Today's Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article ($ub reqd) about how difficult it has been for Atlanta to build a 5th runway in it's airport.
What really interested me was something I read at the end of the story. The airport estimates that traffic demands will require 6 runway capacity in the next 15 years, yet it is almost impossible to build the 6th runway at the airport. And here's what I found out in the article that I didn't know -- Atlanta owns 2 10,000 acre tracts, one in Dawson County and one in Paulding County.
Do the people in Dawson and Paulding know that? I would guess I-20 could handle the capacity in Paudling, but can an already strained Ga 400 handle a new airport in Dawsonville?
Tomorrow is probably the last day I'll be driving to work for a while. I had already planned on riding MARTA in September (just need to buy a card) and sometime in October I'll be moving directly accross from a transit station so I'd be crazy not to then.
According to the Wall Street Journal, close to 15% of the US's gasoline supply is threatened because of the Katrina damage and aftermath. That's about evenly split between oil imports through New Orleans area ports and oil producers located in the region. That means we'll almost certainly be seeing $3 gas in the Atlanta area (regardless of whether our ability to obtain the gas is threatened, which it currently is).
Here's what will probably happen: Gas prices will rise to $3 or even higher and demand will not cool. After all, energy conservation is a sign of personal virtue but not public policy. What happens next is that the market will probably not cool down. If the suppliers determine that people are just as willing to pay $3 or $3.50 or $4 per gallon as they were back when gas was $1, what incentive do they have to lower prices?
The only solution to this problem ultimately will be for drastic changes. On the personal level, that means transportation alternatives (subway, bus, carpool, driving less) and on the political level that means a new focus on energy alternatives, increased fuel efficiency and leadership that's willing to actually lead instead of look out for it's buddies by enforcing the status quo at all costs.
With elections approaching this year and next, every single incumbent should be worried.
For my HBO subscribing readers, This is poor television criticism. Entourage is as good or better than the Larry Sanders Show was during its prime (both shows featured Jeremy Piven) and the five suggestions that are made are all either awful (#1) or indicate that while the reviewer may have seen the episodes, she's not really watching them (#2, #3).
One of the most absurd arguments in favor of increasing sales taxes to fund education is the idea that tourists and people driving through the state will be paying for our children's education instead of us. I can't find an exact number for Georgia, but I'd estimate that tourism brings in somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 billion annually.
At an extra 3% of tax revenue, that's a net benefit of $450 million a year. That's not that much -- it's about the amount of money that Gwinnett County currently raises in property taxes. But here's the kicker, unless I (and other Georgians) go on vacation in Georgia, every tourism dollar we spend in other states is subtracted from education funding.
Now, maybe Georgia has more people vacationing here than it has residents vacationing in other states. I can't claim to know. But it would be foolish to count the money people from other states are spending here without acknowledging that a lot of it is offset when Georgians shop in other states.
And if I live in Dalton, Valdosta, Augusta, Hartwell, Columbus or any other town near the border, you better believe I'd go to a neighboring state (with a lower sales tax rate) to purchase a television or similarly high ticket item. And if I were a Best Buy or Circuit City and I had a choice of locating a new store in a Georgia border town or a neighboring state, I'd pick the neighboring state.
At another date, I'll go into some other bones I've got to pick. One is the idea that only "property owners" pay property taxes. I currently rent an apartment from Post properties (I'm buying soon) and what do you know, I looked at their annual report and they pay a substantial amount of property taxes. According to conservatives, businesses don't really pay corporate taxes, they pass it on to their customers. Well, if that's true, don't landlords just pass on property taxes to their tenants? Renters in particular could get hit hard by a shift in property taxes. If their landlords no longer have to pay them, do you really think they'll pass on the savings to those who rent? Not likely.
Another simple math problem: When I move into my condo, I'll probably be paying around $1,800/year in school related property taxes. If, as the AJC article suggests, I could see my property taxes cut by 2/3, that would mean for funding to stay the same (really it needs to be increased for much of Georgia) I'd have to pull in $1,200 of extra sales tax revenue for the state. At a 3% rate, I'd have to spend $40,000 a year at the cash register. In actuality I spend closer to $20,000 (that's a high estimate), so really you'd need a 6% rate, and to eliminate all school related property taxes (which is what voters would demand) it would have to be closer to 9%. And then because I'd be spending so much extra on taxes, I'd really only be spending about $18,000/year now, which would require a 10% rate to raise the necessary money to eliminate my property taxes. Add on the fact that I'd lose my federal tax deduction for property taxes paid (and could see the value of my condo collapse) and the real rate would be closer to 12 or 13%.
So lets see, we'd see DeKalb sales taxes go from 7% to 20%. Sounds like a real good deal, especially if I needed to purchase a new car, television, computer, etc. Kudos to Mark Taylor for coming out against this latest Republican scam which will either lead to drastically higher taxes, enormous cuts to education funding (when our schools are already last in the nation) or more likely: both.
With the recent tragedy involving DUI in the news, it is worth remembering how many people have their own struggles with alcohol abuse, whether it is their own (or a family member's) DUI or other drug or alcohol related violation of the law, or a loved one's battle with drug or alcohol addiction.
In addition, many Georgians don't yet have a DUI merely because they haven't been caught or gotten into an accident while driving intoxicated. People drive while under the influence every day -- taxi's are too expensive, public transportation alternatives don't exist in their area, etc. The excuses are many and impossible to justify in hindsight if something terrible happens but often are easily justified nonetheless because even when impaired most people know the odds of something going wrong are slim.
The simple fact is that most parents of 21 year olds assume (and are probably right) that their children drink quite frequently. Most parents of 17 year olds probably have kids that drink, yet few acknowledge it in a way that is constructive -- the ones that do either instill such a fear of getting caught that their kids would never admit to it even when it could mean the difference between driving themselves home or calling for a ride, and on the other side you have a tendency to dismiss this behavior as "kids will be kids."
The very public ordeal of one Georgia family presents an opportunity for many other Georgia familes to get real and discuss an issue that must of us only discuss after something has gone wrong. Parents that want to be their children's best friend instead of their parents have an obligation to acknowledge that a 17 year old is not the same as a 21 year old. Others need to let their children know that getting a call that says they need a ride because it isn't safe for them to drive is seen as a sign of maturity and not a prerequisite to punishment. And still the rest of us can do more to make sure that an acquaintance who has had a little too much doesn't drive home anyway. We have an obligation not to turn a blind eye simply because it would inconvenience ourselves or our friends and family members.
As a reminder not to put too much stock in polls taken this far away from an election, here are the results of some polls conducted leading up to the 1998 Governor's election here:
GSU Statewide Poll taken Oct, 1997:
Guy Millner (R) 37
Lewis Massey (D) 35
Lewis Massey (D) 37
Mike Bowers (R) 35
Guy Millner (R) 42
Roy Barnes (D) 29
Mike Bowers (R) 37
Roy Barnes (D) 29
So Barnes, the eventual winner, didn't even get above 30% a little over a year before the election. Millner, who had run statewide twice in the previous 3 years, peaked at 42. Perdue, who ran statewide and has access to the media everyday, currently tops out around 52 or 53.
GSU Statewide Poll taken March, 1998:
Millner (R) 47
Massey (D) 29
Millner (R) 48
Barnes (D) 27
Massey (D) 34
Bowers (R) 32
Bowers (R) 34
Barnes (D) 31
I think it's funny that less than a year out from the election, the eventual Republican nominee was beating both leading Democrats by 20 points, and the conventional wisdom that year was that the Democrats were in big trouble (in reality Roy Barnes romped in both the primary and general election). Now, even further from the election, both Democratic candidates routinely poll in the 40's against an incumbent Republican governor and some people don't think Sonny's going to have a tough race? It's strange how the CW can shift.
The Political Vine reports that Republicans in Greg Morris's district won't necessarily take kindly to him just because he erased the D behind his name and penciled in an R. I'm not sure about that (I literally have no idea what the Republicans are like in HD 155) but I do know this: Over 7,000 voters in HD 155 voted in the Democratic primary, while less than 2,000 chose a Republican primary last July.
That means that the "default" primary in that area is still the Democratic one. My guess is that local offices are still heavily Democratic and only the very faithful vote in the Republican primary, which could be a problem for Greg Morris. You see, the district has trended Republican (Morris got less than 53% in 2004) but a majority of people in the district are just voting for the Democrat or Republican, not caring too much who that is.
However, in the Republican primary you've got the core activists who've had a target on Morris's back for years. And with all of the action being in the Democratic primary next year (for the Governor's race) the Republican primary might not include any non-activists in his district. Call it the Ann Purcell effect. She switched before the primary and was manhandled at the voting booth.
So Greg Morris is gone, and that's fine with me. Good luck to him. But if he switched simply to remain in the legislature, he might find that although it's hard to win the general election in his district as "the Democrat", it's near impossible to win the Republican primary as "Greg Morris".
Baseball fans know that the "Mendoza Line" is a batting average of about .200. It's a pretty bad average for an everyday player and if a player's average falls below that he's either in a slump or not going to make it in the Majors very long.
In honor of Paul Hackett, Democrats in Georgia and other places should make a serious effort to field candidates and work in districts similar to Hackett's. IIRC, Kerry got about 35% in the second district of Ohio, so Democrats in Georgia should draw a "Hackett line" at 35% and work towards future victory in those districts.
The good news is that Kerry's performance in many of these districts is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel. As you work your way up to local candidates, you'll find Congressional candidates doing better than Kerry, state legislative candidates besting Congressional dems, and finally Democratic county commissioners and sheriffs still getting elected by healthy margins in these "red" areas.
According to the latest Survey USA poll of Georgia, Bush's approval is down to 47-51 in Georgia. (The link is to a June poll, a tracking link on the same page shows the current results) While that doesn't spell trouble in general for Perdue or Georgia's Republican Congressmen, it may mean some districts could be 5 points better next year.
One of the secrets of the political trade is that campaign tactics really only tinker at the margins. A candidate that loses by 10 points one year might be able to squeak out a win the next time by running a more effective campaign, but for the most part you inherit a political landscape instead of creating it. That's especially true the further down the ballot you travel. With partisanship increasingly driving state legislative races, we have to be ready if Bush implodes (just by having candidates people can vote for) and even if he's just a drag on the ticket compared to 2004 (by actually running effective campaigns where we can win).
So, that's the theory of the Hackett Line. Let's get good candidates in every district we can conceivably win, and then run effective campaigns in those districts close enough where campaigns could be the deciding difference if the partisan winds happen to be blowing our way in November 2006.
I guess the onions in the Republican Party are more ripe than the Democratic ones, as Vidalia's Greg Morris is switching over to the GOP tomorrow. I'd always gotten the impression that Morris was at heart a Democrat and until recently even kind of enjoyed it. He was, afterall, Mark Taylor's floor leader in the House and even had it prominently displayed on his stationery.
I guess at some point for a lot of these guys it's more important to still be in office than remain true to yourself. It's too bad.
I highly recommend this Michael Kinsley article on the Fair Tax. A few things: He's right when he says it is impossible for everyone to pay lower taxes. Not unless we massively cut government spending, which this Republican Congress and President has shown isn't happening any time soon.
One of the arguments I hear quite frequently from fair tax proponents (including maybe President Bush) is that the rich don't pay their taxes anyway. That's a good populist critique of the current system, and in many cases it's true -- the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes. The trick (so far) of the fair taxers is that under their fair tax, the rich on average will pay much less in taxes than they do now. A few bad apples pay almost nothing in income taxes due to creative accounting, but the majority of the rich pay about 30% of their income in taxes. Some guy that makes $10 million a year doesn't spend it all, he sticks most of it in savings to pass on to his heirs. Maybe he spends $4 million in a big year -- he'd pay 30% on that $4 million instead of 30% on the whole $10 million. The point is, he'd be paying about $1.2 million in taxes in a year when he spends a lot of his income. Even with tax aversion, the average wealthy American is paying substantially more than 12% of their income in taxes now. Way to make the rich pay their taxes!
A few other things about the fair tax. In DeKalb County, when I buy something that costs $1, I pay 7 cents in tax. I call that 7%. The "Fair" taxers call that 6.5%. That's because they're using dishonest math. Here's a more extreme and relevant example.
They say the Fair Tax would be 23%. That means, when your total is $1.30, the merchant would pass on 23% of that cost as tax. 23% of $1.30 is 30 cents. But that's really like buying something that costs $1 today and paying a 30% tax and getting to $1.30. It would not suprise me if they are using similarly dishonest math to calculate the current tax burden of Americans in their book.
Now let me address another of the arguments of the fair tax -- that it would encourage saving. The savings rate in the United States is anemic. It's lower really than it's ever been, especially during a time of such relative prosperity. And yet, nobody saves. Well, the fair taxers envision a world where a tax on spending means that people would wisely not spend so much. But there's no proof this would happen. What's worse is that people who spend more than they earn would literally be taxed to death. If you think credit card borrowing is bad now, imagine tacking 30% onto every purchase. Someone that makes $20,000 and spends all of their money (on rent and living expenses) and goes into debt by an extra $10,000 that year would effectively pay a 35% income tax rate -- higher than even the rich pay now.
If you really want to encourage savings, there are plenty of good ideas out there. One good one is a tax credit for savings. At the end of the year, you report how much money you saved. It's easy to calculate -- how much money did you have in your bank accounts the year before and how much do you have now. If you saved money, and you fall below certain income thresholds (contrary to Republican talking points, the Paris Hiltons of the world don't need any help from the government putting aside a few million bucks) you get a tax credit you can put towards a savings account or IRA. Better yet, if conservatives are so worried about Ameicans saving money, force them to through withholding. I'd probably be against that idea on principle, but again, if they're so concerned, it's not like it's out of their means to do so.
And speaking of withholding, I think I'll finish on that. If the fair taxers think tax cheating is bad now, they should study the history of tax collection before automatic withholding was initiated. Mandated withholding is the only way to discourage widespread cheating, because lets face it when someone is taking up to 30% of your money the incentive to cheat is so great that even otherwise honest people will succumb to it.
Back to the rich -- remember when our friend Dennis Kozlowski had some expensive paintings shipped to a different address so he wouldn't have to pay taxes on them? Just imagine what kind of trickery Kozlowski and his ilk will be up to once the fair tax gets passed. Why do you ask that? Because one huge loophole that will aid those wily rich people who don't pay taxes now is this: "Businesses that sell to other businesses would have virtually no compliance costs since intermediate business-to-business sales are not taxed under the FairTax plan."
Hmm, so lets say that I'm the President of a large corporation. Right now I make $5 million a year and spend about $2 million on average on houses, cars, paintings, vacations, etc. I also pay about $1.5 million in taxes. I know -- I'll sign an agreement with my company. Instead of making $5 million in cash, I'll take $3 million in cash and $2 million in other forms of compensation. I'll have my company buy my house and cars (from other companies) and anything else I need to buy -- and because only transactions between retailers and individuals are taxed, my company will never pay taxes on the luxury goods I buy and neither will I.
So, you see, the fair tax is anything but fair. For the vast majority of us, we'll still pay either about the same that we already pay or maybe a little more or little less. And since most of us use the 1040EZ form, which takes about 2 hours a year to fill out and mail, it will hardly be any "fairer" or even easier. And as you can see, the wealthy will effectivelly pay no taxes. All they have to do is get their employer to purchase things for them in lieu of monetary compensation, and if they're not employed, they can merely incorporate and never pay taxes again. Does that sound fair to you?
It is important to remember that the campaign for Congress in the second district of Ohio was not a revolutionary campaign where new tactics were on hand to turn a previously unwinnable district into a competitive one. That was the initial goal of a lot of the blogosphere and the candidate's campaign. However, once the money started pouring in, they pretty much junked anything innovative and stuck with the time tested method for winning a Congressional race -- a well run field organization and massive television advertising.
An appealing candidate in Paul Hackett, combined with an unappealing opponent in Jean Schmidt, combined with a unique ability to raise money (no other federal races for months) make this a very unique situation. It's true that even with running a real campaign, the race probably shouldn't have been as close as it was, and hopefully that spells general trouble for the Republican Party's prospects in next year's Congressional campaigns.
However, the reason that Paul Hackett came closer than any other candidate since 1974 to winning that district is that unlike previous Democratic candidates he was able to fully inform (through television advertising) the electorate of his side of the story AND in a heavily Republican area, because he was not running the same day as a John Kerry, Bill Clinton or any other prominent national Democrat, it was harder for his opponent to benefit from the type of atmosphere in a district like Ohio 2 (imagine Lynn Westmoreland or Charlie Norwood's districts) that reinforces to those voters what they don't like about Democrats.
So by all means, lets get opponents with decent bios to run against the Lynn Westmorelands and John Linders of the world. Let's just not expect them to each be able to raise $500,000+ and run counter to the image of the national Democratic Party when candidates in competitive districts are competing for the available money. In other words, there were about 200 Congressional districts that were not targetted by the DCCC and national Democrats in 2004. Is the "netroots" willing or even able to raise an additional $100 million (at least, some of these races would cost millions of dollars each to make competitive) for these candidates this time?