Tag Archives: taxes

Let’s make a deal.

There are few things in life more certain than eventual bipartisan agreement on screwing large swaths of our fellow citizens. While I’m glad there won’t be a repeat of the government shutdown / debt ceiling self-immolation ritual, this pattern of gradually ratcheting up the austerity gets very tiresome after two or three cycles. This time, the unemployed get thrown under the bus. What a great way to save money – take food out of the mouths of people who have been down on their luck for more than a year. Freaking 7% unemployment and they’re acting like the jobless are just plain lazy. That’s a truly criminal level of ignorance on the part of elected officials.

One thing, though. Let’s dispense with this notion that the Republicans are somehow against raising taxes. This has been thoroughly debunked since the House went red three years ago. Even before they took office, they killed the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, costing families like mine another $800 a year. Just last year they canceled the payroll tax holiday – another hike. Thanks, Mr. Boehner. This year, it’s a “fee” on air travel. Not something I take personally, but still … a tax by any other name.

And yet they still cling to this label, and the corporate media repeats the myth because it’s the simple thing to do, the path of least resistance. We are supposed to see the disagreements between the parties as a clash of equivalent versions of extremism, when the positions Democrats stake out in this decade are almost identical, save marriage equality, to those held by the Republicans fifteen to twenty years ago. They were conservative then. Democrats, by and large, are conservative now. Republicans are now driven by their hard right, which is more delusional than ever. This week, their leaders chose not to take their lead, but the path they are cutting is a highly conservative one, an extension of the austerity narrative, and one that will keep our economy in stasis for the foreseeable future.

Well, no shut down. Something to give one cheer for. Then it’s back to work.

luv u,

jp

Cheapskates “R” us.

This will be brief. I’m in the middle of a take-home mid term in Semantics. (Still a student at 54; Christ on a freaking bike.) Anyway…

Today is the day that extended SNAP (food stamp) benefits expire. Happy Halloween, everybody! SNAP was allocated some additional money in the stimulus package, way back in early 2009, when it almost seemed possible that our national government would do what needed to be done to rescue the economy. The assumption back then was that the economy would be generating enough prosperity by this time that SNAP benefits wouldn’t be needed.  Obama’s chief economic adviser at the time – a certain Dr. Pangloss, I believe – was certain Congress and the president would remain committed to putting people back to work.

Help us, Austerians!Then, of course, the Austerians came to power in 2011 and set us on the righteous path of Japan in the 1990s – the path we are crawling along today on our bloody hands and knees. Millions are still out of work, millions more under-employed with zero security, many more working their asses off and still needing SNAP benefits, still needing the support of food pantries. These millions of people are now the favored target of the Austerians. If people are in need, surely it’s their fault and not the fault of policymakers who will do anything rather than invest in economic growth. SNAP has grown to $80 billion a year! they exclaim. What’s their solution? Allocate money for, say, public works projects while interest rates are low so that we can repair and replace our aging infrastructure, invest in our future, and create jobs? God, no! Cut SNAP by $40 billion.

The Democrats, true to form, have an alternative to this draconian policy: Cut $4 billion from SNAP. Screw the poor, only not so much; that’s their considered answer. Now they’ll work on a compromise that will cut somewhere, I suspect, closer to the GOP number. While they hash this out, today’s expiration of the SNAP extension means the average family receiving the benefit will get $35 less a month with which to feed their families. This makes an enormous difference to families already on the edge.

This is why we suck. Let’s just stop sucking, right?

luv u,

jp

Another bag of it.

A couple of quick swipes on the political front this week. No time to ‘splain, man … just too damn busy.

Sequester. Well, it’s here. Big surprise. Note to the President: Never tell yourself they’ll never do something THAT stupid … because they always will. I know, the sequester was a collective enterprise, strongly supported by Boehner and passed into law by his knuckle-dragging caucus. But thinking that there is some precedent this group will not break is living in a fantasy world. Wake up, people!

Another screaming success for Boehner.

Syria. Secretary Kerry is pledging additional non-lethal support to the Syrian opposition. It’s hard to know how best to approach this crisis, but I know this much – whenever we get deeply involved somewhere, particularly in that region of the world, the result is not good. (What’s the opposite of good again? Ah, yes.) No good answers here, but I know that the motives behind whatever policy we advance in Syria are not likely to benefit the Syrian people, nor the people of the region. We are obsessed with the notion of Iranian domination of the Middle East – a sentiment echoed by our principal allies in the neighborhood. Any sympathy for the opposition, I’m sure, is driven more by the desire to deny Teheran and ally and to quash what they see as a conduit to Hezbollah. However, if they think the opposition in power in Damascus would mean harmony with Israel, they should think again. The most determined fighters in their midst are Sunni jihadist-types. Just saying.

Chavez. Venezuela’s president is in a pitched battle with cancer, and I can hear some chortling around the edges. He gets very little sympathy here in El Norte. It bears remembering though that he is the first Venezuelan leader in my lifetime that has ever done anything for the poor in that country. That’s why they love him, and that’s why he deserves our sympathy and moral support. I tend to judge a person by his/her enemies as much as by his/her faults and virtues. Chavez has definitely got the right enemies. Get well soon, big mister.

luv u,

jp

Samesville.

Back again, right? Every couple of months or so we are faced with a manufactured fiscal crisis. Again, this is by design, not by necessity. The Republican party – particularly the hard core of yargle-bargle types known as the “tea party” – has long pursued the practice of enormous deficit spending while they hold the White House and austerity when they are in the opposition. This time around, it’s austerity with a vengeance. Sure, the president signed on to this sequester deal, but it was in response to another manufactured fiscal crisis, brought on by the newly-installed G.O.P. Congress in 2011. In other words, if it wasn’t the sequester, it would be the debt ceiling, or the budget, or some key appropriations bill – anything to jam up the works.

Patron saint of the whiners. There is nothing surprising about this. Grover Norquist, patron saint of the cheapskates (and clearly someone who did not like eating his peas when he was 4), articulated it quite clearly when he said, in effect, when Democrats are in power, force them to rule like Republicans. Parse out the irony (as mentioned earlier, Republicans are much more generous with presidents of their own party) and you can see the sense in what they’re doing. Of course, it goes beyond that. I think most Republicans are smart enough to know that the kinds of cuts they’re advocating will result in a second recession. That works to their political benefit. Winning is paramount to them, even (and perhaps especially) when they lose. If they can discredit a Democratic president, so much the better.

The Democrats are enablers of this continuing train wreck. They were handed the reins in 2009, and instead of meeting the financial crisis with a response of an appropriate magnitude, they allowed conservatives to talk them down to a small-bore strategy that simply was not sufficient to pull us out. The stimulus worked to the extent that it was designed to work; when the money ran out, so did the steam. Now we are in what Krugman rightly calls a depression – an economy that is not shrinking, but not really gaining ground either – and all Washington can talk about is cutting the freaking deficit. The problem is unemployment, not short-term debt. Fix one, and the other will take care of itself. Want to solve long-term debt? Stop maintaining health insurance as the province of private profit-making industry; expand Medicare and you will make it solvent.

How do you get these people to do the right thing? To borrow a phrase from V.S. Naipaul, a million mutinies now. Tell your representative and your senators that you want them to invest in the economy, not starve it.

luv u,

jp

The way we are.

The sequester deadline is getting closer, but – unsurprisingly – we are no closer to cutting a deal to avoid draconian cuts to a full range of programs. In all honesty, if it weren’t for the domestic and veteran-support programs that would fall under that senseless cleaver, it might not be such a bad thing in that the Defense budget would finally see some reductions. Of course, as every close observer of national politics knows all too well, cuts to the DOD turn normally conservative – even Randian – Republicans into hysterical Keynesians, warning of the dire employment consequences if the Pentagon budget were slashed. There’s some truth to that … which is why it sounds so strange coming out of Republicans’ mouths. But anyway…

Hey, nitz!
Shout out to "the man".

It’s worth repeating Robert Pollin’s observation here that Pentagon spending is not the best way to create jobs. $1 million spent on defense creates roughly a dozen jobs. Spend that same money on education and you’re up into the mid twenties. So if the Republicans are simply looking for ways to generate employment through public spending, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that. Personally, I think their only concern – aside from winning elections – is for the welfare of the well-off. It’s really all they ever talk about, if you listen carefully to what they say.

It shows in what they do, too. Since 2010, they have raised my income taxes in a major way twice – twice! In 2011 they scotched the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, which was worth about $800 to couples. This past year, they ended the payroll tax holiday; refused to budge on that, too, in favor of extended breaks for people making $250,000 to $400,000 a year. W.T.F., Boehner, McConnell – what happened to your Norquistian anti-tax pledges? Oh, that’s right – I’m not rich, so it doesn’t apply to me.

Hey, nitz! Boehner! You want to fuel job growth through increased consumption? Here’s an easy way to do it. Raise taxes on the freaking rich, cut them on the poor and working class, and raise the minimum wage to at least $9 with indexing, as Obama proposed. When working people get money, it goes right back into the economy. We spend it like water … not because we’re profligate, but because we have to. Give more money to the rich, they’ll just sit on it, like they’re doing now.

Little piece of advice for you, Jack. No charge. Happy freaking Valentine’s day.

luv u,

jp

Pay now, pay later.

What does the tea-party acronym stand for again? Taxed Enough Already, as some of you recall. That’s the credo for our age, whether or not there’s any truth to the sentiment. If people are paying higher taxes, they’re doing so on the local level; as county and municipal governments try to grapple with austerity policies from above, they resort to whatever means of revenue generation that may be available to them. Federal austerity starves state coffers; that in turn negatively impacts localities. Combine that with the fact that we are in the midst of a depression of sorts – i.e. a period when people need greater assistance from the government, not less – and that causes upward pressure on local taxes.

When that happens, people inevitably look for someone to blame. Lately that someone has been unionized public employees. Sad to say, my fellow Americans are all too quick to think the worst of them. That’s not surprising. A lot of editorial ink, political rhetoric, and advertising resources have been placed against vilifying the very notion of working for government. It’s a waste of money, they’re a bunch of lazy layabouts who can’t make it in the private sector, etc., etc.  For a long time that blanket criticism seemed confined to, say, the people down at the DMV, but in recent years it’s been expanded to teachers and even public safety employees.

Here’s what the critics – at least, the non-cynical critics – don’t appear to understand: When you lay off public workers, you create more problems than you solve. For one thing, you make whatever institution they worked for less effective; that means less value to the taxpayers. For another, those individuals are now out in the public sector workforce, competing for the same jobs that everyone else is trying to get. Thirdly, their lost income results in less consumer spending (yes, public workers buy groceries, clothes, and gasoline just like the rest of us), which means lower consumption tax revenues, which means – yep – budget gaps of the type we’re grappling with now.

What’s needed, as Jim Galbraith, Paul Krugman, and others have pointed out, is federal stimulus – aid to state and local governments so that they can stop shedding jobs and adding to the ranks of the unemployed, infrastructure spending that will build out the economy and create jobs at the same time, and other public investments.

Perhaps if the GOP could take a break from passing radical anti-abortion legislation for about five minutes, perhaps they’d consider doing something about this depression. Just saying.

luv u,

jp

Money wins.

So Scott Walker held on to his job in Wisconsin. Not a huge surprise. The polling has been in his favor for weeks. Plus the recall effort has kind of had the stench of failure about it as we approached the actual vote; people hedging and putting on the brave face. Sorry to see so many working people disappointed in that way. I’ve never been a big fan of the recall concept, personally, but I understand how they came to that point. If nothing else, the effort did give them motivation to do what actually needs to be done in Wisconsin and elsewhere – organize. It’s not just about voting. It’s more about standing up for your rights and fighting back against the torrent of corporate money swamping our politics.

John Dewey had it about right when he said that politics is the shadow cast on society by big business. I suppose in his day it wasn’t very different – the wealthy have always pressed their advantage. Perhaps the period from World War II through the 1970s will be seen as unique in American history in the sense that workers had some influence on the economic life of the nation. There was a social contract between the rich and the not-rich that provided the latter with a modest share of the wealth they themselves were creating through their labor. That model has been under attack for decades now, and it is crumbling.

Now we are in a small-d depression, limping along in a globalized economy in which the American worker/consumer is no longer the primary focus of business. (India’s middle class is now larger than the entire population of the U.S.) The rampant financial speculation spawned by deregulatory legislation over the past two decades (most notably Graham-Leech-Bliley in 1999, which overturned Glass-Steagall) drove us into the 2008 financial crisis, prompting a massive bailout of the enormous financial institutions that were themselves the product of deregulation. So naturally, now, when it comes time to pay the bills, it’s workers who are being told to eat it, to sacrifice their pensions, to do without health benefits, etc. Similar deal in Europe. The people who benefited massively from wild derivative trading and mortgage-backed securities are not the same people being asked to sacrifice.

Money may have won in Wisconsin this week. But that’s no reason to stop fighting. Elections aren’t the only means of effecting change. Passive resistance is another – let’s exercise it.

luv u,

jp

To the bottom.

Through the course of the average day during this politically charged season (and, as you know, we are in the midst of a permanent campaign, no end in sight), you are likely to hear all kinds of wild economic claims and predictions. Among the most impressive, in my humble opinion, is Gingrich’s $2.50-a-gallon gas promise. We expect no less from the once and future King of the Moon People. A big idea man. The thing about big ideas is that they can also be bad ideas. In the case of the $2.50 gas, though, we’re talking more about excessive blowhardism and the usual type of empty pandering you see from seasoned politicians like Gingrich. Last presidential election, it was drill, baby, drill! This time, it’s pappy cheap-gas. Also, pappy tax cut, as always – that one never gets old.

This is where the faulty economic theory part comes in. Take pretty much any one of the Republican candidates’ tax plans, to the extent that they’ve been articulated thus far. Romney, for instance, is touting a 20% across-the-board tax cut. What he’s actually talking about is raising taxes on the bottom third of wage earners, which the G.O.P. field has for several months been describing as woefully undertaxed. Meanwhile, at the top end, the richest of the rich (i.e. the parents of kids too rich to want to hang around with Richy Rich), folks will be seeing an extra $400K or so in their yearly income. All well and good, right? These are the “job creators”, right? The folks who fired your ass so they could afford a second Bentley. They were the ones paying too much, as George W. Bush lamented back in 2000 (which he later fixed with his massive tax cuts).

All right, except that at the same time they argue for a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, etc. – a trope that has grown more insistent by half since the White House changed hands in 2009. Bush’s tax cuts blew a hole in the federal budget you could drive the Nimitz through; in fact, they planned for it to expire after a decade and put a lot of the cost in the out years so as to bring down the impact. But they – meaning Bush, Cheney, budget director Mitch Daniels, and others – certainly knew that the sunset provision would be meaningless, simply because of the politics of “raising” taxes (e.g. letting cuts expire). Romney’s plan would add to that deficit in spades, prompting massive cuts in social services, infrastructure spending, aid to states, you name it. That would put us in a Greece-like downward spiral – cuts that lead to economic contraction, which negatively affects tax revenues, opening a wider budget gap, which brings on more cuts, etc. Rinse and repeat.

The best they can offer is a race to the bottom. That’s why we have to push back. If they gain control of the budget process again, Greece is the word, my friends.

luv u,

jp

Occupayback.

Can’t call me a cynic quite yet. The Occupy Wall Street movement seems a very positive development to my jaundiced eye. Hell, there were reportedly 400 people at the rally in Utica. When we brought out more than 200 for the big demo on the eve of the Iraq war, that seemed amazing for a place like this. 400 is practically unheard of. There is a strong undercurrent of resentment about the financial crisis and the fact that virtually none of the large institutions that caused the meltdown have been held to account, just as no executive in any of those firms has faced the threat of prosecution. Nay, they have continued to receive obscene bonuses, showboating their excess as if to flaunt their immunity from the restrictions of either the law or the marketplace. Like Dick Cheney bragging about his support for torture, they seem to be daring us to do something – anything – about their transgressions. You can’t touch me, they laugh.

Well…. maybe we can. There seems to be an overwhelming desire to do so. Not surprising. We’ve seen the result of not holding people accountable. Cheney’s a good example – still on the loose, influencing policy in some fashion. Karl Rove is another one, out raising millions for another crop of right-wing nut jobs. If course, no one has been held to account for the Iraq War, a needless conflict that tore a swath of destruction through an entire nation as well as the military families in America, draining our treasury and putting us at greater risk of attack. Ask any conservative – if you fail to adequately punish lawbreakers, you encourage others to break the law. We have certainly emboldened future presidents to march into any country they care to invade. In fact, Obama already has, without much fanfare or protest.

Some have complained that the Occupy Wall Street movement is too diffuse and disjointed. In a sense, though, that is its strength. There is a general thrust that society is divided between the stark minority with all of the money and the vast majority with financial problems. Within that lies many topics relating to economics, war and peace, freedom of speech, tax justice, etc. Flat, leaderless movements have a kind of strength that the traditional top-down model lacks: it’s easy to corrupt a handful of top dogs. But if the entire nation of Bolivia or Argentina or Greece is out in the street, banging on pots, clogging up the works, it won’t be easily co-opted.

Like the tea party, they’ve gotten their agenda in front of the people. Let’s see if they can keep it there.

luv u,

jp

Two nations.

The Pew Research Center released a study this week examining attitudes about the ongoing wars, one of which is celebrating a grim little birthday this week. The war in Afghanistan is turning ten, and showing no signs of letting up. Yet the study shows that maybe a third of the American public is actually following the wars. For most people, it’s like a reality show that has lost its luster; there is really no more profound an investment in the enterprise than that. This is, some have pointed out, the longest continuous conflict the U.S. has ever been involved in, and certainly (I suspect) the most serious war “we’ve” ever fought that didn’t involve some kind of conscription. Less than one percent of Americans have fought in these wars, and none of them have paid any higher taxes to underwrite them.

It’s hard to imagine how a war this difficult to justify could last a decade or more on the backs of anything other than an all-volunteer force. If there’d been a draft, these wars might never have started. If the true costs were passed along to taxpayers, they certainly wouldn’t have lasted as long as this. Our nation’s war making power has been effectively insulated from public involvement and, consequently, from meaningful public input as well. America’s wars are now self-contained and self-perpetuating; they are fought by a separate nation of military families – one that bears every burden, pays every price, while we continue our normal lives, only vaguely aware of the catastrophe our elected leaders are visiting upon these unfortunate men, women, and children.

So I say unto you, on this ten year anniversary of our invasion of Afghanistan (Bush’s first war of choice), don’t simply thank a soldier; apologize to them for not doing more to stop this war. That’s a start, anyway.

Knox out. Amanda Knox was freed, as I’m sure you heard. Fortunate for her that she is not a black man wrongly accused of murder in the state of Georgia; she might have been put to death, exculpatory evidence be damned. I’ve heard a lot of tut-tutting about Italy’s justice system from this side of the pond, but what the hell – look at Troy Anthony Davis and tell me how those commentators have a leg to stand on.  Our system is a disgrace, and the killing of Davis a crime. Would that he had stood before that Italian judge – he might still be with us.

luv u,

jp