A careful search of the web reveals that the main argument advanced is that the tax endangers family farms. But they are not arguing for a greater exemption before the tax takes its bite. They are arguing for total repeal as though a “family farm” might be worth an infinite amount and they use hysterical, false claims to support their drive. Yet, amazingly enough they have found supporters even among main street groups. In 2005, long before the Bush repeal was to take effect in full, the American Family Business Institute and Free Enterprise Fund announced a $15 million campaign. Its radio ad, which ran in Montana, and was to be replicated in numerous other states, including New York, had the announcer intone the following:
“You work hard all your life. You pay your taxes and play by the rules, and, yeah, you're proud of what you've accomplished. You'd like to leave your family farm or business to your kids. It's a legacy, something they can hold onto. It's the American dream, right? But the IRS death tax can turn that dream into a nightmare. When you die, the IRS can bury YOUR FAMILY in crippling tax bills. IT CAN COST THEM EVERYTHING. What's worse, the death tax is a double tax on all you've worked to build. The death tax is wrong. It's unfair. And this year, Montana's family business owners and farmers have joined together to kill this unjust tax, before it destroys one more family legacy.” (Caps added for emphasis)
What is the truth? The likelihood that many who heard that ad would be affected is extremely small.
Less than 3% of deceased adults in 2002 (before any of the Bush tax cuts went into effect) had estates subject to the tax, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and figures from the IRS. As for “Cost them everything,” of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million. Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid an average effective rate of just over 22 percent. No one no matter how rich could lose “everything.”
But it isn’t even a matter any more of going back to the quite reasonable tax rates that Bush inherited. Obama’s plan is to set the exemption at $3.5 million per person ($7 million for couples), which means that all but the very wealthy would be exempt from any inheritance tax at all, and the top marginal rate on a graduated basis would only be 45% reducing the average effective rate to well under 22%
But the opponents are not satisfied with such generous reduction in tax. They will settle for nothing short of repeal and they will run the most incendiary and misleading ads to further their goals. Here is a TV ad that ran in 2005.
“Announcer: They freed the world from tyranny, then came home to build family businesses and farms. Heroes in war and peace. They paid taxes all their lives, but now the IRS hits this "Greatest Generation" with an unjust double tax, the death tax.”
(Voice of a supposed WWII Vet) “In war and peace, my generation stood up for what's right. Join us now and help us end the unfair death tax.”
The TV ad featured World War II veterans from the popular HBO series “Band of Brothers,” Actually; of course, WWII vets are not likely to be subject to the estate tax when they die. The estates of veterans and non-veterans alike owed taxes only on amounts exceeding $1.5 million in 2005. How many veterans are likely to have an estate of that size, and under Obama’s plan the exemption would go to $7 million per couple, and then the tax rate would only gradually escalate.
As for the double tax argument, I have already dealt with this in previous discussions. First of all the rich are escaping without paying any capital gains tax at all, because unrealized capital gains escape capital gains taxation when passed onto heirs, and secondly as I have pointed out all taxes are in one way or another double taxation.
But none of this fazes the repeal lobby that represents the very rich such as the Walton family, who own Walmart. They continue to hide behind the phony argument about family farms. For instance deltafarms.com posted this on the web in November of 2008.
“To exemplify how this can affect a family farm, look at how the varying estate tax rates over the next three years impact a 2,500-acre farm valued at $2,500 per acre. With structural improvements and equipment accounting for an additional 15 percent of value, the total estate would be worth $7,187,500.”
I don’t know about a family farm of 2,500 acres. I wonder how many family farms are that large, if any. But Obama has even taken the wind out of their sails. An exemption of $7 million per couple would take care even of this very wealthy estate.
So the Estate tax as now proposed effects only the very richest at the top of our increasingly stratified society. It seems self evident that the Obama plan is far too generous to those who want to build and maintain a permanent aristocracy in America.
Finally we need to focus on the effect of a repeal. According to the Center on Budget Policy Priorities the estate tax encourages billions of dollars in charitable donations each year since donations substantially reduce the tax on large estates and its repeal would cost more than $1 trillion over the first ten years, 2012-2021, in which its cost would be fully felt.
Given these facts it is incredible that there are those who still would advocate this drastic radical idea.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Estate Tax
The Estate Tax, like the Graduated Income Tax and the Capital Gains Tax, has been under attack for many years by “conservative groups.” I always have difficulty with the media’s use of this appellation for it is inherently misleading. A “Conservative,” as the term implies, wishes to conserve. He/she opposes innovation, or at least is cautious about it, but reveres that which is established. But as I have shown when they attack the Graduated Income Tax or the Capital Gains Tax, they attack systems that have been with us for a century and a half. That is not conservative! That is as radical as one can get.
This history applies equally to the Estate Tax if not more so. It was as early as 1797 not long after the constitution was ratified, that Congress imposed a “legacy tax.” It was repealed in 1802. In 1862 Congress enacted an inheritance tax and repealed it in 1870. In 1898 an inheritance tax was again passed and repealed in 1902. In each of these cases the sole purpose of the tax was to raise revenue, usually to finance wars, which is why they were repealed when the funds were no longer needed. But until 1916, the US, unlike European and South American countries, did not have a landed aristocracy or an inherited concentration of wealth. In 1916 money was needed to finance World War I but there was also a concern with the increasing concentration of wealth, or as the House Ways and Means Committee put it the tax was needed to deal, “in part (with) concentrations of inherited wealth.”
Nevertheless, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, who McCain lauded as the President he most admires, said as early as 1907, "A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."
In 1935 Franklin Roosevelt proposed to Congress that they pass both an estate and an inheritance tax but only the estate tax passed the Congress and it went unchallenged until the year 2000. Even during the Reagan years the tax went unchallenged. But in 2000 a major drive to repeal both the Estate tax and the Gift tax was undertaken. It was backed by the wealthiest in our society, who using that wealth mounted a campaign full of misleading and outright false claims. One of the things I personally remember were radio ads that purported to be from financial advisors warning people that unless they sought estate planning they risked having their estate confiscated. Secondly, other groups mounted a campaign that family farms and small businesses were being endangered and that many would have to sell their farms/businesses in order to pay the taxes. The campaign was so effective that when HR 8 the Death Tax Elimination Act Came up for a vote in the House it passed by a vote of 279 to 136 without a dissenting Republican vote and 65 Democrats voting for it. The bill did not pass because President Clinton vetoed it and there were not enough votes to override his veto. The Office of Management and Budget in warning Congress that President Clinton would veto the bill, said in part, “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 8, which would repeal the estate and gift taxes. Repeal of these taxes would be fiscally unwise, would reduce the overall fairness and progressivity of the tax system, and would harm charitable giving. The President would veto this legislation repealing the estate and gift taxes if it were presented to him.
“The Administration believes that such a tax reduction would harm the important priorities of maintaining fiscal discipline, paying down the national debt, extending the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, and maintaining core government functions such as education and fighting crime. The Administration estimates that this legislation, when fully phased in, would cost close to $50 billion annually, far more than the stated costs of the bill, because most of the cost is delayed to beyond the first five years.
“While the Administration supports appropriately targeted estate tax relief for small business and family farms, a tiny fraction of the tax relief provided under this measure accrues to these important sectors of the Nation's economy. Only the wealthiest two percent of all estates pay any estate tax at all. The estate tax promotes the integrity and fairness of the overall tax system by acting as a backstop to the income tax, ensuring that even income on which income tax is deferred or avoided is ultimately subject to at least some tax. In addition, recent studies suggest that repeal of the estate tax could reduce charitable gifts and bequests by close to $6 billion annually.
“The Administration worked with the Congress in 1997 to lift the burden of the estate tax on the vast majority of small businesses and family farms. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 raised the effective deduction for qualified family-owned business interests to $1.3 million ($2.6 million for a couple), which exempts almost all family farms and small businesses from the estate tax. Current law also allows small businesses and farms to exclude part of the value of real property used in their operations. Those few businesses and farms that are subject to this tax can pay it in installments over 14 years at below-market interest rates.”
I quote this at length because it sums up the case against repeal so well that I feel I cannot possibly improve upon it.
I want to specifically discuss some of the arguments made for repeal and rebut them, but that will have to wait for my next exposition. Let me close here by quoting Louis Brandeis, a highly distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court who served from 1916 to 1939 and who said "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
In my opinion this should be self-evident, particularly at a time when we see both the power and abuse of great wealth.
This history applies equally to the Estate Tax if not more so. It was as early as 1797 not long after the constitution was ratified, that Congress imposed a “legacy tax.” It was repealed in 1802. In 1862 Congress enacted an inheritance tax and repealed it in 1870. In 1898 an inheritance tax was again passed and repealed in 1902. In each of these cases the sole purpose of the tax was to raise revenue, usually to finance wars, which is why they were repealed when the funds were no longer needed. But until 1916, the US, unlike European and South American countries, did not have a landed aristocracy or an inherited concentration of wealth. In 1916 money was needed to finance World War I but there was also a concern with the increasing concentration of wealth, or as the House Ways and Means Committee put it the tax was needed to deal, “in part (with) concentrations of inherited wealth.”
Nevertheless, Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, who McCain lauded as the President he most admires, said as early as 1907, "A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood."
In 1935 Franklin Roosevelt proposed to Congress that they pass both an estate and an inheritance tax but only the estate tax passed the Congress and it went unchallenged until the year 2000. Even during the Reagan years the tax went unchallenged. But in 2000 a major drive to repeal both the Estate tax and the Gift tax was undertaken. It was backed by the wealthiest in our society, who using that wealth mounted a campaign full of misleading and outright false claims. One of the things I personally remember were radio ads that purported to be from financial advisors warning people that unless they sought estate planning they risked having their estate confiscated. Secondly, other groups mounted a campaign that family farms and small businesses were being endangered and that many would have to sell their farms/businesses in order to pay the taxes. The campaign was so effective that when HR 8 the Death Tax Elimination Act Came up for a vote in the House it passed by a vote of 279 to 136 without a dissenting Republican vote and 65 Democrats voting for it. The bill did not pass because President Clinton vetoed it and there were not enough votes to override his veto. The Office of Management and Budget in warning Congress that President Clinton would veto the bill, said in part, “The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 8, which would repeal the estate and gift taxes. Repeal of these taxes would be fiscally unwise, would reduce the overall fairness and progressivity of the tax system, and would harm charitable giving. The President would veto this legislation repealing the estate and gift taxes if it were presented to him.
“The Administration believes that such a tax reduction would harm the important priorities of maintaining fiscal discipline, paying down the national debt, extending the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, and maintaining core government functions such as education and fighting crime. The Administration estimates that this legislation, when fully phased in, would cost close to $50 billion annually, far more than the stated costs of the bill, because most of the cost is delayed to beyond the first five years.
“While the Administration supports appropriately targeted estate tax relief for small business and family farms, a tiny fraction of the tax relief provided under this measure accrues to these important sectors of the Nation's economy. Only the wealthiest two percent of all estates pay any estate tax at all. The estate tax promotes the integrity and fairness of the overall tax system by acting as a backstop to the income tax, ensuring that even income on which income tax is deferred or avoided is ultimately subject to at least some tax. In addition, recent studies suggest that repeal of the estate tax could reduce charitable gifts and bequests by close to $6 billion annually.
“The Administration worked with the Congress in 1997 to lift the burden of the estate tax on the vast majority of small businesses and family farms. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 raised the effective deduction for qualified family-owned business interests to $1.3 million ($2.6 million for a couple), which exempts almost all family farms and small businesses from the estate tax. Current law also allows small businesses and farms to exclude part of the value of real property used in their operations. Those few businesses and farms that are subject to this tax can pay it in installments over 14 years at below-market interest rates.”
I quote this at length because it sums up the case against repeal so well that I feel I cannot possibly improve upon it.
I want to specifically discuss some of the arguments made for repeal and rebut them, but that will have to wait for my next exposition. Let me close here by quoting Louis Brandeis, a highly distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court who served from 1916 to 1939 and who said "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
In my opinion this should be self-evident, particularly at a time when we see both the power and abuse of great wealth.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Capital Gains Tax
In my last commentary entitled, “The Graduated Income Tax," I pointed out that the reason the very rich pay a large percentage of our taxes is because they have most of the income and most of the wealth, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots gets ever greater. I showed that the graduated income tax only closes the gap a miniscule amount since after tax income shows only a slight closing of that gap.
I quoted Warren Buffett as pointing out that in the final analysis despite our theoretical graduated income tax, his marginal tax rate is 17.7 % on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at a marginal tax rate of 30%.
While many provisions of the tax code play a part in this, I have little doubt that a major reason is the favorable treatment given capital gains. It has often been said that America has a Protestant work ethic that places special value on work, and everyone in American society has an obligation to “work.” This, however, is not reflected in our tax system, for here we penalize work with a substantially higher tax rate than passive income, i.e. income earned without work. At the moment earned income is taxed at a marginal tax rate of 35% on incomes over $357,000, (This is extremely low by historical standards. Between 1941 and 1945 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top marginal rate of 94 percent.) but unearned income or capital gains (if held for more than a year) and dividends are taxed at 15%. I submit that there is no justifiable reason to tax unearned income at a rate below that for income, which is earned by actually working. While people at the lower end of the income scale often make a small percentage of their income from capital gains, those with high incomes, who often have never made a cent in their lives by the sweat of their brow, or even from intellectual effort, having often inherited their wealth, make the bulk of their income from unearned income. Furthermore, they have every opportunity to cheat even from this minimum burden, for while the wage earner has his income reported to the IRS by his employer, the investor is on his honor when reporting the cost of his asset, (stock or other) and can easily inflate his cost (“basis” in tax lingo) and even misrepresent the date of the acquisition to gain long term status (assets held less than a year don’t get this favorable treatment). Under present Internal Revenue law the broker must report the sale of stock to the IRS, but he is not required to report a purchase. Thus the IRS has no way of knowing whether tax evasion is occurring short of an audit, which is rare. I strongly urge, (and I am sorely disappointed that no major columnist or candidate has addressed this issue) that brokers and other sellers of assets, including real estate agents, be required to report the purchase and sale of all assets subject to tax.
I also believe that the present system which taxes capital gains only when the asset is sold (realized capital gain) distorts the capital markets. It is far better for the capital markets to function when the only consideration is to maximize ones gains or minimize ones losses, without tax consideration being a major factor in decision making. This becomes particularly egregious when one considers that the wealthy can postpone selling their assets indefinitely if they want to avoid paying taxes, while those in lesser financial positions must frequently sell to meet expenses, particularly after retirement. I believe that it would be far better if the value of the asset be assessed at the end of the taxable year (easily done with stocks and bonds) and that to the extent that the value of the asset has increased or decreased be used as the taxable gain or loss minus an allowance for inflation. It becomes an outright scandal when we consider that those who can afford to not sell their assets before they pass away, can avoid paying a capital gains tax altogether on their gains, since their heirs get the assets with a basis, not as of acquisition, but as of the death of the legator thus escaping ALL capital gains taxes.
Those who generally argue for reducing the tax burden on those who can best carry it maintain that dividends and capital gains are different from other income and not only deserve favored treatment but should be exempt from all taxation. Their arguments are so that numerous that it is difficult to set them all forth even without pointing out their fallacies, but let me attempt to cover at least the most prominent ones within the circumscribed length of this article. See here.
1.) “High effective capital gains rates reduce the capital stock and lower growth and productivity.” I discussed this in my previous article on the income tax. More capital will not be deployed unless there is consumer demand, which according to the Wall Street Journal accounts for 70% of GDP.
2.) “Capital gains taxes encourage a "lock-in" effect that discourages investors from selling their assets.” I think there is merit in this, which is why I advocate taxing all gains at the end of each fiscal year instead of at the time of sale.
3.) “Capital gains are not income -- as the Supreme Court held for many years, and even after the passage of the 16th Amendment.” This is more a reflection on the makeup of the Supreme Court than an argument and the Supreme Court has long since reversed this erroneous holding.
4.) “Capital gains are already taxed more than once through the corporate and personal income tax -- and taxing appreciating stocks or real estate can be a third layer of taxation.” This is the favored argument not only for not taxing capital gains and dividends, but for not taxing estates, but it is nonsensical, because ALL taxation is of a multiple nature. When a worker’s pay is taxed is it double taxation because that money was already taxed when the corporation earned it? Is it double taxation when a worker is taxed and then pays a portion to his grocer, who is taxed, who then pays his doctor, who is taxed, who pays his landlord who is taxed? The whole point of taxes, and the only way it can work, is that money, or any asset, is taxed every time it changes hands. What the corporation earns is taxed and when it passes those earnings to its stockholders it is taxed - it has changed hands. An even better illustration is the real estate tax where the same piece of property is taxed year after year. If it were otherwise the government would get a tax once and never again.
5.) “Lowering capital gains taxes substantially raises tax collections and increases tax payments by the rich” (Source) This is true in the short run but untrue in the long term, or as Professor Richard Serlin of the University of Arizona put it, “When there is a cut in the capital gains tax rate, there is an incentive to sell the stock then, and get the lower tax rate before a new administration raises it again. Thus, when the capital gains tax is cut, there is a rush of investors selling stocks to pay their capital gains taxes now, when the rate is law, rather than later when the rate may be raised back up. Capital gains tax revenue to the government thus may go up now, but it will go down later, and it will go down overall.”
But logic is not the strong point of the advocates of reverse taxation, i.e. placing the greatest tax burden on those who make the least, who are to be grateful for the opportunity to serve those who make the most.
I quoted Warren Buffett as pointing out that in the final analysis despite our theoretical graduated income tax, his marginal tax rate is 17.7 % on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at a marginal tax rate of 30%.
While many provisions of the tax code play a part in this, I have little doubt that a major reason is the favorable treatment given capital gains. It has often been said that America has a Protestant work ethic that places special value on work, and everyone in American society has an obligation to “work.” This, however, is not reflected in our tax system, for here we penalize work with a substantially higher tax rate than passive income, i.e. income earned without work. At the moment earned income is taxed at a marginal tax rate of 35% on incomes over $357,000, (This is extremely low by historical standards. Between 1941 and 1945 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top marginal rate of 94 percent.) but unearned income or capital gains (if held for more than a year) and dividends are taxed at 15%. I submit that there is no justifiable reason to tax unearned income at a rate below that for income, which is earned by actually working. While people at the lower end of the income scale often make a small percentage of their income from capital gains, those with high incomes, who often have never made a cent in their lives by the sweat of their brow, or even from intellectual effort, having often inherited their wealth, make the bulk of their income from unearned income. Furthermore, they have every opportunity to cheat even from this minimum burden, for while the wage earner has his income reported to the IRS by his employer, the investor is on his honor when reporting the cost of his asset, (stock or other) and can easily inflate his cost (“basis” in tax lingo) and even misrepresent the date of the acquisition to gain long term status (assets held less than a year don’t get this favorable treatment). Under present Internal Revenue law the broker must report the sale of stock to the IRS, but he is not required to report a purchase. Thus the IRS has no way of knowing whether tax evasion is occurring short of an audit, which is rare. I strongly urge, (and I am sorely disappointed that no major columnist or candidate has addressed this issue) that brokers and other sellers of assets, including real estate agents, be required to report the purchase and sale of all assets subject to tax.
I also believe that the present system which taxes capital gains only when the asset is sold (realized capital gain) distorts the capital markets. It is far better for the capital markets to function when the only consideration is to maximize ones gains or minimize ones losses, without tax consideration being a major factor in decision making. This becomes particularly egregious when one considers that the wealthy can postpone selling their assets indefinitely if they want to avoid paying taxes, while those in lesser financial positions must frequently sell to meet expenses, particularly after retirement. I believe that it would be far better if the value of the asset be assessed at the end of the taxable year (easily done with stocks and bonds) and that to the extent that the value of the asset has increased or decreased be used as the taxable gain or loss minus an allowance for inflation. It becomes an outright scandal when we consider that those who can afford to not sell their assets before they pass away, can avoid paying a capital gains tax altogether on their gains, since their heirs get the assets with a basis, not as of acquisition, but as of the death of the legator thus escaping ALL capital gains taxes.
Those who generally argue for reducing the tax burden on those who can best carry it maintain that dividends and capital gains are different from other income and not only deserve favored treatment but should be exempt from all taxation. Their arguments are so that numerous that it is difficult to set them all forth even without pointing out their fallacies, but let me attempt to cover at least the most prominent ones within the circumscribed length of this article. See here.
1.) “High effective capital gains rates reduce the capital stock and lower growth and productivity.” I discussed this in my previous article on the income tax. More capital will not be deployed unless there is consumer demand, which according to the Wall Street Journal accounts for 70% of GDP.
2.) “Capital gains taxes encourage a "lock-in" effect that discourages investors from selling their assets.” I think there is merit in this, which is why I advocate taxing all gains at the end of each fiscal year instead of at the time of sale.
3.) “Capital gains are not income -- as the Supreme Court held for many years, and even after the passage of the 16th Amendment.” This is more a reflection on the makeup of the Supreme Court than an argument and the Supreme Court has long since reversed this erroneous holding.
4.) “Capital gains are already taxed more than once through the corporate and personal income tax -- and taxing appreciating stocks or real estate can be a third layer of taxation.” This is the favored argument not only for not taxing capital gains and dividends, but for not taxing estates, but it is nonsensical, because ALL taxation is of a multiple nature. When a worker’s pay is taxed is it double taxation because that money was already taxed when the corporation earned it? Is it double taxation when a worker is taxed and then pays a portion to his grocer, who is taxed, who then pays his doctor, who is taxed, who pays his landlord who is taxed? The whole point of taxes, and the only way it can work, is that money, or any asset, is taxed every time it changes hands. What the corporation earns is taxed and when it passes those earnings to its stockholders it is taxed - it has changed hands. An even better illustration is the real estate tax where the same piece of property is taxed year after year. If it were otherwise the government would get a tax once and never again.
5.) “Lowering capital gains taxes substantially raises tax collections and increases tax payments by the rich” (Source) This is true in the short run but untrue in the long term, or as Professor Richard Serlin of the University of Arizona put it, “When there is a cut in the capital gains tax rate, there is an incentive to sell the stock then, and get the lower tax rate before a new administration raises it again. Thus, when the capital gains tax is cut, there is a rush of investors selling stocks to pay their capital gains taxes now, when the rate is law, rather than later when the rate may be raised back up. Capital gains tax revenue to the government thus may go up now, but it will go down later, and it will go down overall.”
But logic is not the strong point of the advocates of reverse taxation, i.e. placing the greatest tax burden on those who make the least, who are to be grateful for the opportunity to serve those who make the most.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
The Graduated Income Tax System
In my last commentary I discussed at length the history of the graduated income tax in the US and demonstrated that far from being a new socialist, or European idea, it had been with us for almost one and a half centuries and is as American as apple pie.
The radical opponents of this time honored idea (and I call them radicals rather than conservatives because it is hardly conservative to try to abolish a system that has been so time honored) argue that there is something wrong with a large portion of the population not paying any tax or even for a small portion of the populace to pay the bulk of the taxes. They chose to ignore the old axiom; “you can’t get blood from a stone.”
Beyond that they pretend that it is offensive to the principles of Capitalism, apparently being unaware that Adam Smith, the early apostle of capitalism, wrote in 1776 in his seminal treaty on capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” It is rather interesting to note that Adam Smith espoused a graduated tax.
But none of this deters our modern radicals from proclaiming the unfairness of that which is both practical and just. Ari Fleisher, George W. Bush’s former press secretary for example wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal of April 16, 2007, “The income tax system is so bad, and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40% of the country's households -- more than 44 million adults -- pay no income taxes at all. Not a penny.” I do not know whether this is accurate, but even if it is, it is not true that it is “INCREASINGLY reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills.” As I demonstrated in my previous article, according to the US Treasury department, our tax system as early as 1860 relied on a small number of the wealthy to pay the taxes and under the law of 1923 less than 1% of the population were expected to pay any tax at all. Fleisher goes on to complain that the richest (I assume he doesn’t mean the richest, but rather those with the largest taxable income since income taxes are based on income and not on wealth) 1% of Americans pay 37% of all our taxes. 10% of taxpayers pay 71% and 40% pay 99%. He goes on to complain that those who make under $43,200 carry only .09% of the income tax burden. Again I don’t know whether these figures are accurate, but assuming that they are, what does Mr. Fleisher propose, that we double the tax on people who often work two jobs and barely have enough to pay their rent, their medical bills, put food on the table and educate their children. But of course these people pay much more taxes than Mr. Fleisher gives them credit for, since they not only pay federal income taxes, but payroll taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, excise taxes and possibly local income taxes as well. Our tax system has over the years become not more progressive, but rather much more regressive and Mr. Fleisher and his cohorts, against all precedent, want to tax the have-nots more and more so that the billionaires, who are increasing their wealth as a percentage of the total wealth in the country, and whose after tax income is steadily increasing, can accumulate even more. But even this remains misleading, for the rich make most of their income from capital gains, which are not taxed to the same extent as income made from the sweat of one’s brow.
In order to see the extent of the gap in the income of Americans the following figures from the US Census bureau are instructive: The top 20% of Americans make 49.7% of total income. The next quintile made 23.3%. The middle quintile 14.8% or to put it another way the top 60% made 87.8 percent of total income in the US. The bottom 40% made 12.3% of income.
One can easily see that even if we had a flat tax, with everyone regardless of income paying the same percentage, the top 20% of earners would still be paying almost 50% of the federal income taxes. And while the graduated income tax is often described as redistributing income, it does so rather ineffectively, if at all, as can be seen from the figures below showing income distribution after taxes. As can be seen the difference for after tax income is miniscule. The top 20% have 46.2% of income, the next quintile have 22.3%, the middle 15.6%, the bottom 40% end up with 16%.
As for wealth as opposed to income, according to Forbes - September 17, 2008 edition - to become one of the 400 of the richest people in America one has to have a net income of $1.3 billion. Over the past year their combined wealth increased by $1.57 billion. The richest has a net value of $57 billion and would be worth $90 billion if he had not given away much of it to charity. The second richest is Warren Buffet with $50 billion, who had this to say about our tax system, when addressing a group of 400 wealthy individuals, “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
Not only are the rich not being overtaxed, it appears that the richer you are the smaller the percentage of your income goes to pay federal taxes. While we appear to have a graduated income tax, the lower capital gains tax more than makes up for this discrepancy, as do the innumerable tax deferrals and exemptions available only to the rich.
Even with some small restoration of fairness, as proposed by President elect Obama, we will be a long way from restoring our traditional graduated tax system, which has kept us from becoming a class structured society, and has kept us economically successful.
The radical opponents of this time honored idea (and I call them radicals rather than conservatives because it is hardly conservative to try to abolish a system that has been so time honored) argue that there is something wrong with a large portion of the population not paying any tax or even for a small portion of the populace to pay the bulk of the taxes. They chose to ignore the old axiom; “you can’t get blood from a stone.”
Beyond that they pretend that it is offensive to the principles of Capitalism, apparently being unaware that Adam Smith, the early apostle of capitalism, wrote in 1776 in his seminal treaty on capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” It is rather interesting to note that Adam Smith espoused a graduated tax.
But none of this deters our modern radicals from proclaiming the unfairness of that which is both practical and just. Ari Fleisher, George W. Bush’s former press secretary for example wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal of April 16, 2007, “The income tax system is so bad, and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40% of the country's households -- more than 44 million adults -- pay no income taxes at all. Not a penny.” I do not know whether this is accurate, but even if it is, it is not true that it is “INCREASINGLY reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills.” As I demonstrated in my previous article, according to the US Treasury department, our tax system as early as 1860 relied on a small number of the wealthy to pay the taxes and under the law of 1923 less than 1% of the population were expected to pay any tax at all. Fleisher goes on to complain that the richest (I assume he doesn’t mean the richest, but rather those with the largest taxable income since income taxes are based on income and not on wealth) 1% of Americans pay 37% of all our taxes. 10% of taxpayers pay 71% and 40% pay 99%. He goes on to complain that those who make under $43,200 carry only .09% of the income tax burden. Again I don’t know whether these figures are accurate, but assuming that they are, what does Mr. Fleisher propose, that we double the tax on people who often work two jobs and barely have enough to pay their rent, their medical bills, put food on the table and educate their children. But of course these people pay much more taxes than Mr. Fleisher gives them credit for, since they not only pay federal income taxes, but payroll taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, excise taxes and possibly local income taxes as well. Our tax system has over the years become not more progressive, but rather much more regressive and Mr. Fleisher and his cohorts, against all precedent, want to tax the have-nots more and more so that the billionaires, who are increasing their wealth as a percentage of the total wealth in the country, and whose after tax income is steadily increasing, can accumulate even more. But even this remains misleading, for the rich make most of their income from capital gains, which are not taxed to the same extent as income made from the sweat of one’s brow.
In order to see the extent of the gap in the income of Americans the following figures from the US Census bureau are instructive: The top 20% of Americans make 49.7% of total income. The next quintile made 23.3%. The middle quintile 14.8% or to put it another way the top 60% made 87.8 percent of total income in the US. The bottom 40% made 12.3% of income.
One can easily see that even if we had a flat tax, with everyone regardless of income paying the same percentage, the top 20% of earners would still be paying almost 50% of the federal income taxes. And while the graduated income tax is often described as redistributing income, it does so rather ineffectively, if at all, as can be seen from the figures below showing income distribution after taxes. As can be seen the difference for after tax income is miniscule. The top 20% have 46.2% of income, the next quintile have 22.3%, the middle 15.6%, the bottom 40% end up with 16%.
As for wealth as opposed to income, according to Forbes - September 17, 2008 edition - to become one of the 400 of the richest people in America one has to have a net income of $1.3 billion. Over the past year their combined wealth increased by $1.57 billion. The richest has a net value of $57 billion and would be worth $90 billion if he had not given away much of it to charity. The second richest is Warren Buffet with $50 billion, who had this to say about our tax system, when addressing a group of 400 wealthy individuals, “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.
Not only are the rich not being overtaxed, it appears that the richer you are the smaller the percentage of your income goes to pay federal taxes. While we appear to have a graduated income tax, the lower capital gains tax more than makes up for this discrepancy, as do the innumerable tax deferrals and exemptions available only to the rich.
Even with some small restoration of fairness, as proposed by President elect Obama, we will be a long way from restoring our traditional graduated tax system, which has kept us from becoming a class structured society, and has kept us economically successful.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Joe the Plumber or The Graduated Income Tax
Joe the Plumber! What was that about anyway? They never told us in so many words. Joe complained that he might have to pay more taxes if he ended up making more than $250,000. Why would that be wrong? They quoted Obama as saying, “Spread the wealth.” What is wrong with that? McCain said, “I want to grow the wealth, not spread it.” Are the two contradictory? The campaign is over and one might ask why am I focusing on something that happened in the campaign? The answer is that these issues don’t disappear when a campaign ends. They are the stuff that guides policy.
A campaign is conducted with catch words that are believed to have emotional appeal. They usually have a subtext. The basic subtext in this case was that a graduated income tax is wrong. There was also a suggestion that a graduated tax, or at least making the tax slightly more graduated, was socialistic or European.
Why should we penalize people for success? Why should we “soak the rich?” But that misses the point. The purpose is not to penalize people for success or to “soak the rich” but rather to raise the huge amounts of money that the US Treasury needs to pay its bills, and the money can only be gotten from people who have it. A flat tax, as is advocated by many Republicans, led by Steve Forbes, would mean a tax that would be devastating on people with small, or even moderate incomes. For that reason our income tax has always been a graduated one. As for it being socialistic or European, a graduated income tax is as American as apple pie.
Our first income tax was passed in 1861 to pay for the costs of the Civil War. It was set at a flat 3% but it exempted all incomes under $800. - (Source - The US Treasury for this and all other statements which are not otherwise sourced) - Thus even then there was a recognition that only people making above a certain amount could fairly be taxed. The census data show that the average factory wage in 1860 was about $20/mo. or $240/year compared with a median farm profit of about $150/year in Wayne County. The appropriate inflation factor is 175, as is discussed in the article at an earlier point, the equivalent factory wage today would be $42,000/year. (The 1860 Census Of Manufacuring By Gerald K. Moore)
Thus even then there was a recognition that only people making substantially more than three times the average factory wage should bear this tax burden. The tax was on the rich. In 1862 this was refined. A two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 (it is presumed that the $800 exemption was retained) taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent. A standard deduction of $600 was enacted and a variety of deductions were permitted for such things as rental housing, repairs, losses, and other taxes paid. In addition, to assure timely collection, taxes were "withheld at the source" by employers. It is remarkable that our first attempt at an income tax so closely resembled the graduated taxes of today and this was enacted long before any European or Socialist entity even conceived of the idea. At the end of the war the income tax was repealed because the need for the revenue was no longer needed, but its constitutionality was never challenged.
In 1894 increasing revenue was again needed, and a new income tax law was passed, but this time it was challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional because Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution provided that taxes have to be apportioned, “among the several States … according to their respective Numbers… It took until 1913 before the 16th amendment to the Constitution was passed, which removed this obstacle. In October of 1923, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid an income tax at the time. As can be seen, throughout our history it was assumed that the tax burden must be born by those who could afford it, limiting the tax to the richest 1% and using a graduated tax to make sure that the richest paid the largest percent.
With World War I again requiring greater revenue Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act raised the lowest tax rate from 1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to 15 percent on taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1.5 million. The 1916 Act also imposed taxes on estates (now referred to by its opponents as the death tax) and excess business profits. In 1916, a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent. Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent. (It should be noted that those with incomes over 1.5 million had a marginal tax of 77%) Only 55% of the population paid any income tax. The burden was entirely born by those deemed able to afford it. During World War II taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent.
Throughout the 1950s tax policy was increasingly seen as a tool stabilizing macroeconomic activity. The economy remained subject to frequent boom and bust cycles and many policymakers readily accepted the new economic policy of raising or lowering taxes and spending to adjust aggregate demand and thereby smooth the business cycle. This is what is generally known as Keynesian economics and during the Presidency of Richard Nixon he famously said, “We are all Keynesians now.” (The Cato Institute)
In any case as can be seen Republican claims that a graduated income tax is either new, or too high for the rich, or that taxes should be cut all the time and never raised, have no historical basis, and their claim that the are somehow un-American, European or Socialist have no basis in fact.
One of the reasons among many that we are now in the serious financial and economic crisis is that we increasingly abandoned Keynesian economics and adopted Supply Side policies. But without, at this point, arguing the merits or demerits of these respective policies, the claims that a graduated income tax is un-American or Socialistic clearly has no basis in American history and the idea that they have a foreign origin is laughable. During the Bush years with an economy not needing stimulus Bush kept tax rates low creating a huge deficit, ignoring the sound policies of the past, and overheating the economy.
As for the claim that Reagan established the principle that taxes should always be lowered and in the words of Vice-President, Cheney"…proved deficits don't matter," (The Washington Post - June 9, 2004) is another distortion of history. In fact Reagan proved just the opposite. Shortly after coming into office, in 1981 he cut taxes with a 25 percent reduction in individual tax brackets, phased in over 3 years, and indexed for inflation thereafter. This brought the top tax bracket down to 50 percent. The result was a huge and growing deficit. But rather than feeling that this didn’t matter, Reagan became concerned and by 1982 agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut as a share of G.D.P., and the increase was substantially larger than Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase. (Paul Krugman - The NY Times – June 8, 2004)
It is appropriate to debate tax and economic policy. It is not appropriate to distort, to dissemble, or to use names like Socialist to obscure the true facts and the true history, but when a Party essentially represents the economic interests of 2% to 5% of their constituents, that is apparently the only way they can hope to win elections. What is amazing is that so many continue to vote for them.
A campaign is conducted with catch words that are believed to have emotional appeal. They usually have a subtext. The basic subtext in this case was that a graduated income tax is wrong. There was also a suggestion that a graduated tax, or at least making the tax slightly more graduated, was socialistic or European.
Why should we penalize people for success? Why should we “soak the rich?” But that misses the point. The purpose is not to penalize people for success or to “soak the rich” but rather to raise the huge amounts of money that the US Treasury needs to pay its bills, and the money can only be gotten from people who have it. A flat tax, as is advocated by many Republicans, led by Steve Forbes, would mean a tax that would be devastating on people with small, or even moderate incomes. For that reason our income tax has always been a graduated one. As for it being socialistic or European, a graduated income tax is as American as apple pie.
Our first income tax was passed in 1861 to pay for the costs of the Civil War. It was set at a flat 3% but it exempted all incomes under $800. - (Source - The US Treasury for this and all other statements which are not otherwise sourced) - Thus even then there was a recognition that only people making above a certain amount could fairly be taxed. The census data show that the average factory wage in 1860 was about $20/mo. or $240/year compared with a median farm profit of about $150/year in Wayne County. The appropriate inflation factor is 175, as is discussed in the article at an earlier point, the equivalent factory wage today would be $42,000/year. (The 1860 Census Of Manufacuring By Gerald K. Moore)
Thus even then there was a recognition that only people making substantially more than three times the average factory wage should bear this tax burden. The tax was on the rich. In 1862 this was refined. A two-tiered rate structure was enacted, with taxable incomes up to $10,000 (it is presumed that the $800 exemption was retained) taxed at a 3 percent rate and higher incomes taxed at 5 percent. A standard deduction of $600 was enacted and a variety of deductions were permitted for such things as rental housing, repairs, losses, and other taxes paid. In addition, to assure timely collection, taxes were "withheld at the source" by employers. It is remarkable that our first attempt at an income tax so closely resembled the graduated taxes of today and this was enacted long before any European or Socialist entity even conceived of the idea. At the end of the war the income tax was repealed because the need for the revenue was no longer needed, but its constitutionality was never challenged.
In 1894 increasing revenue was again needed, and a new income tax law was passed, but this time it was challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional because Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution provided that taxes have to be apportioned, “among the several States … according to their respective Numbers… It took until 1913 before the 16th amendment to the Constitution was passed, which removed this obstacle. In October of 1923, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid an income tax at the time. As can be seen, throughout our history it was assumed that the tax burden must be born by those who could afford it, limiting the tax to the richest 1% and using a graduated tax to make sure that the richest paid the largest percent.
With World War I again requiring greater revenue Congress passed the 1916 Revenue Act raised the lowest tax rate from 1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to 15 percent on taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1.5 million. The 1916 Act also imposed taxes on estates (now referred to by its opponents as the death tax) and excess business profits. In 1916, a taxpayer needed $1.5 million in taxable income to face a 15 percent rate. By 1917 a taxpayer with only $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and the individual with $1.5 million faced a tax rate of 67 percent. Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent. (It should be noted that those with incomes over 1.5 million had a marginal tax of 77%) Only 55% of the population paid any income tax. The burden was entirely born by those deemed able to afford it. During World War II taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent.
Throughout the 1950s tax policy was increasingly seen as a tool stabilizing macroeconomic activity. The economy remained subject to frequent boom and bust cycles and many policymakers readily accepted the new economic policy of raising or lowering taxes and spending to adjust aggregate demand and thereby smooth the business cycle. This is what is generally known as Keynesian economics and during the Presidency of Richard Nixon he famously said, “We are all Keynesians now.” (The Cato Institute)
In any case as can be seen Republican claims that a graduated income tax is either new, or too high for the rich, or that taxes should be cut all the time and never raised, have no historical basis, and their claim that the are somehow un-American, European or Socialist have no basis in fact.
One of the reasons among many that we are now in the serious financial and economic crisis is that we increasingly abandoned Keynesian economics and adopted Supply Side policies. But without, at this point, arguing the merits or demerits of these respective policies, the claims that a graduated income tax is un-American or Socialistic clearly has no basis in American history and the idea that they have a foreign origin is laughable. During the Bush years with an economy not needing stimulus Bush kept tax rates low creating a huge deficit, ignoring the sound policies of the past, and overheating the economy.
As for the claim that Reagan established the principle that taxes should always be lowered and in the words of Vice-President, Cheney"…proved deficits don't matter," (The Washington Post - June 9, 2004) is another distortion of history. In fact Reagan proved just the opposite. Shortly after coming into office, in 1981 he cut taxes with a 25 percent reduction in individual tax brackets, phased in over 3 years, and indexed for inflation thereafter. This brought the top tax bracket down to 50 percent. The result was a huge and growing deficit. But rather than feeling that this didn’t matter, Reagan became concerned and by 1982 agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut as a share of G.D.P., and the increase was substantially larger than Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase. (Paul Krugman - The NY Times – June 8, 2004)
It is appropriate to debate tax and economic policy. It is not appropriate to distort, to dissemble, or to use names like Socialist to obscure the true facts and the true history, but when a Party essentially represents the economic interests of 2% to 5% of their constituents, that is apparently the only way they can hope to win elections. What is amazing is that so many continue to vote for them.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
The Election
The election of the first African-American is being celebrated out of all proportion to its significance. That is fine for our media, which is focused on everything as setting a record because that makes good headlines and gets readers or viewers, but we, as objective observers, need to see things in proportion to their true significance. If there is one thing I would like to accomplish in writing these political tracts, it is to slay myths and introduce a certain heterodoxy. The common wisdom promoted by a homogeneous press should not be good enough for us.
Barack Obama ran as a Democrat and a liberal who happened to be Black, not as a Black candidate, and we should cheer his election in that light. Democrats have not gotten a majority of the White vote since they became the party of Civil Rights and that has not changed. I thought it would be ironic if the first African-American candidate was the first to get a White majority, but it didn't happen. 46 percent of White women voted for Obama, an improvement over Kerry's 44% but well below 50%. As for White men - only 41% voted for Obama. Racism did not haunt Obama, but it continues to haunt the Democratic Party, and it will not be forgiven for standing up for the rights of people of color. The difference in the outcome is voters of color, who will change the nature of our politics as they increasingly represent an ever greater percentage of the total electorate and are projected to soon become the majority of our population. But even among the white population the future looks bright. 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who voted for McCain. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of the votes of young white voters.
The Right is seizing upon the election of our first President of color as proof that all discrimination has ceased, and that we no longer need to worry about the discrepancies of income, education and opportunity between our White population and those of color. But they have been making that argument since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, and never saw a problem when people of color were denied the right to vote and even the right to life. They asserted that State rights were more important than the right to life, as people of color were being lynched.
Yes we have come a long way since then, but no thanks to the denizens of that hardy breed, sometimes called crackers, sometimes rednecks, who the Republican party welcomed into their ranks as part of their Nixon Southern strategy.
In a way the election of an African-American is negative for the movement for real equality, because the President for the very reason that he is an African-American will not want to seem to favor other African-Americans or even Affirmative action. But the movement for equality will, nevertheless, get a tremendous boost from this election, for it is to be expected that the children in the African-American ghettos, who now aspire to be basket ball players, or hip-hop artists, or worse, gang members, and who too often see education as being a "White thing", will now see education as their prerogative and realize that education is the way to empowerment.
What an example our African-America President elect is already setting, not only for people of color but for all fathers, when days after his election, in the midst of a national crisis, he takes the time to attend a parent-teacher’s conference for his young daughters.
Our new President also sets us on the right course when he says there are no Red states or Blue states, there is only the US states, and rejects this oversimplification of our media. When the voting population of a state goes Republican by 51% it does not make that a Republican state. Nor does it become a Democratic state when in the next election it goes Democratic by 51%. These are small electoral changes. They may change the outcome of an election and with it the policies that guide our government, but they do not significantly change the make-up of the population. We must remember that even in states where racists are abundant, there are many decent folks, who happen to be in a minority, but who deserve not to be forgotten simply because our electoral system chooses not to count them.
But it is a mistake to suggest that in seeking unity and bipartisanship the winners in the election must shrink from the task of governing in the way that the electorate has entrusted them to do. Seeking bipartisanship does not mean giving the defeated factions veto power over the policies with which the electorate has entrusted the winning party. It does mean listening, and if the opposing party has any good ideas they must not be rejected because they come from the other side. But the voices from the losers warning that if the winning party actually does the things, which they pledged to do during the election, they will lose, must be rejected resoundingly. Their concern that Democrats might lose rings hollow. Isn’t that the very thing Republicans seek. If they join in support of the task at hand they are welcome, but if they choose to obstruct they must be overcome by all means available. The task at hand both in foreign and domestic policy is huge and our government must bend all its talent and all its forces to the national good. But the policies of the past eight years, and even the policies that had their genesis in the Reagan era have been discredited. Supply side economics has been discredited. We must build from the bottom up and not from the top down. A new day is dawning. We must not shrink from the task ahead.
Barack Obama ran as a Democrat and a liberal who happened to be Black, not as a Black candidate, and we should cheer his election in that light. Democrats have not gotten a majority of the White vote since they became the party of Civil Rights and that has not changed. I thought it would be ironic if the first African-American candidate was the first to get a White majority, but it didn't happen. 46 percent of White women voted for Obama, an improvement over Kerry's 44% but well below 50%. As for White men - only 41% voted for Obama. Racism did not haunt Obama, but it continues to haunt the Democratic Party, and it will not be forgiven for standing up for the rights of people of color. The difference in the outcome is voters of color, who will change the nature of our politics as they increasingly represent an ever greater percentage of the total electorate and are projected to soon become the majority of our population. But even among the white population the future looks bright. 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who voted for McCain. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of the votes of young white voters.
The Right is seizing upon the election of our first President of color as proof that all discrimination has ceased, and that we no longer need to worry about the discrepancies of income, education and opportunity between our White population and those of color. But they have been making that argument since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, and never saw a problem when people of color were denied the right to vote and even the right to life. They asserted that State rights were more important than the right to life, as people of color were being lynched.
Yes we have come a long way since then, but no thanks to the denizens of that hardy breed, sometimes called crackers, sometimes rednecks, who the Republican party welcomed into their ranks as part of their Nixon Southern strategy.
In a way the election of an African-American is negative for the movement for real equality, because the President for the very reason that he is an African-American will not want to seem to favor other African-Americans or even Affirmative action. But the movement for equality will, nevertheless, get a tremendous boost from this election, for it is to be expected that the children in the African-American ghettos, who now aspire to be basket ball players, or hip-hop artists, or worse, gang members, and who too often see education as being a "White thing", will now see education as their prerogative and realize that education is the way to empowerment.
What an example our African-America President elect is already setting, not only for people of color but for all fathers, when days after his election, in the midst of a national crisis, he takes the time to attend a parent-teacher’s conference for his young daughters.
Our new President also sets us on the right course when he says there are no Red states or Blue states, there is only the US states, and rejects this oversimplification of our media. When the voting population of a state goes Republican by 51% it does not make that a Republican state. Nor does it become a Democratic state when in the next election it goes Democratic by 51%. These are small electoral changes. They may change the outcome of an election and with it the policies that guide our government, but they do not significantly change the make-up of the population. We must remember that even in states where racists are abundant, there are many decent folks, who happen to be in a minority, but who deserve not to be forgotten simply because our electoral system chooses not to count them.
But it is a mistake to suggest that in seeking unity and bipartisanship the winners in the election must shrink from the task of governing in the way that the electorate has entrusted them to do. Seeking bipartisanship does not mean giving the defeated factions veto power over the policies with which the electorate has entrusted the winning party. It does mean listening, and if the opposing party has any good ideas they must not be rejected because they come from the other side. But the voices from the losers warning that if the winning party actually does the things, which they pledged to do during the election, they will lose, must be rejected resoundingly. Their concern that Democrats might lose rings hollow. Isn’t that the very thing Republicans seek. If they join in support of the task at hand they are welcome, but if they choose to obstruct they must be overcome by all means available. The task at hand both in foreign and domestic policy is huge and our government must bend all its talent and all its forces to the national good. But the policies of the past eight years, and even the policies that had their genesis in the Reagan era have been discredited. Supply side economics has been discredited. We must build from the bottom up and not from the top down. A new day is dawning. We must not shrink from the task ahead.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A Final Summing Up
It is seven days until the election. All the polls suggest a close election in the popular vote, but a landslide in the Electoral College. The polls are also encouraging in terms of numbers of seats to be picked up by Democrats, but Republicans have far from given up. They have tried so many tacks until now; they have tried lies, smears, McCarthyite guilt by association and now according to the Huffington Post even a distribution of a leaflet telling Democrats in Virginia that voting for them has been moved to Wednesday, November 5th.
After eight years of redistributing wealth upward to the top 2% of the electorate and nationalizing the banking system, they try to scare voters by charging that Obama will redistribute wealth from working Americans to a bunch of loafers, knowing full well none of this is true. They have seized on Obama’s promise to lower taxes for 95% of taxpayers when only 62% of households pay any income taxes. http://einshalom.com/archives/985 and they claim that this means that the remainder would actually get subsidies. What they are talking about sounds like a radical new scheme but it in fact is well imbedded in our tax code. It is called the earned income tax credit. It is such a radical idea that it was enacted during the Republican Administration of Richard Nixon and was supported by that apostle of the free markets Milton Friedman. The current credit has been expanded three times--once in 1986 during the Reagan Administration, again in 1993 under George Bush I, and again in 2001 in the Clinton Administration.
The idea of another expansion in an Obama Administration is hardly a radical idea but these naysayers try to make it appear so. Of course non-earners are not eligible because people without an income have no basis to file tax returns so this is not welfare for non-workers but an aid to the working poor.
They know that what Obama is talking about is reversing the trend of Americans working longer and harder with less and less reward for their labors. Since under Obama taxes will go down for all who make under $200,000 it is ludicrous to tell people at McCain rallies that they will be targeted, unless of course McCain has managed to assemble people at his rallies who make over $200,000. That may be true at his fundraisers, but it is unlikely at rallies of tens of thousands.
They also misrepresent the impact and the cost of the Obama tax plan a compared to the McCain one. The Washington Post has made a comparison. I set it forth below:
“According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.”
The Washington Post has tables that illustrate the enormous differences. They are worth studying closely.
As can be seen, McCain’s plan, like Bush’s, gives more and more to the wealthiest while Obama gives relief to the vast majority of the non rich Americans.
Even more interesting is the cost to the treasury of the respective plans. According to the Tax Policy Center while “both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
Thus as can be evident McCain’s plans are more expensive and favor the rich. Haven’t we had enough of these kinds of policies?
Not surprisingly as more and more voters understand the priorities of the candidates they are flocking to Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
But now in the closing days of the campaign we hear the final plea. We must not allow Democrats to win a victory that would actually be big enough to allow them to govern. During this past Congress, when Democrats after years in the wilderness, finally achieved a Majority Republicans made it a matter of party policy to routinely filibuster almost all bills put forth by Democrats. The media has given the impression that it is a Senate requirement that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate but that is far from true. Until now filibusters were relatively rare and were used primarily to block civil rights legislation. Now, however, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters so far in this first year of the 110th Congress. Compare this to 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88, and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.
This is a deliberate calculated successful attempt to prevent the majority from doing the peoples business. It is deliberate action to enforce gridlock. And then during the campaign the have the nerve to denounce the Congress for getting nothing done.
The opposite is true. Democrats must be given large enough majorities to govern. If they have the power, responsibility will go with it. Gridlock cannot solve the recession, or the financial crisis or the health care crisis or any of the other problems that Democrats will inherit.
If we want our problems addressed we must not only get a new hand on the tiller we must have a captain with a crew so that they can steer the ship of state.
After eight years of redistributing wealth upward to the top 2% of the electorate and nationalizing the banking system, they try to scare voters by charging that Obama will redistribute wealth from working Americans to a bunch of loafers, knowing full well none of this is true. They have seized on Obama’s promise to lower taxes for 95% of taxpayers when only 62% of households pay any income taxes. http://einshalom.com/archives/985 and they claim that this means that the remainder would actually get subsidies. What they are talking about sounds like a radical new scheme but it in fact is well imbedded in our tax code. It is called the earned income tax credit. It is such a radical idea that it was enacted during the Republican Administration of Richard Nixon and was supported by that apostle of the free markets Milton Friedman. The current credit has been expanded three times--once in 1986 during the Reagan Administration, again in 1993 under George Bush I, and again in 2001 in the Clinton Administration.
The idea of another expansion in an Obama Administration is hardly a radical idea but these naysayers try to make it appear so. Of course non-earners are not eligible because people without an income have no basis to file tax returns so this is not welfare for non-workers but an aid to the working poor.
They know that what Obama is talking about is reversing the trend of Americans working longer and harder with less and less reward for their labors. Since under Obama taxes will go down for all who make under $200,000 it is ludicrous to tell people at McCain rallies that they will be targeted, unless of course McCain has managed to assemble people at his rallies who make over $200,000. That may be true at his fundraisers, but it is unlikely at rallies of tens of thousands.
They also misrepresent the impact and the cost of the Obama tax plan a compared to the McCain one. The Washington Post has made a comparison. I set it forth below:
“According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.”
The Washington Post has tables that illustrate the enormous differences. They are worth studying closely.
As can be seen, McCain’s plan, like Bush’s, gives more and more to the wealthiest while Obama gives relief to the vast majority of the non rich Americans.
Even more interesting is the cost to the treasury of the respective plans. According to the Tax Policy Center while “both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.
Thus as can be evident McCain’s plans are more expensive and favor the rich. Haven’t we had enough of these kinds of policies?
Not surprisingly as more and more voters understand the priorities of the candidates they are flocking to Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Senate.
But now in the closing days of the campaign we hear the final plea. We must not allow Democrats to win a victory that would actually be big enough to allow them to govern. During this past Congress, when Democrats after years in the wilderness, finally achieved a Majority Republicans made it a matter of party policy to routinely filibuster almost all bills put forth by Democrats. The media has given the impression that it is a Senate requirement that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the Senate but that is far from true. Until now filibusters were relatively rare and were used primarily to block civil rights legislation. Now, however, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters so far in this first year of the 110th Congress. Compare this to 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88, and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.
This is a deliberate calculated successful attempt to prevent the majority from doing the peoples business. It is deliberate action to enforce gridlock. And then during the campaign the have the nerve to denounce the Congress for getting nothing done.
The opposite is true. Democrats must be given large enough majorities to govern. If they have the power, responsibility will go with it. Gridlock cannot solve the recession, or the financial crisis or the health care crisis or any of the other problems that Democrats will inherit.
If we want our problems addressed we must not only get a new hand on the tiller we must have a captain with a crew so that they can steer the ship of state.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Are Deficits Good?
Are deficits good? Are they bad? Don’t they matter as Vice-president Cheney said some time ago?
Is increasing taxes good? Is increasing taxes bad? Is decreasing taxes good or bad?
My answer to all these questions is, it all depends.
By and large deficits are undesirable because they are a burden on the budget since interest must be paid on the debt, thereby placing a further burden on the budget in the form of an uncontrollable expenditure. During the last few years the payments on the debt have been the third highest item after Defense and Health and Human Resources. This year the US has paid $451 billion or almost a half trillion dollars in interest and the year is not yet ended. The National debt has gone over $10 trillion. According to the Wall Street Journal the budget deficit for fiscal 2008 will be $407 billion or more than double the deficit for 2007. In January 2004 President George W. Bush pledged to cut the annual deficit, which was $412 billion in fiscal 2004, in half within five years.
Instead as can be seen the deficit has ballooned.
McCain has pledged to balance the budget by 2012, which is probably even more hot air than Bush’s pledge was, when one considers that McCain wants to extend the tax on the super-wealthy and cut corporate taxes, as well as continue the war in Iraq. Total costs for the war from 2001-08 could top $800 billion, according to federal estimates.
It seems absurd for McCain to promise to balance the budget without ending the war, yet he has indicated a willingness to stay in Iraq for up to fifty or even 100 years, provided there are no American casualties, without ever considering the economic costs, which Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts at $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.
So far the only expenditure McCain has identified for cost cutting is earmarks, which while desirable only amounts to $7.4 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, hardly an amount that would make a dent in our budget deficit.
But all these figures are simply background to my initial question are deficits good or bad. The answer is found in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes to which I subscribe. During good economic times we should have a balanced budget. When the economy slows or goes into recession we must pump prime it and deficits are the way to do this.
To be sure when the Clinton Administration took office they inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy and a $290 billion deficit and Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy which would appear to have been the wrong prescription for a failing economy. But to a large extent the economy was handicapped by very high interest rates and Alan Greenspan then the Chairman of the independent Fed was not prepared to lower them unless the budget was in balance. Clinton correctly reached the conclusion that lower interest rates were vital to an economic recovery. His tax increase passed in the Congress on a tie vote with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaker in favor of the tax increase. The result was a booming economy and a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. Everybody was better off even the people whose taxes were being raised, because they ended up with more in their pockets after taxes than they had before the tax increase. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. In other words a good tax increase.
The situation now is opposite. Interest rates as set by the Fed are at an all time low and so no lowering of interest rates can be effective in stimulating the economy. Therefore the only thing possible is to either lower taxes or increase spending, or a combination of the two, either of which would further increase the deficit and the debt. That is one of the main reasons that creating the deficit during a period of relative prosperity was so reckless, for it now means we need a deficit on top of an existing deficit. Whether, as McCain claims, we should further lower taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy depends on whether you are an apostle of Supply Side economics, as Bush, McCain and most Republicans are. This holds to the theory that if more money is made available to the producers in the economy they will buy more equipment, which will have to be made by others, thus creating a chain effect that will stimulate the economy. The fallacy in this theory is that no matter how much money is placed into the hands of producers, they will not increase their production capacity unless there is demand for its output. In order to increase demand, money must be put into the hands of consumers. To a limited extent this can be done by cutting their taxes, and Obama has proposed this, but the vast majority of Americans already have a fairly low tax exposure, and in a recession as more become unemployed and under-employed they have even less tax exposure. So this has a limited effect. A quicker and more satisfactory way of doing this is by directing money their way in the form of expenditures. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which will have immediate effect and some will take effect at a later time. Thus increasing the duration of unemployment insurance has an immediate effect. Offering consumers bankruptcy protection, as corporation have when they cannot meet their debt obligations, has an immediate effect, and would ameliorate the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Lending money to states, who have lost much of their tax revenue as a result of the economic downturn would have an immediate effect, preventing the laying off of large numbers of state employees and the drastic cutting of social programs to people who can not be consumers without such aid. Somewhat slower in effect but crucial to the long term prosperity of the US economy is repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, which has been neglected for too long, resulting in one bridge having fallen down and many others in danger of doing so. Our ports, crucial to our prosperity in a globalized economy are inadequate to the task of handling huge quantities of container cargo and the vital port of New Orleans desperately needs repair and upgrading. The US should take a leaf from the activities of the Dutch, whose port at Rotterdam is a paragon of efficiency and modernity. In a few years the Panama Canal will have been enlarged, allowing much larger container ships to ply these waters. Our ports must be ready to accommodate these greater loads.
No matter the cost, a new energy policy cannot wait. As has been pointed out we are now sending $700 billion dollars to import our energy supplies, a staggering drag on our economy even if it turns out to be half that. For us to drill our way out of it is nothing less than a myth. We do not have anywhere near enough reserves, and even if we allowed drilling everywhere, no matter what the ecological cost, it would still be a drop in the bucket, and would not come on stream for ten years or more. Nuclear energy could contribute a significant supply, but here too we are talking in excess of ten years and it is expensive. Especially now that the price of oil has come down, other forms of energy are no longer competitive. To make them competitive means giving subsidies to such alternative energy sources, which will further impact our deficit. The energy sources with the best potential are wind and solar energies, and we must be prepared to encourage their development by subsidizing their development and, if necessary, their use.
Health care reform cannot wait any longer. Our health care system is costing more and delivering less.
Reform will save enormous amounts further down the line and give people the care they need at a cost they can afford.
These and other needs of the country are not expenditures. They are investment that will repay us many times over.
One of the tragedies of ’29 was that there was orthodoxy that budgets must be balanced. We must not make that mistake again. The media seems to be fixated on this idea, and asked the candidates over and over what they would cut in view of the growing deficits. There are undoubtedly many places to cut where programs are not effective. A major saving in spending will be a dividend of the drawdown in Iraq. This drawdown may very well be the direct result of the Iraqis insisting on the end of the occupation. But the needs of our people and of our economy must be met. We cannot, we must not, cut the budget of the FDA or OSHA or toy inspections. By following policies that are consumer oriented, we will trickle the wealth upward instead of downward, and we will grow the economy, until we once again arrive at a balanced budget.
The discredited Supply side economics must see their well-deserved demise.
Is increasing taxes good? Is increasing taxes bad? Is decreasing taxes good or bad?
My answer to all these questions is, it all depends.
By and large deficits are undesirable because they are a burden on the budget since interest must be paid on the debt, thereby placing a further burden on the budget in the form of an uncontrollable expenditure. During the last few years the payments on the debt have been the third highest item after Defense and Health and Human Resources. This year the US has paid $451 billion or almost a half trillion dollars in interest and the year is not yet ended. The National debt has gone over $10 trillion. According to the Wall Street Journal the budget deficit for fiscal 2008 will be $407 billion or more than double the deficit for 2007. In January 2004 President George W. Bush pledged to cut the annual deficit, which was $412 billion in fiscal 2004, in half within five years.
Instead as can be seen the deficit has ballooned.
McCain has pledged to balance the budget by 2012, which is probably even more hot air than Bush’s pledge was, when one considers that McCain wants to extend the tax on the super-wealthy and cut corporate taxes, as well as continue the war in Iraq. Total costs for the war from 2001-08 could top $800 billion, according to federal estimates.
It seems absurd for McCain to promise to balance the budget without ending the war, yet he has indicated a willingness to stay in Iraq for up to fifty or even 100 years, provided there are no American casualties, without ever considering the economic costs, which Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and self-described opponent of the war, puts at $1 trillion to $2 trillion, including $500 billion for the war and occupation and up to $300 billion in future health care costs for wounded troops.
So far the only expenditure McCain has identified for cost cutting is earmarks, which while desirable only amounts to $7.4 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, hardly an amount that would make a dent in our budget deficit.
But all these figures are simply background to my initial question are deficits good or bad. The answer is found in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes to which I subscribe. During good economic times we should have a balanced budget. When the economy slows or goes into recession we must pump prime it and deficits are the way to do this.
To be sure when the Clinton Administration took office they inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy and a $290 billion deficit and Clinton proposed raising taxes on the wealthy which would appear to have been the wrong prescription for a failing economy. But to a large extent the economy was handicapped by very high interest rates and Alan Greenspan then the Chairman of the independent Fed was not prepared to lower them unless the budget was in balance. Clinton correctly reached the conclusion that lower interest rates were vital to an economic recovery. His tax increase passed in the Congress on a tie vote with Vice President Gore casting the tiebreaker in favor of the tax increase. The result was a booming economy and a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. Everybody was better off even the people whose taxes were being raised, because they ended up with more in their pockets after taxes than they had before the tax increase. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. In other words a good tax increase.
The situation now is opposite. Interest rates as set by the Fed are at an all time low and so no lowering of interest rates can be effective in stimulating the economy. Therefore the only thing possible is to either lower taxes or increase spending, or a combination of the two, either of which would further increase the deficit and the debt. That is one of the main reasons that creating the deficit during a period of relative prosperity was so reckless, for it now means we need a deficit on top of an existing deficit. Whether, as McCain claims, we should further lower taxes on the rich to stimulate the economy depends on whether you are an apostle of Supply Side economics, as Bush, McCain and most Republicans are. This holds to the theory that if more money is made available to the producers in the economy they will buy more equipment, which will have to be made by others, thus creating a chain effect that will stimulate the economy. The fallacy in this theory is that no matter how much money is placed into the hands of producers, they will not increase their production capacity unless there is demand for its output. In order to increase demand, money must be put into the hands of consumers. To a limited extent this can be done by cutting their taxes, and Obama has proposed this, but the vast majority of Americans already have a fairly low tax exposure, and in a recession as more become unemployed and under-employed they have even less tax exposure. So this has a limited effect. A quicker and more satisfactory way of doing this is by directing money their way in the form of expenditures. This can be done in a variety of ways, some of which will have immediate effect and some will take effect at a later time. Thus increasing the duration of unemployment insurance has an immediate effect. Offering consumers bankruptcy protection, as corporation have when they cannot meet their debt obligations, has an immediate effect, and would ameliorate the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Lending money to states, who have lost much of their tax revenue as a result of the economic downturn would have an immediate effect, preventing the laying off of large numbers of state employees and the drastic cutting of social programs to people who can not be consumers without such aid. Somewhat slower in effect but crucial to the long term prosperity of the US economy is repairing and rebuilding our infrastructure, which has been neglected for too long, resulting in one bridge having fallen down and many others in danger of doing so. Our ports, crucial to our prosperity in a globalized economy are inadequate to the task of handling huge quantities of container cargo and the vital port of New Orleans desperately needs repair and upgrading. The US should take a leaf from the activities of the Dutch, whose port at Rotterdam is a paragon of efficiency and modernity. In a few years the Panama Canal will have been enlarged, allowing much larger container ships to ply these waters. Our ports must be ready to accommodate these greater loads.
No matter the cost, a new energy policy cannot wait. As has been pointed out we are now sending $700 billion dollars to import our energy supplies, a staggering drag on our economy even if it turns out to be half that. For us to drill our way out of it is nothing less than a myth. We do not have anywhere near enough reserves, and even if we allowed drilling everywhere, no matter what the ecological cost, it would still be a drop in the bucket, and would not come on stream for ten years or more. Nuclear energy could contribute a significant supply, but here too we are talking in excess of ten years and it is expensive. Especially now that the price of oil has come down, other forms of energy are no longer competitive. To make them competitive means giving subsidies to such alternative energy sources, which will further impact our deficit. The energy sources with the best potential are wind and solar energies, and we must be prepared to encourage their development by subsidizing their development and, if necessary, their use.
Health care reform cannot wait any longer. Our health care system is costing more and delivering less.
Reform will save enormous amounts further down the line and give people the care they need at a cost they can afford.
These and other needs of the country are not expenditures. They are investment that will repay us many times over.
One of the tragedies of ’29 was that there was orthodoxy that budgets must be balanced. We must not make that mistake again. The media seems to be fixated on this idea, and asked the candidates over and over what they would cut in view of the growing deficits. There are undoubtedly many places to cut where programs are not effective. A major saving in spending will be a dividend of the drawdown in Iraq. This drawdown may very well be the direct result of the Iraqis insisting on the end of the occupation. But the needs of our people and of our economy must be met. We cannot, we must not, cut the budget of the FDA or OSHA or toy inspections. By following policies that are consumer oriented, we will trickle the wealth upward instead of downward, and we will grow the economy, until we once again arrive at a balanced budget.
The discredited Supply side economics must see their well-deserved demise.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bush's Third Term
The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)
Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)
McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)
If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.
That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:
“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.
“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.
“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.
"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."
“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."
“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.
“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."
“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.
“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)
My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.
Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.
These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.
“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.
“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."
So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.
Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)
McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)
If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.
That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:
“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.
“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.
“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.
"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."
“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."
“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.
“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."
“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.
“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)
My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.
Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.
These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.
“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.
“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."
So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.
Monday, October 06, 2008
“Country First”
“Country First”, “Country First” is the slogan of the McCain campaign. It is, of course, a way of attacking his opponents patriotism by implying that Obama does not put his country first, - a shameful slander that the old McCain might have disavowed. But what about McCain putting his country first? Is it putting the country first, when the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of 1930, prompts a display of posturing the likes of which has not been seen in a long time?
Shortly after Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, asked Congress for authority the invest $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage backed securities, McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign and returning to Washington to help solve the crisis. This was shortly after Obama telephoned McCain and suggested that they keep Presidential politics out of the crisis and issue a joint statement. McCain during this conversation never mentioned his intention to do anything unilateral, and tried to blind-side Obama by his announcement of campaign suspension. He then contacted the President and asked him to invite Obama and himself to a Washington conference. All this time McCain never let it be known what his position was on the treasury plan. At the conference McCain sat silently and contributed nothing, and none of his campaign commercials were withdrawn. He then totally reversed course, and rushed back to Oxford, Mississippi to attend a debate, which he had announced he would not attend. All this time he never set forth his position on the crisis, and never publicly urged his Republican brethren to vote one way or the other.
When the bill came up in the Senate, Obama took the floor and urged his colleagues to vote for the bill, without posturing or looking for photo-ops. McCain said nothing and voted for the bill. Is all this posturing, while playing it safe for as long as possible, putting “Country First”? If he was working behind the scenes to get Republican support for this unpopular bill, how come 2/3 of Republicans in the House voted against it?
And then there is Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick her as part of putting “Country First”? Was she really the best qualified person in the US to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain, who would be 76 by the time his first term ends and who has had a history of cancer, were to die or be incapacitated while in office? Or did he pick her because with her extreme right wing views she would stir up the base, which she has, you betcha. If he wanted someone with the executive experience of being a governor, he could have chosen from 22 Republican governors. Was Palin the best qualified of all these Republican governors?
McCain, the maverick, who will bring us the change we need! What happened to his maverick positions?
He sponsored the immigration bill that would have created a path for undocumented aliens to citizenship but when that interfered with his getting the Republican nomination he announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill.
He denounced the Bush tax cut as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and an irresponsible reduction in tax receipts, which would cause huge deficits, but when his predictions proved to be accurate, he reversed course and now denounces Obama for not wanting to extend those tax give aways.
He falsely accuses Obama of wanting to tax the middle class when he knows that Obama is pledged not to raise taxes one dime on anyone making less than $250,000, while he himself is advocating taxing the value of the Health Insurance working Americans get from their employers.
He sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but now promises to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to hold it to be unconstitutional.
When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America. When he sought the Presidential nomination in 2008 he delivered the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college and of course Sarah Palin is another sop to those forces of intolerance. You betcha!
But one thing McCain was always consistent about and that was his opposition to regulation until now when he belatedly has decided that this is not a politically advantageous position. Now he will bring change and the regulations we need. Has he seen the light or is this more of his opportunism?
All this apparently hasn’t fooled enough people, for McCain’s campaign is floundering. He has fallen behind in the polls and has pulled his campaign out of Michigan. Apparently it is time for a new strategy. It isn’t going to be, “Drill Baby, Drill” any more. It’s going to be Slander Baby, Slander.
It is going to be about a man that Obama barely knows, who gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund, and who served with Obama on an eight-person Board of an anti-poverty group between 1999 and 2002, who is now distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, but who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 when Obama was a child.
They are going to lie about Biden, claiming that he said that the amount of taxes you pay determines your patriotism, when they know that Biden said no such thing. Here is what the United Press International reported Biden said:
““WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (UPI) -- Democratic vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday that people earning more than $250,000 should "be patriotic" and pay more taxes.
“During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden, D-Del., said anyone making more than $250,000 would pay more in taxes if his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected president.
“The Democratic economic platform asks the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes -- while pledging tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans -- to pay for healthcare and other initiatives.
"It's time to be patriotic," said Biden. "Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And ... they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."
They are going to resurrect the story of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama broke with quite some time ago.
They will look for anything that can be used to smear.
Smear baby, Smear!
How sad that McCain, a man who once prided himself about being above such tactics, has come to this.
Shortly after Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, asked Congress for authority the invest $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage backed securities, McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign and returning to Washington to help solve the crisis. This was shortly after Obama telephoned McCain and suggested that they keep Presidential politics out of the crisis and issue a joint statement. McCain during this conversation never mentioned his intention to do anything unilateral, and tried to blind-side Obama by his announcement of campaign suspension. He then contacted the President and asked him to invite Obama and himself to a Washington conference. All this time McCain never let it be known what his position was on the treasury plan. At the conference McCain sat silently and contributed nothing, and none of his campaign commercials were withdrawn. He then totally reversed course, and rushed back to Oxford, Mississippi to attend a debate, which he had announced he would not attend. All this time he never set forth his position on the crisis, and never publicly urged his Republican brethren to vote one way or the other.
When the bill came up in the Senate, Obama took the floor and urged his colleagues to vote for the bill, without posturing or looking for photo-ops. McCain said nothing and voted for the bill. Is all this posturing, while playing it safe for as long as possible, putting “Country First”? If he was working behind the scenes to get Republican support for this unpopular bill, how come 2/3 of Republicans in the House voted against it?
And then there is Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick her as part of putting “Country First”? Was she really the best qualified person in the US to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain, who would be 76 by the time his first term ends and who has had a history of cancer, were to die or be incapacitated while in office? Or did he pick her because with her extreme right wing views she would stir up the base, which she has, you betcha. If he wanted someone with the executive experience of being a governor, he could have chosen from 22 Republican governors. Was Palin the best qualified of all these Republican governors?
McCain, the maverick, who will bring us the change we need! What happened to his maverick positions?
He sponsored the immigration bill that would have created a path for undocumented aliens to citizenship but when that interfered with his getting the Republican nomination he announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill.
He denounced the Bush tax cut as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and an irresponsible reduction in tax receipts, which would cause huge deficits, but when his predictions proved to be accurate, he reversed course and now denounces Obama for not wanting to extend those tax give aways.
He falsely accuses Obama of wanting to tax the middle class when he knows that Obama is pledged not to raise taxes one dime on anyone making less than $250,000, while he himself is advocating taxing the value of the Health Insurance working Americans get from their employers.
He sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but now promises to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to hold it to be unconstitutional.
When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America. When he sought the Presidential nomination in 2008 he delivered the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college and of course Sarah Palin is another sop to those forces of intolerance. You betcha!
But one thing McCain was always consistent about and that was his opposition to regulation until now when he belatedly has decided that this is not a politically advantageous position. Now he will bring change and the regulations we need. Has he seen the light or is this more of his opportunism?
All this apparently hasn’t fooled enough people, for McCain’s campaign is floundering. He has fallen behind in the polls and has pulled his campaign out of Michigan. Apparently it is time for a new strategy. It isn’t going to be, “Drill Baby, Drill” any more. It’s going to be Slander Baby, Slander.
It is going to be about a man that Obama barely knows, who gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund, and who served with Obama on an eight-person Board of an anti-poverty group between 1999 and 2002, who is now distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, but who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 when Obama was a child.
They are going to lie about Biden, claiming that he said that the amount of taxes you pay determines your patriotism, when they know that Biden said no such thing. Here is what the United Press International reported Biden said:
““WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (UPI) -- Democratic vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday that people earning more than $250,000 should "be patriotic" and pay more taxes.
“During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden, D-Del., said anyone making more than $250,000 would pay more in taxes if his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected president.
“The Democratic economic platform asks the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes -- while pledging tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans -- to pay for healthcare and other initiatives.
"It's time to be patriotic," said Biden. "Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And ... they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."
They are going to resurrect the story of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama broke with quite some time ago.
They will look for anything that can be used to smear.
Smear baby, Smear!
How sad that McCain, a man who once prided himself about being above such tactics, has come to this.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Deregulation
Government is the not the solution! Government is the problem! That has been the mantra of the Republican establishment since Ronald Reagan ascended to the Presidency. It has been the cry of George Bush and McCain and all Republicans since their icon reigned in the White House and when they gained power they proved it. Yes, during the years of Republican ascendancy government was the problem, for they treated the levers of power as though they were there to serve them and their rich cronies. The powers of government were to be used to achieve a permanent Republican majority and to enrich their supporters in industry and in the financial sector in return for which these supporters would lavish upon them a small portion of their gains, enriching many members of the Republican establishment, and giving them the campaign funds with which they hoped they would achieve a permanent majority.
They have railed against a redistribution of wealth while systematically redistributing wealth from the middle class to the top 2% of the wealthiest of the wealthy.
They kept accusing Democrats of a policy of “tax and spend” while always spending at least as much as Democrats proposed, only the priorities were different, spending always being directed toward their goal of wealth redistribution upwards. They didn’t tax and spend, no, they borrowed and spent, and they borrowed more and more and more until our deficit has exceeded all previous deficits.
But their greed was so great that they caused the wheels to come off.
There is a basic axiom in economics. “The Greater the Risk the Greater the Reward.” And so our financial moguls took great risks and they enriched themselves. And so they took greater risks and more money flowed their way. This is what led to the Great depression of 1929 and after that depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic Congress put in place safeguards that did not allow the moguls to gamble with our money. For it is our money that they gamble with. It is the money that we deposit in their banks that they gamble with.
And Republicans for a very long time made no attempt to decimate the regulatory network set up in response to the depression until Ronald Reagan. Then an onslaught on the regulation that made reckless risks illegal began and where they could not persuade Congress to repeal these protections they proceeded to appoint to the regulatory agencies people who they knew would not enforce the law. They put the fox in the henhouse. Thus they made sure that the reckless risk takers would have a free hand.
Now they have discovered that government is the solution. To save their billionaire supporters they want the government to rescue them and there may be no choice because these moguls can bring our whole economy and the world economy to its knees and McCain is one of the main architects of this deregulation. As he said in 2003, ‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.’
Canada’s conservative daily “Globe and Mail” in today’s edition summarizes the situation as well as anyone could and so I quote their article in full:
“How is it now possible for a reasonable voter to cast a ballot for John McCain?
“The total cost of rescuing the financial services sector, including past and proposed actions, exceeds $1-trillion, more than twice the record $438-billion deficit projected for this fiscal year.
“American taxpayers are being asked to spend thousands of dollars per person to prevent the collapse of Wall Street. A whole lot of people who made an awful lot of money by taking enormous risks they couldn't afford will benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
“John McCain and platforms are ashes. They can forget about cutting taxes - for the middle classes, the upper classes or anyone else.
“And all those grandiose plans for health care and education and the military? Forget it. The next federal government, unless it abandons all pretense of responsibility, will have to focus exclusively on raising revenue and cutting spending, in an effort to bring the budget back into something remotely approaching balance.
“Mr. Obama acknowledged half as much yesterday. While insisting that many of his key promises were self-financing, he added the caveat: "It would be irresponsible of me to say I am not going to take into account what things look like should I take office." Voters have every reason to be nervous at the thought of this freshman senator, who has no experience at running any level of government, becoming president in a time of acute fiscal crisis.
“But now there really is no practical alternative. John McCain helped create this emergency. He's partly to blame for it. Under the circumstances, rewarding him by voting for him would be perverse.
“If there has been one constant in Mr. McCain's legislative record through decades in the House and Senate, it has been his unequivocal support for deregulation. He championed it during his years as chairman of the Senate commerce committee. He campaigned actively and successfully for the very act that scrapped the regulations whose absence created this cascade of bank and insurance-company failures.
“‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,’ he said back in 2003. It was no idle boast.
“Mr. McCain's election platform proposes allowing taxpayers to divert part of their social security payments into private investment accounts. It would deregulate the health sector, so that people could shop around for the best available health plan, rather than relying on their employer to provide it.
“‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,’ he wrote in a magazine article published last week. Presumably, the piece was submitted before Lehman Brothers went belly up.
“Deregulation is not a bad thing. By loosening the restrictions that prevented innovation and risk, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher unleashed a generation of virtually uninterrupted growth that other countries, including Canada, rushed to emulate.
“But the watchman state at least needs to be a watchman. Deregulating past the point of common sense, so tainted food starts making its way onto shelves, municipal water supplies become lethally contaminated and banks take risks so hazardous they imperil the global economy, is an abdication by government of its duty to serve and protect its citizens.
“John McCain could honourably have said that, in retrospect, he might have been too enthusiastic in his support for unlimited deregulation, that he is learning lessons along with everyone else, and that, as president, he will restore a responsible level of federal oversight on Wall Street.
“Instead, he blames the greed of bank executives and accuses Barack Obama of failing to propose a realistic plan to fix the mess he helped create.
“That is base.
“An American might vote Republican because his father did, and so does he, and so will his son. She might vote Republican because John McCain opposes abortion and the right to life is the only issue that matters to her. They might vote Republican because they would never vote for a black man.
“But for a reasonable voter to support the Republican Party, after everything its candidate has done to help bring on the worst financial crisis since the Depression, well, that just makes no sense at all.”
They have railed against a redistribution of wealth while systematically redistributing wealth from the middle class to the top 2% of the wealthiest of the wealthy.
They kept accusing Democrats of a policy of “tax and spend” while always spending at least as much as Democrats proposed, only the priorities were different, spending always being directed toward their goal of wealth redistribution upwards. They didn’t tax and spend, no, they borrowed and spent, and they borrowed more and more and more until our deficit has exceeded all previous deficits.
But their greed was so great that they caused the wheels to come off.
There is a basic axiom in economics. “The Greater the Risk the Greater the Reward.” And so our financial moguls took great risks and they enriched themselves. And so they took greater risks and more money flowed their way. This is what led to the Great depression of 1929 and after that depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic Congress put in place safeguards that did not allow the moguls to gamble with our money. For it is our money that they gamble with. It is the money that we deposit in their banks that they gamble with.
And Republicans for a very long time made no attempt to decimate the regulatory network set up in response to the depression until Ronald Reagan. Then an onslaught on the regulation that made reckless risks illegal began and where they could not persuade Congress to repeal these protections they proceeded to appoint to the regulatory agencies people who they knew would not enforce the law. They put the fox in the henhouse. Thus they made sure that the reckless risk takers would have a free hand.
Now they have discovered that government is the solution. To save their billionaire supporters they want the government to rescue them and there may be no choice because these moguls can bring our whole economy and the world economy to its knees and McCain is one of the main architects of this deregulation. As he said in 2003, ‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.’
Canada’s conservative daily “Globe and Mail” in today’s edition summarizes the situation as well as anyone could and so I quote their article in full:
“How is it now possible for a reasonable voter to cast a ballot for John McCain?
“The total cost of rescuing the financial services sector, including past and proposed actions, exceeds $1-trillion, more than twice the record $438-billion deficit projected for this fiscal year.
“American taxpayers are being asked to spend thousands of dollars per person to prevent the collapse of Wall Street. A whole lot of people who made an awful lot of money by taking enormous risks they couldn't afford will benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
“John McCain and platforms are ashes. They can forget about cutting taxes - for the middle classes, the upper classes or anyone else.
“And all those grandiose plans for health care and education and the military? Forget it. The next federal government, unless it abandons all pretense of responsibility, will have to focus exclusively on raising revenue and cutting spending, in an effort to bring the budget back into something remotely approaching balance.
“Mr. Obama acknowledged half as much yesterday. While insisting that many of his key promises were self-financing, he added the caveat: "It would be irresponsible of me to say I am not going to take into account what things look like should I take office." Voters have every reason to be nervous at the thought of this freshman senator, who has no experience at running any level of government, becoming president in a time of acute fiscal crisis.
“But now there really is no practical alternative. John McCain helped create this emergency. He's partly to blame for it. Under the circumstances, rewarding him by voting for him would be perverse.
“If there has been one constant in Mr. McCain's legislative record through decades in the House and Senate, it has been his unequivocal support for deregulation. He championed it during his years as chairman of the Senate commerce committee. He campaigned actively and successfully for the very act that scrapped the regulations whose absence created this cascade of bank and insurance-company failures.
“‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,’ he said back in 2003. It was no idle boast.
“Mr. McCain's election platform proposes allowing taxpayers to divert part of their social security payments into private investment accounts. It would deregulate the health sector, so that people could shop around for the best available health plan, rather than relying on their employer to provide it.
“‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,’ he wrote in a magazine article published last week. Presumably, the piece was submitted before Lehman Brothers went belly up.
“Deregulation is not a bad thing. By loosening the restrictions that prevented innovation and risk, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher unleashed a generation of virtually uninterrupted growth that other countries, including Canada, rushed to emulate.
“But the watchman state at least needs to be a watchman. Deregulating past the point of common sense, so tainted food starts making its way onto shelves, municipal water supplies become lethally contaminated and banks take risks so hazardous they imperil the global economy, is an abdication by government of its duty to serve and protect its citizens.
“John McCain could honourably have said that, in retrospect, he might have been too enthusiastic in his support for unlimited deregulation, that he is learning lessons along with everyone else, and that, as president, he will restore a responsible level of federal oversight on Wall Street.
“Instead, he blames the greed of bank executives and accuses Barack Obama of failing to propose a realistic plan to fix the mess he helped create.
“That is base.
“An American might vote Republican because his father did, and so does he, and so will his son. She might vote Republican because John McCain opposes abortion and the right to life is the only issue that matters to her. They might vote Republican because they would never vote for a black man.
“But for a reasonable voter to support the Republican Party, after everything its candidate has done to help bring on the worst financial crisis since the Depression, well, that just makes no sense at all.”
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
More about McCain
As the campaign for President unfolds I find myself saddened by the devolution of McCain from the “maverick” and “straight talk express” candidate, to one who doesn’t hesitate to lie and who instead of tacking to the middle in the general election campaign, appears to be tacking further to the Right.
In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.
But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.
The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)
She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)
She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)
She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)
She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.
The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.
But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.
Here are some examples:
Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)
At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’
Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?
Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.
“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.
“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.
“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.
“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”
In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.
McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.
There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.
In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.
But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.
The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)
She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)
She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)
She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)
She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.
The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.
But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.
Here are some examples:
Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)
At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’
Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?
Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.
“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.
“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.
“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.
“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”
In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.
McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.
There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Should Scheller Be A Columnist?
As you know I have of late been publishing much of my commentary as Letters to the Editor of my local paper the Fort Lee Suburbanite. This frequently gets me into exchanges with people who have a different viewpoint making for, what I consider to be interesting dialogue.
A week ago Friday, on August 15, a Letter to the Editor was published a copy of which I reproduce below:
To the Editor:
I am flattered by Shel Haas’ Letter to the Editor entitled “Give Mr. Scheller his own column” Suburbanite August 15. I would like nothing better. I have dreamt of being a columnist since the days when Walter Lippmann graced the pages of the New York Herald Tribune.
As for my never having met a Democrat I didn’t like, let me assure Mr. Hass that there have been very many, among them Senators Bilbo of Mississippi, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama, to name a few from the past. But there are quite a few today, such as Ed Koch of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
As for being a dud in economics, I will match my knowledge of economics with Mr. Haas, and even Senator McCain, any day of the week, and I assure him that it doesn’t require much knowledge to accomplish this feat.
If Mr. Haas would read my letters with greater care he would see that my facts are not from Democratic sources. My citing the use vehicles in China compared to ours came from T. Boone Pickens, as good a Republican as one could find, and as I stated, a financier of the Swift Boat ads.
As for drilling in Alaska, even John McCain opposes that harebrained scheme, for it would endanger some the most pristine lands in the world and would not produce enough oil to make a significant contribution to the world supply.
The principles of the Sierra Club to which Mr. Haas refers with such venom are to preserve the God given beauty and the environment of our nation, a goal to which Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a man who McCain has cited as being the President he most admires, was dedicated.
Mr. Haas describes global warming as “the biggest farce of them all” ignoring the fact that it is an accepted fact by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, by Senator McCain, and finally even by that long denier of it, President Bush. If Mr. Haas wants to remain in denial that is his privilege, but he might as well deny that the earth rotates around the sun rather than the other way around.
Finally I am at a loss to understand how my views are “opposite President Kennedy’s.” Mr. Haas does not even give us a clue as to how he arrived at this strange conclusion.
Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, New Jersey
A week ago Friday, on August 15, a Letter to the Editor was published a copy of which I reproduce below:
To the Editor:
I am flattered by Shel Haas’ Letter to the Editor entitled “Give Mr. Scheller his own column” Suburbanite August 15. I would like nothing better. I have dreamt of being a columnist since the days when Walter Lippmann graced the pages of the New York Herald Tribune.
As for my never having met a Democrat I didn’t like, let me assure Mr. Hass that there have been very many, among them Senators Bilbo of Mississippi, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama, to name a few from the past. But there are quite a few today, such as Ed Koch of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
As for being a dud in economics, I will match my knowledge of economics with Mr. Haas, and even Senator McCain, any day of the week, and I assure him that it doesn’t require much knowledge to accomplish this feat.
If Mr. Haas would read my letters with greater care he would see that my facts are not from Democratic sources. My citing the use vehicles in China compared to ours came from T. Boone Pickens, as good a Republican as one could find, and as I stated, a financier of the Swift Boat ads.
As for drilling in Alaska, even John McCain opposes that harebrained scheme, for it would endanger some the most pristine lands in the world and would not produce enough oil to make a significant contribution to the world supply.
The principles of the Sierra Club to which Mr. Haas refers with such venom are to preserve the God given beauty and the environment of our nation, a goal to which Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a man who McCain has cited as being the President he most admires, was dedicated.
Mr. Haas describes global warming as “the biggest farce of them all” ignoring the fact that it is an accepted fact by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, by Senator McCain, and finally even by that long denier of it, President Bush. If Mr. Haas wants to remain in denial that is his privilege, but he might as well deny that the earth rotates around the sun rather than the other way around.
Finally I am at a loss to understand how my views are “opposite President Kennedy’s.” Mr. Haas does not even give us a clue as to how he arrived at this strange conclusion.
Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, New Jersey
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Media & McCain
I find myself more and more disillusioned with our media. I have for a long time been upset at the media for their tendency to copycat each other and for their focus on trivia or scandal. The lead-up to the Iraq war was a perfect example, for every major news outlet trumpeted the same Administration propaganda, acting as a megaphone for the White House.
But my disgust reached a new plane this past week when it was revealed that John Edwards had had an extra-marital affair. Just why this was newsworthy escapes me. Even if he were still a candidate, which he is not, it has no bearing on his ability to serve our country, and its revelation at this time can only serve to hurt his wife who is already struggling with terminal cancer. In the immortal words of Joseph Welch during the Army McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, “Have (they) no sense of decency? At long last, have (they) left no sense of decency?”
At the moment that this news broke, Russian troops were pouring across its borders into Georgia, hundreds of civilians were dying and the Olympics were about to start in China. I was trying to get updates on developments and so I turned on CNN. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. In disgust I turned to CNBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to Fox News. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to NBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I gave up and stayed with a program where Lanny Davis, the former Special Counsel to President Clinton was being interviewed about, you guessed it John Edwards. Mr. Davis suggested that maybe we aught to have some of the people in the media being exposed for any dalliances. I wanted to applaud.
But the media isn’t my only area of disappointment that I have had lately. John McCain is a man for whom I never could have voted, because to me his mindset is entirely too much on military options rather then on diplomacy. He was too much of a cheerleader for that option leading up to the Iraq war. He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration for its use of diplomacy with North Korea, and he sees humor in the dangerous confrontation that we are having with Iran. Singing, "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.
Similarly on the domestic front he has been a strong advocate for supply side economics, also known as the trickle down theory, which I strongly believe to be erroneous and counter-productive.
I did, however, respect McCain for his integrity and for a measure of independence. Both of these positive traits seem to have evaporated as the bug of Presidential ambition has infested the man. Once McCain denounced vicious negative campaigning and to his credit he took exception to the Swift boat ads that were run against Kerry. Now McCain sees nothing wrong with impugning the patriotism of his opponent, accusing him of wanting to lose a war to further his Presidential ambitions. McCain knows better than that, and the old McCain would have had nothing to do with such slander.
At one time McCain would have had nothing to do with environmentally unsound drilling in our coastal waters and would have honestly told voters that such drilling would not affect the price of gas either now or in the future. But the new McCain stands there before his audiences and chants, “Drill Here, Drill Now” as though oil lay beneath their feet then and there. What a hoax. McCain knows that the reason the price of gas has come down is because we are using less of it, and that conservation is the only option that can affect the price of gas in the short run, but the new McCain wouldn’t tell anybody that because he wants people to believe that just chanting, “Drill Here, Drill Now” brought down the cost of gas. Next he will tell us that the tooth fairy did it. He has even run ads claiming that Obama is responsible for the rise in the cost of gas.
McCain knows that some of his supporters have been using e-mail and the web to slander Obama as being a Muslim, as being for the terrorists, and above all, as not being like other Americans. (Subtext being African-American). The old McCain would have denounced such slander and such racism. The new McCain used Obama’s reference to such attacks as an excuse to accuse Obama of introducing the race card.
The old McCain and his Straight Talk Express gloried in being the darling of the media. The new McCain denounces the media because he is no longer their darling. He tells out and out lies, such as Obama canceling a visit to the troops because Obama couldn’t take the photographers with him, when he knows that the press had not been invited.
The old McCain wouldn’t have allowed himself to trivialize the race for the Presidency by introducing Paris Hilton and Britney Spears into the campaign. The new will use any and all means if he thinks they may aid his ambition.
The old McCain…is he just too old?
I don’t think so! Being even older than McCain I can remember that Conrad Adenauer was an effective Chancellor of Germany well into his eighties. But Adenauer never showed any signs of losing touch with the world around him. McCain, on the other hand, has confused Sunnis and Shiites, talks about Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993, and talks about the Iraqi border with Pakistan when the two countries do not have a common border. He has not yet caught up with the age of computers and finds them beyond his comprehension. His age is not a problem, but for a man running on experience and knowledge, his lack thereof is indeed worrisome.
Obama has shown a grasp of today, and the problems and geography of today. He has shown an ability to sit down with world leaders as an equal, and his connection to the Europeans makes it clear that an Obama Presidency would reinvigorate our alliances, which have suffered so badly in the last eight years. McCain makes fun of Obama's gift at oratory, a gift that is so obviously lacking in McCain. Of course McCain knows, as we all do, that this gift is an important one for anyone who aspires to leadership. The gift to inspire; the gift to lead is a God given gift that served Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy so well. It is not to be denigrated. It is to be applauded. The old McCain might even have had the grace to give credit where credit is due.
But the new McCain…well that’s the trouble - the new McCain isn’t the old McCain.
But my disgust reached a new plane this past week when it was revealed that John Edwards had had an extra-marital affair. Just why this was newsworthy escapes me. Even if he were still a candidate, which he is not, it has no bearing on his ability to serve our country, and its revelation at this time can only serve to hurt his wife who is already struggling with terminal cancer. In the immortal words of Joseph Welch during the Army McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, “Have (they) no sense of decency? At long last, have (they) left no sense of decency?”
At the moment that this news broke, Russian troops were pouring across its borders into Georgia, hundreds of civilians were dying and the Olympics were about to start in China. I was trying to get updates on developments and so I turned on CNN. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. In disgust I turned to CNBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to Fox News. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to NBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I gave up and stayed with a program where Lanny Davis, the former Special Counsel to President Clinton was being interviewed about, you guessed it John Edwards. Mr. Davis suggested that maybe we aught to have some of the people in the media being exposed for any dalliances. I wanted to applaud.
But the media isn’t my only area of disappointment that I have had lately. John McCain is a man for whom I never could have voted, because to me his mindset is entirely too much on military options rather then on diplomacy. He was too much of a cheerleader for that option leading up to the Iraq war. He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration for its use of diplomacy with North Korea, and he sees humor in the dangerous confrontation that we are having with Iran. Singing, "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.
Similarly on the domestic front he has been a strong advocate for supply side economics, also known as the trickle down theory, which I strongly believe to be erroneous and counter-productive.
I did, however, respect McCain for his integrity and for a measure of independence. Both of these positive traits seem to have evaporated as the bug of Presidential ambition has infested the man. Once McCain denounced vicious negative campaigning and to his credit he took exception to the Swift boat ads that were run against Kerry. Now McCain sees nothing wrong with impugning the patriotism of his opponent, accusing him of wanting to lose a war to further his Presidential ambitions. McCain knows better than that, and the old McCain would have had nothing to do with such slander.
At one time McCain would have had nothing to do with environmentally unsound drilling in our coastal waters and would have honestly told voters that such drilling would not affect the price of gas either now or in the future. But the new McCain stands there before his audiences and chants, “Drill Here, Drill Now” as though oil lay beneath their feet then and there. What a hoax. McCain knows that the reason the price of gas has come down is because we are using less of it, and that conservation is the only option that can affect the price of gas in the short run, but the new McCain wouldn’t tell anybody that because he wants people to believe that just chanting, “Drill Here, Drill Now” brought down the cost of gas. Next he will tell us that the tooth fairy did it. He has even run ads claiming that Obama is responsible for the rise in the cost of gas.
McCain knows that some of his supporters have been using e-mail and the web to slander Obama as being a Muslim, as being for the terrorists, and above all, as not being like other Americans. (Subtext being African-American). The old McCain would have denounced such slander and such racism. The new McCain used Obama’s reference to such attacks as an excuse to accuse Obama of introducing the race card.
The old McCain and his Straight Talk Express gloried in being the darling of the media. The new McCain denounces the media because he is no longer their darling. He tells out and out lies, such as Obama canceling a visit to the troops because Obama couldn’t take the photographers with him, when he knows that the press had not been invited.
The old McCain wouldn’t have allowed himself to trivialize the race for the Presidency by introducing Paris Hilton and Britney Spears into the campaign. The new will use any and all means if he thinks they may aid his ambition.
The old McCain…is he just too old?
I don’t think so! Being even older than McCain I can remember that Conrad Adenauer was an effective Chancellor of Germany well into his eighties. But Adenauer never showed any signs of losing touch with the world around him. McCain, on the other hand, has confused Sunnis and Shiites, talks about Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993, and talks about the Iraqi border with Pakistan when the two countries do not have a common border. He has not yet caught up with the age of computers and finds them beyond his comprehension. His age is not a problem, but for a man running on experience and knowledge, his lack thereof is indeed worrisome.
Obama has shown a grasp of today, and the problems and geography of today. He has shown an ability to sit down with world leaders as an equal, and his connection to the Europeans makes it clear that an Obama Presidency would reinvigorate our alliances, which have suffered so badly in the last eight years. McCain makes fun of Obama's gift at oratory, a gift that is so obviously lacking in McCain. Of course McCain knows, as we all do, that this gift is an important one for anyone who aspires to leadership. The gift to inspire; the gift to lead is a God given gift that served Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy so well. It is not to be denigrated. It is to be applauded. The old McCain might even have had the grace to give credit where credit is due.
But the new McCain…well that’s the trouble - the new McCain isn’t the old McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
