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.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
