http://news.yahoo.com/…

Hoyer, though, said on NBC’s “Today” show he was concerned that the tax issues could complicate the chances of final congressional passage when the legislation comes back to the House floor for a vote.

“There’s no doubt the tax package is very controversial,” he said, adding that “there’s no doubt in my mind that the Senate added this because they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.” He said he wasn’t pleased the tax provisions were attached to the bill.

Adding a set of popular business tax breaks and legislation to prevent more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from feeling the bite of the alternative minimum tax promised to win House GOP votes for the plan even as it angered moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats concerned about the tax cuts adding to the deficit.

I reported earlier on the some of the changes made to the House amendments by the Senate. Unfortunately the only way to find out is through piecing together random news articles as at last I checked the actual bill to be voted on was not publicly available. So… I hadn’t seen that the AMT was part of this supposed tax reduction. We’ve all have heard the horrors of the AMT and yet Congress has been unable to do anything about it until now? It’s not even a carrot for passage, as a real tax reduction would be, but the promise not to use the stick… as hard. Another example where government regulation has lead to an unforeseen problem that would simply not have existed in any sort of resemblance of a free market. Now they are trying to sweeten this poison bill with it. Getting rid of the AMT is a great idea… but not on the back of one of the most egregious corporatist bills to come our way in a generation.

Speaking of negative unforeseen consequences.

http://www.bizjournals.com/…

The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Tuesday decided to ease “mark to market” accounting rules which have hurt banks, mortgage lenders and the housing sector during the downturn.

Mark to market is a Sarbanes Oxley accounting rule that requires holdings, assets, and loans be valued at their current value. It was aimed at keeping company’s books on the up and up but it has devastated banks and mortgage lenders in the housing slump.

On Tuesday the SEC said companies and financial institutions have some leeway in assessing value, not just the current market, which is of course way down.

There is also some talk in Congress of a temporary or permanent mark to market repeal to allow for a more long-term valuation of assets and loans.

What a surprise? Government regulation which manipulated the market values of assets caused the market to negatively react to that misvaluation. It’s unfortunate there isn’t a way to translate the economic distortion into something the politicians could understand. Like a punch in the face.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

On NBC’s Today Show this morning Steve Forbes proposed forcing the taxpayers to “capitalize” ten or twelve “Fannie Maes” so that they can compete with one another, as opposed to the current government-sponsored duopoly.

In years past, free-market economists would riducule such proposals as being no different from the Soviets’ failed attempts at “market socialism,” i.e., pretending to play free market funded by billions of dollars of tax theft and rigid governmental regulation.

(Another Wall Street “economic expert” on the show instructed us to be patient and “let the Fed and the regulators get us out of this mess”). Stupid pills must be the drug of choice on Wall Street these days.

And some people still wonder why those who benefit the most from “free markets” don’t advocate them more. With all their wealth you’d think they could spread the message far and wide. Sure they could if they actually believed in free markets instead of corporatism. Few big businesses actually dislike regulation. In fact often time it’s they who push for it.

http://www.reuters.com/…

Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina’s Republican Party of being “out of touch with reality” over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as “too extreme” because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

“They’re not listening to me because they’re out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable,” McCain told NBC’s “Today” Show.

“I’ve done everything that I can to repudiate and to see that this kind of campaigning does not continue,” he added.

Asked if the state party’s unwillingness to heed his call raised questions about his leadership, McCain replied: “I don’t know exactly how to respond to that.”

I know how. Yes. Yes it raises questions about his leadership. A large portion of traditional Republicans are biting their lip while they vote for him… if they do at all. A good 25%+ in PA voted for Paul and Huckabee. I suppose he has nomination pretty much wrapped up but it seems stupid to me to effectively insult all the Republicans in a state that hasn’t had their primary yet.

http://www.cnn.com/…

Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a “Jeffersonian revolution.” “In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country,” he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, “Because I got things done.” He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving “millions of lives,” bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

This marks his fourth straight White House bid — fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included.

Nader said Thomas Jefferson believed that “when you lose your government, you’ve got to go into the electoral arena.”

“A Jeffersonian revolution is needed in this country,” he said.

Nader told NBC that great changes in U.S. history have come “through little parties that never won any national election.”

Long-shot GOP contender Mike Huckabee said Nader’s entry would probably help his party.

“I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

But Nader — citing the Republican Party’s economic policies, the Iraq war, and other issues — told NBC, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form.”

Nader’s entry into the race did not come as a surprise to political watchers.

On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama criticized him. “My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who, if you don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive,” Obama told reporters when asked about Nader’s possible candidacy.

I’ve told people at work that the D’s should be able to “landslide the R’s this year” but I don’t underestimate the D’s ability to lose. Seems Nader is in agreement and Obama and the D’s are too. They don’t like Nader just as the R’s don’t like Paul. Now that Paul has effectively ruled out a 3rd party run and with Nader running… the R’s must be happy as a pig in shit. What the D’s need to do is make sure that Obama is the nominee because Nader’s anti-war position vs a Hillary ticket could do the most damage to the Democratic party I think.

There is a part of me that would love to see a Hillary (D), McCain (R), Paul (L), Nader (G) showdown but I don’t see Paul considering a LP ticket run unless he looses his seat in congress and at this point it looks like Obama will get the Democrat ticket. How if only Nader would be given a spot in debates and understand he should be fighting the Leviathan and not the people.

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

• 8:32PM - Paul gets his first question. It’s about the NAU, CFR and conspiracies that his supporters believe. Looks like I was correct that they would try to make Paul and/or his supporters look bad. He answers it well.
• 8:37PM - What top 3 federal programs/organizations should be cut to save money. Thompson spins the question and talks about SSI. Paul doesn’t say IRS unfortunately but Huckabee picks up on that and does… gets good applause for it.
• 8:41PM - McCain attacks Paul on being an isolationist and receives a round of mixed boos and cheers. Paul’s reply has mixed response. Cooper cuts him off while not cutting off Rudy and Mitt at the beginning.
• 8:45PM - Paul pledges not to raise taxes but points out unlike the others that they need to cut spending.
• 8:46PM - Romney and Giuliani make excuses to support corn subsidies.
• 9:00PM - Rudy supports gun regulation and current gun laws.
• 9:09PM - Paul states that a woman should not be charged if she has an abortion. Primarily that it’s not a federal function.
• 9:24PM - Rudy says that he will make Muslims not hate us by keeping strong on islamofascism. I’m pretty sure that’s the reason they are pissed in the first place.
  
• 9:26PM - McCain claims he was the only one who said the Rumsfield plan was “doomed to failure.” I’m pretty sure Paul had said that the entire thing was doomed to failure including Rumsfield’s plan.
• 9:28PM - Romney talks about not wanting ‘terror suspects’ to have the same legal rights to trial as others in this country. Gets schooled by McCain on waterboarding.
• 9:34PM - Will you make a permanent commitment to the people of Iraq? Paul says by giving the Iraqis their country back. Tancredo says Paul is unrealistic.
• 9:50PM - Romney attempts to spin a former statement by him about gays and lesbians in the military.
• 9:56PM - Tancredo schools Huckabee on spending on a mission to mars.
• 10:02PM - Romney squirms on Stars and Bars question.
• 10:06PM - How can we repair the infrastructure of America?
• 10:07PM - McCain claims a presidential line item veto is constitutional. Which isn’t not. Rudy puts him in his place.
• 10:08PM - Will Paul run as an independent? I thought he handled it well. Later, in the analysis, one of the CNN people says: “Paul was wrong, it was only 2000 people in PA, we were there.” I thought I’d seen a CNN article that claimed it was 5000 but I can’t seem to find it now. But NBC claimed it was 5000. Whatever. It was definitely larger than 2000.

The candidates were given the opportunity to create videos to show during the debate. Only Giuliani’s and Paul’s were any good.

I don’t feel it was as bad as invisipunk stated. It wasn’t great… but when are they? Paul was the last to receive a chance to speak. He was 6th in time spoken with 7:11 in front of Hunter with 4:53 and Tancredo with 3:41. Giuliani spoke for 15:45 which was longer than even the moderator or length of all the user videos. So Paul got 9.36% of the time out of all the candidates time spoken and Giuliani got 20.53% with Tancredo getting 4.8%. If equally distributed they all should have had 9:35. source: nytimes.com I think Paul held his own and spoke well. They threw some questions at him which IMO selected to make him look bad or not serious but he handled them well. They didn’t cover much domestic policy like healthcare and education but they’d needed 4 hours for that. And of course Paul is winning much of the online poll.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.”There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said.

If he really wanted to ‘pay his fair share’ he could not only voluntarily give the government more but he could give gifts to those he felt were paying too much. Perhaps he would like the 70%+ top tax bracket back from WWII? Does he ignore the fact he’s paying taxes on capital gains and dividends vs. the receptionist’s wages? It’s taxed before he gets it at 35%. Then he pays 15% on that. It just floors me… he wants the government to force him to pay more taxes when he can freely give them more and ask others to do the same. It’s like when Bill Maher complained to Bill O’Reilly about the Bush tax cuts. He said effectively the same thing as Buffett is. “The rich aren’t paying their share… I’d gladly pay more.” When O’Reilly showed him the form where you can give more than required Maher just stopped dead in his tracks, looking like a deer in headlights. They aren’t dumb guys and I doubt they are ignorant to the fact they can pay more… so what is it?  What’s their justification for wanting the threat of force to be used to take (more of) the property of their fellow citizens? They have the means and connections to supply many of the services the government does… why don’t they? Why can’t Michael Moore setup his own insurance company if the thinks they are so horrible? Why must all these plans of their be implemented by a proxy at the barrel of a gun?