So let me tell you a little story.

Back in 1969, Congress identified 155 households making bunches of money, tax-free, who were managing to avoid taxes. They passed some legislation called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that forced these households to pay at least a minimum tax payment in order to be fair.

The system that we have currently in place is a graduated, voluntary tax - The AMT is a flat, minimum tax. Basically, if you make a certain amount of money, then you figure your regular tax, then you recalculate your tax based on the AMT amount which takes away many of your deductions and voila - if your regular tax isn’t at least that much, then you get an added AMT amount.

No big deal, the AMT doesn’t come in to play for hardly anybody, right? Sure, in the 70’s and 80’s. It was mostly an ignored tax. My father has been doing taxes since 1976 and back then you just didn’t get anyone that fell into the AMT tax at all. It’s just this parallel tax system that hangs out and makes sure that everyone gets hit with some sort of tax, but has a large exemption amount so it doesn’t hit people making the average wage.

Fast forward 30 years. Tax brackets have been adjusted for inflation, but the AMT exemption has not. The AMT percentage, at it’s highest, is only 28%, but the regular tax brackets go as high as 35%. The rich are paying more than the AMT tax, so they don’t get hit by it, but the average wage-earners are starting to see it on their tax returns. It is now poised to hit those who make between $75,000 and $500,000, most of whom rely on their property tax deductions and state tax deductions, both of which are taken away in the reconfiguring of the AMT tax. The other thing that is affecting many taxpayers are the huge deductions they are taking for their home mortgage. I can attest that it is not uncommon for me to see home mortgage interest paid of $15,000 or more, and it only takes a person making $100k to have deductions of larger than about $27k before they fall into the AMT trap.

Recently, congress has been taking notice, and has put in some extender bills in order to save most average taxpayers the burden of falling into the AMT. These extenders were set to expire in 2007, making it incredibly important to get another extension (or a repeal, or some sort of change) to the AMT before next tax season comes around.

In 2006, 4 million people paid AMT. In 2007, it is set to hit 25 million people if nothing has changed. The IRS prints forms and starts creating the software for the new tax year in the middle of November, and anything Congress does afterwards delays things quite a bit, so here we are in the first week of December and have they changed anything? IRS gave warnings early enough, but they are finally trying to get around to it.

On a side note, in a phone call with the IRS yesterday, I spoke to an agent from Kentucky who told me that they have been informed that the IRS is planning to hold tax season until at least February 8th. I have also heard dates of February 10th, 15th, and 18th as the dates they may need to wait until before they can START processing returns, if Congress adds this extension to the AMT exemption amounts, in order to have enough time to write the software, etc. This means that if you send a return in prior to that, it sits around - and when things sit around, they back up, and when things back up, things get lost - which of course would be blamed on the taxpayer. I recommend efiling myself in order to get around that, but I shudder to think if efiling isn’t open until mid-February (usually it starts around Jan 15th) how many tax returns are sitting in our office until we can hit the send button, and how long that first transmission will take for acceptance.

Anyway, back to the story. Here’s where the political play comes in. So the Democrats have said that they will not pass anything that is no-pay: meaning a tax cut that is not revenue neutral by raising taxes somewhere else to cover. Republicans were singing that same song a few years ago, including the President, who was saying that he couldn’t fix the AMT without having a plan that covers the dollars lost by removing it - after all, the government stands to win by receiving bunches of money from all these new taxpayers that are falling into the AMT that wouldn’t have paid it before. In fact, in the last few years, republicans have COUNTED ON that money to make some of their other tax cuts revenue neutral, citing the phaseout of the AMT exemption that would bring in the revenue instead. The AMT would be hitting so many in the next few years that the tax code would have to undergo a complete overhaul just to bring in the money that would replace repealing the AMT if we wait too much longer. It may already be too late.

The Democrat-ruled House passed a bill last month fixing the AMT by creating 80 billion of new revenues elsewhere, including a rather controversial taxation of investors. Thursday, Republicans in the Senate nixed the part of the bill making it revenue neutral, and the Senate passed it 88-5, which now fixes the AMT for one more year by increasing the national debt instead. No one is paying for the removal of AMT, folks…

From the AP:
The Senate Finance Committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said it was not his first choice to pass an unpaid-for bill, but “this is our best choice.”

Earlier Thursday, Senate Republicans united in stopping the Senate from moving to the House-passed bill.

Even the President has said that he won’t sign a bill that increases revenue elsewhere. Sure, why does he care, he doesn’t need to win votes anymore. The longer we wait on this, the further out tax season is going to be pushed, I have a feeling…this is just a lose-lose situation and I can’t stop watching…hopefully we will see something happen this week, stay tuned.

Resources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698576415016475.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/2127.html
http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/oct1999/kern.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/393356.html

1.) Thomas Jefferson exhorts us to “Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.’  What concrete steps would your administration take to restore rationality and reality to Executive Branch decisionmaking?

2.) What challenges face American competence in science, and if elected what would you do to meet them?

3.) Name one step your Administration would undertake to end what former Vice President Al Gore has called “The Assault on Reason.”  What are the obstacles that have prevented this step from being taken, and what benefits would you expect to reap from it?

4.) Most of the Republican candidates (May, Simi Valley; September, Fort Lauderdale) are willing to give creationism time in biology classes, as was attempted here in Pennsylvania.    Science standards are now part of No Child Left Behind testing — what would your administration’s standards require students to know about evolution?

I am currently working at Drexel University, which has recently been scheduled to host the October 30th Democratic Presidential debate. This means, presumably, that I may have the opportunity to ask a question.

Being a mathematician and educator by trade, I am particularly interested in questions on math, science, education, or combinations of these. From a political point of view, I would like to ask a question that is likely to uncover important differences in the stances of candidates should any exist, and to provide an opportunity for candidates to distinguish themselves from the handling of science under the current Administration, which I believe has treated fact and scientific consensus very poorly. Naturally, in addition to the priorities above an ideal question leaves the best-answering candidate looking even better to a large population of voters than he or she did previously, and makes the Democrats look better in general.

This thread is open for suggestions on what to ask.

Category breakdown and data analysis below.

Car bomb attacks:

July August Change:
‘04: 8 5 -38%
‘05: 30 15 -50%
‘06: 43 31 -28%

‘07: 39 13 -67%

IED attacks:

July August Change
‘04: 80 130 +63%
‘05: 105 90 -14%
‘06: 210 190 -5%

‘07: 340 230 -33%

Mortar and rocket attacks:

July August Change
‘04: 110 330 +200%
‘05: 34 32 -6%
‘06: 115 85 -17%

‘07: 240 140 -42%

Civilian casualties:

July August Change
‘04: 400 650 +63%
‘05: 800 1100 +38%
‘06: 1700 1400 -18%

‘07: 1400 950 -32%

Absolute numbers:

The absolute level of reported incidents in each category except mortar and rocket attacks was higher in August of 2007 than it was in August of 2004, and roughly equal to or greater than the level from each category in August of 2005. Overall, a linear fit to each category’s August data shows a positive slope when all four years are taken into account, with the exception again of mortar and rocket attacks.

Seasonally adjusted numbers (August compared to July):

In 2004, all but car bomb statistics were on the rise. Except for the 2005 civilian casualties, August of 2005 and 2006 saw drops from the July numbers in all four categories of statistics reported. The drops in 2007 were proportionately larger than those of previous years.

In Summary:

Defenders of the surge will attempt to make hay of a drop in violence. Such a drop did occur in August. It must be understood in context of two facts: first, despite this drop, levels of violence remain high, higher than shortly after the invasion, and this is so even though troop levels during the surge (130,000) are comparable to those of 2004 (142,000). Second, August has generally been associated with a drop in violence, and September with a resumption of attacks, in each year and in each category. Questions have been raised as to how much of the drop in sectarian killings can be attributed to the surge, and how much to the segregation of Iraqi neighborhoods; we must also question how much is real compared to the seasonally adjusted trends. Some appears likely to be due to the increased force levels; but given the number of other factors likely to share responsibility, we must wonder whether the limited benefit is worth the intense cost America is bearing.

It is, of course, the Zone’s position that the answer is “no,” and Congress needs to codify this into law and move promptly to disengage America from Iraq, through whatever transition arrangements they care to set up. If this means leaving behind an Iraq that has divided itself along sectarian lines, that result would not appear to be a significant security threat to the United States.

In India:

The [leading] party has been dogged by inflation, particularly in the prices of food…

In China:

Steeply rising food prices pushed inflation in China to 5.6 percent last month, the fastest pace in a decade… consumer prices for food were up 15.4 percent from a year ago… inflation is largely confined to food. Excluding food, consumer prices were up 0.9 percent last month from a year earlier…

And in America:

Food costs have been rising at a rate of 5.7 percent this year, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent for all of last year…. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, is up 2.3 percent so far this year…

So… that’s weird. Three of the biggest countries in the world, working under vastly different economic conditions, are seeing inflation in food prices that’s significantly outpacing inflation in other markets. Occasional coincidence, or is there a common factor? Food prices can be quite volatile, but are we maybe looking at an underlying pressure which is going to be sustained?

I want to be as clear, objective, factual, and unopinionated about the following as possible, so pardon me if the statements are a bit bland of rhetoric. Sources cited are footnoted.

Thesis: Planning for and carrying out a withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq over the next several months is an important component of spurring progress among the disparate Iraqi populations on issues of importance to Iraq’s long-term security and stability (and thus American interests).

Argument:
Progress is being made in certain areas in Iraq.

Working with the Americans, Abu Azzam’s men have helped drive Islamist militants out of his group’s sector, he says, except for a hard-to-reach area north of Nasr Wa Salam. They have led American troops to weapons stockpiles, he says, and prevented car bombings. Markets and neighborhoods here, ghostly just a few months ago, now teem with people. A one-story hospital was just rebuilt with American money, and two new generators sit outside. Not long ago the violence would have made such a project impossible, Pinkerton said. [Abu Azzam Article]

Key to much of this progress is reconciliation with armed, often Sunni groups that have in the past worked against the American military and its allies, the majority-Shiite Iraqi Army. Such alliances provide valuable intelligence links and popular-perception links to the community [1], turn former opposition into allies [2], and yield capable veteran soldiers in short supply among the main Iraqi Army [3].

[1]

Working with the Americans, Abu Azzam’s men have helped drive Islamist militants out of his group’s sector, he says, except for a hard-to-reach area north of Nasr Wa Salam. They have led American troops to weapons stockpiles, he says, and prevented car bombings. [Abu Azzam article]

[An episode where the Americans defended Abu Azzam’s men from Iraqi Army detention] “built credibility with the people.” [Abu Azzam article]

[2]

He became cagey when questions turned to his activities after the American invasion in 2003. “I was among the people who refused the occupation,” he said. But he insisted that that he never attacked Americans. He listed the insurgent groups he knows, including the 1920s Revolutionary Brigade, the Islamic Army and Ansar al-Sunna, a faction known for gruesome beheadings. “All of them I am in touch with,” he said. “They are waiting to see if my experience will succeed. If it succeeds, they will adopt it. But if it doesn’t, it will cause confrontation.” [Abu Azzam article]

Abu Azzam says the 2,300 men in his movement include members of fierce Sunni groups like the 1920s Revolutionary Brigade and the Mujahedeen Army that have fought the American occupation. Now his men patrol alongside the Americans, who want to turn them into a security force that can bring peace to this stretch between Baghdad and Falluja.[Abu Azzam article]

[3]

Using his Iraqi partners to pick out the insurgents and uncover the bombs they had seeded along the cratered roads, Captain Richards’s soldiers soon apprehended more than 100 militants, including several low-level emirs. The Iraqis called themselves the Local Committee; Captain Richards dubbed them the Kit Carson scouts. … During the recent American assault in western Baquba, soldiers from Blackhawk Company got a glimpse of an alliance the Americans hope to see. An Iraqi seemingly emerged from nowhere, announced himself as a member of the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades and warned the soldiers that insurgents could be found on the far side of a sand berm around the corner. The tip was accurate.[Kit Carson article]

An important theme emerges when the leaders of these groups are asked why they have changed sides: they realize that the Americans are going to leave, and face the prospect of dangerous groups in their midst left behind to trouble them, or Shiite-dominated groups in the government with motivations to persecute Sunnis:

Afterward, he [Abu Azzam] said his men joined forces with the Americans because the extremist groups were killing so many fellow Sunni Arabs. But he allowed that the new alliance was complicated. The Americans will someday leave, he said, and the far bigger threat is a permanent Iranian occupation. He fears the Muthanna Brigade [a Shiite-dominated brigade of the Iraqi Army] is a harbinger of that, because he says it is infiltrated by Iranian-sympathizing militiamen who abuse Sunnis. [Abu Azzam article]

The coalition reflects some hard-headed calculations on both sides. Eager for intelligence on their elusive foes, American officers have been willing to overlook the insurgent past of some of their new allies. Many Sunnis, for their part, are less inclined to see the soldiers as occupiers now that it is clear U.S. troop reductions are all but inevitable, and are more concerned with strengthening their ability to fend off threats from militias who plague the province.[Kit Carson article]

Political organization, not just the military conflict, also feels this effect. Moktada al-Sadr, who leads a powerful Shiite bloc that for some months had disengaged from the Iraqi government, thus contributing to political paralysis, defines his political position in opposition to the American presence and its allied legislators:

Qassim Daoud, a secular Shiite lawmaker, says Mr. Sadr has figured out the alchemy to playing the outsider, but having just enough of a place in the government to have leverage. “He is one of those people who has two legs, one inside the political process and one outside the political process,” Mr. Daoud said.[al-Sadr article]

Mr. Sadr is quite open about his short-term goals with regard to the American presence.

[al-Sadr’s] basic tenets are widely shared. Like most Iraqis, he opposes the American military presence and wants a timetable for departure — if only to attain some certainty that the Americans will leave eventually. He wants the country to stay unified and opposes the efforts of those Shiites who have had close ties to Iran to create a semiautonomous Shiite region in southern Iraq.[al-Sadr article]

Recently, the Sadrist bloc has somewhat re-engaged:

The six ministers in the cabinet and 30 lawmakers in Parliament allied to [Mr. Sadr] have been boycotting sessions. They returned Tuesday, but it is not clear they will stay long.[al-Sadr article]

This engagement occurs as the Iraqi government works on the outlines of all the major legislation, such as division of oil revenues among regions, necessary to establish a long-term government, and also under the spreading perception that the Americans will be leaving within a short time frame (albeit not within the month — Iraqi lawmakers plan to take August off.) The connection is merely contemporaneousness rather than explicit discussion of al-Sadr’s motivations, but then Mr. Sadr is unlikely to be forthcoming about those motivations and so we must infer from the evidence.

Synthesizing the independent sources, then, we have the common theme that antagonistic groups find the profit from opposing American forces to decrease when it becomes apparent that the Americans intend to leave. Militant turn their attention to combating more dedicated armed insurgents that continue to oppose Americans and threaten the population and the legitimate government. Politicians that support the same political goals we do (in particular, keeping Iran from taking advantage of Iraq’s instability to enhance its regional power) but find it valuable to define themselves in opposition to American activities cease deriving value from defining themselves in opposition to us, and re-engage with the process.

Conclusion:
What progress has been made in Iraq on both military and political fronts appears in substantial part dependent on the perception that Americans intend to leave, and within a short timeframe. Then any of: planning for a long-term presence, failing to seek and set withdrawal course on a short timeline, or failing to carry through with a withdrawal once planned, would militate against that perception and thus the progress that depends upon it. Therefore, components of the latest planning for Iraq (the Joint Campaign Plan) that envision substantial American presence until at least 2009 and possibly longer [Joint Campaign Plan article] and most especially the notion of a “Korea model” (that is to say, an indefinitely long American presence in force) [Global Policy article] are unwise and counterproductive, and should be opposed.

Sources:
[Abu Azzam article] “New U.S. allies seen as enemies by Iraqi troops” This article is from the International Herald Tribune, published on July 15, 2007.

[al-Sadr article]“Cleric Switches Tactics to Meet Changes in Iraq”, outside reprint of a July 19, 2007 New York Times article.

[Kit Carson article]“An unexpected alliance tackles insurgents in Iraq” This article may also be found in the International Herald Tribune, published on July 5, 2007.

[Joint Campaign Plan article]“U.S. Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09″, on NYTimes website and available for free for about one week from posting of this article.

[Global Policy Article]“With Korea as Model, Bush Team
Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq” Reprint of a NYTimes article from June 3, 2007 on the external site globalpolicy.org.

We’ll see if I can do this at all. Anyway, keep an eye on this space, because something might be brewing. With enough luck, it might even turn into a hurricane. ;)

It looks like we got the Senate.  Hopefully.

We took several state legislatures.  This has national implications because it may allow redistricting to favor Democratic candidates in the next round, though I would rather bite the ethics bullet and have our new majorities push for simply drawing representative districts under neutral oversight rather than Democrat-skewed districts.  Undoing Republican skewing of the electoral process is acceptable to my mind and more appealing to my heart than committing the same sin we complained about as soon as we get the opportunity.

We got a majority of governorships, and thus control of the National Governors’ Association.  This matters because the NGA has been more active in raising and pursuing issues in recent years, and is an effective forum for originating and disseminating legislation.  The NGA has a different outlook on many issues than the federal government, despite being almost a federal kind of organization itself.

We seem to have crossed important thresholds in every arena there was one to cross.

Take a breather and celebrate for a moment.  I know I did a little dance.  But very soon, it will be time to buckle down and deliver what we promised: Iraq, healthcare reform, energy independence initiatives, tax fairness.

Having campaigned against the excesses of power, we must not succumb to temptation ourselves.

Having complained at having been shut out of the decision-making process by an arrogant majority, we must ourselves listen to the input of the minority.  We are the majority, and will govern as such, but we are the party of diversity and reason, and must listen to voices other than our own.

Having denounced monied corruption and the brokering of power, we must not only institute strong ethics rules but live in an ethical way.  Govern as if there were no ethics rules, and you intended to show by example alone what your conscience dictated.

Having castigated those in power for failing to understand that limits on power are necessary, we must respect those limits ourselves.  From habeus corpus to speedy trials to simple privacy, we must insist that the government of a democracy act like one, and end the days of the imperial president.
Having chided the holders of the purse strings for abandoning fiscal prudence (and, indeed, their own convictions of efficiency in government) and putting partisan nonsense before the bread-and-butter issues of the Congress, we must do the basic work of the legislature and pass — on time — appropriations bills and budgets that require us to live within our means, passed on their own merits and not stuffed with unrelated initiatives.  (This is where I would call for less pork, but realizing the folly of that dream I will settle for a budget that, fatty as it may be, is simply a budget and not a vehicle for legislation on stem cells or gay rights or whatever silly clause is slipped in at midnight.)

We won.  We won big.  Just as when we lost, though, there is a real opposition and we cannot take it for granted.  Take a moment to relax, to breathe, to celebrate.  But then there is no standing still: there is either growth, or decay. We need to spread our message by word and deed.
Let’s make the next two years count.

List below the cut.

(more…)