarians, in that sense?

Reagan said the same thing. This is a liberal ad, showing how Obama's rhetoric echoes Reagan, but Reagan did say this.

digg this
posted by Ace at 04:48 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Martini Farmer: "To me... the answer as to why Jews vote (D) is the ..."

runner: "Disagree. Look at the Santos vote. Half the Rep ..."

NaCly Dog: "I want the Left / Davos insiders with their own je ..."

Hokey Pokey: "Hey, Kerry. Commercial jet and a better dietician. ..."

runner: "It is not enough to do the right things in politic ..."

BurtTC: "Eli Crane is pretty badass. Hope they don't corru ..."

GanGanowicz: "The person grilling the MIT president over black d ..."

Cat Ass Trophy: "Teacher thinks that someone with a $4.3B net worth ..."

Hokey Pokey: "Reporters Guild? Yow. ..."

Ciampino - The word 'drool' just rolls off the tongue ..: "143 read ..."

Rufus T. Firefly: "139 I mean pretty soon old George is going to ha ..."

18-1: "[i]Rs are absolutely horrible, incompetent and stu ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64