James Edward Maule is a professor of tax law at Villonova University School of Law who authors a blog in which he frequently opines on various issues relating to tax policy. Today, the issue is income tax simplification and he is not optimistic about the prospects for reform:

The Democrats are trying to make tax simplification a highlight of their campaign promises. This is an amusing thought, but it?s also frightening because there are people who will believe it.
The Democrats, after all, were the pioneers in modern tax hypercomplexity. Beginning with Kennedy?s investment tax credit and magnified by a huge array of other credits, deductions, and exclusions, the tax law was made even more complicated through the enactment of phaseouts, scalebacks, and other hidden tax increases.
Not to be outdone, it didn?t take the Republicans long to get on the special interest complexity tax train. Absurd capital gain rate structures, a new cluster of credits, and all other sorts of finely tailored specially-directed provisions were crammed into an already bloated code. To use an analog from an astrophysics lecture I attended yesterday, the tax universe is expanding at a constant rate and is moving toward increasing disorder. Just like the cosmos.

Professor Maule then evaluates the Kerry Campaign’s proposals for tax simplification:

John Kerry?s tax proposals are inconsistent with the notion of tax simplification, so it will be interesting to see how the Democrats reconcile the party?s ?tax simplification? message and Kerry?s proposals. To be fair, Kerry cannot be blamed for all of the tax complexity in the Code or even all of the complexity bestowed on us by the Democrats in Congress. He isn?t even to blame for some of the stuff enacted while he was in the Congress.
Nonetheless, why is Kerry willing to make his proposals within the confines of a Republican tax design? The tax on dividends is a fine example. The Republicans create complexity by making most dividends (a selection process that is itself complex) subject to lower tax rates essentially the same as the bizarre rate structure applicable to capital gains. As readers of my blog and listserv posts know, this is an approach wholly inconsistent with fairness, implification, and common sense. Kerry proposes to eliminate this rate twist by restricting it to taxpayers with incomes under $200,000. This creates yet another layer of complexity onto the already complex dividend taxation structure.
I?d be far more impressed if Kerry took the following position: ?Look, folks, dividends are just one form of income. A person with a lot of income, no matter its source, ought to pay tax at a higher rate than someone with much less income. A person with interest income from certificates of deposit is no less entitled to a low rate than is a person with dividend income. In other words, the basic tax rate structures ought to reflect this principle, and favoritism of one sort of income over another is wrong, no matter the income level. To tax a retired person who has no pension and lives on social security and $30,000 of dividend income at a lower rate than her neighbor who has no pension income and lives on social security and $30,000 of interest income is flat out wrong and contrary to all principles of fairness.?

So, why doesn’t the Kerry Campaign from addressing this issue in such a common sense manner?:

What stops Kerry (or his advisors) from tackling this head on? Surely it has something to do with trying to make everyone think he or she is better off under Kerry?s proposals (which in fact is not the case). In an election campaign directed pretty much at the 10% of the voters who are ?swing votes? where?s the advantage in Kerry?s existing proposals? It doesn?t make much sense politically. So I?m wondering if in fact the Kerry tax advisors don?t quite know how to cut the Gordian knot of taxation.

Which leads Professor Maule back to where we always seem to be after each election campaign (with the notable exception of the Reagan Administration). Both political parties initially talk about tax simplification, but then promptly ignore the issue while dividing pork to special interests through tax “policy”:

So as far as I?m concerned, with the exception of a few individual members of Congress whose voices of common sense are drowned out in a sea of special interest tax pandering, both major parties and both major Presidential candidates don?t earn any points on the tax question.
So no matter who wins, the tax law will become even more disordered. Will it end as the astrophysicists predict the cosmos will ?end?? Will the system collapse of its own weight, becoming a black hole that swallows all? Does anyone other than a few ?tax mavens? even understand the seriousness of the problem?
Right now, I?m going to go back to looking in 360 degrees at two shades of blue. I?ll let my brain process tax stuff later.

As an independent voter, one of my greatest disappointments with the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress is their failure to address and propose enactment of meaningful tax simplification reform. As with reform of America’s broken health care finance system, the Republicans talk a good game, but then generally buckle to pressure from special interests that lobby to maintain the status quo. Professor Maule makes a good point that a Kerry Administration likely would not be any better in regard to tax simplification reform. Nevertheless, my sense is that the Republican Party badly underestimates the frustration of independent voters with their inaction on the issues of tax simplification and health care finance reform.
Given this Administration’s inaction on these issues, I think it is fair to ask the following question: Are we at a point where only a Democratic Administration initiative on these issues — modified through responsible Republican Congressional opposition — is the only (albeit messy) route to meaningful reform legislation?

Professor Ribstein has been noting the increasingly polarized nature of political debate in America, best reflected by the tendency of many critics of President Bush to eschew fair criticism for ad hominem attacks.
Although Professor Ribstein is correct that Bush-bashing is prevalent, I’m not certain that this is all that unusual. American Presidential campaigns have often been ribald affairs in which strident supporters of one candidate have characterized the opposing candidate as evil, immoral, moronic, or worse.
For example, the campaigns immediately after George Washington‘s terms in office were no picnic, and later, Andrew Jackson‘s opponents used many of the same tactics that the Bush-bashers use now. Even Abe Lincoln endured a good deal of these types of attacks in the 1864 election, and more recently, Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972 were often characterized as the epitome of evil by their opponents. Particularly during the 1980 election, opponents of Ronald Reagan often portrayed him as an idiot mouthpiece controlled by others.
However, the WSJ’s ($) Alan Murray in his Political Capital column this week may point to the reason that the Bush-bashers are using this particular technique during this Presidential campaign:

To an unprecedented degree, Americans already have decided how they are going to vote in November. Polls differ, but all suggest that between 43% and 45% of voters plan to vote for George W. Bush and won’t give any consideration to John Kerry, and an equal percentage plan to vote for Sen. Kerry, and won’t give any consideration to President Bush.
That leaves just 10% to 15% of voters who say they remain uncertain about how they will vote. And Republican pollster Bill McInturff says his research shows even most of the undecided voters are less malleable than the label indicates. “The polarization is exceptional,” says Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “Even the independents break down into pro-Bush and anti-Bush groups.” Kerry strategist Mark Mellman goes further: “All the evidence suggests we are fighting over less than 10% of the electorate, and probably less than 6%.” Says Mr. McInturff: “I’ve never seen anything like this in my 25-year career.”

Could it be that the Bush-bashers have concluded that their approach is the most effective means by which to persuade a majority of this 10% undecided group? Or is it simply a means by which to maintain the passion of the base of Bush opponents to ensure that base turns out on election day? Or both?
Update: Professor Ribstein notes the difference in the nature of the current Bush bashing with previous President bashing.

If you read nothing else today, read this harrowing account of a family’s experience in a recent domestic flight.
Please pass this along the next time you hear someone complain that there is no reason to sacrifice any civil liberties in order to fight the war against the radical Islamic fascists.
Michelle Malkin is running posts on her blog attempting to verify the accuracy of the events described in the account. The skeptics speculate that, if the events happened at all, that the men were either praying or members of a musical group. Which, in my mind, is no justification for allowing such behavior to occur on a commercial airline flight.
Hat tip to Instapundit for the link to this article.

Check out Professor Ribstein’s insightful observations regarding Hollywood’s molding of public perceptions toward trial lawyers and businessmen.

Tyler Cowen posts this analysis over at Marginal Revolutions reflecting that the Bush Administration compares poorly with other administrations of the past 40 years in terms of reducing the amount of major governmental agency or department budgets. As Mr. Cowen notes:

George W. comes in tied for last with Clinton II. This is a highly imperfect proxy, but when you are 0 for 15 it is hard to blame measurement error alone.

As noted in here just the other day in regard to the issue of tax simplification, the Bush Administration’s inaction on these types of issues is, in my view, more likely to cause a loss in the upcoming election than anything that is likely to occur in the Middle East.

The four eulogies that Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush gave at Ronald Reagan’s funeral service were very good. Here is the text of Lady Thatcher‘s, Mr. Mulroney‘s, Mr. Bush41‘s, and Mr. Bush43‘s.
Also, Ron Reagan’s eulogy for his father at the graveside service was quite good. The text is here.
Finally, this Heritage Foundation mulitmedia tribute to President Reagan is very well done.

Virgina Postrel in this post looks back at the 1960’s and 70’s, and relates those times to Ronald Reagan’s election as president. Read it. Virginia hits the nail on the head on this one.

The LA Times (free online registration requried) has this cool 2004 Presidential Election Map Tracker.
Also, the Wall Street Journal Online Edition ($) continues to provide an excellent overview of the battleground states in the election. Just scroll down to the “Interactive Features” section and click on the “Battleground States” hyperlink.

In this interview, William Buckley reminisces about his old friend, Ronald Reagan. The entire interview is well worth reading, and includes the following anecdotes:

Q: How was it when there was disagreement?
A: It was sometimes vigorous, but never sundering. For instance, he was opposed to ratifying the Panama Canal treaty, and we debated the subject for two hours on television, each of us with illustrious assistants. We punched each other pretty hard. A couple of months later I was scheduled for dinner at his home in Bel Air. He got me on the telephone: “Drive slowly up the drive, real slow.” I did — and came upon, every 20 yards, huge hand-drawn signs: “WE BUILT IT.” “WE PAID FOR IT.” “IT’S OURS!”
Q: Did he offer you a job when he became president?
A: Yes/No. I had written him during the campaign that I didn’t want a job. He answered back that he was disappointed: “I’ve had it in mind to appoint you ambassador to Afghanistan.” Big joke, the Soviet Union having just taken over there. But in correspondence thereafter he always referred to me as “Mr. Ambassador,” and the week before leaving the White House he wrote to commend me on the Soviet withdrawal — “and you did it,” he wrote, “without leaving Kabul for a minute.” Good-humored fantasies played long with Ronald Reagan.

The London Telegraph’s thorough obituary on Ronald Reagan is here.
Also, Lou Cannon, Mr. Reagan’s biographer, wrote this measured Washington Post obituary.