I have been wanting to write a piece on Russia for months now… and the recent arrest of Garry Kasparov has provided a good opportunity to do so.  

Russia, under Vladmir Putin’s leadership, has been slowly deteriorating to say the least.  A country that showed promise less than a decade ago is slowly acquiescing back to it’s historical ’status-quo’ consisting of oppressive, top-down leadership.  The most recent example of this is Putin’s attempt to stay in power beyond his constitutionally-imposed term limits.  He is using the power of his office to legitimize his illegal behavior through coersive election tactics. In part, the “United Russia” party is suggesting that government employees will loose their jobs if they do not vote for Putin, or refrain from voting at all..

Many Russians say they are being pressured to vote at work under the watchful eyes of their bosses or risk losing their jobs…

A teacher in St. Petersburg said, “They didn’t tell us necessarily to vote for United Russia, but you can read between the lines,“

Similar accounts have been given by teachers, doctors, factory workers and others around the country. Some have said they were warned they would lose their jobs if they did not comply.

“It is unbelievable. The use of bureaucracy is on an unprecedented scale,” said Marina Dashenkova of Golos, an election-monitoring group. “People are complaining that their bosses are forcing them to take absentee ballots and vote for whom they say.”

“It’s pure pressure. They are saying, ‘We are not forcing you, we are asking you, but if not, you will show your disloyalty to your company,’” said the woman, Anna, who declined to disclose her last name out of fear of being fired.

There are those who are fighting back; the most predominate figure being Garry Kasparov, former chess champion and perhaps the only person who can beat “deep blue“… (although his record against the computer has been the subject of contentious debate). Kasparov left the world of chess to take on Putin and fight for democracy in Russia in 2005, and has been actively involved with “The Other Russia“, a pro-democratic political group.

Kasparov’s arrest this past week for a peaceful protest march in Mosco is telling of the Kremlin’s tolerance (or lack thereof) of dissidents — especially those who disagree with the current leadership.  These tactics are neither new nor should surprise anyone; this dictatorial use of government power is only the latest in a series of attacks on Russians who speak out against Putin’s leadership.

Many may remember Alexander Litvinko who recently died after he was “infected” with polonium, a highly radioactive substance. Anita Politikovskaya, a Russian journalist, was also subject to a failed poisoning and was eventually gunned down just outside her apartment in 2006. She also was vocally critical of the Russian Government.

Regardless of whether or not Putin is actually responsible for the deaths of these two journalists, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Putin is testing the West’s commitment to freedom and their willingness to capitulate on principles.  Putin has continually shown his indifference to Western interests whether it be in his hostility towards budding democracy in the Ukraine, or the installation of a missile shield in Poland,  or the sale of arms to Iran… and these are but a few examples.  He seems to show no concern for anything other than his own political interests as his recent arrests make obvious.  As Anne Applebaum in Slate lamented, Putin beats up on his political opponents for perhaps no other reason than “because he can“. 

I greatly admire Kasparov for his efforts to promote a free Russian society but lament the circumstances against which he fights–circumstances that perhaps could have been avoid and which at many times seem insurmountable. Despite his brilliant mind and sharp tongue, he must fight against brute power and force… two obstacles his gifts are not particularly well-suited for.  Even so, perhaps the pen will yet again be proven mightier than the sword; only time will tell.

If you want more information on Kasparov’s efforts and information regarding his current imprisonment, I suggest theotherrussia.org.  In addition, please consider making a small donation to support his cause, if you have the resources to do so…

Also, for some great Kasparov entertainment, watch him debate Bill Maher here.

New figures from the Treasury Department indicate that the economic policies of the last 10 years have done overwhelming amounts of good for the poorest in our society.   Incomes from the lowest quintile (an arbitrary categorization in 5ths of wage earners) increased on average by 90%!  In layman’s terms, most of the poor in the U.S. have almost doubled their income in the last 10 years, while the top 2 quintiles even took a hit….

All of this certainly helps to illuminate the current election-year debate about income “inequality” in the U.S. The political left and its media echoes are promoting the inequality story as a way to justify a huge tax increase. But inequality is only a problem if it reflects stagnant opportunity and a society stratified by more or less permanent income differences. That kind of society can breed class resentments and unrest. America isn’t remotely such a society, thanks in large part to the incentives that exist for risk-taking and wealth creation.

The great irony is that, in the name of reducing inequality, some of our politicians want to raise taxes and other government obstacles to the kind of risk-taking and hard work that allow Americans to climb the income ladder so rapidly. As the Treasury data show, we shouldn’t worry about inequality. We should worry about the people who use inequality as a political club to promote policies that reduce opportunity.  (WSJ)

What I find most interesting in this report is that the quintiles are continually in flux; the poor are moving up and the rich are moving down on a continual basis.  As the Journal editor pointed out, there is REAL opportunity for the poor in this country; the concept of a permanent underclass is simply an inaccurate representation of our society.  

For that matter, the notion that the “rich” are getting “richer” — the implication being, of course, that some closed group of identifiable individuals is hoarding vast quantities of wealth for themselves and no one else — is also fundamentally wrong.  The “rich” are only those people who, in a given time period, happen to be making enough to be in the top percentile.  The facts indicate that individuals are falling out of this group just as quickly as new ones enter.  Is this continuous upward movement by the “less fortunate” something we should dis-incentive, or is this what makes our country great?  Discuss…

Some, such as John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and others have argued that the wealth ‘gap’ is getting bigger because the increases in the higher quintiles, despite their lower percentage, translate into larger dollar figures.  I’m not going to debate that assertion, it is a fact.   However, to claim that that this is somehow unfair to the poor or is an outrageous claim. 

Say, for example, that one person from each quintile put 10% of their yearly salary into a bank account to earn interest.  After one year, the person in the highest tax bracket (who also put the most total $ into the bank) would have gotten the largest $ figure return on their investment.  Are we to believe that this practice is “unfair”, or that we need to remedy the situation so that the time value of money is less for people who put more cash into the system?  Is the time value of money working against the poor?  Of course not!  The investment system treats all money equally, and the people who invest more, very often get greater returns because of their volume.  Should those investing in higher volumes be treated less favorably simply because they have more money in the system?  Discuss…

My main point is that while ACTUAL gain of those in the top quintile is more, their RELATIVE gain is much less (and has been a net loss according to the data).  If the rich were almost doubling their income, I would be worried. However, this is not what the data shows and it is not the way a market system works. Making a breakthrough is much easier than staying in the lead.

When you boil it down, the income inequality arguments can be simplified to a single statement: “it is unfair for the rich to have more money than the poor”.  Period.

Going to DC on thurdsay! Federalist Society Convention. Get ready for some serious schmoosing.

I just stumbled across a couple great articles on the renewed US – Europe relationship (here and here).  A lot of people have been complaining recently about how Bush has “tarnished” and “ruined” our perception in the rest of the world… and that we need a democrat so that the world will “love” us again.  

I have an alternate theory (no big surprise, of course).  Maybe Europe for the last decade was lead by a bunch of puerile, jealous highbrows who couldn’t handle seeing us prosper while their countries, economies, and traditions slowly wasted away.  Maybe europeans are the ones with the attitude problem.  If fresh leadership is all it takes to improve US/French relations, then maybe our image is much more a function of european attitudes than U.S. leadership or policy.  

It’s just a theory.

By the way, is Sarkosy super classy or is that just me?

I just stumbled across one of the most scathing reprimands of the music industry ever to be put on paper… and I wanted to share a few points with you and encourage you to read the article in its entirety. But before you do, allow me to issue the following warning: If you had any qualms about downloading music for free off the internet, prepare to have that conviction challenged…

I tagged along on $1500 artist dinners paid for by the labels. Massive bar tabs were regularly signed away by record label employees with company cards. You got used to people billing as many expenses back to the record company as they could.

Music isn’t thought of as an art form, as it was in the earlier days of the industry where labels were started by music-lovers – it’s a product, pure and simple.

Oink was not only an absolute paradise for music fans, but it was unquestionably the most complete and most efficient music distribution model the world has ever known.… If the music industry had found a way to capitalize on the power, devotion, and innovation of its own fans the way Oink did, it would be thriving right now instead of withering.

I used to reject the wishy-washy “music should be free!” mantra of online music thieves…. But I no longer believe that, because the … ownership-obsessed major labels will never let it happen

So maybe music has to be free. Maybe taking the money out of music is the only way to get money back into it. Maybe in the hands of consumers, the music marketplace will expand in new and lucrative ways no one can even dream of yet. We won’t know until music is free, and eventually it’s going to be.

And, should I otherwise fall victim to the “let’s use someone else’s blog post as my own to make my blog look better (cough… Priscilla)” pithole… allow me to go on a rant of my own…

If the utter disregard for financial realities and wasteful spending is indeed symptomatic of the music industry, then it seems that whatever actions consumers took to correct this market ‘defect’ were justified. The record industries had years to figure out that it’s consumers prefer ipods instead of cd players before they found themselves fighting against mammoths like OINK and the Pirate Bay. If the industry would listen to consumers instead of USE them… they might have been able to save themselves, but it is, alas, too late.

Instead of paying attention to consumers, they raised CD prices. Instead of rewarding consumers who made their artist’s music MORE POPULAR, they brought lawsuits. Instead of letting the consumer marketplace find great artists through it’s collective decision-making … it force fed us garbage in the form of Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, Celene Dion, and New Kids on the Block (remember them?? admit it…). Instead of giving us artists, it gave us sex objects and rappers. Instead of giving us musicians, it gave us models. Instead of giving us art, they gave us the same product… over and over…

Instead of finding real talent, it created “talent”.

Nuff said. Comments anyone?

uploaded by carpe icthus.

If there is one thing we can say with certainty, is that the tax cuts enacted in 2003 have provied both a roboust economy and have increased tax revenues significantly.

[The 2003 tax rate reductions have incrased] tax revenues… Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush’s 2003 tax rate reductions.

Given this statistical evidence, it is clear that we would have record SURPLUSES were it not for the IRAQ war. Furthermore, it is clear that Democrats cannot claim any responsibility for the record inflows to the federal treasury. Can ANYONE dispute on the basis of these figures that tax cuts lead to greater tax revenue? I think not (although I’d be happy to entertain your theories to the contrary in the comments).

One is then left asking the question: why would Charles Rangel (who recently suggested one of the biggest tax hikes in U.S. history), Hillary (who ‘agrees with Rangel in principle‘), and most Democrats (as a general rule) want to raise taxes if the facts show that lower taxes increases government revenue? In other words, shouldn’t democrats be in FAVOR of tax cuts to fund the social program of their choice? You would think….

I’m afraid the only answer that makes any sense is that Wrangel, Hillary, and the rest would rather soak the rich in principle… regardless of the adverse affect doing so may have on the public at large when treasury inflows dry up. They must conclude that a society equally miserable is more desirable than a tiered but economically healthy society. This is indeed unfortunate, but I can think of no other option.

Actually, I take that back… perhaps the democrats believe in smaller government… (that’s a joke… people…)