To Pay Taxes, Or Not To Pay ...

There is no doubt in my mind that more Americans should be paying Federal Income Taxes.  The operative word in that sentence is "should."  There is a damn good reason why the word isn't "can" without severe economic consequences.  It has everything to do with how the economic pie is carved up and what the reality of Taxes, in general, is in this model of economic dysfunction.

The first thing to address is what those non-Fed paying are paying and one my move out of Oregon has emphasized to me.  Most Americans pay sales tax and depending on the model in operation in a State, just how much the low and middle income pay for their State's operation.  This mess of a tax seems to range from about 5% to 7+% and though what is subject varies, food groceries are mostly out, every day needs are hit along with the more major purchases like vehicles and this hits a much larger share of income for low and lower middle income groups than anybody else.  There is an unholy mix of sales tax along with State income taxes and most of them are pretty damn regressive.

If you take a wage or salary anything up to $110,000 is subject to a tax of about 14% and there is no deduction on that (that rate can easily revert to the 15.3% rate).  You can go ahead and consider Mitt's published rate of about 14% on his millions of income.  Unless you're a church or favored Corporation you pay property tax and whether you own, "own", or rent you're paying these.  There are, of course, all kinds of specific taxes and fees like gas taxes and maybe the most insidious and nasty where tip receiving employees have their minimum wage slashed.

If you look at wages and salary that have been flat or falling versus inflation over the past 30 years you begin to get a sense of the impact of Federal Income Tax.  But that is really only a small part of what is going and talking about a symptom wealth distribution and, yup, taxes.  In 2007 the top 1% had 43% of the financial wealth in the US compared to the lowest 80% at 7% of the wealth.  Take into consideration that conditions have severely worsened since then.  There are structural reasons for this and there are policy and tax reasons for this.  I believe you can make the case that the structural reasons have much more to do with policy and tax policy than world conditions and even if they do not they are huge contributors.

It is frequently asserted that economics is not a zero sum game, as though this somehow mitigates conditions and quite basically ignores that at any given moment economics is exactly a zero sum game.  At any given moment there is exactly so much wealth within the system and how that wealth is distributed has everything to do with whether or not people earn money and spend that money and get taxed on those earnings.  If 80% of the population is competing for 7% of the wealth the system produces  they are going to take small portions and have small portions of a system that supports us all.

I really don't care what economic model one hews to from communism to unfettered libertarian capitalism the simple fact is that wealth is produced and protected by the infrastructure and various agencies.  These systems must be paid for, somehow, money has got to be put into creating and maintaining them.  If not enough people can afford or are willing to pay the piper the thing falls apart.  If you cut the share in wealth of the general population they cannot afford to support those essentials and if you allow the small percentage of the population to refuse the thing is broken.  The reason you have inability and the ability to refuse is all about the share of wealth.  If you concentrate sufficient wealth at the top you give them the ability to keep it that way and refuse responsibility through application of minor amounts of that wealth to the political system.

It has taken decades to get to this point and trying to do something real about it in a sudden manner, even if possible, would have undesirable consequences to the economy.  Forcing wealth back down into the general population will take time even if it is seriously addressed.  The problem is the the will to do it will take an awful lot work and time - the thinking that has led to this mess has been inculcated over decades and become some perverted common sense.  Waiting for politicians is simply foolish, they will react to common sentiment not common sense and worse yet - that sentiment has to overcome the political advantages of wealth.  Yeah, I think most Americans should pay taxes and that involves being able to pay them and that means that the real Takers in the economy have to give up quite a lot.  A hell of a lot which is just chump change in their world.  So don't hold your breath or any stupid like that...

By the way, if you're not in the top 1% or even better 0.1% you're getting hammered by percentage of income paid in taxes compared to them.  Absolutely hammered.

Really Mr Rather? Paul Ryan Isn't Who You Thought He Was?

I watched with a certain amount of disbelief as Dan Rather blurted out something I considered rather unobservant on Rachel Maddow's 9/10 Show... words to the effect that he was astonished that Paul Ryan has done so poorly in television and other interviews.  Rachel in a rather nice way tuned Dan up.  She pointed out to him some of what I'm about to go off on.

Paul Ryan is exactly as much of an intellect as you could expect from someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously once out of puberty... or high school, anyhow.  This ought to be a starting point for anyone talking about Ryan's abilities.  Ayn Rand's writings are about stoking the testosterone fueled imaginings of superiority over 'the other' - the ones who don't run things and just do.  You are aware of 'just do' - they cook your food, they build your house, they clean your house or others houses, they don't get the big bucks and they don't get their pictures in the 'nice' magazines.  Worker bees.  Not one goddam cent the Ayn Rand Superiors have is generated by their own sweat and blood - some pissant worker bee makes the things and gets them their income and those folks are disposable, they are "the takers."  They're takers because they make the shit and buy the shit and want to get paid something for it and they're not grateful to the great men who'd as soon they starved while they work.  If they don't work thanks to the decisions of their betters then they can just starve, or if they can't work because they got dealt a real shitty hand - they should have found a better dealer - like running mate Mitt did.  It is a simplistic world where force and influence are all that matters and where the only consequences are when the truly great are inconvenienced - only a very limited intellect would be impressed.  That is for starters.

Paul Ryan has "shone" within the simplified world of the conservative media and amongst his similarly minded and within a pissant CD in the same state where Michelle Bachman has prospered in a similar venue.  Results are quite understandably different when the surroundings aren't composed of his friends and sycophants and include people who are willing to look at a record and analyze talking points policy.  Wanting something to be so does not make a four hour plus marathon into a sub-three hour one and it does not make the fevered imaginings of Ayn into workable policy and it doesn't make ideology into goddam mathematics.  The real rules of the world say that you can't make money in to match money out without actually doing it - ideology be damned.  The real world says that you can't make rape into several other things without really pissing off anyone who gives a damn about women and after you've tried to do it you don't get to claim it is all a misunderstanding.  Some people pay attention to these things and will question it outside Janesville WI and the GOP House Caucus. 

Why the hell Dan Rather is surprised that a pip-squeak ideologue doesn't do well when challenged on his bullshit is way beyond me.  Paul Ryan's ideas have been in full view for some time and they've not been misrepresented and they stink in practical terms.  To put it simply - they are in practice stupid, if ideologically sound.  Paul Ryan has to deny that a vote for Sequestration was a vote for Sequestration and do it in front of people who say, "What the hell?"  This is from the Party that accused John Kerry of flip-flopping for voting differently on two different variations of a Bill.  Paul says he did it to force a better deal... he voted for what he voted for outcomes be damned and wants to pass that off as principled action.  Yes, he thought he was playing hostage taker just as those GOPers thought the rest of their Debt Ceiling hostage taking was a good idea - real world outcomes be damned.

The unexplainable doesn't get explained by Paul Ryan and Dan Rather is surprised.  When you try to do things that make no damned sense at all it is real hard to make it sensible, or even make sensible responses to questions about them.  The measure of an intellect is not the ability to parrot stupidity and pass it off as policy, the measure of intellect is an ability to face reality and do a somewhat good job of matching your desires to it and working within its constraints.  Buying the idiotic punditry that making stupid policy involves nerve and out-of-the-box-thinking is asking to be disappointed or astonished that its object can't live up to its billing.  An actual intellect knows how to adapt and innovate and improvise in the face of conditions, not hew to wishful thinking that things will just work because it wants them to.

Paul Ryan is a chimera of the right and the teabaggers, not anything more and his resolute stupidity is going to cost the GOPers for uplifting it into something is doesn't in the least resemble.  And yes, they deserve anything they get for it... and if the electorate buys into it, well hell, then we'll get what we as a nation deserve and too bad for those who knew better...  

What Did Anybody Think Would Happen?

The jobless numbers went up last month because the jobs added simply were well short of population growth. The stark part was the break out between public and private sectors. The private sector added 60K jobs and the public sector shed 40K getting a net of plus 20K.

Low tax rates on the rich have not resulted in jobs, not since GWB got them, vast profits for favored industries have not produced jobs, in point of fact the housing bubble was the job driver for GWB while everything else went to hell. Why people can't manage to see that the GOP policies have not produced spit is beyond me.

The actual numbers exist that demostrate that the GOPer policies are bad for the economy and bad for the general citizenry and yet... well, we're talking about the damned debt ceiling and crashing the economic clown* car.

*if you don't think this economy deserves that level of derision ... well ...

I'm So Wrong On Economics...

For quite some time now I've had some things to say about tax rates and the rich and ultra-rich that involve dissuading them from wringing every last cent out of the economy. Awhile ago I was gratified to see that somebody with qualifications was tracking along where I'd been. The plutocratic right, quite naturally, pushed back.

Well, Robert Reich was having none of it. Not even a little bit of it. Yes, he has more and better credentials than I do and he used actual numbers but he said what I said. Let's try to pay attention and not act as though the GOP bullying is going to get them anywhere. Um, Democrats?

Why do I have the distinct impression this is wishful thinking?

Democrats Lose By Joining Cuts Jabber

Congress and then the White House have budget difficulties to deal with along with a looming debt ceiling problem. There sure are a lot of issues at play in this mess but one thing is real clear, spending and revenue are out of joint - pretty seriously. You sure can try to address such a problem from only one edge, but that does mean that half results ensue or unacceptable consequences ensue.

The second Democrats start to talk about cuts, sensible cuts, or any kind of cuts without taxation reform they have accomplished two things that are bad for them and the nation. First they have ceded to the one side approach and the two prong approach simply disappears. Secondly by engaging in cuts dialogue they put themselves into comparison with the GOPer while admitting that cutting is the way to go.

Any approach that involves simple humanity in relation to cutting by itself will result in virtually nothing and assuage no one concerned with the budget without slamming military spending (not gonna happen). Democrats cannot with any conscience or hope of electoral success slam hell out of people who are already over the edge or going over and the GOP gives a damn. The Democrats cannot look as though they are doing anything and will at the same time make quite a few lives just enough more difficult to take a lot of heat. Some people will notice that wealth makes out and poverty increases and the only people who will care an iota aren't voting GOP.

In order to end DADT and get a START treaty the Democrats let the BushCo tax cuts get extended. In order to get a treaty nobody opposed for any principle whatever and to get a policy that affects a vanishingly small minority of the nation revenue was decreased. Any attempt to cover that lost revenue will badly harm a hell of a lot more people who cannot take it than DADT would over years of extension. If you think I in anyway ever supported DADT you're ... well, way wrong. But that is now the proposition Democrats face if they go to cuts alone. The plain politics of it is that they would lose a lot more votes than they gained. Was DADT flat wrong, yes - was the mechanism also flat wrong, yes; and that is what you get when you do deals with the Devil.

Our tax code is so completely skewed to the favor of absolute wealth that leaving it in that state is damn near criminal and will continue to crush the economy of this nation. It is simple enough to understand that wealth will always do well short of fires and murder. It is not difficult to stay wealthy in a system that operates with capitalism at its base and I don't have a real big problem with that since most of us can benefit as well. We do not benefit as well, but the operative word is can. The fault is not with a system based on capitalism, it is the matter of making sure that not even crumbs fall off that capitalistic table. This is the crux of what Democrats face - well that and the reaction of wealth.

Democrats pretty much take anyone left of Obama for granted as voters because they have nowhere else to go and the alternative is generally nasty enough to get them to vote. It may be the case that the 2010 election results showed Democrats that a campaign of "not as bad as" can have bad results. There is also the aspect that the results of 2010 scare the hell out of anybody left of Genghis Khan. I would not want to bet on how that tension plays out and I'd sure think Democrats sure shouldn't unless smashing the country to teach us a lesson is part of the thinking.

I don't think many Democrats expect much in the line of taxation reform and that they'll go along with essentially half-measures. What I don't see them going along with is absolutely nothing done other than a ball bat taken to the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged. It no longer matters how many lies the GOP tells about "job creators" in the wealth category, only a few deluded souls believe it.

I'd like to see President Obama re-elected and Congress in responsible hands other than GOPers but there really should be some reason to do it.

The Economy And Politics

I just caught the end of some CNN Money program where an ostensibly reputable economy sort made the statement that (paraphrased) 'our economy is not about politics.' I'm trying pretty hard to give this guy some kind of benefit of doubt and let that be about some kind of 'the President can't wave a wand at it.' The overall tenor makes me think he meant the economy is somehow outside politics. This does seem to be one of the themes of a certain set of economic apologists.

The shape of our economy is almost entirely political. Everything from tax policy to trade agreements to labor laws is the outcome of political activity. There are all kinds of blather about free trade and free markets which flatly have never existed. Everybody who talks about the economy has an agenda and their pet. The very act of negotiating a contract or seeking employment is simply politics at its most local. The objective is that I want the most of whatever for the least of whatever and that exchange involves power and wealth. If I want a good price on materials I tell a supplier that I'll buy lots from him versus his competition if he gives me a better price, if I'm a worker and unionized or working in a short market I can demand more ... money, better working conditions, etc. If I'm a politician virtually everything I do will have a broad effect. Tax policies easily affect the direction of flow of wealth and the uses of wealth. (that wealth can be minimal or maximal or monetary or physical) Trade agreements are pretty obvious, but so is anything related to physical or mental health or race relations or education or ... just about whatever government gets up to and those are political choices.

If a politician leaves you in doubt as to the basic thrust of his economic viewpoint in relation to policy regardless of whether the word economy is brought up, you will be ignorant of what the economy is going to do to you. Abortion access has a direct impact on economics even though it would seem to be another question altogether. Where money flows as an outcome is an important piece of the puzzle whatever the policy in question. This does not mean the first dollar moved, it is the movement of the dollars as an outcome.

It is pretty easy to point to the GOP as the party of plutocracy, it gets a bit more controversial to point to the Democrats as belonging to the same club, differences in degree being what's at issue. It isn't real complicated to take most issues apart and see where money flows if you're willing to go past the very first dollars in that analysis. Our economy is in the state it is in today not as a result of some inexorable world condition but as a result of political actions taken previously.

They Don't Really Mean Capitalism

One of the recurring buzz words of the GOP and libertarian wing of the GOP is the word Capitalism. This word is presented as the foundation of "our high standard of living" and "Prosperity." Like most buzz words it has the problem of being meaningless and in that, a lie. They would have you believe that when they say that word, they are talking about the One True Capitalism.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a system of true capitalism. What has existed from the time of Adam Smith's dissertation on the subject is managed capitalism and the word managed is quite important. Smith, himself, stated the unfettered capitalism would be an evil. The GOP does not mean such a thing, they do mean managed capitalism and the argument of how to manage capitalism has been ... well ... nasty since Jefferson and Hamilton went hammer and tongs over it (that argument resulted in Hamilton's death in a duel).

The second the magic word "managed" enters discourse you understand that the system is being rigged. Now since the entire concept of Capitalism depends on just what it says, capital, the system is rigged in that direction so rigging it isn't exactly a strange concept. The Republican establishment knows better but they're entirely happy to have the voters wander in ignorance. They mean managed capitalism quite thoroughly though they'd rather just not deal with that. The question has always been in whose favor the rigging is done.

The entire concept of markets depends on competition and yet capitalism contains within it the seeds of destruction of competition through sufficient acquisition of the assets of a market - yes we call that monopoly. There is nothing inherent to capitalism in corporations or for that matter unions. Both are constructions designed to increase leverage in markets through pooling of resources and both are the results of legislation. Both are products of managed capitalism. Wall Street and Banks are the products of legislation and exist thanks to legislation.

What the GOP wants to hide is that their agenda has spit to do with Capitalism and everything to do with whose favor the system is rigged. That is what the argument is with everybody that supports managed capitalism. Ever since St Ronnie the plutocrats have been winning on class warfare - all the while claiming the "other side" is doing it. As long as shared goals are not present in the discussion managed capitalism does mean class warfare.

Oh sure, like this would make even a dent in a true believer's skull...

I'm not sure the electorate doesn't deserve the crash we're in and a worse one based on the GOPer plutocratic thuggery. I'm not too pleased to know better and get dragged into it anyhow.

(D)s,
Before you get all damned puffed up - there may be a significant difference in how much the two Parties are willing to screw the public, but really...

A Broken Contract

Coming out of the Depression and following it a new social economic contract was established in this country. Although there are a great many factors, a couple feature prominently - the shared social and economic disaster of the Depression and the shared sacrifices of World War II. The case can certainly be made that some few greatly profited from both but that does not negate the nearly universal sharing. This resulted in a nation that not only deserved but also believed it deserved to share in the benefits of the economy and society in broad terms. This means more than just unionization and moderate compensation for upper management and some restrictions on the tools of wealth, it also led to the successes of the Civil Rights movement and what success feminism had.

The 1950s and '60s were the era of big things, and not just cars. Unions built power bases, government put together large programs, manufacturing output soared, and general participation in society and economy exploded. A social and economic contract of shared work and shared benefit became the norm. This scarcely means inequities didn't exist or weren't tolerated but they were greatly reduced from any previous periods. None of this was free of conflict and backlash and yet this is the reason those conflicts even existed.

By the 1970s the very successes of the 'new contract' began to create fractures. Union membership was falling, welfare resentment rose, racial resentment broadened, economic gains by labor began falling and a distance began to grow between labor and white collar in perception of 'place' in the economy and society. By the 1980s a theme grew that government (and by extension - unions) was a problem. Taxes became seen as an evil rather than a necessary sacrifice and as a tool of unfairness to success. The Reagan era began and with it the work of dismantling the contract. Greed was the new contract and those not winning were seen as 'at fault.'

This brings us to today. In this sad state of affairs the ending of DADT and a corporate welfare health care 'reform' are great achievements in a social contract while the drivers of deficits like taxation rates, militarism, and out-sourcing are ignored in favor of gutting what programs of social equity exist. The drivers of discussion are somehow fairness to the greatest beneficiaries of a broken contract and the disaster of supporting those left behind in this broken economy. The social contract has become 'greed is virtue' even in the smallest sense of demonizing public employees and shifting the burden of being old onto the old. The winners are somehow deserving and those who didn't deserve misery so that anything else is socialism.

When a social contract is broken there is fallout and it will involve more than just a broken economy. Misery does not necessarily breed good decisions.

Politicians All The Same

Recently a commentor noted that after watching "Inside Job" he's decided all politicians are all the same. Well, I think that's a bit of a stretch considering Paul Ryan's plan, the Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin mess, and the blatant support the rich Republican agenda.

That isn't exactly the same as saying that both or either Party is on your side. I suppose that short of hate, racism, and xenophobia; how much they're not on your side is the real issue. I'd love to be able to say that one of the Parties makes a point of looking out for the interests of those who lack real wealth. Yes, one can point out obvious exceptions and I'm happy to say a good chunk of the Oregon delegation fits that description; but outcomes are what matter. Outcomes suck regardless of which Party held the majority for the last 30 some years if wealth isn't your status.

Here's the real rub, and Republicans seem to understand it, the new middle will be somewhere between Democrats' half-hearted agenda and the new Republican lunacy. Much more of this crap and the middle will be somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Who Gets It For Blowing Up The Economy?

Well gee, anybody without political swat (=money, see SCOTUS) is going to take in the neck, or currently is taking it. The lords of the universe are above all such considerations - Madoff goes to jail and who else? Consider what it took for that to happen.

Banks sold junk and then took out insurance on that junk betting it would fall apart and pensions got whacked. Retirement goes in the toilet and the Execs at those banks get big bonuses. Even though the GOP was the elected architect of this mess it can't all be laid at their feet, they had plenty of Democratic enablers - including Bill Clinton, master of the middle way...

Now that the damage to blue collar started with St Ronnie has gnawed its way up into the middle class you'd think there would be a reaction. There has been - the House is now GOP and they're planning a slash and burn campaign on the poorest and neediest of the nation. The cost to the plutocrats? An extension of the BushCo tax cuts...

The military and wars are off the table. The fact that we spend more than the next 15 top military spenders put together means ... it is untouchable and WIC can just go away.

WIC? The beaters of the fetus drum give a shit if they grow up with multiple health difficulties because their early diet sucked thanks to economics. That is the kind of sense it makes to go after the nickle and dime stuff - but the beneficiaries can't buy politicians.

If you're a plutocrat things revolve around your happiness, and that includes the well-being of your enablers. But goddam, the left is just crazy ... ask the middle and the media.

See What Egypt Did?

The Egyptians went to the streets over a rigged system of politics and economics that crushed everyone except the rich and connected; so what have we done? We elected a GOP House.

Think about that ... just for a second or two.

To Co-opt

Co-opt is a political techinque that gets pretty neglected as a topic in regards to what happens today. It shouldn't be.

Co-opting is generally practiced against opposition groups and is used to disarm them by making them a part of the system and having a stake in its survival and well-being without making fundamental changes. This frequently involves the use of symbols and empty rhetoric or even acting on narrow areas while actively pursuing policies fundamentally harmful to the interests of that group. It can backfire but isn't currently showing much sign of it.

I can point to the GOP easily enough (and get applause around here) and its relationship with the Religious Right, Tea Partiers, and more. Maybe it gets a bit more sticky if I point to the Democrats? Sure, it was well past time to do something about DADT, health insurance (however stinky the results) and it makes liberals feel good but the end results address a tiny percentage of the population ... meanwhile the plutocratic rape of the nation rages on, unabated and screws well over 90% of the populace - unopposed.

This isn't "what have you done for me lately," is about "what haven't you done anything about for the last three decades?"

*I'm not going to hand you a list of links - they're real damn easy to do yourself. You will be pissed.

Where's The Jobs, GOPers?

OK, I'm not advocating something as stupid as that sounds, any government action takes time to work into results. I'm not even asking where the voted on bills are. What I'd like to know is where are the concrete proposals about something other than going to war with women and low income earners?

No shit. All the talk about job killing stimulus and other crap and nothing to offer? What is offensive is that they get to do this 'for free.' The Obama Admin. had a stimulus proposal on the table virtually when the walked in the door. Whether you argue it worked or not (I'd say yes) is immaterial to this question. You GOP buttheads have been screaming from Inauguration that Obama was wrecking the country and going on and on about everything the Democrats have proposed or done and you have not one damned thing ready to offer? What? You haven't had time to put something together?

Who the hell is going to call them out on their crap? (that would be other than $0.02 bloggers)

Idiotological Slaves

Ideology is a fine thing as long as it doesn't get confused about its place in regards to reality, when it does it becomes idiotology. The US Senate had a bill before it - several times - to, among other things, extend unemployment benefits that are expiring. It seems that there is a little matter of the Federal deficit and the bit about encouraging lay-abouts to go get a job rather than subsidizing their ... laziness.

The rather nasty contrast between wealthy Senators (you know of a blue collar income one?) and the recipients of unemployment checks might clue you into my general regard for these cretins (sure, who are the cretins he speaks of?). I suppose there'd be some kind of justification for the "market approach" if there were jobs out there. Employers are not going begging for employees who are laying around licking their nuts on the taxpayer dime.

The Federal deficit is a result of spending out pacing tax and fee income - it isn't rocket science. It costs money to extend unemployment benefits - the taxes paid for unemployment insurance aren't sufficient to deal with this kind of extended unemployment. There is a little matter that the Confederate Party of Republicanism and Plutocracy won't deal with and that is what happens to those benefits after they're issued. Unemployment checks don't offer a life of luxury and savings, they get spent on directly sustaining products and rents or mortgages. Somebody makes and distributes those products or depends on payments of obligations and those are taxable - they are government income and they are jobs which is something different than unemployment to come without those consumers spending. Adding to the roles of the unemployed and foreclosed properties is not a recipe for recovery.

This is a case of the interests of business and of workers coinciding and the GOP standing pretty much alone as assholes. There is even talk of the GOP gaining seats in November. I just can't talk myself into the proposition that America deserves even more of their asshattery and needs some real suffering as a lesson. I don't care whether it is left or right, idiotology isn't the way to go.

Federal Tax Code Games - Supply Side Bull****

At one time the top federal income tax rate was 95%. That immediately strikes people as wrong. It seems the federal government is trying to run solely on the backs of the wealthy and it seems like confiscation. It seems like this because people forget that the tax code is not only about raising revenue, it is also about achieving social and economic ends. This "sin taxes" are all about, the goal of cigarette taxes isn't so much to raise revenue as it is to discourage smoking.

If you play along for a moment, a 95% rate only applies to the amount earned above the next lower rate - not the entire income. The first $20K of a gadzillionaire's money is taxed at exactly the same rate as a burger flipper's. (all this neglects the effects of FICA and tax code allowances) Now that 95% applying only to a "narrow" sliver of income should make it clear that it isn't about revenue (unless you posit there is a reason to try to get that 5% left), what it is about is discouraging grasping for that last piece of the pie. There is an absolutely closed system within companies, there is just so much money to pay for labor, salary, capital investment, share holder disbursements.

There is a reason that 40 years ago the CEO multiple of wage earners income was a fraction of what it is today - there wasn't any point in getting it. The slashing of the top income bracket rates means that they are free to grasp for any amount they can get and keep it. You don't have to look too hard to understand that the capital gains tax reduction and income tax reduction coincide with crushed labor compensation.

Sure, there are other reason as well - and they pale in comparison. This is the triumph of greed over the common good. Supply side economics my ass - you've been sold a bill of goods.

The GOP And Dunce Caps

Since the roll out of the Republican Road to Recovery Budget plan Thursday I've seen people wondering when the GOP became the Party of Epic Fail - how we lost to them or what happened to the ones we lost to? I suppose it's fair to postulate that the Republicans have gotten so used to being stenographed by the media that they didn't realize that running out a Budget that was lacking any numbers beyond a goofy tax cut wouldn't cut it with the media because it said mean things about the 'Democrat Party' budget. Maybe they thought that between Boehner's Faux Tan (is he now darker than Obama?) and Cantor's star power nobody would notice the entire and complete lack of information and the silliness of whatever those circles were supposed to be. [in the spirit of honesty the crew at Balloon Juice gets credit for some of the humor]


But the topic was "how did they get this bad?" There is a little matter of when the last time they had to do any work occurred. Bill Clinton presented certain challenges to the Republicans in Congress, he was a good politician and he was President, since then... George II (Rove) told them what to do and like good little soldiers they did. Thinking was not required and the only political calculations required were just exactly how to scare the electorate a little more this week. There is something to be said for practice in politics and having more than one arrow in your quiver. Multiple approaches bring experience in what works and doesn't, how to modify and tweak, and how to capitalize on successes. Try real hard to remember the last time they had to do the work of governing.

Most of the moderate Republicans are gone, the 2010 Senate race may well take out most of what's left of them. Spector has shifted right to stave off a Primary challenge and it may be a question whether he can, but he has now lost a lot of credit with the electorate outside the right wing. Maine voters are going to be asked why they're hanging on to not quite Democrats when they could have the actual thing - not a bad question if the country is looking better. Boehner and Cantor are creatures of the right and while they know how to lie and be snotty and hold their caucus together in the matter of actual public discourse around ideas - not so much.

Why they took the school yard dare tossed at them by the President is open to question, it certainly isn't smart strategy to provide something that should have numbers without them or to provide numbers that can be tested. Statements of ideology absent numbers aren't really testable in the public argument unless the opposing side makes them up. The Republican mess masquerading as a budget cannot pass that kind of scrutiny when providing its own numbers, it is flatly impossible to dump out of the federal budget sufficient funds to cover not only the Bush hole but the accumulating hole going forward created by Bush policies. The Republicans are providing nice fat targets for Democrats.

OK Mark, What Were You Thinking?

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) sent a letter to President Obama telling him how he wanted to spend the stimulus bill. He objects to the whole idea, but specifically the $700M aimed at extending and expanding unemployment insurance. That piece he wanted to use to pay down SC's debt.

Not real surprisingly Peter Orszag wrote back that it wasn't happening. Perhaps nicely he told Sanford that the President doesn't have that authority. Peter seems to be a nicer man than I, because I'd have told Sanford to stick his politicking someplace rude. Unemployment insurance is a matter of pennies on the dollar wage paid, it is one of the most insignificant costs of having employees and even with South Carolina's sliding scale it seems to run around $0.06/$1.00. One is tempted to ask Mark Sanford just what the sales tax in South Carolina is since it is nearly equivalent and falls most heavily on the lower incomes. The last report I had put South Carolina's official unemployment numbers at 10.6%, the second highest in the nation following Michigan. You might think there's a reality in that kind of number that might be meaningful to a Governor.

Unemployment dollars are one of the most directly stimulative pieces of the pie, unlike other rebates or credits, those dollars will be spent and spent virtually immediately. Now the distinguishing characteristics of the beneficiaries of this element are pretty simple, they tend to be the bottom of the work force in any affected business, which means the poorest and the most numerous, in fact at that unemployment percentage it is safe to guess that the unemployed outnumber the employers considerably, but Sanford has made it clear whose interests count most heavily in his thinking.

Consider who SC elects in state wide elections, we've dealt somewhat with Sanford, the US Senators are Republicans Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham. Judas Priest, that's a cohort. Jim Sanford is pretty pissed that the Federals think they can tell SC how to spend Federal money, an odd and ungracious attitude for a state that sucks the Federal Teat to the tune of $1.37/$1.00 they send to Washington DC. You could contrast that with nasty liberal old New Jersey at $o.55/$1.00. The flat truth is that the nasty old blue states have subsidized principled old SC for a long time now, I guess it's real easy to make big talk about drowning government in the tub when it's keeping your rat hole afloat.

I am no more bothered by Sanford taking this tack than I am that Rush keeps shooting off his trap and Republicans keep licking his, um, boot. It looks as though the SC legislature will do an end around on Sanford and take the funds so the workers may not be the losers, but this makes pretty clear the regard the conservative Republicans of Sanford's stripe hold ordinary Americans. Because DNC is not populated with idiots, they also see it and see political capital to be gained. Sanford objects, this is not the Obama model of new politics. Maybe he mistakes reaching out with capitulation and is surprised that there's a ball bat in the hand that didn't reach across. Well Mark, what were you thinking, I'm thinking we'll take your political games and beat you about the head and shoulders with them and maybe extinguish your career.

LTEs are a good thing...

CNBC Infomercial Network

With all the media noise many of you have seen John Stewart's Cramer episode. The accuracy and ethics of Cramer's analysis for CNBC was a large part of the interview; what I'm interested in is the larger framework - what is CNBC?

CNBC touts itself as The Financial News Network, there are others but they do seem to have the market share. If financial news network means running stock tickers then I suppose their track record qualifies them. The problem with this is that a lot of news organizations run tickers and don't claim to be financial news. CNBC's claim is based on their analysis shows and reporting. Fox also claims to be a news organization, rather than the Republican infomercial it is.

It is not news reporting to simply commit stenography. Any power center has its agenda and wants that point of view propagated and that is the line they will give. The media failure in the run up to the Iraq war was of this nature and demonstrably so. While the media in general cheerleaded GWB's agenda Knight-Ridder (now McCaltchy) got it right by asking those without power what was going on. Not simple opposition, asking what is going on is real. Being sceptical of those exercising power is not opposition, it is an acknowledgement that desires and facts do not always coincide.

The people who report or analyse on CNBC had to be aware of the degree of leveraging of mortgages that was going on. The CNBC people also had to be aware that housing was a bubble market and that bubble markets end and values fall. If they were unaware of these things neither the words news or finance belong in their description. Because it is almost impossible to feature an organization that size with that degree of ignorance the alternatives are that they considered it immaterial or it didn't match their agenda to report it. What they have managed is to get some of their personnel on other news programs as credentialed opiners on financial issues and political issues. They are, of course, entitled to whatever opinion they might have, the credentials are the question.

There honestly is little available on financial new channels that is very relevant to ordinary Americans. Playing about in the market with small numbers is foolish, ordinary Americans would see any gains eaten by fees. The little guy will only see real gains by holding long term and even then there are points at which investing is foolish - one year ago, say. If real reporting had been done there might have been an awareness that the market was topping out, a bad time to buy anything. What we got was cheerleading passed off as news on CNBC and others and their appearances on regular shows carrying the same water. That isn't what the infomercial hosts on shopping channels get - evidently more honest brokers.

Temptation's Distractions

This country needs a stimulus bill. The country needs something done and it doesn't need a bunch of Republican junk in it. It also doesn't need pointless distractions. I certainly understand the temptation to use a high pressure situation to advance the Democratic agenda. The Republican profligacy over the past eight years must cause advanced heartburn for those who have different ideas and someone else in mind. I understand, but it is bad politics.

The deal is that when you sell something as necessary to the health of the nation's economy that is what people look for and giving the nay-sayers from the Confederate Party of Republicanism a bat to hit you with just isn't smart. There is something to be said for pieces of the bill that have longer term infrastructure ends, but there are serious limits. One aspect of larding up such a bill is that it give the thugs reason to think they can stuff it with more of their tax cut nonsense and mortgage relief for those with no need for it and using the Federal Government as guarantor. It isn't that there is that much junk in it as a percentage of the total, but it is there and its presence is causing trouble.

The Republican plutocratic agenda has not gone away and is not going to go away. That piece of the puzzle is on the table now and will be there for a very long time. That is the problem with putting junk in a bill, it allows them to play at their agenda in front of the public. And play they have. The junk allows them to get away with spreading untruths and have them get taken seriously, despite being debunked because there is that kernel of truth. I am quickly approaching the point of fury as the media keeps running the rat bastards who killed this economy over and over and lets them play at being the responsible adults in the room. They are no such thing and their preferred option is more of the supply side tinkle down goddam economics that have pissed on the head of everyone except the wealthy for thirty years.

That is the cost that the House didn't look at, they've given credence to the cretins who drove us off a cliff. Thanks a lot. There is a time and a place to have these fights with them, it isn't this bill.

Bonuses and Socialism

Funny how the view from the higher windows on Wall Street varies from those approximating Main Street. You have got to love the mindset that leads to a statement like this:

“I think President Obama painted everyone with a broad stroke,” said Brian McCaffrey, 55, a Wall Street lawyer who was on his way to see a client. “The way we pay our taxes is bonuses. The only way that we’ll get any of our bailout money back is from taxes on bonuses. I think bonuses should be looked at on a case by case basis, or you turn into a socialist.”

Now I suppose the validity could depend a bit on whether or not the US Taxpayer plowed money into a particular company to keep it afloat as "too big to fail." Here's the deal you f***ing Neanderthal, you tanked that company and wanted us to fix it for you and that's being done at the cost of the largest socialism experiment in goddam history. It isn't your money, it is the taxpayers' money and it isn't even your damn company anymore. This is the problem with half-assed approaches, some asswipe thinks it isn't socialism. The - Bailout - Is - Socialism. I don't give a damn that it follows the usual Republican model of privatize profits and socialize the risk, it has been done. I don't give a damn that as usual the winners are the plutocrats and not the workers, it is socialism.

There is a solution for what ails these people, but beating them and throwing them out their window is frowned upon in a so-called civilized society. Civilized assumes that exchanges aren't made at gun point - but they've brought out the gun. If you don't fix our mess your economy is just going to tank. They brought out the biggest WMD available outside the Defense Department, "everybody except the rich gets screwed into poverty."

Most of us who supported the concept of a bailout understood this piece and loathed them for putting that gun to our head. Of course you had to leave it to BushCo to make sure that what little control was in the authorization evaporated. Now I do not have income envy, but I do have a massive resentment for this "entitled" attitude. Their performance has entitled them to be unemployed from a broken and ruined company. Their paycheck, never mind bonus, is due to the American Taxpayer. I don't know how you get that concept through their thick skulled me-me-me heads short of violence.

I am scarcely a sole voice of discontent, the President of the US has voiced it along with various lawmakers including Claire McCaskill's pretty caustic reaction. You would think that might actually get through to them - pah.