Pass the Soap

It's understandable that people would want to take reasonable steps to stay clean, but anti-bacterial cleansers are like bringing bazookas to a fox hunt. Simple soap and water will most certainly do the trick on a daily basis. An increased number of people must be carrying portable antibacterial cleansers, such as Purel, as evidenced by my recent sojourn to the bathroom at a NY Jets game whereupon it appeared that no one was using soap and water at all anymore.

Sadly, screwing around with mother nature and the development of our immune systems has some costs, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:

The agency also raised concerns about the environmental impact of some antibacterial cleansers, which may hurt some algae and fish and break down into a harmful contaminant. Another potential fear -- which the FDA said was "controversial" -- was that using too many antibacterial products may prevent people from being exposed to routine bacteria, weakening the development of their immune systems and leading to asthma and allergies.

Stuart Levy, a researcher at Tufts University and president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, says products with alcohol and bleaches aren't worrisome, but chemicals that don't quickly evaporate or break down -- including triclosan -- are. Triclosan, he says, has been linked to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in lab tests. Use of such products by healthy households should be limited, he says, unless their manufacturers can prove concrete health benefits.

My recommendation: ignore the French and shower on a daily basis. Indeed, one might even consider washing one's hands.

How Not to Balance a Budget

It seems that the U.S. Federal budget deficit for 2005 will be approximately $301 billion compared with a $412 billion deficit in 2004 (Source: US Treasury). One might view this as cause for celebration, but your humble friends here at the Realist Party do not share the sentiments.

While receipts did increase 14% in the past year, despite the oft-maligned tax cuts, or in my humble opinion because of them (we can review free market economic theory at a later date), government outlays increased 7%. Though this year's figure will bring the federal deficit as a percentage of US GDP ratio closer to the historic level of approximately 2.5%, more could have been accomplished.

Our friends at ISI calculate that if our elected representatives (read, the no-longer-spend-thrift Republican majority of the 90s) had contained government spending to a growth rate nearer 3%, forgetting what one will about actually cutting spending, the 2005 budget deficit would have been $200 billion. This $100 billion difference is an appreciable and substantial drag on US economic growth, not to mention usually a complete an utterly inefficient allocation of capital (can you say the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska?)

It's just food for thought to consider while balancing your checkbook next year, or while electing your congressional representatives.

Flat and FAIR Taxes, Please

The New York Times reported the results of an IRS report today:

After falling for two years, the share of income going to the richest slice of Americans -- the top tenth of 1% -- grew significantly in 2003 while the share going to 99% of Americans fell, according to tax data released yesterday and reported by the New York Times. At the same time, the effective income tax-rates paid by the top tenth of 1% fell sharply, declining at more than 10 times the rate reduction for middle-class taxpayers, the new report, by the Internal Revenue Service, showed. Overall incomes rose by 2.7% in 2003, compared with the previous year, the IRS said. A quarter of this increase went to the top tenth of 1%, the 129,000 taxpayers with reported incomes of $1.3 million or more, an analysis of the data showed.

It's pretty clear that the wealthiest Americans are not paying their fair share in taxes, regardless of the progressivity of the tax code. Indeed, raising the tax rate on the top income bracket earners accomplishes nothing anymore except in penalizing married middle income families even more. A flat tax on all monetary distribution (income, dividend, cap gains, etc) is the only way to go to ensure fairness and facility. The superrich have been living off the hog what with their obscure tax deductions and exemptions for far too long.