On 'working hard,' taxes, and wealth

One of the arguments against taxing the wealthy more heavily than we do is that they "work hard" for the money they've made and thus deserve full access to the rewards of their labor. This sounds extremely fair, really, but it seems that the wealthy people at the top of the business pyramid don't really follow that logic when it comes to the people further down the pyramid. Via Matt Yglesias, Alan Binder does the numbers:

When it comes to wages, the basic story of recent decades is redolent of Scrooge. Real average hourly earnings (excluding fringe benefits) now stand roughly at 1974 levels. Yes, that’s right, no real increase in over 35 years. That is an astounding, dismaying and profoundly ahistorical development. The American story for two centuries was one of real wages advancing more or less in line with productivity. But not lately. Since 1978, productivity in the nonfarm business sector is up 86%, but real compensation per hour (which includes fringe benefits) is up just 37%. Does that seem fair?

Emphasis in the original. No, it doesn't seem fair. 

I'm not sure off all the forces at play. I do know the bottom line: America's wealthiest are consuming an ever-larger slice of the economic pie. America's middle-class -- the people who make the stuff -- have been stagnating, economically, for more than a generation. I understand the liberty-based arguments against a government that redistributes wealth and regulates businesses. But my gut tells me that if we gut the government out of the equation, we merely hand control over our liberties and livelihoods to big corporations that have little interest in defending either. That's not really an acceptable outcome, I don't think.

But like I say: There's a lot I realize I don't understand about the forces at play. My plan is to spend 2011 reading about wealth, income inequality and the welfare state -- the better to understand those forces, and the better to be able to articulate and advocate for a version of society that gives entrepreneurs the freedom to create wealth for themselves and for their countrymen, but without all the ugly plutocracy.

On DADT: Perhaps President Obama is more capable than I thought

Liberals will no doubt celebrate Obama's #DADT victory with the same passion they brought to bitching about his compromises. Yes?

via twitter.com

Er, maybe not the SAME passion, Dave Roberts, but yes: One should give credit where it's due. And I've criticized President Obama quite a bit this last year for moving with something-less-than-alacrity regarding gay-rights issues, so it's only fair for me to acknowledge that his strategy worked.

Unlike Bill Clinton who rushed -- and faltered through -- the issue of gays in the military, President Obama took his time, marshaled support from *enough* of the military's top leadership to be convincing, and went through a process that showed the appearance (at least) of listening to the troops. And when surveys showed that the troops were a lot less bigoted towards gays than they'd been a generation ago, opponents of a DADT repeal had very little rational ground to hold.

Still, I'm not sure how much of this is due to Obama's strategy, how much is due to the passage of time and the liberalizing of opinions about gays in America, and how much is due to the legislative savvy of Joe Lieberman. (No, really!) But it's a victory -- an important and historic one -- and it's one that will be credited in large part to President Obama. So ... good job, Mr. President. Keep it up.

Now, if we can just get you to start picking up the pace of judicial appointments....

Why Mitch McConnell can't suport the START treaty

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voiced opposition Sunday to the New START - a nuclear arms treaty with Russia - saying that members of his party need more time to consider the legislation.

"I've decided I cannot support the treaty," McConnell said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” "I think if they'd taken more time with this, rushing it right before Christmas strikes me as trying to jam us."

via politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Of course, the treaty was signed back in April. There's been no rush -- unless you count the GOP's "rush" to obstructionism. Which is just plain wearying.

Me @Macworld: Hands on with Google Chrome OS

Like at least half the nerds in America, I applied to be part of Chrome OS beta testing program as soon as it was announced last week. On the surface, at least, I figured myself to be an ideal Chrome user—to a sometimes-scary extent, my life is already lived in Google’s cloud. Even on a Mac I default to the Chrome browser, where I write in Google Docs, check my feeds in Google Reader, and even sync Google Calendar and Contacts to my iPhone and iPad instead of paying for MobileMe. The company’s cloud-based operating system seemed the next logical step.

via macworld.com

Click the link to read the rest of my review of the Chrome, and what it says about the state of cloud-based computing.

The Ben and Joel Podcast: The Gift That Keeps on Giving Edition

Ben and Joel are joined by a stellar panel to discuss the books they would give as gifts this Christmas. Guests in this episode include Rick Henderson, editor of the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal; Pia Lopez, editorial writer for the Sacramento Bee (and Ben's weekly sparring partner in the Bee's "Head to Head" column, where they discussed books on Dec. 8); and Sam Karnick, editor of The American Culture and director of research at The Heartland Institute.

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," Joseph Spence
• "Gabriel's Message," Sting
• "Little Drummer Boy," Los Straitjackets
• "O Little Town of Bethlehem," Shawn Lee's Ping Pong Orchestra
• "Must Be Santa," Bob Dylan
• "A Holly Jolly Christmas," Burl Ives

via blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com

PolitiFact calls 'government takeover of health care' its lie of the year

"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.

• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.

• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.

• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

via politifact.com

Paul Krugman on the 'Wall Street Whitewash'

In the world according to the G.O.P. commissioners, it’s all the fault of government do-gooders, who used various levers — especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored loan-guarantee agencies — to promote loans to low-income borrowers. Wall Street — I mean, the private sector — erred only to the extent that it got suckered into going along with this government-created bubble.

It’s hard to overstate how wrongheaded all of this is. For one thing, as I’ve already noted, the housing bubble was international — and Fannie and Freddie weren’t guaranteeing mortgages in Latvia. Nor were they guaranteeing loans in commercial real estate, which also experienced a huge bubble.

Beyond that, the timing shows that private players weren’t suckered into a government-created bubble. It was the other way around. During the peak years of housing inflation, Fannie and Freddie were pushed to the sidelines; they only got into dubious lending late in the game, as they tried to regain market share.

via nytimes.com

I do wonder if the GOP is backing itself into a corner where it can never, ever acknowledge that the free market -- as wonderful as it is -- might have some shortcomings or excesses. Thoughtful conservatives (and not just the ones that liberals like) recognize that and consequently allow that *some* regulation is needed. But if the market can do no wrong that isn't caused by the government, then regulation is always and everywhere wrong.