We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
How strong would regulations have to be before you’d say that a prolonged period of no big disaster suggests we need weaker regulations? When did you last hear someone using this reason to suggest we weaken a particular regulation?
Ben-David, my friend ... As happens many times here, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you ever should decide to live in the United States, you really should choose Texas as your second home. Here, we only allow our Legislature to meet every other year, thus keeping the inevitable political chicanery down to a more manageable level. We believe "a man's home is his castle" and it is perfectly permissible for him to have a gun, or guns, to defend it, without needing a permit. Carry permits are available for those who need a gun for personal defense, and they can be acquired legally with only a modicum of effort, and passing an exam to be sure that you understand the rules and restrictions.
If I remember correctly, you are a resident and citizen of Israel, a sovereign country which I admire for its courage and resoluteness. Texas is probably the best analogue to Israel among the American states ... although parts of New England are also quirky enough to qualify.
Megan McCardle is a ass. Just yesterday she was lobbying for the recission of the state income tax deduction, on the argument that even conservatives should be for it, never mind marginal tax arguments. Well, McMegan, my dear, this particular conservative would pay roughly $3500 per year more in Federal income tax were we to do that, because the hit would in fact be realized in the highest marginal rate that I pay. It's not taking a $12k deduction out of the lowest bracket of federal income tax that I pay, but out of the highest portion of it, 'cuz, y'know, federal tax is pro-rated, with the first portion of your income taxed at X rate, the second portion at 125% of x, the third portion at 150% of x, and so forth.
Exactly what is the conservative case for me to pay $3500 more per year in taxes again? How exactly is it conservative to engorge the Fed out of money that would have gone to taking care of my family?
Sorry, but please don't bother linking to that woman again. She has vapor where most normal people have their thinkin' brain.
Jim -- I was thinking about the state and local deductions yesterday when I used an online gimmick to vote for spending and revenue changes in an attempt to influence a virtual budget. My first impulse was to vote down any change that would include tax increases, but I had to stop and think about state and local deductions.
I live in a state that keeps its local taxes pretty moderate, and therefore provides very few state services. What incentive do a lot of overtaxed state residents have to check their state government if they can pass much of the burden on to federal taxpayers? It's not, believe me, that I want any conservative citizen of another state to pay more taxes. It's just that I want them to get out there and take control of their own overspending state governments, or else move to Texas and starve their old state of tax revenues.