Category Archives: Uncategorized

Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves!

There’s a lot of talk about the Drone Wars this week, and rightly so given that we had the confirmation hearings for John Brennan, CIA Director nominee. Can’t resist adding my 2 cents. There are 3 separate issues involved:

  • Is it moral/just?
  • Is it legal?
  • Does it work?

You can probably approach these in any order. If something’s not moral, then maybe you shouldn’t do it, even if it works. OTOH, if something doesn’t work, perhaps it’s not worth unending debate about legal technicalities. If something’s illegal—well, who gives a shit, that’s why we classify documents; this is American security we’re talking about!

Anyway, there are some issues related to “does it work?” that don’t seem to have gotten a lot of hot-airtime, so I want to start with that. The underlying unarticulated premise of the drone bombers is that we can kill our way out of this problem. Now, killing people who piss you off has a long and venerable tradition in humanity. The earliest villages excavated by archaeologists all had walls, which, it is speculated, were NOT there to keep soccer balls from rolling into the Euphrates. And clearly, some  problems are quite solvable by killing. Let’s take Bernie Madoff, he of the decades-long Ponzi scheme that separated numerous 1 percenters from their hardly earned cash. I think it’s pretty likely that if early in his career, SEC Team 6 had sent a squad of crack auditors to bludgeon him to death with copies of the tax code, problem solved! No more Bernie = no more Ponzi scheme. Nobody’s thinking that “Well, you took out Bernie, but some other con man with close personal relationships with wealthy upper East-siders will just step in and continue fleecing. Why, even more morally bankrupt investment advisors will be drawn to a life of crime!” Hardly, right?

So is it just the same with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? Are they just like Bernie (except for the expensive haircut, suits and Jewish friends)? All we have to do is kill the ones that are making trouble, hold a parade and call it a day? That would be the unspoken assumption. Now of course the specific individual who was killed is not going to make any more trouble (by-by Osama), but does it stop there like it would with Bernie? Well, I think likely not. Why? Motivation. Unlike Bernie, the fundamentalists aren’t motivated by personal greed. Instead, they are angry at us. And no, they’re not blowing themselves up because we have titty bars, homosexual legislators, and let girls go to school. They’re angry at our unreserved support for Israel against the Palestinians. They’re angry that we’ve invaded and occupied Muslim countries. And they’re angry that we’ve been bombing other Muslim countries with our drones—sometimes killing people who are not evildoers*. Is it really likely that “bomb them until they stop hating us” is a recipe for long term success? Many seem to think so, and I guess the beatings will, in fact, continue until morale improves.

*Yes, I know we have our reasons for our actions in the Middle East (some of them even not involving AIPAC!), and many believe that Muslims are not justified in their anger and resentment. But be that as it may, if such anger leads to more people willing and eager to attack the US, and stopping such attacks is our ultimate (not short term) goal, we need to reevaluate what we’re doing.

Effects of Various Tax Changes (not funny)

Sorry, couldn’t come up with anything snarky and amusing about this one, but the graphic is too good to not share with folks. A lot of confusion (certainly on my part) about just what the various proposed changes to the tax structure might do, and a 12/9/12 article in the NY Times by Jackie Chalmes has a table (source is Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy) that breaks down the relative contributions of each change:

variations on Obama plan

So you can see from the table that changing the top 2 marginal rates from 33 and 35% to 36 and 39.6% increase revenue by $442 Billion (10 yr). A little arithmetic teases out the individual effects of the other possible changes (using greatest increase in top marginal rates:

 Raise capital gains and dividend tax from 15% to 20%: (759-442) = $317B

 Limit deductions to 28%: (1314 – 759) = $555B

 Raise dividend tax from 20% to ordinary rate (1433 -1314) = $119B

 Raising estate taxes on estates over $3.5M from 25 to 45% would add another $200B (that’s how table got a max $1.6T gain)

Now it’s not in the table, but we can guesstimate the effect of taxing capital gains at ordinary rates. Because the table shows that raising dividend tax from 20% to ordinary (a 15 percentage point increase) adds only $119B, that suggests that the increase from 15 to 20% (5 percentage points) would be much less than $119B, perhaps one third as much, or $40B. So perhaps, $275B of the $317B gain derived from raising cap gains and dividend from 15 to 20% was due solely to the cap gains raise. Therefore, if cap gains was raised to ordinary rates, that might be expected to contribute an additional 3 x $275 = $825B

So, really, by going back to Clinton-era marginal rates, taxing dividends and capital gains at ordinary rates (as was long done and is hardly irrational—I mean, why do you pay LESS tax on money that you didn’t work to earn than money you sweated for? Oh, yeah, because that’s the kind of income rich people have), and raising the estate tax on large estates, we could reduce the deficit by $2.4T over the next 10 yr. And this doesn’t even include any efforts to make corporations pay something close to their nominal rate). But Republicans say that increasing taxes wont solve anything. Repubaloney.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SELLS A CAR

Lot’s of wheelin’ and dealin’ going on this month between President Obama and John Boehner. Let’s hope the president doesn’t give away the store like he did recently as recounted below.

President Obama was touring Detroit the other day, talking to people to see how they were making out in the current hard times. He was visiting a car dealership just outside of town when the owner got an emergency call from his wife and had to run home. Before he left, the owner asked the president to watch the store for him just in case a customer arrived before the assistant manager could get in. The president agreed. Who was going to buy a car right now anyway? And besides, how hard could it be?

 But a customer did arrive. A Mr. Beaner, from nearby Ohio.

 B: Hi, I’m Jon Beaner. I hear you have some new car for sale.

 O: That’s right. Your name’s “Beaner.” Are you Mexican? You’re kind of dark.

 B: Mexican? I got no use for Mexicans. Besides, I’m not dark, I’m orange. Different thing entirely. How about this car? I hear it’s a Barackmobile, or some dumb name like that.

 O: Well, that’s right. I know the name maybe takes a little getting used to, but the car itself is the latest thing. It’s an energy efficient hybrid that’ll help the environment, use less gas, and most importantly, makes you feel good about yourself!

 B: That sounds like a lot of crap to me. How much is it?

 O: It’s $28,995 plus tax.

 B: Plus tax? I hate tax. I’m not paying any tax.

 O: Well, you have to pay tax.

 B: I’m not! Take the tax out of your cut. Mark the price down the amount of the tax!

O: Well, I guess that’s fair. All right (pulls out calculator), I’ll take it down to $27,000.

 B: What about state and local taxes and fees? I want them off, too.

 O: (hurt) I already counted that in! You told me how you feel about taxes.

 B: Hummph. And the thing looks like a cereal box on roller skates. How can I take the missus to the country club in something that looks like that?

 O: Well, I could make it $26,000?

 B: That doesn’t make it look any better. What are you, stupid?

 O: No! I have a law degree. How about $25,000…no, let’s say $24,000! $23,000? (thinks) Say, maybe you have a trade-in we could put into the deal? What are you driving?

 B: I’ve got an ’86 Reagan Special. Best car I ever owned!

 O: Gee, that’s a pretty old model. And it had a lot of problems as I recall. It didn’t have enough seats for the whole family and the old-fashioned computer controller kept falling asleep while you were driving. I don’t think the dealership wants to own a Reagan Special at any price. I can’t buy that from you.

 B: Are you kidding me? The Reagan Special was the best car ever made! Millions of people loved it. It’s worth more than this hunk of junk you’re selling! However, I could maybe be persuaded to part with it for $25,000.

 O: (to himself—Gee, I don’t think the owner’s going to be very happy if I tell him I bought a Reagan Special. But I want to be fair…) All right, I could give you $5000.

 B: $5000? What an insult! For that, I’m raising the price to $26,000!

O: Wait a minute! You can’t negotiate like that! You’re supposed to come down towards my price, not up! That’s not how we make a fair deal!

 B: More insults, huh? All right for you, then. $27,000!

 O:  I’m not trying to insult you, I just want to be fair! You’re not being fair!

 B: You’ll see fair! Now it’s $28,995 for my Reagan Special or nothing!

 O: (to himself—I can’t afford to keep going. Better do something) Ok, Ok. That’s fine. $28,995. Anyway, I cleverly note that’s the list price of the Barackmobile, so we’re at least making an even trade.

 B: Trade? I’m not making any trades. I’ve decided I don’t want a Barackmobile after all. Doesn’t look like it’ll last very long, anyway. My kids Eric and Rick will start fiddling with it and it’ll be broken in no time. No thanks.

 O: Well, I’m sorry we couldn’t make a deal.

 B: What do you mean, couldn’t make a deal? We have a deal for $28,995 for my Reagan Special!

 O: But that’s…that’s a trade in! Wait a minute! I mean…

 B: What are you, some kind of chiseling liar? You agreed on a deal and I aim to hold you to it. And since you seem so shifty here, I want it in cash. Now.

 O: Oh, gosh. I don’t know if we have the cash to do this. Let me go look in the back. Hold on. All right. I found some bills in a bag marked “health insurance payments.” I guess the owner wont mind if I use that. Here you go, then.

 B: (counts) Looks like it’s all there. Here’s your keys. You strike a hard bargain, mister. Pleasure doing business with you.

 O: Likewise. You have a good day now. Phew. Sure glad I’m president and not a used car dealer.

News Flash: Money in Politics Works

Funny what a 2 and a half percentage point victory will do. I’ve been seeing a number of liberal pundits (Bill Keller, NY Times editor for one) holding president Obama’s victory out as proof that it’s NOT a problem that wealthy individuals and businesses dump massive, historically unprecedented amounts of cash into political campaigns. And that it’s NOT a problem that the Republican Party has its own in-house, 24/7 cable propaganda channel masquerading as “News” (“fair and balanced” news, at that). Why would liberals, of all people, say these are not problems? Well, because president Obama won. So the money and the propaganda machine didn’t work. Good sense prevailed over nonsense. So it’s not a problem. Not to worry folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving along. Oh, and don’t dream of turning off the flow into the bottomless advertising trough.

Well, the kindest explanation I have for this line of thought is that some liberals are dumbing down in a bipartisan attempt to be as equally logic-free as Republicans. Wouldn’t want them to feel like they’re the only stupid kid on the block.

So a narrow victory is proof that the losers propaganda didn’t work, huh? I think it’s proof that all that money worked pretty darned well. When a party’s main policy goal—written and published in the official platform, and specifically articulated at every campaign speech—is to cut taxes on the wealthiest  1 or 2%, and cut social programs (Social Security, Medicare, education) that benefit everyone else, HOW DOES THIS NOT LOSE BY 25% INSTEAD OF 2.5%??  Sure, there’s a quarter of the population who couldn’t find their own ass with both hands and a hound dog, and wouldn’t vote for a Black man and/or Democrat if that person promised to move them into a brand new double-wide next door to Dollywood and install a free pipeline from the Budweiser factory. But even as cynical a person as I believes that the other 25% of the electorate who cast a vote for Romney really are capable of looking at a platform that promises lots of goodies for people who already have more than anyone in the world and cuts for everyone else, and at least go “wait a minute, what’s with this?” That is, they would except for the constant drumbeat of paid political ads and Fox “news” shows that keep touting the magical thinking that “more for them is good for me.” (see also my previous post https://cfdemsblog.com/2012/03/24/i-know-we-need-less-money/). Of course this is the same trickle-down theory that plutocrats have been peddling for 32 years—and has never worked once (except for the plutocrats). The only thing trickling down from the 1% is yellow rain and laughter, and unless we reform campaign finance, next time, the 1% will win, provided they find a candidate who can more consistently simulate an actual human being.

Next post will give “The Answer” to laissez-faire politics—stay tuned.

The Grand Bargain

President Obama likes Grand Bargains with Republicans. Just prior to the election, he made these comments to the Des Moines Register:

I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending…

And, he is eager to point out to the chorus of ankle-biting snakes that make up the Republican leadership, cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and education are on the table as his part of the bargain.

Now, I like grand bargains as much as the next person,  at least when they involve something like “buy one, get one free” on cinnamon buns (and they’re not stale). And “bargain” sounds so fair. Each side gives up something it wants in order to reach agreement.  So what’s wrong with that? Well, how about this “grand bargain.” Dad wants a 2 week vacation in the Cayman islands and Mom says they should spend the money on school clothes and supplies for the kids. Dad suggests they strike a bargain. They take only a 10 day vacation and buy clothes for only the child who grew the most. Fair enough, right? A little pain from each side. What could be more equitable?

Well, “equitable” means that each side is giving away something of equal value. And in monetary terms, that’s correct—$1000 is $1000, whether it’s spent on a vacation or kids’ clothing. But do you really think that mom should be bargaining with dad at all? Or should she say “What are you talking about? We’re not spending on any vacation at all until the kids are taken care of.” What would happen in your house? Right, I figured.

So why are we not saying, “No, we’re not cutting care for old people, sick people and kids’ education just so you can have lower taxes on the well-to-do and more military spending than the rest of the world combined. We’re not bargaining those things away.” Oh, that’s right, we want to appear reasonable. But it’s not reasonable to trade jewels for junk just because they weigh the same. We should cut our wars and war spending (including the war on drugs) and restore taxes to Clintonian levels. That’s reasonable. Bargain that.

Romney Makes Issue of Not Paying Taxes!

Don’t that beat all. Mitt Romney’s video (attached to NYT article) has him sneering about the 47% of people he alleges “don’t pay taxes.” Mitt’s actually angry with people who he feels don’t pay their fair share to support the US govt! Really? Tax avoidance is going to be your issue? You sure you want to open that can of worms?  Ok, Mitt, love the sound of that can opener whirring. Ooh, look what’s crawling out. Since you know what these people paid (conveniently ignoring their payroll taxes and Medicare), and have judged it’s not enough, LET’S SEE YOUR TAXES! Did you pay your fair share of income taxes? Which, per the tax code for your income level amounts to 35%. Gee, we have only one year’s return to go on. In that one it looks like you paid, what, 13.7%? Not even half what you’re supposed to. What a moocher. What guzzling from the federal teat. And that’s presumably your best year. The one you likely paid the most. LET’S SEE YOUR TAXES! You paid a lower percent than me, lower than your staff, lower than the small business owner you claim to love (until you buy him and sell his business for spare parts). Oh, that’s right, what you did is all legal. But what the 47% of people you disdain did is also legal—they’re paying what the tax code calls for. Your point is that that’s not fair. Ok, Mr. Fair, LET’S SEE YOUR TAXES and we’ll decide whether what you paid was fair.

And speaking of mooching. You make such a big deal about how you “rescued” the Salt Lake City Olympics. I didn’t know until recently that the “rescue” centered around your using your contacts to obtain $1.5 BILLION in federal money to support the games. You got a government giveaway (many, many times higher than was given to the LA Olympics) and claimed that as evidence of your management skills. What a crock. Who’s the real govt. mooch? Who’s the hypocrite? Who doesn’t deserve to be president. That’s you, Mitt.

Here Come the Cuts

Interesting editorial in todays NY Times  on the automatic budget cuts (called the “sequester”) due in January as a consequence of our failure to develop a rational budget. Lots of things get automatic cuts, including student loan assistance, the FBI, embassy security, special education. Interestingly, salaries of our congressional representatives are NOT included in expenditures at risk. Gosh, I wonder how they could’ve overlooked that?

Why are we putting healthcare for children, the elderly and the disabled, student loans, protecting the environment, workplace and transportation safety, infrastructure repair and expansion, and all the other beneficial functions of government on the chopping block side by side with tax breaks for millionaires and the hundreds of billions we funnel to war contractors? Let the well-to-do pay the same share they did in the ’90s. Our bloated military, which spends more than all other militaries in the world put together does almost nothing for the citizens of America. It is being used to maintain our leaders’ illusions of being in charge of a global empire and to distract the “patriotic” from problems at home. That’s right, Mr. and Mrs. “Support the Troops,” you’re supporting them all right, but they’re not supporting you. Yes they are brave, and they are being killed and wounded executing the strategies of our elected officials while wearing American uniforms, but that doesn’t mean anything they do helps you. Lowering military spending by 9% as the sequester calls for is barely a shaving nick, not a cut. Cut 69% of it and you and I will be just as “safe.” The only thing endangered by lowering military spending by two thirds will be the dreams and fantasies of politicians and generals. Too bad for them.

9/11

Can hardly let the anniversary pass completely without mention. 11 years ago Osama bin Laden attacked us. About a month later, we invaded Afghanistan, where he was based. We did that because his hosts, the Taliban, in the most overdone display of hospitality ever, refused to turn him over to us on the grounds that this would constitute bad manners towards a guest. One quick ass-whupping later, the Taliban were out of Afghanistan, along with their “guest.” 10 years later, we still are not.

Yep, we’re still there. We’re dying and bleeding and killing for jihad and the greater glory of Allah. Oh wait, that’s why the other guys are fighting. What’s our reason again?

I know we’ve got a reason running around here somewhere…Hmm…Oh yeah, right now it seems to be to fight the people who are fighting us to make us leave their country. And of course, we can’t leave until they stop fighting to make us leave. Bingo! That’s why we’re there. How dare anyone not want us to invade them and occupy their country! How else are they going to learn the meaning of democracy?

That’s what we think we’re doing. What we’re actually doing is

  • Keeping the corrupt Karzai regime safe from the people he’s been robbing
  • Keeping the drug-running warlords (who think that they should be the ones robbing the Afghan people rather than Karzai) safe from the Taliban
  • Really pissing off the only nuclear-armed Muslim country (Pakistan)
  • Alienating all the other Muslim countries and breeding jihadis by the truckload

With a little ingenuity, we can keep this fight (and the corresponding military/security contractor gravy train) going for ages. In the meantime, we’ll make Afghanistan a democracy if we have to kill every single person who disagrees with us.

Sorry I’m not funny today. I’m just pissed that we’re cutting funding for teachers, sick people and old people so that we can pay for our dumb-ass wars (oh, and the tax cuts for the wealthy) that cause more problems than they solve. We’re spending about $115 billion this year in Afghanistan (vs. $59 billion for Bush’s last year in office), and Obama will have spent $413 billion on Afghanistan during his first term. Interest and lifetime care of our wounded is extra. Some deal. Well, happy anniversary.

A Republican with Nothing to Hide

I guess I’ve spent too many years complaining about Republican cover-ups to insist on one now, but if ever there were a time it would be at the sight of naked Republican congressman Ken Yoder of Kansas cavorting in the Sea of Galilee. According to this report in Politico, about 20 GOP Congressmen, staffers and family took part in an impromptu swim last August (though the others were partly or fully clothed). Eric Cantor, who was on the American Israel Educational Foundation (AIPAC’s affiliated charitable organization) sponsored trip was quite perturbed—perhaps because the group waited till after he left the party to take their swim.

Now, good progressive that I am, I must confess I can’t get too fired up about public nudity. And in fact I applaud the discovery of the rare Republican who’s an advocate of full disclosure. I just wish a little of that would rub off on Mitt Romney, who seems to be a great deal more interested in hiding his family jewels (or at least the taxes he paid on them) from the light of day than Rep. Yoder.

So what’s the big deal about seeing Mitt’s tax returns? Well, first of all, the other candidates, including President Obama (and as we all know, Mitt’s father, George), have always shared theirs, so why not Mitt? Now we all know he’s rich. That part’s fine. Seriously, I haven’t heard the most die-hard liberal complain about the fact that he has money. But the question a lot of us do have is exactly how he got that way. Since one of the economic options to deal with the deficit is to raise the tax on capital gains, I’d like to see how much that would cost the man who aims to put himself in the best position in the world to sway that particular decision to his benefit. Even more importantly, I’d like to see if Mitt took advantage of one of the special amnesty programs for people who hid income in offshore accounts, of which Mitt has many.  Did he pay all the taxes he owed each year, or not until amnesty was offered? That would tell us if he’s one of those people who loves his country so much he’ll do anything for it—except help pay for it.

PA Voter ID – Contd.

Well, the Commonwealth Court heard arguments this week on the ACLU’s challenge to the PA Voter ID law. It’s worth reading some of the details about the plaintiffs: http://www.delcodems.com/content/aclu-files-lawsuit-commonwealth-court-overturn-voter-id particularly about the elderly voters born in rural areas of other states who don’t have birth certificates.

Now remember, we’re not talking about registering new voters. This suit (and the whole issue itself) is all about people who are already legally registered to vote in PA, many of whom HAVE BEEN VOTING LEGALLY FOR YEARS. These people are now being told that in order to continue to exercise their Constitutional right to vote, they have to jump through a few nice big hoops because they don’t drive (and thus have a driver’s license) or have a passport or work for the state. So who doesn’t drive or have a passport or work for the state? The elderly, the poor and the unemployed, that’s who—and what good Republican wants them to decide what goes on in Washington and Harrisburg? Think it’s not about voter suppression? State House leader Mike Turzai was videotaped saying that “The Voter ID Bill will give Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

Now those among us who don’t think the government should be shrunk until it can be drowned in a bathtub and do believe there’s a role for government regulation still want to see a reason for regulation. Like when Wall Street’s machinations crash the economy, say. Or 40,000 people under age 65 die each year because they don’t have health insurance. Got a problem? Maybe we should fix it. Maybe some regulations would help. So what’s the problem for which voter ID is the fix? Well the only problem it fixes is voter impersonation. Guess how many cases of voter impersonation the PA Republican administration claims to have found? That would be none. Zero. That’s what they put in their written response to the lawsuit. So the party that claims to exist solely to rid us of government interference has passed a burdensome, onerous law that may disenfranchise hundreds of thousands and inconvenience up to one million to solve NOTHING. Oh, wait. It’s not burdensome or onerous to the well to do, so I guess it doesn’t count (I’ve seen tons of online comments to the effect “everybody’s got an ID, what’s the big deal”).

Here are the current requirements for obtaining a PA Photo ID card: http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml  Now interestingly, in response to the lawsuit the Republican administration is backpedaling on the requirements. On July 20, Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele announced creation of a “new card” that will fulfill the requirements of the law.

“The new voter photo identification cards are scheduled to be available at PennDOT’s Driver’s License Centers beginning the last week of August. The identification cards can be issued to registered voters who may not have all of the documents necessary to obtain a non-driver’s license photo ID from PennDOT, primarily a birth certificate.

The IDs, which are free, will be issued to voters for a 10-year period and can only be used for voting purposes. For Pennsylvania-born voters, PennDOT will still use the process of confirming birth records electronically with the Pennsylvania Department of Health to issue non-driver’s license photo IDs for voting.

When requesting these IDs, voters will need to affirm they do not possess any other approved identification for voting purposes. They will be asked to provide two proofs of residence, such as a utility bill, along with their date of birth and Social Security number, if the customer has an assigned number. PennDOT will validate the voter registration status with the Department of State while the voter is in the PennDOT office. Upon confirmation of this information, the voter will be issued the voter card before leaving the PennDOT facility.”

I’m not clear as to whether people need to bring the SS card or just provide the number. Either way, this is a clear improvement over the previous requirements. It still means that people who don’t drive, and who may have limited mobility need to take part of a day to get the right to exercise a right they may have done for years. It’s still a barrier, and an unnecessary one.