Election

This is not generally an outlet for me for political commentary (at least overt), but since I know many readers of this remain undecided :-)...

We have two tendencies worth considering as we're evaluating where to place this year's critical vote - a bias to avoid evidence that disagrees with our existing worldview (and to gravitate towards things that support it), but also a bias away from seeking real evidence documenting what we already believe (and therefore sometimes believing things not as well supported as we think, as a result).  I've had a disheartening sense of hypocrisy about Obama's aggressively negative campaign tactic of accusing Romney of lying in the last few months (full disclosure, I'm likely a Romney voter this year, but a reluctant supporter, and have admired Obama as a man greatly up until the last few months of this election season), but I haven't taken the time to try to document this sense to see if it's a fair one.  (Which is not to say I think Obama's accusation is wrong, but rather that he's largely given a free pass by the mainstream media in being allowed to make this accusation without the same kind of frenzied fact checking that is directed right.)  So I found this article very interesting. There are a few "lies" documented that I don't agree with (more like mistakes), but the rest is worth considering, especially if it might contradict your previously held views.

Here's another example squarely in the category of hypocrisy and lying that I also find really troubling (written by the creator of Dilbert):

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/firing_offense/

Our country is at a real crossroads economically, so be sure to cast your vote with due consideration next week!

Optimal tax policy

This is a little wonky, but economists surveyed were asked: 

Despite relabeling concerns, taxing capital income at a permanently lower rate than labor income would result in higher average long-term prosperity, relative to an alternative that generated the same amount of tax revenue by permanently taxing capital and labor income at equal rates instead.

3x as many agreed than disagreed, and this from an academic group that tends to lean left.  Also, there was near unanimity when asked:

Although they do not always agree about the precise likely effects of different tax policies, another reason why economists often give disparate advice on tax policy is because they hold differing views about choices between raising average prosperity and redistributing income.

Which, to my mind, lends even greater credence to the 3x support for the former.

Changes in long-term prosperity really mean changes in growth rates, and over long periods of time that means very large differences.  In other words, achieving some perceived redistribution today in exchange, for - take your pick for what comes with growth - standard of living, access to health, education, peace, happiness, apple pie.  Anyone arguing for redistributively higher taxes on capital should recognize that, assuming the above is true, that's the trade-off you're advocating - feel better about the rich not being quite as rich versus killing future babies.  :-)