The Obama administration is closely scrutinizing their appointments.

Applicants are being required to spill the most detailed personal beans about their lives, families and finances in a seven-page, 63-question grilling that covers everything from paper trails to confessional revelations.

It is encouragingly up to the minute in delving into Beltway job histories, low mortgage rates and any other sweetheart ties to the companies now lined up for federal bailouts.

Making sure to avoid incompetence and conflicts of interest, now that’s change I can believe in.

Liberals are frequently (and perhaps rightly) disparaged for their supposed anti-growth policies. The Liberal idea of heavy taxation of the wealthiest Americans theoretically reduces the amount of capital investment in our economy as that money is redistributed down the socioeconomic ladder. Conversely, Conservative economic theory suggests that wealthy people should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn because they will invest more of that money back into the economy, creating more capital and more jobs. 

In 2001, George W. Bush followed the traditional Conservative economic ideology by cutting taxes across the board, including the capital gains tax. This was supposed to stimulate the economy; cheaper capital encourages risk-taking, the engine of capitalism. This capital gains tax cut also benefited the federal budget: after the tax cut, capital gains tax revenue increased far more than projected, as more stock holders decided to sell stock and pay the lower rate. Unemployment peaked at 6.3% in 2003, but by 2007 fell to 4.4%. This economy created new jobs, though at a below average rate. The economy avoided recession and continued to grow, albeit slowly.

And then the crisis hit. The flipside of Conservative economics is rearing its ugly head. That “beneficial” risk-taking is bringing our largest financial institutions to their knees. With low capital gains taxes, investors are quick to sell and get out of the market, reducing available capital when it is most needed. Unemployment is rising, and we are probably going into recession. The weakness of Bush’s tax policy has been exposed.

We see now the macro-effects capital gains tax manipulation. Lower capital gains taxes make the market more agile. Investors are more willing to sell stock, and move their money into a more profitable venture. On the investor level, this is a good thing. On the macro level, it makes the market more volatile, more susceptible to large swings (‘Down’ is the current mode). As the capital gains tax decreases, the disincentive to sell stock decreases (incentive to sell increases), so large down swings should be expected. As more people sell, there is less capital for job creation and economic growth.

A higher capital gains tax would encourage people to hold onto their stocks, perhaps temporarily hurting some on the investor level, but providing more macro stability for the economy. This turns out to be win-win on both the micro and macro levels, as a buy-and-hold investment strategy has been proven to be more profitable than active trading over a period of time.

The Conservative tax scheme, like any government policy, has unexpected consequences. We are experiencing these consequences right now, and it would be remiss of us to ignore the lessons offered by the current financial crisis. We should encourage investors to hold onto stocks by raising the capital gains tax. This will encourage more job creation and economic growth by keeping more capital in the market. Is it totally fair to stock holders? No. Is it better for the economy as a whole? Yes.

As to why liberals dislike Palin so much.

Just thought I would give my readers on the left an opportunity to denounce Barack’s choice for chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Many of my readers have taken a principled position against corporations being able to influence politicians. I would hate to see their principle position morph into pragmatism simply because Obama is a democrat.

Just to stoke the flames I have included some choice quotes of the kinds of donations Emanuel has received from financial institutions.

Considering Obama’s promises to stand up for Main Street and take on Wall Street, Emanuel’s deep ties with Wall Street are noteworthy. Emanuel was a chief advocate of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout this fall, toiling to pass it through the House after it was first rejected.

Just as Emanuel has helped Wall Street, Wall Street has helped Emanuel. This past election cycle, more than a third of Emanuel’s campaign contributions from political action committees came from financial sector PACs.

His top source of campaign funds this year was the subprime-rattled UBS (the Swiss bank’s PAC and employees gave, corporations cannot give campaign contributions), who benefited from the housing bailout which Emanuel supported and has already shown an interest in expanding.

This one is fun:

The $96,900 Emanuel pulled in from hedge funds places him above any Senator besides presidential candidates. In fact, Emanuel garnered from hedge funds more than the top 11 Republican lawmakers, combined.

Can’t forget this one:

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are also in Emanuel’s top-five career sources of campaign cash. As reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, Emanuel received more money from the securities and investment industry—$600,500 as of September 30—than did any other member of the U.S. House, and more than two presidential candidates (including Joe Biden) and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

I enjoyed this one:

In money from lobbyists, Emanuel was in the top 10% of House members, which is made more interesting by the fact he didn’t face a competitive reelection at all in his solidly Democratic House district.

Okay guys, don’t hold back! Let Barack have it! Tell him this is note the hope you believed in and its doesn’t seem like change.

James sends me a link to the ugliest computer tower in the whole universe and every parallel universe.

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation’s broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, “It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can’t catch a break.”

God I love the Onion.

The themes found in the excellent movie Crash, seem even more relevant now then they did in 2005. Wouldn’t you agree?

America = Awesome.

Seriously America is the greatest country in the world.

This link will take you to a New York Time graphic depiction of all their presidential endorsement since their beginning. Note that after 1956 they have not endorse a republican. This roughly coincides with the prominence of social justice becoming adopted by journalists.