>> A quick aside on Barack Obama’s new tax plan, as described by Obama advisors Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman, which is purportedly in response to polls saying he was losing on the issue (unlike, of course, all other Obama policy shifts).  Essentially, they say President Obama would bring back the old and not missed 39.6% tax rate (as opposed to the current 35%) and a new payroll tax on top earners, because of course raising taxes on the entrepeneurial class will really help the country by taking away the disposable income they would otherwise reinvest in the economy. This is all kind of pointless, though, because essentially what Obama’s proposing is the same as what will happen when the Bush tax cuts expire - he doesn’t have to lift a finger to make them law, and none of these hikes will pay for the grandiose governmental expansions he favors in other areas (hello, trillion dollar deficits).

But it’s in the New York Sun’s hard-hitting editorial on the plan that we see an astonishingly anti-woman element to it that Austan and Jason aren’t particularly up front about, and that I had missed myself on first glance:

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: “His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000.” It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children.

Ah, the full-throated return of the marriage penalty.  Here’s the problem with this area of tax policy, which has had a huge impact on society (read this Blankenhorn essay for more): the marriage penalty discourages people from getting married, economically - but it also encourages them to be a one-income household, with the kind of societal benefits on health, education, lifestyle, etc. that social conservatives (and the populist working class) approve of wholeheartedly.

Yet there’s no question here that Obama’s tax plan is, at its heart, anti-woman.  Forced to choose because of our tax structure to either stay at home and care for the kids or stay in the workforce, the overwhelming majority of married couples has mom stay at home, and dad go to work.  I’m frankly amazed that Obama’s policy shop has a blind spot on this, as this is the ideal sort of issue for McCain to point out in front of Hillary supporters (that, and he should announce as soon as possible as big an increase in the child tax credit as is feasible - he currently has said he intends to double the dependent exemption, but there’s tons of available political ground here by supporting a pro-family tax code).  This is amateur hour.

A little more than a month ago, my grandfathers – both of them – passed away. One passing was expected, but the other was not. They were both men blessed with long life and loving families. They were both proud to be Americans, serving their country in different ways during their lifetimes, at home and abroad.

John Domenech, my father’s dad, was a highly decorated military veteran, serving thirty years in the U.S. Army and retiring at the rank of colonel. Born in San Juan in 1923, he spent most of his military career defending freedom and democracy in Korea and Vietnam, earning numerous commendations - including the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal (twice), the Army Commendation Medal (six times), and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

We will bury him, with full military honors, at Arlington National Cemetery. We have to wait our turn — so many of these older veterans are saying their last goodbyes now, so there’s a long line.

When an older family member dies, it seems like you always find out a story or two you didn’t know before — a family secret, a piece of gossip, a whisper that the old folks finally pass along to the younger ones. Coming from an old Puerto Rican family with multitudinous cousins, there are plenty of stories to tell. For my grandfather, one particular story we found out about serves a perfect indication of the kind of man he was, and the kind of attitude he had toward this country…and what’s more, an indication of how the times have changed.

It turns out that my grandfather changed his name when he was a young man, from the Puerto Rican Juan to the Americanized John.

All the times he insisted that people speak English, that they hoist the American flag higher than every other, that he expressed his disgust with La Raza and similar organizations — knowing this, it all came into focus. This wasn’t a change made out of a desire to get ahead in the service, live in comfort on the mainland, or deny his ethnic background. It was a change he made because he wanted to make clear that his pride as a Puerto Rican would always come second to the pride he felt as an American, a citizen and servant of the greatest nation in the world.

He was a patriot, first and always, and he knew what that meant. Such is the legacy he passed on to his family, and we will do our level best to heed it.

(Originally posted by Ben on July 5, 2006)