Halcyon Days

In Greek mythology, the Halcyon Days were the seven days in winter when storms never occur.  

The push for higher tax rates for the wealthiest class is driven home by the core logic that all we need to do is go back to the nirvana Clinton year tax rates.   Forgetting for a moment that much of Clinton's robust revenue came from the revenue produced by an economic bubble on technology, the logic is further flawed. 

George W. Bush produced a tax cut for ... everyone.  He didn't cut the taxes of just the top 2%.  He lowered the tax rates for ALL including taking a large number of Americans out of the tax paying pool.   It increased revenue AND increased the percentage that the top income earners pay of the total.

Therefore, if we want to go back to the great Clinton tax plan - EVERYONE pays more.   Everyone loves a good tax rise until their own taxes rise.  Even "altruistic" Warren Buffett supports a tax plan that actually would have minimal impact on his own personal tax situation.   The only reason people like taxing the wealthy, is it means taxing someone other than them.   By definition, increasing taxes on the top 2% means that we are not increasing taxes on 98%.  

This is not some sort of punishment game.  The top 2% have no liability they owe the world for past deeds. There is no basis for claims that say a "fair share" isn't paid.   People want more revenue, but they don't want to pay for it themselves.  Tax the other guy.

Additionally, every person who quotes the great Clinton tax rates for economic success, fails to note that maybe we should go back the the Clinton SPENDING levels.  Gov't spending in 1997 was a fraction of what it is today.   Hell, Gov't spending in 2004 was a fraction of what it is today.

The Wall Street Journal today lays out the Democrat's "ask" for revenue increases to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.   What's on the table, the chart reads.  $1.6 trillion revenue increases through a combination of factors.  Actual tax rate increases on "upper-income" households would yield $442 billion.  But additionally, those same earners would be burdened with limits on standard tax breaks ($584 billion), increase rates on dividends and capital gains for ONLY upper income households ($242 billion), place limits on tax breaks for upper income earners ($165 billion), and raise taxes on estates and gifts ($143 billion).   Reminder, when we say "upper-income", these aren't billionaires or million dollar-a-year salaries, theses are couples making $250,000.

But wait, there's more.   "Other potential sources" are capping total deductions at $25,000 for upper-income only.   That's a cap on previous deductions of state & local taxes, property taxes, charitable contributions, mortgage payments, etc.  That raised an additional $800 billion. 

By now, you must see the recurring theme in "upper-income" only.   The argument by Democrats is, "how can the Republicans hold up negotiations for solving the fiscal cliff to save 'a few millionaires.'"  It's only 2% of the population!

In this country, we promote success.  We don't punish it.  In this country, we don't abuse the minority because the majority has the voting power.    Hell, let's only tax Agnostics & Atheists.  They only represent 2% of the population, who would possibly stand-up to the rest of the country to support such a small voting block.   

So, it's more than just raising the marginal tax rate by a "couple percentage points."  At the end of that process, it's raising the marginal tax bill on individuals and small business - those with success, those that create jobs, those that spend and invest in the U.S. economic system - by a lot.   It's more than just protecting a small population of Americans - but even if it WERE, targeting a small group to carry the country's burden while it continues to spend and spend and spend with no end it sight, is WRONG in its own right.   Shared sacrifice means just that - shared.   The tax system is already enormously progressive.  Raise taxes, and the rich WILL pay substantially all of the bill.

Follow up to Yesterday's Post

Obama Campaigning: $3 In Cuts For Every $1 In Taxes
Obama at Debate: $2.5 in Cuts For Every $1 In Taxes
Obama's Actual Proposed Plan: $3 In Taxes For Every $1 In Cuts

Houston, We have a [Spending] Problem

The feds rolled up another $1.1 trillion deficit for the year that ended September 30, which was the biggest deficit since World War II, except for each of the previous three years. President Obama can now proudly claim the four largest deficits in modern history. As a share of GDP, the deficit fell to 7% last year, which was still above any single year of the Reagan Presidency, or any other year since Truman worked in the Oval Office.

This is in despite of the fact that Federal Revenue has come back to its previous all-time high posted in 2007.  In other words, since 2007, Federal Receipts (tax revenue and such) is up 0.1%, while spending is up 28%.    We are spending $3.8 trillion per year! or $800 billion more than the last pre-recession year of 2007.   That is the equivalent of the "emergency" Federal stimulus funds added to the baseline spending for every year going forward. 

In spite of the rhetoric about the Bush Tax cuts and unfunded wars, the highest deficit on an annualized basis maxed out at $400 billion.  That is one third the deficit in 2011.  In fact, all of the years combined of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, you get last year's deficit.



Currently, the top 1% of income earners (those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000) paid a total of 38% of all individual federal income tax revenue.  If you take in the top 50% of income earners (which includes both the top 1%), they paid 97.3% of all individual federal income tax revenues.   Those figures don't include social security tax which are not progressive, but are not intended to be progressive.  Social Security is supposed to be a safety-net insurance program put in place by the government to make sure its citizens save for retirement.  It is not intended to be a wealth transfer program. 

Obama's plan to ask the rich to "pay a little more" yields about $80 billion.   Barely a drop in the bucket.   If we taxed the top 1% of Americans 100% of their income, if we took it ALL, it would generate about a trillion dollars for the government’s coffers or slightly less that year's deficit.  Conversely, the top 5% earn down to something just less than $200,000 per year (closer to $145k, but I'm not sure the figure).  If we raise the current tax rates of the top 5% of earners by doubling their current rate, it would only add about $600 billion in revenue or 1/2 the deficit.   The Fiscal Cliff budget recalls all tax cuts from the Bush Tax cut for all earners, as well as the expiration of the payroll tax cuts implemented over the past two years, and those two items only reduce 2013 budget by approximately $300 billion.  Throw in all other fiscal cliff and sequestration items and it only gets you to somewhere south of $500 billion.  - See Here

We have a SPENDING PROBLEM!   It's not new.  We had a spending problem in the George W. Bush years.  In this blog, I chastised him for not vetoing enough spending bills.  As a fiscal conservative, he should have reigned in a spending-happy Congress.  He didn't.  However, it has only gotten worse.  WAY WORSE.

Oh - and don't forget - this is just the DEFICIT.   We have a while pile of Federal Debt that we need to figure out how to repay in the amount of $16 trillion.



The debt is $51,648 per citizen as I write this.  But remember, not everyone pays taxes.  So that number is actually $141,735 per taxpayer.   Gross U.S. Debt to GDP is slightly over 100% of GDP.  Greece is about 144% and Spain is 116%.   Annual interest to date is about $12,500 per citizen.  But also remember, interest rates are at historic lows.   God help us if rates rise.   And that's just debt.  Total unfunded liabilities including Social Security, prescription drug and Medicare total slightly over $1 million per taxpayer.  Yes, $1 million.

The Flash Take

Hat tip to my college friend Flash, who writes:

So Obama says he is going to meet with Mitt Romney to see what they can do together to solve the nation's problems. This is a President who spent billions on a campaign that was 100% charcater assassination. He and his henchmen spent months and months denigrating and smearing Romney, one of the few good and decent people remaining still willing to enter national service, turning him into a cartoon villain who was going to take your healthcare, or your rights, or your contraception, or your lives (cancer), or bankrupt the nation. Why in the world would [Obama] want to meet with such a terrible person to talk about anything? Obama is so full of [it] I can't stand it.

This is the conundrum that Obama voters should be trying to resolve?  Wait, why would Obama want to get Romney's ideas when all I've heard is how horrible his ideas are? Remember those trickle-down theories that ruined our economy?  I thought we "sent those back to the 80s?"  Those questions should be followed by: did I just get the political wool pulled over my eyes?  If his ideas are good, why did I vote for you? ... D'oh!  

However, that analysis will never take place, because it would involve rational, logical thinking beyond snippet rhetoric that doesn't involve Big Bird, wars on women, binders, Bruce Springsteen or Jay-Z.

Can't Believe

I went to bed early discouraged at the prospects.  Heard the results before truly falling asleep.  Can't sleep now (2am) as I remain flabbergasted at the outcome.   

My first virtual stop was to my favorite conservative political website, a site that I enjoy because they get right to the point while mixing in a little humor.    Their opening line completely summed up what's keeping me up tonight.

"I think this time it's a little more painful because we can't believe that half of America could possibly vote for a man whose policies have been so costly and so ineffective."

I was literally tossing and turning thinking that exact thought.

Continuing down the blog, an earlier post noted this,

"A hurricane. I can't believe it. A hurricane a week before an election, in which the president doesn't do anything but place a few phone calls and get his picture taken with a [staunch conservative] who's in love with Bruce Springsteen, swings the most important election of our time.  Such is life."

He used a more derogatory term for Chris Christie, who failed to show his support for the candidate he supposedly supported and yet heaped undying praise on the opponent who visited him for a mere few hours, but I felt it unnecessary to use it.

What bothers me most - the fact that Romney lost bothers me a lot, a real lot, but what bothers me most is the fact that Obama ran, in my opinion, such an intellectually dishonest campaign and yet millions buy into it.  Rather than standing on issues, the Democrats Presidential tactic this election has been to fuel hate and derision (albeit this has really been the tactic since the opposition to George W. Bush began during the second Gulf War).  They take meaningless and innocuous items and spin them into soundbites that sound horrible and menacing.  They label in order to make talking points even if the underlying premise doesn't actually support the argument.  They call on their base to hate a candidate because, "they should."   It's like the school bully, who picks on one student calling him or her names, because he is insecure with his own ability to win over people.

Finally, it blows my mind that Obama portrays himself to have no responsibility for the results of the past four years, but everyone else holds ultimate responsibility for not only what happened on their watch, but everything that occurred before, during and after.   And somehow people buy that.

Economic cycles happen.  I have always contended that Presidents don't cause them, but policies can nudge them one way or another.  They can mitigate the results, or worsen them.  Even in his final WSJ Editorial pitch, Obama pointed his finger at GWB for a terrible record of job growth and deficits while lauding Bill Clinton for the economic prosperity.    The hypocrisy is incredible.  Bill Clinton entire economic prosperity was due to the credits of Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 creating an environment where Clinton could slash defense expenditures as well as the enormous fictitious wealth created by the Internet bubble.  The economy was already headed into recession by the election of 2000 and the crash of the Tech companies.   It was later exacerbated by the incredibly destructive events of 9/11, both in physical terms as well as economic harm.  In response, Bush 43's tax cuts (the same tax cuts that Obama praises himself for extending) did an excellent job of staving off a bad recession by keeping it a mild recession.   Job growth inched along in the early part of the decade, but well under what was needed for fast paced recovery.   Anyone who remembers political divisiveness will surely recall the Democrats chants of, "Where's the Jobs, George?" and they constant derision of the "jobless recovery."   In the eyes of Obama supporters, perversely George Bush was responsible for all that mess, yet Barack Obama holds no responsibility for his actions since 2009.

Much like his predecessor, Obama wrapped up his campaign with the economy headed south.  Unlike Bush, the economy began its slow start of recovery within a few short months of his arrival in office.  Sticking to the theory of his own chief of staff ("don't let a good crisis go to waste"), Obama pushed an enormous stimulus bill that had no chance of actually providing stimulus [I wrote about it on these very blog pages in real time].  Almost EVERY program of that stimulus package failed.  By his own admission later, highly touted "shovel-ready" projects didn't really exist, and the government's own PR tracking of "jobs created" showed little to no job creation.   Like most rear-view mirror politicians, he championed legislation that closed the barn door after the horse was already gone.  Dodd-Frank is a regulatory nightmare that is billed as preventing "too big to fail," but does nothing of the sort.  Investments meant to spur "Green" energy demand by building uncompetitive supply were colossal failures that not only lost billions in government dollars, but effectively doubled those losses by creating huge tax shields for the investors.   His "saving of the auto industry" is no different than that of his political opponents except that his plan "saved" the unions rather than the bondholders and lost the government approximately $15 billion.  His hugely partisan tactics and talk alienated the political system leading to three straight years without a budget.  Spending has lead to enormous deficits and record debt, which he - himself as a Senator - called "immoral."   As such, an economy that could be and should be in full recovery now is a morass. 

Yet, amazingly, none of it is his fault.  Bill Clinton termed the phrase that was used much of the rest of Obama's campaign that, "it was so bad, it couldn't be fixed."   1.  b*** s***, 2. Obama had campaigned in 2008 under the guise that, "I can fix it."   I recall a Tweet earlier in the campaign that summed it up best, "Somehow Romney is responsible for what Bain does 20 years later, but O isn't responsible for the last 4 years."

Ironically, the only thing he happily takes 100% credit for is having the Navy Seal pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden despite the years of work and intelligence that went into creating that moment.  He mentioned it at every rally.

However, instead of being about true issues, the rallying cry was some ludicrous "war on women" that had basis is silly political language rather than reality, or the "47%" comment.   Romney was labeled an elitist who failed to care about the common man.  Anyone who spent a modicum of effort in researching the man would know about Romney's gift for connecting with those in need.   I hope no one listened to election coverage tonight, in fear of finding each and every anchor must be an elitist who hates the common man.  Time and again, when analyzing the result, anchors would highlight "[XYZ] county's results aren't in yet, but that county is heavily democratic and will vote for Obama."    Here we have someone analyzing results that haven't been tabulated yet determining that Romney CAN'T win those votes.  That is exactly the derivation of the "47%" comment that Romney made on hidden camera.   There are two groups of Americans that won't look at the issues in an unbiased light.  47% will vote Democrat, 47% will vote Republican - you need to get the vote of the 6% who swing.

Sadly, America passed on a chance to elect a President who understood the problems we face, had solutions, has experience implementing solutions, and the ability to work the political system to get results.  Instead the electorate college will fall for the River City Salesman because he once promised Hope & Change, but has yet to provide either.  But no fear, we're promised it's coming soon.

God help us.

Voting No

On November 6th, I will be voting "No" on a ballot initiative for same-sex marriage.  Although "No" sounds very negative, based on the wording of the law, it is actually a vote in support of same-sex marriage.

Very few political issues are cut-and-dry.  That's what makes them issues.   Although they sound nice as political soundbites, catchphrases rarely capture the complexity of any topic.   Take the Lilly Ledbetter issue that was legislated in 2008 and signed into law on President Obama's first day in office.  If you are against it - you are against women!  Most catchphrases equate support (or lack thereof) for the Act to be for (or against) equal pay for equal work.   Unfortunately, that isn't what the Lilly Ledbetter Act addresses.   Equal pay for equal work was ALREADY the law of the land.  You can not, and could not, discriminate based on gender.  Ms. Ledbetter was pursuing a lawsuit challenging the statute of limitations regarding when she could bring suit. 

The existing law said she had 180 days to bring suit.  She argued that she brought suit within six months of FINDING OUT she was underpaid due to gender.  The company claimed she did not have the right to sue because she was outside of 180 days of BEING paid less.  So the argument was when does the 180 day clock start ticking.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ms. Ledbetter's favor.  The six month clock starts ticking at the point she finds out - not the actual time period of being paid.  That seems fair.  To base start time in a period where she might be unaware that a violation of the law occurred would not be logical. 

If the law said you could only sue me 60 days after I stole from you, but it took 61 days for you to figure out I stole your favorite vase, that would actually increase my incentive to steal if I thought you wouldn't know.   However, if the law stated that you had 60 days from when you found out, it sets a legitimate time frame for you to determine if you wanted to sue me. 

Like many, I didn't really know the details of the Ledbetter Act.  I asked myself, was "so-and-so" really against "Equal Pay for Equal Work?"  So, I did some research on it, and looked at both sides.   Even though the Supreme Court ruling set a precedent that an employee had 180 days from when they concluded they were underpaid, Legislators (mostly Democrats - few, if any, Republicans supported the measure) decided to clarify the law.  They set the 180-day period from each and everytime the person was paid.  Therefore, one's statute of limitation became constantly rolling forward period so long as the person was being paid.  Consequently, someone could KNOW they were being underpaid, choose to remain in that situation indefinitely, and then bring lawsuit only after they felt they no longer wanted to work there.   It creates an open-ended liability, and a perverse incentive to wait to follow through on your legal right.   Some argue that in practice it actually HURTS women's pursuit of employment.


Consequently, I weighed the two sides, and chose the one that I thinks makes the most sense for now - and for future situations.

Conservative Economist and Professor Thomas Sowell makes the statement, "The history of left-wing policies has largely consisted of doing what feels good and compassionate without asking what the long-term consequences will be."   My opinion is that statement is not precise, but broadly accurate.   The Ledbetter Act seems to fit that category.  But does the Marriage Act?

With that theory in mind, and the strategy of evaluating an issue from both sides, I approached the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.   Supporting the rights of all to marry seems like a reasonable proposal and relatively clear cut.  In fact, a vote in support of gay marriage next week doesn't even clear the way for gay marriage.  It only extends the discussion.  The vote is actually closer to the equivalent of a motion for summary judgement in the legal system.  Those that want to define marriage as between a man and a women want you to vote yes to close the door on the discussion.   

The quote, "you’d think the conservative position would be to keep government from interfering with the private decisions of individuals and the liberty of people to shape their lives as they see fit," seems appropriate.  If there is not a drain on society as a whole, or a law that forces one party to take on the liability of another, I would concur with that sentiment.   

The next obvious step was for me to understand why many are opposed (including many in my own party).  As I stated above, nothing debated is ever truly cut-and-dry.  If I can understand the opposition, I am better prepared as a voter to make a decision myself.   It is frightening how few people reach this decision-making step.

I think the article, Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage, does a decent job of clarifying the "Yes" vote. 

Although I originally thought the opposition to changing the definition of marriage was based in economics, it appears the debate is mostly based on social issues and perceived society's moral standard.  In particular, the concern is that a change in the definition of marriage will continue a decline in the role that gender plays in society and the family. 

Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant. 

 --The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words "mother" or "father." Only the gender-neutral term "parent" will be acceptable in France. 

--And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

And all this is happening before same-sex marriage is allowed. Imagine what will happen should same-sex marriage become the law of the land.

It will hasten the end of the male-female distinction and of any significance to mothers or fathers as distinctive entities.

I understand the concern and the political-correctness that certain institutions must adhere to is a problem.   As the article states, private business dating service, eHarmony, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.  The example from Rhode Island is particularly disconcerting.  

Although these issues are a problem, they are unintended consequences of a moral act.  The "Yes" side doesn't  present a compelling argument beyond "societal decline."  That just isn't good enough.  Such societal decline can be fought without prohibiting those who would like to marry from marrying. 

My support is behind "Vote No."

A Brief History for the future written today

I won't post the whole article, but this is one of the most comprehensive, well-written summaries of the recent progressive movement that I have seen. If Obama does not win re-election, I think it will stand as the common thought historical standard. If he wins, there's time to change it, but most likely it will be the same story, just longer.

www.freebeacon.com/a-brief-history-of-obama/

Rendezvous with Destiny

I just completed Craig Shirley's Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America.  Excellent book, especially when one views the events with 20/20 hindsight of history.  The similarities to today are remarkable.   Although Reagan and Carter are not Romney and Obama, there are numerous places one could replace their names and the sentences and paragraphs would read without hiccup.   Most interesting was the account of the race not just beginning sometime in August 1980, but back to the beginning of the primaries.  The race Reagan endured against Bush, Connelly and Anderson for the GOP nomination, and the race Carter endured against Kennedy.   This book wasn't a wonky book, but an interesting narrative of a race between two very different candidates.

Although I was only 10, I remember the Reagan/Carter campaign well.  However, what struck me the most was the recount of events with the benefit of that 20/20 hindsight especially when opponents are characterizing each other.   Reagan was a vapid, warmonger who hated women.  I supported Reagan in 1980 (and to some degree Anderson because I thought that this 3rd party thing was pretty cool), and vivdly recall my neighbor friends saying similar things.  With the benefit of time and political awareness beyond a 10-yr old, can comprehend that those friends' parents were (are) extreme Massachusetts liberals and echoing the language of the day. 

Unable to tout the incumbent President's policies and achievements, the Democrat machine turned the campaign into turning Ronald Reagan into the Devil.

"Carter's union supporters began to plan their own attacks on Reagan - largely because they had almost nothing positive to say about the President... Jim Mahoney of the AFL-CIO's political committee said frankly, 'let's face it, Carter is a tough job to sell... We have to do a hatchet job on Reagan.'  Another said, 'I can't tell Joe Worker that Jimmy Carter is great.  He knows he is worse off today than he was four years ago... What I have to do is make Reagan a devil."

"Aaron Henry of the DNC charged, "When you say Reagan to the black community, you might as well say Hitler in terms of the turn-off you get."

"The Democrats began to crank up the anti-Reagan rhetoric... Pat Brown [Reagan's gubernatorial opponent] said a Reagan presidency would be 'tragic' for America.  Brown called Reagan 'a very poor governor,' stating that he 'hurt' people and his policies were 'cold-blooded.'"

"Reagan's opponents stepped up their attacks.  A heckler in New Jersey called him a 'pig.'  The National Organization for Women (NOW) said he was 'medieval.'"

Reagan was flat out labeled a racist by Carter and those around him.  He was accused of using "Code Words" in the south to talk to segregationists by very influential people.  His Code Words?  "State's Rights."   He was hounded throughout his campaign over his deemed code words.   Yet somehow today, we talk about State's Rights regularly and often, and not once is it deemed racial.

He was hammered for not having specifics about his proposals, and how his numbers didn't add up, and he couldn't do what he said he could.   He was lambasted for not understanding foreign policy enough, and not having a real world answer to Soviet expansion and arms race.

However, this story and this race was more than that.  It was a struggle between those that wanted government smaller with a greater focus on the individual, and those that wanted government bigger and more involved in the fabric of America.

Heard any of this before?  Recently?

The characterizations of not only Reagan, but George H. W. Bush, Howard Baker, Jack Kemp and even Teddy Kennedy, who were all highlighted in the book, during the day, look foolish 30 years later.    People say things to scare voters and get elected when they can't run on facts.   Additionally, people's biases and hidden (or outward) motivations cause them to make statements that have no bearing on reality.

When you have 30 years of historical fact in front of you and re-read how people of the day discussed the issues, it can only lead to the notion that a bit of cynicism is warranted when listening to the pundits of the day.  Most are biased.  Many are slanderous.  Few turn out to be accurate.

Despite the obvious result, the story remains gripping, even if kind of long.   The book is named after one of Reagan's favorite lines that he had a "rendezvous with destiny."  A line he stole from an FDR speech.  The story vividly details Reagan's thoughts and motivations that turned the once Democrat to the person who changed the Republican party.

Cardboard Demon, isn't he?

Spread the wealth!

From Carpe Diem blog (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/)

The Significant Medal Inequality of the Olympics

There was a significant amount of "medal inequality" in the 2012 Summer Olympics, see the country shares above of the total 962 medals that were awarded this year to athletes from 85 countries.   Note the amazing similarity between the shares of adjusted gross income earned in the U.S. in 2008 and the country shares of Olympic medals awarded this year, in both cases by the top 5, 10, 25 and 50% of "participants" or "earners."

The average person seems to understand how "medal taxes" and "medal redistribution" would undermine the competitive process that is essential to the success of the Olympics, but then that same person often seems to accept progressive "income taxes" and "income redistribution," without realizing that the "tax and redistribution" process can undermine incentives to work, produce and invest that are essential to the success of the market economy.  

Love the GoPro

The Progressivity of Taxes and Transfers

 From Harvard Econ Professor, Greg Mankiw

To update one of the tables for the next edition of my favorite textbook, I have been looking at the new CBO report on the distribution of income and taxes. I found the following calculations, based on the numbers in the CBO's Table 7, illuminating. Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):
Bottom quintile: -301%
Second quintile: -42%
Middle quintile: -5%
Fourth quintile: 10%
Highest quintile: 22%

Top one percent: 28%

The negative 301% means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.

Bill Note: The CBO uses all transfers in (including State and Local), but only Federal Taxes paid.   Therefore, since State and Local taxes are highly progressive, each quintiile would get progressively more positive as you move up the curve, with the middle class likely moving into a positive percentage, and the top quintile paying even more.

U12 Soccer

Pictures from Katie's final regular season game against Eden Prarie

Sunday morning stroll

U10-A Girls Soccer Team

Our U10 Spring Soccer travel team.

Meet the Parents

Pictures of Max's mother (dam Noel, a Lab) and father (sire Dakota, a Poodle).

Balsam Wake

Spent the day in Balsam Wake, Wisconsin yesterday at our friends' cabin.

All I want to do is DANCE

This is back from March. Katie participated in both the one week Jr. Hawkettes Dance Camp which incorporates middle and elementary schoolers in different groups. She also was part of the semester long Grandview Middle School Dance Team.

Tikki Tembo

Emily is away at Wolfe Ridge with the fourth grade class for the week. But here is her grade's music concert from earlier this month.

First Run

Yesterday the lake was flat and the water was warm (well ... warmer).   I geared up, and Alison drove.

Welcome Max

Welcome to the family Maximilian Moose Moore ("Max").  

He is a 13-week old Labradoddle born February 9, 2012.  His dad is a poodle and his mother a Lab.  He looks more lab-ish, although some think he looks almost Golden Retriever, and his face almost Bloodhound.

We are settling in to the new routine.

 
Meeting his new buddy, Pink, a Golden Retriever pup picked up the same day by our friends.

Black and White

This Martin/Zimmerman case has longed bothered me. Not because I think Zimmerman was wrong. Not because I think Zimmerman was right. What has bothered me most is that the facts in this case seem irrelevant. Cherry picking facts and distorting information has been about the name of the game in the reporting of this case. There are people in this world that think just because an action involves one white person (or in this case Hispanic) and one black person that IT MUST BE RACIAL - and go about building a storyline to promote their case. And when I say PROMOTE, I mean promote. In early days, everyone from Barack Obama to Al Sharpten to Kayne West had spun a web of racial prosecution. Defending the "hoodie" became a call to arms. I honestly feel enormous sympathy for the family for the loss of a child, but even they made public relation maneuvers. The picture released of Trayvon Martin and shown on every available media outlet was FIVE YEARS OLD! The boy in that picture was truly a BOY of 12 years old.

If I can stress anything to everyone I discuss issues with it's: nothing is ever cut and dry, or forgive the pun, black and white. People can do what's right, and people can do what's wrong. There are cases where bad people do bad things. However, in major news stories there are often many sides to every case. One should not jump to conclusions without at least reviewing each side. The following Reuters story on George Zimmerman is quite interesting. It's a little hoaky, but it certainly doesn't paint a picture of a premeditated, racially-drived killer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Marks on the mark

Howard Marks is the legendary investor and founder of Oaktree Capital in California. He is a former convertible bond guy, and I know a few people at Oaktree. I have always admired his work. He gave a speech called "The Human Side of Investing: Theory and Practice" at the New York Society of Securities Analysts (NYSSA) last week. I wish I had been able to see the actual speech, but did not. However, there is an excellent summation of it CLICK HERE.

I particularly liked the parts about value/price relationship, contrarian investing and the "us versus them" schools of thought. Those points encapsulate how I try and live my professional life.

Double Digits

Emily turns 10. Hard to believe that 10 years ago tonight we were speeding to the White Plains hospital. Luckily I didn't park the car, because I would have missed it. We arrived at the hospital at 9:50pm and Emily was born at 10:02. Katie was 12 hours of labor. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that doesn't surprise me anymore.

Although disappointed she had school on her birthday (in NY it was usually vacation week, and here her first two were Saturday and Sunday respectively), she is making the best of it. French Toast for breakfast. Baked Ziti for dinner. Getting presents certainly helped too.






Not bad for a first timer:

Marco ... Polo... I mean, Romney

District Band

Westonka's All-District Band concert in full minus the one hour of all non-Moore performances. Oh yeah. 1 1/2 hours of performances by the 5th, 6th, 7th, and four different High School bands. I know, you wish you could be in my shoes...

Kaua'i 2012 - The Movie

This vacation was much more mellow than past ones. As such, we took a lot less video since our activities were mostly swimming, beaching and eating. So calling this a movie is a bit of a stretch. It's more slideshow than video.

Enjoy. If you click the square next to the "You Tube" logo on the bottom right corner, it will enlarge to Full Screen mode.

god, archive footage is a biatch

Kaua'i horses

On Emily's suggestion, we signed up for horseback riding. We booked a two-hour trail ride that would have been just us plus a guide at a stables close to our hotel. We picked that facility because it would allow us to "trot" the horses rather than just walk. However, with all the rain they got here last week, the stables called us the morning of our afternoon ride and had to cancel. The trails and the facilities were too muddy and the horses didn't have the proper horseshoes.

Fortunately, we were able to book a stable the next day. It was further away, but in the same direction as other plans we had. This ride was shorter (an hour and a half) and no trotting. Additionally, there was another family of three with us. Nevertheless, it was a fun ride, and Alison was probably pleased there was no trotting involved.

The trails here were muddy, but not terrible.



It wasn't all dense, wet trails. We had a nice view of the Napali Coast mountains.



Following the horse riding, we had a terrific afternoon/evening in Hanelei Bay. Our friends were renting a house right on the beach. It is actually two houses down from one of the houses featured in George Clooney's movie The Decendants. We had lunch, and then hit the waves. Bill and his friend, Dave, surfed numerous sections of the beach - from high waves that were probably too high for our skill level, and low waves for practicing. Bill tried an SUP (Stand-up Paddleboard), and did very little actual standing. The girls and boys body boarding in the waves near the beach. Even Alison got into the action. It was her first and only time in the Ocean here.

Afterwards we had a nice take-out dinner and watched the sun set on Hanalei Bay. The kids played Go-Fish on cards that were imaged with Hawaiian fish as opposed to traditional numerals and face cards. A good one to have is the humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa.

Tuesday fun and ride

Today we hit the beach early. The girls rented body boards for the week and toook them to the waves. Katie took and early tumble and put the board away before the video came out. Emily hit it hard.



From the beach we took to the road, hitting the South and West coasts for lunch, ice cream and sightseeing. The West coast ride took us through the Waimae Canyon. The canyon has a few lookout points including the following:

South side...west side