Harold Ford on middle-class taxes

I knew I liked this guy for a reason (from the Wash. Times). Go Democratic Leadership Council!

I don't like the implied assault on the "rich" or the tax engineering for specific industries but this (Dem.) guy at least acknowledges JFK's position:

• Middle-class flat tax: This is simple and fair: no middle-class family with an income of under $150,000 should ever pay an effective tax rate of more than 10 percent. If what they owe after calculating their taxes is more than 10 percent of their income, they won't have to pay a dime above 10 percent. If they owe less than 10 percent, they pay the lesser amount.

• Permanent capital-gains tax cuts: Long-term capital gains tax rates now are between 5 percent and 15 percent. The rates are progressive: People in or below the 15 percent personal income tax bracket (which applies to married couples making $60,000) get the lower capital-gains rate. We should lower the capital-gains tax even further for people making up to $100,000 a year, provided they hold the asset for up to five years. Thus your tax would be 4 percent if you hold the asset for three years, 3 percent if you hold it for five years. This sliding scale for taxing capital gains will encourage investment and increase savings for a majority of Americans.

• Cut corporate tax rates to 30 percent: America has one of the developed world's highest corporate tax rates. Let's change that by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 to 30 percent — with an even lower rate for new knowledge-based industries in energy technology, biotechnology and other science-rich sectors. We should follow House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel's lead and cut the corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 30 ½ percent[.]

Tennessee made a big mistake. Heck, I could have voted for this guy.

Go Pack Go!!

You have NO idea how badly C and I are rooting for Green Bay to win tonight. We tried to get tickets for the game at the start of the season but had no luck. I don't even want to think about how much they are going for from "ticket brokers". C's brothers were thinking about coming down for the game before the house flooding, but no dice.

On an unrelated note, I have read where Texas A&M and my Hogs are about to sign a multi-year deal to play annually in the new Dallas Cowboy stadium (ala OU-UT). I'm very excited about that. That will be the only way I'll get inside "Jerry World". There was an article in the DMN a couple of weeks ago about what the highest price ticket in the new stadium will be. $340 a pop, plus a PSL (the biggest rip-off in sports) fee of.....$50,000 per seat!!!! The PSL is refunded in either 25 or 30 years, with minimal interest. The article also stated that the Cowboys are expecting every seat in the new stadium to be purchased via season tickets - meaning no individual game seats for sale. That is very hard for me to believe. They have a 65,000 seat stadium now that they can't sell out via season tickets - how do they expect to do that with a 90,000 seat stadium, with higher ticket prices AND higher PSL fees?????

Prager interviews The Looming Tower author...

today (11-28). Listen at Townhall. Who knew the Pulitzer Prize winner Lawrence Wright grew up in Dallas?

A hero of mine dies...

Gatorade Inventor.

Re: NFL v. Cable

Just heard an interesting argument: play the MADD card. Do it for the children. We can't have these men going to bars and watching the game WITH ALCOHOL involved. The NFL is robbing children of their fathers.

NFL Network v. Cable Companies

As one who will have to head out to a Sports Bar Thursday night to watch the Pokes and the Pack, I've got to chime in. The cable companies seem to be doing a much better sales/propaganda job on this dispute but the broadcasts rights are the property of the NFL Network. The owners have the right to maximize their income from their assets.

It is genuinely funny that the cable companies are taking the Edwardsian position of being on the side of the little guy.

Owners are certainly experimenting here (with an ultimate goal of going to all pay-per-view, all the time) and have lucked out that this is the sexiest game of the year. Sad to say but there are two things that men will pay for if the economic models are correct...sports and porn. (If you've never seen the profit margins on PPV porn for the cable companies, they are astounding. I've also read that only internet gambling has become more profitable than internet porn.)

Having come down firmly on the side of the Network, the more interesting question to me is the experiment itself. The owners have such a lucrative deal with the networks...are they taking this a bridge too far? I don't think so. If this proves a disaster, I believe they can come back and the fans will forgive and forget. I also suspect that it won't prove a disaster. I just don't know if moving from an advertiser model to a PPV model can be justified by the numbers. I don't have access to the numbers the owners must be using but I think they (the numbers) must be less than clear if the owners are having to stick in their collective toe rather than dive in head first.

The last thing we need is for the gummint to get involved. I've even heard arguments on the radio that the NFL is a utility and therefore can be regulated. Having said that, what a coup if some legislator could ride in on a white horse and save the electorate from the evil NFL Network.

Skyline Raiders advance

I saw where Skyline crushed Rowlett over the weekend. The DMN shows Skyline playing in Waco Saturday afternoon (1pm) against Round Rock. Good luck Scooter