home

Monday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:02:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

BTD is busy at work today. Me too. Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

< Supreme Court Hears Arguments in DNA Innocence Case | Holder Intervenes in Federal Death Penalty Trial in San Francisco >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Afternoon Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Walnut Creek) (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    is introducing legislation to abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

    San Francisco Chronicale

    If the 75% backing repeal (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    is for real, then this might have legs. Perhaps it would be best to tack it on to ENDA.

    Parent
    I wonder if there's a democratic rep (none / 0) (#113)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:07:14 PM EST
    with the courage to try to get rid of the Patriot Act.


    Parent
    Homework for liberals: (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    Check out Greenwald's post at Salon today and the incomparable Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler, calling out a few liberal icons on their nonsense.

    Stay alert!

    There is just no one like (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    the incomparable Bob Somerby. .

    I love it, love it, love it that he is shaking his finger at Josh Marshall.

    Parent

    The Republic is Dead (none / 0) (#22)
    by CDN Ctzn on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    Although some good legislation has been presented, the essential liberties of individuals are still being threatened.
    America doesn't need another Dictator regardless of how benevolent he may be.

    Parent
    Feel good (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    This will for certain brighten up your day.  It's video of a run-through for a commercial shot during a normal day at Liverpool Station in London.

    Cool ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    though it is essentially a rip off of this scene from The Fisher King.

    Parent
    Don't care (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    The delight of both the performers and the bystanders who get sucked into participating by the end is just palpable.  Everyone had a total blast.


    Parent
    Hypocrisy? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    How does Obama explain the 9000 earmarks that are in his budget?   Some of the earmarks are for the VP, the  Chief of Staff, etc.  Those defending the earmarks say it was last year business.  That won't cut it.  If you want the people to believe you when Obama says that there will be NO earmarks in your legislation then you got to delete all these 9000 from the budget.  If reverses himself on this IMO then Obama would have lost all credibility.

    Also he talks about transparency in his administration.  Nothing will be done behind close doors yet I hear that the medical, pharmaceutical lobbyist is discussing the health care reform behind close doors with Ted Kennedy.  

    Check Darren Hutchinson blog on these two topics
    Earmarks and Health Care Lobbyist.

    These are two major flip flops if they are let to stand.  

    News flash (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    It's not his budget, it's George Bush's.

    Second news flash: Ted Kennedy is not part of the Obama administration.

    Are we clear now?

    Parent

    Two things: (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    One - the only reason Ted isn't part of the administration is because of his health, and I have to believe that whatever it is he is doing, whether behind closed doors or not, it is being done with Obama's full knowledge.

    Two - whatever health care legislation we get will ultimately be determined by the Congress, and Ted plays a huge role there, so I would not be so quick to assume that whatever it is that he is doing will not evidence itself in that legislation.  And for that reason, we should all care very much with whom he is meeting, don't you think?

    Parent

    Actually its Obama's proposed budget. (none / 0) (#66)
    by coast on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    Congress actually passes the budget. So its technically Congress' budget, not the President's.

    Parent
    RE: Congress' Budget (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    Good Point.

    Obama should break out his Veto Pen right out of the gate and reject the Congressional Budget.  

    This would send a message to all that he is serious about putting an end to insider baseball and the old way of Beltline politics.

    VETO THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE!!!

    Parent

    The John Woo memos (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    are out.

    Um, Yoo (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    Oops.

    Parent
    Iranian Jews (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    Followup op-ed, Iran, the Jews and Germany,  from Roger Cohen, after right wing backlash of his previous op-ed What Iran's Jews Say which I linked to last week.

    A conservative Web site called American Thinker, which tries to prove its name is an oxymoron, believes I would have been fooled by the Nazis' sham at the Theresienstadt camp.

    [snip]

    The indignation stems from my recent column on Iranian Jews, which said that the 25,000-strong community worships in relative tranquillity;

    [snip]

    Most of Iran's population is under 30; it's an Internet-connected generation. Access to satellite television is widespread. The BBC's new Farsi service is all the rage.

    [snip]

    For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life -- not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear -- but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.

    This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country's Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.

    It will take some time to rid ourselves of contamination from BushCo nonsense and the big assist they enjoyed by the MSM.


    Geithner was not given the amounts due. (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Green26 on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:01:35 AM EST
    Inspector Gadget, your statement is either incorrect, or an outright lie.

    Some trying to skirt $250,000 tax mark (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    Link

    President Barack Obama's tax proposal - which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

    Although experts say it isn't that easy.  May defeat the purpose of stimulating the economy if small business don't expand their businesses and cut clients.

    Obviously none of those people in the article (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:57:44 PM EST
    understand the difference between effective and marginal tax rates.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by eric on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:26:31 PM EST
    wow, that's dumb.

    A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named,

    This "lawyer" isn't qualified to practice law if she is this confused about how taxes work.

    Parent

    But it opens the market to their (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    competitors to increase their businesses that much more. Personally, those people who would shoot themselves in the foot like that should remain beneath the $250,000 earnings level.


    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    in a backwards sort of way she is admitting that she prefers to spread the wealth by turning her customers away, so an up and comer can get a quick foothold with immediately available clientele in search of services.

    Parent
    Are those the only choices a small (none / 0) (#6)
    by Radix on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    business has, not expanding or cutting clients? If said business did add personal or expand, wouldn't that also lower their income while at the same time grow their business?

    Parent
    Sole Proprietor vs. Corp. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    Depends on the type of business the person owns.  If the Fed wants to stimulate the biggest growth engine of our economy (small business), they wouldn't RAISE income taxes on those making $250K because a great majority of those folks are sole proprietors (TAX Identification # IS their Social).

    Even though sole proprietors can take advantage of all the legal tax deductions available, the expenses of unemployment tax, social security tax, employee retirement plans, health benefits as well as the huge liability a sole proprietor carries outweigh everything else.

    Increasing taxes on those making $250K or greater will create the same unintended consequence Roosevelt created in the 1930's.  Human nature is to avoid income tax in any way, shape, form or fashion and people will ALWAYS find a way to do so.

    The proverbial carrot on the stick has been converted to a circling poop in the bowl.  If you know a sole proprietor, ask him what he/she plans to do based on the new increase.

    Parent

    The tax increase won't affect me, (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:10:43 PM EST
    thanks the the effects of our sterling economy.

    Parent
    Except that (none / 0) (#40)
    by eric on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    the number one way to cut your income is to increase your expenses by, say, expanding your business.

    Parent
    "Love" this attitude (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"


    Parent
    Law of Unintended Consequences (none / 0) (#120)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    History shows that raising taxes for these folks produces exactly the opposite effect legislators are trying to create.

    Here's what happened when marginal tax rates were CUT:

    In the 1920's, the highest marginal tax rate was cut from 70 percent to less than 25 percent. Subsequent revenue to the treasury rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928 or an increase of just over 62 percent.

    When JFK cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%, revenue to the Treasury increased by 18% (+18 BIL) from 1963-1966.  Unemployment fell from 5.5% to 3.6% during same time period.

    When Reagan cut marginal tax rates across the board by 25%, revenue to the Treasury increased from $515 BIL. in 1980 to just over $1 trillion in 1990 (net increase in revenue of 50%).

    When Clinton cut the capital gains tax from 50% to 20% in 1997, predictions were that revenues to the treasury would decrease by $50 BIL. over 5 years.  To the contrary, the treasury increased capital gains revenue by $100 BIL. by 2001.

    When Bush cut marginal tax rates across the board by 5% in May, 2003, revenue to the Treasury increased by $786 BIL in less than 4 years. In real dollars, revenue increased from $1.78 Trillion in 2003 to to $2.56 Trillion in 2007(+30%).

    Here's an example of what happened when marginal tax rates were INCREASED:

    In 1932, Hoover increased the highest marginal tax rates from 25% to 63% and again in 1935 from 63% to 79%. Tax avoidance increased and economic growth was stymied. Unemployment averaged 14.6% during the same period.  This was due to the inverse relationship between tax rates and the tax base.  The idea of "sticking it to the rich" produced a contrarian result: Those earning over $100K during the 1930's went from sharing a 50% burden of taxes down to 25% in 1940.

    In 1944, marginal tax rates were increased across the board by 6%. Revenue to the Treasury decreased by 16% from $45 BIL to $38 BIL.

    We need to pay for National Healthcare somehow, I just can find any correlation that shows increasing taxes on the rich produces increased revenue to the treasury.

    SOURCES:
    Office of Management & Budget of US Goverment Historical Tables http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z3.xls
    Brookings Institute:
    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#149)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, one of the authors of the Reagan tax cut:

    Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results.

    Anyone who tries to tell you that any income tax cut, in history, has actually INCREASED government revenues is selling snake oil.  It has never happened.

    Parent

    Anyone who says tax cuts have never increased (none / 0) (#163)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    government revenues is blind or refuses to look at the facts, in my view. The reduction in the capital gains tax helped produce a huge increase in revenues. It also increased investment and allowed the economy to continue to expand.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#168)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:31:18 PM EST
    I make a post specifically about the income tax, and along comes someone to change the subject to capital gains taxes.  I wonder why that might be.

    Parent
    Taxes = Taxes (none / 0) (#173)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    Capital Gains Taxes still equal revenue to the treasury.  A Federal Tax is still a Federal Tax.

    Can you show us one example where Tax increases (any tax increase) helped increase revenue for the Treasury?

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:04:54 PM EST
    Reagan raised taxes twice in the middle of his term.  By the same logic you've just demonstrated (I believe post hoc ergo propter hoc is the technical term), those tax increases caused a huge boom in revenue for the treasury.

    Parent
    Reagan Tax Increases (none / 0) (#188)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    LOL.  You're using the same logic of congressional double-speak.  "This is not a spending increase for Medicare because instead of allocating a 6% increase for 2009 spending, we're only going to increase it by 3%".

    The first "increase" by Reagan was a rollback of the originally proposed corporate income tax.  The net was still a tax decrease for corporations.

    The second "increase" was associated with an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

    On the whole, Reagan dramatically reduced corporate and marginal tax rates.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#191)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:22:51 PM EST
    An increase in the payroll tax is not a tax increase.  This from the person who just wrote "Taxes = Taxes" and "A Federal Tax is still a Federal Tax."  Honestly, I couldn't make you up.

    Parent
    Net / Net ; Reagan DECREASED taxes (none / 0) (#193)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    Its an indisputable fact that Reagan DECREASED marginal tax brackets and corporate income tax rates dramatically.

    All you have to do is look at a CBO chart of those two columns from 1976 to 1990 and you will see it in black and white.

    I'm still waiting for somebody to show me where Tax Increases have helped government coffers be it at the Local, State or Federal level.  (And for some reason I don't think I'll get an answer soon!)

    Parent

    Steve M, OT, (none / 0) (#179)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:59:37 PM EST
    we were talking about Citibank the other day and I said I would email my DC civil servant friend who heads some gov division or other that helps oversee Freddie/Fannie and ask him whether or not the gov has the knowledge and experience to run Citi.

    Anyway, fwiw, this was his response...

    Yeah ... that would be a shame ... Citi's done such a good job on their own!

    You, and the rest of us, now own almost 40% of Citi ... I have my doubts if anyone can manage such a diverse set of earning streams ...



    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#187)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:14:02 PM EST
    and a valid point in there...

    I do think people are unrealistic when they talk about nationalizing Citi as a straightforward process along the lines of what the FDIC does every Friday.  IMHO it's several magnitudes of complexity more difficult.  Heck, last I checked, the FDIC was still working through the painstaking task of renegotiating IndyMac's mortgages...

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#190)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:20:26 PM EST


    Parent
    And collapse (none / 0) (#197)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    much further and faster than anyone would have dreamed. All those investments - sigh.

    Parent
    RE: Law of Unintended Consequences (none / 0) (#169)
    by Robinhoodrules on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    "Studies of the 1964 tax cut showed that about a third of it was recouped, and we expected similar results."

    Perhaps Mr. Bartlett can explain away the irrefutable fact that Treasury receipts went up 50% from $515B in 1980 to just over $1 trillion in 1990?

    Take a look at the CBO & Treasury.gov numbers for yourself instead of drinking the cool-aid from the same so-called "experts" who got us into this mess.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#180)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:02:13 PM EST
    It's obvious that you're just cherry-picking a start date and end date and then assuming that any increase in revenues between those dates must necessarily have been attributable to the tax cut.

    To suggest that the tax cut caused receipts to go from 515 billion to 1 trillion (hint, that's a 100% increase, not a 50% increase), you'd have to be arguing that in the absence of the tax cut, 1990 revenues would have been right around that same 515 billion.  Yeah, good luck making that case.

    This is quite obviously snake oil and you may want to seek a site with stupider commenters if you have a hope of peddling it.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#182)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    Are you arguing the reverse, that had the tax cuts not happened revenues would have been more or at least the same, AND that there is some proof of that?

    Parent
    What I am arguing (none / 0) (#189)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    is that when Bartlett talks about the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts recouping about a third of the lost revenue, he is talking about reputable studies that did their best to control for all the other things taking place in the economy at any given time.

    I'm not saying those studies are ironclad proof, but Bartlett apparently considered them good enough evidence back then and he still does today.  Without claiming to know the inner workings of any of these studies, I'm guessing they were a lot more rigorous than simply picking two dates on the calendar and saying that any tax cut which occurred between those two dates must necessarily be the cause of an increase in revenues.

    Parent

    I'll see your Bartlett and raise you one WJC. (none / 0) (#194)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:37:48 PM EST
    High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion. A reduction in high marginal tax rates would boost long term economic growth, and reduce the attractiveness of tax shelters and other forms of tax avoidance. The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."
    Kinda pointless, isn't it, arguing that my "reputable study" is better than yours...

    Anyway, imo (and it's all opinion, imo, when comes to this) sometimes tax cuts stimulate the economy and spur tax revenues, and sometimes it don't.

    What to do now? Seems it's pretty much anyone's WAG. Yours, or mine, is as good as anyone's, I suppose.

    Parent

    I think it is clear (none / 0) (#198)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    that tax cuts stimulate growth.  Who could argue with that?  The question is how much growth, and whether it compensates for the revenue that's lost.  Lost revenue means that either you have to cut government programs and the benefits they create, or else you have to run a deficit and deal with that set of problems.

    In citing the 1/3 figure, Bartlett was not arguing that the Reagan tax cut was bad policy.  Far from it, he wrote the thing!  What he was saying is, the long-term growth was the primary goal, and the fact that you even get back 1/3 of your money in the short term is the cherry on top.  It's only in today's snake-oil universe where people feel compelled to argue that you get back every single penny of your tax cuts, that they have NO cost even in the short term.  Bartlett's op-ed, by the way, is one of the great must-reads of all time in my book.

    In the long run, I think it's impossible for anyone to analyze the impact of tax policy because there are just so many intervening variables.  Some people believe that if we cut taxes, we'll stimulate long-term growth to such an extent that everyone, including even the government coffers, will come out ahead of where they otherwise would have been.  Other people believe that if we raise taxes and make government investments, in things like education and health care, in the long run we'll come out ahead of where we would have been, even taking into account the anti-growth impact of higher taxes.

    I'm a big, big fan of empirical evidence but I believe these two hypotheses are both untestable for the foreseeable future.  The long run is way, way too complex to prove anything.  I think many people are uncomfortable admitting that they don't really know anything and are betting a hunch, so they seek solace in these silly, illogical arguments about how "tax cuts actually make revenues go up!" and so forth.  But I'm comfortable admitting that I don't really know the answer, and neither does anybody else.

    Parent

    Oh noes, Oculus! (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    An Italian music organization says it is canceling performances of Giuseppe Verdi's "Macbeth" and Benjamin Britten's "Billy Budd" due to cuts in government funding.

    The Maggio Musicale Fiorentino said Monday that "Macbeth" had been scheduled to open on June 4 and "Billy Budd" on June 23 as part of its festival in Florence.

    Link

    Not at all an Opera fan... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    ...myself, but I do think if I were to attend a performance and actually somewhat enjoy it, it would be at a festival in Italia.  Especially an open-air performance.  

    Parent
    Not exactly cutting edge (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:26:41 PM EST
    repetoire:  Macbeth, Billy Budd, and Die Goetterdamerung.  But diminished funding is really hitting arts organizations.  Many layoffs by U.S. museums in the news.  San Diego Opera is cutting back next season from presenting five operas to four.  

    Parent
    Somehow... (none / 0) (#55)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    ..."cutting edge" and opera just don't quite go together in my head.  

    Parent
    Oh, but they do. Santa Fe, for (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    example, champions new operas.  Very expensive and some of the championed works aren't performed elsewhere later.  But, some are.  I enjoy seeing something new.

    Parent
    Clearly... (none / 0) (#72)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    ...you've never been inside my head.  :)

    Parent
    Military mom heads to Ft. Benning with Kids (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    h/t Alegre

    DAVIDSON, N.C. - A North Carolina woman who was recalled to the Army four years after being honorably discharged was driving nearly 400 miles and braving a Southeastern winter storm to report for duty Sunday, with her children by her side.

    SNIP

    Pagan is among thousands of former service members who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks, only to be recalled to service. She filed several appeals, arguing that because her husband travels for business, no one else can take care of her kids. All were rejected, leaving Pagan to choose between deploying to Iraq and abandoning her family, or refusing her orders and potentially facing charges.
    Poor woman... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    if this is what the state has to do to have enough meat for the grinder, we really need to have a draft so this situation can come to a head.

    Parent
    AP Reports...... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by michitucky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    AP is reporting, via her attorney, Pagan will be discharged from the Army.  

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    for the update.  This story, her plight, really bothered me.  Now we need to hear from thousands more in that situation -- and I hope that her willingness to make this an issue makes that possible for others.

    Best would be, of course, for the current administration to clearly order the military to stop such stupidity before it starts.

    Parent

    Yahoo put this story up yesterday (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    I hope people are paying attention to all this. We can't keep ignoring who our soldiers are and the damage we are doing to their lives. Short of an all-out attack on our country, the soldiers who did their time should be allowed to exit duty at the end of their tour.

    I'm wondering what appeal reasons the military is accepting if not that this soldier has had two children since becoming a civilian.

    Parent

    Let's hear from Military Tracy (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    re this.  Looks like the woman remained in the ready reserves.  Did she have the option of total retirement?  Was she receiving money due to her status in ready reserves?

    Parent
    From what I understand (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    And MT can correct me, I think you don't just "retire" - you go from active duty to individual ready reserves, so you can be called up at any time.

    Parent
    Taking part in the ready reserves is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    part of your contract of service.  You can be called back to duty for X amount of years after you have been discharged.  In this woman's case though she really should have been excluded due to her circumstances.  For some reason she wasn't, and that is usually due to someone handling her particular case being a dumba$$ harda$$ and she has called their bluff via the press and good on her.  I commented on this diary at DK when jimstaro put it up yesterday and there is one thing that concerns me between the dumba$$ne$$ that this woman is experiencing and what we are experiencing with DOD right now too.  I shared with the blog that my husband volunteered for Afghanistan but now they are getting really pushy about him going to Korea for a year now that they have him volunteering to deploy.  If they push it much further he's going to turn his retirement paperwork in, there are numerous jobs here on the post for him as a civilian.  He really is an amazing person at what he does.  There seems to be this strongarming beyond common sense of soldiers in the air though right now coming down from DOD.  Who's behind it?  It feels like someone's "policy" on how to deal with soldiers.

    Parent
    Yeh, I was married to a Viet vet (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    soon after he got back, and he was required to be in the reserves for years -- as I well remember the fears when the Middle East blew up in the early '70s, and we thought he might be called back into service.

    But by the next blowup, we had started a family, and I also remember that meant that we simply would not have to worry about him being called up then.

    So this is what is different:  A smaller generation (the baby boom allowed us a sizeable military while still a sizeable number back home avoiding service -- a reason, it is argued, for much bigger protests over Nam than over previous wars) -- and even fewer of that small generation willing to serve in these awful, hopeless wars.

    The result is that the military now appears to be enforcing reserves callup regs that we could pretty much ignore, once we were parents.  That's what I get from this, MTracy?  The military has the right, but it just hasn't had to exercise it so stringently before?  May this woman calling their bluff bring some better sense to it all.

    Parent

    The Viet Nam era military was drafted (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    so they had tens of thousands more troops who had no way out.

    Parent
    Not all; draft not until 1970 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    after my spouse served.  By then, we had been in Nam for 25 years, y'know -- first U.S. military death there was in 1945.

    But yes, as I thought I noted clearly, I think a significant difference between then and now is due to demographics.

    Parent

    ? Not until 1970? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    I knew many who were drafted in 1968. No deferments available. Pulled out of college with families already, or on the way. Are you thinking of the lottery? My younger brother was part of the first lottery in 1970.


    Parent
    Ah, yeh, I meant the large draft (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    that brought on protests, at last -- the one that started to call up the middle class.  Correct that there was a draft in the '60s but only for the usual suspects who have to die for the rest of us.

    Parent
    Not sure about that (none / 0) (#201)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:28:24 PM EST
    I knew very wealthy and established men being drafted with no way out. My brother-in-law's society mom even went to her friend Scoop Jackson to keep him out with no success. He did serve his two years as a pharmacist at Ft Knox, though, and calls them the two most wasted years of his life.

    Men I worked with who had terrific jobs, wives and kids were drafted. There were no excuses good enough to avoid going in. My recollection of the protests had nothing to do with the middle class being drafted. It was a useless war and tens of thousands of our unwilling soldiers were coming home in bags.

    Honest, Cream, I'm not trying to argue with you. Seattle was especially active in the protesting.

    Parent

    The first time (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    for a lottery draw was Dec 1, 1969 and was broadcast on national television if I remember correctly. It was for all males born from 1944 through 1950. My brother was unlucky enough to pull #48.

    Several years later I got a very nice high number but it didn't matter as the draft had already stopped being used.

    Parent

    Maybe that's what I'm thinking of... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    my younger brother was born in '53 and he got a really high number the year it no longer mattered.

    But, the draft was something I thought existed throughout the '60s.


    Parent

    You are right (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    they were drafted prior to the lottery for Vietnam. I don't know what method they used to choose them though. 1966 was the highest draft year for Vietnam and I believe the last man drafted was June 30, 1973.

    Parent
    Not 1970. My ex enlisted in Navy (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    in 1967 to avoid being drafted into the Army.

    Parent
    Deferments (none / 0) (#152)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    Prior to the draft lottery, men could apply to their local draft board (composed of local civic leaders, pretty much always men) for deferments. That's how Dick Cheney avoided serving in Vietnam. He just kept getting deferments.

    Draft deferments were given to undergraduate college students, married men, men with children, just to name a few. Sometime in the late 60s, the marriage deferment and the children deferments were ended. I don't remember the exact date, but I do recall newspaper and TV stories about very hastily arranged weddings, some conducted over the phone, that took place right up until midnight on the last day.

    I also remember the anguish some college professors went through when giving grades, aware that a failing grade could send a kid off to Vietnam. You lost that student deferment the minute you were no longer enrolled in good standing in college.

    All deferments were ended with the start of the draft lottery.

    Parent

    Got deferments: college, med school, (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    internship.  No deferment for residency.  Military needed "general medical officers."  No kids yet, so faily amazing no duty in or off shore of Vietnam.

    Parent
    As I recall (none / 0) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    the marriage deferment ended earlier, before or during '65.  The father deferment was always there and I believe that sometime in '65 accepting draft volunteers with children was forbidden. Child deferment didn't end.

    I was exempt as a father.

    Parent

    My father (none / 0) (#153)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    was in the Air Force in the early 60s.  One time I asked him how come he never went to Vietnam.  He told me that by the time they started sending people in his unit over, he only had a few months left in his tour (or whatever you call the enlistment period), so he just narrowly missed the cutoff.

    That was pretty lucky, I responded.  He gave me a funny look.  "Do you think it's a coincidence that I signed up for the branch with the shortest tours?"

    My dad spent most of his time stationed at Dover AFB.  Whenever people tell him how lucky he was for not going to Vietnam, he says: "Obviously, you've never been to Delaware."

    Parent

    That is exactly what I say about (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    Norfolk.  Nice beaches though.

    Parent
    1948-1973 per link: (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Men Were Drafted Earlier Than 1970 (none / 0) (#154)
    by daring grace on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    to go to Viet Nam. Am I misunderstanding your point?

    Because according to this:

    SNIP:

    From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means.

    A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944 and December 31, 1950. Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the oldest first method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call.

    SNIP:

     Before the lottery was implemented in the latter part of the Vietnam conflict, Local Boards called men classified 1-A, 18 1/2 through 25 years old, oldest first. This resulted in uncertainty for the potential draftees during the entire time they were within the draft-eligible age group.

    And this PBS site:

    SNIP:

    1965 - Opposition to the war in Vietnam leads to protests against the draft. For the first time since the Civil War, there are anti-draft demonstrations, particularly on college campuses and at military centers. In its U.S. v. Seeger decision, the Supreme Court broadens the definition of conscientious objection to include religious beliefs outside the Christian, Jewish or Muslim traditions.

    1966 - In response to anti-war sentiment, President Lyndon Johnson appoints a special study commission to recommend changes in the Selective Service structure.

    1967-70 - Thousands of young men either destroy their draft cards or leave the country to avoid the draft.

    1969 - President Nixon orders the "19-year-old draft": if a young man is not drafted at age 19, he will be exempt from future military service except in the event of war or national emergency. Deferrals are allowed for hardship cases, certain occupations, conscientious objectors, clergymen, and high school and college students. One year later Nixon will argue in favor of ending student deferments.

    1969 - President Nixon orders a "random selection" lottery system for selecting men to serve in the war in Vietnam, changing the previous system of drafting according to age.


    Parent

    See cx above (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    -- I meant the draft that started the protests from the privileged to finally end the war. . . .

    Parent
    We moved Navy uniforms several (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    times until the "inactive reserve" status played out.  


    Parent
    People may want to stay under $250,000 (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    if that's the point at which the cap on itemized deductions kicks in.

    While I'm not going to say that a few percentage points of increased taxes will have some incredible impact on the motivations and actions of lots of people in the higher tax brackets, some Dems may want to pay more attention to articles like this. Alot of small business people do in fact think this way.

    Proposals to single out and tax the rich tend to irritate alot of the rich. I think some Dems, and non-business people, tend to underestimate the impact of tax increases and tax increases directed only at primarily at the upper income levels.

    "irritate" (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    well it sure "irritates" the rest of us when the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

    I would like some proof that this does in fact hurt businesses.  Like Gibbs said - tell that to Clinton.

    Weren't the last 8 years supposed to "spur" growth by not taxing the rich?  How'd that work out???

    Businesses need roads and healthcare just like the rest of us.  Businesses do better in areas where government services work well, and they don't have to pay for everything themselves.  It's a win win.

    Parent

    well it sure "irritates" the rest of us (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    well it sure "irritates" the rest of us when the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.
    And this is what every single one if these discussions about tax rates boils down to - the definition of "fair share." And it's always that guy over there who doesn't pay his...

    Parent
    And if we got spending... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    somewhere closer to the realm of the sane, it wouldn't be so much of an issue.

    Call me crazy, but we should be able to run the fed on 50 bucks a head.  

    Parent

    No arguments from me, in principle. (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:19:39 PM EST


    Parent
    At the least... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    we're looking at this thing backwards...and Uncle Sam likes it that way.

    Before deciding who pays what, we need to determine what the fed is responsible for and how much revenue they need to meet those responsibilites.  Then, and only then, can we determine the fairest way to tax the populace.

    Parent

    You know the problem actually lies in the fact (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    that the disparity in pay is what causes the need for welfare, and programs to assist the people at the bottom.

    Let's say the Walton's didn't take millions and millions out of Walmart every year just for their own personal use and paid the workers a living wage, with benefits. You think that wouldn't help make it unnecessary to use the tax system to get those wealthy people to stop also being so greedy?


    Parent

    Last year Wal-Mart gave away $296 million (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Last year, Wal-Mart gave away $ 296 million in the United States and $ 41 million internationally, making it the top corporate giver of cash gifts, McKenna said. The total represents donations both from the foundation and directly from the company.
    That was Wal-Mart the company, here's the Family Foundation:
    Total 2006 Grants $188,906,015.18
    Not to mention the millions and millions that the individual members of the family donate every year.

    All this, however, is a ridiculous and illogical extreme - aren't we talking about whether a family making >250K is paying their "fair share?"

    Parent

    Why can't they give that to their employees (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    in paychecks and benefits?! At least a large chunk of it? The employees would give to charity instead of being recipients if they got paid a living wage.

    I don't see how you can possibly say that below poverty wages for the greatest percentage of their employees is remotely okay because they gave away almost $300 million.

    Parent

    Not sure I said that. In fact I'm sure I didn't. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    What I said was we're discussing whether families making >250K are paying their "fair share." The Waltons and Buffet and his assistant have nothing to do with it.

    Parent
    You don't think that the (none / 0) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    overpaid at the top of an organization taking more than they need so they can give the people who work the company less than it takes to be poor has anything to do with the need for charity and gov't programs to assist the people who are taken advantage of?

    If the company money was shared appropriately, there wouldn't be such a great need for gov't programs. People could buy their own food, and not have to use food stamps...etc.

    Parent

    Its almost as though you're having a (4.00 / 2) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    conversation with yourself. Carry on, don't let me interrupt...

    Parent
    Entrepreneurs are the risk takers. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    They put up their money to start the business and would have swallowed the losses if it fell apart.  Their workers didn't take these risks nor provide the unique abilities that made the company a success.  I don't see how you can define the parameters for earnings to be "shared appropriately".  If the company makes the money - it's their money.  If you have a problem with what they pay their workers - don't buy anything from them as a means to affect change.

    Parent
    Fair share (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:07:42 PM EST
    I would be happy if the rich had to pay the same % of their income as the middle class at this point.

    Unfortunately, that's not the case today.

    Oh, and btw., it's not just "that guy over there" it's also some of my family members and friends who would have to pay more.  Gladly.

    Parent

    "Gladly?" (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    Does that mean they cut a check every year to the Treasury that's 10%, or whatever, above their tax due?

    I know many, many people who willingly, gladly even, donate money to charitable organizations, but not a single one who donates to the Treasury.

    Must be at least someone who does...

    Parent

    My father did (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    He was not wealthy, just comfortable.  Back in the '60s and '70s, when tax rates were a lot higher for his bracket than they are now, he quietly paid an extra couple thousand every year when he filed his tax returns because he felt he was undertaxed for his income.

    And no, he wasn't a communist.

    Parent

    I knew there would be someone. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:35:54 PM EST


    Parent
    gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    your father was (is) a patriot. This country needs many more like him.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:37:23 PM EST
    That's what I've always thought.  He passed away 35 years ago at the utterly unfair age of 62 of a heart attack.  In some ways, I'm very glad he never lived to see the Bush administration, though he would have delighted in Bill Clinton.


    Parent
    I am so sorry (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    62 is indeed far too young and this nation is the poorer for it.

    Parent
    Depends on what you mean (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:34:46 PM EST
    I don't make any special effort to minimize my taxes, even though I could probably pay less by being smarter about how I handle assets.  So I probably pay more than I have to. It's the price of living in a civil society, right?  I doubt that I'm the only person who has a good income but doesn't take full advantage of the tax laws.

    Parent
    Only person? No, but I doubt many others do. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:40:51 PM EST
    Why not just pay the actual tax you owe and donate what you would otherwise have overpaid to a local charity?

    Or do you really trust the Fed Gov to do better with your money than a local charity?

    You know a good chunk of that overpaid tax you pay will go to fund the wars, for example, among other things you probably don't agree with...

    Parent

    I don't agree with the war (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    but the government (state and fed) does a ton of stuff I do agree with.  For example, they collect the garbage, protect my right to property, fund basic medical research, build bridges, fund artists, provide medical insurance for the elderly, and they fund an air traffic control system so that planes don't crash into each other every five minutes. I live in a city littered with free parks and free museums and free roads. Now, I know they aren't "free." I pay for them with my tax dollars, but anyone who wants to use them can, whether they pay taxes or not. That seems like a pretty good thing to me.

    The government could do better in a lot of ways. But they do a lot of good and I'm happy to pay them to do it. Local charities have an important function, and I give money to those whose mission is important to me.  But government does things that simply could not be done by local charities, no way, no how.

    Parent

    Oh come on... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    almost all those things could easily be handled by private organizations as consumers would demand them - and more cheaply.  Beyond that, none of those things justify the abdication of demand to government resulting in an otherwise non-existent flood of funds to the weapons industry - which has killed millions.  This doesn't even account for the bill to posterity caused by borrowing that is only possible through using future taxpayer money as collateral.  

    Parent
    Garbage collection (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:41:10 PM EST
    We could have an interesting reality-based discussion sometime about how well privatizing garbage collection has worked out for the towns that have done it.

    Bottom line, gimme back my DPW guys who give a damn about the town.

    In the north, you privatize garbage collection, you have to also privatize winter snow removal.

    Gimme back my DPW guys.

    The way it actually works in practice is that you have far, far less control or even influence over the private company than you do over town workers.

    Parent

    My town hires a private co to haul the garbage. (none / 0) (#138)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    We've lived there since 2000, no complaints regarding service so far...

    Parent
    Can you let me know the town (none / 0) (#148)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:02:23 PM EST
    and what you pay them?  I'd love to actually run the numbers on this...  I'll even be generous and use the gov stated CPI to adjust.

    Parent
    I believe gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    was commenting on service, no?
    how well privatizing garbage collection has worked out for the towns that have done it.

    Bottom line, gimme back my DPW guys who give a damn about the town.

    As far as city costs go, here's the city budget. We also pay directy $47/mo for basic service.

    Parent
    Yea I realize that... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    but your comment just controlled for that.  

    Parent
    Reality-based (none / 0) (#139)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    Zing!  

    How much were you paying the private guys per capita on the year?

    Parent

    No idea, don't care (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:30:10 PM EST
    Hugely degraded functioning is not worth any amount of savings.  With only two companies available to do the work in the area, all the towns can do is keep switching from  one to the other and back every time the contract is up.  And in the meatime, whole streets don't get picked up, trash gets strewn around, barrels are throw down on their sides and go rolling down the street, etc.

    Wintertime, an enormous fleet of independent operator guys with pick-ups and snow plows has to be bid for, hired, assigned and somehow monitored for every snowfall.  Add the cost of that absurdly inefficient mess to the equation.  Most of the towns in the area do the same thing, so the scrambling is intense.

    Those guys, most of them, quite literally don't give a you know what, and race through town pushing the snow everywhere and anywhere, blocking streets, blocking sidewalks, missing some streets altogether because Joe Blow forgot what route he was supposed to do this time.

    And there's literally zero recourse.  The town has little choice about who it hires because there are only so many of these guys out there and everybody else is bidding against them for their services.  Citizen complaints in the days of DPW workers were promptly remedied.  Most of the time, it never happens now unless a street has become totally blocked.  Anything smaller than that isn't worth the hassle of fixing, and it's impossible to train and enforce the rules on this fluctuating fleet of freelancers.

    Gimme back my DPW.

    I don't live in that major metro suburban town anymore, I live in a small town in the country in another state now, and we have a small road crew full-time year-round and a few others called in part-time when needed to supplement, and every single one of them lives either in this town or a neighboring one and takes the job of clearing and maintaining his neighbors' and friends' and relatives' roads damn seriously.

    They are of the community, as were the DPW guys back in the old days in the suburbs.

    As for trash here-- it's pay as you throw, and you can either take it to the town transfer station yourself on Saturday mornings or arrange yourself with a private company to pick it up for you for two or three times the cost.

    Parent

    Furthermore, the assumption that (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    the private sector can always supply things at lower cost than the public sector is unfounded.  

    Is there waste in Government? Yes. Is there waste in the private sector? Yes. Some of the biggest waste in government comes when the government hires the private sector to perform certain tasks that it should perform itself-Blackwater, KBR, remember?

    In the private sector, you also have to pay profits to the owners and those are added onto the cost of everything. I think profits are great, they are compensation for risk and the effort of the owners, and business owners whose products and services are demanded by consumers should make a fair profit.  But consumers do pay those profits.  In contrast, the government is not trying to make money on running Medicare or NOAA.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#186)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    Not to make Samuel's case, which as always is laced with a significant amount of crazy, but when you think about why Blackwater/KBR/etc make the crazy profits they do, it's because they're effectively a government-granted monopoly.  They have the political connections to land those no-bid contracts and they get to bilk the government for all they're worth because there's effectively no competition.


    Parent
    I agree but (none / 0) (#195)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    I don't think that makes Samuel's case at all! I used a poor example to illustrate my point. Private sector firms have to make profit to give the owner a reason to stay in business) and consumers have to pay for it. The government doesn't have a profit built into its costs when it does things itself. When the government contracts out things -- even if it takes bids -- it pays profit to the private firm.

    That said, there are things that the government should contract out because the private sector does some things -- a lot of things -- better.

    Parent

    How do you know which things (none / 0) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    the gov can do better than the private sector?

    And if you see that something the gov is doing that can be done better in the private sector, how is it then actually moved to the private sector?

    Parent

    Public goods are undersupplied (none / 0) (#176)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:48:01 PM EST
    That is, left to the free market, they are not supplied in efficient quantities.  Everybody wants more of them, yet they don't get produced in sufficient quantities.  We've had this conversation before. You are simply wrong on this point.

    Parent
    Lincoln (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    felt that government should do the work that the charities of his day were doing.

    I agree.  I'd rather put the money into effective government.  

    Parent

    Lincoln... (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:33:27 PM EST
    was a proto fascist.  He was supported by rail builders and sent the confederate army to the south down a path specifically to kill native populations and clear the predetermined path for a new rail system at the tax payer expense.  Very similar to Afghanistan.  

    I mention this only to refute the logical construct "if lincoln x then x true".

    Parent

    I meant union... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:35:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I personally did (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    I did not take my tax return or tax rebate last year.

    Parent
    How did you do that? (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:01:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Line 73a (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:10:45 PM EST
    on the 1040 form

    (Line 72)- If line 71 is more than line 61, subtract line 61 from line 71. This is the amount you overpaid
    75 75
    (Line 73a)- Amount of line 72 you want refunded to you. If Form 8888 is attached, check here

    Parent

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    I've made mistakes in my state and fed tax forms and the gvts found that I'd overpaid and sent the overpayment back to me after some time. It should be interesting to see if they send you your overpayment back or not.

    On another subject, if you want to give to a charity, do you think the Treasury is the best one? Lots of things they spend your money on, I imagine, that you don't support...

    Parent

    mistakes sure (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:23:59 PM EST
    but that line is there to make sure it isn't a mistake.

    the treasury keeps me employed.  Charities have waste and bureaucracy just like the gov't.  I give to charities as well.

    Parent

    I don't think line 73a is going to work (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    the way you think it will:
    Line 73a and 74: Refund Amount and Estimated Tax Payment

    If you are getting a tax refund, you can choose how much of the amount on line 72 you want refunded to you, and how much you want to be applied to next year's estimated tax payments.



    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    I haven't gotten a check yet.  And I didn't put anything on line 74.  So I think it works out...

    I'll let you know if I get a check.

    Parent

    Bravo (none / 0) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:41:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Local and statewide levies and (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    bond issues are supported by a vote of the citizens to tax themselves...

    There's more than one way to "donate to the Treasury."

    Anyone remember war bonds?

    Never mind.  I need a nap now.

    Parent

    The "same % of their income" (none / 0) (#60)
    by coast on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:41:27 PM EST
    would mean a decrease in the taxes paid by those reporting over $200K in adjusted gross income, so I don't think you would get an argument from them if that was the result of any new legislation.  A more accurate statement would be you want them to pay more of the tax burden than they presently pay.

    Parent
    nope (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    I am taking ALL of their income

    Including capital gains, dividends, etc..

    Parent

    A visit to the IRS website may be needed. (none / 0) (#73)
    by coast on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    I would post a link, but never figured out how.  The website has great stastics on the subject, that are never quoted by those who use the "fair share" arguement because the statistics just don't support it.  On an overall adjusted income basis (which includes all sources of income including Cap Gains, interest, ect), those making over $200K pay in a higher percentage of their reported income than the middle and lower classes.  Its just a fact.  Now whether that percentage is enough is a totally seperate arguement.  But it is a fact that they pay a higher percentage overall than those making less than $200K.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    People who argue about a fair share do understand that people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage in taxes.  

    That's the result of a graduated income tax. However, it's not enough.

    Parent

    That wou'd've been me (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    I got a bit carried away by certain news reports.

    But yea, I agree with you here:

    it's not enough.


    Parent

    Fair share stats. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Green26 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    In 2006, the top 1% ($388,806 and up) paid 39.89% of the total US federal individual income taxes, and 22.79% was their average tax rate.

    The average tax rate of the top 2-5% ($153,542) was 17.48%. The top 5% paid 60.14% of the income taxes.

    The average tax rate of the top 6-10% ($108,904) was 12.60%. The top 10% paid 70.79% of the income taxes.

    The average tax rate of the top 11-25% ($64,605) 9.36%. The top 25% paid 86.27% of the income taxes.

    The average tax rate of the top 26-50% ($31,987) 7.01%. The top 50% paid 97.01% of the income taxes.

    The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2.99% of income taxes.

    http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html


    Parent

    Not enough (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    and by the way, the second lowest quintile (20%)barely make enough money to survive.

    The lowest quintile - forget about it.

    The wealth of the nation is concentrated at the top. That's where the money has to come from, the people who've gotten the most advantage from our system.

    Parent

    Gibb's comment... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:00:43 PM EST
    was not scientific.  The notion that you can look at one variable change, then GDP (doesn't account for debt accumulation, CPI is understated) or real wages and conclude a causal relationship is backwards rationalization.  You theorize about human action first - as that is the basis for all economics - then examine numbers and see if the relationship is reflected.  Philips Curve....anyone???  Letting him get away with a line like "tell that to Clinton" is shows extremely low journalistic standards.

    If income about 250k is going to receive a higher tax rate - it's not unfathomable to think that people will invest in foreign businesses over their own small business - especially when dollar shorts are the best moves to make right now.

    Parent

    not unfathomable (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    sure, I could "fathom" it somewhere somehow.  But I would like to see some proof.  All I've heard so far is "it could happen".  Never "it does happen, as shown by this data".

    Gibbs was an anecdote, I wasn't using him to be scientific.

    Parent

    Ok. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    So we know that the policy will make marginal revenue on domestic investment less.  It's logical to conclude that foreign investment will become more competitive as a result.  That's what I have as far as proof.

    I don't understand what more one could ask for on this.  What's the logical reasoning behind increased taxes making US investment more competitive?  If the smart move is to short the dollar in the first place, increasing taxes is even more of a reason to get your money out of the US economy.

    Parent

    logic to me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    requires facts.

    And my own life experience and study of history seriously contradicts your internal sense of "logic"

    The reasoning is that we have a bunch of broken infrastructure that needs fixing.  We have a broken health care system that needs fixing, and we have broken energy and education policies that needs fixing.  My reasoning is that businesses need smart, healthy, people to work for and buy from them - who have a way to get to their business.

    Parent

    Once again. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    If the cost of doing business in the US increases, then the relative cost of doing business elsewhere decreases.  That's not my own personal logic and I don't understand what makes you think that.

    If you want to say we need increased taxes to pay for all the "necessities" you list - well ok.  That wasn't the debate I thought we were having.  

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    about those necessities was that they are also beneficial to companies who want to do business.  Taking health care out of the private sector would greatly decrease the cost of doing business in the U.S. - for example.

    Even if the "cost" of business goes up, but so does the "earning power" than there is no net loss.  That was my point.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    Taxes cause the costs to go up, replacing worker provided health insurance with public insurance would reduce costs.  Ok.  But what happens when the deficit financing of the health program causes higher interest payments causing taxes to increase again?  If we don't use taxes it will cause credit expansion which will hurt the dollar and be even more incentive for the wealthy to move funds abroad.  If we do increase taxes - well reduced purchasing power of the consumer or even more taxes on the business itself.  Once again, reason to go abroad.  

    At that point - the longterm viability of the dollar as a world reserve currency is a HUGE question - pumping huge deficit numbers is going to crash the currency and the economy.  To prevent this we'll need to increase taxes - which will push businesses away from the US.  The only way to make this country more attractive to invest is lower tax rates and lower spending rates.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    Another "West Wing" quotable moment:

    Sam: Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump and said, "It's time for the rich to pay their fair share," I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year. Which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share. And the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to 'cause that's the only way it's gonna work. And it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads. But I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster, and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it is all I'm saying.


    Parent
    27 times the average (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    Only on T.V. (West Wing is not real life)

    unless they are making more than 27 times more money than the average person.

    As Warren Buffet said - why should his secretary have a higher tax rate than him?  Not that she paid more, but she paid a greater % of her income.

    Parent

    According to the reports, (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    Buffet paid ~ $9,000,000 in taxes, and his assistant paid ~ $20,000.

    That's 450 time more taxes, not 27 times.

    Parent

    Should we stop saying "Uncle Sam".... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    and replace it with "Uncle Warren"?

    Paying that kind of vig should get you an ownership stake.  Unbelievable...I know the guy is a gazillion-aire, but still....9 million in taxes?  Damn.

    Parent

    He's worth some 40 billion (at least (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    before he went and bought GE). 9 million ain't so tough.

    Parent
    No, not tough... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    but is it right?  Has Uncle Sam justified the need for 9 million from Buffet, 5 grand from me, and whatever your vig is?

    Parent
    I actually personally have a bigger (none / 0) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    problem with the huge property taxes that go to a not so great school (I should know, I came out of it) and street lights that don't get fixed for months no matter how often you bug the town.

    Anyway, yeah, Uncle Sam does a pretty decent job of blowing that money. But proportionately, Buffet is doing fine.

    Parent

    Apparently Buffett (none / 0) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    doesn't think it's enough.  He doesn't think it's fair that his secretary pays a higher rate than he pays.

    He said that there was a class war and that his side won.

    Parent

    yea (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:46:36 PM EST
    and I bet he made more than 450 times as much money too.

    Parent
    Oh, I know it's TV (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    But if you watched the show, their topics were presented and written by people who actually worked in DC and with these policies, so my guess is it was much more accurate than other TV shows.  The data is probably dated, since that episode is from 1998 or 1999.

    But the larger point was that even liberals could see that making fun of and making comments about people who don't want to pay more taxes is not productive.  

    Hey - I believe in many of the progressive programs and don't mind paying taxes, but I had a job last year where I was fortunate enough to make more money than I ever had, and when I looked at how much tax I paid at year's end, I almost keeled over with a heart attack.

    Parent

    Why don't you keel over (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    with a heart attack at the obscene amount of money you were able to keep?

    If my income doubled next year and I had to fork over half fo that extra to the government, I would be in a state of utter bliss to have a huge amount more income than I have right now, not whining about not getting EVEN MORE.

    I don't get you people.  I truly don't.


    Parent

    It's how the government spends the money... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    that gets me, not the fact that I have to chip in.

    I literally get an upset stomach thinking about my measley 5 grand in federal income taxes going towards the war on drugs, the CIA budget, the foreign occupations, weapons development, and assorted evil.  

    Parent

    How they spend the money (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    is a circular argument as I sometimes explain to my R acquaintences when they give with the high-minded statement that they don't want THEIR taxes going for abortions and sex education:  I tell them that we aren't using their taxes for those things...we're using mine.  Theirs are going for a couple of wars, more additions to 'the Texas White House' and other assorted nonsense that I wouldn't pay for, given the choice.

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    I once complained to a old lawyer friend/advisor of mine, that I was horrified at the amount of tax I had to pay. He said that I should feel lucky, and furthermore if it ever were the case that I had to pay a million dollars in taxes I should rejoice.

    Parent
    Funny story... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    but I could never rejoice at giving 1 million dollars to the war machine....5 large is sickening enough.

    Parent
    Entirely Different Feeling (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    I do not like giving any money for bombs or prisons. Since I have already made the choice to pay my taxes, live in the US etc, I tend to think more about how to come up with the money, which makes me anxious, than worrying about where the money is going.

    Regarding end use, it is not so much different for me than giving to a local homeless person. Once out of my pocket the money is out of my mind. Of course the big difference is I feel good giving to the homless, not so good giving to US death machinery.

    Parent

    Unconditionally ambivalent? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Samuel on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:42:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd be willing to bet (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    the fires get put out faster in his neighborhood, the roads are better maintained, and he gets treated better by the police.  It truly is a TV fantasy that the rich are just as mistreated by the government as the rest of us.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:15:18 PM EST
    and we have to remember that many West Wing episodes were written by writers who are quite well off thank you very much.  In many cases their view of liberalism does NOT include economics. Reminds me of a large number of the Village media.

    I remember the line in question and it was delivered in a venomous tone. There were a number of times when the West Wing reflected the viewpoint of limousine liberals and were sometimes laced with DC CW.

    After detecting this in several episodes I stopped watching.

    Parent

    Wasn't one of Rahm's brothers (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    involved in this show?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    But the show was laced with a lot of Village conventional wisdom.

    The Rob Lowe speech was unforgettable.  It reminded me of a letter to the editor that had recently appeared in our local paper. The writer complained about taxes. He wanted to abolish all taxes and stated that everyone should simply pay directly for any government service used. Typical of nut ball letter to the editor but all too reminiscent when I saw that episode of West Wing.

    "The fire department doesn't come 27 times faster, the water isn't 27 times hotter"

    Parent

    So....for a couple of more % (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:45:24 PM EST
    in their mortgage interest and charitable deductions, they are willing to cap their incomes? How do people this stupid make more than $250k a year?

    Parent
    Federal Income Tax Rates (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    on high incomes were MUCH higher in a far more prosperous past.

    Parent
    What is wrong with this picture? (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    In the NYTimes reporting of the pick of Governor Sebelius as health secretary, it is noted that the Governor is known as a Democrat who can deal with Republicans, except for one area: health policy. However, it was further noted that now, Governor Sebelius will have a chance to achieve in Washington what she failed to accomplish in Topeka (of course, with the backing of a Democratic congress).

    Bringing Republicans (none / 0) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    into this is not only unnecessary, it's also counter productive.

    Parent
    Agreed, (none / 0) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:29:41 PM EST


    Parent
    No Worries Then (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    "I see her [Sebelius] in the hall and say hello, and that's it," said State Representative Brenda K. Landwehr, a conservative Republican who heads the Health and Human Services Committee. "She's never asked me to visit with her. I think she's a very strong individual, that things are either done her way or the highway, with little room for compromise."

    NYT

    Parent

    You Forgot This Part (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    Republicans twice successfully blocked her as she tried to raise the state's cigarette tax to expand Medicaid coverage, a move Congress just used to pay for children's health insurance. She also made little headway in her push to cover all children up to age 5, the New York Times adds. And the legislature blocked her executive order to create a centralized health-purchasing and policy agency in her office, instead creating one controlled by legislative appointees, NYT says.

    WSJ

    Also of note:

    But just as important in the emerging debate over health care reform is the title she didn't get: health care czar.

    It signals that Sebelius will be one of many voices in the administration on health care - rather than the chief figure as Tom Daschle would have been - and the effort will be run out of the White House.

    There will likely be a separate official overseeing health care in the White House, the administration said Saturday. The scope and powers of that position remain under discussion, according to people familiar with the process.




    Parent
    This is too funny (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    What would they do with me there?  Is there a cuss pot?  Would I be without any change for a week or in time out :)?

    LOL.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:23:55 PM EST
    I hear that...I couldn't make it an hour, much less a week.

    Parent
    I'm a stress cusser (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    I can go awhile, but there is a bit of stress out there on the streets right now?  The first two years after no WMD's though were a cussathon for me.

    Parent
    I started my cussathon (none / 0) (#122)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    on the summer day in 2002 when it finally dawned on me that those clowns weren't just blowing smoke to distract us; that they were serious about making the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.

    Parent
    The market's taking a big crater again (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    I really thought 6500 would be the basement but now some are predicting the basement will be more like 5000.  MMMMM MMMMM MMMMM those were some tasty new fangled too complex to understand "investment vehicles" they sold us all huh?

    Every time (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    those clowns get 'creative' the economy goes to hell.

    Parent
    Creative? or (none / 0) (#203)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    throwing good money after bad?

    Parent
    I'm still hungry... (none / 0) (#68)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    but I don't think that I want anymore.

    Parent
    Just looking for a "real" investment (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    in the investment desert we are :)

    Parent
    Haynesfield.... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    Kentucky Derby Futures Pool One, currently 32-1.

    Love him in this Saturday's Gotham Stakes.

    Parent

    New Pew Center report... (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    The number of people behind bars or under supervision in Colorado has risen dramatically the last three decades, with one in 29 adults in the correctional system, according to a report released Monday.

    The numbers are a reflection of a nationwide trend attributed to policy choices--not a rise in crime--that are locking up more people for longer periods of time, said The Pew Center on the States in Washington, D.C. The report says about 2.3 million people are incarcerated nationwide, and another 5.1 million are either in probation or parole. That means 1 in 31 adults are under correctional control, the report said.

    Colorado ranks 15th in the nation for the number of people it has behind bars, on probation or parole, the report said. Georgia tops the list with 1 in 13 under correctional supervision and New Hampshire is last with 1 in 88....

    ...Nationwide, states spent $52 billion on their correctional systems, according to the report.

    Pew researchers say the recession could give states "an important, perhaps unprecedented opportunity" to focus more spending on managing those on parole and probation, which is cheaper than locking them up.

    In Colorado for instance, it costs $3.07 a day to supervise someone on probation, and $9.32 a day to supervise a parolee. In contrast, housing an inmate can cost anywhere from $61.86 to $91.90 per day depending on whether if it's minimum or maximum security facility.

    Link

    It's not just Wall Street (none / 0) (#81)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    that doesn't like Obamanomics.

    The Bond Market is scared too.

    We can't afford a big new progressive agenda.  We will raise our deficit so high that unless we see 90's type growth our debt will overwhelm us and the bond market will collapse.  

    I don't see an internet lying around waiting to be invented so Al Gore better think of something else.

    Are we sure (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    that the market is not reacting to news that Rihanna and Chris Brown are back together?

    Or could it be a result of the Cavaliers moving a half-game ahead of the Celtics in the Eastern Conference playoff race?

    I really don't understand how folks can try to reduce something as complex as the financial markets to a referendum on whatever is happening in Washington that day.  A lot of stuff affects the market.

    Parent

    SInce the links (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    don't work in the article I looked up the most important one to me.

    Debt

    It's bad news and Obama is aquiring more of it with every political move.

    Parent

    Typical Bushlicker & GOP (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:24:27 PM EST
    Nary a word from you while Bush was draining the treasury for eight years, but now you are worried.

    GOP 101: bleed the treasury dry and then cut all social services complaining that there is no money left because the Democrats spent it all.

    Hypocrites.

    Parent

    Confusing (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    If I was wrong then why am I not right now?

    Parent
    You Are Wrong (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    Because you argue for more of GOP twisted logic, IOW more of what got us here, more lying about smaller government while expanding the government beyond what any Dem has done.

    Basically you are wrong by arguing that it is the Democrats who are pushing the same old failed policies, while arguing that continuing the new (not) policies of BUshCo are the right way to go.

    After the "new" GOP experiment, I will happily go back to the failed policies of Clinton.

    Parent

    Obama is not practicing (none / 0) (#200)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    the policies of Clinton.  Clinton had an economy on the rise, the the internet bubble and expanded productivity from the computer working for him.  When he left office we where in a small recession but nothing like now.

    His spending as percentage of GDP was less then Bush II.  He could afford to raise taxes and he also didn't pass any progressive agendas because he couldn't (republican congress).

    The idea that Obama is continuing the Clinton legacy or economic policies is ridiculous.

    To your original point Obama is simply taking the bad practices of the republicans (deficit spending) and taking it up a notch with big government programs instead of War on Terror and tax cuts.   He's not even botering to end the War on Terror.  Just stop using the phrase.

    See you at the bottom.  That's were Obamanomics will take us.

    Parent

    via dkos (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    man, Bill O'Reilly is gross.

    Bobby Rush is back! (none / 0) (#143)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    ZING!

    Bobby Rush is at it again.

    The South Side congressman who helped fend off Democratic attempts to prevent Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate with inflammatory racial rhetoric, is defending his colleague once more.

    Rush is accusing Democrats calling on Burris to resign -- led by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin --of a double-standard, arguing that Ted Kennedy didn't resign from the Senate after the Chappaquiddick scandal in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times.

        "He hasn't done anything that's indictable," said Rep. Bobby Rush, who added that many politicians calling for Burris to resign have "stalking horses" ready for test-runs for his seat.

        Burris' backers said other senators involved in far more unseemly conduct have not been asked to resign. Rush, who also is a minister, apparently referred to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) when he spoke of a politician who "drove off a bridge. People died."

        In a reference to Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Rush mentioned "a senator accused of misconduct in a men's room."
    More nominee tax problems (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    Seriously? When is it going to end?

    LINK

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.

    The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees that he donated to his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.

    The disclosure made the former Dallas mayor the latest in a string of top-level Obama administration appointees found to have underpaid their taxes, following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, who withdrew as candidate for Health and Human Services secretary. Nancy Killefer, Obama's pick for chief performance officer, also bowed out amid tax problems.

    White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Kirk was working to clear up "a few minor issues" uncovered by the committee and expressed confidence he would be confirmed.

    Despite the error, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a statement calling Kirk "the right person for this job," and said he would attempt to have the nomination moved through the panel quickly.

    Kirk routinely gave any speaking fees he earned to Austin College, the committee said, and did not list them on his tax returns.

    Instead, the committee said he should have listed the fees as income, then claimed them as charitable donations. The estimated effect was to reduce Kirk's tax bill by an estimated $5,800, according to the report.

    Kirk also deducted more than $17,000 as entertainment expenses for the cost of Mavericks' tickets. The committee said he substantiated about $9,900 of that amount, and will owe about $2,600 in taxes on the balance.

    The committee said that last fall, Kirk amended his income tax return for 2006, paying an additional $2,188 in tax and $139 in interest after a notification from the Internal Revenue Service. The return was filed by a paid tax preparer, the panel added.
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    When the tax code is simplified.

    Parent
    It makes it so much more difficult (none / 0) (#150)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    to justify asking the rich to pay their fair share in taxes when the people who govern the use of the money refuse to pay theirs. Seems like maybe it's because they know something we don't.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    The rich understand that anyone who has a complex revenue stream and varied expenses will almost always have to negotiate with auditors about their tax returns.

    To peg these people as looking to cheat the government is wrong, imo. I am sure that there are many who do intentionally cheat, but these recent politicians do not strike me as belonging to that group.

    Parent

    Yes and no (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    Just my opinion:

    -I think Nancy Killefer and Ron Kirk simply made mistakes, no intent to avoid paying these taxes.

    - Tim Geithner, IMO, is a tax cheat. He knew darn well he was responsible for paying those payroll taxes.His employer told him he had to pay, and Geithner signed a document stating that he knew he had to pay.

    --Tom Daschle's claim that he thought the car and driver were just gifts from a friend, a friend he was working for, is pretty hard to swallow.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:36:20 PM EST
    Geithner and Daschle were clever enough criminals to know that they were cheating on their taxes, but stupid criminals when it came to knowing that any Obama appointment meant that their fraud would be discovered.

    I guess it is possible.

    Even I know that my tax returns would be scrutinized if I were to join Obama's cabinet, but maybe they forgot.


    Parent

    Well, Squeaky (none / 0) (#177)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    The IRS made Geithner pay for two of the four years he cheated. The Obama transition team made him pay for the other two years. So, maybe a naive person could make the argument that Geithner, whose entire career has been spent in the financial arena, made a mistake when he originally filed, but there is no excuse for not correcting the ENTIRE error when the IRS caught him.

    And, I guess that same naive person could believe that Daschle's sudden realization that he had a tax problem, a realization he had last June, was just an honest citizen casually pondering past tax returns. A more reality-based person might figure that once Obama had the nomination sewed up (coincidentally last June) Daschle figured he better try to clean up any "loose ends" that could get in his way.

    I just never figured you for naive, Squeaky.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 06:06:54 PM EST
    So you are saying that they were begging to be caught?

    Not sure why Kirk and Killefer are spared your condemnation as cheats, but you are entitled to your rather harsh opinion. IRS auditors would love you, no doubt.

    Personally, I do not see much difference between any of them regarding their tax problems. Nor do I see any of this being germane to their qualifications or respective nominations.

    Parent

    Refuse? Who refused? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    Misfiling is nowhere near the same thing as refusing to pay.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#205)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    poor choice of word. Geithner was given the amounts due and elected to ignore the bills...all four of them. I should have realized someone would dig deep into the most dramatic meaning of refused.


    Parent
    Blagojevich Book Deal (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:43:15 PM EST
    I wonder if Blagojevich will be as successful as Joe the Plumber was with his recent book.

    Monday Afternoon Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)