Tax rebate - not really.

By now you've heard that the feds are going to be giving out a "tax rebate" as part of a poorly-conceived economic stimulus plan designed to jump-start the failing economy. Ignoring for a moment the stupidy of the rebate program generally, it turns out that it's not what the gov't and media have made it out to be.

Media reports all state that taxpayers will receive $600 rebates ($1,200 for couples who filed jointly) and $300 for people who didn't have any tax liability. Sounds pretty sweet, right?

Not so fast. First, in order to get your rebate you must file your 2007 tax return. So much for just sending a check. But that's not really such a big deal - you have to file your return anyway, so no big deal.

However, in order to get your rebate check, you have to either owe nothing or get a refund on your 2007 taxes. So, if you file single and end up owing $100, then your rebate check will be $500. If you owe $1,000, then you'll simply get a credit of $600 and still owe $400. And of course is you have an outstanding prior tax liability, it will be reduced by $600.

Now, there is an certain logic to the idea that the government should not hand out money to people who owe it money. However, the purported purpose of the plan is to stimulate the economy by giving people cash to inject into the pipeline - in other words, to go shopping. Not to give taxpayers a bonus, but to move products, increase spending and hopefully kick start the economy overall. It's a stupid idea and won't work, but if program's instigators truly believed in the goal, wouldn't they have made sure that the gov't kept its hands off the money in order to ensure a maximum economic bump? How does paying the IRS stimulate the economy?

There is nothing worse than a bad idea poorly executed. And while I would love to lay this on top of the stack of other poorly-executed bad ideas by Bush, this is truly a bi-partisian effort. Everybody is guilty. Worse, the media have utterly failed to investigate these details, and I assure you that you will not read or hear a news story about the IRS intercepting rebates until the checks start going out and people start bitching about not getting their's. Way to be on top of the news, guys.

Why Craig Should Resign.

By this point most people are aware of Senator Larry Craig's (R-Idaho) arrest and conviction in Minneapolis for trolling for sex in the men's bathroom at the airport there. A quick summary:

Craig was arrested for sitting in the stall in the men's bathroom at the Minneapolis airport for sending "signals" to an undercover police officer in the next stall over. I have read the arrest report. As a municipal prosecutor, I can say with absolute certainty that I would have "no filed" this case had I read that report. That means I would not have allowed it go forward - it was that bad.

Nonetheless, Craig pleaded guilty. Some liberal radio talk-show hosts have claimed that Craig pleaded guilty the same day he was arrested, then flew to D.C. to cast some vote. They are lying. (As opposed to wrong - anybody who read the arrest report (dated June 12) and the guilty plea (signed August 1) would have immediately noticed they were a month apart).

In any event, Craig's claim that he didn't have enough time to contemplate the ramification of his decision, that he felt rushed, is complete crap. He mailed his freakin' plea petition, which he or an attorney drafted - there was no rush.

It is immaterial that Craig was arrested on this stupid, b.s. charge. It is also immaterial that he pleaded guilty. It is further immaterial whether he is gay or, if you believe his bizarre press conference, is not gay. None of that matters - yet it is all that the media are talking about. That, of course, is because the media are essentially a collective of idiots who pander to the lowest-common denominator.

No, the reason Craig should resign is quite simple - he is not qualified to be a United States Senator. Now, techinically speaking, he is qualified. The only requirements are age and residency. He meets both.

However, he is not intellectually qualified. He is claiming that he did not understand the ramifications of his guilty plea and that he did not understand what he was doing when he entered it. Aside from the rather explicit and detailed explanation found in the plea petition, this is not rocket science. I deal often with people of far lessor capacity (supposedly) who clearly understand the plea petition and what it means to plead guilty. So he can't understand the basics of the American criminal justice system, yet he is entrusted to understand and vote on the most complicated legislation this nation has to offer. Seriously?

Simply put, anybody who can't understand a simple misdemeanor guilty plea has no business being in the Senate. And why nobody has caught on to this yet is entirely beyond me - unless the reality is that EVERYBODY in the Senate (and most of the media) are also too stupid to grasp the significance of a misdemeanor guilty plea.