Who doesn't care about facts...

So MEDIAMATTERS... LOL... Sorry... You can't make this stuff up.  Check out this Epic Graph-FAIL on the part of Fox News:

 Problems?  Well...

They included the average state tax of about 23 cents per gallon both in the category "state" taxes and in the category "state & local" taxes. The total of both state and local taxes is 30.4 cents on average. Fox also placed $3.83 at the bottom, as if taxes are in addition to the price for gasoline. But the $3.83 figure already includes the taxes. (MMFA)

An ACCURATE graph, using correct numbers and scale however, ins't nearly as compelling:

But, hey, why use accurate numbers when discussing an issue as important as tax subsidies going to our single largest (in terms of PROFIT) industry? This is particularly sad, because there are many perfectly legitimate ways to manipulate a graph (playing with the scale on the Y-AXIS, for example) in order to emphasise a point.  You really shouldn't have to out-and-out LIE and CHEAT with bullshit data.

Speaking of PROFITS, apparently, ExxonMobil would have you believe that they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Which... anyone who's not a complete idiot should realize is a just about a mathematic impossibility... Unless of course you count the taxes paid by the CONSUMER at the pump!  Which I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with, seriously, if the Right wasn't also trying to make the case that lowering Federal Gas TAXES would lower the PRICE of Gas. If ExxonMobil is counting those taxes - paid by us - as a lost revenue opportunity for them, I think it's pretty clear what would happen to the price Gas if those taxes were lowered or repealed:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

And that's according to ExxonMobil's own talking point!

The only thing that would happen? The ExxonMobil's of the world would report more profit, still receive billions in tax subsidies, and the rest of us would not only pay exactly the same price at the pump, but we'd also see our property and state income taxes go up substantially in order to make up for the lost revenue our states were once using to maintain our roads.  Well, I don't know about YOU, but I think the ExxonMobil's of the world are taking a big enough chuck out of my paycheck as it is.  So I say: screw 'em. I pay MY taxes, they should sure as hell pay theirs.

--------------------------------

(And before anyone brings up subsidies for Electric Cars or Alternative Energy, let me say that I don't have any problem with eliminating those as well.  Let's just make sure that EVERYONE pays their fair share of taxes, and that BIG OIL covers the FULL COST of our continued consumption of their product, which they currently... what's the industry term? Oh yeah: EXTERNALIZE. Which is a fancy way of saying "fucks everybody else with it.")

There was a cracked article yesterday that had the good sense to link to the following video by former Labor Secretary Robert Riech. The rest of the article had some feir criticisms of the OWS movement, but IMHO, is not really owrth cehcking out. This, OTOH is:



You tell 'em, Robert!

And the soloution to these 6 points?

1) Tax the rich
2) Tax the rich
3) Tax the rich
4) Tax the rich
5) Get a Progressive Candidate who isn't afraid to tax the rich, and lead from a progressive agenda.
6) Vote for said Progressive, and his progressive agenda. (And tax teh rich.)

Funny how that works out, huh?

Gladstone was right about one thing: the OWS people could learn to simplfy the message a bit.

Breaking down the stereotypes

Conservatives love to read Liberals' accusations of racism as the Liberals' inability to answer their arguments.  Well, no, the problem is that their arguments do not reflect reality.  They rail against fictitious programs and legislation that never happened, and then ask us to defend it.  We simply call them racist because we can't imagine why else someone would be willing to tell so many lies about this President.  So... Is it possible to criticize a black man and NOT be a racist? Sure.  I've done it to Tom Sowell, Colin Powell, Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas MANY times. Me! An OBAMA voter! And I'll do it again:

HERMAN CAIN IS AN IDIOT.

So there are two stereotypes that are struck down: Liberals won't criticize blacks, AND criticising a black makes you a racist!  And if we wins the primary, I bet you'll see a third one struck down: That black people will vote for ANY black candidate!

Here's another one: Liberals want to raise taxes, Conservatives don't.  Well... the first part is more of a misstatement. Liberals don't WANT to raise taxes... We just the only ones who realize that we HAVE TO.  The second part? Is complete and utter baloney sausage.  Conservative ABSOLUTELY want to raise taxes. They just want to raise them on the poor and middle class - that mythical "47% of American who pays no taxes!"

And this isn't even an issue of raising taxes versus raising revenue - you like that old Laffable Curve suggests?  This 9-9-9 plan of Cain's that everyone "loves" because it's so simple? Is nothing more than a tax increase on the rest of us.

So what... is this class warfare?

I couldn't tell you. Class Warfare seems to be whatever the Right wants it to be.  So let use MATH to call it what it it: A TAX INCREASE.

Well, what's the problem? I though Liberals wanted to raise taxes?! What is it so much better to tax the rich a little more, when you've got people who aren't putting in?

OK... I'm sure I don't have to dignify that question with a response, for any of my regular readers. But if you're new, or Conservative, here's why:

BECAUSE THE RICH CAN AFFORD IT.  Because taxing the rich will have -ZERO- impact on their spending decisions whilst taxing ANYONE ELSE will have direct impact on theirs!  And THAT will destroy the economy! Less spending = Shitty economy. That's not Liberal dogma or academic theory: that's FACT.

Herman Cain's plan is the worst possible thing: Increased taxes on those who can least afford it.

You know... If the only Black people I knew were Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Tom Sowell and Herman Cain?  (IOW - If I were a Republican?) If THAT was the extent of my sample population?

I'd probably be racist too.





(Likewise, if Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Chrstine O'Donnell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc... were the most intelligent and outspoken women I knew? I'd probably be as mysongyinst as they Right is as well!)

Class Warfare, Math, Macroeconomics and Fairness

OK, so  by now I'm sure we're all aware of President Obama's judgement that the [curiously named] "Buffett Rule" is NOT class warfare... It's MATH.

Bravo, Barry. It's about time you started calling out the Right on their bullshit.

I would like to give him (and everyone) one piece of advice though, when discussion taxation: Avoid the discussion of "fairness."  I know, I know! And I've made fairness-based arguments in the past, linking multiples of the median income in this country to various levels on Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, for example. And these arguments are very effective at convincing people who already agree with you that you're right. They are not very persuasive with anyone who's not already on board.  And I'm not conceding the fairness point - I do happen to be of the opinion that the rich in this country do not, in fact, pay their FAIR share of the tax burden.  BUT... that's my opinion.

And there's the rub:  One cannot objectively quantify "fairness." Whether or not something is "fair" relies entirely on the parties involve FEELING that it is fair.  If someone FEELS or is OF THE OPINION that they're being cheated?  Well guess what? That's one person who BELIEVES that "it" is not fair!

Fairness is an entirely subjective phenomenon.

Now... I will happily raise my hat and tip my glass to fellow working-class warrior, Elizabeth Warren.  SHE got it right.  And Conchobhar included some of the best parts of her speech a few posts back.  It's truly great stuff but, alas, I fear the "Social Contract" may yet be a little bit too high-brow for the Average American these days.  I heard a very well educated man trying to explain it the trainer in the Gym the other night - a black man, who definitely makes only a working-class wage, and yet was attacking the idea of taxing the rich! - and I could see that the argument was not the least bit persuasive.  In fact, it came sounding like the kind of namby-pamby Liberal whining that the Right has so effectively charactarized ALL of the higher moral aspects of civilization as over the past 30 years or so.

And besides, I think there's a much better way to put it, and it comes right from the comments section of this very blog...

In response to Tax/Deficit post back in July, Steeve put it absolutely perfectly:

Raise taxes on everyone until they feel the tiniest pinprick of pain.



So you raise taxes 0.001% on most people and they feel immediate pain. Raise taxes 60% on the rich and they feel no pain at all. That's not my problem. Hell, it isn't anyone's problem.

And there you go. 

The reason we tax the rich? Because we can do so without impacting their daily spending decisions.  And thus it cause no further economic pain, despite the Right's constant bed-wetting about it.

THIS is why you will inevitably end up taxing the rich.  Because doing anything else, including significantly reducing spending, is economic suicide.  The Right might want that, and Fox News might want that, but the American People do not.

So... STEEVE in 2012?

Teh Stupid Debt / Deficit debate

Did you know that Clinton never had a budget surplus?


It’s true. That confused the shit out of me, because at one point I had numbers that said otherwise, but it’s true. This article, while conservatively biased BIG TIME, explains why and I have since found National Debt Numbers from other sites that back that up. So, it’s right. We’ll just have to accept it.

Now… I told you that because I want to show [the following.] Basically? Republicans and specifically their supply-side econonsense still pretty much suck it fiscally, big time. Now… I’ve done pieces on the debt before, mostly making the same mistake (focusing only on PUBLICLY held debt) this is criticized in the above article. But I want to destroy one of the lies you are hearing from Tea Partiers, John Boehner, Harry Reid (yes, him too!), the Laffer Curve and Reaganomists. The idea that we can UNDER NO CIRCUMSATANCES raise taxes to fix the deficit. Laffer said that the markets will turn down and you’ll lose revenue. Reagan (and later Bush) insisted that the market would boom and the tax cuts would pay for themselves. And even HARRY REID’s current deficit reduction plan includes NO TAX INCREASES.

What. The. Fuck?!

So check this out – and if you want to skip the fancy explanation, just scroll down to the graph and keep reading. I got the followg debt numbers from THIS SITE. Now, based on his comments, I would interpret his ideology as fairly balanced, yet slightly right-leaning. He’s pretty fair with criticism and credit for both sides, acknowledging the realities facing Presidents of ALL parties, but there’s a little more poo-pooing of Democrats and a little more apologism for Republicans; at least it seems that way to me. In any case, I’m only pointing all of this out to show that my information and the data used here doesn’t come from some "Liberal Propaganda" site. It comes for two conservatives (one moderate, one hard) and the U.S. Treasury.

So, to test the theory that, as republican’s put it, we have a “spending problem” and not a “revenue problem,” I thought I do a fairly simple analysis: I’d plot each president’s deficit against their top-tier tax rate and see how they all faned out. (Yeah: I knew how it would look ahead of time, but play along OK? *wink*) For simplicity and legitimacy’s sake, I’m only looking at post WWII numbers – big wars, great depressions, etc… Are bound to have a greater impact on the budget AND the tax rate than anything else, and pretty much ANY partisan will acknowlegde that. (And uh... those ALL happen to work against Democrats, BTW!) Also, while deregulation and lesse-faire economics may have helped create the "roaring twenties," which would boost Republican numbers, all but the most brain-dead partisans realize that those practices were unsustainable.  And history bore that out in the 1930's. Also note – for some reason, these deficits are in 1983 dollars. I'm not sure why he did that, I would have preferred 2010 or 2011 dollars, but I think most of you know that while the absolute values might shift the TRENDS will always remain the same regardless of what year you decide to normalize to. So these are in 1983 dollars, and in Millions. (With no further conversion on my part.)

Federal Deficits in Millions of 1983 Dollars vs. Top Tier Tax Rate the same year:

Wow! Would you look at that! Deficits and top-tier tax rates, in fact, have a negative correlation!

And go figure: The more you take in, the more you can pay off! Wow! What a freaking concept!

And where are we now? Well: Do you see all those REALLY HUGE deficits? Yeah, those are all Bush’43’s and Obama’s. And you see that cluster around 30%? Between $200,000M and $400,000M? Yeah: Those are Reagan’s and Bush’41’s. (Incidentally, those LOW deficits, just below that cluster are all Clinton’s. So while he didn’t have a true SURPLUS, he still did MUCH better than any of the Republicans of the past 30 years!) And I think it's fair to call any top –tier rate under 40% “Reaganesque.” After all, those big deficits at 50%? Were all Reagan’s! So anything UNDER that? IS ABSOLUTLEY Reaganesque – including all current proposals being put forth but Harry Reid and Barack Obama. And it’s time to stop this nonsense. This country, and its Rich, were doing just fine with top tier rates of 50, 70 and even 90%. And the deficits were basically nil’ compared to ANYTHING that we’ve seen in the past 30 years of continuous Reaganomics.

So once again, I’m going to go back to my simple mantras:

Republican philosophy in eight words:

I’VE GOT MINE, SCREW THE REST OF YOU.

[What SHOULD BE] the Democratic philosophy in nine:

TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH.

Now… Both of those are parodies, of course, but I find it rather telling that, even in satire, the Liberal position is a solution to the problem, while the Conservative position IS the problem!

So WTF Barrack? WTF Harry?

TAX. THE. RICH!

This will:

1) Fix everything. Seriously.

2) Harm nothing. Seriously!

3) Render the Republicans and Tea-Baggers and RW Libertarians permanently irrelevant.

4) Put the final nail in the coffin of the myth of Supply-Side Economics and its urine-soaked, mentally retarded cousin, trickle-down Reaganomics, and put us back on the path of being a country of opportunity for ALL people and not just the top 2%.

And if that’s “class warfare?” Then SO FUCKING BE IT. The Right has been waging war on the Middle Class, The Working Class, the Unions and the Poor for THIRTY FUCKING YEARS NOW and it has resulted in fiscal disaster. We need jobs. And if the rich won’t provide them, then the Government should TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THEM and provide them. And you know what? After all the money is spent, it will end up right back in the hands of the rich! Because after all, they own the Companies and the Stores and the Services providers where all of that money will be spent! And that’s fine! That’s as it SHOULD BE! That’s why this will do NO HARM! That’s why “trickle down” is a MYTH and “percolate up,” as Obama put it on the ’08 campaign trail, is ECONOMIC REALITY! The only money that the wealthy WON’T get given right back to them? Interest payments on the National Debt – which should be an ever-shrinking number, if we’re running surpluses and paying down the debt! And whatever the Poor, Working and Middle Class manage to keep a hold of, in the form of savings and investments for themselves. And you know what? That will STILL end up going to the CHILDREN of the current-day rich, pretty much fort the same reason.

We need not cry for the Rich in America, folks. They will still be rich. They will still keep all their money. And that’s fine. I don’t want to take it away from them. I just want them to share it a little, since it will all end up going right back them anyway. But it can support a much more comfortable and secure lifestyle (and therefore a much more robust economy) if it passes through a few more hands before ending up back in their wallets.

But no, they’d rather take their toys and say, in the word’s Eric Cartman:

SCREW YOU GUYS, I’M GOING HOME!



-------------------------------------------------

BTW… In case anyone was wondering, you CAN do the same analysis with all of the data going back to 1913, and the negative correlation between top-tier tax rate and deficits still holds:

So, bottom line?

John Boehner and company are full of shit, and Harry Reid and Barrack Obama should stop listening to them!

--- TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH. TAX THE RICH.  ---

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?

Tax Cuts for Millonaires

And to think that just this morning, I was arguing with someone over whether or not Obama had a tendency to cave to the Right...

Well, the Right got their tax cuts extended.  All of them.  And this after two years of hammering Obama about the DEFICIT!  Un-be-fucking-lievable.

And the best line out of the whole debate?

After having to jetison the Making Work Pay tax credit (for individuals making under $75K and couples making less than $150K) which was part of last year's (Obama's) stimulus bill, the biggest SOB in the Senate, Orin Hatch had the nerve to complain that the Make Work Pay tax credit in effect exempted too many middle-income Americans from having to pay income taxes.

Give that one to you RW friends to stick in their pipe and smoke the next time they tell you the Republicans aren't just out for "tax cuts for millionares," of for that matter that Obama doesn't cave to the Right:

The top 2% got their tax break, but the rest of us lost a big one of ours. 

Why the fuck do we even need this guy? (Obama.)  What has he done that the GUYS WHO LOST (when he came into office) wouldn't have done?  Seriously.  Fifty-nine votes in the Senate and they give the tax cut to the top 2% and screw over everyone else.

That's actually WORSE than Bush.  At least Bush gave me SOMETHING.

The only cut I'm getting?  My social security tax.  AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE CONSTANTLY HEARING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOING BROKE!  (And from the Republicans, no less! How does this shit even HAPPEN?!)

He's actually worse than Bush.  Relative to what he was given and what he had to work with, politically?   Obama is worse than Bush.

It's un-fucking-believable.

The only thing worse are these idiots who are STILL going around trying to call him a socialist.

This is not what I voted for. Not at all. Lemme know who the 2012 primary challenger is, ASAP.  Because unless Sarah Palin is leading the other ticket, and it's someone who can't beat her?

They've already got my vote.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW, I'm very sorry to hear about the passing of Elizabeth Edwards.  It's been a rough week, first Ron Santo, and now Edwards.  My thoughts are with both of their families.  You have my sincerest condolences.

My Reply to okiepoli

Background: This conversation started as some back-and-forth between myself an commenter okiepoli just under two months ago, in the Cooler Heads Prevail post.  In my defense I didn't realize that he had sent me an mail, due to my habit of simply deleting any emails that look like they're notifying me of blog comments, opting instead to read them on the actual blog.  And this one was interesting to me, because okie falls into an odd, but growing Category of voter, especially as that Tea Party insanity claims any remnant of the Right not already claimed by the funny-mentalists: A self-identified Conservative Republican who basically sees nothing of value in the Republican Party.  Now, to be sure, that's certain my kind of "Conservative Republican." LOL. I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say we need more like him.  (What I mean is, but the cynical and the principled interpretation of that statement hold true! LOL)  And I may be simplifying things a bit, off course.  I only know him from his posts here and on MMFA, and for the longest time had him pegged as a LIBERAL, due to nothing else that his penchant from joining in on most of the rounds of Republican bashing.  So, following up for that earlier post, he sent me the email below to continue the conversation that blogger apparently would let his post in the comments section. (I'll have to see if there is something I can do about the character limitation.  because it really is too short.)

Just as with my response to Steeve's email, I'm going to put the excerpts from okie's  in yellow.

Eddie;


Sorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.

A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:

PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:


You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."

Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.

Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)

This may come as a surprise, not only coming from a self-identified Liberal, and one who's written a piece on how badly Nixon really sucked, but really?  I don't think Nixon was all that bad a President, as long as we're only talking policy.  You can criticise the war tactics, although you can defend them as well, but in the end, he DID end the damned war.  He created several important Government regulatory agencies, and normalized relations with China.  (Which again, one can argue either way, but I'd take the problems we have now over what would have been 40 years with a second major player in the Cold War and the arms race. 

The way I see it, much like with Carter, the biggest problem with Nixon was Nixon himself.  His personal issues far outweighed any policy issues he may have had.  I mean, come on... spying on the Democrats in 1972?!  He won 520-17 for cripes sake!  And I don't think ANY of that came from any secret information he might have gleaned from those shenanigans.  His personal demons got in the way of his better judgment.  But Watergate was paranoia, not policy.  And without Watergate?  No one today would even know who Gerald Ford was.

Nixon would be a RINO today.  He may have been perceived as pretty hard-Right in  his day, but remember that he was coming in after Lyndon Johnson, maybe the last public servant who was still supporting the "New Deal" philosophy of Roosevelt.  IMHO? He also had his policy flaws (Vietnam?) but he was the last truly liberal President, and maybe the last truly principled, leader we've had in the White House.

I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:

Pres. Reagan


Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'

Wait... who "hates Reagan" now? ;)

Speaking of Reagan, who popularized the term 'welfare queen,' now might be a good time for an aside on my thoughts on the welfare state:


I don't consider myself a heartless bastard so I care, at least a little, about my fellow inhabitants on this speck of mud we call home. I subscribe to the oft mis-attributed phrase "Charity begins at home..." - unfortunately, it seems to end there as well for the modern crop of Republicans. I would challenge them to prove that they are not heartless bastards by "promote(ing) the general Welfare" - not necessarily by taxing and funding social programs, perhaps by getting personally involved? Many folks would defend their charity by saying "I donate..." clothing (they no longer wear,) household items, canned goods, yada, yada, yada – I do that too. Here's the difference – it takes money and people for the kind non-profits to operate – those canned goods that you wouldn't eat unless you were starving, those clothes that you cleaned out of your closet to make room for newer, more fashionable (or better-fitting, whatever) clothing – they're NOT going to collect, warehouse, sort, repackage and distribute themselves. It takes trucks, fuel, space and PEOPLE!

OK, first of all?  No one thinks of themselves as a "heartless bastard."  I'm sure even Rush Limbaugh thinks of himself as a generous and magnanimous guy fighting for what he honestly believes is right.  I'm not suggesting the you are one, not at all, only that this statement doesn't really mean anything. ;)

Second of all, while I applaud anyone's participation in charity, and feel that there is a lot of good work being done in that area... Do you really think it would ever be enough?  If we got rid of the welfare state, do you really think a few dollars here and there, some threadbare clothing, and as many cans of creamed corn will really make up the difference?  What's more, I propose that if the taxes were lower proportionately, once those programs were cut, that charitable donations might actually DROP as the marginal return, in terms of the tax deduction, drops. 

What more, while I don't adopt the label "Keynesian," I do understand how Keynesian economics WORKS.  All that welfare money?  Goes right into the economy.  Every after-tax penny of it immediately becomes someone else's income.  People who WORK.  And people who would also be OUT OF WORK in that big chuck of revenue was suddenly denied them or their employer. (Which in turn would that much less consumption by those people, and less revenue for than many more businesses.)  Whether or not huge deficits can change the course of an economy is up for debate.  What is FACT is that Taxing and Spending - in unison, now, as a balanced budget - increase incomes for everyone.  And cutting taxes and spending - in unison - will hurt just about everyone.  Those rich folks at the top? They're going to be rich either way.  They get every penny they pay in taxes BACK through all the increased consumption resulting from the increased spending.  And the farther down the ladder the spending starts, the more people's income it will become before finally being whittled way by taxes and acts of non-consumption (savings.)  Tax-cuts for the rich?  Pretty much ALL end up as acts of non-consumption.  They'll save it.  So it benefits no one but them.  But a welfare case?  Spends every penny, and thus gives the highest economic benefit to the economy.  THAT'S the fundamental difference between supply-siders and Keynesian: Recognition that the health of the economy depends far more on CONSUMPTION that it does PRODUCTION.  (That, and a recognition of the fact that right now?  Stuff is pretty cheap.  WAGES and INCOME are what's keeping consumption down, not high prices.
I volunteer two hours every two weeks at a kitchen. (I'd do more, it's extremely rewarding in it's own 'warm-fuzzy' way, but I _really_ can't find the time in my schedule.) I manage to work in about 24 'unscheduled' hours a year for projects for Goodwill, SA and some local groups. I'm doing more than some (I suspect many,) and less than others (I suspect too few.)

I applaud you.  I'm ashamed to say that I've done no more than donate, myself.  And while I can make any excuse I want, I'll be honest: Even without the hectic family life, I probably still wouldn't donate much time.  So you could argue that I'm as much a part of the problem, from the Left.  But hey, I'll do my part: I pay my taxes, and I'm not out campaigning to get rid of the social safety nets.  In fact, I would see them strengthened. That may seem like the weaker choice from a Conservative's perspective, but I simply believe that more can be accomplished for the rich, middle class and poor alike by using the resources of the Federal Government instead of society loose change.  And remember: Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter?  All of those administrations were basically deficit neutral, at least as compared to everyone since Reagan.  So it's not the "Great Society" program that are killing us.  It our unwillingness to PAY for this great nation, thanks in large part to Ronald "Event Horizon" Reagan and the culture of deficit spending that he kicked off.

I challenge any 'Republican' (or anyone else, for that matter,) who decries the cost of social programs and the tax burden they cause to step-up and either whip out their checkbook or invest their time – otherwise they should admit that they're heartless bastards or, STFU, pay their taxes, and attempt to salve their consciences with the previously mentioned "I donate..." defense. (sorry for the rant – one of my pet peeves.)

Hey, I hear you.   And I feel a little bit better now about saying "I donate," because I'm NOT one of the one's complaining about high taxes.
 
Back to your post: "For me, the label (and the party) is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure we both just think what we think and believe as we do. You're mat be more comfortable with the one label, or party. Me? I couldn;t care less what soemone wants to call it."


In "The Federalist Papers" #10, Madison rails against 'Factions' (political parties,) as does Washington in his Farewell Address – Who am I to pit myself against these and other great thinkers on that subject? Unfortunately, a 'mob mentality' trumps logic. Many people can't be bothered to think independently and have forgotten the wisdom of their elders (or betters, as the case may be.) I would say that modern life has become too fast-paced to allow for considered thought and reasonable debate – but I take our conversation to be evidence that this is not the case. Hell, even during the Founders time, dirt-farmers who worked from sun-up to sun-down managed to find the time to weigh-in on political issues. (I guess they weren't too busy watching TV.)

The evolution of Political Parties was inevitable.  It's human nature and really the nature of a Democracy.  Even in parliamentary systems, they still end up forming coalitions, so you effectively still end up with two sides: The Government and the Opposition.  Those are a bit more diverse groups than what we have, but until recently there were Liberal Republicans, and there remains rather a few Conservative Democrats.  But multiple parties just means split votes, and everything only gets messier.  Like in Great Britain recently, where the Liberal Democrats, who are to the Left of Labor, joined with the Conservative to put them over the top.  And it's a mess.  The Liberals lost on all points - hence the austerity policies that are being enacted, and which I mentioned a few posts ago.  So while Parties suck, there's really no way around them.  Washington and Madison were absolutely right, but they were asking way too much of humanity.

I wouldn't mind if we had at least 5 or 6 viable parties that addressed a variety of issues, values and views. I feel the choices would stimulate thought and debate, and would be preferable to the two-party monopoly that we currently see.

Wouldn't matter. Wouldn't make a bit of difference. (See above, LOL)  And more and more I'm coming to the impression that we really DON'T have two Parties.  The Democrats have shown themselves to be little more than "Republican-lite."  And the funny thing? The Tea-Baggers say the same thing about the Republicans!"  And I can certainly perceive a POV form which BOTH of these statements are true!  And that might be why Congress is so partisan: It's no longer about the policy.  The policies aren't that far apart.  So it's all about which team wins.  Now if the TeaBagger's take over the right? And we have ourselves a little Coffee Party on the Left?  And we compete for the moderates?  (Thus moderating both sides in the process?) THEN we'll have true two-party system.
"What the right practices these days may not be "Conservative" but that's what it's called and I utterly reject it. And if they're going to throw the "Liberal" label at me, then screw 'em. I'LL WEAR IT WITH PRIDE."

So you're OK with letting dishonest people pervert the meaning of words? I know you're not, and neither is Classic! There should be no shame in those labels. We are victims of a campaign to distort the language and those subversives who are conducting that campaign should be called-out and beaten over the head with a dictionary. (Pocket-version or collegiate with large type – depending on the severity of the crime.)

It's not that I'm "OK" with the meaning of words being perverted.  But I'm still a pragmatist.  You say "Conservative" but I hear very little from you that I can't, very fairly, call "Liberal."  So you choose to use a definition that most people, for whatever reason, no longer really consider valid.  Tragic yes, buts that;'s the reality of it.  If I really wanted to choose a label for myself?  Anti-Neo-Conservative might fit better than any.  But is there really any difference between that and "Liberal"? Not really. And hey, "Anti-Neo-Conservative" might be another way of saying "Classic Conservative" or even "Libertarian."  The only thing that puts me on the side of "Liberal" is my recognition that the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson work.   

And the political Landscape shifted far more in the past 30 years than I have.  I've matured: After all I was only 8 years old when Reagan was elected.  So while I could idolize him as a kid, I had little understanding of policy.  Now that I do, I find that it's not so much that my core beliefs have changed, only that I didn't realize, as a child, how much Reagan differed form them.  And I don't think ANYONE at the time realized the full extent of the long-lasting damage his polices would do. 

In 1979, I may have been just Left of center.  But I find myself practically on the hard Left now, because the republic's perception of the Center has been puled so far to the Right!  And really I don't care about the Label, or the Party.  They're just tools I can use to describe what I believe in, in a simple way that can give a complete stranger some idea what those beliefs are.  It's not a perfect picture, but I dare say that when I say "Liberal" people get a more accurate picture of me than the do of YOU when you say "Conservative."

You can argue who's right and who's wrong. (Answer: You're right; they're wrong.)  I'm just being practical. I can't change the world if no one knows what the hell I'm talking about! LOL

"And it shows."

Agreed!

"So... COME TO THE DARK SIDE!!! (we have cake)"

But I'm watching my weight! ;)


"Thanks for your comment, and for that lucid, principled, well written post on MMFA. Can I use it?"

Fine Print: Copyright restrictions, yada, yada, yada. In whole or in part, etc. Not valid in any other state (of mind.) /Fine Print Thanks for the compliment, you're welcome to quote me. (Especially now that you threw my half-baked idea for solar-powered nuke waste-disposal out there for the world to see. Who knew being outed could be so liberating! Freed from the secret shame. Joy!)

I give up.  I'm not even sure at this point WHAT "shows." LOL.  But I'm glad we agree. LOL

PART the SECOND – RE: Oh, hey Okie, one thing

Ed note: "Okie" refers to someone from Oklahoma – capitalization and use correct in that sense. okiepoli is the screen-name of one opinionated blow-hard from Oklahoma – not capitalized by choice – suitable short-form "okie"

Duely noted. ;)

You said: ""Larger" Government (whatever THAT means) might be harder to "keep track" of, but "smaller" government, by contrast, give any/all of the individals in it more power individually. Personally, I'd like to try it the opposite way... Check out www.thirty-thousand.org.

I followed that link from your blog 22 July, 2010, and collected 7.73 Megs of information from the site and related links – I admit I am intrigued, but haven't had the time to digest and analyze it yet. My argument on size of government is more to do with scope rather than numbers of people or dollars. That said, I still believe that 'smaller' (limited scope,) more efficient (most-bang-for-buck) government is better than 'larger' (broad scope,) inefficient (expanding bureaucracy) government. (My definition of bureaucrat: a non-elected public 'servant' whose decrees (regulations, codes, etc.) carry the weight of law (I can be fined, jailed or otherwise punished for non-compliance.))

I offer this personal observation to clarify my position:


Recently, the OKC "Jesus House" non-profit made the news due to some scandalous activity. My conversations with other volunteers leads me to believe the allegations are true, and I will no longer donate money to that organization until the problems are corrected. It saddens me because Jesus House is such a valuable resource for the homeless in my city, and I know that many others are withholding donations and it has more of a negative effect on the quality and quantity of services offered than it does to the (mis-)management. Still, I made the choice – not some bureaucrat in a bureaucracy that is slow to recognize and correct it's mistakes. I agree – poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc. in the wealthiest nation in the world, is shameful. I also believe, with all my heart, that a government cannot adequately address, much less cure, these social ills.

I'm also dismayed by the Republican support of 'faith-based' organizations – tax-exempt for 501c's I'm OK with, but any kind of grant with that provision seems to cross the line I draw for separation. Where would we stop? If we give a penny to the next "Heaven's Gate" cult, we'd need to give three cents to the next Branch Davidians, more to the next Jim Jones, etc. until we get to the more main-stream folks. (Based on the percent of population represented by these faiths.) To apportion the money otherwise would smack of favoritism.

Again, government (federal) should concern itself with government affairs, LIKE PRESENTING A BUDGET FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN BY APRIL, instead of shirking it's (Congress) Constitutional duty and running the country on continuing resolutions. State and local governments should concern themselves with their respective concerns. Society, through the efforts of it's members and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO's) should address social problems. There are levels of scope involved for each – local, regional, national, global – and levels of commitment. Political and social involvement is a citizens duty.


okiepoli

Wow.  That's mouthful and then some! LOL.  I really don't DISAGREE with anything you've said here.  My only "counter," if that's even the right word for it, is this:
 
1) As I stated previously, there are far more resources available at the federal level to combat poverty that would otherwise be available at the charitable level.  We need BOTH, and of course I'm fine with people dong charitable work.  I just don't understand the mentality that the two must be in competition with each other, instead of part of the same solution.  (Which is how I see them.)
 
And we DO have a repsonsibilty ot combat that poverty if for no other reason than we don't actually aim for full employemnt!  As a coutnry, we actually have a targeted unemployment rate!  So if we're going to keep ANYONE out of work as a matter of policy, I'd say we have some responsibility to them.
 
2) Regarding "punishing wrongdoing."  I'm going to offer something I learned, from a very conservative professor I might add, when I got my MBA.  In any given organization, redundantcny combats fraud.  It does this by requiring more people to be involved in any given conspiracy. And the more people involved, the more likely that one squeals or that it is otherwise discovered. 
 
You can see a very simple example of this at the movie theatre: Why do you pay one person and then give your ticket to someone else?  Why don;t you just PAY and then GO IN?  Because by separating the two processes, you have an accurate count of ticket purchases from one person, that makes it harder for the cashier to steal from the register without being caught.  And even if they tried to coordinate their efforts, all it would take is to be off by one or two ticket purchases here and there for management to know something's screwy is going on.
 
In contrast, a friend of mine has her own business.  She's very good at the service she provide, but she's not much at the business side of things.  She had just two people running the office, doing the billing and tracking the books.  And these two? Milked her to the tune of $700,000 over several years.  How? No redundantcny.  No one checking theirr work.  No checks and balances against which their numbers would ever be compared.  By the time she finally caught on? Her business was on the brink of bankruptcy.
 
People get frustrated with bureaucracies, and that's understandable.  But at least in those cases their is a PROCESS.  If I'm dealing with one person who has all the power? That can be a mixed blessing, big time.  If s/he wants to help me it's great.  But if their job is as a gatekeeper?   And they DON'T want to help me?  I'm twice as screwed as I am dealing with the bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies are SLOW.  But a single point of decision making? Is FINAL.  And of course, it becomes very easy for that person to pull of the very kind of shenanigans you are describing, if there are not redundant layers of process that his work will be compared against.
 
Again, big or small doesn't really matter to me.  The fact that so many things don't work, IMHO, has nothing to do with the size.  It has to do with political games where people don't like something so they slash their budget and then go on TV and say, "Look!  It doesn't even WORK!"  We can accomplish great things when we want to.  And we'd be that much better off if politicians and the media weren't so good at fooling people.  I maintain, and I think you;d agree with me, that a well infomred populace would all but wipe out the modern Republican party.  (And the modern Democrats as well, but they would be pushed back to their more historcical place in the true American Left.)
 
Anyway, that was a very interesting perspective, but I still don't see why you cling to the labels like you do! I read what you say, and, right or wrong, it just doesn't jive what I think of when I hear "Conservative" and certainly not when I hear "Republican." 
 
And thanks so much for the e-mail, and for your continuous contributions to this blog.  I don't think you'll be changing my positions anytime soon (I don't think we're all that far apart on most things to begin with) but I do really appreciate having a principled Conservative around to keep me honest!

The Redistribution of Wealth?

I wanted to do something on taxation.  I wanted to look into what Presidents ACTUALLY had the lowest tax rates and for who.  So I went looking for some kind of bell-curve or data that showed me year-by-year how many people were making what, and who was REALLY paying more or less in taxes.  And I may still do that, but in my search I came across something that drove home the age-old point about how fucked up we are as a country and as an economy in terms of wealth and income distribution.  It's a bit old, and I couldn't use the 'zoom'  function with my browser, but please check it out.  It does a much better job that I could illustrating the problem, and saves me the trouble of trying to:

The L-Curve

Consider this the next time you find yourself in a discussion with some idiot who's on the 50-yard line and talking about how he wants the government to "cut spending," "lower taxes" and all that.  Because Obama's only put the 99 and 100 yard lines in play.  And just look at those guys.  THOSE are the guys who benefit from reduced spending and taxes.  The guys to the left of th 99 yard line?  Every single one of them ought to be ADVOCATING for a little INCOME re-distribution.  (From the to 1-2% to the bottom 98.)

(And that's another thing - let's stop these fools on the Right from talking about redistributing wealth, huh? WEALTH isn't taxed.  This is about INCOME.  You know... that whole, "An honest days pay for an honest days work" that they kept yapping about as they destroyed the Unions? 

Apparently they meant that to apply to Chinese Workers.

And if you never considered how this might be done without screwing over the middle class, I'd like to offer a few ideas that you should consider that the Right, as well as what passes for the Left in this country, would never consider:

An Argument for Proportionate Payhttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/03/argument-for-proportinate-pay.html

and

In defense of Progressive Taxation

Cooler heads Prevail...

So it turns out that the Southern Florida Pastor with nothing going for him but a moustache will NOT end up burning the Koran after all.

I chalk that up to a fluke victory of common sense over Religious fanaticism, but in other news John Boehner has indicated that he may be willing to work with Democrats to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, even if it means that the top tier cuts will expire.

Now... Both of these are hard for me to read.  Did they finally realize just how stupid they were being?  Did they give in to public pressure?  Were they just otherwise good people got carried away in the moment and have came (back) to their senses just in time?  Who knows.  Although with Boehner, I have no doubt that he NEVER had any sense and still doesn't.  I don't know about Father Fu-manchu, but somehow I just can't trust a preacher with such stylized facial hair. LOL. 

Whatever.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out.  Will the pastor catch flack for not standing firm?  I know he won't get much credit for NOT doing ti, since anyone inclined to give him THAT was appalled that he was considering it in the first place.  And what about Boehner? How does THAT play out?  Can the Republicans take credit for helping tax relief get through, even though they were stalling it?  Seems to me that this SHOULD hand the Democrats some good ammo heading into November. Not the press is likely to let them have it though. OTOH... how will the "all or nothing" tea-baggers respond?  They should be happy with the compromise, especially seeing as how 99.999% of them fall into the lower 98% that will benefit from what Obama is proposing, and who have already benefited from the lower taxes as part of the stimulus package that they all hate so much.  "Taxed enough already" but they are scared to death about the deficit.  They want lower taxes and will vote Republican, despite the fact that Republicans were obstructing... LOWER TAXES.  Well... it looks like they'll get they're lower taxes, but do the Republicans get hurt simply for going along with the hated Democrats and the hated Pelosi and the Hated Obama?

You wouldn't think so, but then... WHY ARE they the "hated" Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, etc... when 98% of these idiots are getting EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT from them?  It's really absurd.  But you never can figure out what will happen when so many people act so stupidly. 

Anyway... Lots of questions.  And I don't have the answers.  But I'm curious to hear your all's take on it so let me know.

(BTW... This kind of leads into my post about the Republican Propaganda Video that shows how stupid Republicans are, which should be the next thing I post.)

Hope your all having a nice weekend.  Later!

The Definition of "irony"

OK...

Arguably the most over- and mis- used word in the english language lately has GOT to be "irony."

Here's a primer.

Now... If there is one entity in the universe that must not only truly understand irony, but also appreciate it, and have a wicked sense of humor to boot, it is the Google Adsense ad-bot.  You know, the algorithm that keeps putting ads for Sarah Palin's Book, Ann Coulter's Column and Ben Stein's website on this blog.

Just remember... It's not ME who's supporting THEM.  THEY'RE actually the ones who are sponsoring ME!

See? IRONY.

But the absolute BEST example of irony... One that made me LOL for about a minute strait... came a few nights ago on the website... (wait for it...)... POLITICALIRONY.COM!

No, that's not the ironic part.  In fact that's not ironic AT ALL.  It's really what was to be expected.  The real IRONY came in the form of the AD that was placed RIGHT NEXT to a particuar cartoon.  I grabbed a screen cap (click once or twice to enlarge):

Now THAT my friends, in context?  Is IRONY, writ large.

Has Fred Thompson EVER looked so desperate and pathetic?  Either the Ad-Bot has a keen sense of irony, or it just HATES Fred Thompson. LOL

Lies du Jour, Part Two

(If you haven’t read part one yet, please do so. I don’t feel like repeating the context.)


So now that we, hopefully, have some perspective on the idea that tax cuts will (or even CAN) pay for themselves, let’s take a look at the two statements. Did Obama create the deficit? Or, less absurdly, how much of this did he REALLY inherit from Bush? Here’s a graphic that breaks down some of the larger components of the deficit:

Two Wars? Bush. Bush Tax cuts? Bush. Economic Down turn? Started in August 2007 and ended in April, 2009 so… 18 months under Bush, 2 months under Obama. Yeah, I’d say that’s Bush. (Even putting aside that it was the result of bank de-regulation, which is part of the Republican agenda anyway!) TARP? Bush.  Stimulus? Fine: 50/50. Both had their stimulus packages and both cleared the $700 Billion mark. So this deficit is four-and-a-half parts Bush, and just one-half-part Obama.


Now… I make no (negative) value judgments on any of these things. I supported the Auto-Bailouts (not shown, but perhaps deficit neutral, on paper anyway, since the gov't got an asset for thier money) wholeheartedly, for example.  Thank you, President Bush! (Disclosure: I work in the auto industry) and eventually came to recognize TARP as a necessary evil. I didn’t LIKE it, but I can’t condemn it. It was needed. BUT… it was still BUSH, and it still contributed to the deficit. In fact, it's remarkable how small the deficit would actually be if it weren’t for the Republicans, so it’s kind of absurd that they’ve made it their #1 issue!

Now… has Obama raised taxes? Again: NO. No. No. No! In fact he’s lowered them once already, and will actually lower them again next year! Wait a sec… then… what’s all this noise on Fox about how taxes are going up next year? Well… they are. But… you just said…? Hang on a sec. Let’s get in the “way-back” machine and take a good hard look at those “Bush Tax Cuts.”

These were passed in 2003, when the Republicans controlled both houses of congress and had Bush in the White House. They were officially called the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.” And one of the key, but frequently ignored, provisions in the legislation was they were scheduled to expire on Jan 1, 2011 unless some ADDITIONAL action was taken. Expire. On 1/1/11. ALL of them. That’s the existing law, as written by Republicans, and signed by George W. Bush: Effecive 2011, the tax rates will return to their previous, Bill Clinton-era levels. It’s perhaps worth noting that Barack Obama would not even be elected to the Senate until 2004, his term starting in 2005. So this law passed two years before Obama entered the Senate as anything but a tourist. He could not possibly have had anything to do with it!

So when your taxes “go up” (or ‘return to their previous levels’) it is because of legislative action taken by REPUBLICANS and GEORGE W. BUSH.  Be sure to remember that and tank them approprioately.

So what has Obama done? Well, in early 2009, as part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” Obama lowered payroll taxes for everyone making less that $250,000 a year. That’s 98% of American according to the latest available census data! And last time I checked, 51% was a majority. (A MANDATE, if you’re a Republican candidate apparently.) So right off the bat, Obama lowered taxes. My take-home pay went up IMMEDIATELY by $68 per month, for example. Pretty much everyone’s did. Well… 98% of America anyway. But most people either have no idea, or have forgotten. Maybe because Fox News keeps hammering home the misinformation of Obama being a tax-raiser. Convenient, in an election year, but unfortunately not true at all. (Fair and Balanced folks!)  If you don't believe me, just look at your paycheck the first couple months of 2009.  You'll SEE the increase.  It's THERE.  Pretty much EVERYONE got it!

So what about next year? What about 2011? Well, remember that if Obama did nothing at all, took no action, the BUSH legislation effectively would raise (restore) tax rates back to their previous levels.  Becuase they were set to expire unless other legislative action was taken.  And guess what?  President Obama is TAKING THAT ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION!!!  In the budget he's proposing, those "Bush Tax Cuts" would remain in place for the first $250,000 of income.  And... if you understand how a progressive taxation works, you'll realize that this means that EVERYONE will be paying a lower effective than the otherwise would have been if Obama did nothing at all! (Yes, even those people who make more than that.  They'll still get the break on the first $250K)

I'm sure this sounds convoluted to the avewrage conservtive, but it's absolute FACT and absolute TRUTH.  Obama is a TAX CUTTER.  And you just can't escape that.

One concession I'll make...

If the budget goes through like he's proposing, in future discussion about the deficit, I will galdly refer to them as the "OBAMA TAX CUTS" instead of the "Bush Tax Cuts."  That's only fair.  If he's going to get hammered over the deficit, he's should at least get his due credit for cutting taxes.

Lies du Jour, Part One

There are two particularly annoying meme’s being pushed right now by the Right about Obama and the Democrats:

1. That Obama created the deficit
2. That Obama raised taxes.
3. There are both true and both bad and thus both are reasons to vote Republican.

First things last: neither is true. And we'll get to that in part two.

But let me put that aside for the moment, and first point out the absurdity of the idea that the deficit can be your #1 issue when you’re calling for TAX CUTS! Now… am I saying tax cuts are BAD? No. Not at all. They stimulate the economy. That’s right. You read that right. They DO. In fact the idea that cutting taxes can stimulate the economy if every bit as much part of the Keynsian economic model as the fact that increasing spending stimulates the economy is. And both work the same way: The multiplier. If you cut taxes, or increase spending you increase the income of America by [some multiplier, greater than 1] times the amount of the change. And like wise raising taxes and cutting spending will have the same negative effect: the income of America will change by [some negative multipler, greater than -1] times the amount fo the change. Conservatives are more than happy to accept the tax half of the Keynsian model, but for some reason they can never seem to swallow the spending side of it. And the real kicker is that the multiplier ofr spending are GREATER than the multipliers for taxes. The end results is that a balanced budget always has a multiplier of “1.” If you raise taxes AND raise spending by [X] collective income will INCREASE by [X]. If you cut taxes AND cut spending by [X] collective income will DECREASE by [X]. They never buy it, but if you take an economics course, regardless of the ideology of the professor, you will learn this. It’s a FACT.

BUT… that’s all about the effect on the ECONOMY. If you’re concerned about the ECONOMY? Fine, cut taxes. (Or increase spending, whatever.) But you can’t be expected to be taken seriously if you’re talking about cutting taxes to decrease the DEFICIT. (Well, OK, yeah you CAN, only because there are a lot of real idiots in this country. In any case you SHOULDN’T BE taken seriously by ANYONE.) Because that’s like saying, “My credit card debt is getting too high, so I better quit my job.” The deficit is SPENDING minus TAXES. So… if you lower taxes, you can ONLY increase the deficit!

Duh!

Now… some will argue that the multiplier effect I mentioned earlier can fix this. That if we cut taxes (for example) the resulting growth will result in more tax revenue. (Or at least as much as we had before.) That’s the idea behind the now widely discredited Laffer Curve. Personally I think Laffer had a legitimate point, but he his partisanship caused him err when trying to figure out where exactly on the curve we were, as well as what the exact shape (slope) of the curve is, and where the center of it is. In any case, let me demonstrate why tax cuts (or spending icreases, for that matter) will never “pay for themselves,” why they will ALWAYS contribute to the deficit, unless offset by spending cuts (or tax increases):

  

Let say you’ve got a company with $100 in taxable income (profit) and we’re taxing them at 30%. (That a bit higher than most US corporations pay, but it makes the math easier.) SO you get $30 in tax revenue from them.  How much growth would they need to see for a 5% reduction in taxation to “pay for itself.” (Meaning: for it to be deficit neutral.) Well… to get that same $30 at just a 25% rate of taxation, they’d need to make $120 in pre-tax profit. IOW: they’d have to see 20% growth! Note: Few companies EVER see 20% growth, and a 5% tax cut on it's opwn just ain’t going to do it! How do I know this? First of all, most companies require a Return on Investment of just 10%, 15%, 20%... something on that order. To turn that $5 of tax savings into $20 of income would require a 300% return! And if a company had a way to get a 300% return on their money? They’d do it. Period. Right now. They’d find a way to beg, borrow or steal that $5 they needed. But guess what? There are not a whole lot of projects out there with a 300% ROI. None really. At 20%, that company would made $101 in taxable income from that $5 investment and pay $25.25 in taxes. IWO – we added $4.75 to the deficit by doing this.

Even IF one considered the multiplier effect, the results are still nowhere near where they need to be. To turn a $5 tax cut into $20 of taxable income requires a multiplier of FOUR. And no legitimate economist goes throwing numbers like THAT around lightly. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that your going WAAAY out on a limb to assume it.  Here, for example, is a graph by Mark Zandi of Moody’s showing the benefit of each dollar spent on various parts of the stimulus package in 2008:

(And yes, I know that looks like crap bleeding over like that, but it look worse shrunk down. So just deal.)

Now, granted one could claim this is “just some liberal rubbish,” but do you notice how the highest multiplier is still under TWO? (~1.7) Even for the “liberal” stuff that he'd be trying to sell?! Nothing ANYWHERE NEAR the four that we'd need.

Now, that 300% return (multipler of 4) only applies to a 5% cut from a 30% base tax rate. Here’s a chart I worked up, showing how much growth you’d need (and the required multiplier) for a given tax cut to pay for itself. Feel free to go in there and monkey with the numbers if you want. The point still stands.  You can see that unless you’re talking about very small tax decreases, from very large rates, you’re talking about growth rates that are only ever talked about in classroom examples. They have no place in business projections (indeed any business would go broke VERY FAST if it relied on this kind of growth assumption) and should have no place in policy discussions.

"Part Two" will show why, in addition to being assinine when taken together, both a flat out FALSE individually as well.

Defense Spending and the Deficit

I don’t want anyone to think that I’m anti-military or anti-defense spending. Despite its long history of misuse, I still believe that our strong military CAN be a force for good in the world. And as I’m a Keynesian (or as I like to say, “Educated”) I still realize that ANY reduction is Government spending will not only destroy jobs, but do more harm that then equivalent tax increases would cause. However, I wanted to look at one area of Government Spending, and judge it as “wasteful” just on the basis of necessity. BTW, “wasteful” is not a word I like to use, as there is really almost no such thing as wasteful spending, but we’ll save that for another time. In this case I’m judging it against its stated purpose, NOT against the economic impact.


I came across the following graph from http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending:

Granted, it’s a couple of years old, but as it’s expressed in percentages rather than actual dollars, I would think the overall proportions will have remained pretty close. The US accounts for 41.5% of the World’s Military Spending. The other four permanent members of the UN Security Council account for only 18.8%. The next ten countries combine for only 21.1%. So were spending a little more than our fourteen biggest allies and enemies COMBINED. The rest of the world accounts for the other 18.6%.

Now… you hear the proposal kicked around form time to time that we should cut our defense spending by something like 5-10%. Conservatives (and some hawkish Democrats) always howl in protest over this, but I think it’s pretty clear that we’ll still be able to keep out the invading hordes, even with these cuts. What this graph tells me is that we could make 50% cut in spending and still be spending more that England, France, China and Russia combined. COMBINED! That’s just crazy! You’d probably need to add the top 1 or 2 of the next 10 countries to the list just to make it EVEN. If you think about that, it’s staggering, so I’ll say it again: With a 50% cut in defense spending we’d still be spending TWICE AS MUCH as Russia and China COMBINED, and AS MUCH (more, actually) as Russia, China, France and Great Britain… COMBINED!

Now… let the awesome reality of that sink in for a moment before moving on.

Now, using FY2010 as an example, our federal budget is about $3.55 trillion. Without pointing any fingers, the federal DEFICIT was about $1.42 Trillion. $663.7 billion of that was Defense Spending. Now… as I’ve stated before, we could cut our defense spending in HALF and still be outspending our four biggest enemies and allies combined. This would save us about $332 Billion. In other words – we could knock 23% off of the Federal Deficit in one single action and still single handedly account for about a fifth of the world’s military spending all by ourselves. Again, more than our two biggest “enemies” and two biggest allies COMBINED. (I’m sorry I keep restating that, but I’m just so utterly gobsmacked by the enormity of it!)

Now… am I advocating for such a reduction? Not necessarily. There would be significant job losses in terms of Soldiers, Defense Contractors, Arms Manufacturers, as well as many Civilian Business that have nothing to do with War or Defense, but still do business with or on Military Bases. So cutting these funds would have an ECONOMIC impact many times as big as any security concerns. But that’s true of ANY reduction in spending. And that’s really the problem with the reckless deficit spending that the Republicans have pursued over that last 30 years – out of VICE, rather than NECESSITY as the Democrats have done. And for the country, it’s like an addiction because fixing it - no matter HOW you fix it - HURTS. It causes HARM. Whether it’s though tax increases or spending cuts, there WILL be pain.

And remember: Republicans are still advocating for Tax CUTS, so don’t believe ANYTHING they say about the deficit! Their aim is to ‘reduce the size of Government’ by BANKRUPTING it. If they really cared about the deficit and National Debt, they’d be calling for tax increases as well, just smaller ones than the liberals are, while advocating for larger spending cuts than the liberals do. Not to mention that they CAUSED the problem. They CREATED the culture of borrow-and-spend which replaced the more responsible model of tax-and-spend. Regan kicked it off, Bush’41 continued it. Clinton put an end to it, but Bush’43 couldn’t have that, so he kicked it into high gear! Obama has so far mostly inherited these problems. To be fair, he has added to the deficit, but with the economy he inherited that was almost inevitable – a matter of necessity rather than choice.

Moving foreword, we’ll see. In any case, you can’t cut a Trillion+ dollars in spending or raise a Trillion+ dollars in taxes overnight with causing some serious economic pain. That’s beyond dispute. So I don’t put this up as any sort of deficit-cutting silver bullet. But it’s certainly interesting food for thought regarding where our National Priorities are, and where our money goes. We should consider these facts before we talk about how we CAN’T provide health care, and CAN’T provide social safety nets and CAN’T support public education, CAN’T, CAN’T, CAN’T... Because if there was ever an attitude that sums up everything that America is all about, it’s “YES WE CAN.”

Maybe it’s not about spending LESS, but about spending it MORE WISELY.

----------------------------------------------------

BTW… I had this graph, from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258, but the wiki article pretty much had all the numbers I needed. But here’s tabulation, in case you want to cross-reference anything, or just wanted another breakdown.