The author of this cartoon (click the image for a larger version) – Michael Ramirez – just won a Pulitzer. And this cartoon is a good example of why. He appears to get right to the nub of the issue with pretty much every one. More here.

Thanks to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

A video surfaced this week of an interview with Harry Reid, by a man named Jan Helfeld, which tackles the subject of taxation. In it, Reid repeats an idea floated a few months ago by Charlie Rangel, which is that we have a “voluntary tax system.” Now, it appears that this is a standard term used in tax policy circles, and it describes the fact that US citizens are responsible for paying their own taxes to the government, and that the government does not forcibly extract such taxes from each paycheck as in other countries. In addition, it is supposedly tied to the concept of deductions which may be made from tax payments for various items, which again are not present in other countries (although my experience of the British tax system suggests that the two needn’t go together – the UK uses a pay as you earn (PAYE) tax system in which the taxes are subtracted from paychecks but there are still various deductions, albeit not as generous as in the US).

However, both Reid’s and Rangels’ insistence on using this phrase in the context they do makes clear that it has nothing to do with arcane policy discussions and everything to do with trying to make it sound like we live in a utopian society where paying taxes really is “voluntary”, which most would take to mean optional. This it clearly isn’t in the US or in another other real-world country. And it is a fallacy which must be tempting to believe in when you believe the government has the right to demand extortionate rates of taxation from its citizens in order to pay for a multitude of government programs not authorized by the constitution. As long as it’s all voluntary, then it doesn’t really matter, does it?

But of course the interviewer in the Reid clip rightly presses him on that point and suggests that it is not voluntary in any sense a normal person would recognize. Instead of simply agreeing that it is an inappropriate use of the word in the context and moving on, Reid digs in and insists that the tax code is voluntary and that this is somehow important. This just reinforces the perception that Reid is willfully misrepresenting the situation out of political necessity, but he just comes off as being ridiculous at worst and irretrievably wonkish at worst.

Is this just wishful thinking on CNN’s part? In a story about the fact that Alan Greenspan has endorsed John McCain, the caption on the picture reads, “Greenspan said he is supporting Obama.” Obama, who is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and who does not appear to be the object of Greenspan’s support or endorsement. I wonder if CNN will correct this at some point…

Click through on the screenshot for a fuller version.

What is it with the Democratic candidates and trade agreements? Although both of them are reportedly against elements (or all) of NAFTA, and criticize most others, they have both now had senior advisers talking up such agreements to foreign governments. In Obama’s case, of course, it was the advisor who told the Canadian government that Obama didn’t really mean what he was saying about NAFTA and that they shouldn’t take it too seriously. It still isn’t 100% clear whether he was acting on his own or on behalf of the campaign – but it is clear there was a disconnect between his own beliefs and those of the candidate.

And then this week we had a similar situation with Clinton. Mark Penn, a lobbyist who advises Clinton, reportedly met with the Colombian government to promote a trade agreement that Clinton opposes. In his case, he was at least clearly promoting the agreement in his capacity as a lobbyist and not as a Clinton staffer, but there is once again a massive disconnect between the candidate and the adviser.

On the one hand, this suggests some laxity on the part of the candidates in choosing their advisers on these topics. On the other, it suggests that even prominent people within their campaigns disagree with them about their positions on these trade agreements. Is it really that hard to find an adviser who holds similar positions on these issues? And if so, isn’t that a sign that the candidates’ views are dangerously at variance with what the best minds think about trade agreements? Should the candidates perhaps be revisiting their views on these issues and moderating their criticisms? If not, then they should at least replace these advisers with ones who will parrot their union-driven, economy-destroying opposition wholeheartedly instead of undermining and contradicting their positions.

Just saw Fred Thompson and John Edwards provide the closing keynotes for the CTIA Wireless conference in Las Vegas. The political theme carried over from last year, when George H W Bush and Bill Clinton were the closing speakers. A step down, perhaps, but two former presidential candidates is interesting nonetheless.

John Edwards spoke first and appeared very much as I have always suspected he would. There is John Edwards the trial lawyer, confident and methodical in laying out a compelling narrative. But there is also John Edwards the rich man who wants to be the friend of the little guy, with a vague air of superiority. His charm runs over to smarminess on occasion.

He covered several themes but did so in a way which appeared to flow well from one to another. He talked about the flawed political process, but did so good-naturedly rather than bitterly. He spoke of climate change and emphasised population growth as a factor, making several exaggerations in the process. And he repeatedly made reference to the wireless industry and its contributions to the political process.

Fred Thompson was a crusty old Republican, with a lazy demeanor that said a lot about why his campaign never took off. His first five minutes was made up of set-piece jokes, some funny, some less so, though his biggest laugh (and deservedly so) was when he said that he had flown in earlier today into Las Vegas “under heavy sniper fire.” He meandered here and there, covering some of the same ground as John Edwards though tempering his criticisms of the process by saying that it could be changed (but not talking about specifics). A lot of his remarks were very self-referential in a way Edwards’ were not. And he didn’t mention the wireless industry until the last minute of his 20-30 minute remarks.

In a brief Q&A session at the end, both candidates were asked who their professional heroes were. Edwards said his hero was Bobby Kennedy, primarily because of the attention he paid to the issue of poverty. A second was Terry Sanford, Governor and Senator from North Carolina, who had apparently handled issues of de-segregation sensitively.  Fred Thompson’s hero was Howard Baker, who preceded him as Senator from Tennessee and acted as something of a mentor to Thompson.

A second question asked whether the two former presidential candidates would accept the VP slot if offered it. Edwards, who knows whereof he speaks, simply said no. Thompson said that to answer the question would be presumptive since he hadn’t been asked it by the one person who mattered, but also said that he would not accept it.

Overall, although I have far more sympathy with Thompson’s politics than those of Edwards, I found that Edwards came across as the more congenial, the more interested in the industry he was speaking too. Last year, the roles were reversed, with the Republican (George H W Bush) being the more humble, giving more credit to the wireless industry and generally coming off better, and Clinton very self-centered, keen to impress and relatively uninterested in his audience. Edwards still seemed alternately snooty and smarmy at times, but largely presented himself better than Thompson.