Alec Baldwin: supply-side economist

WSJ: Tax me if you can:

We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.

"I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.....

According to the Motion Picture Association of America, nearly 40 states have corporate tax carve outs or generous cash rebates to lure movie studios to their states. In Michigan, producers negotiated a 40% tax credit on their production costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the Texas legislature last week and supported by Governor Rick Perry would allocate $60 million into the Texas Film Incentive Program. Members of the Screen Actors Guild held a rally last week in front of the state capitol urging the tax breaks.

In some cases these state tax credits exceed a company's tax liabilities, which means that Disney, Dreamworks and others can get a net cash subsidy from state taxpayers. "In many states, today, movie producers actually pay a negative tax," says a Tax Foundation report on the subject.

Don't you love the hypocrisy? Small businesses and investors are the bad guys and supposed to pay ever higher tax rates according to liberals like Baldwin, but those in the movie industry think that their work is so worthwhile they should be subsidized by state taxpayers. They say they create jobs so they should have a lower tax rate. Isn't this what small businesses do? What's the difference except that the Hollywood elite think that taxes are for thee and not for me?

And what happened to "spreading the wealth around?" Isn't this the change they voted for?

Blogger Don Surber asks, "Ok, what if doctors decide to go John Galt?" in a post today. He is referring to doctors in Britain who are being forced to cut their hours. This is not the same as "going Galt" where people do it purposely to reduce the tax burden, of course, but it should give us an example of what is to come should doctors and other professionals decide to "go Galt."

I have talked with people who say that some emergency room doctors are thinking of reducing their hours should taxes be raised and deductions reduced. One remarked, "Let some other sucker out there take over." I even heard one doctor looking forward to nationalized healthcare so he could work less. We should look to Britain to see how well a reduction of doctor's hours will go over for their health care system. Not well, I expect.

Don't dismiss the views of a new generation

The Boston Globe has an article today pointing out a survey that shows many Boston teens say Rihanna is at fault for the assault by Chris Brown. I haven't really followed the story much--seems that those in the music business are always fighting, e.g. take a look at Amy Winehouse who admits instigating violence against her boyfriend. I do think that one of the comments following this article made a valid point:

SHE STARTED THE FIGHT AND SHE HIT HIM, GAVE HIM A FAT LIP. IF THE GENDERS WERE REVERSED, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FIGHTING FOR SELF DEFENSE. THEY ARE BOTH GUILTY. THE IDEA THAT THE MALE HAS TO BE GUILTY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH DV LAW TODAY - THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO ALL VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS WERE THE MAN IS ALWAYS GUILTY AND THE WOMEN IS ALWAYS THE VICTIM. FEMINIST THEORY MAKES BAD LAW. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THESE BIASED HATE LAWS. by PJ1 March 13, 10:55 AM

Naturally, the article talks about how health groups are concerned that the Boston teens say that both of the participants were at fault. Maybe they should take that as a sign and help both genders understand that reciprocal violence can lead to injury and problems for both concerned, rather than just tell women they are victims, and men, the perpetrators.

John Hawkins at RWN has an interview up with Adam Shepard, author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. Glenn and I did a podcast with Mr. Shepard last year and his story is a really fascinating one of personal responsibility and grit.

"Greedy bastard" or selfish?

Colbert talked about "going John Galt" on his show last night (about three minutes in). Naturally he makes fun of it, and does not seem to understand it from either a moral perspective, or as a form of protest. However, at least it is getting some attention. And as threatened as left-leaning types seem to be by the term, it must really strike a chord. It strikes me as odd that if you work and make money, you're a selfish bastard and if you stop working hard and making money, you're a selfish bastard. Which is it?

PJTV: "Going Galt" around the country

Today, econoblogger Megan McArdle from the Atlantic comes on to discuss "going John Galt," Atlas Shrugged, and why the Obama administration needs to be humble in their approach to the economic crisis. I then talk with some citizens from around the country--from Virginia, Ohio, and California--about their "Going Galt" experiences. Find out what others are doing and hear their suggestions and feelings on the bailouts, tax increases and more (currently free with no registration required).

You can watch here.

Why?

I cringed when I saw today's headline on Drudge linking to this story about a man in Alabama who killed nine people and then himself in a rampage:

A gunman on a terrifying rampage across two southern Alabama counties killed at least nine people Tuesday, including members of his own family and apparent strangers, and burned down his mother's home before shooting himself at a metals plant, authorities said.

Police were investigating shootings in at least four different locations in several communities, all of which were believed to be the work of a single gunman who had not yet been identified by investigators.

I can only imagine that this man was seething with anger and wonder what led up to the events. What was going on in this man's mind that he felt these horrible actions were his only way out? Had he been fired from his job at the metal plant? Did he have emotional problems that were not being addressed? Could this have been prevented? I realize that many people don't care about this man's thought process but as a psychologist, I can't help but wonder...

"How can we live in a world where the losers in high school are, well, losers for life?"

So asks Cliff Mason at CNBC after reflecting on a new study written about by Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, which says that popular kids make more money in life:

Here's his summation of the results:

"They find that each extra close friend in high school is associated with earnings that are 2 percent higher later in life after controlling for other factors. While not a huge effect, it does suggest that either that A) the same factors that make you popular in high school help you in a job setting, or B) that high-school friends can do you favors later in life that will earn you higher wages."

Come on, you've gotta be kidding me.

I thought the geeks were supposed to inherit the earth.

What happened to Revenge of the Nerds? .....

We need some more evidence here. I can't let this stand. How can we live in a world where the losers in high school are, well, losers for life? Man, that's depressing. And the people with lots of close friends who were on the football team?

They get to win?

If "the same factors that make you popular in high school help you in a job setting," it's no wonder we're headed for a repeat of the great depression. We gave the jerks in the polo shirts the keys to the economy.

Really, seems to me the "jerks in the polo shirts" (at least the ones in and appointed by the White House) were the nerds...

Atlas Shrugged makes a comeback

Sales of Atlas Shrugged are up, according to the National Post (via Newsalert):

Banks, automakers and overextended homeowners aren't the only ones who've been helped by massive government bailout packages. Sales of the Libertarian classic Atlas Shrugged have apparently surged and are apparently triple what they were this time last year according to one Libertarian think tank.

The book even cracked the top 40 on Amazon's bestsellers list, briefly besting Barack Obama's memoir The Audacity of Hope.

The Economist tellingly points out that Rand's book seems to do well whenever the government stages massive interventions in the economy:...

Perhaps Rand will do for reading what J.K. Rowling did.

Interesting blog

I recently received an email from Kathleen R. LaBounty who was the woman interviewed in the Houston Press about being a sperm donor child that I mentioned in a previous post "Are you my father?" She let me know that she has a blog, Child of a Stranger: Conception Through Anonymous Sperm Donation that is full of information about what it is like to be the sperm donor child of an anonymous donor:

I am the child of a stranger, produced through an anonymous sperm donation. Despite writing all 600 men from my donor's former medical school yearbooks, receiving 250 responses, and going through 16 DNA tests, I have yet to find my missing family. While many other countries banned anonymous donations by the late 1980s to early 1990s and instead only use donors willing to release their identity, anonymous egg and sperm donations are still allowed and frequently practiced in the United States.

I especially found this post intriguing.