Paul Krugman: Bush Made Permanent

The Pander Bear Express:

Bush Made Permanent, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: As the designated political heir of a deeply unpopular president — according to Gallup, President Bush has the highest disapproval rating recorded in 70 years of polling — John McCain should have little hope of winning in November. In fact, however, current polls show him roughly tied with either Democrat.

In part this may reflect the Democrats’ problems. For the most part, however, it probably reflects the perception, eagerly propagated by Mr. McCain’s many admirers in the news media, that he’s very different from Mr. Bush — a responsible guy, a straight talker.

But is this perception at all true? During the 2000 campaign people said much the same thing about Mr. Bush; those of us who looked hard at his policy proposals, especially on taxes, saw the shape of things to come.

And a look at what Mr. McCain says about taxes shows the same combination of irresponsibility and double-talk that, back in 2000, foreshadowed the character of the Bush administration. ...

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the overall effect of the McCain tax plan would ... reduce federal revenue by more than $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s ... enough to pose big problems for the government’s solvency.

But before I get to that, let’s look at what I found truly revealing: the McCain campaign’s response to the Tax Policy Center’s assessment. The response, written by Douglas Holtz-Eakin,... former head of the Congressional Budget Office, criticizes the center for adopting “unrealistic Congressional budgeting conventions.” What’s that about?

Well, Congress “scores” tax legislation by comparing estimates of the revenue that would be collected if the legislation passed with estimates of the revenue that would be collected under current law. In this case that means comparing the McCain plan with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts expired on schedule.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin wants the McCain plan compared, instead, with “current policy” — which he says means maintaining tax rates at today’s levels.

But here’s the thing: ...the Bush administration engaged in a game of deception. It put an expiration date on the tax cuts, which it never intended to honor,... to hide those tax cuts’ true cost. ... Mr. Holtz-Eakin is saying, in effect, “We’re not engaged in any new irresponsibility — we’re just perpetuating the Bush administration’s irresponsibility. That doesn’t count.”

It’s the sort of fiscal double-talk that has been a Bush administration hallmark. ...

And Mr. McCain has said nothing realistic about how he would close the giant budget gap his tax cuts would produce — a gap so large that eliminating it would require cutting Social Security benefits by three-quarters, eliminating Medicare, or something equivalently drastic. Talking, as Mr. Holtz-Eakin does, about fighting waste and reforming procurement doesn’t cut it.

Now, Mr. McCain isn’t unique in making promises he has no way to pay for — the same can be said, to some extent, of the Democratic candidates. But Mr. McCain’s plan is far more irresponsible... Mr. McCain’s budget talk simply doesn’t make sense.

So what are Mr. McCain’s real intentions?

If truth be told, the McCain tax plan doesn’t seem to embody any coherent policy agenda. Instead, it looks like a giant exercise in pandering — an attempt to mollify the G.O.P.’s right wing, and never mind if it makes any sense.

The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president.

Comments

[Julio]

Five trillion? We can save that much by leaving Iraq in 90 years instead of 100.

[Winslow R.]

The real reason Democrats are in trouble....

Pk wrote: "And Mr. McCain has said nothing realistic about how he would close the giant budget gap his tax cuts would produce — "

...how long will it take for Democrats to realize most Americans don't want to hear talk about closing the federal budget gap? Look at the typical American budget! Times have changed!

Americans want to know how their access to the government spigot will be maintained or increased and their connection to the government drain (taxes) decreased.

Republicans get this and farmers will thrive while the poor die.

[esb]

Quite a last sentence, Winslow.

McCain becomes President if and only if HRC wins No'th Carolina on 6May2008,

and that is why the Repub's are literally pulling out all of the stops to help her do it.

She (and they) will fail but it is going to be really, really exciting to watch it play out "down in the trenches."

It is really getting nasty, with the push polls and all.

There is one targeted mailing hit piece which shows an unflattering picture of Barak and a single lower line which reads,

"It is time to see this man for what he is and not what he pretends to be."

This is a very nasty and powerful motivator for some personalities. My guess is that it originates from a Repub. group and not from the Clintons or their affiliates, but no one can know for sure at this point in time.

Like I said, North Carolina is it, and it is a filthy campaign (on the anti-Obama side).

[TigerPaw]

" More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president. "

Isn't that pretty much what stands for standard politics in the US now? Some candidates are just a wee bit less obvious about it than others.

And the topic can be finance, war, or anything.

[Wags]

Honestly is there a politician who doesn't say anything to get elected? I haven't found one. That is what politics are about, building coalitions, making promises they can never keep. It about Power, democrats or republicans. If McCain, HRC, or Obama wins we will still be in Iraq. With a potential of the second largest reserves of easily obtainable crude we won't be leaving soon.

[reason]

Hey US voters, the buck stops with you. If that is what they are doing it is because you are letting them.

[Expat]

McCain is just another rich, old White guy who has been in Washington too long to do what's right, what's good, or what needs to be done. As this campaign drags on for what seems like the third or fourth year, I am appalled by Hillary and disappointed by Obama. I fear that America will be simpy vote for more of the same in hopes that everything will be all right. That means McCain.

Why not just keep Bush in office and stop pretending we care.

[pgl]

Pander Bear Express? McCain makes the Bear Angry. Here's a question I got over at Angrybear which apparently has not been answered. Has any credible comparison of the long-run fiscal impacts of the McCain proposals versus those Dem proposals been put forward. Paul hints that the Dems are also proposing bigger deficits but that there are not quite so bad. Pate Davis of Capital Gains and Games is concerned about this but says he's seen no such direct comparisons. Yea, I noted some WaPo oped but I don't trust the WaPo to get anything right.

[anne]

"This is a very nasty and powerful motivator for some personalities. My guess is that it originates from a Repub. group and not from the -------- or their affiliates, but no one can know for sure at this point in time."

My guess is this is insinuating slander for the sake of insinuating slander. My guess is this reflects the need to destroy a fine Democratic Presidential candidate who is continually helping to shape important policy that will help both Democratic candidates. That is my guess.

[anne]

"McCain becomes President if and only if --- wins North Carolina on May 6, 2008, and that is why the Repub's are literally pulling out all of the stops to help --- do it.

Rubbish; but do keep on because I am so impressed with such capacity for rottenness.

[anne]

The point of being an effective political leader in a democracy is to present ideas that are one's own and to listen to responses to those ideas and modify them to better reflect voter wishes. Of course voter wishes are catered to by effective political leaders, and why ever not? That there be honesty in presenting ideas, should be assured by enough honest reporting and analysis to clearly point to what is problematic in a politician's policy proposals. Such incisive reporting and honest analysis can be a tricky matter, as at least I would argue these last years have shown, but I have no problem with politicians being politicians.

[kharris]

We often talk about overpromising in political campaigns as if there is no consequence. A platform that suggests a big rise in the deficit is treated as being equivalent to one which suggests a huge rise. That doesn't seem right. There are consequences to going back on such a promise. Only if Congress behaves responsibly does a president have a fairly easy way to shed blame for not following through on campaign spending promises. All politicians go back on promises, but there is risk.

So I think magnitude matters. A candidate that makes fewer promises is limiting the future political cost of fiscal responsibility.

I also think Krugman is doing some useful preening here:

"During the 2000 campaign people said much the same thing about Mr. Bush; those of us who looked hard at his policy proposals, especially on taxes, saw the shape of things to come."

This is another instance of saying "remember who got it right the last time." There is a huge effort among talking heads to avoid accountability for their prior views. (Megan McArdle recently tried to make a virtue of error.) Of course, if getting the right answer becomes an accepted standard, some of the guys who got it wrong will just claim they got it right. Along the way, though, it would do us all some good to remember who got the right answer last time.

Krugman, elBaradei, Byrd,...

[wjd123]

How can McCain claim to be a fiscal conservative and propose all his tax cuts and no way to pay for them since he isn't going to raise taxes. He can cut spending, he can borrow the money, he can devalue the dollar, or he can call on the magical Republican fairy who jumps around yelling "tax cuts pay for themselves, tax cuts pay for themselves."

McCain used to believe that if you wanted to cut taxes you had to cut spending. He wants to cut taxes, but he won't tell us what spending cuts will be necessary to cover the tax cuts.

Such a dilemma it is: John McCain has a secret. The voters want to know. He can't get his secret classified under national security. What is he to do? See John jump. Jump, jump, jump. Jump around with George and the Republican fairy.

[anne]

Mohamed ElBaradei, who was and is the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, should have been able to convince any person, especially any reporter or analyst, who bothered to read the open reports of the IAEA to the United Nations Security Council before the war in an occupation of of Iraq that both were completely unjustified. The idea that Iraq could be a threat to America or Britain was shown to be absurd by the inspections, but even with links to the reports in the New York Times the reading by reporters and analysts that was done was overwhelmingly to decisively dismiss ElBaradei's brilliant work.

[anne]

From Brad DeLong to Matthew Yglesias to Joshua Marshall to Mark Kleiman, and on and on, the writing of Mohamed ElBaradei and the work of the IAEA was dismissed and the war in Iraq justified and after the war so too the occupation though the absence of an Iraqi threat to America and Britain was surely laughably obvious after in a few weeks the Iraqi government had been deposed. ElBaradei should have prevented the war and occupation, but we could not understand.

So much time and destruction had to pass before, gradually, understanding came, though by then the rational for remaining in Iraq was altogether different.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/04/paul-berman-is.html

April 1, 2008

For the record, I was in favor of the war on Iraq in the winter of 2003. I reasoned:

Condi Rice is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

Colin Powell is not-stupid and not-malevolent, and is for the war.

This means that even though the public intelligence is bs, that there must be solid evidence of an advanced nuclear program in Iraq and of a willingness to give serious weapons to terrorist groups--otherwise attacking Iraq while we have real enemies like Osama bin Laden running loose would be really stupid.

And although Bush is really stupid, not everyone in the administration is.

Wrong on all counts. I am very sorry.

I may be the stupidest man alive.

-- Brad DeLong

[anne]

Mohamed ElBaradei showed openly, in view of all, and completely clearly that that idea of Iraq having "an advanced nuclear program" was completely absurd. We should not forget who even bothered to pay attention, because there were remarkably few. The Washington Post chose rather to mock and slander the work of ElBaraei, madly supporting war.

[Alex Tolley]

wjd123: "John McCain has a secret. The voters want to know. "

Just like the last 2 times, I don't expect the tv debates or the newspapers to explain that the numbers don't add up. Who exactly explained that tax cuts don't pay for themselves when the Republican field pretty all said they would cut taxes.

PK has done his best work explaining the consequences of policies that don't make sense, but be is mostly talking to a readership that will vote Democratic in November.

The scary thing is, I don't think McCain needs to do much to counter the Democratic message.

Iraq - we'll be responsible for a bloodbath if we leave. It is only "sensible" policy to remain and help.

Healthcare - don't let Democrats wreck the world's finest system by socializing it and taking away your choice of physician.

Taxes - A tax cut is needed to stimulate the economy. Back to Reagan with permanent tax cuts and getting rid of government waste and free-loaders.

[anne]

Settling another matter, a matter that needs settling, Milton Friedman claimed to have been opposed to war in Iraq, but there is no evidence of the least opposition while Friedman made clear that he was completely in favor of occupying Iraq indefinitely no matter the moral cost:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230045,00.html

May 14, 2004

Interview With Milton Friedman
By David Asman

DA: Do you agree with President Bush that the actions in Iraq were necessary as a part of our war on terrorism?

MF: I think you can argue either side of that. Where I do feel strongly, is that having gone into it, whether we should have or not, we must see it through.

DA: Even if it costs some of our freedoms?

MF: There’s no way to avoid a burden on your freedom. The costs themselves are a burden on your freedom. The restrictions that are necessary in order to get rid of the terrorists are a burden to your freedom. So there’s no way in the short run to avoid a restriction on your freedom. But if we’re going to avoid a permanent reduction in freedom, we have to see this war through....

[Alex Tolley]

Expect to see this sort of piece from the WSJ as a drumbeat until November:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120864685698828937.html?
mod=opinion_journal_political_diary

Obama's America
He promises higher taxes, more regulation, less trade and less opportunity.
By PETE DU PONT
April 23, 2008 10:18 p.m.

Nine months from now, the 44th president will be inaugurated. Looking at the debates, votes cast and money raised in this year's presidential primary races, the next president may not only be a Democrat, but Barack Obama, the most liberal of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate.

Add the announced retirement of six Republican senators and 29 Republican House members (compared with just seven House Democrats) and the Democrats are likely to control both the House and the Senate with much bigger majorities than they do today.

So both the next president and the new congressional majorities will be much more liberal than the officeholders they have replaced, and that will result in a broad-reaching, socialist-leaning, greatly expanded American government.

* * *

Four significant public policy changes are certain: the size, scope and spending of the federal government will substantially expand; income taxes will go up; protectionism will replace free trade; and a commitment to global internationalism will saddle America with a broad Kyoto global warming agreement that, according to the U.N. Climate Treaty Secretariat, should exempt China and India.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed increasing annual federal spending, respectively, by $226 billion and $303 billion – the Obama total being about a 10% increase. Neither of them as president would likely limit any spending – not entitlements, not earmarks, not farm subsidies.

In the past four years, income tax cuts have been good for the American economy, raising government tax revenues by $785 billion, reducing the deficit, and helping to create more than eight million new jobs and 52 consecutive months of job growth prior to the slowdown at the beginning of this year. A Democratic administration's tax increases are likely to be substantial: Mr. Obama proposes raising top income tax rates to 39.6% from 35%, capital gains tax rates to perhaps 28% from the current 15%, dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%, and top estate tax rates back up to 55%. And he wants to raise substantially or abolish the $102,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax. "He is indeed a redistributionist," said blogger and Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan after watching Mr. Obama's answer to a tax question in last week's presidential debate.

Protectionism will replace free trade as American policy, even though trade creates domestic jobs. Foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. employ five million people (think Honda's 16,000 or Nokia's 6,000), and America's exports of goods and services employs another 11 million. But earlier this month Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement by suspending the requirement that Congress vote up or down for such a treaty. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama want to repeal or significantly modify Nafta, which Mr. Obama says has never "been good for America." Their protectionist America would limit international trade agreements, likely leading to anti-American protectionism by other nations.

Of course higher taxes and broad protectionism are not new ideas, they were tried by Herbert Hoover and led to the Great Depression.

* * *

Then will come dramatic public policy changes in the areas of labor law, free speech, election laws and national energy policy.

Significant labor law changes will likely start with the elimination of secret ballots for union organizing elections, so that unions can verbally "ask" workers if they would like to join (read: intimidate them into saying yes). Then may come repeal of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act provision that allows states to enact "right to work" laws – 22 of them have done so – that allow workers to take jobs even if they decide not to join a union.

Next would come some free-speech changes, like the reinstitution of the "fairness doctrine" that requires broadcast radio and television stations to give equal time to both sides of any public policy on-air discussions. There was such a Federal Communications Commission rule that was abandoned 20 years ago, but liberals want it back in order to stifle conservative talk radio. Such a return of government regulation of free speech would create a very different First Amendment America.

* * *

Finally would come a vast energy and global-warming-oriented policy that would begin limiting the energy resources America needs to prosper. U.S. domestic crude oil field production has fallen by nearly half since 1970, but additional offshore oil and gas drilling would continue to be prohibited, for Mr. Obama even opposes existing Gulf of Mexico oil drilling. Off the east and west coasts there is a 19-year supply of natural gas and enough oil to replace our oil imports for 25 years, but access to it will not be permitted. No new nuclear power plants have been approved since the 1970s, and liberalism's antinuclear sentiment bodes ill for any significant new ones.

Perhaps the best example of the new energy liberalism is its attitude toward coal. Kansas needs additional electricity, but the state government recently banned the construction of two new electricity generators in an existing coal fired plant, the reason being the additional greenhouse gasses the plant would emit. The state Legislature overrode the ban, but Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, a Democrat, vetoed the bill, thereby validating America's first substantial step to stop the use of the coal-based power that supplies about half of our electricity.

So America's energy policy in the new administration may be no additional nuclear, coal, or oil and natural gas power generation, which leaves us with only windmill, solar, biomass, and geothermal for additional power needs. Those sources combined provide about 2.4% of our electrical generation sources.

* * *

With such policies, we would be a far more regulated, far less prosperous nation offering far less opportunity. The 23% of Americans who identify themselves as liberals may applaud, but for the rest of us it would be an unfortunate outcome.

[reason]

Alex Tolley...
I know of now time since I have been reading this blog, that we have not heard that sort of opinion from the WSJ Opinion pages. It is hardly a surprise to know that the opposition opposes.

[anne]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120864685698828937.html?
mod=opinion_journal_political_diary

Pete Du Pont:

"Of course higher taxes and broad protectionism are not new ideas, they were tried by Herbert Hoover and led to the Great Depression."

Of course this is a lie, but lying is what the column is about.

[Alex Tolley]

Reason - the point is that Du Pont makes claims that are wrong in order to slur OB/HRC and support McCain. To me this is just what PK alluded to and supports my earlier point. Sure, no surprise here from the WSJ, but this sort of "big lie" will be repeated and believed without much, if any, examination by the MSM and hence the electorate will believe it's true.

[reason]

Alex Tolley,
the MSM IS the opposition (with rare exceptions).

[anne]

"According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the overall effect of the McCain tax plan would ... reduce federal revenue by more than $5 trillion over 10 years...."

That would place the effects of the tax cuts at an average of $500 billion a year, a figure I had no idea was anywhere near so large.

[anne]

What keeps puzzling me is why given the cumulative size of the tax cuts we have had, given the military spending of the years, given low interest rates, why was the economic expansion since 2001 so weak and why are we at least near recession now?

What the heck was happening since 2001?

[paine]

put brand momentum aside
---you now the stuff
that gives throw weight to
"making promises they can never keep"

the party ballot contest
is like a civil court jury trial

its an act of construction not discovery

fiction ???
dream work ???

why not

the side wins
that paints the more compelling pictures
tells the better stories

ritual...entertainment ...emotional outlet
...national travesty ...

ahh what simple if as often harmful as useful... fun

what good sport

as much
the means of fierce them vs us circus
as the promise
of "free" bread

[Alex Tolley]

PK must get somewhat frustrated that his analyses resulting in "I told you so" outcomes are not more widely appreciated. If it is correct that there are significant cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives, he (and we) should be thinking more clearly about how to frame the analyses in ways that conservatives appreciate.

[Alex Tolley]

As usual, Paine says it more eloquently than I.

[paine]

What the heck was happening since 2001?

the deficit was way too small for fiscal thrust
to counter import over export
trade drain

mind experiment

if all the tax cut money
and i mean all the money
is simply lent back
to cover uncle's expenditures
that dollar for dollar
otherwise would have been paid out of
the lost tax revenue ...
ie the land where ricardian ratx rules ...
is it any different
then if its lent to lot holders
for excess consumption expenditures ???

i say"yes indeed"

uncle has unlimited credit
householders ...don't

[reason]

anne,
yes paine is correct, you need to look at the trade balance to see the problem. And PK was pointing this out years ago, saying if the US was Argentina it would already be down the drain.

[reason]

Borrowing to invest, is risky, but on average you gain enough in income to pay back what you borrow. Borrowing to consume is hoping to die young.

[paine]

promising
"less opportunity "

for who ???
the rest of the pop

the non lib 77% ???

surely
it isn't 1 % of the pop
that will be better off
over the next four years
thru entrepreneurial umph and ooohhummm pah pah
if we operate under optimal GOP
" free firms be fab firms " type policy sets----

our demanding and exacting
national " martkets"
will ratify a precious few
entrepreneurs dreams

however
a more and better paying jobs program
built on a fair trade dollar
and a full employment budget ....

[paine]

"Significant labor law changes will likely start with the elimination of secret ballots for union organizing elections, so that unions can verbally "ask" workers if they would like to join (read: intimidate them into saying yes). Then may come repeal of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act provision that allows states to enact "right to work" laws – 22 of them have done so – that allow workers to take jobs even if they decide not to join a union."

repeal taft -hartley ???

man oh man
hell comes to amerika !!!!

[OhNoNotAgain]

"Protectionism will replace free trade as American policy, even though trade creates domestic jobs. Foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. employ five million people (think Honda's 16,000 or Nokia's 6,000)"

Is it just me, or do those two sentences contradict themselves a bit ? Don't these foreign-owned companies operating in the US sell primarily to the US market ? It sounds like he's making a case for less imports and more requirements that foreign-owned companies must operate in the US in order to gain access to our markets. Furthermore, isn't this what we did with Japan ?

[OhNoNotAgain]

"What the heck was happening since 2001?"

I believe it is a slash-and-burn policy known as "never let anything even remotely painful happen on the Republicans' watch". On the flip side, for the electorate it's similar to the "wish and get a pony" policy that children cling to.

[anne]

[Please be careful since Typepad is still running quite sluggishly, though I have no idea why.]

[swells]

What McCain is proposing is irresponsible to say the least. It will amount to no more than shifting yet another huge pile of debt onto the huge pile our descendants will have to pay off. If we want things, we need to pay for them. And yes, I do realize borrowing has a place. But like the earlier poster said quite eloquently, borrowing to consume is wishing to die an early death.

My problem is that I don't see how this situation could be avoided with the system we have. It seems to me that we another level of check in our check and balance system, one that provides individuals with some effective means of refusing to participate in unsustainable schemes like McCains.

[foo]

Hmm, it seems everyone is getting all worked up for no good reason. McCain is going to get destroyed in November. What's happening right now is that HRC and BO are going at it toe to toe, and their supporters are doing whatever they can to win - including saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win. Once the dust settles on the primary campaign, the Dems will focus on the outside enemy instead of the internal one, and that will be it for the Republicans. Look at the people registering as Democrats now - unprecedented numbers. Look at the primary polling data - both HRC and BO have massively out-polled McCain in every important state. Put together, it's going to be a landslide.

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwu1N6NdbI7MThXmiNHyFH-ZMHygD9093COG0

April 25, 2008

IAEA's ElBaradei Criticizes US for Holding Back Information
By GEORGE JAHN – Associated Press

VIENNA, Austria — The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog chastised the United States on Friday for withholding information on what Washington says was a nuclear reactor being built secretly in Syria with help from North Korea.

International Atomic Energy Agency director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, also criticized Israel for bombing the alleged nuclear facility site seven months ago.

ElBaradei issued a strongly worded statement that reflected his anger about being kept out of the loop about Washington's investigation of the site and the alleged North Korean assistance.

The IAEA said ElBaradei was not told about the information until Thursday, the day U.S. officials briefed Congress about the evidence, which they say includes dozens of photographs taken from ground level and footage of the interior of the building gathered by spy satellites after the Israeli strike in September.

"The director general deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts," said a statement from the IAEA.

In Washington, the State Department brushed aside ElBaradei's complaint.

"The fact of the matter now is this is an issue that is worthy of investigation putting aside these questions of timing," spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The IAEA's mission includes trying to keep nuclear proliferation in check, and it depends on member states for information to carry out that task.

ElBaradei and the Bush administration have clashed before. In the runup to the Iraq war, he challenged U.S. claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, Washington made a failed attempt to prevent ElBaradei's re-election....

[Patricia Shannon]

It would be astonishing if the Wall Street Journal did not become an even bigger supporter of the Republicans now that it is owned by Murdoch.

[Patricia Shannon]

Every state should enact right-to-work laws, as have the southern states. Then they can share the wonderful benefits of higher poverty rates, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, lower school test scores, etc., etc., etc. that are the result.

[Jay]

Patricia:
"Every state should enact right-to-work laws, as have the southern states. Then they can share the wonderful benefits of higher poverty rates, lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, lower school test scores, etc., etc., etc. that are the result."

Are you making a correlation proves causation argument? An idealogical argument? Please explain.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28carr.html

April 28, 2008

At Journal, the Words Not Spoken
By DAVID CARR

Two departing high-ranking Wall Street Journal employees, including its managing editor, are under nondisparagement clauses.

[What happens when Australia takes over the Wall Street Journal, and to think it could have been China. No disparagement intended, I am practicing to be Australian anyway.]

[keno]

A bakeneko will haunt any household it is kept in, creating ghostly fireballs, menacing sleepers, walking on its hind legs, changing its shape into that of a human, and even devouring its own mistress in order to shapeshift and take her place. When it is finally killed, its body may be as much as five feet in length. It also poses a danger if allowed into a room with a fresh corpse; a cat is believed to be capable of reanimating a body by jumping over it..

keno

[PSP]

Taft-Hartley repealed. Oh no. Next they will start enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act and all the low level "white collar" employees will no longer be suckered into a salary and free overtime.

[anne]

"Bush Made Permanent," and More....

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/cold_war_whatever.php

April 28, 2008

Cold War, Whatever
By Matthew Yglesias

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's noticed that John McCain wants to start a new Cold War. Fareed Zakaria's also on the case: *

"We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow). It is a policy that would alienate many countries in Europe and Asia who would see it as an attempt by Washington to begin a new cold war."

Right. I mean, regardless of what you think of the merits of McCain's thinking on this front, surely the country deserves some debate and analysis of what's going on here. Instead, insofar as any attention has been paid at all to McCain's foreign policy vision it's centered on his empty promise to try to act nicer to Western Europeans. But his views toward Russia and China would represent a much more dramatic and consequential departure from current practice -- just not in a friendly and moderate way.

* http://www.newsweek.com/id/134317

[Patricia Shannon]

Jay, I don't believe anything I say will affect your thinking, but I'll answer anyway.
Those opposed to unions claim that their absence is a positive force. I was pointing out that the evidence does not support that.
What is evidence (not theory) that barriers to unions is good?

Yes, unions can be misused. But as soon as they are done away with, they will be needed again. As usual, balance is needed

Do I dare breathe the possibility of a certain amount of government regulation might be needed to reign in union excesses while retaining needed benefits. Of course, this depends on non-corrupt government, which means non-conservative government.

[paine]

"It will amount to no more than shifting yet another huge pile of debt onto the huge pile our descendants will have to pay off"

this is simply wrong swells
all of uncles debts
nedd never be reduced
all our descendants for ever and ever
will "need pay"
is the foreign owned
debt service

as for the here and now
so long as we are below
macro output capacity
and we are always operating below capacity
and even if we hit capacity
this is an open economy
embedded in a very slack
global industrial system

don't confuse raw commodity surges
with industrial limits

noe asume the price level is adjusted
only at great risk
and with diverse misery

those alleged aweful options
are the one's posed
by
the spoksmen
for the beneficiaries
of chronic system wide
job and credit slack

[paine]

jay
are you yourself
a mere correlation
or a causation ???

[paine]

btw
the woes of dixie pre date taft hartley
for sure

but the cotton state stymie
on unions surely hurts the region's wagery

if they'd like to dig their way out
from under the jim crow mausoleum
they need to repeal these
de facto state wage shackles

[baileyman]

Why should it matter how a worthwhile federal expenditure is financed (except that there may be some externalities of that finance like inequality)?

[OhNoNotAgain]

"Are you making a correlation proves causation argument? An idealogical argument? Please explain."

I would add that "right to work" is simply another Republicanspeak way of saying "shut out unions and lower wages for everyone". It's just like the "Clear Skies Initiative", which was just another way of saying "We're going to let everyone pollute the shit out of our skies".

[Noni Mausa]

It makes my heart ache to see how the Democratic candidates have gone about campaigning. What is the matter with them?

What I would have loved to see is a pattern like this:

Clinton: I am worried about health. I would do X for health care.

Obama: I am also worried about health. I would rather do Y for health care, though X isn't bad.

Both: Look what the Republicans have done instead! [Drag out many charts and experts to eviscerate the Republicans. Stomp on the remains, then shake hands, go on to next topic.]

Wash, rinse, repeat.
For months and months and months.
All over the country.

Instead they are doing a public seminar on how best to attack each other.

There really, really must be something in the water...

Noni

[Jay]

"What I would have loved to see is a pattern like this:

Clinton: I am worried about health. I would do X for health care.

Obama: I am also worried about health. I would rather do Y for health care, though X isn't bad."

Noni: There is a reason campaigns don't work this way. Government(in its form for the past 80 years+) has a net negative NPV on society if either of these candidates win (if you are well versed in South Park think of the election between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich).

If you are competing to being the least bad option for people, they won't win votes if you tell them how bad you are going to be, but instead by telling everyone how unbearable the other guy would be.

[Jay]

"jay
are you yourself
a mere correlation
or a causation ???"

Paine: I'm a both!

[Jay]

I'm both!

[anne]

Remember, what is always important is to show just what gutter thinking and gutter writing is about because ragging all about to the gutter is what gutter people must be about.

[anne]

Descend to the gutter and lie and slander, because slaner an lying and showing the thinking of the gutter is what must be done in writing of who we really are. Imagine my surprise.

[anne]

Correcting:

Descend to the gutter and lie and slander, because slander and lying and showing the thinking of the gutter is what must be done in writing of who we really are. The real purpose, of course, is always to menace and bully. Imagine my surprise.

[paine]

anne
leave jay to his logico-data dance
down there in his ivory basement

too bad he can't be persuaded
to go outside
and play in traffic
like a good sub soil cynic should

[anne]

Paine, I am again thinking through the trade worries you have.

[don]

"Well, Congress “scores” tax legislation by comparing estimates of the revenue that would be collected if the legislation passed with estimates of the revenue that would be collected under current law. In this case that means comparing the McCain plan with what would happen if the Bush tax cuts expired on schedule. Mr. Holtz-Eakin wants the McCain plan compared, instead, with “current policy” — which he says means maintaining tax rates at today’s levels. But here’s the thing: ...the Bush administration engaged in a game of deception. It put an expiration date on the tax cuts, which it never intended to honor,... to hide those tax cuts’ true cost. ... Mr. Holtz-Eakin is saying, in effect, “We’re not engaged in any new irresponsibility — we’re just perpetuating the Bush administration’s irresponsibility. That doesn’t count.”

Hey, no denying it, Paul is a master of spin. Begin with his phrase "Mr." Holz-Eakin, to describe a well-published professor of economics. More substantively, the question of whether we should use the tax structure as it is, or as it was before the tax cuts to assess costs of future policies is a real one. And the answer doesn't depend on how or why the cuts were established. It depends more on how long the current structure has been in place. Suppose the cuts were established 50 years ago, and set to expire this year. What sense would it make putting a 'cost' on keeping the new structure? As for the tax cuts being "irresponsible," I wonder. Would the deficit be much lower now, or would we largely have sacrificed private sector consumption and investment for "good progams" from government? I am only sorry the government has had the resources it has had. For example, if Bush had to make do with a sorry shadow of the military he had - one that would 'shock and awe' no one - would he have started the Iraq adventure?

[anne]

Ah, Don thank you....

I realize now why I had failed to come near understanding the size of the revenue loss in John McCain's tax plan. I had only estimated the cost of keeping the cuts set in place under George Bush; not taking the additionally proposed cuts seriously.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28krugman.html

The McCain tax plan contains three main elements.

First, Mr. McCain proposes making almost all of the Bush tax cuts, which are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, permanent. (He proposes reinstating the inheritance tax, albeit at a very low rate.)

Second, he wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which was originally created to prevent the wealthy from exploiting tax loopholes, but has begun to hit the upper middle class.

Third, he wants to sharply reduce tax rates on corporate profits....

[anne]

"Third, he wants to sharply reduce tax rates on corporate profits...."

Here is the critical addition, since the Alternative Minimum Tax will always be adjusted yearly unless change entirely and the loss from continuing the cuts of George Bush as easily counted. What McCain's advisers are after is continuing the change away from corporate texes as a significant portion of federal tax revenue. The change away from corporate to personal taxes revenue has been proceeding for decades.

I do not take the McCain proposal seriously, but it would radically move reliance of tax revenue away from corporations.

[anne]

http://www.epi.org/printer.cfm?id=2947&content_type=1&nice_name=webfeatures_snapshots_20080409

April 9, 2008

Corporate Tax Declines and U.S. Inequality
By John Irons

Over the last 60 years, the U.S. tax code has dramatically shifted away from corporate taxes and toward taxes on individuals, especially through the payroll tax, the financing backbone of Social Security and Medicare. In the 1950s, the corporate income tax brought in, on average, one of every four dollars in federal tax revenues. By the 2000s, however, it raised just one of every 10 tax dollars.

The shrinking share of corporate taxes was made up by an increase in payroll taxes to fund social insurance and retirement programs. Excise and other taxes—such as fuel taxes, phone taxes, etc.—shrank as well over the last 60 years, while the individual federal income tax rose slightly, from an average of 43% of total federal revenue in the 1950s to 46% in the 2000s.

This shift is important because of who pays these different taxes. The corporate income tax is significantly more progressive than other taxes. Those with incomes in the top 20% of the income distribution (those making more than about $86,000 a year in 2007) pay four times the average tax rate on corporate income than the middle 20% (those making between $27,000 and $48,000); while, for the payroll tax, those in the top 20% actually pay less than those in the middle as a share of their income.1

This shift has been one of the factors leading to the drop in average federal tax rates for the very highest earners. Between 1960 and 2004, the average tax rate has fallen by about 14 percentage points (from 44.4% to 30.4%) for the top 1% of earners (those making more than $435,000 in 2007), while it has increased slightly (from 15.9% to 16.1%) for those in the middle 20%. 2

Without offsets, further erosion of corporate tax revenues—either through lower statutory tax rates or through special preferences—would expand the already wide and growing income inequality in the United States.

Notes

1. See Tax Policy Center, Table T06-0308, "Current-Law Distribution of Federal Taxes By Cash Income Percentiles, 2007," November 30, 2006.

2. See Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, "How progressive is the U.S. federal tax system? A historical and international perspective." Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter 2007; data at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/jep-results-standalone.xls.

[paine]

anne trade policy is a key to remaking
this country into
the green house of democracy

[BJ Feng]

"The IAEA said ElBaradei was not told about the information until Thursday, the day U.S. officials briefed Congress about the evidence, which they say includes dozens of photographs taken from ground level and footage of the interior of the building gathered by spy satellites after the Israeli strike in September."

Why bother, so that he can schedule some inspection months afterwards, after the evidence has been removed? Or go through the usual routine of first negotiating permission to enter the country, which takes months of talks, and then finally, maybe, the perpetrators relent. Wow, ElBaradei, you sure did a great job by talking your way into making inspections that you should have been allowed to make on day one. How long did it take him to gain access to Iran, and some areas are still off limits.

It's obvious Syria had a nuclear plant, look at the lack of whining and the hush hush attitude. If Israel had bombed some legitimate factory or plant, they would be all over the news pointing the finger and yelling how this proves Israel is the real terror in the Middle East. Yet strangely, the usual tantrum was quickly cut off after the first day, when some junior government guy complained. He shut up pretty quickly after that for some reason, and the matter was completely dropped from the minds of the Syrians, like it never happened. Humm...

And why doesn't Syria respond? Why don't they claim it was an aspirin factory? Why are they so quiet over this bombing in their country? Nah, there's no need to discuss those questions, it's all Bush's fault. Chaney set up the whole thing. When in doubt go back to the usual, safe conspiracy theories.

[RW]

"When in doubt go back to the usual, safe conspiracy theories."

Exactly and you do just that so very reliably.

[Missing The Boat]

I believe the majority of those active posting on this blog drastically underestimate the "average joe's" low tolerance for more taxes.

The majority of voters don't give a rats rear end about the deficit, academic tax policy, or other technical mumbo jumbo. They see it as dumping money down a rat hole, whether a war in Iraq, social security that they don't believe will be there, or some other government spending lark. It is not about computer models on some professor's desk.

They are not just getting shanked by the Feds, they are getting killed on state and local taxes. Don't believe me, look at the population outflows from the high tax states.

The dems make the same mistake every election believing it is just the right wing rich dudes that don't want to feed the beast.

The Dem led Congress has a lower poll rating than Georgy. This is no accident. Non-partisan voters know where the lack of fiduciary responsibility in government is taking place.

A horrible war, economic chaos, government incompetence and by all media accounts two highly qualified Democrat candidates energizing the country and yet a 72 year old career politician which the left believes is Georgy II is polling equal to either opponent on the national level.

This election for the Dems should be an absolute land slide. If John McCain wins it will be the biggest "screw you" to the Dems in history.

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwu1N6NdbI7MThXmiNHyFH-ZMHygD9093COG0

April 25, 2008

IAEA's ElBaradei Criticizes US for Holding Back Information
By GEORGE JAHN – Associated Press

VIENNA, Austria — The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog chastised the United States on Friday for withholding information on what Washington says was a nuclear reactor being built secretly in Syria with help from North Korea.

International Atomic Energy Agency director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, also criticized Israel for bombing the alleged nuclear facility site seven months ago.

ElBaradei issued a strongly worded statement that reflected his anger about being kept out of the loop about Washington's investigation of the site and the alleged North Korean assistance.

The IAEA said ElBaradei was not told about the information until Thursday, the day U.S. officials briefed Congress about the evidence, which they say includes dozens of photographs taken from ground level and footage of the interior of the building gathered by spy satellites after the Israeli strike in September.

"The director general deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts," said a statement from the IAEA....

[anne]

"Wow, ElBaradei, you sure did a great job by talking your way into making inspections that you should have been allowed to make on day one. How long did it take him to gain access to Iran, and some areas are still off limits."

Remember, that for the crazed monster what is always important is to slander, lie and deceive, slander lie and deceive, and repeat.

[swells]

Anne, may I ask a question of you? I'm not sure what taxing corporations does that is good. It seems to me that corporations simply factor what they pay in taxes into the price they charge for their goods and services. If this is the case, doesn't taxing corporations make the tax system less progressive; i.e., something like a sales tax?

It would seem to me that a better approach would be to pass the profits of corporations on to the stockholders (even retained profits) and to make sure that the profits get taxed at progressive rates depending on the tax rate of the person who holds the stock.

[reason]

swells,
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" - yes you are partly correct. But of course the problem is that some individuals make themselves (or part of themselves) into companies in order to avoid tax. (I know because I did that myself at one stage.) Lots of normal living expenses (getting to and from work for instance) change from being a charge against already taxed income, to being an expense before tax. This becomes particularly pernicious when the company moves offshore.
By the way how much company tax gets passed onto the consumer depends critically on market structure (as any micro-economic text will tell you). Tax economics is a whole can of worms. I prefer to look at the entire system (before tax/transfer vs after tax/transfer before making any judgements.) Unfortunately the nature of modern politics (especially in the US) counts accounts intelligent discussion.

[reason]

oops...
counts against intelligent discussion.

[Patricia Shannon]

reason,
Thank you for your information from a perspective which I (and I expect most of the bloggers here) are not in a position to see.
In regards to a national sales tax, I have read that people will avoid paying it on high-cost items by buying these items overseas.
What are your thoughts on this?

[reason]

Patricia Shannon - are you sure in this case you are talking about a NATIONAL sales tax (as against a state one). I would have thought what you are suggesting (apart from limited duty free shopping for tourists) is illegal.