They write,

by consolidating the corporate tax system into a single layer and lowering the maximum rate to 25% on both corporate and pass-through entities, our plan eliminates double taxation of capital gains and dividends, and establishes parity among large and small businesses. And under our proposal, firms with overseas operations will no longer be taxed twice (once abroad and again at home), but only in the country where income is actually earned.

They would also allow corporations to expense investment, rather than having to use depreciation schedules.

Danny Vinik adds,

They would eliminate just about every tax deduction, with the exception of the deduction for charitable giving and a reformed mortgage interest deduction (although they don’t say how it’s reformed). In return for eliminating the standard deduction, they would create a new $2,000 personal tax credit ($4,000 for joint filers).

Vinik notes that Lee and Rubio’s reforms on net would reduce revenue, thereby enlarging the deficit. Maybe you could offset that by abolishing some government departments and agencies.

He writes,

Why does the Left get to pick which issues are the benchmarks for “science”? Why can’t the measure of being pro-science be the question of heritability of intelligence? Or the existence of fetal pain? Or the distribution of cognitive abilities among the sexes at the extreme right tail of the bell curve? Or if that’s too upsetting, how about dividing the line between those who are pro- and anti-science along the lines of support for geoengineering? Or — coming soon — the role cosmic rays play in cloud formation? Why not make it about support for nuclear power? Or Yucca Mountain? Why not deride the idiots who oppose genetically modified crops, even when they might prevent blindness in children?

Actually, he is quoting something he wrote three years ago.

The occasion for recycling it is the litmus test that reporters are applying to Scott Walker, namely whether or not be believes in evolution. Can we imagine a reporter asking Elizabeth Warren whether she believes that people at the extreme right tail of the distribution for math skills are more likely to be male than female, and using that as a litmus test for whether she believes in science?

In the case of economics, I think that we should not view “science” as binary, in the sense of truths that are close to 100 percent certain and you believe them or not. Rather, there is stronger evidence to favor some propositions than others. Confirmation bias takes the form of grasping at straws when you want to believe something that runs counter to most evidence (such as refusing to believe that the minimum wage reduces employment or that extending unemployment benefits raises the unemployment rate). Or it takes the form of taking something that has a reasonable probability of being true and believing it with certainty (such as the claim that the Fed caused the recession).

by Jared Bernstein:

Much (certainly not all) of contemporary economics has a pretty good idea of how the system works and fails. Scholars understand the hydraulics, as it were, of both the macroeconomy and critical subsystems such as health care.

I cannot recall reading any other economic op-ed with which I disagreed more.

He writes,

Extremism thrives on other people’s extremism, and is inexorably defeated by tolerance.

Pointer from Tyler Cowen.

Is it uncharitable of me to point out that the Nazis were not inexorably defeated by tolerance?

One can make a case that extremism thrives on pusillanimity, moral ambiguity, and the inability to give neutrals and moderates a clear message that they will be safer if they line up with the good guys against the bad guys than if they try to stay in the middle.

On a more mundane level, I think that Juan Cole, and just about everyone else, would do better to frame arguments in terms of Type I and Type II errors. A type I error is failing to incarcerate or deport a dangerous individual. A type II error is incarcerating or deporting an innocent individual. (You may reverse the Type I and Type II terminology if you like.)

If you go all out to avoid Type I errors, then you commit more Type II errors, and vice-versa. It is important to keep that in mind. If you say “Close Gitmo now!” then some of the guys you release are going to commit atrocities. If you say “Deport dark-skinned immmigrants now!” then more than 90 percent of those you deport will be decent people and fewer than 0.001 percent will be terrorists.

All that said, I stand by my prediction that there is a good chance that we will see a rapid decline in militant Islam as a force this year.

The WSJ writes,

The country has been hit by economic crises in its major patrons, Venezuela and Russia. The net oil importer has depended heavily on subsidized energy imports from Caracas. But Venezuela’s economic turmoil is deepening, making it increasingly unable to afford its subsidy of Cuba. Russia, as one of the country’s largest creditors, is facing its own financing problems. And Europe, whose open trade with Cuba made it the second-largest export market for the country, has struggled to avert a third recession in five years.

I was struck by the fact that the opening to Cuba came at a point where Russia is reeling. It seems to me that this is an opportunity to pull Cuba out of Russia’s orbit. Free trade with Cuba seems to me like a great idea. But I am not running in any Republican primaries.

Plus, I bet that the Marlins and the Rays would draw better if they played some of their home games in Havana.

Dana Milbank writes,

Gruber wasn’t about to get a defense from Democrats. “Stupid — I mean absolutely stupid comments,” the panel’s top Democrat, Elijah Cummings (Md.) told the witness. “They were irresponsible, incredibly disrespectful and did not reflect reality.”

I disagree with some of what Gruber has said about both the substance and the politics of health care policy, and I think that his “micro-simulation model” of health insurance take-up was over-valued. However, I deplore the personal attacks on him. And I hate that he was made to grovel before Congress.

If the sin is arrogance, then it is an understatement to say that Congressmen should not cast the first stone. They should be the first to be stoned.

I am not a fan of Congressional committees that pillory ordinary citizens. In my personal files, I have the clippings from a front-page story about another Congressional hearing, held 57 years ago. It was the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the witness that they were using to try to advance their careers was my mother. Because she refused to name names, she was going to be prosecuted. She was saved by the Watkins case.