Reading the news this morning made me laugh. I see that President Obama and George Stephanopoulos were arguing over whether or not the much-discussed Everyone Must Buy Health Insurance mandate qualified as a new tax on the middle class (thus breaking Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class) and Stephanopoulos broke out the dictionary. I had to go to YouTube and look it up. I cheered! That is something I would have done, and have done here, repeatedly.
Please don't accuse me of thinking that Stephanopoulos stole a trick from my playbook. I know perfectly well that he doesn't even know this blog exists. I still find it gratifying that someone in the mainstream media actually understands the concept of going to the dictionary - the official and codified record of what words mean - when debating the meaning of a word.
There were a few amazing moments in that little discussion (and by "amazing" I mean "Did he really go there?").
Obama accused Stephanopoulos of "stretching a little bit right there" for using the dictionary. Really? It is now considered "stretching" to go to the dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word? On what planet? I would like to think that this blatant Gotcha moment might come back to bite Obama but, unfortunately, I know all too well that his die hard supporters will just spin it to mean something else. They have already started attacking Stephanopoulos (by calling him - GASP - a Republican). The fact of the matter is that Obama was wrong, was caught being wrong, and tried to weasel out of it by making it seem like the eminently reasonable action of Stephanopoulos was something dirty and giggle-worthy. Apparently we are supposed to believe now that it is a bad thing to use words for what they actually mean.
Obama also made the amazing statement, "If I say that, right now, your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10% next year, and you say, 'Well that's not a tax increase.'" And I say, in this example, are you saying this as a president or as an insurance company? Because your example doesn't say. If you are saying this as a president then 1) Yes, that actually would be a tax increase, in exactly the same way that your mandate is a tax increase and 2) When did you, as president, gain the Constitutional authority to tell the insurance companies what they will and will not charge? If, in this example, you are saying this as an insurance company then no, that is not a tax increase because insurance companies do not collect taxes. Duh! You're not really this stupid, are you? Or, more to the point, you don't really believe that we are this stupid, do you?
Finally - no surprise here - Obama fell back on the constant (and constantly false) auto insurance analogy. "Everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." For one thing, Mr. President, many people in America do consider that a tax and thus considered it a tax increase when such laws were passed. They may have agreed with the reason and need for the tax, but it was still a tax. After dismissing that strawman, we get to go back to the many reasons (already listed here) as to why the comparing health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandate is a false analogy. I know it sounds good and they do both have the word "insurance" in them, but surely a Harvard law professor can parse language better than that.
If you have to spend money you might not otherwise spend, because the government told you to, under penalty of law, that is a tax, no matter what other fancy terms you care to apply. If it is a new expenditure then it is a tax increase. No amount of fancy rhetoric will make this fact go away. It may be that you believe this tax increase is warranted, but that is an entirely different debate. Warranted or not, it is still a tax increase. Obama is faced with the choice of breaking his word to try and go forward with his healthcare policy ideas or keeping his word and probably not going forward with this ideas. It is a pretty classic No Win situation but then, frankly, he (and any other politician you care to know) should never have made that "no new taxes" pledge. That's a promise that never ends well in the long run.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
More RIAA Nonsense
Have you heard about the latest power grab attempt from the Recording Industry Association of America? If you listen to the radio you probably have because I started hearing the commercials a few days ago and finally got curious enough to look it up. They are lobbying for a new tax on radio stations, called the Performance Rights Act (S. 379 and H.R 848) and, while it is safe to say that I would be opposed to most new taxes, this one is especially troublesome.
There is actually an amusing story here, if you have the heart to laugh at such am organization of bullies and thugs routinely getting away with their destructive behavior. Some years ago, the RIAA successfully lobbied for a similar tax on internet radio stations. The cost increases were directly followed by the closing of most independent or even semi-independent internet stations who simply could not afford the new bill. Net result: The RIAA did not receive more money and listeners did receive less music choices. It was the ultimate lose-lose situation.
Never one to learn anything from reality, the RIAA is at it again. This time they want to hit terrestrial radio stations (that would be the fancy term for AM and FM radio, the ones you listen to in your car) with the same basic tax they used to kill internet radio. They now claim that AM and FM radio are getting a free ride and should not be exempt. Oddly enough, the biggest gun the RIAA used in arguing for the tax on internet radio was the difference between them and terrestrial radio. Now that they have snaked their way into stealing money that did not belong to them, they want to ignore that difference in order to steal more.
The truth of the matter is that terrestrial radio stations already pay licencing fees. In fact, the crippling licencing fees that were applied to what internet radio still exists just a couple years ago were based on the very fees that terrestrial stations pay. This tax would amount to charging them twice for the same service.
But wait, it gets better!
Try to imagine your favorite recording artist (genre doesn't even matter here) and then try to imagine where that artist would be without the radio. Did you imagine sitting in the parents' garage wishing they could be heard by more than their nearest neighbors? Because that is where most recording artists would be without the radio. Radio is, essentially, free advertising for people trying to sell CDs and concert tickets, and it is free advertising that reaches millions of people. The RIAA should be paying the radio stations for this service.
But wait, it still gets better!
It is actually illegal for the RIAA to pay radio stations for this service. Why is it illegal? It's illegal because the RIAA (and the artists) depend so heavily on radio play for the money they earn that it is considered cheating for them to "bribe" a station into putting a particular artist or song into higher rotation. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is so obvious and demonstrated that the RIAA depends on radio play that someone actually had to pass laws to prevent the RIAA from paying the stations and now the RIAA actually believes it's in a position to be paid instead. This is an association that is so out of touch with reality, even these taxes couldn't pay the long distance bill to make contact.
I've said it before and they insist on continuing to prove me right: the RIAA would rather steal and tax your money than earn it. They are not a business model, they're a mafia and they deserve to be treated as such. If there is any industry in this country that should go under in these times, it's the RIAA. If only we could be so lucky.
There is actually an amusing story here, if you have the heart to laugh at such am organization of bullies and thugs routinely getting away with their destructive behavior. Some years ago, the RIAA successfully lobbied for a similar tax on internet radio stations. The cost increases were directly followed by the closing of most independent or even semi-independent internet stations who simply could not afford the new bill. Net result: The RIAA did not receive more money and listeners did receive less music choices. It was the ultimate lose-lose situation.
Never one to learn anything from reality, the RIAA is at it again. This time they want to hit terrestrial radio stations (that would be the fancy term for AM and FM radio, the ones you listen to in your car) with the same basic tax they used to kill internet radio. They now claim that AM and FM radio are getting a free ride and should not be exempt. Oddly enough, the biggest gun the RIAA used in arguing for the tax on internet radio was the difference between them and terrestrial radio. Now that they have snaked their way into stealing money that did not belong to them, they want to ignore that difference in order to steal more.
The truth of the matter is that terrestrial radio stations already pay licencing fees. In fact, the crippling licencing fees that were applied to what internet radio still exists just a couple years ago were based on the very fees that terrestrial stations pay. This tax would amount to charging them twice for the same service.
But wait, it gets better!
Try to imagine your favorite recording artist (genre doesn't even matter here) and then try to imagine where that artist would be without the radio. Did you imagine sitting in the parents' garage wishing they could be heard by more than their nearest neighbors? Because that is where most recording artists would be without the radio. Radio is, essentially, free advertising for people trying to sell CDs and concert tickets, and it is free advertising that reaches millions of people. The RIAA should be paying the radio stations for this service.
But wait, it still gets better!
It is actually illegal for the RIAA to pay radio stations for this service. Why is it illegal? It's illegal because the RIAA (and the artists) depend so heavily on radio play for the money they earn that it is considered cheating for them to "bribe" a station into putting a particular artist or song into higher rotation. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is so obvious and demonstrated that the RIAA depends on radio play that someone actually had to pass laws to prevent the RIAA from paying the stations and now the RIAA actually believes it's in a position to be paid instead. This is an association that is so out of touch with reality, even these taxes couldn't pay the long distance bill to make contact.
I've said it before and they insist on continuing to prove me right: the RIAA would rather steal and tax your money than earn it. They are not a business model, they're a mafia and they deserve to be treated as such. If there is any industry in this country that should go under in these times, it's the RIAA. If only we could be so lucky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)