Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS](and SCIENCE) NASA Plans Lunar Outpost

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 12/5/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > The only way I see to fix this is very radical. It might even happen if
> > we end up in dire enough economic straits. I have posted before that the
> > best idea I have had on the subject of getting rid of corporate
> > influence is the exotic-sounding combination of:
> >
> > a) disallowing all non-individual spending for politicial reasons
> > (except for the designated political campaign of a candidate, which will
> > be forced to do disclose the provider of every dollar they receive.
>
> Will this require a constitutional amendment because it can be seen as a
> restriction of free speech?

How could it be? Individual donations would be uncapped in my system.
The disenfranchising corporations part probably does require an
amendment, given the Supreme Court rulings on the subject. Also,
individuals can spend their own money to make their own political
statements (sorry I left that out). What is forbidden is to create
speech rights for non-individuals; that's where many of the problems
occur. Other problems are contributions from interest groups to
candidates.

> > b) canning the corporate income tax.
>
> OK, but I think you mean that you want to shift the taxes from corporate
> income to some other source.  What source would that be?

The only people who get to vote, run for public office, and make
contributions to political campaigns. Income and consumption and
estate taxes are fine sources of revenue. Corporate income is more of
an accounting fiction, anyway.

> How much revenue
> do corporate income taxes generate per annum?  Maybe it is a good idea if
> the current revenue stream is weak and the effect on other things is
> enough to compensate.

The revenue stream is actually not weak, and we would have to raise
(top) rates and rates on dividends and capital gains to make this
work. But we're going to end up doing that anyway.

> > c) passing the constitutional amendment that undoes the precedent of
> > corporations having the rights of US citizens.
>
> Does that require an amendment?  Anyway, sounds like a good idea.  Why
> will it be hard to get this done?  It must be hard because we haven't done
> it.

Constitutional amendments are very hard to pass, even when the causes
are very popular. In this case, I'm guessing you might be able to get
one in that would abolish corporate taxes, restrain the legal
abilities of corporations to do various things, and assert that free
speech rights belong solely to individual people. The business
community would be very hard-pressed to object, so you might be able
to get it through.

> > Clearly, it's a long shot, but you might just get there if the
> > situation here gets really bad.
>
> Who can you get on your team?  Is any of this even on the radar screen in
> Congress?

Not now. You really do need a major economic disaster to bring this
up. (In bad times, corporate income taxes evaporate, which would make
the thing easier to pass then.)

> > Within six months, I expect we will be in a fairly serious recession.
> > Factory orders are way down, the real estate market is really starting
> > to tank, and the debt loads of individuals have gotten to the point
> > where the slightest hint of a downturn will be self-reinforcing. I think
> > there is a 50% chance that the combined (including off-budget) deficit
> > for FY 2008 will approach $US 1 trillion. Really, I'm seeing data that
> > suggests that the situation will be completely brutal.
>
> Brutal -- just want GWB wanted.

Hardly. It becomes increasingly difficult for him to get anything he
wants as it is. If his opinion numbers dip into the 20s, he would be
hard-pressed to stay in office. Bush wasn't really ever in the "starve
the beast" camp, anyway. Look at the Farm Bill.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion