War . . . Then Peace
READ: Luke 23:32-43
The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. —Philippians 4:7On December 7, 1941, a Japanese war plane piloted by Mitsuo Fuchida took off from the aircraft carrier Akagi. Fuchida led the surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Through the war years to follow, Fuchida continued to fly—often narrowly escaping death. At war’s end, he was disillusioned and bitter.
A few years later, he heard a story that piqued his spiritual curiosity: A Christian young woman whose parents had been killed by the Japanese during the war decided to minister to Japanese prisoners. Impressed, Fuchida began reading the Bible.
As he read Jesus’ words from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34), he understood how that woman could show kindness to her enemies. That day Fuchida gave his heart to Christ.
Becoming a lay preacher and evangelist to his fellow citizens, this former warrior demonstrated “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” (Phil. 4:7)—a peace enjoyed by those who have trusted Christ and who “let [their] requests be made known to God” (v.6).
Have you found this peace? No matter what you have gone through, God makes it available to you. — Dennis Fisher
There is peace in midst of turmoil,
There is joy when eyes are dim,
There is perfect understanding
When we leave it all to Him. —Brown
True peace is not the absence of war; it is the presence of God. —Loveless
Monday, December 7, 2009
What I Read Today - Monday December 7, 2009
Pearl Harbor Day
NOTE: In this article Friedman quotes from an interview that Walter Cronkite had with JFK on 9/2/1963. You can read the transcript of the entire interview at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9388
From the NY Times
December 6, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
May It All Come True
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
President Obama certainly showed leadership mettle in going against his own party’s base and ordering a troop surge into Afghanistan. He is going to have to be even more tough-minded, though, to make sure his policy is properly executed.
I’ve already explained why I oppose this escalation. But since the decision has been made — and I do not want my country to fail or the Obama presidency to sink in Afghanistan — here are some thoughts on how to reduce the chances that this ends badly. Let’s start by recalling an insight that President John F. Kennedy shared in a Sept. 2, 1963, interview with Walter Cronkite:
Cronkite: “Mr. President, the only hot war we’ve got running at the moment is, of course, the one in Vietnam, and we have our difficulties there.”
Kennedy: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the [Vietnamese] government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them; we can give them equipment; we can send our men out there as advisers. But they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don’t think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort and, in my opinion, in the last two months, the [Vietnamese] government has gotten out of touch with the people. ...”
Cronkite: “Do you think this government still has time to regain the support of the people?”
Kennedy: “I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel I think it can. If it doesn’t make those changes, the chances of winning it would not be very good.”
What J.F.K. understood, what L.B.J. lost sight of, and what B.H.O. can’t afford to forget, is that in the end it’s not about how many troops we send or deadlines we set. It is all about our Afghan partners. Afghanistan has gone into a tailspin largely because President Hamid Karzai’s government became dysfunctional and massively corrupt — focused more on extracting revenues for private gain than on governing. That is why too many Afghans who cheered Karzai’s arrival in 2001 have now actually welcomed Taliban security and justice.
“In 2001, most Afghan people looked to the United States not only as a potential mentor but as a model for successful democracy,” Pashtoon Atif, a former aid worker from Kandahar, recently wrote in The Los Angeles Times. “What we got instead was a free-for-all in which our leaders profited outrageously and unapologetically from a wealth of foreign aid coupled with a dearth of regulations.”
Therefore, our primary goal has to be to build — with Karzai — an Afghan government that is “decent enough” to earn the loyalty of the Afghan people, so a critical mass of them will feel “ownership” of it and therefore be ready to fight to protect it. Because only then will there be a “self-sustaining” Afghan Army and state so we can begin to get out by the president’s July 2011 deadline — without leaving behind a bloodbath.
Focus on those key words: “decent enough,” “ownership” and “self-sustaining.” Without minimally decent government, Afghans will not take ownership. If they don’t take ownership, they won’t fight for it. And if they won’t fight for it on their own, whatever progress we make will not be self-sustaining. It will just collapse when we leave.
But here is what worries me: The president’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said flatly: “This can’t be nation-building.” And the president told a columnists’ lunch on Tuesday that he wants to avoid “mission creep” that takes on “nation-building in Afghanistan.”
I am sorry: This is only nation-building. You can’t train an Afghan Army and police force to replace our troops if you have no basic state they feel is worth fighting for. But that will require a transformation by Karzai, starting with the dismissal of his most corrupt aides and installing officials Afghans can trust.
This surge also depends, the president indicated, on Pakistan ending its obsession with India. That obsession has led Pakistan to support the Taliban to control Afghanistan as part of its “strategic depth” vis-à-vis India. Pakistan fights the Taliban who attack it, but nurtures the Taliban who want to control Afghanistan. So we now need this fragile Pakistan to stop looking for strategic depth against India in Afghanistan and to start building strategic depth at home, by reviving its economy and school system and preventing jihadists from taking over there.
That is why Mr. Obama is going to have to make sure, every day, that Karzai doesn’t weasel out of reform or Pakistan wiggle out of shutting down Taliban sanctuaries or the allies wimp out on helping us. To put it succinctly: This only has a chance to work if Karzai becomes a new man, if Pakistan becomes a new country and if we actually succeed at something the president says we won’t be doing at all: nation-building in Afghanistan. Yikes!
For America’s sake, may it all come true.
NOTE: In this article Friedman quotes from an interview that Walter Cronkite had with JFK on 9/2/1963. You can read the transcript of the entire interview at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9388
From the NY Times
December 6, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
May It All Come True
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
President Obama certainly showed leadership mettle in going against his own party’s base and ordering a troop surge into Afghanistan. He is going to have to be even more tough-minded, though, to make sure his policy is properly executed.
I’ve already explained why I oppose this escalation. But since the decision has been made — and I do not want my country to fail or the Obama presidency to sink in Afghanistan — here are some thoughts on how to reduce the chances that this ends badly. Let’s start by recalling an insight that President John F. Kennedy shared in a Sept. 2, 1963, interview with Walter Cronkite:
Cronkite: “Mr. President, the only hot war we’ve got running at the moment is, of course, the one in Vietnam, and we have our difficulties there.”
Kennedy: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the [Vietnamese] government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them; we can give them equipment; we can send our men out there as advisers. But they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don’t think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort and, in my opinion, in the last two months, the [Vietnamese] government has gotten out of touch with the people. ...”
Cronkite: “Do you think this government still has time to regain the support of the people?”
Kennedy: “I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel I think it can. If it doesn’t make those changes, the chances of winning it would not be very good.”
What J.F.K. understood, what L.B.J. lost sight of, and what B.H.O. can’t afford to forget, is that in the end it’s not about how many troops we send or deadlines we set. It is all about our Afghan partners. Afghanistan has gone into a tailspin largely because President Hamid Karzai’s government became dysfunctional and massively corrupt — focused more on extracting revenues for private gain than on governing. That is why too many Afghans who cheered Karzai’s arrival in 2001 have now actually welcomed Taliban security and justice.
“In 2001, most Afghan people looked to the United States not only as a potential mentor but as a model for successful democracy,” Pashtoon Atif, a former aid worker from Kandahar, recently wrote in The Los Angeles Times. “What we got instead was a free-for-all in which our leaders profited outrageously and unapologetically from a wealth of foreign aid coupled with a dearth of regulations.”
Therefore, our primary goal has to be to build — with Karzai — an Afghan government that is “decent enough” to earn the loyalty of the Afghan people, so a critical mass of them will feel “ownership” of it and therefore be ready to fight to protect it. Because only then will there be a “self-sustaining” Afghan Army and state so we can begin to get out by the president’s July 2011 deadline — without leaving behind a bloodbath.
Focus on those key words: “decent enough,” “ownership” and “self-sustaining.” Without minimally decent government, Afghans will not take ownership. If they don’t take ownership, they won’t fight for it. And if they won’t fight for it on their own, whatever progress we make will not be self-sustaining. It will just collapse when we leave.
But here is what worries me: The president’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said flatly: “This can’t be nation-building.” And the president told a columnists’ lunch on Tuesday that he wants to avoid “mission creep” that takes on “nation-building in Afghanistan.”
I am sorry: This is only nation-building. You can’t train an Afghan Army and police force to replace our troops if you have no basic state they feel is worth fighting for. But that will require a transformation by Karzai, starting with the dismissal of his most corrupt aides and installing officials Afghans can trust.
This surge also depends, the president indicated, on Pakistan ending its obsession with India. That obsession has led Pakistan to support the Taliban to control Afghanistan as part of its “strategic depth” vis-à-vis India. Pakistan fights the Taliban who attack it, but nurtures the Taliban who want to control Afghanistan. So we now need this fragile Pakistan to stop looking for strategic depth against India in Afghanistan and to start building strategic depth at home, by reviving its economy and school system and preventing jihadists from taking over there.
That is why Mr. Obama is going to have to make sure, every day, that Karzai doesn’t weasel out of reform or Pakistan wiggle out of shutting down Taliban sanctuaries or the allies wimp out on helping us. To put it succinctly: This only has a chance to work if Karzai becomes a new man, if Pakistan becomes a new country and if we actually succeed at something the president says we won’t be doing at all: nation-building in Afghanistan. Yikes!
For America’s sake, may it all come true.
Friday, December 4, 2009
What I Read Today - Friday December 4, 2009
From: Our Daily Bread
What You Can Do
READ: Ephesians 3:14-21
[I pray that] He would grant you . . . to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man. —Ephesians 3:16Are you getting what you want out of life? Or do you feel that the economy, your government, your circumstances, or other outside factors are robbing you of value and joy?
Recently, a polling agency asked 1,000 people what they most desired in their lives. One fascinating result was that 90 percent of Bible-believing Christians said that they wanted these outcomes: a close relationship with God, a clear purpose in life, a high degree of integrity, and a deep commitment to the faith.
Notice that these heartfelt desires are all things we as individuals can do something about without outside human help. No government program will assist here, and tough economic times cannot steal these ideals. These life goals are achieved as we allow God’s Word to rule in our hearts and as we receive the Spirit’s strength to build up “the inner man” (Eph. 3:16), resulting in true joy.
In our complicated world, it’s tempting to put our quest for what we desire into the hands of others—to expect an outside entity to fulfill our desires. While we sometimes need help, and we cannot live in isolation, it’s not outside sources that provide true happiness. That comes from within—from letting Christ be at home in our hearts (v.17). — Dave Branon
Holy Spirit, all divine,
Dwell within this heart of mine;
Cast down every idol throne,
Reign supreme and reign alone. —Reed
If a troubled world gets you down, look up to Jesus.
What You Can Do
READ: Ephesians 3:14-21
[I pray that] He would grant you . . . to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man. —Ephesians 3:16Are you getting what you want out of life? Or do you feel that the economy, your government, your circumstances, or other outside factors are robbing you of value and joy?
Recently, a polling agency asked 1,000 people what they most desired in their lives. One fascinating result was that 90 percent of Bible-believing Christians said that they wanted these outcomes: a close relationship with God, a clear purpose in life, a high degree of integrity, and a deep commitment to the faith.
Notice that these heartfelt desires are all things we as individuals can do something about without outside human help. No government program will assist here, and tough economic times cannot steal these ideals. These life goals are achieved as we allow God’s Word to rule in our hearts and as we receive the Spirit’s strength to build up “the inner man” (Eph. 3:16), resulting in true joy.
In our complicated world, it’s tempting to put our quest for what we desire into the hands of others—to expect an outside entity to fulfill our desires. While we sometimes need help, and we cannot live in isolation, it’s not outside sources that provide true happiness. That comes from within—from letting Christ be at home in our hearts (v.17). — Dave Branon
Holy Spirit, all divine,
Dwell within this heart of mine;
Cast down every idol throne,
Reign supreme and reign alone. —Reed
If a troubled world gets you down, look up to Jesus.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
What I Read Today - Thursday December 3, 2009
From: Our Daily Bread
Finding Jesus
READ: Romans 8:27-39
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? —Romans 8:32After someone stole a valuable ceramic figurine of Baby Jesus from a nativity scene in Wellington, Florida, officials took action to keep thieves from succeeding again. An Associated Press report described how they placed a GPS tracking device inside the replacement figurine. When Baby Jesus disappeared again the next Christmas, sheriff’s deputies were led by the signal to the thief’s apartment.
There are times when difficult circumstances or personal loss can cause us to feel that Christ has been stolen from our Christmas. How can we find Jesus when life seems to be working against us?
Like a spiritual GPS, Romans 8 guides us to God’s never-failing love and presence with us. We read that the Holy Spirit helps us in our weaknesses and intercedes for us (v.27). We know that God is for us (v.31). And we have this grand assurance: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (v.32). Finally, we are reminded that nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus (vv.38-39).
Look for Jesus in the manger, on the cross, risen from the dead, and in our hearts. That’s where we can find Jesus at Christmas. — David C. McCasland
But what to those who find? Ah, this
Nor tongue nor pen can show,
The love of Jesus, what it is
None but His loved ones know. —Bernard of Clairvaux
If we focus only on Christmas, we might lose sight of Christ.
Finding Jesus
READ: Romans 8:27-39
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? —Romans 8:32After someone stole a valuable ceramic figurine of Baby Jesus from a nativity scene in Wellington, Florida, officials took action to keep thieves from succeeding again. An Associated Press report described how they placed a GPS tracking device inside the replacement figurine. When Baby Jesus disappeared again the next Christmas, sheriff’s deputies were led by the signal to the thief’s apartment.
There are times when difficult circumstances or personal loss can cause us to feel that Christ has been stolen from our Christmas. How can we find Jesus when life seems to be working against us?
Like a spiritual GPS, Romans 8 guides us to God’s never-failing love and presence with us. We read that the Holy Spirit helps us in our weaknesses and intercedes for us (v.27). We know that God is for us (v.31). And we have this grand assurance: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (v.32). Finally, we are reminded that nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus (vv.38-39).
Look for Jesus in the manger, on the cross, risen from the dead, and in our hearts. That’s where we can find Jesus at Christmas. — David C. McCasland
But what to those who find? Ah, this
Nor tongue nor pen can show,
The love of Jesus, what it is
None but His loved ones know. —Bernard of Clairvaux
If we focus only on Christmas, we might lose sight of Christ.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What I Read Today - Wednesday December 2, 2009
From: The New York Times
Op-Ed ColumnistThis I Believe
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place. Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan.
I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side. At a lunch on Tuesday for opinion writers, the president lucidly argued that opting for a surge now to help Afghans rebuild their army and state into something decent — to win the allegiance of the Afghan people — offered the only hope of creating an “inflection point,” a game changer, to bring long-term stability to that region. May it be so. What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there are — Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work.
But here is the broader context in which I assess all this: My own foreign policy thinking since 9/11 has been based on four pillars:
1. The Warren Buffett principle: Everything I’ve ever gotten in life is largely due to the fact that I was born in this country, America, at this time with these opportunities for its citizens. It is the primary obligation of our generation to turn over a similar America to our kids.
2. Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot of big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic stabilizing role in the world. If you didn’t like a world of too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-America — where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules.
3. The context within which people live their lives shapes everything — from their political outlook to their religious one. The reason there are so many frustrated and angry people in the Arab-Muslim world, lashing out first at their own governments and secondarily at us — and volunteering for “martyrdom” — is because of the context within which they live their lives. That was best summarized by the U.N.’s Arab Human Development reports as a context dominated by three deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of education and a deficit of women’s empowerment. The reason India, with the world’s second-largest population of Muslims, has a thriving Muslim minority (albeit with grievances but with no prisoners in Guantánamo Bay) is because of the context of pluralism and democracy it has built at home.
4. One of the main reasons the Arab-Muslim world has been so resistant to internally driven political reform is because vast oil reserves allow its regimes to become permanently ensconced in power, by just capturing the oil tap, and then using the money to fund vast security and intelligence networks that quash any popular movement. Look at Iran.
Hence, post-9/11 I advocated that our politicians find sufficient courage to hike gasoline taxes and seriously commit ourselves to developing alternatives to oil. Economists agree that this would ultimately bring down the global price, and slowly deprive these regimes of the sole funding source that allows them to maintain their authoritarian societies. People do not change when we tell them they should; they change when their context tells them they must.
To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — write their own social contract for how to live together without an iron fist from above. Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and hugely painful. The mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-building in Afghanistan. It does me.
Still, the Iraq war may give birth to something important — if Iraqis can find that self-sustaining formula to live together. Alas, that is still in doubt. If they can, the model would have a huge impact on the Arab world. Baghdad is a great Arab capital. If Iraqis fail, it’s religious strife, economic decline and authoritarianism as far as the eye can see — the witch’s brew that spawns terrorists.
Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.
To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I believe. That is why I believe it.
Op-Ed ColumnistThis I Believe
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place. Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan.
I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side. At a lunch on Tuesday for opinion writers, the president lucidly argued that opting for a surge now to help Afghans rebuild their army and state into something decent — to win the allegiance of the Afghan people — offered the only hope of creating an “inflection point,” a game changer, to bring long-term stability to that region. May it be so. What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there are — Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work.
But here is the broader context in which I assess all this: My own foreign policy thinking since 9/11 has been based on four pillars:
1. The Warren Buffett principle: Everything I’ve ever gotten in life is largely due to the fact that I was born in this country, America, at this time with these opportunities for its citizens. It is the primary obligation of our generation to turn over a similar America to our kids.
2. Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot of big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic stabilizing role in the world. If you didn’t like a world of too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-America — where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules.
3. The context within which people live their lives shapes everything — from their political outlook to their religious one. The reason there are so many frustrated and angry people in the Arab-Muslim world, lashing out first at their own governments and secondarily at us — and volunteering for “martyrdom” — is because of the context within which they live their lives. That was best summarized by the U.N.’s Arab Human Development reports as a context dominated by three deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of education and a deficit of women’s empowerment. The reason India, with the world’s second-largest population of Muslims, has a thriving Muslim minority (albeit with grievances but with no prisoners in Guantánamo Bay) is because of the context of pluralism and democracy it has built at home.
4. One of the main reasons the Arab-Muslim world has been so resistant to internally driven political reform is because vast oil reserves allow its regimes to become permanently ensconced in power, by just capturing the oil tap, and then using the money to fund vast security and intelligence networks that quash any popular movement. Look at Iran.
Hence, post-9/11 I advocated that our politicians find sufficient courage to hike gasoline taxes and seriously commit ourselves to developing alternatives to oil. Economists agree that this would ultimately bring down the global price, and slowly deprive these regimes of the sole funding source that allows them to maintain their authoritarian societies. People do not change when we tell them they should; they change when their context tells them they must.
To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — write their own social contract for how to live together without an iron fist from above. Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and hugely painful. The mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-building in Afghanistan. It does me.
Still, the Iraq war may give birth to something important — if Iraqis can find that self-sustaining formula to live together. Alas, that is still in doubt. If they can, the model would have a huge impact on the Arab world. Baghdad is a great Arab capital. If Iraqis fail, it’s religious strife, economic decline and authoritarianism as far as the eye can see — the witch’s brew that spawns terrorists.
Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.
To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I believe. That is why I believe it.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
more of What I Read Today - Tuesday December 1, 2009
From: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ (The Tax Policy Center)
and then to their taxvox blog
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_trackback/4394671
Happy Act: The Poster Puppy for What's Wrong with the Tax Code
by Howard Gleckman on Tue 01 Dec 2009 04:12 PM EST
Nothing I have written in more than two years at TaxVox has attracted more attention than my August, 2009 piece on the Happy Act. This bill, sponsored by Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), would allow people to deduct up to $3,500 from their taxes to subsidize the cost of, no kidding, pet care.
The issue has since gone viral. TaxVox has received dozens of comments—most of which strongly support the bill but a few that see it as just about the dumbest idea in the world. Over the weekend, the Sunday supplement Parade magazine published a piece. USA Today has written about it and the ASPCA recently asked its members to write their representatives in support of the bill.
I am the owner of, you’ll pardon the expression, a very happy dog we rescued about four years ago. She brings us great joy. There is absolutely no way the government should be subsidizing this joy.
The Happy Act is, in fact, the poster puppy for all that is wrong with the tax code. It is the most ridiculous use of tax dollars to promote social policy I can imagine. It will add billions of dollars to an already out-of-control budget deficit. Other than that, it is a terrific idea.
To understand why the Happy Act is so wrong-headed, consider the following:
First, Americans will spend more than $45 billion this year on their dogs, cats, and iguanas, according to the pet products industry. Remarkably, only about 5 percent will be to buy the animals. And only about one-quarter will be spent on vet services. The rest goes to food, clothes, toys and other supplies, and grooming and boarding.
Second, the revenue loss to the Treasury of targeted tax subsidies like the Happy Act—what are usually called tax expenditures—will soon exceed $1 trillion-a-year, according to TPC. These are no different from government spending, except that many Americans somehow feel better thinking of them as tax cuts. And most are well-intentioned efforts to improve access to health care, savings, housing, and the like. The trouble is, they are almost always a very inefficient use of dollars and often lead to nasty unintended consequences.
Third, the budget deficit this year is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion. The Happy Act would give away more money we don’t have.
And there is something else to keep in mind. With tax subsidies will inevitably come regulation. Just imagine:
What is a qualified pet? Should allegedly dangerous dogs such as pit bulls be eligible. How about animals some consider endangered?
What owners should get the deduction? The tax break won’t help those who take only the standard deduction, and even among itemizers, high-income families would get a much bigger tax break than those with lower incomes. And it won't do a thing for most people who are at risk of giving up pets because they lose their jobs. If you make no money, you pay no tax, and deductions do you no good.
And how about those who rescue dogs? Shouldn’t they get a bigger subsidy than those who spend thousands of dollars on some purebread? And what about people who abuse their pets? Tax subsidies will only help them acquire more. Do we want the IRS checking on how we treat Fido?
The Happy Act may be the best reason I know to toss out these targeted tax breaks with the kitty litter and use the money to reduce tax rates and cut the deficit. Lower rates allow taxpayers to decide what they want to do with their money, without government interference. We—and our pets—would all be better off that way.
and then to their taxvox blog
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_trackback/4394671
Happy Act: The Poster Puppy for What's Wrong with the Tax Code
by Howard Gleckman on Tue 01 Dec 2009 04:12 PM EST
Nothing I have written in more than two years at TaxVox has attracted more attention than my August, 2009 piece on the Happy Act. This bill, sponsored by Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), would allow people to deduct up to $3,500 from their taxes to subsidize the cost of, no kidding, pet care.
The issue has since gone viral. TaxVox has received dozens of comments—most of which strongly support the bill but a few that see it as just about the dumbest idea in the world. Over the weekend, the Sunday supplement Parade magazine published a piece. USA Today has written about it and the ASPCA recently asked its members to write their representatives in support of the bill.
I am the owner of, you’ll pardon the expression, a very happy dog we rescued about four years ago. She brings us great joy. There is absolutely no way the government should be subsidizing this joy.
The Happy Act is, in fact, the poster puppy for all that is wrong with the tax code. It is the most ridiculous use of tax dollars to promote social policy I can imagine. It will add billions of dollars to an already out-of-control budget deficit. Other than that, it is a terrific idea.
To understand why the Happy Act is so wrong-headed, consider the following:
First, Americans will spend more than $45 billion this year on their dogs, cats, and iguanas, according to the pet products industry. Remarkably, only about 5 percent will be to buy the animals. And only about one-quarter will be spent on vet services. The rest goes to food, clothes, toys and other supplies, and grooming and boarding.
Second, the revenue loss to the Treasury of targeted tax subsidies like the Happy Act—what are usually called tax expenditures—will soon exceed $1 trillion-a-year, according to TPC. These are no different from government spending, except that many Americans somehow feel better thinking of them as tax cuts. And most are well-intentioned efforts to improve access to health care, savings, housing, and the like. The trouble is, they are almost always a very inefficient use of dollars and often lead to nasty unintended consequences.
Third, the budget deficit this year is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion. The Happy Act would give away more money we don’t have.
And there is something else to keep in mind. With tax subsidies will inevitably come regulation. Just imagine:
What is a qualified pet? Should allegedly dangerous dogs such as pit bulls be eligible. How about animals some consider endangered?
What owners should get the deduction? The tax break won’t help those who take only the standard deduction, and even among itemizers, high-income families would get a much bigger tax break than those with lower incomes. And it won't do a thing for most people who are at risk of giving up pets because they lose their jobs. If you make no money, you pay no tax, and deductions do you no good.
And how about those who rescue dogs? Shouldn’t they get a bigger subsidy than those who spend thousands of dollars on some purebread? And what about people who abuse their pets? Tax subsidies will only help them acquire more. Do we want the IRS checking on how we treat Fido?
The Happy Act may be the best reason I know to toss out these targeted tax breaks with the kitty litter and use the money to reduce tax rates and cut the deficit. Lower rates allow taxpayers to decide what they want to do with their money, without government interference. We—and our pets—would all be better off that way.
What I Read Today - Tuesday December 1, 2009
From: Our Daily Bread
The Best Of Gifts
READ: John 1:10-13
Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! —2 Corinthians 9:15Having trouble selecting that perfect gift for someone? A friend shared with me a few suggestions:
• The gift of listening. No interrupting, no planning your response. Just listening.
• The gift of affection. Being generous with appropriate hugs, kisses, and pats on the back.
• The gift of laughter. Sharing funny stories and jokes. Your gift will say, “I love to laugh with you.”
• The gift of a written note. Expressing in a brief, handwritten note your appreciation or affection.
• The gift of a compliment. Sincerely saying, “You look great today” or “You are special” can bring a smile.
But as we begin this special month of celebration, why not pass on the best gift you’ve ever received? Share the fact that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:23). Or share this verse from John 1:12, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” Remind others that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
The best gift of all is Jesus Christ. “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (2 Cor. 9:15). — Cindy Hess Kasper
The greatest Gift that has ever been given
Is Jesus Christ who was sent down from heaven.
This Gift can be yours if you will believe;
Trust Him as Savior, and new life receive. —Hess
The best gift was found in a manger.
The Best Of Gifts
READ: John 1:10-13
Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! —2 Corinthians 9:15Having trouble selecting that perfect gift for someone? A friend shared with me a few suggestions:
• The gift of listening. No interrupting, no planning your response. Just listening.
• The gift of affection. Being generous with appropriate hugs, kisses, and pats on the back.
• The gift of laughter. Sharing funny stories and jokes. Your gift will say, “I love to laugh with you.”
• The gift of a written note. Expressing in a brief, handwritten note your appreciation or affection.
• The gift of a compliment. Sincerely saying, “You look great today” or “You are special” can bring a smile.
But as we begin this special month of celebration, why not pass on the best gift you’ve ever received? Share the fact that “the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:23). Or share this verse from John 1:12, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” Remind others that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
The best gift of all is Jesus Christ. “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (2 Cor. 9:15). — Cindy Hess Kasper
The greatest Gift that has ever been given
Is Jesus Christ who was sent down from heaven.
This Gift can be yours if you will believe;
Trust Him as Savior, and new life receive. —Hess
The best gift was found in a manger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)