The United States is on the hunt for Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, the al-Qaeda master bombmaker behind the just-thwarted plot to bring down a U.S.-bound jetliner. If previous patterns hold, at some point in the coming weeks or months a drone launched from a secret CIA base will take al-Asiri out — and we will celebrate another “success” in what was once called the war on terror.
We begin On the Margin's fourth annual look at public opinion on taxes1 with a short journey down memory lane to the little-known, but impressive, surveys conducted by the Roper Organization for Fortune magazine beginning in 1935. The first Roper/Fortune survey was released shortly after Louisiana Sen. Huey Long launched his "Share the Wealth" campaign designed to spread the nation's wealth by limiting annual incomes and capping inheritances. Fortune's editors wanted to know where the public stood on Long's proposals and began by asking, "Do you believe that the government should allow a man who has investments worth over a million dollars to keep them, subject only to present taxes?" The public split 45 percent to 45 percent. Those whom the in-person interviewers deemed "prosperous" were in favor of allowing millionaires to keep their fortunes 70 to 21 percent, while those the interviewers described as "poor" were opposed 60 to 29 percent. A question in Fortune's second survey explored another aspect of Long's platform by asking people how much money any one person should be allowed to inherit. Fifty-two percent in 1935 said there should be no limit while less than 1 percent put themselves at the other end of the spectrum, stating that people should not be allowed to inherit any money. Sixty percent of the prosperous said there should be no limit, as did a strong plurality of the poor: 47 percent.
The $2 billion loss by JPMorgan Chase has reawakened debate about whether banks are taking excessive risks, but many facts have gotten lost in the breathless media coverage.
It has been over three years (1,111 days to be precise) since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget. The last time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) fulfilled his legal responsibility, Conan was still on NBC, Tea Parties hadn’t come together and the iPad hadn’t yet been introduced. This is one of the biggest abdications of power we have seen on the part of our government in modern time. And there is no excuse. The Senate needs only 51 votes to pass a budget. Democrats have had well over that for President Obama’s entire term, yet they refuse to even offer a plan.
The State of California keeps sinking into a deeper hole of debt, with reports showing that the state’s budget shortfall is projected to be $16 billion, up from $9.2 billion in January. But despite all the red ink, the state is still going ahead with a high-speed rail boondoggle that would cost billions.
Over the weekend, Hollywood brought back a popular TV horror show/soap opera that ended its run in 1971. That, however, is not the only flashback from the days of disco getting attention these days. Comparing President Obama’s impact on foreign affairs to former President Jimmy Carter has also come into vogue.
Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought, has been typically portrayed as the nearly inevitable evolution upward from the primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. Not “world government,”wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers in America, but a rebranded alternative, morenuanced and sophisticated, would creep in on little cat feet before the Neanderthals knew what was up.
When he was director of central intelligence, Leon Panetta earned a reputation as an energetic advocate for his agency. When he replaced Robert Gates at the Pentagon, it was reasonable to hope that Panetta would continue to play the role of a senior statesman. And to some extent he has—explaining that defense cuts would heighten risks to the nation’s security and stating that, should the “sequester” mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act come to pass in January 2013, cutting another $500 billion from defense, it would be a “disaster” for America’s military. As he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “Congress must do everything possible to make sure that we avoid sequestration.”
For several weeks now it’s been clear that Putin won’t attend this month’s NATO summit in Chicago. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recently spoke with Russia’s new/old president and explained that it’s “not possible and not practical” for Putin to participate because of his “busy domestic calendar.” But the real reason is missile defense. Moscow is furious that the U.S. has rejected its proposal for a “sectoral” arrangement that would further downgrade the system’s capabilities and give Russia the responsibility to protect NATO countries from certain ballistic-missile threats.
Long-term unemployment for older workers takes a staggering toll — increasing illness and mortality rates and reducing children's earning capacity.
Preview of the testimony presented to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.Read More
I vividly recall a conversation about seven years ago with someone in the oil and gas exploration business whom I assumed was ramping up oil drilling because of the rising price of crude. But the answer surprised me.Read More
Once again, high gasoline prices are in the news. As of this writing, the national average gasoline price per gallon price is hovering around $3.79. The price pinch at the pump is sparking consumer and voter discontent. SymphonyIRI reports, “57 percent of consumers are feeling increased financial strain when gas prices increase, and more than four in ten say high gas prices make it difficult to meet monthly expenses,” based on polls conducted in the second quarter of 2011.Read More
It seems that no matter which party is in power, the government always grows. Why is this?Read More
