The Rangel Rule

Awesome:

"Americans may be able to rest a little easier this April if Congressman John Carter, R-Texas gets his way.

Rep. Carter introduced a bill Wednesday to eliminate all IRS penalties and interest for paying taxes past due.

The legislation calls for the creation of what he calls the, "Rangel Rule," -- drawing attention to the recent legal issues of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., enabling citizens who fail to pay taxes on time to do so later with no additional fees.

Rangel, who writes the country's tax policies, acknowledged last fall that he failed to pay thousands in real estate taxes for rental income he earned from a property in the Dominican Republic.

As of September 2008 the Harlem Democrat reportedly paid back more than $10,000 in taxes but that did not include any IRS penalties.

"Your citizens back home should have the same rights and benefits that come to you as a member of congress. You shouldn't be treated any differently under the law than your citizens back home," Carter said."

This is certainly and indefensible situation and the legislation fabulous in political and just terms. No party should be against equal protection of the law.

Obama's Stimulus Plan

In keeping with our attempt at a more collegial tone and our commitment to the spirit of loyal opposition, I have honestly hunted the web for some counterpoint video/article/audio file. I couldn't really find a proponent that wasn't a politician with a lobbyist on their arm.

The video to be presented is not partisan in its criticism with Bush receiving at least half of it.

That said I present to you an informative and skeptical take on the plan:

Proportional Wisdom

Two things are striking about the debate surrounding the current warfare between Hamas and Israel.

1. The condemnation of Israel’s “disproportionate” response to Hamas’s constant rocket barrages.

2. The myopic focus on the morality of the conflict as opposed to the wisdom of the conflict.

On Proportionality

Israel’s retaliation against Hamas has been roundly condemned. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights “strongly condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.” The ever outspoken Congressman Kucinich said in a statement, “All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law . . . Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.” What do all these call for proportionality mean? Do they call for Israel to respond in kind? Should they to build Qassam rockets and fire them randomly into civilian centers as well? I doubt that is what they want.

Perhaps they think that Israel should match casualties at a 1:1 ratio? If that is the case then if Israel is monitoring 5 Hamas fighters loading rockets and preparing to fire them would Israel have to wait for Hamas to kill five Israelis? Again I doubt that is what they mean. What are they saying?

I suspect, it is just a rhetorical tool to condemn any retaliatory action? I really don’t know what they are asking for.

Moral vs. Wise

Israel faces a problem. Under much duress they withdrew all their settlements and forces from Gaza. Unfortunately, after the election of Hamas, rockets have been fired from Gaza nearly everyday into Israeli cities. In the past week Israel began to bomb Hamas targets in Gaza linked to this and other terrorist activity. As in any hot conflict between Israel and its neighbors the action has been debated and discussed thoroughly. Unfortunately, many questions are left out of the discussion.

Most of the debate, as the previous question of proportionality reveals, is just a debate about the morality of either side in the conflict. This isn’t a waste of time by any means, the moral equation of a conflict is important to understand, but because an action is moral does not mean it should be taken. It doesn’t address such questions as: will our situation be bettered by the proposed action, will this action actually resolve the issue at hand, what will the consequences of the action be? None of these are addressed by the morality question. For example, if my family is hungry it is certainly moral of me to build an addition onto my house, but that is in no way wise of me in that situation.

Likewise, the additional questions the press and pundits should be asking (and hopefully Israeli leaders) are: will this bombing and possible ground campaign actually end the rocket attacks, will this conflict strengthen Israels position, and what are the possible consequences of this action? Personally I don't know enough about the tactical details of the situation to answer any of these questions, but they should be asked of those who do.