For years, I've witnessed the powerful messaging machine of the right wing in our country. Their exaggerations, threats, and misinformation have long dominated the political debate in America, and while I disagree with their viewpoint I do have to admit that their methods are incredibly effective. Many times when I've seen some crazy tax cut pushed through, or ridiculous cut in social services, I've said to myself, "If only the Democrats would fight in the same way as these Republicans."
I guess I should have been more specific, as it seems that President Obama has made my wish come all-too true. Not only is he fighting for an old Republican tax cut, larded with additional new Republican tax cuts, but he's also employing a Bush-like fear approach to his latest plan: Pass my bill or we'll see a recession!
Personally, I'm not sure we've ever exited the current recession. Unemployment has been at 9% for almost two years. Here in Oregon it's been in double digits for the same amount of time.* The housing market has been in the toilet for a couple of years. Sure, the stock market is up and there are record profits on wall street, but that doesn't mean the recession has ever really ended.
Even if an argument can be made that the recession has ended, what possibly makes you think that these tax cuts will prevent another one?** The evidence that they will do anything to help the economy is questionable at best. Does the President even recall his own arguments on the ineffectiveness of tax cuts? An equally (if not more) valid argument could be made that passing this bill instead of one more robust will lead to a double dip recession.
Every time I think we're as far as we can get into Bizarro World, we take a step further.
___
* Ignoring the fact, of course, that our method of counting unemployment is far from accurate as it fails to consider those underemployed or unemployed no longer receiving benefits.
** Not to mention the modest tax INCREASE that the very lowest paid Americans will see. Increase taxes on the poor, decrease taxes on the super rich. How is this the policy of a Democrat?
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Obama's Compromise Victories? Tax Cuts.
I'll start out by saying that I am disgusted with the "compromise" plan put forth by the President yesterday. I haven't really wanted to post in the last few days, because I am tired of coming on here and just expressing how upset I am with the lack of leadership. As I've made clear, I think tax cuts are absolutely the wrong thing for our country and our economy... they're a lot of the reason we have the deficit we have now* and economists are almost universal in decrying their "stimulative" power.
So you can imagine my disappointment as I looked into the compromise that the President made, and discovered that in order to "temporarily" extend the Bush-Era tax cuts ($380B/year in the deficit) the President has received the following "concessions" from the Republicans.
1. Extension of the Federal unemployment benefits. This is the only real "concession" that I can see, in that this is something that needed to be done for the country. However, there's NO WAY that the Republicans wouldn't have ended up voting for an extension of these benefits by the end of the year. If the Democrats had been able to hold their ground in congress, the Republicans would have given in on the extension, just as they have done time and time again over the last few years.
2. A freeze for the alternative minimum tax. Yes, a tax cut that will affect some middle-class taxpayers, as well as wealthier taxpayers. This is something that needs to be reformed, for sure, but it's not a pressing issue. It's just another tax cut... and considering a tax cut to be a concession from the Republicans is ridiculous.
3. A huge reduction of the Estate Tax. In 2011, the Estate Tax was slated to affect estates of over $1,000,000 in value. Yes, if you left over a million dollars to your heirs, they would have to pay 35% in taxes to the government. The Repulicans were generous enough, however, to allow the President a tax cut for the wealthy on this as well, with the new Estate Tax affecting only estates of $5M or more. WOW! How crafty of President Obama to work another tax cut out of those Republicans.**
4. Additional tax cuts, from college tuition credits to child care credits. Even better, these "tax cuts" were the same tax cuts put into the weakened stimulus package to entice Republican support. That's right, the Republicans conceded and allowed Obama to continue giving them the tax cuts he gave them back in 2008. How very generous of them!
I've read a number of "democrats" defending the President's position on this compromise, some even calling the $300 billion in additional tax cuts "stimulus." As I've said, they are the same relatively worthless tax cuts from the stimulus package of 2008, but I tend to trust economists when it comes to economic stimulation more than I do the name attached to some paperwork.
Today the President said he's "ready to fight" and that the Republicans can expect him to fight in the future. I'm pretty sure he's said that before. Like, several times. I seem to remember he promised to fight for the Public Option. That never materialized, of course, as he made a deal with the insurance industry and gave us a wishy-washy industry-friendly bill. Hilariously enough, today he compared this compromise to the health care compromise as he was chastising liberals.
I guess he does get it. I guess we liberals are the fools hoping for someone who isn't a corporatist capitulator... apparently the President feels that is what the country needs. Well, that and more tax cuts.***
I had some hopes that we'd eke out a few minor victories in the lame duck congress. I suppose that is still possible, but unfortunately the President will continue fighting against real change and economic improvement.
___
* In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the housing bubble... but they're still a large portion of our deficit.
** This $5M cap isn't enough for some Republicans who are still complaining about the existence of any estate tax at all. These complaints are somehow supposed to justify the "compromise" as they're the example of the right being upset about the tax bill.
*** Is it just me, or does all this tax cutting sound like a tea party agenda? It's like the President has adopted their point of view, but left all the personal anti-Obama rhetoric aside.
So you can imagine my disappointment as I looked into the compromise that the President made, and discovered that in order to "temporarily" extend the Bush-Era tax cuts ($380B/year in the deficit) the President has received the following "concessions" from the Republicans.
1. Extension of the Federal unemployment benefits. This is the only real "concession" that I can see, in that this is something that needed to be done for the country. However, there's NO WAY that the Republicans wouldn't have ended up voting for an extension of these benefits by the end of the year. If the Democrats had been able to hold their ground in congress, the Republicans would have given in on the extension, just as they have done time and time again over the last few years.
2. A freeze for the alternative minimum tax. Yes, a tax cut that will affect some middle-class taxpayers, as well as wealthier taxpayers. This is something that needs to be reformed, for sure, but it's not a pressing issue. It's just another tax cut... and considering a tax cut to be a concession from the Republicans is ridiculous.
3. A huge reduction of the Estate Tax. In 2011, the Estate Tax was slated to affect estates of over $1,000,000 in value. Yes, if you left over a million dollars to your heirs, they would have to pay 35% in taxes to the government. The Repulicans were generous enough, however, to allow the President a tax cut for the wealthy on this as well, with the new Estate Tax affecting only estates of $5M or more. WOW! How crafty of President Obama to work another tax cut out of those Republicans.**
4. Additional tax cuts, from college tuition credits to child care credits. Even better, these "tax cuts" were the same tax cuts put into the weakened stimulus package to entice Republican support. That's right, the Republicans conceded and allowed Obama to continue giving them the tax cuts he gave them back in 2008. How very generous of them!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I've read a number of "democrats" defending the President's position on this compromise, some even calling the $300 billion in additional tax cuts "stimulus." As I've said, they are the same relatively worthless tax cuts from the stimulus package of 2008, but I tend to trust economists when it comes to economic stimulation more than I do the name attached to some paperwork.
Today the President said he's "ready to fight" and that the Republicans can expect him to fight in the future. I'm pretty sure he's said that before. Like, several times. I seem to remember he promised to fight for the Public Option. That never materialized, of course, as he made a deal with the insurance industry and gave us a wishy-washy industry-friendly bill. Hilariously enough, today he compared this compromise to the health care compromise as he was chastising liberals.
I guess he does get it. I guess we liberals are the fools hoping for someone who isn't a corporatist capitulator... apparently the President feels that is what the country needs. Well, that and more tax cuts.***
I had some hopes that we'd eke out a few minor victories in the lame duck congress. I suppose that is still possible, but unfortunately the President will continue fighting against real change and economic improvement.
___
* In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the housing bubble... but they're still a large portion of our deficit.
** This $5M cap isn't enough for some Republicans who are still complaining about the existence of any estate tax at all. These complaints are somehow supposed to justify the "compromise" as they're the example of the right being upset about the tax bill.
*** Is it just me, or does all this tax cutting sound like a tea party agenda? It's like the President has adopted their point of view, but left all the personal anti-Obama rhetoric aside.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Obama's Pay Freeze Helps Keep Frivolous Tax Cuts
Yesterday President Obama called for a two year pay freeze for federal workers, estimated to save the government up to $6 billion a year for the next ten years.* This bit of preemptive capitulation hasn't pleased anyone, angering the President's supporters while emboldening his detractors who believe that the pay freeze is merely a first step. President Obama gave up this negotiating chit the day before meeting with Repulican leaders in their "Slurpee Summit."
I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy. Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage? How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?**
Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year. He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?
In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign. "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes." Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.
____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.
** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.
*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next. If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?
I think this pay freeze is terrible policy for several reasons, especially with the dire state of our economy. Using the projections of the President's economic team, this pay cut will cost the country 25,000 private sector jobs over the next two years. Despite what Eric Cantor and the Republicans may say, federal employees currently earn 22% less than their private sector counterparts according to the 2009 Office of Personnel Management report.
How can we expect the government to do a better job than it is currently doing when we don't even want to pay the employees a fair wage? How can we expect to retain the best people we currently have when they are now more open to recruitment to fill jobs in the private sector?**
Meanwhile, the President still seems determined to allow the tax cuts to be extended permanently*** costing the country $370 billion per year. He's covered the 2% the cost of these tax cuts with this middle class pay freeze... how will he cover the other 98%?
In 2012, President Obama will be running for his reelection, and the right will have two new memes to press in their campaign. "President Obama wants to increase the pay of federal workers and raise your taxes." Follow this up with equally untrue stories about his $2B trip to India, lack of birth certificate, and Muslim faith, and we'll be looking at a serious GOP tea party in November.
____
* I have seen some conservative commentators wondering how a 2-year freeze can equal ten years worth of savings, I can see how it'd be difficult to accept that not getting a raise this year will make the raises in the future relatively smaller.
** This fits into the long-term plan of the Republicans to shrink the federal government and hand it over to the private sector; as the best employees leave, the quality of work will drop, which tends to feed into more cuts/firings, which tends to lead to private contractors filling in at a much higher cost.
*** There's no doubt in my mind that if they are extended for even a year that they will be extended permanently when they come up to expire next. If we can't allow them to expire with our large current majorities, what possibility will we have in 2011 or 2012?
Friday, November 12, 2010
A Quick Bit of Frustration
I've been sort of reluctant to post in the last few days, partly because I've just been frustrated with the news coming out of Washington, primarily the ridiculous National Debt Commission chair recommendations, which were released to the press behind the President's back earlier this week.* The press coverage has focused primarily on Social Security reductions (fueled by the oft-repeated lie that Social Security will be bankrupt in our lifetimes) and really didn't mention the 500,000 jobs that are suggested to be cut under the proposal. Yeah, that's what we need right now, to cut half a million jobs. All non-defense, of course.
On top of this is the "will they or won't they?" game the media is playing with the Administration's capitulation on the Bush tax cuts. It's all pretty clever, as they have now moved the discussion from whether they will temporarily keep the tax cuts to whether they will permanently keep the tax cuts. I'd like to see ALL of the the Bush tax cuts expire... including those on the middle and lower classes. I'm more than willing to take the $10-14 a week in tax increases that will hit me if they expire... it's a very small price to pay to help get our country back in shape. Realistically, I hope the true Democrats do stand up and prevent any extension of the cuts for $250k+.
Of course the headlines are almost all leading to the more tax cut, benefit cut philosophy. I'm tired of seeing CNN opinion piece headlines such as "Is American Losing It's Influence?" which then suggests that our current path is what has lead us down this road to ruin. That article particularly upsets me, as it is super light on specifics of how we've run into trouble, but very heavy on how tax cuts and benefit reductions will save us. As usual, no talk of jobs or investment in our crumbling infrastructure.
Then again, it's no surprise that the media is aligned against us. Rachel Maddow had Jon Stewart on as a guest last night and they discussed his false equivalencies between the right and left and their influence in the media. Although I agree with Stewart's message of thoughtful discussion and maintaining a fact-based dialogue, I was pretty disappointed with some of the things he had to say to Maddow. I felt he made a lot of excuses for the right and evaded more pointed questions about the differences.**
Almost seeming to be emboldened by the infighting on the left (and those who've taken Stewart's message to heart in some way) Glenn Beck is on a rampage this week with his nonsensical claims that George Soros controls the progressive movement and is building up to some violent revolution to conquer the US. In reality, Beck is a more visible and manipulative puppeteer, and the calls for violence have been far more prominent on the right... but of course they want to frame the narrative that it's the left who are the bad guys. It's all very scary... especially when you see the right wing corporate backed movement placing ads like this:
If this is what is being advertised on the centrist Huffington Post, I shudder to consider what lies and hatred are on the conservative websites.***
So it's been a little frustrating over the last week. I've been kind of busy too, but it's the continued daily assault on my sensibilities that have kept me from trying to make a difference here. It hasn't taken me long to remember why it is I stopped being involved two years ago... it's really hard when you keep getting hit in the face over and over again.****
____
* Notice the leading headline in that article. "Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes." The "higher taxes" bit is ridiculous, aside from the adjustment of a few fees and a modest increase in the national gas tax, there are few revenue increases. No surprise, it recommends keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich and suggests a corporate tax cut from 35 to 26% - that's about 1/3. You have to read through 3/4 of the article to get to that point, of course... the headline would be far more accurate to read "...Additional Tax Cuts" rather than "Higher Taxes."
** Sam Seder did a good analysis of Stewart's interview on his Majority Report podcast today. He discussed a few things I thought stood out from Stewart's interview... among them, the way he made excuses for Bush and his "Weapons of Mass Distruction" claim, equating it to a six year-old desiring car ownership. If we invaded every country who "sought out" WMDs in such a broad, long-term sense, we'd have to invade every country on the planet. He also failed to address the idea that claiming Bush is a war criminal (which he admitted was technically true) is the same as claiming Obama is a secret Muslim Socialist born outside the US. Tsk tsk.
*** And how many lies are in that simple ad? Unconstitutional? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional, despite how many times people repeat it. Government Run? There's nothing in our watered down health care legislation causing it to be government run, any more than regulations run every aspect of our lives. Of course in an ad like that, you can just say whatever you want, and put it on a news site...
*** Having to provide these links to back up my arguments doesn't help. Nor my inability to keep it short or to-the-point. I should start writing outlines rather than just rambling on like I do...
On top of this is the "will they or won't they?" game the media is playing with the Administration's capitulation on the Bush tax cuts. It's all pretty clever, as they have now moved the discussion from whether they will temporarily keep the tax cuts to whether they will permanently keep the tax cuts. I'd like to see ALL of the the Bush tax cuts expire... including those on the middle and lower classes. I'm more than willing to take the $10-14 a week in tax increases that will hit me if they expire... it's a very small price to pay to help get our country back in shape. Realistically, I hope the true Democrats do stand up and prevent any extension of the cuts for $250k+.
Of course the headlines are almost all leading to the more tax cut, benefit cut philosophy. I'm tired of seeing CNN opinion piece headlines such as "Is American Losing It's Influence?" which then suggests that our current path is what has lead us down this road to ruin. That article particularly upsets me, as it is super light on specifics of how we've run into trouble, but very heavy on how tax cuts and benefit reductions will save us. As usual, no talk of jobs or investment in our crumbling infrastructure.
Then again, it's no surprise that the media is aligned against us. Rachel Maddow had Jon Stewart on as a guest last night and they discussed his false equivalencies between the right and left and their influence in the media. Although I agree with Stewart's message of thoughtful discussion and maintaining a fact-based dialogue, I was pretty disappointed with some of the things he had to say to Maddow. I felt he made a lot of excuses for the right and evaded more pointed questions about the differences.**
Almost seeming to be emboldened by the infighting on the left (and those who've taken Stewart's message to heart in some way) Glenn Beck is on a rampage this week with his nonsensical claims that George Soros controls the progressive movement and is building up to some violent revolution to conquer the US. In reality, Beck is a more visible and manipulative puppeteer, and the calls for violence have been far more prominent on the right... but of course they want to frame the narrative that it's the left who are the bad guys. It's all very scary... especially when you see the right wing corporate backed movement placing ads like this:
If this is what is being advertised on the centrist Huffington Post, I shudder to consider what lies and hatred are on the conservative websites.***
So it's been a little frustrating over the last week. I've been kind of busy too, but it's the continued daily assault on my sensibilities that have kept me from trying to make a difference here. It hasn't taken me long to remember why it is I stopped being involved two years ago... it's really hard when you keep getting hit in the face over and over again.****
____
* Notice the leading headline in that article. "Panel Seeks Social Security Cuts and Higher Taxes." The "higher taxes" bit is ridiculous, aside from the adjustment of a few fees and a modest increase in the national gas tax, there are few revenue increases. No surprise, it recommends keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich and suggests a corporate tax cut from 35 to 26% - that's about 1/3. You have to read through 3/4 of the article to get to that point, of course... the headline would be far more accurate to read "...Additional Tax Cuts" rather than "Higher Taxes."
** Sam Seder did a good analysis of Stewart's interview on his Majority Report podcast today. He discussed a few things I thought stood out from Stewart's interview... among them, the way he made excuses for Bush and his "Weapons of Mass Distruction" claim, equating it to a six year-old desiring car ownership. If we invaded every country who "sought out" WMDs in such a broad, long-term sense, we'd have to invade every country on the planet. He also failed to address the idea that claiming Bush is a war criminal (which he admitted was technically true) is the same as claiming Obama is a secret Muslim Socialist born outside the US. Tsk tsk.
*** And how many lies are in that simple ad? Unconstitutional? Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it unconstitutional, despite how many times people repeat it. Government Run? There's nothing in our watered down health care legislation causing it to be government run, any more than regulations run every aspect of our lives. Of course in an ad like that, you can just say whatever you want, and put it on a news site...
*** Having to provide these links to back up my arguments doesn't help. Nor my inability to keep it short or to-the-point. I should start writing outlines rather than just rambling on like I do...
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
On 2010 Results, Oregon's Governor's Race
I attended the Kitzhaber "victory" party last night, thrown by the Democratic Party of Oregon in downtown Portland. It was a nice party and it was fun to see the candidates who spoke there. You can see additional photos of them on my flickr page.
The overall election for the nation went about as I expected. The Democrats got hammered in the house, and lost a lot of ground in the Senate. I suspect the overall spin will be that the election was a repudiation of the progressive agenda, and that the President should move even further toward the right with additional spending on tax cuts for the wealthy, additional spending on the military, and less spending on social programs.
However there is some light for progressives, as the House results show that the progressive caucus held 76 of 80 seats, while the Blue Dog
Despite the loss of Sen Feingold (D-WI) (who tried to run a progressive campaign on the coattails of Obama/Reid's corporatist successes) the progressives did very well. If anything, the Democrats should learn that voters appreciate people who stand up for their values, who promise a progressive vision for the future. I seem to recall a black guy getting elected president running on that platform... whatever happened to him?
Here in Oregon, we were fortunate enough to hold on to our four Democratic congressional seats, with two moderately contested races holding true for Reps. Wu and DeFazio. We had a very mixed bag of ballot measure results, with progressive parks funding passing, along with a conservative (unfunded) mandatory minimum sentencing measure... both by similar margins. Our neighbors to the north really took it hard when it came to state revenue, all three Washington state tax measures fell on the tea party side of the vote by considerable margins.
Two important Oregon races remain up in the air at this time... the race between former Governor John Kitzhaber (D - Picuted above at last night's rally) and former Trailblazer (and Camas, Washington resident) Chris Dudley. Their race is down to the wire, with the final votes from Multnomah county being tallied to decide. It looks very likely the final count will fall within the 3000 votes requiring a mandatory recount, so it will be days before the results are know.
Also still up in the air is the Metro Presidency, with a very close race between progressive Bob Stacey and slightly less progressive Tom Hughes. While I would like to see Stacey win (I applaud his views on the urban growth boundary) it looks likely that Hughes will hold on to take it down. As a bicyclist, I hope Hughes' "Bike Registration Fee" plan doesn't actually materialize.
Can't wait to see the results, and it'll be an interesting journey to 2012.
Update: Kithaber pulled ahead with the Multnomah county results and ended up winning a third term (non-consecutive) as Governor with a 1% margin. Congratulations, Governor! At this time, the Hughes/Stacey race is too close to call, the current margin is within 0.2%, which means an automatic recount will be required. Thank goodness for our mandatory paper write-in ballots!
_____
* The numbers aren't quite equal in those two articles. The first lists 77 of 80 seats holding for the progressives, while the second lists 75 of 79. I split the difference with my figure, but the point is the progressives held.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Boogeyman China Headlines Delusional Anti-Government Ad
A very disturbing ad is making the conservative rounds, featuring a glimpse into a so-called future where China is inexplicably mocking the United States of 2010. I saw this ad over on The Consumer Trap today, where the overt racism is decried. Setting the racism aside (I can't imagine any self-respecting actor of Chinese descent signing up for this commercial) this ad is full of ridiculous misrepresentations and misdirection.
First off, the presenter suggests that America fails because they "turn their back on the principles that make them great." I don't disagree with this basic premise, we're in a lot of trouble right now because we've done exactly that, turning our back on the principles of the 20th century that saw us rise to world prominence. From 1936 to 1980, our top marginal tax rate was at least 70%... during this time America became the industrial and manufacturing powerhouse that won WWII and lead the technological revolution for the world. We turned our back on this progressive tax code in the 1980s, and the massive tax cuts of 2001 continue to ravage our economy today.
Unfortunately, this isn't what the message is in the commercial. As an example of the "turning our back" idea, they list the US Stimulus package, and refer to it as "so-called" and "massive". This idea is ridiculous on the surface, as China enacted a much larger stimulus package at the same time as ours (representing 1/6 of China's economic output), 38% of which was directed toward infrastructure improvements.
The ad also decries the health care overhaul of the Obama administration, a convenient talking point of the right, which is entirely out of context when comparing our industry-oriented reforms to China's state-based free insurance. If the right's suggestion that Obama has made US health care state-run were true, wouldn't the Chinese applaud this change to something more similar to theirs?
Finally, the commercial makes the point that US debt is largely owned by China. While this is partially true (they hold 20.6% of our outstanding foreign debt) they own less of us than Japan and the UK combined, neither of which would take a pro-US stance versus China. On top of this, a large majority of our debt is held domestically, with foreign debt making up less than $5 trillion of the $13 trillion debt. The implication in the ad, of course, is that Obama and progressives are somehow responsible for China holding our debt, when a majority of our outstanding debt was accumulated under President Bush. Not to mention that China holds a smaller percentage of our debt today than they did at the beginning of the Obama administration.
Unfortunately, none of these facts are convenient for the anti-tax anti-spending message of the commercial, and it's not likely people will go to the work of researching this information for themselves. It's much easier to ignore the facts and stir up emotions when people are justifiably afraid that our country has fallen behind in many areas. This commercial, sadly, blames the very things that could help us catch back up with China and the world.
First off, the presenter suggests that America fails because they "turn their back on the principles that make them great." I don't disagree with this basic premise, we're in a lot of trouble right now because we've done exactly that, turning our back on the principles of the 20th century that saw us rise to world prominence. From 1936 to 1980, our top marginal tax rate was at least 70%... during this time America became the industrial and manufacturing powerhouse that won WWII and lead the technological revolution for the world. We turned our back on this progressive tax code in the 1980s, and the massive tax cuts of 2001 continue to ravage our economy today.
Unfortunately, this isn't what the message is in the commercial. As an example of the "turning our back" idea, they list the US Stimulus package, and refer to it as "so-called" and "massive". This idea is ridiculous on the surface, as China enacted a much larger stimulus package at the same time as ours (representing 1/6 of China's economic output), 38% of which was directed toward infrastructure improvements.
The ad also decries the health care overhaul of the Obama administration, a convenient talking point of the right, which is entirely out of context when comparing our industry-oriented reforms to China's state-based free insurance. If the right's suggestion that Obama has made US health care state-run were true, wouldn't the Chinese applaud this change to something more similar to theirs?
Finally, the commercial makes the point that US debt is largely owned by China. While this is partially true (they hold 20.6% of our outstanding foreign debt) they own less of us than Japan and the UK combined, neither of which would take a pro-US stance versus China. On top of this, a large majority of our debt is held domestically, with foreign debt making up less than $5 trillion of the $13 trillion debt. The implication in the ad, of course, is that Obama and progressives are somehow responsible for China holding our debt, when a majority of our outstanding debt was accumulated under President Bush. Not to mention that China holds a smaller percentage of our debt today than they did at the beginning of the Obama administration.
Unfortunately, none of these facts are convenient for the anti-tax anti-spending message of the commercial, and it's not likely people will go to the work of researching this information for themselves. It's much easier to ignore the facts and stir up emotions when people are justifiably afraid that our country has fallen behind in many areas. This commercial, sadly, blames the very things that could help us catch back up with China and the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)