"The race is not always to the
richest," The Economist, December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251324
SPOOKED by the effects of globalisation on their
low-skilled citizens, rich countries have been pouring money and political
energy into education. In the United States, it has been proclaimed that no
child will be left behind. Whether this programme, launched by George Bush
in 2002, has raised standards will be a big issue in the 2008 presidential
election. Next year Britain will introduce ambitious new qualifications,
combining academic and vocational study. For the industrial countries of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), average
spending on primary and secondary schooling rose by almost two-fifths in
real terms between 1995 and 2004.
Oddly, this has had little measurable effect. The
latest report from the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment
shows average attainment staying largely flat. This tome, just published,
compares the reading, mathematical and scientific progress of 400,000
15-year-olds in the 30 OECD countries and 27 others, covering 87% of the
world economy. Its predecessors in 2000 and 2003 focused on reading and
maths respectively. This time science took centre stage.
At the top are some old stars: Finland as usual did
best for all-round excellence, followed by South Korea (which did best in
reading) and Hong Kong; Canada and Taiwan were strong but slightly patchier,
followed by Australia and Japan. At the bottom, Mexico, still the weakest
performer in the OECD, showed gains in maths; Chile did best in Latin
America.
There is bad news for the United States: average
performance was poor by world standards. Its schools serve strong students
only moderately well, and do downright poorly with the large numbers of weak
students. A quarter of 15-year-olds do not even reach basic levels of
scientific competence (against an OECD average of a fifth). According to
Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's head of education research, Americans are
only now realising the scale of the task they face. Some individual states
would welcome a separate assessment.
. . .
Letting schools run themselves seems to boost a
country's position in this high-stakes international tournament: giving
school principals the power to control budgets, set incentives and decide
whom to hire and how much to pay them. Publishing school results helps, too.
More important than either, though, are high-quality teachers: a common
factor among all the best performers is that teachers are drawn from the top
ranks of graduates.
Another common theme is that rising educational
tides seem to lift all boats. In general—the United States and Britain may
be exceptions—countries do well either by children of all abilities, or by
none. Those where many do well are also those where few fall behind. A new
feature in this year's study is an attempt to work out how differences
between schools, as opposed to differences within them, determine
performance (see chart). Variation between schools is big in Germany (to be
expected, as most schools select children on ground of ability). But results
also vary in some countries (like Japan) with nominally comprehensive
systems. In top-performing Finland, by contrast, the differences between
schools are nearly trivial.
Continued in
article
"Let's Get Back to Education in Education," by
Rick Fowler, The Irascible Professor, December 11, 2007 ---
http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-12-11-07.htm
Education gurus have advocated
and public schools have incorporated many new trends aimed at increasing the
rankings of U. S. students in many standardized tests given in countries
around the world. From the ideas of writing gurus
Glasser and Collins, to portfolios to state
guidelines; from literature-based to whole language reading programs; from
mapping to thematic approach, from weighted grades to tracking.
However, many if not most of these "cutting edge" programs and quick fixes
for educators and education too often end up on the cutting room floor.
These "recipes for success" have cost public schools literally millions of
dollars since my first day as an English teacher almost 30 years ago.
Too often "keeping up with the
Joneses" is taking precedent over the real problem of maintaining adequate
basic education. Case in point, President Bush and many other politicians
seem to believe that the No Child Left Behind act is of utmost
importance in improving the performance of our students. Yet I liken his
reasoning to an analogy recently posted on the web:
No Child Left Behind: The
football version
1. All teams must make the
state playoffs, and all will win the championship by the year 2014. If
a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until
they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.
2. All kids will be expected
to have the same football skills at the same time and in the same
conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in football, a
desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities.
ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.
3. Talented players will be
asked to work out on their own without instruction.
This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time
with the athletes who aren’t interested in football, have limited
athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.
4. Games will be played year
round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th.,
8th and 11th games.
5. This will create a New
Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of
talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals. If no
child get ahead, then no child will be left
behind.
I cringe
every time I read about a new educational savior or new educational tool
which is introduced supposedly to bring the United States back to
respectability in the global markets of learning. I also think parents and
taxpayers would cringe if they knew of the cost of bringing this expert or
plan into the district, explaining its merits, and then failing
to implement the program because of money restraints or because staff will
not buy into it.
What is the matter with
traditional methods? I realize that the computer has been an asset in the
classroom. Yet, it also has led to the near demise of the personal letter,
to little or no proofreading, and to a myriad of excuses on deadline day.
Kids are sometimes aghast when I ask them to hand in their rough drafts
hand-written and in ink. I sometimes require research
papers with the title page, body and works cited that must be completed on
notebook paper in ink, and either printed or written by hand. By the looks
on their faces it's as if I had assigned the complete memorization of
Hamlet's soliloquy,
Antony's
funeral speech and Shylock's dissertation at the trial to be due in an hour.
. . .
We need to have a
complete turnabout as far as knowing what's best for the students in our
public schools. Without this change of thought, the implications are indeed
frightening.
Continued in the article
-
-
-
-
Tidbits on December 14, 2007
Bob Jensen
Videos From Bob Jensen's Personal
Camera (the pictures are clear but some of them lost a bit in the video) ---
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/EdTech/Video/Personal/
The Tidbits.wmv video is narrated.
For earlier editions of Tidbits go to
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/TidbitsDirectory.htm
For earlier editions of New Bookmarks go to
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/bookurl.htm
Click here to search Bob Jensen's web site if you have key words to enter ---
Search Site.
For example if you want to know what Jensen documents have the term "Enron"
enter the phrase Jensen AND Enron. Another search engine that covers Trinity and
other universities is at
http://www.searchedu.com/.
Bob Jensen's past presentations and lectures
---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/resume.htm#Presentations
Bob Jensen's Threads ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/threads.htm
Bob Jensen's Home Page is at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/
CPA
Examination ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cpa_examination
You can read about Erika's surgeries and see
her pictures at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Erika2007.htm
Personal pictures are at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/PictureHistory/
Some personal videos are at
http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~rjensen/EdTech/Video/Personal/
Bob Jensen's blogs and various threads on many topics ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/threads.htm
Roles of Listservs and Blogs ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ListservRoles.htm
Free Internet FM Radio (choose the type of music
you want to listen to without commercials) ---
http://www.slacker.com/
Set up free conference calls at
http://www.freeconference.com/
Also see
http://www.yackpack.com/uc/
World Clock ---
http://www.peterussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php
If you want to help our badly injured troops, please check out
Valour-IT: Voice-Activated Laptops for Our Injured Troops ---
http://www.valour-it.blogspot.com/
New Blogs (at least new to me)
Rate Your Students (be prepared for four letter words and worse
silliness) ---
http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com/
Perhaps this to counter RateMyProfessor ---
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/index.jsp
There is also a Professors Strike Back (largely silly videos) site at
http://www.mtvu.com/professors_strike_back/
Other blogs ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Searchh.htm#Blogs
Google's blog search tool is at
http://blogsearch.google.com/
(For example, search "Student Examination" at the above Google site)
(Accountants may want to search for "Accounting" at the above Google site)
(More serious accountants may want to search "FAS 133" or "IAS 39" at the
above Google site.)
Roles of Listservs and Blogs ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ListservRoles.htm
Bob Jensen's blogs and various threads on many topics ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/threads.htm
Online Video, Slide Shows, and Audio
In the past I've provided links to various types of music and video available
free on the Web.
I created a page that summarizes those various links ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/music.htm
Forwarded by Team Carper
Beautiful America's Fifty States ---
http://oldbluewebdesigns.com/mybeautifulamerica.htm
Oceanus (video and pictures) ---
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/index.do
NOVA: Pocahontas Revealed (from PBS) ---
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas/
Forwarded by Tom in Alaska
Perfect Man and Woman (you must hit the continue buttons when they pop
up) ---
CLICK HERE
Baby Boomers (Animation with music) ---
Click Here
"Organic Chemistry for the YouTube Generation," PhysOrg,
December 6, 2007 ---
http://physorg.com/news116181206.html
Video Link ---
http://www.scivee.tv/node/3005
Freakonomics Being Documentary-ized ---
http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/12/07/indie-spotlight-freakonomics-being-documentary-ized/
Joe Paterno Acceptance Speech (College Football Hall of Fame)
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vhw_4SLDF0
Form National Geographic (U23D movie trailer) ---
http://www.u23dmovie.com/
It’s one thing to imagine what Rome looked
like in ancient times. It’s another thing to wander around a virtual-reality
simulation of ancient Rome learning about buildings as you go by clicking on
them. Sorin A. Matei, an associate professor of communication at Purdue
University, is experimenting with various ways to blend databases with digital
maps or 3-D models. I put together
a short video report.
Jeffrey R. Young. Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 2007 ---
Click Here
Jensen Comment
I really liked this video illustration of virtual reality (which by now is a
rather old but still computer-intensive technology). You may have to be a
Chronicle subscriber to view this excellent video.
Ethel Merman & Martha Raye ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKj59poDVc
God's Comics ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjywoElfISI
Mae West ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_West
W.C. Fields ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WC_Fields
Free music downloads ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/music.htm
While working on the computer, Bob Jensen mostly
listens to (free and without commercials) ---
http://www.slacker.com/
Songza Search for a song or band and play the
selection free --- http://songza.com/
Also try Jango ---
http://www.jango.com/?r=342376581
Free Internet FM Radio (choose the type of music
you want to listen to) ---
http://www.slacker.com/
Although Slacker is free on your computer, Slacker also has players that will
download FM radio via wireless connections.
Walter S. Mossberg provides a review in "Slacker Digital Player Handles the
Drudgery For Busy Music Fans," The Wall Street Journal, December 6,
2007; Page B1---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119690438969515264.html
New from Jesse ---
http://www.jessiesweb.com/
Forwarded by Team Carper
Beautiful America's Fifty States ---
http://oldbluewebdesigns.com/mybeautifulamerica.htm
Dave Brubeck at the 50th Monterey Jazz Festival
(entire concert) ---
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16437373
Great Big Band and Jazz
Combo Trumpet
Players
Maynard Ferguson ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maynard_Ferguson
List of Other Trumpeters ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trumpeters
Photographs and Art
Online Books, Poems, References, and Other Literature
In the past I've provided links to various
types electronic literature available free on the Web.
I created a page that summarizes those various links ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/ElectronicLiterature.htm
Internet FAQ Archives ---
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/
A Glossary of Literary Criticism ---
http://www.sil.org/~radneyr/humanities/litcrit/gloss.htm
From UC Davis University
British Women Romantic Poets (1789 - 1832) ---
http://digital.lib.ucdavis.edu/projects/bwrp/
From Dartmouth College
Poems 1645 ---
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/contents/
Sonnet Central ---
http://www.sonnets.org/
Random poems penned by Barbara Fletcher ---
http://www.barbarafletcher.com/
The Archive of Misheard Lyrics ---
http://www.kissthisguy.com/
From the University of Wisconsin
Beowulf: A New Translation for Oral Delivery ---
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/Literature/subcollections/RinglBeowulfAbout.shtml
The
translation is intended for "oral delivery," that is, to be read
or recited aloud. Accordingly this work includes an audio stream
in which the translator provides a reading of his version of the
poem. This reading is meant to model metrical and rhetorical
features of the translation, not to lay down the law about how
it should be "performed." It can be
listened to uninterruptedly from start to finish--which
takes about three hours--or it can be accessed at the beginning
of any of the
forty-three sections into which it is divided
(and which correspond to the numbered
sections of the surviving manuscript).
Rare Book Room ---
http://www.rarebookroom.org/
Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America ---
http://www.abaa.org/books/abaa/index.html
Other Rare Book Sources ---
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/Searchh.htm#RareBooks
Best Books of 2007 ---
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10249833
The trouble with the gene pool is that there's no
lifeguard.
As seen on the bottom of email messages from Paula.
Other possible endings: "no deep end," "no filter," "no disinfectant," and "no
skimmer."
Christmas is cancelled! Apparently you told Santa
you were good this year. He died laughing.
Forwarded by Paula
When I'm good I'm very good. But when I'm bad I'm
better.
Mae West in I'm No Angel ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_No_Angel
Where does the violet tint end and the orange tint
begin? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does
the first blending enter into the other. So with sanity and insanity.
Herman Melville as quoted by Mark
Shapiro at
http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-12-05-07.htm
Fifty Percent of Japanese Bestsellers Typed On a
Cellphone ---
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/12/fifty-percent-o.html
When suicides are dredged from the Seine, it is
said, the lovers and the debtors are easy to tell apart: the lovers have
paint under their nails, from trying to claw their way back to the bridge at the
last moment, whereas the debtors sink like stones.
Bagehot, "Off With Their Heads," The Economist, December 1, 2007, Page
72.
Harvard Needs More Hippies
Some Harvard
University alumni from the protest-era 1960s are concerned by the lack of
protests today, and have written to President Drew Faust to express worry about
“widespread apathy and political indifference” and to ask whether the university
is not recruiting enough politically engaged students or encouraging such
engagement,
The Boston Globe reported. An editorial in
The Harvard Crimson suggested that the alumni are too quick to equate
student engagement with the use of tear gas. “We are doing just fine on our
own,” the editorial concludes.
Inside Higher Ed, December 10, 2007
---
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/10/qt
But this rise in (food)
prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's
reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's
(record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly:
fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used
enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it
affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m
tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the
world's overall grain stocks.
"The End of Cheap Food," The Economist,
December 8, 2007, Page 11.
Higher incomes in India and China have made hundreds
of millions of people rich enough to afford meat and other foods. In 1985 the
average Chinese consumer ate 20kg (44lb) of meat a year; now he eats more than
50kg. China's appetite for meat may be nearing satiation, but other countries
are following behind: in developing countries as a whole, consumption of cereals
has been flat since 1980, but demand for meat has doubled. Not surprisingly,
farmers are switching, too: they now feed about 200m-250m more tonnes of grain
to their animals than they did 20 years ago. That increase alone accounts for a
significant share of the world's total cereals crop. Calorie for calorie, you
need more grain if you eat it transformed into meat than if you eat it as bread:
it takes three kilograms of cereals to produce a kilo of pork, eight for a kilo
of beef. So a shift in diet is multiplied many times over in the grain markets.
Since the late 1980s an inexorable annual increase of 1-2% in the demand for
feed grains has ratcheted up the overall demand for cereals and pushed up prices
. . . Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year's increase in grain prices.
It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government
has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America's
corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why
maize prices started rising in the first place.
"Cheap No More," The Economist, December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420
Intelligence vs. Politics
Israel has "incriminating" information Iran has
continued its nuclear weapons program, a senior Israeli security official told
WND, directly contradicting last week's U.S. intelligence report stating Tehran
suspended its ambition in 2003. "The Iranians continue their push for nuclear
weapons in specific ways, including the acquisition and development of
missiles," said a senior Israeli security official who has access to classified
Israeli defense material and intelligence reports on Iran. "Iran hides its
nuclear weapons program but it continues nonetheless," he told WND, indicating
the U.S. estimate may have been "politically motivated." The security official
said Israel possesses "incriminating" information that Iran continues its
purported drive to obtain nuclear weapons.
Aaron Klein, "Israel: Forget U.S.
intel,: Iran nukes at full speed Official cites 'incriminating
information,' rips American report as 'politically charged'," WorldNetDaily,
December 9, 2007 ---
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59120
We wish we could be as sanguine, both about the
quality of U.S. intelligence and its implications for U.S. diplomacy. For years,
senior Administration officials, including Condoleezza Rice, have stressed to us
how little the government knows about what goes on inside Iran. In 2005, the
bipartisan Robb-Silberman report underscored that "Across the board, the
Intelligence Community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of
many of the world's most dangerous actors." And as our liberal friends used to
remind us, you can never trust the CIA. (Only
later did they figure out the agency was usually on their side.)
"'High Confidence' Games: The CIA's flip-flop on Iran is hardly
reassuring," The Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2007 ---
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010946
The three authors of a National Intelligence
Estimate seen as undermining the Bush administration's efforts to keep Iran from
creating a nuclear weapon are all "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials," the Wall
Street Journal reported yesterday in an editorial, citing an unidentified
intelligence source. "As recently as 2005, the consensus estimate of our spooks
was that 'Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons' and do so
'despite its international obligations and international pressure.' This was a
'high confidence' judgment. The new NIE says Iran abandoned its nuclear program
in 2003 'in response to increasing international scrutiny.' This too is a 'high
confidence' conclusion. One of the two conclusions is wrong, and casts
considerable doubt on the entire process by which these 'estimates' — the
consensus of 16 intelligence bureaucracies — are conducted and accorded gospel
status," the newspaper said. "Our own 'confidence' is not heightened by the fact
that the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with
previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,' according to an
intelligence source. They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence
Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Greg Pierce, "Hyper-partisan,"
Washington Times, December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/NATION03/112060086/1008
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on Wednesday used a
four-letter expletive to dismiss the opposition victory in Sunday's referendum
and pledged to press forward with plans to approve constitutional changes that
would expand his power in one of the world's leading oil producing-countries.
Chávez's remarks, made on television programs broadcast in Venezuela, represent
a sharp turn from his magnanimous comments Monday after voters narrowly blocked
69 constitutional changes in a national vote. It was the opposition's first
electoral victory since Chávez first won office in a landslide election in 1998.
Juan Forero, "Chávez Turns Bitter
Over His Defeat in Referendum: Foes of Amending Charter Have 'Nothing to
Celebrate'," The Washington Post, December 6, 2007 ---
Click Here
The president's drive to turn the armed forces into
a tool of his socialist project aroused the weighty opposition of General Raúl
Isaías Baduel, who stepped down as defence minister in July and who is a hero to
the chavista grassroots for his role in restoring Mr Chávez after the 2002 coup.
Installed in a sleek glass office block in Caracas, General Baduel, a man as
serene as the president is intemperate, has spent the past few weeks telling
Venezuelans that the proposed reform amounted to another coup. On top of that,
many chavista politicians were unenthusiastic, since the reform would have let
Mr Chávez run indefinitely for president but banned re-election for other posts.
The chavista movement suffered “a top-to-bottom split, from state governors down
to the grassroots”, said Ismael García, the leader of Podemos.
"The wind goes out of the revolution," The Economist,
December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10251226
Although in some ways they threaten democracy, the
likes of Mr. Chavez (Venezuela) and Mr. Morales (Bolivia) may well have ended up
broadening it, since they represent groups who have previously felt excluded.
Their mistake lies in clinging to an old-fashioned socialism, involving the
centralisation of political power and state control of the economy. Most
Venezuelans - and most Latin Americans - clearly have no enthusiasm for this. It
was not so much Mr. Chavez who was defeated in the referendum, as his bankrupt
philosophy. That is good news for Latin America, and especially for its poor.
"The Beginning of the End for Hugo Chavez," The
Economist, December 8, 2007, Page 12.
Also see "Rejecting Hugo" WSJ video at
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0004.html?bcpid=86195573&bclid=212338097&bctid=1338248568
When Abstention is a Vote Against
This is a preposterous claim, and no one is doing a
better job of disproving it than Mr. Chávez himself. In the week since the vote,
he has done nothing to conceal his appetite for vengeance and his determination
to satisfy it. He has twice crudely referred to the opposition victory as
excrement and he has even insulted his followers,
who he says were "lazy and cowardly" for not turning out in greater numbers at
the polls . . . Mr. Chávez denies that the military
pressured him into accepting defeat. But he has not denied that he went to Fort
Tiuna and met with the high military command. Mr. Lugo-Galicia reports that the
president told the officers that until 100% of the votes were counted he would
not recognize his defeat. "Tension is growing," Mr. Lugo-Galicia writes of that
moment. The fort "is ordered closed and soldiers confined to their barracks. A
general stands up, and after expressing respect for the commander in chief,
warns that the Armed Forces will not go out to repress the population." If
tallying the votes were to take four days, the general warns, there would be
mayhem and "this country will not bear such days of agitation."
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, "Showdown at Fort Tiuna," The Wall Street Journal,
December 10, 2007; Page A18 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724579402718787.html
Consider for example a bill which Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced in the Congress. That bill, H.R. 750, includes
an amnesty for millions of illegals which is far broader than previous ones. She
would allow illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes of violence and
sentenced to up to five years in prison to apply for amnesty (past amnesties
have limited eligibility to criminals who have been sentenced ‘only’ up to one
year’s imprisonment). Her bill would specifically allow states to prohibit state
and local police from cooperating with federal government enforcement on
immigration law. It would also repeal the current provision in federal law
(Section 287g) which allows the Attorney General to enter into agreements with
states and localities which deputizes their police to enforce immigration law.
Peter Gadiel, "Are You Ready for a
‘Violent Illegal Alien Criminal Empowerment Act’?" Family Security Matters,
December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1385809 Jensen Question
How would you like to be a citizen who got five years without a chance of
amnesty versus the illegal who also got five years for an identical crime and
received amnesty? What an insult to crime victims when crimes are forgiven more
for those entering this country illegally! These are not United Nations parking
ticket crimes. These are crimes of violence. Sheila Jackson Lee is an African
American Congress Woman who represents all but crime victims in the 18th Congressional District in
Houston's inner city ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jackson_Lee
Germany's interior ministers announced Friday that
they consider Scientology to be unconstitutional. They have asked the country's
domestic intelligence agency to prepare a dossier on the organization's
activities with a view to ban it next year.
Spiegel, December 7, 2007 ---
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0%2C1518%2C522052%2C00.html
Pretending bad loans aren't bad loans fixes nothing.
Given the amazingly complex world of high finance—full of derivatives, hedges,
and tranches—Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week hit upon a stunningly
simple plan to fix the nation's subprime mortgage mess: Lie. And don't just lie,
but get everybody together and agree to lie, thereby making the lie become
truth. The fiction Paulson and the major banks are promoting is that extending
the low "teaser rates" initially offered to many subprime borrowers
fundamentally will help them and—here is a big lie—transform them from bad loans
to good. Put another way, if the problem of bad subprime mortgages was caused by
delusion over lending risk, this latest solution enshrines delusion as the
defining characteristic of the American banker—backed by a facile enabler in
Uncle Sam and his trillions, of course.
Jeff Taylor, Reason Magazine, December 6, 2007
---
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123782.html
"Dissecting the Bailout Plan: Why put the foundations of our economy at
risk to help so few people?" by Alan Reynolds, The Wall Street Journal,
December 10 2007 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724608592918778.html
The only way to rescue our plug-hungry planet from
catastrophic global warming is to embrace nuclear power,
and fast. That's the argument of
Gwyneth Cravens, a
novelist, journalist and former nuke protester.
Her new book,
Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy,
is a passionate plea to understand, instead of fear,
atomic power. In her book, Cravens is guided Dante-like
through the entire life cycle of nuclear power -- from
mining to production to waste disposal -- by one of the
world's foremost experts on risk assessment and nuclear
waste.
John Borland,
"Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love
Nuclear Power," Wired News, December 7, 2007 ---
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/nuclear_qa
Another thing Professor Dershowitz revealed tells us
much about former President Jimmy Carter. It seems that when Carter appeared at
Brandeis to plug his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, he pledged to answer
any questions that students e-mailed him afterward. Many took him up on the
offer, and Carter did answer every question... except one. That one was this:
Did you advise Yasser Arafat to reject the peace offer Israel made at Camp
David, at the end of Clinton's term? According to Professor Dershowitz, some 15
students e-mailed that question, and they were the only students not to be
answered.
Alan Dershowitz at the Hudson
Institute, December 8, 2007 ---
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019221.php
Jensen Comment
In fairness, the phrase "to plug his book" has overtones that are inappropriate.
Carter at first did not want to accept the invitation to face students in
America's main Jewish university since his book is highly critical of Israel.
But there was media pressure to accept the invitation and Brandeis promised a
polite audience. Refusing the invitation would've seemed cowardly. Carter did
not accept to plug his book.
The guns of war have fallen silent for Hollywood.
Studio executives, who could once count on Americans filling theaters for just
about any war movie they produced, are finding this year's war flicks to be a
bunch of duds. "Lions for Lambs," Robert Redford's case against the war in
Afghanistan, is a flop. It stars Mr. Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and
may not make back its $35 million price tag. Brian De Palma's "Redacted" played
to empty seats. Even "The War," Ken Burns's much-anticipated World War II
documentary that aired on PBS in September, met a less-than-explosive reception.
But Americans haven't lost their taste for war footage. They've just found a
better place to see the type of war film they actually enjoy watching. Some of
the hottest videos on YouTube are of actual battles that have taken place in
Afghanistan and Iraq. This is footage that often hasn't made its way onto the
nightly news or CNN--although some of it has--but it's largely unadulterated
film that shows American soldiers in action, bringing the full weight of
American military might to bear against the enemy. And in most of these films,
it's clear who the enemy is.
Brendan Miniter, "Not According to
Script Hollywood gets shown up by pro-war YouTube videos and a didactic antiwar
cat," The Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2007 ---
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110010956
Some of the are amateur
productions and others are professionally produced, such as two films that
have drawn about 700,000 viewers each: "Insurgent
Snipers vs. U.S. Marines," put together by the History Channel, and "Iraq
Marine Battle Fallujah." In the latter, U.S. Marines are seen assaulting
Fallujah. The film, just 4 1/2 minutes, plays to the tune of Dire Straits'
1985 hit "Brothers in Arms," and is a better tribute to the men who fight
the nation's wars that anything Hollywood has put out since John Wayne's
1968 film "The Green Berets."
Another film, this one billing itself as "Iraq
War (The Great Footage Ever!)," was posted in February and has already
drawn more than 1.3 million viewers. It runs a little less than 10 minutes
and features shots of U.S. military attack aircraft and U.S. Marines in
Iraq. The Marines, who fill the final half of the film, are shown kicking in
doors, burning photographs of Saddam Hussein, and blasting insurgents with
seemingly every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. It's raw, upfront military
aggression targeted at bad guys, interspersed with lighter moments of
kicking soccer balls around with Iraqi children and training Iraqi soldiers.
It too is compelling video.
Yet another film winning attention--"Battle
on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq"--was posted nine months ago and has been
seen by more than 1.8 million viewers. In nearly three minutes of combat
footage, viewers can watch a battle scene play out where American and Iraqi
soldiers attack and appear to kill insurgents in urban Baghdad. Another
short film--"U.S.
Marines in Iraq Real Footage Warning Graphic"--plays to American rock
music, runs just five minutes. It is an adrenaline rush all the way through
and has been seen by some 1.1 million people.
"Rx for Health Care: Pain Health care is ultimately a
political issue of making choices: The present politics aims to hide the
costs and skew the choices," by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek Magazine,
December 10, 2007 ---
http://www.newsweek.com/id/73284
We need to have a
candid debate about health care in 2008,
but the odds are against it. The fact
that covering the 47 million uninsured
already looms as the centerpiece of this
debate is a warning sign that it won't
be serious. We're told that the
uninsured are our biggest health-care
problem, but they aren't. Runaway health
spending is. Although politicians pay
lip service to that, what they really
enjoy is increasing spending. The Bush
administration created a new
Medicare
drug benefit, congressional Democrats
urge more coverage for children, and now
there are the uninsured.
It's understandable, because expanding
benefits is so much easier and more
politically rewarding than trying to
control them. Everyone believes in
adequate health care; people should have
it when they need it. Politicians cater
to these beliefs. But the intellectual
and even moral laziness of this approach
results in an invisible abdication of
political responsibility. We are letting
the unchecked rise in health spending
automatically determine national
priorities. Consider some facts:
-
Health spending already totals more
than $2 trillion annually, about 16
percent of national income (gross
domestic product). By 2030, it could
easily exceed 25 percent—one dollar
out of four—projects the
Congressional Budget Office. Higher
health spending is the main force
expanding the federal budget
There's a massive transfer of income from young to old. Americans 65 and older now represent about an eighth of the population and about a third of all health spending. By 2030, their population share will be about a fifth, and they could account for nearly half of health spending, finds a study by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Under present law, the 19- to 64-year-old population would pay most of those costs.
- Neither the government nor the private sector has succeeded in controlling health spending. From 1970 to 2005, average spending per Medicare beneficiary rose 8.9 percent a year; spending for Americans with private health insurance rose 9.8 percent annually over the same period (the figures cover similar health services). The small difference may reflect cost shifting. When Medicare imposes prices controls, doctors and hospitals increase prices for privately insured patients.
Questions
arise.
How
much
will
health
spending
increase
taxes,
depress
take-home
pay
and
crowd
out
other
government
spending—on
schools,
roads,
parks,
defense,
the
environment?
Is
the
growing
intergenerational
transfer
fair
and
sensible?
But
our
national
policy
toward
these
issues
is:
don't
ask,
don't
tell.
. . .
Don't hold your breath. These proposals
would inflict "pain," and candidates who
embraced them would invite political
ruin. Most Americans do not want to face
the difficult political, economic and
moral issues posed by unchecked health
spending. There's a consensus for
evasion that most politicians echo. The
impulse is to blame some unpopular
villain (drug companies, insurance
companies) and to focus on a simpler
problem—say, the uninsured. In some
ways, this is less serious than it
seems. About 40 percent of the uncovered
are young (18–34); most are healthy and
don't need much care.
But for all the uninsured, the cost of
coverage is a major obstacle; that's
still the nub of the matter. Health care
is ultimately a political issue of
making choices. The present politics of
health care aims to camouflage the costs
and skew the choices. Until we alter the
politics—by exposing ourselves to the
system's real costs—our debates will
lead to dead ends.
It is obvious to anyone that the patient is ill. But
the physicians agree on little else: not the underlying cause, certainly not the
appropriate course of treatment and least of all which among them is best
qualified to administer it. As they argue, the patient just gets sicker. Health
care, along with the economy in general, immigration and the whole alarming
nexus of war, terror and security is, according to pretty much every poll, one
of the issues that American voters consider most important. And next year, in
both the primaries and the general election, it will have particular resonance.
Iraq may even fade as an election subject, if the number of Americans killed in
action continues to decline as a result of the “surge” of troops into the area
around Baghdad. Meanwhile, uncertainties about the economy tend to feed through
into a preoccupation with health care. A majority of Americans (around 54% last
year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a Washington, DC, think-tank)
get their tax-exempt health insurance through their employers, so losing a job
often means losing cover. Even for those who remain in work, tightening market
conditions are forcing employers to downgrade the insurance they offer . . .
Voters think cost is a bigger problem than coverage. But none of the Republicans
is stressing health to the same extent as the Democrats are. Maybe that is why
our poll shows almost twice as many people prefer the Democrats on the issue.
"Arguing over the cure," The Economist, December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10254622
"Mormon in America," by Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal,
December 8, 2007 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119706422040017530.html
It is called his JFK speech, but in many
ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the
single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the
population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a
Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II
and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that
he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one
great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And
although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would
vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs
of the industrial states.
Mr. Romney gave the speech Thursday
morning. How did he do?
Very, very well. He made himself some
history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on
his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of
his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can
they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?
Romney reintroduced himself to a
distracted country -- Who is that handsome man saying those nice things? --
while defending principles we all, actually, hold close, and hold high.
His text was warmly cool. It covered a lot
of ground briskly, in less than 25 minutes. His approach was calm, logical,
with an emphasis on clarity. It wasn't blowhardy, and it wasn't fancy. The
only groaner was, "We do not insist on a single strain of religion --
rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." It is a great tragedy
that there is no replacement for that signal phrase of the 1980s, "Gag me
with a spoon."
Beyond that, the speech was marked by the
simplicity that accompanies intellectual confidence.
At the start, Mr. Romney was nervous and
rushed, his voice less full than usual. He settled down during the second
applause, halfway though the text -- "No candidate should become the
spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the
prayers of the people of all faiths." From that moment he was himself.
He started with a full JFK: "I am an
American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion.
A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be
rejected because of his faith." No "authorities of my church" or any church,
will "ever exert influence" on presidential decisions. "Their authority is
theirs," within the province of the church, and it ends "where the affairs
of the nation begin." "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain
duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." He pledged to
serve "no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest." He
will not disavow his religion. "My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will
be true to them and to my beliefs."
Bracingly: "Some believe that such a
confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it."
Whatever our faith, the things we value -- equality, obligation, commitment
to liberty -- unite us. In a passage his advisers debated over until the
night before the speech, Mr. Romney declared: "I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." He made the call. Why? I asked
the aide. "Because it's what he thinks."
At the end, he told a story he had
inserted just before Thanksgiving. During the dark days of the First
Continental Congress in Philadelphia, someone suggested the delegates pray.
But there were objections: They all held different faiths. "Then Sam Adams
rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good
character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed." At
this point in Mr. Romney's speech, the roused audience stood and applauded,
and the candidate looked moved.
There was one significant mistake in the
speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving
portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing
Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic
mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there,
and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did
Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would
have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended
that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost
the idiot vote.
My feeling is we've bowed too far to the
idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything
else.
While Mitt Romney's speech on his Mormon faith this
morning played to evangelicals by describing the role way his religion should
play in public policy, it was unlikely to sway social conservative voters uneasy
with his socially liberal background. The speech was meant to address fears that
he would take policy cues from Mormon church leaders, and that his religion is a
cult that is unacceptable to Christian conservative voters.
But many social conservative voters are less concerned
with the specifics of the former Massachusetts governor's religious creed than
his sympathetic record on abortion rights.
Daniel Nasaw, The Guardian,
December 6, 2007 ---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/mittromney/story/0,,2223448,00.html
Jensen Comment
Romney claims he has the
same stance on abortion as the GOP hero Ronald Reagan. How can jihad, taxation,
health care, environment, and employment matter when we've Planned Parenthood at
stake? Political analysts repeatedly tell us that candidates at the extremes on
some issues have nearly a zero chance of becoming president of the U.S. at this
time. Republicans who back an obsessed anti-abortion candidate might as well
give the election to the Democratic Party. Democrats who back an obsessed
pacifist might as well give the election to the Republican Party. If the
evangelical favorite Mike Huckabee wins the GOP nomination, the chances 2008
Democratic Party victory will soar. Most of the other leading GOP candidates are
realists who truly want the GOP to win rather view a sinking GOP ship as a moral
victory against Planned Parenthood. The only chance Mike Huckabee would have in
saving the GOP sinking vessel would be to have a true pacifist like Dennis
Kucinich on the Democratic Party ticket. Things do not look at all well for
Kucinich or GOP
Cruise next year.
For each word you get right, FreeRice will donate 20 grains of rice to the
U.N. to fight world hunger ---
http://freerice.com/
Nearly 200 million grains of rice have been donated to date.
“What if just knowing what a word meant could help
feed hungry people around the world? Well, at FreeRice it does . . . the
totals have grown exponentially.”
The Washington Post
Web game provides rice for hungry . . . FreeRice
went online in early October and has now raised 1 billion grains of rice [by
November 9].
BBC News
“Addictive, yes. But . . . each correct answer
results in the donation of rice to help feed the hungry around the globe.
Perhaps that qualifies the game as a good addiction . . . one with redeeming
qualities, something that’s, oh, didactic and edifying.”
Kansas City Star
“People from all walks of life and from around the
globe have written in to express their appreciation for the game . . .
Secretaries admit to playing it during boring business meetings.”
Christian Science Monitor
Every grain of rice is essential in the fight
against hunger . . . FreeRice really hits home how the Web can be harnessed
to raise awareness and funds for the world’s number one emergency.
UN World Food Program
Paygo: Nancy Pelosi's Fraud
"Democrats are committed to ending years of
irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of
compiling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we
will restore pay-as-you-go budget discipline," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, December
12, 2006. Well, as Emily Littela, the half-witted Gilder Radner character on
Saturday Night Live, would have put it: "Never mind." Last week Congressional
Democrats formally renounced their ballyhooed budget pledge to offset any new
tax cuts with other tax increases or spending cuts. We're delighted to see this
false promise go, but there's a larger lesson in this failure for the tax and
spending battles of 2008. Senate Democrats gave up on "paygo," as it's called,
when they realized they lacked the votes to offset the $50.6 billion cost of
protecting more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from getting whacked by
the Alternative Minimum Tax this year. They've spent the year floating all kinds
of tax increases to make up the difference. But in the end they passed an AMT
relief bill without a penny to pay for it. Paygo is now pay gone.
"The Paygo Farce: Democrats admit it was all a big confidence game,"
The Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2007 ---
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010970
Jensen Comment
In fairness, the problem was almost as bad with the GOP-led Congress under
George W. Bush. Bush will go down as the biggest spendthrift president in
history until (if?) the Democrats win the presidency in 2008. Then the bottom
will fall out of any hope for a balanced budget.
Bob Jensen's fraud updates are at
http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudUpdates.htm
Whoppi's down on estate taxation
During a discussion of Republican Presidential
candidates on ABC's "The View," which the comedian co-hosts, Ms. Goldberg said,
"I'd like somebody to get rid of the death tax. That's what I want. I don't want
to get taxed just because I died." The studio audience started applauding, but
she wasn't done. "I just don't think it's right," she continued. "If I give
something to my kid, I already paid the tax. Why should I have to pay it again
because I died?" . . . Back in 2001, before President Bush signed estate tax
reform into law, the death duty topped off at 55% on estates worth more than $3
million. Today the top federal rate is 45% with an exemption of $2 million, and
under current law the rate falls to zero in 2010. In 2011, however, the death
tax is resurrected, with the top rate restored to 55% and the exemption set at
$1 million
"Death and Whoopi's Taxes," The Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2007;
Page A18 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724552641918749.html
Jensen Comment
Sorry Whoppi, a lot of rich folks do not pay any tax on income until they day
due to the many (legal) tax avoidance schemes built into the tax code by their
lobbyists. Death is the only way to tax this income. Of course assets passed
from more than one generation may be double taxed with estate taxation. I think
estate taxes are socially beneficial and recommend raising the bar to 95%. Let
the heirs make their own way in life like most of us had to make our way. Of
course the children may still get a huge break before death with gifts and
expensive educations.
Leading Democrats Do Not Seem to Agree on Corporate Tax Rates
If you watch the constant stream of political advertisements in New Hampshire
these days, all Democratic Party presidential candidates want to tax
corporations harder but old Charlie, who really wields the power, thinks
otherwise.
From The Wall Street Journal Accounting Weekly Review on December 6,
2007
Review & Outlook: Corporate Tax War
The
Awll Street Journal
by WSJ Opinion Page Editors
Dec 04, 2007
Page: A20
Click here to view the full article on WSJ.com ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119673397691112663.html?mod=djem_jiewr_ac
TOPICS: Accounting,
Personal Taxation, Tax Laws, Taxation
SUMMARY: This
Fall, House Democrat Charlie Rangel proposed "...to cut the
U.S. corporate income tax] rate to 30.5% from 35%." This WSJ
opinion page article argues that, " As a new study makes
clear, such a reduction would give a lift to the U.S.
economy when it really needs it...[and concludes that] if
America is going to remain the developed world's leading job
creator and economic engine, corporate tax rates are going
to have to fall -- and by more than even Mr. Rangel has
suggested."
CLASSROOM
APPLICATION: Use this article to integrate political and
economic issues into tax policy discussion.
QUESTIONS:
1.) What entity prepared this report assessing the
association between corporate income tax rates and economic
performance? Why does this entity undertake such analyses?
2.) What measures were used to identify the relationships
between corporate tax rates and economic health? In your
answer, be sure to define statutory income tax rates and
effective income rates and to identify specific measures of
economic health.
3.) Summarize the main points of the discussion. With what
political party typical supports this viewpoint?
4.) Is it surprising to you that a Democrat proposes to cut
the corporate income tax rate? Explain your answer.
5.) How do personal income taxes also contribute to the
issues discussed in this article?
6.) This opinion page piece clearly presents just one side
of the debate on raising or lowering income tax rates.
Identify one counter-argument to those presented in the
piece.
Reviewed By: Judy Beckman, University of Rhode Island
RELATED
ARTICLES:
Democrats' Tax Measure Could Delay Energy Bill
by John J. Fialka
Dec 05, 2007
Page: A5
|
"Corporate Tax War," The Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2007; Page
A20
Word is that the Bush Administration will soon
propose a cut in the U.S. corporate income tax, following House Democrat
Charlie Rangel's proposal this fall to cut the rate to 30.5% from 35%. As a
new study makes clear, such a reduction would give a lift to the U.S.
economy when it really needs it.
The study, from the National Bureau of Economic
Research, looked at corporate taxes in 85 countries from 1996 to 2005.
Economists from the World Bank and Harvard University calculated the
effective business tax rate for each country, because some nations have so
many tax loopholes that the rate paid by companies can be one-half to
one-third the statutory tax rate. The study found that corporate taxes have
a statistically significant negative effect on economic performance.
High business taxes were found to reduce a nation's
domestic capital investment, the amount of foreign investment into that
country, and its overall growth in GDP. The authors conclude that "corporate
taxation reduces the return on capital and thus discourages investment" and
"reduces the cash flow of the firm" in such a way as to reduce the after-tax
capital available for reinvestment.
The researchers also found that high corporate
levies reduce entrepreneurship, which drives new industries and job growth.
In many nations the corporate tax rate is paid both by large corporations
and small businesses. In the U.S., small businesses are often organized
under Subchapter S of the tax code and thus pay the personal income tax
rate. However the tax is imposed, the study found, "a 10 percentage point
rise in a nation's effective corporate tax rate causes a decline in the
number of firms by 1.8 per 100 people (the average is 5 per 100
population)."
The clear implication is that raising the U.S.
personal income tax rates would also stunt small business entrepreneurship.
Yet this is precisely what all of the Democratic Presidential candidates,
and even Mr. Rangel, propose. In Mr. Rangel's case, the benefits of his cut
in the corporate tax for big business to 30% would be offset by the damage
he'd do by raising the top marginal tax rate on individuals and small
businesses to as high as 44%. The NBER research suggests this could
discourage hundreds of thousands of small businesses from being formed in
the next few years.
This study supports research earlier this year by
economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, which found
that high business taxes also result in lower wages for workers. The higher
rate means less capital investment in making workers productive, which
translates into smaller pay checks.
What American CEOs understand, but most in the
media and political class so far refuse to acknowledge, is that the U.S. is
far behind the rest of the world in reducing corporate tax rates. The U.S.
corporate income tax rate is the world's second highest after Japan's among
developed nations. Even Mr. Rangel's proposed reduction would leave the U.S.
well above the OECD average of 25%. In recent years, Germany, France, the
United Kingdom, Vietnam, Poland and Singapore, among many other nations,
have either cut or proposed to cut their business tax rates. These lower
rates are attracting more investment and capital, and they pose a threat to
America's economic competitiveness if Washington fails to act.
The NBER study is a reminder of how out-of-touch
America's current political debate is with global economic trends. American
politicians are proposing new barriers to trade, as well as new obstacles to
capital formation, even as the rest of the world is welcoming more of both.
The study is also a reminder that because workers don't see a tax does not
mean that they don't feel its impact. If America is going to remain the
developed world's leading job creator and economic engine, corporate tax
rates are going to have to fall -- and by more than even Mr. Rangel has
suggested.
You can read much more about corporate taxes at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Income_Tax
"The (Tax) War Between the States," by Arthur Laffer and Stephen
Moore, The Wall Street Journal, December 10, 2007; Page A19 ---
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119724619828518802.html
A record eight million Americans moved from one
state to another last year. Where is everyone going, and why? The answer has
little to do with climate: California has arguably the nicest climate of any
state in the nation -- yet in this decade more Americans have left the
Golden State than entered it. Migration patterns instead reveal which states
have the most dynamic and desirable economies, and which are "has-been"
states. The winners in this contest for the most valuable resource on the
globe -- human capital -- are generally the states with the lowest tax,
spending and regulatory burdens. The biggest losers are almost all
congregated in the Northeast and Midwest. Liberals contend that tax rates,
regulations, forced union laws and runaway government spending don't matter
when it comes to creating jobs, high incomes and a higher quality of life.
People tell us otherwise by voting with their feet.
The American Legislative Exchange Council has just
released a study we've done that presents a 2007 Economic Competitiveness
Rating of the 50 states, based on 16 economic policy variables, including
taxes, regulation, right to work, the legal system, educational freedom and
government debt. Over the past decade, the 10 states with the highest taxes
and spending, and the most intrusive regulations, have half the population
and job growth, and one-third slower growth in incomes, than the 10 most
economically free states. In 2006 alone 1,500 people each day moved to the
states with the highest economic competitiveness from the states with the
lowest competitiveness.
Total State Tax Burdens
Tax Foundation Data ---
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/9.html
State-by-State Rankings in 2007 ---
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/9.html
When it comes to rankings with respect to per capita total taxation, there
are more disputes as to what taxes to include and exclude. One listing of such
taxes and results state by state as of January 2007 is at
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
States are listed alphabetically
in three sections:
Alabama-Iowa,
Kansas-New Mexico,
New York-Wyoming
Many people planning to retire use the presence or
absence of a state income tax as a litmus test for a retirement
destination. This is a serious miscalculation since higher sales and
property taxes can more than offset the lack of a state income tax. The lack
of a state income tax doesn’t necessarily ensure a low total tax burden.
States raise revenue in many ways including
sales taxes, excise taxes, license taxes, income taxes, intangible taxes,
property taxes, estate taxes and inheritance taxes. Depending on where you
live, you may end up paying all of them or just a few.
This section of our Web site provides you with
information on state income taxes, sales and fuel taxes, taxes on retirement
income, property taxes and inheritance and estate taxes. as well as sales
and fuel taxes. It is intended to give you some insight into which states
may offer a lower cost of living. To check out the state where you want to
retire, just select from the state menu above.
State Sales Tax
All states except Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and
Oregon, collect sales taxes. Some have a single rate throughout the state
though most permit local additions to the base tax rate. Those states with a
single rate include Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
States with the highest sales tax are:
California (7.25%), Mississippi (7.0%), New Jersey (7.0%), Tennessee (7.0%),
Rhode Island (7.0%), Minnesota (6.5%), Nevada (6.5%), and Washington
(6.5%). Many cities and counties have the option of imposing an additional
local option sales tax. For instance, in Tennessee some cities add as much
as 2.75%. Nevada's sales tax varies by county and can be as high as 7.75%.
Most states exempt prescription drugs from
sales taxes. Some also exempt food and clothing purchases and a few also
exempt non-prescription drugs.
Fuel Tax
Every state collects excise taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel and gasohol. The
figures shown for each state reflect only the amounts controlled by the
states and do not include additional taxes imposed on motor
carriers. However, they do include other taxes paid at the pump by
consumers. Where applicable they include sales taxes, gross receipts taxes,
oil inspection fees, underground storage tank fees and other miscellaneous
environmental fees. They do not include the federal excise tax which is 18.4
cents for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel fuel.
Nine states permit cities or counties to impose
a local tax on fuel. Taxes in some states can also vary based on the
wholesale price which is adjusted quarterly.
Cigarette Tax
Several states are continuing to raise excise taxes on cigarettes and other
tobacco products in order to increase revenue. The rates shown do not
include the federal cigarette tax of 39 cents a pack. Chicago is the most
expensive place to buy cigarettes. When you add the city tax, the Cook
County tax and the state tax, the total is $3.66 per pack. Evanston and
Cicero (Illinois) also have city and Cook county taxes. The top five states
with the highest state tax on cigarettes are: New Jersey ($2.58), Rhode
Island ($2.46), Washington ($2.025), tied for fourth place are Arizona,
Maine, Michigan ($2.00), and fifth is Alaska ($1.80). Counties and cities
may impose an additional tax ranging from 1 cent to $2.00 on a pack of
cigarettes. About 82% of what consumers pay for a pack of cigarettes
(average cost $4.26 - including statewide sales taxes but not local
cigarette or sales taxes) ends up going to the government in taxes and other
payments rather than for the cigarettes.
Personal Income Tax
A total of 41 states impose income taxes. New Hampshire and Tennessee
apply it only to income from interest and dividends. Seven states (Alaska,
Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) do not tax
personal income. Of the 41 with a broad-based income tax, 35 base the taxes
on federal returns, typically taking a portion of what you pay the IRS or
using your federal adjusted gross income or taxable income as the starting
point.
Personal Exemptions and Standard Deductions
Most states specify amounts for taxpayers and each of their
dependents that can be used as an offset in determining taxable income. Most
also specify the amounts that persons 65 or older can deduct.
Medical/Dental
Deductions
Most states treat health care expenses as having already been deducted from
federal returns. Two states (North Dakota and Oregon) allow full deductions
while Indiana does not permit itemized deductions on state taxes.
Federal Income Tax Deduction
Only 12 of the 41 states with broad-based income
taxes permit taxpayers to deduct federal income taxes. This is an advantage
if you are deciding between two states with similar rate structures but only
one allows you to deduct. The latter would give you a lower effective tax
rate.
Retirement Income Taxes
Under federal law, taxpayers may
be required to include a portion of their Social Security benefits in their
taxable adjusted gross income (AGI). Most states begin the calculation of
state personal income tax liability with federal AGI, or federal taxable
income. In those states, the portion of Social Security benefits subject to
personal income tax is subject to state personal income tax unless state law
allows taxpayers to subtract the federally taxed portion of their benefits
from their federal AGI in the computation of their state AGI.
Many states exclude Social Security retirement
benefits from state income taxes. The District of Columbia and 26 states
with income taxes provide a full exclusion for Social Security benefits --
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia.
The remaining 15 states with broad-based income
taxes tax Social Security to some extent:
- Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia tax Social
Security income to the extent it is taxed by the federal government.
- Connecticut, Iowa, Montana and Wisconsin
tax Social Security income above an income floor. Iowa will gradually
phase out its Social Security tax levy from 2008 through 2014.
Wisconsin will fully exclude Social Security beginning in tax year 2008.
- Colorado, New Mexico and Utah require that
federally untaxed Social Security benefits be added back to federal AGI
to calculate the base against which their broad age-determined income
exclusions apply.
States are prohibited from taxing benefits of
U.S. military retirees if they exempt the pensions of state and local
government retirees. Most states that impose an income tax exempt at least
part of pension income from taxable income. Different types of pension
income (private, military, federal civil service, and state or local
government) are often treated differently for tax purposes.
States are generally free from federal control
in deciding how to tax pensions, but some limits apply. State tax policy
cannot discriminate against federal civil service pensions. Ten states
exclude all federal, state and local pension income from taxation. These
include Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania. Among these 10 states,
only Kansas taxes any Social Security income, but only to the extent it is
subject to federal taxation. These 10 states differ on the taxation of
retirement income from private-sector sources. Kansas and Massachusetts do
not exclude any private-sector retirement income, but most of the others
allow a fairly broad exclusion. Pennsylvania allows a full exclusion.
Alabama excludes income from defined benefit plans. Hawaii excludes income
from contributory plans. Illinois and Mississippi exclude income from
qualified retirement plans. Louisiana, Michigan and New York cap the
private-sector exclusion at $6,000, $34,920 and $20,000, respectively.
Five states (California, Connecticut, Nebraska,
Rhode Island, and Vermont) allow no exemptions or tax credits for pension
and other retirement income that is counted in federal adjusted gross
income. Most in-state government pensions are taxed the same as
out-of-state government pensions. However, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas,
Louisiana, New York, and Oklahoma provide greater tax relief plans than they
do for out-of-state government pension plans. The District of Columbia also
provides greater tax relief for DC government pensions than for state
government pensions.
Three states (New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania) do not allow IRA contributions to be deducted from taxable
income. Of the three, only Pennsylvania does not tax IRA earnings of
taxpayers age 59 ½ years or older, since earnings are treated like pension
income, which is tax exempt.
Retired Military Pay
Some states provide special tax benefits to military retirees. Others
simply follow the federal tax rules. The states that do not tax retired
military pay are: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas,
Kentucky*, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi*, Missouri*,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina*, Oregon*,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and
Wyoming.
(*With conditions)
Property Taxes
Taxes on land and the buildings on it are the biggest source of revenue for
local governments. They are not imposed by states but by the tens of
thousands of cities, townships, counties, school districts and other
assessing jurisdictions.
The state's role is to specify the maximum rate
on the market value of the property, or a percentage of it, as the legal
standard for the local assessors to follow. The local assessor determines
the value to be taxed. You can't escape property taxes in any state. But
you can find significantly low rates in certain parts of the country.
Most states give residents over a certain age a
break on their property taxes. With some taxes, you'll need a relatively
low income to qualify. Forty states provide either property tax credits or
homestead exemptions that limit the value of assessed property subject to
tax.
There may be other tax breaks available,
depending on where you live. All 50 states offer some type of property tax
relief program, such as freezes that will lock in the assessed value of your
property once you reach a certain age, or deferral of taxes until the
homeowner moves or dies. They ultimately have to be paid. In addition,
counties and municipalities often have their own property tax relief plans.
Retirees with low incomes and high housing
costs may face property tax bills that are higher than they can manage.
Some states target property tax relief to those homeowners bearing the
greatest burden. Property tax reform that takes into account a homeowner's
ability to pay, such as a so-called "property tax circuit breaker," can
better protect low-income homeowners from rising property taxes that
accompany rising property values. Targeted property tax relief avoids sharp
reductions in funding for locally provided public services and inequities
based solely on date of purchase.
- A property tax circuit breaker prevents
property taxes from "overloading" a taxpayer. Under a typical circuit
breaker, the state sets a maximum percentage of income that an eligible
family can be expected to pay in property taxes. If property taxes
exceed this limit, the state then provides a rebate or credit to the
taxpayer.
- Currently, of the 31 states and the
District of Columbia with circuit breakers for homeowners, only six and
the District of Columbia permit all households to participate in the
program without regard to age.
Other property tax relief strategies that may be
used to target property tax relief include homestead exemptions which exempt
a certain amount of a home's value from taxation, credits to rebate a
certain percentage of taxes paid, and deferral programs to allow low-income
elderly homeowners to defer payment of property taxes until property is
sold.
Property Tax Swaps
More and more states are cutting property taxes in exchange for increases in
sales or other taxes. Idaho, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas took this
step in 2006. In New Jersey the state increased the sales tax by 1 cent
with half of it designated for property tax relief in 2006 and possibly the
full amount in future years. Voters in Idaho also approved a 1 cent sales
tax increase that reduces property taxes by $260 million. South Carolina's
Republican governor, Mark Sanford, signed a measure that promises to cut
average property taxes by 60% and makes up the revenue by increasing the
sales tax by 1 cent. The revenue will be used to support the Homestead
Exemption Fund. In Texas the state lowered property taxes by increasing the
taxes on cigarettes and some business activity.
Best and Worst States: Based on
data from the 2002 census, the following five states have the lowest local
property taxes per capita/year. They are Arkansas ($191), Alabama ($285),
Kentucky ($376), New Mexico ($380), and Oklahoma ($425). The states with the
highest local property taxes per capita/year are: New Jersey ($1,871),
Connecticut ($1,733), New York ($1,402), and Rhode Island ($1,369).
For more information about property taxes in
all states,
click here.
Inheritance and Estate
Taxes
An inheritance tax is an assessment made on the portion of an estate
received by an individual. It differs from an estate tax which is a tax
levied on an entire estate before it is distributed to individuals. It is
strictly a state tax. Eleven states still collect an inheritance tax. They
are: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New
Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Connecticut will be phased out
after 2005. In all states, transfers of assets to a spouse are exempt from
the tax. In some states, transfers to children and close relatives are also
exempt.
As for estate taxes, the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) phases out