Tag Archives: taxes

Shortcakes.

I’ll just do short takes today. No, not shortcakes! Short TAKES, damnit!

Ten and Counting. I find it hard to mark the anniversary of 9/11. I’ve always kind of bridled at the idea, pretty much since the first six-month anniversary of that awful day. It’s a thing that’s always with us, seared into our consciousness, a pall cast over our democracy. Do we need a ceremonial reminder? I don’t know. If it brings people solace in some small way, it’s worth it. For myself, though, it feels superfluous. Every day is a reminder.

There are enduring monuments to that day. Probably the most imposing are our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, still going after the death of Osama Bin Laden. What a legacy, eh? All the more bitter, really, since we still have malevolent actors like Dick Cheney running around, peddling their twisted rationales for atrocities they played a central role in committing. Even with all this, I spent a good amount of time watching that film by those French guys who were with the firehouse that first responded to the Trade Tower disaster. Gripping stuff. Those firefighters are giants.

Lend Me Your Keynes.  Obama has proposed something about a third the size of what’s needed, but that, in the current political circumstances, is about twice the size of what I’d expected from him. I’m not crazy about the trade deal component – that seems like bailing out the boat on one end and poking a hole in the hull on the other – but otherwise it’s not bad, nor are some of the “pay-fors” proposed in the form of tax increases on rich people. Of course, Boehner and his chorus of tea party clowns are rending their garments, swearing to oppose any new spending or increased taxes, clinging to the same tired arguments that got us here in the first place – cut taxes, slash spending, eliminate regulation.

Here’s the thing: if we keep cutting, we undercut anything that resembles a recovery. I know the republicans don’t like the idea that federal spending creates jobs, but they also don’t like the idea of anthropogenic global warming or evolution. Their not liking something doesn’t make it any less true. Spending on infrastructure projects, aid to states and localities, and the like saves and creates jobs, period. It did in 2009-10, just not enough to pull us out of the titanic hole George W. Bush and the “slash taxes and regulations” crowd pitched us into last time we let them drive.

Congress: shut up and pass the freaking bill. People need work and you’ve got nothing. Just pass it.

luv u,

jp

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Consider this an open letter to the Congressional “Super Committee,” or gang of twelve – whatever you may wish to call them. (Keep it clean out there!) While you are considering how best to shaft poor, elderly, and working people (employed and unemployed) to bring greater benefits to our nation’s rich, I ask – nay, demand – that you consider these items:

How we got here. I’ve heard a lot of people in Congress, as well as various talking heads, putting their spin on the orgy of ignorance that led us to the creation of your Committee, as well as the series of missteps that led us to Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade the nation’s debt rating. The factual answer to those questions is simple – the Republican party, a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, was driven by its most radical faction (the so-called “tea party”) to manipulate the once mundane process of raising the debt ceiling for political gain. S&P’s judgment that our government can no longer make rational decisions about its debt is based on their recognition that, from now on, raising the debt ceiling will involve a similar political standoff.

The decision to politicize the debt ceiling legislation – really just an authorization to accommodate borrowing already mandated by Congress through the budget process –  has done perhaps irreparable damage to the faith and credit of the U.S. But even more importantly, it has backed us into a political process that is practically guaranteed to deliver to the G.O.P. precisely what they want: the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Who owes what. I’m not happy with president Obama, but the notion that he and the Democrats are responsible for exploding deficit spending is ludicrous. As the New York Times reported recently, based on figures from the CBO and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, $1.44 trillion of the national debt can be laid at Obama’s door; more than $5 trillion is attributable to his predecessor, including the FY 2009 deficit of $1.44 trillion, set before Obama took office.  The Bush tax cuts have contributed $1.8 trillion; unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have pitched in more than $1.4 trillion. How is this an issue of “entitlements” … unless that term can be used to describe tax cuts for wealthy people?

Seriously… (and apologies to Barney Frank) … are we going to ask 90-year-old ladies living on less than $20k to do without cost of living raises while allowing those who clear more than $250,000 a year to keep an extra $30 per thousand? I think not.

luv u,

jp

Cash poor.

Americans are hurting. Well… not all of us. Some of us – those who can claim the mantle of corporate “personhood” by virtue of a bizarrely generous judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment –  are doing quite well, thank you very much. Profits are up, executive pay is up, personal wealth among the top 1% is up – in fact, virtually all of the gains realized through economic growth over the past ten years have been enjoyed by the very wealthy. This while the economic position of people in the lower strata of society – particularly communities of color – have seen what wealth they may have held (principally in their homes) wiped out. Blacks and Latinos have seen the gains of the past 30 years wiped away in less than 3.

With millions of people out of work, you would think Congress’s top priority would be job creation. That was what they ran on in 2010, not so much on debt reduction. The best the G.O.P. can manage is to twist the issue around to becoming a tortured argument for doing what the party always does – cut taxes on rich people. They want to allow rich folk to keep more of their money so that they will, in turn, hire some of the legions of unemployed. They cling to this belief, rhetorically at least, even when it’s clear that a) businesses already have multiple trillions in savings they are sitting on right now, and b) they have no intention of spending any of it on new hires so long as they can press their current employees to do the work of three, four, perhaps more. Ask anybody who’s got a job, and they’ll tell you – increased productivity is just the modern term of art for speeding up the assembly line.

Meanwhile, our national infrastructure is falling apart. Bridges in my upstate community are aged and crumbling, the water system is falling apart, roads are pitted and broken. With all this, the word that we get from Albany and Washington is austerity. It’s as if we have as a society decided that roads and bridges no longer need maintenance and repair, and that our highest calling is to keep taxes on companies and well-off people at historic lows. The vaunted debt ceiling compromise takes this tack – we don’t need to invest in ourselves, we’re told; we need to divest ourselves of all the trappings of modern society, from freedom of choice and to the freedom of driving downtown without having the highway crumble beneath you. That’s the essential philosophy of the tea party loomers in Congress.

This is what happens when 16% of American voters bother to go to the polls, as happened last Fall. Next time, folks, don’t sit on your hands.

luv u,

jp

Short takes, redux.

I’m going to take a few brief swats at some knotty issues that won’t yield much to such brief consideration, but nevertheless …. here goes.

Norway rampage. It’s hard to comment on last week’s massacre in Norway except to say that this was a nauseating crime by an evident Nazi-like lunatic with delusions of racist glory. Lock him up, folks.

Phony debt crisis. Here we are, caught between a Republican caucus dominated by fanatical newbies who know nothing about actually legislating and a Democratic leadership so willing to give away the store that the other side should freaking love them. I just want to mention again – it’s been said plenty of times, but it bears repeating – that raising the debt ceiling is a measure that would accommodate spending decisions already agreed to by Congress and the President – I repeat, it does not entail new spending. So we’ve reached a pass where budget items need to (a) win approval from both houses of Congress and be signed into law, (b) run the same gauntlet a second time in the form of appropriations bills, and (c) get past the blackmail play around raising the debt ceiling to cover funds already duly appropriated. This is why the G.O.P. wants to make the debt ceiling extension a two-step process – so that down the line, they can shake us down for more concessions. This is bogus as hell and should be denounced as such, every minute of every day.

Libya disaster. There is substantial evidence that our “humanitarian” intervention in Libya is costing a significant number of civilian lives in and around Tripoli. It is also obvious, at this point, that the opposition does not have sufficient strength, popular support, or weaponry to prevail, just as it is obvious that we really, really, really want them to prevail. So what exactly are we looking to accomplish in Libya, after all? “Days, not weeks”? Really, Barry? That Rumfeldian pronouncement has crumbled before our very eyes. This was a fool’s errand – one the French took the lead on, but which we were a bit too willing to sign onto. And now we have yet another war that won’t go away.

On leaving Iraq. As I write these words, our government is working hard on convincing Premier Al-Maliki to allow us to leave a residual force in Iraq. This is a ludicrous idea. Our prolonged presence (i.e. troops on the ground beyond the date agreed to by the Bush administration) will fuel the very forces of unrest we complain about in Iraq – the same forces Saddam Hussein complained about, not coincidentally. (Like him, we are obsessed with the suppression of dissent there.) I strongly advise the Obama administration to get out before the lid blows off of the place, as Seymour Hersh has predicted will happen sometime next year. (Best not discount his predictions too much.)

That’s all I’ve got. See you on the other side of Debt-a-geddon.

luv u,

jp

Lemmington D.C.

My dad never said it to me, but growing up I heard it said by adults to impressionable young people many times. The conversation would go something like, “But, dad… all my friends are going. Why can’t I?” And dad (or whoever) would say, “Well, if they all jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?” It’s such a staple of parentage as to be cliche, but I’m not certain the G.O.P. class of 2010 was ever confronted with that type of challenge when they were in short pants. (Perhaps they are still in short pants – I’ve only ever seen most of them from the waist up.)

There’s nothing particularly unique about this attitude. It is, however, being applied in a very, very destructive way right about now. I will be charitable and suggest that perhaps many of these freshman House members (and some of their more senior colleagues) simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. Having said that, I’m going to do what people who say “having said that” inevitably do and say the complete opposite. I think it’s very possible that they know their failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to result in disaster, and that they hope that will gain them political points and cost the president more than a few. The Norquist-endorsed promise never to contemplate higher taxes under any circumstances is a very attractive position for conservatives and watery republicans like Boehner. It’s very, very shiny. Also, the consequences of breaking that promise are painful for them to contemplate. So …. over the cliff we go!

I’ve gotten agitated about this impasse over the last couple of weeks, as some of you readers know, and last night I took it upon myself to write my representative, Richard Hanna (R-NY) and ask him to be the adult in the room, show some leadership, and get his caucus to stop using the debt ceiling as a cheap bargaining chip. It was a respectful, serious letter – very unlike me. This is the response, in essence:

I voted no on H.R. 1954 which would implement the President’s request to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. The bill did not include any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do not support raising the debt limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. I do, however, understand that raising the debt limit will eventually be necessary and I hope that when the time comes it is accompanied by reforms that put our nation on a path to long-term fiscal responsibility. This will ensure that the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency and that the United States maintains a solid credit rating, boosting our fragile economic recovery and job creation.

Okay, so he’s another lemming, basically. He supported the efforts of his caucus to politicize the debt ceiling vote, and though he admits that raising it “will eventually be necessary,” he hopes it will be accompanied by “spending cuts or budgetary reforms”. He then expresses the hope that the austerity measures he advocates will bring about the credit security that his conference’s game of chicken – which he apparently supports – is threatening to blow to smithereens.

This isn’t the first time otherwise sensible legislators have followed wingnuts off a cliff. But it just may prove to be among the most disastrous.

luv u,

jp

Fighting ground.

Okay, let’s get one thing out of the way at the start: very few people enjoy paying taxes. To that I can only add my own personal observation that the people who seem to complain the loudest about taxes are the ones who can most afford to pay them. They have an excellent means of making their complaints heard, too – it’s called the Republican Party. In fact, in service to those who would pay not a single dime more than the historic low rates they’re paying today, the G.O.P. is creating a default crisis out of whole cloth by linking the authorization of additional borrowing to the conclusion of a draconian budget agreement that will gut the essential social programs they have always sought to defund, privatize, etc.

The two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another in the real world. Raising the debt ceiling is merely addressing financial commitments that have already been agreed upon. It is something the Republicans have gladly passed many times before under their own presidents, as well as under Democrats. They have seized upon it because it offers an opportunity to, in effect, put the entire nation up against a wall until we give up on the idea of not spending our elderly years in penury. (That’s sooooo 1960’s of us.) The Republicans see an opportunity here to realize what they could never accomplish during George W. Bush’s tenure – privatization of Medicare, pirating Social Security, and locking in massive tax cuts from now until perdition. And they sense, perhaps correctly, that the Democrats don’t have enough fight in them to stop it.

I will gladly crib Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Dean Baker on this – Social Security is not – repeat, not – part of any budgetary problem. It is fully self-funding for the next 25 years with no changes whatsoever. How many programs can make that claim? The G.O.P. and spineless Democrats merely want to pirate the fund to pay for extending Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, they are single-payer systems dedicated to the elderly, poor, disabled, and stricken amongst us. The rest of us – those who are relatively young, fit, and almost never need a doctor – are reserved for the profit of private insurers. Single payers systems only pay for themselves when everyone – sick and well, old and young, rich and poor – participates in them. If we want to solve the funding problem, we need to decide whether we can continue to afford contriving a profitable market for companies like BlueCross.

In short, the deficit hawks in the Republican caucuses are blackmailing us into funding tax breaks for wealthy people – including the fuckers who caused the financial crisis – by crippling our already inadequate social safety net.  I say, call their bluff. This is ground worth fighting for.

luv u,

jp

Debatable.

I didn’t watch the whole cattle-call Republican presidential debate, but I have seen and heard some extended excerpts. So without too much fanfare, here are some random thoughts from a worker bee whose hive is quite a bit smaller than Mitt Romney’s son’s basement.

Santorum (a.k.a. Mr. Google):
“The reason we’re seeing this second dip is because of energy prices, and this president has put a stop sign … against oil drilling, against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska, and that is depressing. We need to drill. We need to create energy jobs, just like we’re doing, by the way, in Pennsylvania, where we’re drilling 3,000 wells this year for gas, and … natural gas prices are down as a result.”

Not a surprise that he’s a big fan of hydrofracking. What he’s got wrong is the part about Obama stopping off-shore drilling – That’s beyond ludicrous. (God knows, I wish it were true after that BP spill. )

Pawlenty:
“We’re proposing to cut taxes, reduce regulation, speed up this pace of government, and to make sure that we have a pro-growth agenda.”

First of all, what’s this “we” about? Got a mouse in your pocket? Second… cut taxes? Again? So much for fiscal responsibility. These guys have exactly one idea. No, wait – two: Reduce regulation. (See BP, above.) That will “speed up this pace of government” as we approach the cliff.

Guy Smiley (Romney):
“This president has failed. And he’s failed at a time when the American people counted on him to create jobs and get the economy growing. And instead of doing that, he delegated the stimulus to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and then he did what he wanted to do: card-check, cap-and-trade, Obamacare, reregulation.”

As an expert on outsourcing, one would think he’d get this one right. Actually, Obama outsourced about a third of the stimulus to Romney’s party, in the form of tax cuts. That’s why it’s gone flat in two years. Oh, and… Obama didn’t get card check or cap and trade, mostly because he didn’t fight for them.

Gingrich:
“The Reagan recovery, which I participated in passing, in seven years created for this current economy the equivalent of 25 million new jobs, raised federal revenue by $800 billion a year in terms of the current economy, and clearly it worked. It’s a historic fact.”

Nice try, Newt, but as usual your history is full of holes. Reagan ran massive deficits every year, dropped billions on military Keynesianism (a.k.a. stimulus), raised taxes several times, and maintained a high degree of protectionism despite his free trade rhetoric. Are you sure you were awake during the eighties? I sure as hell was. (Didn’t sleep a wink with that freak at the helm.)

Bachmann:
“I just want to make an announcement here for you, John, on CNN tonight. I filed today my paperwork to seek the office of the presidency of the United States today. And I’ll very soon be making my formal announcement.”

I think it’s entirely plausible that Bachmann didn’t know she was at a presidential debate. She might have thought it was a clambake.

Cain:
“First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration…. When I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us.”

Look, godfather – when you’re on that stage full of white folks, you don’t have to resort to racism simply to compete. There are more dignified ways.

Paul:
“I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.”

Quote of the night. This just makes way too much sense for a Republican debate.

luv u,

jp

What now.

Gingrich has thrown his hat into the presidential ring. That should go well. Not so long ago, he was the most hated man in America. I have to think he has moved up from there – perhaps that fact alone has encouraged him to try. Or maybe he’s pulling a Buchanan and using it as a fundraising, image-building exercise. (Great way to sell books.) Either way, I can hardly imagine a less likely or desirable prospect, and I don’t think I’m alone in this. It’s no accident – the policies he has been most closely associated with over the years are wildly unpopular. The current crop of GOP congresspeople represent an odious distillation of his most extremist positions. What’s not to hate?

Back when the Newt was Speaker, I wrote a song about his crusade against welfare – one cheerfully joined by Bill Clinton and various other Democrats, eager to throw the poor over the side for a few cheap political points. Written like a bloodthirsty hymn sung aboard a pirate ship, the lyric went, in part, like this:

Please, Newt Gingrich, save us from welfare dependent mothers
whose hungry infants threaten our fortunes with default
Please, o Speaker, drive them away from this captain’s table
Please drive them from below the salt!

Bring to us the biscuit, that humble little biscuit
Please add it to our bounty, we savor every crumb
Take it from the infant, that greedy mother’s infant
Please pluck it from his toothless gums!

Mr. Speaker – we beseech thee, for the gods of war and industry
Mr. Speaker – we beseech thee, please… Bless This Feast!

Imagine the singing pirates being all of those industrialists, corporate CEOs, and generals/admirals who benefit from budgetary largess, year after year, to the tune of billions of dollars (at the expense of all of the rest of us, including many in dire need) and you’ll get the idea.

I suppose it makes sense that Newt would think this is a good time for him, since the ethos of greed and further targeting of the poor/working class has descended upon us once again. Given today’s sensational announcement that the Social Security trust fund will be expended in 2036 (instead of 2037), after which the fund would only cover 75% of its costs (assuming we never come out of deep recession and never again experience economic growth above 1% a year), he may be right.

But I doubt it.

luv u,

jp

Walking like Egyptians.

As happens every few decades, the empire is shaking at its foundations, the rot of popular will spreading from Egypt to other corners of America’s realm. In fact, nowhere does the grip of tyranny seem firmer than right here at home, where low-income people in the colder latitudes may soon be denied home heating assistance to preserve privileges for the very well-off. (My, what a good idea! ) This offered up by a Democratic president, the ink barely dry on his deal for the extension of Bush’s budget busting tax cuts, themselves passed in the same breath as Bush’s declaration of the criminally fraudulent Iraq War. Now everyone…. and I mean everyone … is all about the deficit and how we can compel poor, working class, and retired people to fill the gap left by war and the ravages of wealth.

Fundamental economic disenfranchisement is a large part of what lit a fire under the people of Tunisia and Egypt. Remember that Egypt has, in the past few years, undergone a neoliberal economic restructuring that has exacerbated inequality beyond the miserable point at which it was before. I am not suggesting that Americans are facing this level of privation or repression. But the same process that concentrates wealth at the top in places like Egypt is at work right here at home. It’s not hard to see. Each recession takes a larger bite out of the working class and poor. This most recent one has been the worst in that respect, putting people out of work for months, years, and in some cases the rest of their lives, at least in terms of a solid, remunerative job that can support a family. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are top of the mast, as always, their income swelling to obscene levels, and the very investment bankers that crashed our economy two years ago are raking in the bonuses like never before.

Part of this process is the assault on organized labor, most particularly public sector unions, which are under sustained attack across the nation. This goes far beyond wringing concessions on contracts. This is about the vilification of government workers and, in the most extreme cases, attempts to curtail hard-won collective bargaining rights. That’s what’s happening in Wisconsin right now. That’s why all those folks are walking like Egyptians up the steps of the state capitol. That fight has nothing to do with budget deficits – it’s a precalculated political attack on public sector unions, which is the nation’s last labor stronghold.  Wisconsin’s governor is driving a truck through the hole opened by the likes of New Jersey’s execrable governor Christie and others.

We need to stand with these people. Like those folks in Cairo and Alexandria, their fight is very much ours as well.

luv u,

jp

Going Dutch.

Aside from being the day of the Super Bowl, last Sunday was the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, apparently the patron saint of NPR, which ran seemingly countless stories about the “Gipper” all that week. (I hope they don’t think that will help convince the G.O.P. House to keep their already meager CPB funds in the budget. That won’t save you!) Missing from the many remembrances of RR were those who might not remember him so fondly- the Guatemalans, the Salvadorans, the Angolans, the Timorese, the Argentineans… the list goes on. I’ve long felt that Reagan had a profound impact on the American presidency and, consequently, U.S. society, though not in a positive way. Thanks to his presidency, for instance, we can never consider raising federal taxes on anyone under any circumstances. He heralded the arrival of the new jingoism that ultimately put us into Grenada, then Panama, then Kuwait, then Somalia, then the former Yugoslavia… and of course Afghanistan and Iraq.

Granted, they were not all his ideas. He was, like many presidents, something of an empty vessel into which various policy mavens and ideologues were able to pour their nasty ideas. Reagan’s son Ron has written of how his father showed the beginning signs of Alzheimer’s while still in office. I have known two people who had occasion to observe him for fairly long periods of time during his term, both of whom told of a man so cloudy minded he needed to be briefed on the basics every fifteen minutes by an extremely protective Secret Service. In that respect, his administration was run by the people around him, just as George W. Bush’s foreign policy was shaped by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others. (If we get a president Palin, that job will be taken up by the likes of Randy Scheunemann. War with Russia, here we come!)

These people represent, in large part, the lasting legacy of any administration. I just heard Elliot Abrams – one of Reagan’s creatures – on NPR the other day. There’s a guy who should be languishing in a Nicaraguan jail right rather than commenting on the uprising in Egypt. They never go away. And likewise, the policies seem etched in stone. Taxes can never be raised on upper income people, even though they’ve been making out like bandits since Reagan time, while the rest of us have flat-lined. We will cut essential benefits for the poor, the elderly, and the ill before asking them to part with some of their ill-gotten gains. Does that irritate you? Thank Reagan.

Money hole. Hey, Hosni Mubarak has amassed something like a $45 to 70 billion fortune since Reagan’s first year in office. That’s about equal to the amount we’ve sent Egypt in aid. Not hard to see what our money has been buying. But at least the old bastard has been persuaded to retire. Good for you, Egypt. Welcome news in these difficult days.

luv u,

jp