March 20th, 2012
The Republicans really have nothing to offer. No legitimate economic policies, no sensible military strategies and dwindling chances come November. Since late last year, every week has brought new lows and ever diminishing returns in the GOP's presidential blood-feud. What does this mean? It's time for more phony tax cut/program slashing!
As Robert Reich writes:
"All that matters is the headlines.
"House Republican Budget to Propose Lower Income Tax Rates," says Bloomberg Businessweek. "Republican Budget Plan Seeks to Play Up Tax Reform," says Reuters. "GOP's Budget Targets Taxes," blares the Wall Street Journal.
Presto. Republicans have gotten what they wanted on the basis of saying absolutely nothing."
Indeed.
Showing posts with label tax cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax cuts. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
About That Romney "Tax Plan", cont...
Feb 27th, 2012
We looked at the numbers yesterday HERE and HERE. It's not just a more radical approach to revenue than even the W tax cuts; One of the component's of his plan is a full scale gutting of the social "safety net" he said he would preserve just weeks ago.
Frum savages Romney's departure from the comparatively rational proposal he released only last September and sums up the weekend's developments as follows:
"Compassionate conservatism has been dead for a long time. Romney's Detroit speech cremated the remains. As a man, Romney remains far and away the most capable of the presidential candidates seeking the Republican nomination. But he has now finally eliminated the policy differences separating him from the radical congressional wing. If Romney should win the Republican nomination, moderate and independent voters nationwide will be forced to decide: If they vote for Romney, who is it they're truly voting for?"
We looked at the numbers yesterday HERE and HERE. It's not just a more radical approach to revenue than even the W tax cuts; One of the component's of his plan is a full scale gutting of the social "safety net" he said he would preserve just weeks ago.
Frum savages Romney's departure from the comparatively rational proposal he released only last September and sums up the weekend's developments as follows:
"Compassionate conservatism has been dead for a long time. Romney's Detroit speech cremated the remains. As a man, Romney remains far and away the most capable of the presidential candidates seeking the Republican nomination. But he has now finally eliminated the policy differences separating him from the radical congressional wing. If Romney should win the Republican nomination, moderate and independent voters nationwide will be forced to decide: If they vote for Romney, who is it they're truly voting for?"
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Continuing Decline... GOP Debate Edition
Aug 13th, 2011
More than few readers have asked me why, after live-blogging the GOP debate, I haven't done any substantial follow up? Well, frankly, I don't really know where the hell to begin.
I guess I will start here: The candidates revealed, unanimously, that they would all oppose a tax increase that was matched by cuts at a one to ten ratio. Seriously.
Kevin D. Williamson puts it better than I over at that bastion of leftist lunacy, The National Review:
"Every candidate said he would oppose a cuts-taxes plan that contained a 10:1 ratio of cuts to taxes. Chalk one up to the crazies. If Congress wanted to get rid of tax exemptions and exclusions amounting to $100 billion in new taxes in exchange for $1 trillion in tax cuts, and Republicans turned the deal down, I would personally drive down to Washington and pelt them with rotten vegetables, and possibly with rocks. $100 billion in new taxes plus $1 trillion in cuts balances the budget in 2012."
Yup. The candidates all exposed these facts:
1. They are all certifiably insane.
2. Not one of them owns a calculator.
3. Every one of them (even Paul and Huntsaman) is more afraid of tryin' to explain that fancy-book-learnin' math to their "base" than they would be to publicly accept a deal Ronald Reagan would have had to pinch himself over to ensure he was not dreaming.
It happened. Here's proof:
More than few readers have asked me why, after live-blogging the GOP debate, I haven't done any substantial follow up? Well, frankly, I don't really know where the hell to begin.
I guess I will start here: The candidates revealed, unanimously, that they would all oppose a tax increase that was matched by cuts at a one to ten ratio. Seriously.
Kevin D. Williamson puts it better than I over at that bastion of leftist lunacy, The National Review:
"Every candidate said he would oppose a cuts-taxes plan that contained a 10:1 ratio of cuts to taxes. Chalk one up to the crazies. If Congress wanted to get rid of tax exemptions and exclusions amounting to $100 billion in new taxes in exchange for $1 trillion in tax cuts, and Republicans turned the deal down, I would personally drive down to Washington and pelt them with rotten vegetables, and possibly with rocks. $100 billion in new taxes plus $1 trillion in cuts balances the budget in 2012."
Yup. The candidates all exposed these facts:
1. They are all certifiably insane.
2. Not one of them owns a calculator.
3. Every one of them (even Paul and Huntsaman) is more afraid of tryin' to explain that fancy-book-learnin' math to their "base" than they would be to publicly accept a deal Ronald Reagan would have had to pinch himself over to ensure he was not dreaming.
It happened. Here's proof:
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Charting The Debt Deal
Aug 11th, 2011
The whole thing is bad medicine and represents a failure of national priorities.
The whole thing is bad medicine and represents a failure of national priorities.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
GOP Sabotaging America
June 23rd, 2011
Some of us have been suggesting for months that the Republican Party is actively trying to injure ordinary Americans and limit any potential recovery for ballot leverage in 2012. At last, some senior elected Democrats are willing to call them out for their tactics.
Ryan Witt writes for The Washington Examiner:
"President Obama is generally considered the favorite to win re-election in 2012, as he consistently leads all Republican candidates in the polls, but there are some who believe the President could still be vulnerable if the economy continues to weaken. Today Talking Points Memo reported that Senate Democrats accused the Republicans of purposefully blocking any measures to improve the economy in order to better their chances of beating Obama in 2012.
To support their case the Democrats point to the most recent debt ceiling negotiations. The Democrats have proposed a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, which would theoretically free up more money and generate some more economic growth. Democrats generally favor more direct economic investment, such as spending for infrastructure projects, but were willing to meet the Republicans on their terms by proposing a tax cut.
Democrats had assumed that the Republicans, who generally have never met a tax cut they did not like, would accept the measure. However, the Republicans have said they oppose the temporary tax cut as a "gimmick." The Republican position has caused Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to make the following bold accusation against Republicans,
"Would Republicans really oppose a tax cut for business that created jobs? This is sort of beyond the pale. So if they'd oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they're just opposing anything that would help create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren’t trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain."
With all due respect and in consideration of the fact that the single largest barrier to domestic growth currently is demand, there's no "almost" about it.
Ryan Witt writes for The Washington Examiner:
"President Obama is generally considered the favorite to win re-election in 2012, as he consistently leads all Republican candidates in the polls, but there are some who believe the President could still be vulnerable if the economy continues to weaken. Today Talking Points Memo reported that Senate Democrats accused the Republicans of purposefully blocking any measures to improve the economy in order to better their chances of beating Obama in 2012.
To support their case the Democrats point to the most recent debt ceiling negotiations. The Democrats have proposed a temporary reduction in the payroll tax, which would theoretically free up more money and generate some more economic growth. Democrats generally favor more direct economic investment, such as spending for infrastructure projects, but were willing to meet the Republicans on their terms by proposing a tax cut.
Democrats had assumed that the Republicans, who generally have never met a tax cut they did not like, would accept the measure. However, the Republicans have said they oppose the temporary tax cut as a "gimmick." The Republican position has caused Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to make the following bold accusation against Republicans,
"Would Republicans really oppose a tax cut for business that created jobs? This is sort of beyond the pale. So if they'd oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they're just opposing anything that would help create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren’t trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain."
With all due respect and in consideration of the fact that the single largest barrier to domestic growth currently is demand, there's no "almost" about it.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
And You Thought The Bush Tax Cuts Were Bad?
Jun 16th, 2011
You may have heard about Republican Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty's recent tax proposals. Most analysts have focused their attention on Pawlenty's insistence that his plan would spur an annual growth rate of 5%. Such a claim is, as economist Michael Ettlinger of the Center For American Progress put it, "patently ridiculous."
As TPM reported, withering criticism is coming from the right as well:
"The trend growth rate is not going to be 5% in the United States," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the CBO under President Bush and a top GOP advisor, told TPM. "The market just doesn't support that. It just doesn't."
While a brief spurt of high growth is not uncommon coming out of a deep recession, sustained 5% growth appears a bridge too far. Pawlenty cited expansion periods under Reagan and Clinton as models, but neither president achieved comparable numbers -- in fact from 1980-2000 there was only one time in which growth surpassed 5% at all, a 7.2% boom in 1984 that immediately leveled off the next year.
"It's impossible" Robert Reischauer, former CBO director under Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton and current president of the Urban Institute, told TPM. "You get growth because of investment, an increased labor force, a rise in human capital, and innovation. Add all those components together and they don't sum up to 5% given what the labor force is going to be and the investment possibilities are."
While a critique of so stunning a claim is necessary, it is perhaps more valuable to look at T-Paw's numbers next to the disastrous Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003. The crippling expansion of the deficit that would result from these policies is not hard to estimate... merely to fathom. If we are ever going to grapple with the U.S. debt in an adult manner, we have to reject this devotion to the provably false supply-side mantra of the tax-cut as "cure-all."
Kevin Drum sums it up perfectly:
"As usual, a bone is thrown to us schmoes making 50 grand or so: our after-tax incomes would go up about 5%. Let's all go to Disneyland! But the real action is at the high end: income increases of 15-20% for the wealthy. Party time! And the super-rich millionaire class? It's Katy bar the door: they'll see their after-tax income go up by a walloping 33%. Time to buy that second yacht!
Say what you want about how boring Pawlenty is, but he knows his audience: scraps for the middle class who aren't in on the con while the wealthy who understand exactly what's going on rake in billions. Is that cynical behavior from this son of a milk truck driver? Sure. But hardly a surprise from anyone who knows the Republican Party's real power base. Pawlenty obviously knows it better than most."
Indeed. This proposal seems to have a lot less to do with organizing the country's finances than expanding the former Governor's campaign chest. But there are plenty of reasons to believe that the rest of the Republican field will embrace the plan generally. And this is dangerous.
You may have heard about Republican Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty's recent tax proposals. Most analysts have focused their attention on Pawlenty's insistence that his plan would spur an annual growth rate of 5%. Such a claim is, as economist Michael Ettlinger of the Center For American Progress put it, "patently ridiculous."
As TPM reported, withering criticism is coming from the right as well:
"The trend growth rate is not going to be 5% in the United States," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the CBO under President Bush and a top GOP advisor, told TPM. "The market just doesn't support that. It just doesn't."
While a brief spurt of high growth is not uncommon coming out of a deep recession, sustained 5% growth appears a bridge too far. Pawlenty cited expansion periods under Reagan and Clinton as models, but neither president achieved comparable numbers -- in fact from 1980-2000 there was only one time in which growth surpassed 5% at all, a 7.2% boom in 1984 that immediately leveled off the next year.
"It's impossible" Robert Reischauer, former CBO director under Presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton and current president of the Urban Institute, told TPM. "You get growth because of investment, an increased labor force, a rise in human capital, and innovation. Add all those components together and they don't sum up to 5% given what the labor force is going to be and the investment possibilities are."
While a critique of so stunning a claim is necessary, it is perhaps more valuable to look at T-Paw's numbers next to the disastrous Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003. The crippling expansion of the deficit that would result from these policies is not hard to estimate... merely to fathom. If we are ever going to grapple with the U.S. debt in an adult manner, we have to reject this devotion to the provably false supply-side mantra of the tax-cut as "cure-all."
 |
| From Chuck Marr at The Center For Budget and Policy Priorities |
Kevin Drum sums it up perfectly:
"As usual, a bone is thrown to us schmoes making 50 grand or so: our after-tax incomes would go up about 5%. Let's all go to Disneyland! But the real action is at the high end: income increases of 15-20% for the wealthy. Party time! And the super-rich millionaire class? It's Katy bar the door: they'll see their after-tax income go up by a walloping 33%. Time to buy that second yacht!
Say what you want about how boring Pawlenty is, but he knows his audience: scraps for the middle class who aren't in on the con while the wealthy who understand exactly what's going on rake in billions. Is that cynical behavior from this son of a milk truck driver? Sure. But hardly a surprise from anyone who knows the Republican Party's real power base. Pawlenty obviously knows it better than most."
Indeed. This proposal seems to have a lot less to do with organizing the country's finances than expanding the former Governor's campaign chest. But there are plenty of reasons to believe that the rest of the Republican field will embrace the plan generally. And this is dangerous.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 2 - Defense
April 11th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
Having examined Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty in some detail, it's been frustrating watching so many rightist partisans and pundits respond by lavishing praise upon its "seriousness." My first critique, focusing on the tax implications alone, argued that it is largely removed from economic science as we know it.
It was satisfying to see Paul Krugman say much the same thing and for the same reasons a few of days later. He does, after all, have a little more experience reading budgets than I do.
"They should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all."
by F. Grey Parker
 |
| © copyright 2011 S. Harris |
It was satisfying to see Paul Krugman say much the same thing and for the same reasons a few of days later. He does, after all, have a little more experience reading budgets than I do.
"They should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 1 - Taxes
April 5th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker
My first reaction when I finished reading The Path To Prosperity, Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) highly anticipated "budget," was to wonder where the rest of it was. It's like an introduction without a following body of work. The calculated lack of specificity is stunning. It's a buffet of political talking points.
There are certainly many scary charts, spooky graphs and a lot of Neo-Con think-tank phrases. But to call it a "budget" is an insult to arithmetic itself. In fact, at his press conference earlier this afternoon Ryan said it "is not just a budget, it’s a cause." With all due respect, faith doesn't secure the outcome of financial equations.
by F. Grey Parker
My first reaction when I finished reading The Path To Prosperity, Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) highly anticipated "budget," was to wonder where the rest of it was. It's like an introduction without a following body of work. The calculated lack of specificity is stunning. It's a buffet of political talking points.
There are certainly many scary charts, spooky graphs and a lot of Neo-Con think-tank phrases. But to call it a "budget" is an insult to arithmetic itself. In fact, at his press conference earlier this afternoon Ryan said it "is not just a budget, it’s a cause." With all due respect, faith doesn't secure the outcome of financial equations.
Let's look at the Ryan scheme:
"Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health care law. Prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget. Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families. Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment"
"Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health care law. Prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget. Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families. Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment"
Taxes are at their lowest levels in modern history and have been for years. There has been no corresponding expansion of the economy. What's more, the $800 billion in prevented "tax increases" he touts is predicated on the complete repeal of HCR. That is not going to happen. There is no demonstrably broad benefit to the U.S. economy from the hyper-wealthy having a tax rate of 25%. A 10% drop in the corporate rate with not one single loophole singled out for elimination is ridiculous.
We have to substantially raise taxes and soon. I say it. Krugman says it. Reich says it in no uncertain terms. In fact, a majority of Americans say it. And yet, Ryan skips merrily through an alternate reality.
Ryan actually cites economic projections from the Heritage Foundation as supporting data within the plan itself. The same Heritage Foundation that said "pro growth tax cuts... always create jobs" while arguing for the extension of the disastrous W Tax Cuts that didn't create jobs. As a matter of fact, the weakest ever post-Depression job creation accompanied that fiscal policy. Of course, that's not what Heritage had projected prior to their initial implementation. Matt Yglesias dug up this gem today.
Heritage prosperity projections that they insisted would follow passage of the W Tax Cuts...
The entire payroll expansion under W came to 2.3% which is almost six times smaller than the expansion rate under just 4 years of Jimmy Carter! Ryan's plan is a larger dose of the same failed "stimulative policies" which have caused this mess. But by all means, let's assume that Heritage is totally correct... this time.
The subject of our revenue in-stream is carefully packaged alongside political triggers designed to provoke panic:
"As economic growth deteriorates, it becomes harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes, and a vicious cycle ensues. If the nation ultimately experiences a panicked run on its debt, it will be forced to make immediate and painful fiscal adjustments (like the austerity program that has provoked riots in Greece)"
America/Greece comparisons are absurd. They are also dishonest. The crisis in Greece was caused by two principal factors. The first is that their economy was so much smaller than ours and not complexly diversified. The second is that they invested their national treasure heavily in our own under-regulated derivatives markets. These are the same markets that Mr. Ryan doesn't want to "over-regulate."
The entire payroll expansion under W came to 2.3% which is almost six times smaller than the expansion rate under just 4 years of Jimmy Carter! Ryan's plan is a larger dose of the same failed "stimulative policies" which have caused this mess. But by all means, let's assume that Heritage is totally correct... this time.
The subject of our revenue in-stream is carefully packaged alongside political triggers designed to provoke panic:
"As economic growth deteriorates, it becomes harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes, and a vicious cycle ensues. If the nation ultimately experiences a panicked run on its debt, it will be forced to make immediate and painful fiscal adjustments (like the austerity program that has provoked riots in Greece)"
America/Greece comparisons are absurd. They are also dishonest. The crisis in Greece was caused by two principal factors. The first is that their economy was so much smaller than ours and not complexly diversified. The second is that they invested their national treasure heavily in our own under-regulated derivatives markets. These are the same markets that Mr. Ryan doesn't want to "over-regulate."
What actually makes it "harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes," is cutting taxes, allowing rampant loophole abuse and refusing to impose taxes in the first place.
The obvious initial steps towards solving our problems are as follows; Expire the W Tax Cuts, return the highest marginal individual rates to Eisenhower Era levels and set the top corporate tax rate on profits at a flat 15% with no loopholes.
Describing Ryan's collection of fantasies as Reaganomic nonsense, which I did earlier today, is actually unfair to the Gipper. When President Reagan was confronted with the destructive and unsustainable reality of tax rates that were substantially higher than today's, he signed bills into law which raised them 7 times.
One must wonder. If Rep. Paul Ryan and his ilk were presented with an actual Reagan budget today, would they portray it as "progressive?"
This "Path" isn't conservatism. It's corporatism. It's less Jefferson than it is Mussolini.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Top 1%
March 22nd, 2011
The devotion to tax cuts as a recipe for job growth is universally endorsed by the American conservative movement. This is increasingly hard to fathom. During the last decade, the most dramatic conversion of this theory into actual policy was undertaken. We must face the fact that the results of this experiment have not only failed to maintain balanced economic expansion relative to population, they have actually crippled it. The resulting collapse in revenue has put our country's credit rating at risk. If we do not eliminate a vast majority of corporate tax loopholes and raise the top marginal personal rate by at least 3 to 4 percentage points, the dream of America is very likely lost. Even the architects of trickle down theory are declaring this continued article of faith to be a disaster. I stipulate that furtherance of these tax codes is closer to insanity. Late last year, the following graphic was published by Jay Kimball. Let us revisit it, shall we? The vast American middle class could never have been created in the first place had this monetary system been in place from the 30s through the 70s.
The devotion to tax cuts as a recipe for job growth is universally endorsed by the American conservative movement. This is increasingly hard to fathom. During the last decade, the most dramatic conversion of this theory into actual policy was undertaken. We must face the fact that the results of this experiment have not only failed to maintain balanced economic expansion relative to population, they have actually crippled it. The resulting collapse in revenue has put our country's credit rating at risk. If we do not eliminate a vast majority of corporate tax loopholes and raise the top marginal personal rate by at least 3 to 4 percentage points, the dream of America is very likely lost. Even the architects of trickle down theory are declaring this continued article of faith to be a disaster. I stipulate that furtherance of these tax codes is closer to insanity. Late last year, the following graphic was published by Jay Kimball. Let us revisit it, shall we? The vast American middle class could never have been created in the first place had this monetary system been in place from the 30s through the 70s.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Republican Solution
Feb 20th, 2011
Sign the change.org petition to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Perhaps we should have seen this coming...
Sign the change.org petition to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Perhaps we should have seen this coming...
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Chris Christie, Dr. Strangelove And Tax Cuts
Feb 19th, 2011
An item in today's Wall Street Journal reminded me of the scene in "Dr. Strangelove" when the Soviet ambassador refuses a non-Cuban cigar and says he won't take the products of "imperialist stooges." A general then responds "Oh... only commie stooges, eh?"
From the WSJ:
"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a slew of tax-cutting proposals that had been championed by Democrats as job-creation legislation and were passed with bipartisan support in the state Legislature.
The Republican governor said he agreed with some of the legislation but didn't want to authorize "piecemeal" programs and promises outside of the annual state budget, which he is scheduled to propose on Tuesday.
"We cannot continue to do this type of irresponsibility in terms of budgeting," Mr. Christie said Friday."
It would seem that the only tax cuts Gov. Christie supports are those from Republican stooges.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wisconsin By The Numbers
Feb 17th, 2011
 |
| Gov. Scott Walker |
As the controversy over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's plans to balance the state budget on the backs of his workers heats up, the likes of Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are attempting to demonize his government's employees for not rolling over and taking what amounts to a 7% wage cut.
It's just another part of the current Republican war on the rights of labor. Here is a little perspective.
"Mr. Walker said he had no other options, since he is facing a deficit of $137 million in the current state budget"
"At least eight new or expanded state tax cuts and tax credits will go into effect at the beginning of 2011. These tax changes add up to an estimated $210 million cut in state taxes over the 2011-13 biennium. After adding in other tax reductions with different effective dates, we calculate that tax changes contribute more than $320 million to the structural deficit for the coming biennial budget."
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Krugman On Texas
Jan 8th, 2011
Writing in the NY Times a couple of days ago, Paul Krugman critiqued what he calls "The Texas Omen:"
"Wasn’t Texas supposed to be thriving even as the rest of America suffered? Didn’t its governor declare, during his re-election campaign, that “we have billions in surplus”? Yes, it was, and yes, he did. But reality has now intruded, in the form of a deficit expected to run as high as $25 billion over the next two years.
And that reality has implications for the nation as a whole. For Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere."
The primary problem with the current Republican leadership is that they continue to argue against defusing any bombs until they go off. Then, after they go off, they scramble to blame liberals for not defusing them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
