Per Diem

Now there's some hoopla over Gov. Palin not paying income taxes on per diem she received as a governor living at home and commuting into the capital.

It seems that some people went and dug up some lines of tax code that now state that per diem is to be treated as "income" rather than "tax-free living expenditures." When I worked for TIC, I received about a third of my take-home from per diem, none of which was reported as income. I wonder if now that means I have to pay taxes on the roughly $6,000 I took home of what everyone said was tax-free cash. (Everyone also includes my father, who is a CPA.)

To me, this whole article is a bunch of hoopla about nothing. Someone, perhaps maliciously, perhaps because he's trying to be as scrupulous as he can about things so that Palin has a clean record (which do we believe, folks?), "discovered" that what most people expect to be tax-free income is instead taxable income, and now Palin has to pay thousands of dollars in taxes.

The reporting, gleefully attempting to lump Palin in with the other tax-dodgers we've heard about in the news, doesn't seem to realize that, even if this is a case of tax-dodging, it's non-news. If the other tax-dodgers get a pass due to errors of judgment or not knowing the laws, so does Palin. On the other hand, if Palin is to be lambasted for this, so should the other tax-dodgers.

What to do, what to do...

Random Thoughts

Having a cold is terribly uncomfortable, but most colds are not life-threatening and run their course in a week or so. Seeking a doctor is usually a waste of money because the doctor can’t really do anything but prescribe medication for the symptoms, and you can usually buy just as effective medication over the counter. But there are some tragic cases where the cold becomes much more than just a cold, even to the point of hospitalization. Insurance exists for this reason; it is an attempt to pool money together from many, many people to help pay for those things which very rarely happen. It is a gamble. When someone has insurance that covers everything, that no longer is insurance but health care. When everyone has this insurance, it is universal health care. The question becomes: who pays for this? If we divide up the costs, the people who need the insurance can’t pay their portion, else they wouldn’t actually need the insurance. The deficit has to be made up by those who have more money. This isn’t problematic assuming that the rich are voluntarily covering the difference. If they are not, then this becomes theft.

I look at taxes to the government as renewing my subscription to the services the nation has to offer. I just wish that I could pick and choose the services for which I pay. But then, I might not pay into the services the nation really needs.

Part of the difference between left and right seems to be who we trust to have money. The left doesn’t trust the rich to have money because they fear the rich will hoard it and never help the poor unless forced. The right trusts the rich to invest wisely and donate to charities. Catholics understand that wealth can corrupt, and thus there are rich people who do despicable things in the pursuit of more wealth. Catholics also acknowledge that a man who works hard to earn wealth shouldn’t be punished for working hard. Work is one of the great means with which we glorify God, and when you punish the rewards of work, you deter man from working.

We hear a lot on the campaign trail about the merits of a man who is willing to come across the aisle and work with the other party to pass bills. We hear endless talk about partisan politics dividing the nation. We see so much activity in Congress directed towards blocking bills from the floor, keeping bills from debate, filibustering bills, and in general accomplishing nothing. The message of change continually bantered about is a change in which all differences are set aside and Congress actually passes bills the help our beleaguered nation.

Yet there is a fallacy inherent in this thirst for change, and I hear it from people who view partisan politics with cynicism and dismay. They hear radically different views from the left and from the right—there is global warming, there isn’t; capitalism, socialism; pro-choice, pro-life—and conclude that the reality must be somewhere in the middle. Maybe there is global warming, but it isn’t as bad as the Democrats make it sound. Surely some amount of socialism is necessary to rein in the unbridled greed of the capitalists. Obviously abortion is bad, but it shouldn’t be eliminated for some of those rare, tough situations. Thus all the stalling and partisan politics should take a back seat to compromise.

The fallacy is this: compromise works in favor of the party that realizes it can eventually pass its agenda by forcing the other party from its position. If we feel anything should go on television, we get the prudish critics to approve some mildly offensive language. And then we get them to approve some adult situations. Then we ask for scenes that are somewhat sexually explicit, and after long rounds put them on primetime television. And then we go for more and more offensive language, more adult situations, more sexually explicit material. After so many compromises, it looks as though one side completely folded, and the other held firm to its guns.

It is amazing how far we have compromised ourselves from the truth, from what is right. As bad as an Obama presidency would be, we still must realize that a McCain presidency is a compromise.

As a final note, there is something uncompromising about “You shall love your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.”