我一直想看外國人對郭冠英事件的看法(報導), 現在終於有一篇,轉載如下. 這裡有中文翻譯
至於我自己的看法? 沒有太多想表示的, 關於自認為高級一事, 還是借鐵娘子的老話一句--
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
擁有權利的人就像淑女,如果你需要告訴別人你是, 那麼你就不是. 將此話的powerful改成高級,
如果一個人需要自己吹噓或是告訴別人自己是高級人,那麼他/她就不是[1].
-----------
Official's pro-China claim causes uproar in Taiwan, The Associated Press
Published: March 18, 2009
TAIPEI, Taiwan: President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition have taken a hit after an official was alleged to have called Taiwan's majority population "primitive" and suggested China should use force to seize the island.
The affair is a huge embarrassment to Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support his ambitious China engagement program, despite continuing Chinese threats to take over democratic Taiwan by force.
While it is unlikely to delay the program's implementation — it still enjoys strong support — it could cost Ma's party votes in this year's local elections, as so-called "native Taiwanese" return to the communally conscious — and anti-China — opposition, the Democratic Progressive Party.
The affair burst into the limelight late last week when Kuo Kuan-ying of Taiwan's representative office in Toronto admitted he described himself in a newspaper essay as a "superior mainlander" — a politically charged reference to the 2 million people who came to the island in 1949 after the Chinese civil war and dominated its institutions for the next 50 years.
Amid growing local outrage, Kuo denied more serious charges of referring to the majority population of native Taiwanese as "primitives," and writing that "China should use force to take over" Taiwan, even though the island "was not qualified" to unite with Beijing.
Lawmakers identified with the interests of native Taiwanese have led the public criticism against Kuo. They say a pen name he is known to have used was on an essay that contained those inflammatory anti-Taiwan, pro-China statements.
Ma, whose parents were born in China, is particularly vulnerable on that issue, because he is struggling against a widespread perception that many mainlanders favor unity with China. Taiwan split from the mainland amid civil war in 1949, and has been self-governing ever since.
Relations between mainlanders and native Taiwanese — people whose ancestors came to the island from China in the 17th and 18th centuries — have long delineated a crucial political fault line on Taiwan. Native Taiwanese struggled hard against the pro-mainlander policies of Chiang Kai-shek and son Chiang Ching-kuo until 1987 when they were finally able to form a political party of their own.
That party came to power in Taiwan's second free presidential elections in 2000, but was soundly defeated by Ma's Nationalists eight years later. A major advantage for Ma, who took office 10 months ago, was his success in shedding the Nationalists' exclusive mainlander image and adopting a more bi-communal personna in its place.
The lawmakers are demanding that Kuo be stripped of his job at the Government Information Office — rather than his actual punishment of being demoted and transferred back to Taipei.
Even rival lawmakers from the ruling Nationalist Party — long identified with mainlander interests — say Kuo's punishment is not enough.
"It is unreasonable that the government is not sanctioning him more severely," said Tsao Erh-chang. National Taipei University political scientist Hou Han-jyun said Monday that Kuo's relatively light punishment was "stirring up communal hatred" and that the matter "needs quick government intervention."
Political commentator Chung Nien-huang said, "Kuo Kuan-ying simply said what Ma and (his government) are really thinking — that they are superior mainlanders."
[1]我以前就常跟朋友講,那種名片上要印一堆抬頭的其實都不是什麼了不起的名人. 王永慶的名片只要印王永慶就夠了, 完全不需要靠抬頭來告訴別人他是誰.
---------
延伸閱讀:
很有趣的一篇. 范蘭欽的受害者
3/23:
事情演變真是有趣, 有新聞局等自動跑出來幫忙捍衛公務員的權利, 公務員的義務好像不重要; 還有人自己跑出來對號入座(上面那篇延伸閱讀), 結果現在好了, 那些當初幫腔說郭冠英不是范藍欽的,現在郭都自己承認了, 不知這些幫腔的人要說什麼? 出來道歉一下嗎? 郭冠英真是厲害, 這樣輕易就耍蘇俊賓,彭蕙仙等幫腔者一圈. 台灣的政治新聞簡直比綜藝新聞還高潮迭起啊!
3/29: "潘舜昀25日投書聯合報民意論壇，發表「我的同事郭冠英」一文(http://udn.com/NEWS/OPINION/X1/4808899.shtml)，今天有媒體報導，這篇文章實際上出自郭冠英，潘舜昀看過之後，同意署名。" 自誇不夠還要借別人之名來誇 然後最好笑的是還有人願意借名. 現在潘被調查中, 看來受到池魚之殃的還不止彭小姐一位啊!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
spring break -part 2(春假) (revised on 4/5)
輪到我放春假. 這是紀錄春假的流水帳.
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之一: 土耳其咖啡
第一天........哦,好吧,週末不算後的第一天去喝下午茶. 因為最近迷上土耳其咖啡, 到這裡就開始找哪裡有賣土耳其咖啡.....找到了
詳見此連結
之二: 藤籃麵包vs. 山寨麵包
看到網路上有人利用洗菜籃的條紋來做藤籃麵包, 小孩子個性又發作,左暗示右明示跟DG說我也想做耶! 因為我們也有洗菜籃....結果出來完全不像藤籃,卻像飛碟啊!!
不甘心重做後把藤籃麵包正名為山寨麵包. 詳見此連結.
------
added on 3/22
之三: MSU訪友
看過墰子專門收集問題學生的灰燼嗎? 看此篇就對了
之四: 大餅與關於發酵一二事
我果然是作empirical induction以及experiment的,連麵包的發酵都是這樣歸納出來的....
之五: 關於房子的兩件事
Sunday, March 8, 2009
[轉載] EDITORIAL: More tricks in the Chen legal circus
Saturday, Mar 07, 2009, Page 8
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
The trial of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brings disrepute to the judicial system with every passing week.
For those non-plussed at why prosecutors have not been thoroughly investigated for leaking material to the media, there is always the smorgasbord of other bizarre circumstances to consider: ludicrous arguments for keeping Chen in detention; a switching of judges that put Chen back in detention; faulty recording or informal summaries of “testimony” by witnesses who likely made deals with the prosecution; mandatory taping of meetings between Chen and his legal team by detention center officials; prosecutors mocking their target in theatrical skits; prejudicial comments by Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) and at least two members of the legislature’s judiciary committee; threats by legislators against dissenting judges elsewhere in the legal system; and so on, and so on. It's a genuine feast.
This week saw a few more morsels of legal incredulity added to the heap. On Thursday, prosecutors objected to defense requests for the calling of witnesses because, among other reasons, doing so might benefit the defendants of the day. That this nonsensical component of the objection was not immediately overruled by the judges is most interesting.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Chen's office wants to bring international attention to the issue. With massive pressure on defense counsel coming from the largely pro-blue-camp media, a foreign perspective could give Chen’s team a more solid footing in the media war against his political foes.
This newspaper has also concluded that international attention is necessary — not for Chen's sake, but for the sake of a credible, independent judiciary. The proceedings to date in this most vital of trials have been so badly compromised that expert analysis from the International Council of Jurists, for example, may be essential to demonstrate the gravity of the problem.
For a government that basks in international attention when it occasionally graces our shores, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration seems awfully reticent when it comes to receiving criticism from expert quarters. Such was the case with Professor Jerome Cohen, an eminent jurist who came to castigate elements of Taiwan’s judicial system. We can only assume that his close relationship with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spared him from the genuine wrath of the KMT legislative caucus.
With intellectual property rights law playing such an important part in relations with the US, for example, it is ironic that the justice minister would object to expert overseas scrutiny of the judiciary on any pertinent case. Yet this is exactly what Wang did, warning Chen’s office that any complaint to the foreign press would discredit the nation.
Meanwhile, one of those legislative committee members, convicted criminal Chiu Yi (邱毅), warned — in all seriousness — that holding such a press conference could result in the judges extending Chen's detention. The ramifications of a person of Chiu’s visibility being able to say things as contemptuous of natural justice as this, and with impunity, are frightening, though few seem to care.
Wang need not be concerned about Chen's office discrediting the judiciary, because in light of the circus involving so-called professionals and officials — not least this relentlessly inept minister — Chen's men simply cannot compete.
延伸閱讀:
告洋狀會出洋相嗎?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
轉載: 看戲的心情(2)
我甚少在公開部落格講個人對經濟的一些看法,原因很簡單, 它不是我的專長. 之前我在不開放的部落格講到一些個人對Obama當選後的感想 (需要密碼,因為是不開放的), 當時(2008年11月八日寫的)我提到我對經濟悲觀的看法, 節錄如下
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
2. 美國經濟不會好. 不會好的原因有幾個. 第一個,民主黨向來是主張大政府的(特別此次民主黨也在國會佔優勢,總統+國會........我看大政府是跑不掉了). (後略) 第二個原因是, 歐巴馬主張管制經濟與保護主義. 不相信自由貿易,不相信市場機制(其實很諷刺!) 管制經濟的下場是處以凌遲,慢慢死的那種. (後略) 第三個原因是,歐巴馬如果是極端或說傳統的民主黨, 那公司稅一定會加稅. 公司稅增加的結果最後羊毛出在羊身上,倒楣的是員工啦. 美國的公司稅現在已經偏高了(35%),...新加坡一開始獨立給外商7年免稅! 相比之下美國的公司稅已經這麼高了,還加,會好到哪啊? 為什麼加公司稅?(後略)
現在看到這篇史丹佛大學經濟教授的文章, 真是深得我心啊!
------------------
[轉載開始]
前一篇才講到美國貨條款對美國經濟的影響, 現在就有這篇新聞.
Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism
By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.
Martin Kozlowski
The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown.
看到沒,就說民主黨當選增稅的可能性遠大過於減稅. 實在不是我烏鴉嘴啊! 之前也講過要是希拉蕊出線,美國經濟不會這麼慘的原因....
Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
看吧! 就說民主黨向來主張大政府... ...(有興趣可看這篇英文的報導; 還有這個....後面這個直接提到"The president has not explained to Americans that if they want bigger government, they will have to pay for it")
To be fair, specific parts of the president's budget are admirable and deserve support: increased means-testing in agriculture and medical payments; permanent indexing of the alternative minimum tax and other tax reductions; recognizing the need for further financial rescue and likely losses thereon; and bringing spending into the budget that was previously in supplemental appropriations, such as funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specific problems, however, far outweigh the positives. First are the quite optimistic forecasts, despite the higher taxes and government micromanagement that will harm the economy. The budget projects a much shallower recession and stronger recovery than private forecasters or the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are projecting. It implies a vast amount of additional spending and higher taxes, above and beyond even these record levels. For example, it calls for a down payment on universal health care, with the additional "resources" needed "TBD" (to be determined).
Mr. Obama has bravely said he will deal with the projected deficits in Medicare and Social Security. While reform of these programs is vital, the president has shown little interest in reining in the growth of real spending per beneficiary, and he has rejected increasing the retirement age. Instead, he's proposed additional taxes on earnings above the current payroll tax cap of $106,800 -- a bad policy that would raise marginal tax rates still further and barely dent the long-run deficit.
Increasing the top tax rates on earnings to 39.6% and on capital gains and dividends to 20% will reduce incentives for our most productive citizens and small businesses to work, save and invest -- with effective rates higher still because of restrictions on itemized deductions and raising the Social Security cap. As every economics student learns, high marginal rates distort economic decisions, the damage from which rises with the square of the rates (doubling the rates quadruples the harm). The president claims he is only hitting 2% of the population, but many more will at some point be in these brackets.
經濟上的鐵律: people respond to incentives. 之前就講過, 違反人性的制度是不會持久的....美國開始走向共產制度了嗎? 好啦,是社會主義, 還沒到共產主義,可以吧?!
As for energy policy, the president's cap-and-trade plan for CO2 would ensnare a vast network of covered sources, opening up countless opportunities for political manipulation, bureaucracy, or worse. It would likely exacerbate volatility in energy prices, as permit prices soar in booms and collapse in busts. The European emissions trading system has been a dismal failure. A direct, transparent carbon tax would be far better.
Moreover, the president's energy proposals radically underestimate the time frame for bringing alternatives plausibly to scale. His own Energy Department estimates we will need a lot more oil and gas in the meantime, necessitating $11 trillion in capital investment to avoid permanently higher prices.
The president proposes a large defense drawdown to pay for exploding nondefense outlays -- similar to those of Presidents Carter and Clinton -- which were widely perceived by both Republicans and Democrats as having gone too far, leaving large holes in our military. We paid a high price for those mistakes and should not repeat them.
The president's proposed limitations on the value of itemized deductions for those in the top tax brackets would clobber itemized charitable contributions, half of which are by those at the top. This change effectively increases the cost to the donor by roughly 20% (to just over 72 cents from 60 cents per dollar donated). Estimates of the responsiveness of giving to after-tax prices range from a bit above to a little below proportionate, so reductions in giving will be large and permanent, even after the recession ends and the financial markets rebound.
A similar effect will exacerbate tax flight from states like California and New York, which rely on steeply progressive income taxes collecting a large fraction of revenue from a small fraction of their residents. This attack on decentralization permeates the budget -- e.g., killing the private fee-for-service Medicare option -- and will curtail the experimentation, innovation and competition that provide a road map to greater effectiveness.
The pervasive government subsidies and mandates -- in health, pharmaceuticals, energy and the like -- will do a poor job of picking winners and losers (ask the Japanese or Europeans) and will be difficult to unwind as recipients lobby for continuation and expansion. Expanding the scale and scope of government largess means that more and more of our best entrepreneurs, managers and workers will spend their time and talent chasing handouts subject to bureaucratic diktats, not the marketplace needs and wants of consumers.
Our competitors have lower corporate tax rates and tax only domestic earnings, yet the budget seeks to restrict deferral of taxes on overseas earnings, arguing it drives jobs overseas. But the academic research (most notably by Mihir Desai, C. Fritz Foley and James Hines Jr.) reveals the opposite: American firms' overseas investments strengthen their domestic operations and employee compensation.
看吧! 就說美國的公司稅已經過高了,之前我就講過馬侃的經濟政策(減公司稅)是比較好的,可惜叫好不叫座. 之前也講過新加坡建國初期如何利用海外投資增強自己的經濟實力...看我沒說錯吧
New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.
From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.
Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
玉山在哪裡?
看到這個投票我就一肚子火, 什麼叫做玉山位於亞洲(Asia)的中華台北(Chinese Taipei)啊? Chinese Taipei會比台灣有知名度或是更會吸引選票? 拜託! 那請以後發的護照改放 Chinese Taipei好了, 而我要申請 Taiwanese Tainan的護照,可以吧?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)