TED talk on taxes

Nick Hanauer, sharing some ideas that challenge this country's entrenched interests.

The angry rich

Remember what I've said over and over in this space? That Republicans (and Blue Dogs) don't give a shit about you unless you're rich? Krugman:

The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.

You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.

And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.

But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.

This column brings to mind a post by Athenae that's linked to at Susie's place:

In the second place, in the second paragraph, really. You're really going to tell starving children to go blow because you're mad about your taxes. That's a thing you're going to do. The starving children, natch, having all kinds of influence in Congress, given how everybody's falling all over themselves to help THEM. Those are the people who can do exactly dick about your tax sitch, so I'm sure your brave moral stand will SO TOTALLY get noticed by our decision makers. Shit, stop giving money to politicians if you don't like how they behave, but Toys for Tots did nothing to you to deserve your contempt, and you're doing plenty to earn mine.

Of course, the starving children have no influence on Congress because the only thing congresspeople care about is getting re-elected, that is to say, their own asses. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, for example, would rather shut down the federal government than alienate what he sees as a bumper crop of new potential supporters in the tea baggers.

“We must not blink,” he said, noting that money cannot be spent without the House voting to pass it. “If the House says no, it’s no.”

Their new tea party backers won’t tolerate anything less than a full repeal of the health care law, he said.

“They will leave us if we go wobbly,” he said. “I am worried about that, but that’s why I think it’s got to be a blood oath.”

No word from King about what might happen if the entire nation goes "wobbly" because the House forces a shutdown of the government. But apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is not "worried about that." Apparently Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa is more "worried about" getting Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa re-elected.

Country first, y'all.

Where the money is

If you want to cause as little pain as possible when levying taxes, you don't tax people who have next to nothing. You go where the money is.

When it comes to paying for a health care overhaul, Americans see just one way to go: Tax the rich.

That finding from a new Associated Press poll will be welcome news for House Democrats, who proposed doing just that in their sweeping remake of the U.S. medical system, which passed earlier this month and would extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

The poll found participants sour on other ways of paying for the health overhaul that is being considered in Congress, including taxing insurers on high-value coverage packages derided by President Barack Obama and Democrats as "Cadillac plans."

Hopefully this will give some political cover to senators who lack the balls and/or brains to ignore senseless political compromises and do what will actually work.

Closing

All branches of the Free Library of Philadelphia, due to budget constraints, unless state legislators take action. Too bad legislators like tax cuts more than providing services for their constituents. Too bad more rich people don't use libraries.

In a related matter, I wonder if the Philadelphia Eagles have ponied up the $3 million they owe the city or if team owner Jeff Lurie is going to continue dicking around in the courts and paying well-heeled attorneys while the people who have supported his team for so long lose yet another service as the city goes broke.

The argument against universal healthcare

summed up nicely.

H/t Susie, from whom I totally stole this.

Tax 'code'

A good piece about the not-so-hidden agenda behind tax cuts. Highlights are below, but there's a lot more in there.

It’s time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that “tax relief” and “tax cuts” are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to “improve” public education
2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools
3. Cry out for “reform” when people see how bad our schools are doing
4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.)

[...]

Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself… everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda.

[...]

Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon Administration.

Banks haven’t failed catastrophically through over-sized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word “centrist” really means - conservatives who’ve infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

Companies haven’t been driven to huge lay-offs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

Click through and read the rest.

One percenters

Goldman Sachs. The bailed-out company's tax rate, that is.

"With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore."

Boy, the taxpayers sure are going to benefit handsomely from bailing out that company. But I guess being angry at the company, Henry Paulson and the Bush administration for this is sort of like being angry at pigs for acting like pigs.

Grand opening

The Toyota manufacturing plant that Paul Krugman discussed in this column is up and running in Woodstock, Ontario.

Sure, our economy could have used the 1,200 jobs that plant created. But on the plus side, at least America's rich aren't subsidizing the education and healthcare of the nonrich. Because it would just burn their asses to have to contribute money they can easily afford to provide something for someone else. Why spend money when you yourself aren't getting something directly for doing so?

Becuase, you greedy assholes, otherwise we end up right where we are, with half a million jobs evaporating a month, the stock market spiraling downward and more than 45 million Americans without health insurance. That doesn't mean they don't get sick and seek care. That care isn't free, and who do you suppose pays for it?

As Krugman wrote in the aforementioned column, "treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage."

Protecting the windfall

In case you were wondering whose side Republicans are on.

HINT: Not yours.

Senate Republicans blocked a proposal Tuesday to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies, despite pleas by Democratic leaders to use the measure to address America's anger over $4 a gallon gasoline.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies and given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that the bill's supporters argue has added to the crude oil price surge.

The oil companies have people in Congress protecting their interests. Shouldn’t you have someone there protecting yours? To vote for a Republican is to vote against your own interests. And that would be stupid.

Don‘t be stupid.

It’s the leadership, stupid

Most of the money concentrated in the hands of the few is not a good thing. Is the richest 1 percent expected to support the entire economy?

The consumer spending slump and tightening credit markets are unleashing a widening wave of bankruptcies in American retailing, prompting thousands of store closings that are expected to remake suburban malls and downtown shopping districts across the country.

Since last fall, eight mostly midsize chains — as diverse as the furniture store Levitz and the electronics seller Sharper Image — have filed for bankruptcy protection as they staggered under mounting debt and declining sales.

But the troubles are quickly spreading to bigger national companies, like Linens ‘n Things, the bedding and furniture retailer with 500 stores in 47 states. It may file for bankruptcy as early as this week, according to people briefed on the matter.

Even retailers that can avoid bankruptcy are shutting down stores to preserve cash through what could be a long economic downturn. Over the next year, Foot Locker said it would close 140 stores, Ann Taylor will start to shutter 117, and the jeweler Zales will close 100.

The surging cost of necessities has led to a national belt-tightening among consumers. Figures released on Monday showed that spending on food and gasoline is crowding out other purchases, leaving people with less to spend on furniture, clothing and electronics. Consequently, chains specializing in those goods are proving vulnerable.

I wonder if this has anything to do with that.

Using Census Bureau data, the study by EPI and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), another Washington think tank, examined the situation in individual states. In 37 states, from the late 1980s to the middle of the current decade, the richest fifth of families got an average $36,300 boost in their annual income while the poorest fifth got just $1,600. In terms of purchasing power, the annual income of the poorest families increased only $93 by the end of the period (To see the study, visit www.cbpp.org.)

Another study, by the Congressional Budget Office, using tax data, calculates that the share of national after-tax income going to the top 1 percent of households more than doubled, from 7.5 percent in 1979 to 15.6 percent in 2005. In 2005 alone, the $180,000 average income gain for these rich households was more than three times the average middle-income household's total income.

An academic look at increasing income polarization, written by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, found that average incomes of the highest-earning 1 percent grew 11 percent year-over-year between 2002 and 2006. The bottom 99 percent saw their incomes grow on average just 0.9 percent annually.

And I wonder if this has anything to do with that.

The richest 1 percent of Americans received about $491 billion in tax breaks between 2001 and 2008. That's nearly the same amount as U.S. debt held by China -- $493 billion -- in the form of Treasury securities.

Thanks to tax cuts, it's now common for the nation's richest bosses to pay taxes at a lower rate than workers. The 400 richest taxpayers paid only 18 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2005 --- down from 30 percent in 1995.

"The drop in effective tax rates for the top 400 filers," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, "worked out to a tax reduction of $25 million per filer in 2005." It would take 673 average workers earning $37,149 a year to reach $25 million today.

Guess which presidential candidate wants to continue making the rich richer with Bush-style tax cuts and has no intention of ever addressing the federal deficit or national debt? Here’s a hint: His name rhymes with “John McCain.”

Mr. McCain, who made no mention of his previous pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term, outlined a long list of tax cuts he favored in the speech, which was delivered on the deadline for filing taxes. He called once again for making the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against, permanent, and for cutting corporate taxes, phasing out the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for each dependent to $7,000 from $3,500. He also proposed giving people the option of using a simpler, shorter tax form.

He wants to make permanent tax cuts that he voted against. How low will he stoop in his kowtow to conservatives? He just wants to be president so, so badly. But, as a friend of mine once pointed out, two kinds of people run for office: those who want to be something, and those who want to do something. Beware the former.

And who do you think will benefit the most from McCain’s tax proposal? According to a Center for American Progress report, “the McCain plan would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The Bush tax cuts provide 31 percent of their benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.” That would be the same 1 percent that will support the entire economy while the rest of us fight over the crumbs that trickle down from their table.

Oh, by the way: Why does McCain hate the troops? OK, maybe it isn’t that he hates the troops. Maybe he just realizes that with his tax plan in place, there won’t be any money for veterans education benefits. That must be the kind of discretionary spending he wants to freeze.

So, if you think things are great now, if you support tax breaks for the people who need them least, if you like seeing troops used as props for political stagecraft while simultaneously being fucked over by the people posing with them, if you like an open-ended commitment in Iraq with no end in sight, if you like leadership that talks about “winning” in Iraq without defining what the fuck that means, if you like an ignorant, ham-handed approach to foreign policy and the economy, and if you like seeing issues like the environment, healthcare, homelessness, poverty, education, the trade imbalance and the deficit all but ignored, then by all means vote for John “Third Term” McCain.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, in the other America,

Jenna Bush will wear a "simple and elegant" wedding gown designed by Oscar de la Renta at her May 10 wedding: organza with embroidery, matte beading and a small train -- and yet "still casual." But don't expect any pictures beforehand: Fiance and "major traditionalist" Henry Hager doesn't want to see the dress until she walks down the aisle.

In an interview in the upcoming issue of Vogue we obtained, Jenna reveals that 200 friends and family will attend the informal ceremony at the family's Crawford ranch. The festivities kick off outside at 7:30 p.m. (to beat the heat), followed by dinner and dancing underneath a tent. "I was raised in Texas and it just felt right," she said. "It means a lot to Henry and me to be outdoors. We wanted something organic and low key." She said she considered a White House wedding but decided against it: "That's not really my personality. There's a glamour to it, I know, but Henry and I are far less glamorous than the White House."

Besides, she probably wants her father to attend the wedding, and he’s not usually at the White House on weekends.

Taxing thought

It always struck me as odd that there's an entire industry designed to shortchange the government of tax revenue by ensuring its clients contribute as little as possible.

And not only is that OK, now the so-called president of the United States is using that fact as justification for not placing the burden of a tax increase on the shoulders of those who can most easily bear it.

If they’re going to say, oh, we’re only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.

Watching Bush's mind work is like watching an engine filled with sludge try to turn over.

Pen pal

I've been trading e-mail about Bush's response to the tragedy in New Orleans with a Republican friend of mine (if there's a way to argue politics good-naturedly, we do it). Other than the shortcoming of his political leanings, he's a very intelligent, articulate guy. He's one of my best friends and I have a great deal of respect for him.

Anyway, for some reason I spent a lot of time writing today's response, so since I went to the trouble to write it, here it is. OK, most of it. The whole thing is WAAAAAY too long:

Every time Bush is called on in a time of crisis, he comes up nonexistent. When he does act, it's never quick and decisive, probably because of the lengthy consideration of the political consequences of each course of action.

That's not just jaded cynicism talking, that's a response to the fact that everything this administration does is politically motivated. Sure every administration considers the political ramifications of everything they do, but these people have completely abandoned sound policy in favor of political points at every turn. "The jury's still out on global warming." Are you fucking kidding me?

Naturally, Bush's response to the situation is pure politics -- the visit to GMA when he told softballer Diane Sawyer that "I don't think anybody anticipated the failure of the levees?" Is he joking? In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. So what did the Bush administration do? It cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war. Clearly this is someone who doesn't read any briefing put before him.

Also, he made a point to say, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" in front of a group of reporters. Brownie, of course, being, according to Maureen Dowd, "Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA -- a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association."

Looting, rapes, shootings, anarchy, bodies rotting in the streets. I'd hate to see what Bush considers a lousy job.

What we are seeing here, my friend, isn't politicians scoring political points, but a revolt by an outraged and suddenly ballsy press. Consider the aforementioned blithering idiot's appearance on GMA. (transcript excerpt deleted)

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was dressed down on NPR's "All Things Considered." (transcript excerpt deleted)

Let's not forget Anderson Cooper vs. Sen. Mary Landrieu, who was busy thanking the president, Bill Frist et al. while bodies were rotting in the streets (is that what you meant about a Democrat trying to score political points during a crisis by tearing down the president?)

This isn't political opposition trying to tear down a damaged president. This is the press doing its job, reporting what it sees. And what it sees is failure in the face of tragedy.

It would be one thing if this show of incompetence were unusual for the administration. But this administration has damaged everything it has touched. It turned a record surplus into a record deficit in two years. NCLB is such a success that, acording to the Chicago Sun-Times, as of April "21 states have introduced legislation or taken other action to change NCLB." Connecticut has sued Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, and the largest teachers union in Pennsylvania urged Gov. Rendell to join the suit. The Texas State Teachers Association, a group you might think would be sympathetic to Bush, has joined the suit. Iraq is a quagmire from which we have no exit strategy, Osama is an afterthought (and still on the loose). The gap between the rich and poor is as big as its ever been, 45.8 million people in this country have NO health insurance and 37 million people in this country live below the poverty level -- a number that has not gone down since Bush took office. Meanwhile, in 2004, CEOs saw their average total compensation boosted an average of nearly 12 percent, to more than $9.8 million. The average nonsupervisory workers' pay increased just 2.2 percent, to $27,485. Also, corporate income tax revenues in 2003 were 36 percent lower than in 2000, and represented only 1.2 percent of the GDP and only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. The latter number is, with the exception of 1983, the lowest percentage on record.