President Obama has drawn a line in the sand, saying that he will reject any offer the Republicans make which does not include raising taxes on the top 2% of Americans. He claims that Republicans are “holding the middle class hostage” by refusing such a tax increase.
If Republicans came up with equivalent revenue from other sources, he says he would reject it, so the issue is not revenue, it is his insistence on a specific tax increase, but he claims he is not the party being intransigent, and that it is not he who is holding the middle class hostage. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending Republicans, here.
This is idiotic political posturing by both sides which ill serves the people of this nation. It is tokenism of the very worst sort, and neither side should take pride in it.
I would respect Obama if he drew the line over something that mattered, but this is simply nonsense. His little “tax the rich” plan doesn’t do any harm, and I don’t oppose it per se, but it doesn’t do any good either and it is ridiculous to be holding up other things based on this stupid token.
It’s not critical to deficit reduction, as it reduces the deficit by no more than 10% or so, and deficit reduction is not the most important issue facing us today in any case. Not to mention that he specifically says he would reject equivalent revenue from other sources, so he doesn’t actually care about this in terms of deficit reduction. If he did he would accept revenue regardless of where it came from.
This is Obama’s plan to appeal to the middle class; an effort to be seen doing something about “income inequality” even though he never uses that phrase. It doesn’t do that, of course, since it reduces the income of the upper class by less than 2% and does nothing whatever to raise the income of the middle class. But after four years of pandering to Wall Street and the corporate sponsors, and no longer in need of their donations for reelection, he needs to give the masses a “feel good moment," and this is it.
The classic phrase “sounding brass” comes to mind here; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It does no harm, which is really the point; it's a way to make the middle class feel good without harming the upper class.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Labor Power
Reading today that the port strike in LA was settled and that, apparently, the parties had essentially reached agreement when the federal mediators arrived at the request of the Mayor of Los Angeles.
On the bright side of this story is that the related union assisted by honoring the picket line, making the strike effective. That is the kind of utilization of the power of workers that has been missing for too long, and that I have been advocating for more than a year.
Last week I was reading a discussion of the victimization of workers by corporations and the low wages that they are forced to endure, and one commenter asserted that, “we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.” I expected to be roundly flamed for responding that this was another example of waiting for government to do for us what we are simply unwilling to do for ourselves, either through lack of courage or due to sheer laziness. Oddly, the comment generated no response.
This port strike illustrates that we do not, indeed, need to wait for the government to do anything for us if we are willing to stand up for ourselves. Clearly, workers have sufficient power to win the day when we have the determination and courage to use it. This port strike has been a somewhat heartening event.
Less heartening is the crappy reporting that leaves the issue so murky. "...the union's contention that terminal operators wanted to outsource future clerical jobs out of state and overseas — an allegation the shippers denied. Shippers said they wanted the flexibility not to fill jobs that were no longer needed as clerks quit or retired. They said they promised the current clerks lifetime employment."
Clearly one side, or both, is fundamentally misrepresented in that inadequate "he said she said" presentation of the dispute. I'm sure many liberals are quite happy to assume that the workers' side is accurate and that the reporter is lying like a rug about the shippers, but I'm not sure that it is that simple at all. I would like to have a clearer picture of what the dispute was actually about.
Be that as it may, this is the first time that workers have united to exercise power in a meaningful way in a long time, and I am heartened by it.
On the bright side of this story is that the related union assisted by honoring the picket line, making the strike effective. That is the kind of utilization of the power of workers that has been missing for too long, and that I have been advocating for more than a year.
Last week I was reading a discussion of the victimization of workers by corporations and the low wages that they are forced to endure, and one commenter asserted that, “we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.” I expected to be roundly flamed for responding that this was another example of waiting for government to do for us what we are simply unwilling to do for ourselves, either through lack of courage or due to sheer laziness. Oddly, the comment generated no response.
This port strike illustrates that we do not, indeed, need to wait for the government to do anything for us if we are willing to stand up for ourselves. Clearly, workers have sufficient power to win the day when we have the determination and courage to use it. This port strike has been a somewhat heartening event.
Less heartening is the crappy reporting that leaves the issue so murky. "...the union's contention that terminal operators wanted to outsource future clerical jobs out of state and overseas — an allegation the shippers denied. Shippers said they wanted the flexibility not to fill jobs that were no longer needed as clerks quit or retired. They said they promised the current clerks lifetime employment."
Clearly one side, or both, is fundamentally misrepresented in that inadequate "he said she said" presentation of the dispute. I'm sure many liberals are quite happy to assume that the workers' side is accurate and that the reporter is lying like a rug about the shippers, but I'm not sure that it is that simple at all. I would like to have a clearer picture of what the dispute was actually about.
Be that as it may, this is the first time that workers have united to exercise power in a meaningful way in a long time, and I am heartened by it.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
More Krugman Fails
In one blog post today Krugman says that Republican counter offers are “fake” because they propose raising taxes by $800 billion by eliminating deductions, but don’t specify which deductions. His argument, as most of his arguments do, has a hole. Working out the details takes a lot of work, and if the total is not acceptable then there is no point in doing that. It’s perfectly reasonable to negotiate the total first, and then arrive at the details once that total has been agreed upon.
In another post he slams Republicans for rejecting drug price negotiations for Medicare. “Bargaining over drug prices? Horrors!” He seems to forget that in 2009 Obama met secretly with the pharmaceutical companies before the “health care reform” negotiations began and agreed with them that drug price negotiations for Medicare would not be on the table. Obama was then and is now, I believe, a Democrat.
In both posts his overall positions may actually be ones ones with which I do not disagree, but Krugman seems to have an astonishing inability to provide valid reasons and proofs for his assertions.
In another post he slams Republicans for rejecting drug price negotiations for Medicare. “Bargaining over drug prices? Horrors!” He seems to forget that in 2009 Obama met secretly with the pharmaceutical companies before the “health care reform” negotiations began and agreed with them that drug price negotiations for Medicare would not be on the table. Obama was then and is now, I believe, a Democrat.
In both posts his overall positions may actually be ones ones with which I do not disagree, but Krugman seems to have an astonishing inability to provide valid reasons and proofs for his assertions.
The Greater Deceit
A friend of mine wrote me the other day, citing a quote by John Boehner and saying that “It's disgraceful that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would repeat provably false statistics about our economy.” Don is a good guy, and we’ve had some lengthy, interesting and very enjoyable political discussions, but he still has the illusion that elected officials have things like honor and decency. Why he would think that of anyone in elected office, let alone a Republican, escapes me.
Well. I can't say that I really care about John Boehner's lies, because I assume that if any politician is speaking he is lying, be he Republican, Democrat or anything else. That applies whether he is campaigning, or whether he is simply telling us why the government or military is doing something. Such as why we are fighting in Afghanistan; "to deny them space in which to plan their attacks." At least that is good grammar, but it certainly is not the reason we have troops dying in a foreign land fighting a people who are no threat whatever to this nation.
I think the bigger deceit is to palm the public off with panaceas like trivial taxes on the rich and token tax cuts for middle class while not dealing with real issues like tens of millions of citizens who have no income on which to pay taxes, or whose income is so small that taxes are the least of their problems, or the real energy problems of the nation, or a collapsing infrastructure, or militarism, or climate change which is destroying the planet on which people live.
I think the bigger deceit is to prate about the generosity of the income tax cuts that you’ve showered on the middle class when 47% of the people of this nation are so poor that they don’t even pay income taxes. What good is an income tax cut to someone who doesn’t pay income tax?
The party in the White House is devoted to maintaining the status quo and protecting corporatism on things that really matter while giving the public a meaningless little "tax the rich" sales pitch that will make the public feel good but does not actually harm the rich at all and does nothing to improve the lot of the middle class. Or the poor, about whom we no longer even speak. They propose a $50 billion "stimulus" which is so trivial as to not even qualify as a token in the face of the tens of millions unemployed.
Which is the greater deceit, a lie, or saying nothing masked in words that sound like more than they really are? Lenin had some thoughts about that.
Well. I can't say that I really care about John Boehner's lies, because I assume that if any politician is speaking he is lying, be he Republican, Democrat or anything else. That applies whether he is campaigning, or whether he is simply telling us why the government or military is doing something. Such as why we are fighting in Afghanistan; "to deny them space in which to plan their attacks." At least that is good grammar, but it certainly is not the reason we have troops dying in a foreign land fighting a people who are no threat whatever to this nation.
I think the bigger deceit is to palm the public off with panaceas like trivial taxes on the rich and token tax cuts for middle class while not dealing with real issues like tens of millions of citizens who have no income on which to pay taxes, or whose income is so small that taxes are the least of their problems, or the real energy problems of the nation, or a collapsing infrastructure, or militarism, or climate change which is destroying the planet on which people live.
I think the bigger deceit is to prate about the generosity of the income tax cuts that you’ve showered on the middle class when 47% of the people of this nation are so poor that they don’t even pay income taxes. What good is an income tax cut to someone who doesn’t pay income tax?
The party in the White House is devoted to maintaining the status quo and protecting corporatism on things that really matter while giving the public a meaningless little "tax the rich" sales pitch that will make the public feel good but does not actually harm the rich at all and does nothing to improve the lot of the middle class. Or the poor, about whom we no longer even speak. They propose a $50 billion "stimulus" which is so trivial as to not even qualify as a token in the face of the tens of millions unemployed.
Which is the greater deceit, a lie, or saying nothing masked in words that sound like more than they really are? Lenin had some thoughts about that.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Deja Vu All Over Again
Well, the Chargers are nothing if not consistent. They took the lead yesterday early in the second quarter and held it until there was just 4:11 left in the game. At that point Philip Rivers managed to get himself sacked and fumble the ball to the Bengals on the Charger 13-yard line, resulting in a field goal and a seven point Bengal lead. Rivers then pitched an interception, cementing the Charger loss.
To heighten the sense of continuity, the offense went another full game without scoring a touchdown, managing nothing other than two field goals. So the defense scored seven points on the day, while the offense scored six points, which could be considered role reversal except that the offense did nothing to slow down the Bengals.
Local sportswriter Nick Canepa is claiming today that coach Norv Turner did a fine job of coaching on the day and that he “outcoached” the Bengals head coach. He also gave a “B” rating to quarterback Philip Rivers, an “A” to the receivers and a “U” to the offensive line. The “U,” oddly enough, is not for “unsatisfactory,” but is for “unknown” because some of them are substitutes due to injuries. I’d like to know what Canepa is smoking.
Running backs, by the way, got an “Inc” for “incomplete.” Maybe it’s just me, but I think nine carries for 26 yards is plenty to determine a failing grade. It’s also a bit contrary to his assertions about the quality of the coaching, because calling only nine running plays for the entire game is not particularly clever.
There is also, of course, the fact that the offense has not scored a single touchdown in more than two full games. It’s a lirrle bit difficult to associate that with high caliber coaching.
All of the sportswriters are raving about the fine job that the defense did, and they did get several turnovers. A couple of those turnovers were even forced turnovers, and one of them was returned for a score, but they also gave up an 80-yard touchdown drive and a 55-yard touchdown drive. Decent, certainly, but not stellar.
Norv Turner himself had the usual vapid blather about how “they did some things that stopped what we were trying to do.” Oh really? I think we noticed that. My favorite is that when asked why the Chargers are losing he says, “Well, we’re playing some good teams.” No reporter ever calls him on that and asks him if his aspirations consist of only being able to beat bad teams.
To heighten the sense of continuity, the offense went another full game without scoring a touchdown, managing nothing other than two field goals. So the defense scored seven points on the day, while the offense scored six points, which could be considered role reversal except that the offense did nothing to slow down the Bengals.
Local sportswriter Nick Canepa is claiming today that coach Norv Turner did a fine job of coaching on the day and that he “outcoached” the Bengals head coach. He also gave a “B” rating to quarterback Philip Rivers, an “A” to the receivers and a “U” to the offensive line. The “U,” oddly enough, is not for “unsatisfactory,” but is for “unknown” because some of them are substitutes due to injuries. I’d like to know what Canepa is smoking.
Running backs, by the way, got an “Inc” for “incomplete.” Maybe it’s just me, but I think nine carries for 26 yards is plenty to determine a failing grade. It’s also a bit contrary to his assertions about the quality of the coaching, because calling only nine running plays for the entire game is not particularly clever.
There is also, of course, the fact that the offense has not scored a single touchdown in more than two full games. It’s a lirrle bit difficult to associate that with high caliber coaching.
All of the sportswriters are raving about the fine job that the defense did, and they did get several turnovers. A couple of those turnovers were even forced turnovers, and one of them was returned for a score, but they also gave up an 80-yard touchdown drive and a 55-yard touchdown drive. Decent, certainly, but not stellar.
Norv Turner himself had the usual vapid blather about how “they did some things that stopped what we were trying to do.” Oh really? I think we noticed that. My favorite is that when asked why the Chargers are losing he says, “Well, we’re playing some good teams.” No reporter ever calls him on that and asks him if his aspirations consist of only being able to beat bad teams.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Begging Blegs
I feel badly because here it is December of my seventh year blogging and I have not engaged in a “begging bleg” to implore you to send money to help me defray the vast cost of supporting this blog upon which you have come to so heavily depend, and to keep me and my cat from starvation. (My wife can fend for herself. It seems it is not good form to beg for one’s wife.)
Actually, of course, it doesn’t cost me anything to maintain this stupid blog, since Blogger is free. I have no idea why you would come to depend on this thing, heavily or otherwise, or what you would depend on it for. The cat and I are not only not at starvation’s door, actually both of us are a bit overweight.
But I feel kind of left out being the only blog on the Internet not begging for money. Nor do I have any other blogs out there pimping for me, saying that, “Hey, Jayhawk over there at On My Mind is the last bastion of sanity on the Internet, and he really needs your help.”
Of course, writing this crap and referring to myself as “the last bastion of sanity on the Internet” sort of beggars credulity, but…
I followed one such referral which described the guy as “unique among group prog blogs for never drinking the Obama-as-progressive Kool-Aid and for not trading truth for access” because I’d never been there before and it sounded like an interesting place. Well, I didn’t know what a “group prog blog” is, and it actually sounded a little bit obscene, but the rest of it sounded sort of interesting.
The first post was the “begging bleg” saying that he wanted to launch the fundraiser on Monday rather than Saturday, but that the “server people are being quite insistent.” Or, he could use blogspot, like the rest of us do, and “the server people” would not charge him any money at all. I saw nothing on his website that Blogger would not accommodate. And I guess launching on Monday would be better because then people could run to the bank and get cash to… Okay, maybe I don’t know why Monday would be better.
And perhaps I overestimated what a “group prog blogs for never drinking the Obama-as-progressive Kool-Aid and for not trading truth for access” blog actually is, because the blog in question consisted of miscellaneous trivia. There was a cat that was kind of cute, there was an insect and an “interesting” weed. Only two of the dozen or so posts that I read were written by the blogger, the rest were nothing more than links to other material, and pretty much none of it had anything to do with politics, liberal or otherwise.
And for this the guy has a goal of raising $55,000 per year to satisfy “the server people.” News flash: you can maintain a website containing hundreds of pages and major interactivity for about $1500 per year. A blog such as his on a commercial hosting service would run about $100 per year. Maybe he has a lot of cats.
Actually, of course, it doesn’t cost me anything to maintain this stupid blog, since Blogger is free. I have no idea why you would come to depend on this thing, heavily or otherwise, or what you would depend on it for. The cat and I are not only not at starvation’s door, actually both of us are a bit overweight.
But I feel kind of left out being the only blog on the Internet not begging for money. Nor do I have any other blogs out there pimping for me, saying that, “Hey, Jayhawk over there at On My Mind is the last bastion of sanity on the Internet, and he really needs your help.”
Of course, writing this crap and referring to myself as “the last bastion of sanity on the Internet” sort of beggars credulity, but…
I followed one such referral which described the guy as “unique among group prog blogs for never drinking the Obama-as-progressive Kool-Aid and for not trading truth for access” because I’d never been there before and it sounded like an interesting place. Well, I didn’t know what a “group prog blog” is, and it actually sounded a little bit obscene, but the rest of it sounded sort of interesting.
The first post was the “begging bleg” saying that he wanted to launch the fundraiser on Monday rather than Saturday, but that the “server people are being quite insistent.” Or, he could use blogspot, like the rest of us do, and “the server people” would not charge him any money at all. I saw nothing on his website that Blogger would not accommodate. And I guess launching on Monday would be better because then people could run to the bank and get cash to… Okay, maybe I don’t know why Monday would be better.
And perhaps I overestimated what a “group prog blogs for never drinking the Obama-as-progressive Kool-Aid and for not trading truth for access” blog actually is, because the blog in question consisted of miscellaneous trivia. There was a cat that was kind of cute, there was an insect and an “interesting” weed. Only two of the dozen or so posts that I read were written by the blogger, the rest were nothing more than links to other material, and pretty much none of it had anything to do with politics, liberal or otherwise.
And for this the guy has a goal of raising $55,000 per year to satisfy “the server people.” News flash: you can maintain a website containing hundreds of pages and major interactivity for about $1500 per year. A blog such as his on a commercial hosting service would run about $100 per year. Maybe he has a lot of cats.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Tax The Rich
I continue to be amazed at the false propaganda and demagoguery that endlessly emanates from liberals and Democrats about the “Bush tax cuts for the rich,” and from conservatives and Republicans about the effect of increasing taxes on the rich on job creation. A pox on both their houses.
When the Bush tax package was passed it reduced taxes for the lowest incomes by 50%, for God’s sake. It reduced taxes for the middle class by 10% and for the top bracket by 9%. At the time the slant that was put on it was that it was a tax cut the benefited mostly the rich because the bulk of the total dollars being cut came from taxes on the wealthy, but that is an absurd argument on the face of it.
Comparing tax cuts in terms of absolute dollars is nonsensical. You cannot give a person earning $50,000 a $70,000 tax reduction, which is a minor tax cut to someone making $1.8 million. By the same token, a $2000 tax cut which helps someone making $30,000 per year is utterly meaningless to a millionaire. Tax cuts are meaningful only in terms of the percentage by which they reduce taxes, and the Bush tax cuts were most certainly not beneficial only for the rich.
I certainly have no objection to returning our tax code to the more progressive structure that it once had, and if today’s discussion were being held in those terms I would be on board. This “tax the rich,” or as Obama puts it, “make the rich pay their fair share.” Is an abomination in that it panders to what has become the American voter’s overriding demand: that we solve the problem without making the common man pay for it.
“Solve the problem,” we say, “just don’t make me pay the price.”
And for heaven’s sake let’s drop the “fairness” argument. Life is inherently unfair, and sane adults recognize that. “Fair” is what ten years olds argue about. The tax code should be more progressive, yes, but only because we tried that and it worked. Clearly, the one we have now is not working.
To make the pandering even more atrociously false, Democrats cite the revenue which purportedly will be produced by this miniscule tax on this small handful of people in dollars per decade while citing the deficit as an annual number so that the public will think that actual gains are being made, when in actuality this “tax the rich” solves almost precisely nothing.
But it doesn’t “harm job growth” either, and all of this nonsense about small business owners and S corporations is not a viable argument. One television host asked a “business owner” how it would harm him to pay and additional $8000 in taxes and his reply was that, “Then I don’t have that $8000 to spend on employees and employee benefits.”
Oh, please. The fact that that money is being taxed means that he has declared it as profit, and having done so means that he has already declared that he is not spending it on employees and employee benefits. The television host merely nodded like an idiot.
Personal taxes on small business owners are levied on profits, money which the owner has already made the decision not to spend on new employees. The argument can be made that, knowing that his taxes will
be higher, he made the decision to cut back on growth plans in order to generate higher profits, but… Wait, what?!
All politician lie. The only difference is what they lie about.
When the Bush tax package was passed it reduced taxes for the lowest incomes by 50%, for God’s sake. It reduced taxes for the middle class by 10% and for the top bracket by 9%. At the time the slant that was put on it was that it was a tax cut the benefited mostly the rich because the bulk of the total dollars being cut came from taxes on the wealthy, but that is an absurd argument on the face of it.
Comparing tax cuts in terms of absolute dollars is nonsensical. You cannot give a person earning $50,000 a $70,000 tax reduction, which is a minor tax cut to someone making $1.8 million. By the same token, a $2000 tax cut which helps someone making $30,000 per year is utterly meaningless to a millionaire. Tax cuts are meaningful only in terms of the percentage by which they reduce taxes, and the Bush tax cuts were most certainly not beneficial only for the rich.
I certainly have no objection to returning our tax code to the more progressive structure that it once had, and if today’s discussion were being held in those terms I would be on board. This “tax the rich,” or as Obama puts it, “make the rich pay their fair share.” Is an abomination in that it panders to what has become the American voter’s overriding demand: that we solve the problem without making the common man pay for it.
“Solve the problem,” we say, “just don’t make me pay the price.”
And for heaven’s sake let’s drop the “fairness” argument. Life is inherently unfair, and sane adults recognize that. “Fair” is what ten years olds argue about. The tax code should be more progressive, yes, but only because we tried that and it worked. Clearly, the one we have now is not working.
To make the pandering even more atrociously false, Democrats cite the revenue which purportedly will be produced by this miniscule tax on this small handful of people in dollars per decade while citing the deficit as an annual number so that the public will think that actual gains are being made, when in actuality this “tax the rich” solves almost precisely nothing.
But it doesn’t “harm job growth” either, and all of this nonsense about small business owners and S corporations is not a viable argument. One television host asked a “business owner” how it would harm him to pay and additional $8000 in taxes and his reply was that, “Then I don’t have that $8000 to spend on employees and employee benefits.”
Oh, please. The fact that that money is being taxed means that he has declared it as profit, and having done so means that he has already declared that he is not spending it on employees and employee benefits. The television host merely nodded like an idiot.
Personal taxes on small business owners are levied on profits, money which the owner has already made the decision not to spend on new employees. The argument can be made that, knowing that his taxes will
be higher, he made the decision to cut back on growth plans in order to generate higher profits, but… Wait, what?!
All politician lie. The only difference is what they lie about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)