April 2010 – Page 10 – Politics Plus

Lets Talk Taxes

Posted by TomCat at 3:27 am Editorial

Apr 122010

It’s clear that the GOP love “middle class” tax cuts that benefit the rich and hate “boutique” tax cuts that benefit the poor and middle classes.

Remember when the Forbes on Fox panel mostly voted for tax cuts over food stamps? When tax cuts were touted as the way to help the middle class? Apparently, what the Fox News pundits really wanted was tax cuts for the upper class, only. Now that the Tax Policy Center has projected that about 47% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes, those very same Forbes on Fox folks are up in arms with accusations that the lower and middle classes are not paying their fair share. One panelist even suggested this will lead to increased youth suicide…

…“That nanny state is already here!” Host David Asman began in his introduction to the discussion, before adding, “more Americans are getting more handouts than ever before…Less folks paying, more folks receiving, hello nanny state!”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NewsHounds>

However, as much as the GOP Reichsministry of Propaganda foams at the mouth, they do not have a clue about the real problem, of if they do, they are not telling.

The real problem is the gross inequity that has developed in out country, the worst in history. Sure there are wealthy people in stable economies. But consider the analogy of a pyramid. In a stable economy, the conspicuously wealthy capstone must be supported by a prosperous base. If the capstone gets so heavy that it crushes the base, the economy collapses. This is what happened in 1929, and almost just happened again, as the following chart (credit: The Nation) shows.

(click image to view full size)

Note that the top chart, which measures income inequality, demonstrates that it has never been worse, and the only time in our history that it has ever approached its current level was the spike that caused the Great Depression.

The bottom chart measures the top marginal tax rate. Note that when the GOP dropped the top marginal tax rate in the twenties, eighties, and during the Bush/GOP regime, income inequality shot up. On the other hand, high marginal tax rates during the middle of the century, held income inequality down and kept the economy stable and prosperous for all.

Now lets look at how income inequality is crushing the base using the next chart (credit Crooks and Liars).

As you can see, the top 1% get 24% of the income, the next 9% get 26% of the income, while the bottom 90% get only 50%. The numbers are even worse for accumulated wealth.

The bottom 40% of Americans own only 1/5 of 1% of the wealth, that tiny sliver.

If you haven’t noticed by now, the conditions are exactly the same now as they were right before the Great Depression. We just barely averted another through massive government spending on the rich to bail them out of the consequences of their rapacious greed. However, we have not changed the conditions that caused it. The housing bubble was not the cause. It was the trigger. The cause is unchanged, waiting for the next bubble, whatever it is, to trigger disaster. Only by correcting the cause can we avert the disaster.

To this end, I suggest a complete revision of the tax code as follows.

Progressive	Tax	Table	Politics	Plus
From	To	Rate	Max This	Max Total
$0	$50,000	0%	$0	$0
$50,000	$100,000	10%	$5,000	$5,000
$100,000	$250,000	20%	$30,000	$35,000
$250,000	$500,000	30%	$75,000	$110,000
$500,000	$750,000	40%	$100,000	$210,000
$750,000	$1,000,000	50%	$125,000	$335,000
$1,000,000	$5,000,000	60%	$2,400,000	$2,735,000
$5,000,000	$10,000,000	70%	$3,500,000	$6,235,000
$10,000,000	$25,000,000	80%	$12,000,000	$18,235,000
$25,000,000	$1,000,000,000	90%	$877,500,000	$895,735,000

This needs some explanation, as it is completely different from what we have today.

Everyone pays no tax on their first $50,000 in income, no matter how much they make. Everyone pays 10% on up to their second $50,000 in income. So the family making $100,000 pays nothing on the first $50,000 and $5,000 on the second $50,000 for a total of $5,000. A family making $350,000 pays nothing on their first $50,000, $5000 on their second $50,000, $30,000 on their next $150,000, and $30,000 on their last $100,000 for a total of $65,000. A family making a million pays $335,000. The top category is actually $25,000,000 up, but I capped it at $1 billion, because infinity gives spreadsheets heartburn. Even the family earning $1 billion gets to keep over $104 million. I could live on that. Couldn’t you? These numbers are not set in stone, and I can already tell they need to be tweaked, but it’s the concept I’m driving at. Increasing taxes in progressive increments like this has everyone but the very poor paying a fair share and minimizes the gross inequality of income distribution. However, it preserves the incentive to earn, because earning more always results in keeping more.

So you be the judge? Should we fix the problem or face the consequences of leaving it as is?

This idea is completely original. However, I learned many years ago in Philosophy 101 that ancient Greeks had the audacity to steal most of my best ideas thousands of years before I was born. So, if you had my idea and stole it before I thought of it, may the ghost of Michelle Bachmann haunt your descends until the end of time.. 😉

Open Thread – 4/12/2010

Posted by TomCat at 3:24 am Open Thread, Personal

Apr 122010

Yesterday, I replied to comments, returned visits, and visited the bottom half of our blogroll. Yesterday is a slow one, so I have only one article for you today, but it’s a good one. There are no Short Takes today.

Jig Zone Puzzle: Today it took me 3:45. To do it, click here. How did you do?

Cartoon:

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Cameron Cardow – Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com – Email this Cartoon

OGIM!!

A Nuclear Free Middle East

Posted by TomCat at 2:16 am Politics

Apr 112010

James Zogby wrote this impressive piece about how the mere presence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East destabilizes the region and undermines our foreign policy.

With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by the U.S. and Russia, a Nuclear Summit about to begin in Washington, and pressure mounting to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a few troubling issues need to be addressed.

In negotiating and then signing a new arms reduction pact with Russia and in announcing a new U.S. posture on the use of nuclear weapons, President Obama has come under withering attacks from the right wing. Accusing the President of unilaterally disarming or weakening the U.S. position in the world is sheer nonsense.

What START provides is that both the U.S. and Russia will each dramatically reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal to 1,550. A few decades ago we and the then Soviet Union had a combined total of over 70,000 such weapons, a perfectly bizarre amount. As we all understood, back then, using these weapons was unthinkable since they would result in "mutually assured destruction". And yet we continued to build and deploy. Unwinding this insanity was the right thing to do and it still is.

The president’s vision of a nuclear free world (one he shares with former President Reagan) is the correct stance. START represents movement in the right direction. His critics are dead wrong.

The Nuclear Summit is designed to promote the control of nuclear weapons and to secure world wide buy-in. Israel’s decision to send a low level representative in order to avoid criticism of their nuclear program and U.S. silence on Israel’s stance are both disappointing and dangerous. It is nonsense to assume that Israel can be given a free pass. Despite the efforts of apologists, Israel’s claim of exceptionalism doesn’t hold up to regional scrutiny. As a result of U.S. guarantees, Israel has a conventional military capability that exceeds that of all of its neighbors combined. And they have rather freely used this force in successive wars that have dealt devastating blows to all their neighbors. Despite this, Israelis have not found peace, since peace and security will only come through a negotiated just settlement with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese.

And so of what use is Israel’s nuclear program (or its silence about that program and its refusal to sign the non-proliferation treaty – NPT)? Possessing nuclear weapons has not created a deterrent. Nor can Israel use these weapons, if in fact they possess them. Can Israel bomb Gaza or the West Bank or Lebanon, without endangering its own population with the resultant radioactive fallout? And what would be the human and international consequences of Israel’s use of nuclear weapons? It remains unthinkable to use such weapons and therefore nonsense to stockpile or hide them.

In fact the only purpose served by Israel’s stubborn insistence that it maintain silence about its nuclear program, and the U.S. continuing to provide cover for Israel’s behavior in this regard, is to impede progress toward establishing the Middle East as a "nuclear free zone". When Egypt first raised this idea years ago, its consideration was blocked by Israel and the U.S. That was a mistake then and it still is now.

A further complication of the U.S. giving Israel a pass on nuclear weapons is that it raises the charge of "double standard" — one so clear that even the most hardnosed defenders of Israel cannot deny it. With growing concern over Iran’s nuclear intentions, this "double standard" has become more than an embarrassment, it has become self-defeating and dangerous. Why give Tehran an easy argument to defend their indefensible behavior? When every Arab and Muslim knows that the US is turning a blind eye to Israel’s nukes (and will immediately raise this issue whenever the question of nuclear disarmament is discussed), why continue to ignore the elephant in the room?

And finally to Iran. Iran is a regional problem, to be sure. Its meddling in Iraq, the Gulf region, and in Lebanon and Palestine pose real concerns that must be addressed and, one hoped, might have been addressed by President Obama’s early promise to engage the Islamic Republic. Instead of focusing on the broad range of issues that define Iran’s troubling behaviors in the Middle East, the US zeroed in on the nuclear question – the one where we hold a weak hand. In doing so we played into Tehran’s game allowing that government to pose as victim of a double standard (as we argue that they are not in compliance with their obligations under the NPT, which they have signed; while we work with Israel, Pakistan and India who have nuclear programs and are the only three countries in the world who have not signed the NPT – not a strong case, by any measure).

Iran is playing a dangerous and nonsensical game of "chicken". But we have not responded smartly… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

While the nuclear weapons programs in Pakistan and India need to be addressed, at least both these nations admit to having them, providing a potential to eliminate them through negotiation.

Israel is a separate case. They have no real need for nuclear weapons as long as the US guarantees to defend Israel’s territorial integrity, which I fully support, remains in place. Until the US drops its support for Israel’s subterfuge, we have no credibility with the Muslim world. Creating a nuclear free zone in the Middle East is the best solution for all concerned.

An Equal Opportunity Bigot

Posted by TomCat at 2:15 am Politics

Apr 112010

Some Republicans hate blacks. Others hate gays. Still more hate immigrants. Then there’s Glen Beck.

Popular conservative talk show host Glenn Beck made his predictions Saturday for the kind of judge President Obama will nominate to replace Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who announced Friday that he will retire.

Whoever the president chooses, Beck said on his radio show, Americans can be sure it will be someone hand-picked to stymie opposition through political correctness.

"It will allow the Democrats to say they just hate women, they just hate Hispanics, they just hate a black, they just hate whatever. That’s what it will be," Beck said. "I mean if he’s smart, he will find a gay, handicapped black woman who’s an immigrant. She could be the devil. She could say ‘I hate America. I want to destroy America,’ and that way they’ll only be able to say ‘Why do you hate gay immigrant black handicapped women?’"

Stevens’ announcement of retirement means Obama must choose a second Supreme Court justice within his first two years in office. His last selection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ignited a prolonged battle with Republicans. This time, Obama must get a nominee confirmed in the middle of an election season and with possibly even more opposition.

Beck was quick to claim Obama would appoint another "radical" like Justice Sotomayor."It will cause all kind of problems in Washington, it will split the parties," Beck said.

The comments mirror a statement by conservative icon Rush Limbaugh when the retirement of Justice David Souter paved the way for Obama’s first Supreme Court pick in May of last year. After playing a clip of Obama telling leaders of Planned Parenthood that the court needed a justice with "empathy" for single mothers, Limbaugh translated what he believed Obama was saying.

"So here’s what we need. We need a teenage single mother who’s gay, is a lesbian, who’s dirt poor, African-American and disabled," Limbaugh said…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Beck, is not just a bigot. He’s an equal opportunity bigot, with ample hatred for anyone who he does not perceive as just like him. Limbaugh is no different. Since Beck is the de facto head of the Teabaggers, and Limbaugh, of the GOP, we can expect a hate based response from the right to whomever Obama appoints. They would hate it most, if Obama were to appoint a straight white male. It would deprive them of their hateful stereotypes.

Their problem is their perception. I’m white, male, straight and born in the USA. Nevertheless, I perceive Beck’s gay, handicapped, black woman, who’s an immigrant, as just like me. Therefore, I can concentrate on a potential appointee’s qualifications and positions, not on attributes that serve only to distract fools.

Open Thread – 4/11/2010

Posted by TomCat at 2:14 am Open Thread, Personal

Apr 112010

Yesterday I spent most of the day catching up. I replied to comments aand visited the first half of our blogroll. I hope to visit the second half today.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 5:11. To do it, click here. How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Alternet: The good news for Democrats in Michigan’s 1st Congressional District is that they already have another Democrat, Connie Saltonstall, who has announced she will run for the seat of Bart Stupak, who is retiring. The bad news could be that she’s a progressive running who was running as a pro-choice alternative until Stupak decided to drop his reelection bid this morning. An unstoppable conservative Democrat in a conservative, GOP-leaning district, Stupak had a hold on the MI-01 that the Democrats will be hard-pressed to maintain now that he’s gone.

Independent analysts agree: Stupak’s district will be a tough one for the Democrats to hang on to in November.

While I would hate to lose the seat, and would have favored even ‘coat hanger’ Bart over an even more rabid Republican, at least Saltonstall gives Michigan voters a real choice. We should support her.

From Science: In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data on Americans’ knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species and that the universe began with a big bang.

Evolution has a major problem in that close examination of Teabaggers demonstrates that devolution may be more correct. As for the big bang, you know the GOP will hate that idea, unless it’s in a kinky nightclub. 😈

Cartoon:

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Daryl Cagle – Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com – Email this Cartoon

ARGH!! Football, you’ve been gone too long. Happy Sunday!

John Paul Stevens: Big Shoes to Fill

Posted by TomCat at 5:28 am Editorial, Politics

Apr 102010

Let me begin by thanking Justice Stevens for his many years of service to the American people.

When he was appointed by Gerald Ford, a Republican President, he was a moderate conservative. Over the years, the Court has drifted further and further to the right, so what was a moderate conservative stance then has become very liberal by today’s standards, especially in comparison the extreme, activist ideologues on the Court: Scalia, Thomas, ~~Alito~~ Scalito, and Roberts. Stevens has big shoes to fill. Can Obama fill them?

The announcement by Justice John Paul Stevens on Friday that he would retire at the end of this term gives President Obama the rare opportunity to make back-to-back appointments to the Supreme Court during the first two years of his presidency.

But it also presents Mr. Obama with a complex political challenge: getting a nominee confirmed in the thick of a midterm election season, when Republicans, fueled by the intensity of their conservative base, are angling to knock him down, and Democrats, despite having lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, are eager to flex their muscles after passing a landmark health care bill.

Justice Stevens’s announcement, delivered to the White House on Friday morning in a one-paragraph letter that began “My dear Mr. President,” set off an immediate scramble among the parties and a raft of advocacy groups that have been assembling dossiers on potential successors.

The three leading candidates — Mr. Obama is considering about 10 names all told, the White House says — present the president with a spectrum of ideological reputations, government backgrounds and life experiences. His choice will shape the battle to win Senate confirmation of his nominee.

In effect, the president must choose to be bold or play it safe.

Merrick B. Garland, 58, an appeals court judge here, is well liked by elite legal advocates and is widely considered the safest choice if Mr. Obama wants to avoid a confrontation with the minority party. A former federal prosecutor who worked on the Oklahoma City bombings, he is well-known in Washington’s legal-political community, where some view him as a kind of Democratic version of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Elena Kagan, 49, is solicitor general but has never been a judge and does not have a lengthy trail of scholarly writings, so her views are less well documented. But as the dean of Harvard Law School, she earned respect across ideological lines by bringing in several high-profile conservative professors, and she is a favorite among some in the extended Obama circle, who see her as smart and capable. Her relative youth means she could shape the court for decades to come.

Diane P. Wood, 59, a federal appeals court judge in Mr. Obama’s home city, Chicago, is seen as the most liberal of the three. She has been a progressive voice on a court that is home to several heavyweight conservative intellectuals. As a divorced mother of three, she brings the kind of real-life experience that Mr. Obama considers important. But her strong support for abortion rights would provoke a confrontation with conservatives. On Friday, the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life warned that a Wood nomination “would return the abortion wars to the Supreme Court.”

In making his selection, Mr. Obama confronts a vastly altered political landscape from the one he faced just 11 months ago, when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to fill the seat left vacant by the retirement of Justice David H. Souter.

With the election of Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, Democrats can no longer hold off a Republican filibuster. And while Democrats are emboldened by the health care vote, the passage of the legislation — which is already facing legal challenges from Republicans who say it is unconstitutional — has left the Senate more polarized than ever and created a climate in which the courts could easily become an election issue.

For the court, Justice Stevens’s departure will be the end of an era. He is the longest-serving justice by more than a decade, and he is the last remaining justice to have served in World War II. (He joined the Navy, where he served as a cryptographer, the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked.) His leaving will not, however, change the composition of the court; although he was appointed in 1975 by President Gerald R. Ford, a Republican, he has become one of its most reliably liberal members during his nearly 35-year tenure, as the court drifted ever rightward.

Still, for Mr. Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago (where he was a colleague of Judge Wood), the vacancy is an unmistakable chance to put his stamp on the direction the court takes for the next several decades. Mr. Obama is already engaged in an unusual public confrontation with the court over its recent decision in the Citizens United case, which lifted strict limits on corporate spending in elections. On Friday, during a brief appearance in the Rose Garden, he made clear that the case was very much on his mind.

He vowed to “move quickly” in announcing a nominee. Senior advisers said they expected a decision within the next several weeks. The president said he would look for a candidate who possessed what he described as qualities similar to that of Justice Stevens: “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I consider the first two choices unacceptable. Garland appears moderate-right, and Kagan appears moderate. Either of them might be acceptable as a replacement for one of the right wing extremists, but not for Stevens. Just to preserve the present imbalance we need a progressive capable of assuming Steven’s leadership role.

Wood might fill the bill. I’ll need to investigate her background further.

Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley discuss Steven’s impact and potential nominees.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Unless Obama appoints someone unacceptable to progressives, a GOP Filibuster is almost certain. Their objection is likely to focus on health care reform.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee tasked with hearings for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, today offered a strong hint about the direction Republicans may take toward the president’s choice.

Sessions (R-AL) used his statement to criticize Obama’s "empathy" standard for selecting Sonia Sotomayor last year for the high court.

But one sentence especially stood out: "There is much at stake, as the court’s interpretation of the Constitution in the coming years could significantly affect the implementation of domestic polices approved by the president and Congress over the past year."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

Rachel Maddow offered two clips worth adding. In the first she analyzes the historical background.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

She was certainly correct about the fundraising. I’ve received a dozen emails already.

In the second, she and Dahlia Lithwick discuss the balance of the court.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Once again, unless we get a strong progressive Justice, the imbalance on the court will only be worse.

If I had the choice, who would I pick? I’m not sure, yet. However, a seemingly unrelated news story may be significant.

President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has withdrawn her bid for confirmation, after several Republicans objected to her criticism of the Bush administration’s terrorist interrogation policies.

Dawn Johnsen’s withdrawal – a setback for the Obama administration – was announced late Friday by the White House on a day the capital’s legal and political elites were absorbed in the news that Justice John Paul Stevens would retire from the Supreme Court.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had recommended Johnsen’s confirmation on party-line votes. But several Republicans objected to her sharp criticisms of terrorist interrogation policies under President George W. Bush, and the full Senate never voted on her nomination.

The decision about who should lead the little-known office became a political flashpoint because of the controversies surrounding Bush-era interrogations of terror suspects.

During the Bush administration, lawyers at the OLC wrote memos approving interrogation techniques that human rights advocates call torture. Those methods included waterboarding, or simulated drowning.

Lawyers who worked on those legal opinions were investigated for years but ultimately the Justice Department decided their actions were the result of poor judgement, not professional misconduct.

In announcing Johnsen’s withdrawal, both she and the White House blamed what they called politically motivated opposition… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

I’m almost afraid to hope that the vacancy on the Court and Johnson withdrawing her name on the same day is not a coincidence. Does Obama have sufficient courage to nominate her or someone like her? God, I pray that he does!

The argument for appointing a moderate is that the GOP will filibuster a lefty. In my opinion, they are likely to filibuster a moderate too. To be sure of a smooth confirmation, Obama would have to nominate a rabid right activist.

Rather than that, there is a better alternative. I have discussed the nuclear option before. I’m sure I will be discussing it in detail again. For now, I’ll just let the graphic say it.

What Fox Thinks of Europeans

Posted by TomCat at 5:27 am Politics

Apr 102010

The audacity of this view matches its lack of integrity.

Last night, while debating raising taxes on the wealthy with radio host Mark Levine, Fox Business host Stuart Varney claimed that progressive tax policies will turn us into Europeans, who are “a pack of Pagan losers”:

VARNEY: Europe is paralyzed with debt, subject to massive entitlement programs, and riddle with anxiety. We are going down that road with our taxation policies. And once we enact a VAT, a hidden sales tax, we’ll go even further down that road. It is profoundly un-American. We’re going to resemble Europeans, who are essentially, a pack of Pagan losers. And I don’t want to go in that direction!

Watch it:

Varney’s claim is ironic, given the fact that the Fox Business host is British-born and a graduate of the London School of Economics. [Faux Noise delinked] It should be noted that Western Europeans enjoy a lower poverty rate, an economy nearly as large as China and the United States combined, much more generous worker benefits and vacation time, and a higher per capita GDP growth rate than the United States. [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

What else would we expect from the GOP Reichsministry of Propaganda?

I assure our European Readers that the bulk of Americans do not share this insanity.

It’s Not Just Mine Safety

Posted by TomCat at 5:26 am Politics

Apr 102010

Years of GOP deregulation of safety standards for workers has brought us to this.

The nation’s attention may be focused on the mine explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, but around the country, 16 people die every day from preventable injuries and accidents in the workplace. This video from Brave New Films looks at the regulations that exist–and new regulations that would help Hilda Solis’s labor department better protect working people in the U.S.

Inserted from <Grit TV>

Every Republican in office is one republican too many.

Older Entries Newer Entries