Category Archives: Taxes

Taking back our country.

Posted on by

No, I didn’t suddenly become a pitchfork wielding right-wing lunatic.  I don’t own a handgun or an assault rifle.  And I have no doubts that President Obama was born in Hawaii.  But I do believe our nation is in jeopardy. 

However, we don’t need violence to address the issues.  All we need is legislation.  And it’s not even new legislation.  Just return the U.S. to the tax structure and regulations that existed in the U.S. prior to Ronald Reagan. 

Want to prevent another financial crash like the one that happened in 2008?  Simply eliminate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1994.  That legislation, sponsored by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, permitted bank holding companies to co-mingle financial institutions of deposit, investment and insurance which contributed to the collapse of our financial system last year.  You might also fire those in the Federal Reserve who failed to exercise the oversight that’s already within its power.

Want to eliminate the predatory tactics of the banks which issue credit cards?  Simply nationalize usury laws which limit interest rates in many states.  These laws were allowed to be circumvented in the 1980s by large bank holding companies. 

Want to reduce our national debt?  Simply return the highest marginal income tax to pre-Bush rates.   

Want to rebuild the nation’s failing infrastructure?  Return the highest marginal income tax to Eisenhower administration rates of the 1950s.  After all, that was the last era when our nation made significant investments in infrastructure.

Want to bring back manufacturing jobs and diminish unemployment?  Undo the relaxation of tariff laws that enabled “globalization” by our large corporations.  In reality, “globalization” is just another term for exporting jobs, undermining worker benefits and wages, increasing profits and avoiding corporate taxes.  (How many U.S. corporations have created a mailing address in the Bahamas or the Caymans to avoid U.S. taxes?)

Want to calm the angry rhetoric on radio and TV?  Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine which existed prior to 1987.  That doctrine, enforced by the FCC, required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.  (Wouldn’t you like to see Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News Network and Focus on the Family try to justify their existence under those rules?)The point is most of the problems in this country aren’t new.  We’ve addressed them all before.  We can do it again.

Rewarding unreasonable behavior.

Posted on by

On the anniversary of 9/11, Republican spokesperson and renowned liar, Rush Limbaugh, chastised President Obama for trying to turn 9/11 into a day of public service.  Wow!  How dare the President want to commemorate the attacks on U.S. soil with something positive!  How dare the President try to encourage Americans to serve their nation! 

Certainly, the past President never encouraged public service and sacrifice.  In the wake of 9/11, Bush asked us to go shopping.  And while our young people were serving and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, he pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  (I guess he believed that only the middle class and poor should sacrifice for their country.)  Bush refused to allow press coverage and photographs of the true cost of war.  Indeed, Republicans treated war much as the Wizard of Oz would.  “Pay no attention to what’s behind that curtain.”

But, in reality, Republican criticism has nothing to do with President Obama’s statements and actions.  He’ll be criticized by Republican pundits no matter what he says or does.   That’s not surprising.  After all, we’re talking about the same people who accused then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with murder relating to the so-called Travel-gate.  They’re the people who spent $60 million of taxpayers’ money to investigate Clinton’s investment loss in Whitewater.  They’re the same people who called Democrats “whack jobs” and “conspiracy nuts” for crying foul over the 2000 Florida election.   (Never mind the findings of an independent group of journalists who stated, “It’s clear that a significant majority of Floridians intended to vote for Al Gore.”)  And these are the same people who attacked the patriotism of a Vietnam War hero while supporting a candidate who got his powerful daddy to help him avoid the draft by getting him into the Air National Guard. 

Republicans are good at attacking.  In fact, they’re great at it.  Many of today’s Republican strategists learned at the knee of the masters; Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew.  Republican attacks and tricks should not come as a surprise to anyone – least of all Democrats.

What is surprising is that Democrats continue to try to reason with them.  And, by doing so, they continue to encourage their bad behavior.  It’s astounding that Representative Joe Wilson can bellow “You lie” to President Obama in an address to a joint session of Congress.  It’s even more astounding that Democratic Senators reword the health care reform bill because of Wilson’s outburst.  (Despite the fact that the bill already clearly stated that health care coverage will be denied to illegal aliens, the wording was strengthened in response to Wilson.) 

The message to Republican extremists is that their extreme accusations and tactics work. 

So Republicans and their media supporters will continue to scare citizens with fabricated issues like “Death Panels”.  They’ll continue to raise fears that a Presidential speech to school children is an attempt to indoctrinate them.  And they’ll continue to compare a centrist African-American President who continues to search for bipartisanship to Adolph Hitler.  (How can anyone actually believe this stuff?) 

Someone once said, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”  Yet Democrats continue to try to reason with Republicans.  Why? 

The end of voodoo economics?

Posted on by

I was never a big fan of President George H.W. Bush although, compared to his son, he was a fabulous president.  And he did get one thing right – his description of Reagan’s theory of trickle-down economics.  That’s right.  It was George, the elder, who first appropriately labeled it “Voodoo” economics. 

The idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy would somehow benefit the rest of us never really made any sense.  It was clear to me that the wealthy would simply spend the extra money on themselves or invest it in the stock markets.  I couldn’t see how the theory would result in more jobs or increased living standards for everyone else.

What did make sense to me was the idea of cutting taxes on companies that created jobs, and Reaganomics did do that.  Unfortunately, the Reaganists relaxed or eliminated many of the regulations and safeguards that controlled corporations.  The result was tax cuts and tax credits for large corporations that took their manufacturing jobs overseas.  And due to the lack of regulation, many corporations created phony “headquarters” in the Bahamas and the Caymans to avoid paying taxes altogether.  Amazingly, Republicans refused to even consider banning these off-shore companies from receiving U.S. government contracts. 

How on Earth were U.S. citizens, other than corporate officers, supposed to benefit from that?

The short answer is that we didn’t.

In an op-ed column for The New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman summarized the real effect of Reaganomics.  “…real incomes of the top .01 percent of Americans rose sevenfold between 1980 and 2007.  But the real income of the median family rose only 22 percent, less than a third its growth over the previous 27 years“.  Krugman also points out that “most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years “, and that President George W. Bush “…had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains”.

Of course, Krugman’s statistics don’t include the fiascos of 2008 in which the Fed started bailing out banks long before the public noticed; when gasoline prices hovered around $4 per gallon; when foreclosures dragged down the entire economy; and when the Bush and Obama administrations had to bail out Wall Street.  All of these issues are likely to make the final cost of Reaganomics look even worse.

Yet despite all evidence to the contrary and despite the near-disastrous collapse of our entire financial system under their leadership, Republicans still cling to the notion that the failed economic policy of their former leader and idol can cure our present-day problems.  “Make the Bush tax cuts permanent,” they say, “that will bring our economy back.” 

If Republicans should somehow regain control of Congress during the 2010 mid-term elections, be afraid, my friends.  Be very afraid.  Like other apparitions of black magic, voodoo economics may be more difficult to kill than you think.

Return to the “Good Old Days?” Be careful what you wish for.

Posted on by

I receive a lot of emails, mostly from my conservative friends, of the “Remember When?” variety.  Of course, they focus on the “Leave it to Beaver” days of the 1950 and 60s.  A recent one started me wondering why we look back on those days so fondly. 

After all, the 50s were pre-civil rights and pre-feminism.  They were also the days of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and impending doom from Soviet H-bombs.  And the 60s revolved around the Vietnam War.

So why do we remember those days so fondly?  I’m sure part of the reason is that we were kids and teens who didn’t worry about politics and the ills of the world.  In addition, there was a black and white honesty to those days when right and wrong seemed more clearly defined.  But I submit that one very big reason is that there was less disparity in income.  Around the small town where I grew up, it was more difficult to tell the “haves” from the “have-nots.” 

That was partly due to generational modesty – it just wasn’t polite to show-off. 

It also had a good deal to do with tax codes.  It might surprise you to learn that, during the Republican Eisenhower administration, the income tax rate for the top bracket was 91-92 percent.  In contrast, the tax rate for the bottom bracket was 22 percent.  By 1971, the top rate had dropped to 70 percent while the bottom rate dropped to 14 percent.  And today, the top rate is 35 percent while the bottom bracket is 10 percent.  

Given the fact that income taxes have dropped dramatically since 1951, you would think that most of us would be feeling pretty good about our taxes and government.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing anger as evidenced by the “tea-baggers” and “anti-health care reformists” who shout slogans and carry signs demanding their country back. 

Hmmm…I wonder how those people would feel about bringing back the tax structure of the “good old days?”

Those people seem to forget that many of the things we enjoy and take for granted were created by government and subsidized by taxes:  Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, V.A., the G.I. Bill, the interstate highway system and the national park system to name just a few. 

The truth is we have more than any of the generations before us.  In general, we keep a greater percentage of our earnings than before.  We have more time for recreation than ever before.  And in comparison to the days of McCarthyism and Jim Crow laws, there’s less government intrusion in our lives.  So why do conservatives think the 50s and early 60s were so wonderful?

My theory is that, we didn’t have people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck ranting about how bad our government is and trying to pit one faction of our population against another.