MADONNA'S TROUBLES

My new column at the American Prowler.

posted by David 9:06 AM

. . .

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCAM

Okay, let me try to put a positive spin on this pro-economic development fund editorial in the Des Moines Register:

The 2003 Legislature will be a failure if it doesn't come up with a big economic-development package. Lawmakers should create a $1 billion fund financed by raising the cigarette tax.

That paragraph can be reasonably interpreted as meaning that the economic development scheme is in trouble. After all, why warn about “a failure” unless the scheme is in real danger of failing? This appears to be confirmed by the fact that Speaker Rants seems to be scrambling to keep it together.

One can hope, because there is little good in this scheme. Consider how it may be funded:

In January, the Iowa's Health Initiative coalition called for a $1 increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes. The coalition of 28 organizations said doing so would improve Iowans' health, reduce tobacco use by youth and generate more revenue to pay for health-care programs and services.

The current 36-cent per pack tax on cigarettes in Iowa brings in about $88 million annually. The coalition estimates that a $1 per pack tax increase would raise more than $183 million in new revenue the first year.

To come up with $1 billion through bonding, Iowa would need to raise at least $75 million a year for 20 years, according to state Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald.

In other words, if Iowa raised the cigarette tax $1, it could finance the economic-development fund and have money left over for other needs.

Do you get the feeling that the editorialist squealed with glee while writing that last sentence?

Of course, with the sentence that came before that passage, you can see that the editorialist’s excitement got in the way of a little something called “logic”:

Increasing the cigarette tax is the way to finance the bonds because it's a dependable source of substantial revenue. It has an ancillary health benefit of encouraging some smokers to cut back or quit.

Uh, how stable is that revenue going to be if more smokers quit or cut back? And who wants to bet that the revenue projections mentioned above don’t take into account that a higher cigarette tax will result in reduced cigarette use?

Final thought: The grants from this economic development fund will go to people who are already well off. It is supposed to create a lot of jobs for people with a college degree. Yet the funds will come from a cigarette tax. And which socioeconomic class comprises the vast majority of smokers? Keep that in mind the next time the Register gripes about “tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.”

posted by David 8:21 AM

. . .

A GOOD COLUMN

If you haven’t read David Yepsen’s most recent column, do so now.

posted by David 8:12 AM

. . .

DES MOINES REGISTER GETTING IT WRONG

Last Thursday the Des Moines Register cheered the liberation of Baghdad:

But the prospect of the tough job still ahead shouldn't dampen the celebration of the moment. The swift liberation of Baghdad was a stunning achievement.

Let's hear it for the courage, skill and professionalism of those marvelous coalition troops.

Perhaps I should be nice. Perhaps I should acknowledge that the Register saw the light as the war was coming to an end. Perhaps I should just let them off the hook. Yeah, right.

Let’s go back to the editorial from March 23, about one week after the liberation of Iraq had started. It began:

When President Bush told the people of Iraq "the day of your liberation is near," it evoked images of joyous civilians cheering the arrival of U.S. troops. One week later, it's clear that was mostly wishful thinking.

Yep, no cheering people, here:



None here, either:



Okay, that’s enough.



Move along now. Nothing to see here.



STOP IT!!!

While were at it, let’s take a look at the Des Moines Register’s Worst Column Ever. Rekha Basu wrote:

[Bush] said Iraqis would welcome their "liberation." So far, the vast majority of Iraqis have responded to us as one would to enemy invaders. Yes, Saddam Hussein has ruled illegitimately, attacked some of his own, invaded another country in the past. But is a U.S. occupation force, driven by questionable goals, any better?

I don’t know Ms. Basu. Why don’t you ask these folks?



The editorial was wrong on how Iraqis would react to U.S. troops:

Most Iraqis may hate Saddam Hussein, but what if they also hate the prospect of their country being occupied by a foreign army?

and,

Even Iraqis who opposed Saddam are sure to be embittered by civilian deaths resulting from the war, despite efforts to avoid them.

Yep, lot’s of hateful, embittered Iraqis in these pictures:





That anyone could really think that a group of people under the boot of the thuggish dictator for 30-plus years would really hate the army that liberated them just boggles the mind. But then, so does most of the Des Moines Register op-ed page.

posted by David 7:58 AM

. . .

HARKIN IS AT IT AGAIN

My new column at the American Prowler.

posted by David 7:58 AM

. . .

PET BLOGGING DAY

It’s pet blogging day over at the Daily Rant.

posted by David 7:55 AM

. . .