I read two interesting articles this week; one on the corporate tax rate (yeah,yeah, I know, only I would find it interesting...) in the NYT, the other on Republican partisanship in the Supreme Court, again from the NYT.
In the article on taxes, it said that the tax treatment caused us to drill wells "we otherwise wouldn't drill", and builders to build houses that they wouldn't otherwise build.
Hmmm. I kept trying to think of which wells, a priori, I wouldn't have drilled except for the tax consequences. I asked a few of my brethren at smaller and larger companies. Here is the list:
We don't drill wells for tax reasons. We will NOT drill wells for tax reasons. It really comes down to how much of our money is available to us to drill wells. We all have inventory, and the US, last I checked, still imported a tremendous amount, so every drop we produce reduces the national debt AND the trade balance because it is BRAND NEW wealth, and it is wealth that the rest of the world accepts as wealth. I guess when you write editorial columns, it is easy to decide that bad wells wouldn't have been drilled, if you are entirely ignorant. Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of wells we wouldn't have drilled a postori, but we had to drill 'em to decide that we didn't want them. I wonder if editorial writers were subject to a more punitive tax treatment that fewer stupid editorials would be written? Something to ponder...
The second article was on how the conservative majority in the Supreme Court was ruling in a completely partisan way... using of course, the Bush v Gore 5-4 decision as a basis for making the statement, along with the fact that plenty of other important decisions are passed 5-4 today. The NYT was lamenting the days of 6-3 or 7-2 decisions.
I don't really disagree with their thesis. I would just expand it. The fact that 4 always vote in unison (one of whom IS a republican appointee), is evidence of left partisanship as well. If Scalia is entirely predictable in his decisions, Ginsberg is no less predictable in hers. Further, everyone knew it when they were nominated. When partisanship is excoriated by those that demand the OTHER side vote with them in the name of bipartisanship, it is still partisanship; just arrogant, hypocritical partisanship.