Author: Andrew Sullivan

A brilliant little blog.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Too many people misunderstand how a flat tax would work and fight it based on that misunderstanding. There are two key points that should be understood:
1) It would truly be simple. Most versions of the flat tax call for the elimination of all deductions except for personal exemptions based on the number of family members. There would be no calculation of mortgage interest, property taxes, health costs, etc. Taxpayers would simply determine their earned income, subtract their personal exemptions, and pay a tax on the balance.
2) It would ultimately be progressive. While the tax rate would be flat, the effective rate paid would be progressive with income. Most flat tax proposals provide for an exemption of $7,500 per family member, or $30,000 for a family of four. A family of 4 with an income of $30,000 would pay no taxes for an effective tax rate of 0%. Assuming a 17% flat tax rate, a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 would pay a tax of $3,400 ($50,000 – $30,000 = $20,000) for an effective rate of 6.8%; that same family with an income of $100,000 would pay a tax of $11,900 for a rate of 11.9%; and if their income were $1,000,000, they would pay $164,900 for a rate of 16.49%.
Opponents should give up complexity and lack of progressiveness as reasons not to have a flat tax. They’ll still be able to make opposing arguments such as “I want my mortgage deduction;” rich people should pay more than 17%; and we should always tax people more rather than reduce government spending.
There’s one other reason for a flat tax with no deductions. Congress loves to tamper endlessly with the tax code. Lobbyists and PACS are forced to wine, dine, and donate to protect their industries, or carve out exceptions that apply only to their clients. Tampering generates millions in the way of campaign contributions. A tamper-proof, flat personal and business income tax would eliminate at least a third of the influence peddling that makes Congress seem so sleazy.” More feedback on the smartest Letters Page on the web.

A reader informs me that “Andrew Card has been Chief of Staff for less time (as of today) than H.R. Haldeman and James Baker. But most Chiefs of Staff last less than two years.” My broader point about Bush only appointing people with whom he’s extremely comfortable and usually promoting from within the cocoon – holds. Gonzalez is the first piece of evidence. Thomas’ appointment as Chief Justice would be the second.

JOHAN RESPONDS: The Index on Censorship’s critic of Theo van Gogh responds to his critics.

Steve Sailer examines the exit poll data and doesn’t believe the premise that Bush’s share of the Latino vote soared this year.

The Vatican weighs in on Yassir Arafat. They’re only slightly less distraught than the BBC. Privately, however, even the Vatican says that Arafat blew it by choosing violence over a peace-deal in 2000.

They do extremely well in the Catalogue for Philanthropy’s Generosity Index. The top five states for charity giving, relative to their own wealth, are: Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Alabama. The least generous? Wisconsin, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

How to use oil to help defeat the Iraqi insurgency.

The military seems to have ignored many of its own counter-insurgency guidelines in taking back Falluja. Focusing on territory rather than the organizational structure of the insurgency is not the ultimate goal. Necessary, but by no means sufficient, as the death toll in the rest of the country continues to prove. Noah Shachtman has more. Still, 600 dead mujahideen is a start.

Yep, these alleged protectors of free speech are blaming the victim in the Theo van Gogh murder. Money quote:

Van Gogh’s juvenile shock-horror art finally led him to build an exploitative working relationship with Somalia-born Dutch MP Ayann Hirsi Ali, whose terrible personal experience of abuse has driven her to a traumatizing loss of her Muslim faith. Together they made a furiously provocative film that featured actresses portraying battered Muslim women, naked under transparent Islamic-style shawls, their bodies marked with texts from the Koran that supposedly justify their repression. Van Gogh then roared his Muslim critics into silence with obscenities. An abuse of his right to free speech, it added injury to insult by effectively censoring their moderate views as well.

These are the defenders of free speech? Then there’s this obscenity:

A sensational climax to a lifetime’s public performance, stabbed and shot by a bearded fundamentalist, a message from the killer pinned by a dagger to his chest, Theo van Gogh became a martyr to free expression. His passing was marked by a magnificent barrage of noise as Amsterdam hit the streets to celebrate him in the way the man himself would have truly appreciated. And what timing! Just as his long-awaited biographical film of Pim Fortuyn’s life is ready to screen. Bravo, Theo! Bravo!

The man was murdered for his controversial political views. Murdered. Somehow I don’t think he was intending it to be a publicity stunt. (Hat tip: HurryUpHarry.)

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “On the one hand side, I meet plenty of people, both Dutch and Muslim, who say they condemn the Van Gogh murder. But. They understand it. On the other hand, I meet a slightly smaller number of people, mainly Dutch and not as many Muslims, who say they don’t want to condone the attacks on mosques. But. They understand it. May I offer a heartfelt raised middle finger to both groups?” – Arjan Dasselar, Dutch blogger. Amen.

HOW MANY CASUALTIES? That 100,000 number for Iraqi civilian deaths seemed fishy to me. The Economist reviews the study.

The notion that the Democrats could have done better if they had concentrated more on the economy is about as dumb an argument as I’ve heard lately. Kevin Drum weighs in.

TIME FOR HEALING WATCH: “But if militant Christianist Republicans from inland backwaters believe that secular liberal Democrats from the big coastal cities look upon them with disdain, there’s a reason. We do, and all the more so after this election. … By any objective standard, you had to be spectacularly stupid to support Bush… So our guy lost the election. Why shouldn’t those of us on the coasts feel superior? We eat better, travel more, dress better, watch cooler movies, earn better salaries, meet more interesting people, listen to better music and know more about what’s going on in the world.” – Ted Rall, one small reason Kerry lost.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I was disappointed to see you participating in the dishonesty surrounding the idea of a flat tax. Like Steve Forbes during his presidential campaign, you refer to two completely distinct and unrelated issues, progressivity and simplification, as if they were the same. This bait-and-switch takes simplification of the tax code, which would benefit almost all Americans and is highly popular, and uses it as cover to argue for reducing the progressivity of the tax rates, which would benefit only the wealthiest Americans and which has little popular support. As you surely are aware, a tax code that had eliminated progressivity could be just as larded with complex deductions as the current system, while a tax code that had been radically simplified could still retain progressive tax rates (how hard is it to look up the tax you owe in a table?). If you’re in favor of simplification, argue for that reform. If you’re in favor of eliminating progressivity, make that case. If you want both, argue for both. But it’s a lie to pretend that one has anything to do with the other.” Well, I’m for both. But a single rate is simpler than multiple rates, however few the deductions. More feedback on the smartest Letters Page on the web.

Yes, it won’t solve everything. Yes, some Sunni and Jihadist terrorists will escape and have escaped to wreak havoc elsewhere. But subduing the Sunni-Jihadist insurgency is a simple prerequisite for some kind of representative government in Iraq. Johann Hari cites an Iraqi friend:

The Sunni resistance is, however, a different story [from the Shiite resistance]. “I was there in Fallujah earlier this year. It doesn’t look like Iraq; it looks like Taliban Afghanistan. I didn’t see a woman’s face the whole time I was there. They are all hidden behind those dehumanising shrouds.” The resistance fighters he met there believed in either Sunni supremacy or endless jihad. “It wasn’t surprising. You only have to look at who they are killing to find out their philosophy. They don’t want democracy and peaceful co-existence. If there was any way to negotiate with them, I’d support it. But how can you talk people like this down from their ledge? What can you offer them?” Yasser then offers two crucial facts. First, there hasn’t been a single Shia suicide bomber in Iraq so far. That tells you something about who is trying to destroy security and why. Second, there have been just three weeks this year when there were no suicide bombs in Iraq. They were the three weeks the US forces had Fallujah surrounded. Doesn’t that suggest it is the base of the Sunni resistance? Doesn’t that suggest it is right to deprive them of their base by force if necessary?

Yes, and yes. It’s foolish to believe that this siege means a major victory. It doesn’t. It’s one stage in a brutal war of attrition against the enemies of democracy. But it must be done. And what it’s teaching the U.S. military will prove invaluable in the years of war ahead.

THE EVIL EMPIRE: I mean Microsoft. They’re approaching bloggers. (Theme song from “Jaws” will now commence.)

“MANDATE”: Isn’t that term just a little but, er, gay?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I’m a Christian missionary, investing my life in bringing global transformation by working to convert Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists in the hardest and most miserable parts of the world. I oversee the work of a number of christian Relief & Development NGO’s that seek to restore human dignity by providing jobs and sustainable family incomes through micro-economic development, educational projects, clean water projects, and a lot more… I believe you and others who are gay are doing yourselves a great disservice by your rhetoric and the way you go about trying to achieve your goals. I think most evangelical christians would support your rights in every realm if you were more wise in your approach to the subject.
As a very devout, Bible-believing, conservative-value-holding, christian missionary, I believe that every person, straight or gay, should have the ability to freely choose who should inherit their property when they die, who should be able to visit them in the hospital, who should have the right to make hard decisions over their lives and property in the event they were incapacitated in some way, etc., etc. I do not believe these rights should be granted to husbands and wives only, but to everyone, because we are all created in God’s image, and have the God-gioven right to freely chose our path in life and our associations — whether God approves of them or not. This desire for everyone’s freedom of choice that I hold so dearly does not contradict my belief that nuclear families are the very foundation blocks of a stable society and should be encouraged, strengthened, and preserved through our laws and by every other social means available to us.” So why not support equality in marriage? Or more to the point: how on earth does including gay couples in civil marriage somehow weaken the protections for the nuclear family? How?