An inside account of the government shutdown negotiations, and John Boehner’s role at the center of them. I’ve already given you the money quote.
Meanwhile, a look ahead to the impending debt ceiling battle. Let me be the first to say, “#PANIC!”
An inside account of the government shutdown negotiations, and John Boehner’s role at the center of them. I’ve already given you the money quote.
Meanwhile, a look ahead to the impending debt ceiling battle. Let me be the first to say, “#PANIC!”
I’m not sure how or why you conclude on that line as the money quote, but OK, you’re more the journalist here than me.
That said, I like this insider account better:
I’m shocked — SHOCKED — that there’s politics going on in Washington DC!
I, for one, look forward to the negotiations on the debt ceiling / 2012 budget. Why? Because I’m pretty sure Boehner just expended his last freebie with his caucus, and if he folds on either of those he’s going to get the living sh*t primaried out of him. As for the usual apocalyptic talk, there’s nothing in that article that makes me think a default is going to end the world. I’m sorry, but Turbotax Timmy is well past “boy who cried wolf” status with me. If it takes economic chaos to make the American people wake up then I go with the stance of better now when we’re better situated to recover than later when we have few options.
Andrew, it’s not the money quote journalistically. I just like it because is involves Boehner crying.
James, exactly which apocalyptic warnings by “Turbotax Timmy” (heh) have been proven to be nothing but boy-who-cried-wolf b.s.? If we don’t pass the bailouts, the world ends? (Hank, not Timmy. And certainly hasn’t been shown to have been false, by any stretch.) If we don’t pass the stimulus, things will be much worse? (Again, hasn’t been shown to be false. Politically controversial, but empirically, basically unknowable.) What else?
Anyway, it’s my impression that all serious people recognize that default is not a valid option. But if you want to encourage your political leaders to commit national economic hara-kiri to prove a point, good for you. Please move to another country and do it there. I’d like the Full Faith and Credit of the United States to remain intact, thanks.
Brandon,
T.T. was head of the New York Fed during the whole TARP crisis. As such, he was right there with Hank in devising the crisis response and way that the bailout was pitched to Congress. To put this in an analogy you will appreciate, he may not have been Captain Picard, but he was hardly an Ensign Redshirt as you are trying to imply. As to the empirically proven false, the utter and complete lack of true reform in the Wall Street markets tells me either it was a false alarm (and hey, it’s not like anyone’s *cough* Congress *cough* has really investigated this) or Tim and the rest of the civil servants in the Fed should _definitely_ not be entrusted with more line of credit. At least White Star Line added more lifeboats and modified the Britannic after the Titanic had her unfortunate encounter with an iceberg. Timmy and Co. have basically hired the same crew, ensured that there was more space on the promenade deck, and doublechecked the locks in Third Class to ensure none of those pesky witnesses survive next time.
So, given the utter lack of dealing with the fundamental problems behind the crisis (to include _no one_ going to jail), tell me again why we should trust this man with _more_ money as opposed to forcing the government to make an actual choice on how it spends its money? Mastercard doesn’t give you more money just because Bruno’s coming to break your kneecaps due to your gambling debt. Nope, basically the good folks at the credit card company figure that you’ll either persuade the Mrs. that Bruno and his crew really aren’t that bad a group of guys (so why not spend the night with them?), eat Alpo for a month, or have a fire sale of your assets. While it’ll be painful, I see no reason why our political leaders can’t do the equivalent (well, hopefully minus persuading the Mrs….but if some Congress critters’ WAGs have to do their patriotic duty then I submit we just limit it to the significant others of those who voted for TARP and the Stimulus). I’m even willing to entertain a raising of the income tax provided there are sharp, steep cuts involved…but just raising the top line means the timer on the painbox gets a few more minutes added as opposed to getting us out of trouble.
But hey, you’re probably not going to answer these questions since you basically feel if I’m not “serious” I can go to another country? Wow, since when did you become a hard-line Republican? Or was that Democrat? Or whatever the current term is for someone who just thinks those who disagree with them should voluntarily expel themselves from the country? Because that’s a good way to encourage discourse and compromise there Brendan.
How about I “seriously” believe that we’re past the point of determining “to crash or not to crash” and would like to do so when our option is “add the word landing to the maneuver” versus “resemble a lawn dart”? Whoa, guess that must make me a prime candidate for Canadian citizenry, huh? Did you miss the news where a major bond house sold off all its U.S. bonds? That Middle Eastern banks are starting to put pressure on another currency other than dollars being used for markets? I’m thinking that you can call stopping this madness now hara-kiri if you wish, but I’d prefer to think of it as choosing to undergo a dangerous surgery than have Haburo show up with the katana to take a “little bit off the top”…starting from our collective shoulders up.
James Young:
The only answer you are likely to get is “raise the taxes on the rich”. It is kind of a religious litany among the left around here…..
gahrie, it’s not that I’m against cutting spending. I’m all for it. But the stuff the Republicans seem to want to cut makes no real difference to the budget. The federal government gives more money to some random evangelical university I’ve never heard of than the entire NPR operating budget but NPR is what has to go? The Republicans are not serious about the budget. They want to get rid of programs they don’t like (all the better if those are one the Democrats really like). Which is fine so far as it goes. But when you claim you are doing it for fiscal responsibility you are a two faced lying sack of shit.
You want to know what substantive budget cuts look like? Things like half the Navy into moth balls and canceling the new ultra mega super carrier project that’s out to replace all 11 US carriers, that incase anyone is counting, is 10 more than any other country has. Cut the joint strike fighter, close all foreign military bases (except maybe Korea, if only because we are technically still at war with the north). Re-focus the military to fight the threats we have with highly trained tactical strikes. We don’t need to be constantly prepared to fight WWII anymore. Substantive cuts looks like eliminating things like farm subsidies and any other direct or indirect corporate aid. It means you substantively restructure things like USDA and FDA so they are regulating safety and nutrition of the products they oversee only, with no rah rah cheerleading for the industries.
As far as taxes? Eliminate all corporate taxes (get the lobbyists out on that issue so we stop trying to make policy with the damn tax code, it’s stupid.) Tax all benefits (from health care to lear jets, houses and golden parachutes.) anything that is income is taxed (cap gains, 1099, w2, inheritance whatever, if it’s new to you you pay for it, bring money into the US that’s taxed too.) tax it all at the same rate. No deductions no loop holes, no nothing. You make X you pay y percent in taxes–stop trying to make policy with the tax code, as I said, it’s stupid. Done. FICA does not sunset after a certain income level. Have, I don’t know, say 10 or so tax levels be fairly lightly progressive before around 10 million dollars. Set it pretty high (for some slight complexity you can make it only on income over 10 million if you want) after that. The IRS mails you a tax return in February (instead of who you work for giving you a … form). If it’s correct you sign it and send it back. If you think it’s wrong you contest it by outlining why you didn’t make as much as they think. Perhaps you took a substantial loss that isn’t directly reported. Easier and faster than turbo tax… If you are insanely ethical and you made money they didn’t capture I suppose you could tell them about it. But you audit the IRS instead of the IRS auditing you. The biggest trouble I see is companies not properly reporting executive income. So there might need to be rather stiff penalties for those kinds of shenanigans.
Also, by law, taxes cannot be cut as long as there is debt, not a deficit, debt. If W. hand’t decided on massive tax cuts instead of paying off the debt with the Clinton budget surplus our current pickle would be slightly less problematic.
DCL:
Don’t look at me, I’m willing to get rid of all loopholes and put in a flat tax. You should be able to do your taxes on a postcard. Line one…how much did you make? Line two..what is your tax rate. line 3 how much do you have withheld? Line four…how much do you owe, or what is your refund?
I’ll get rid of farm and corporate subsidies if you’ll get rid of all the payments to the planned parenthoods, ACORN and NPRs of the world.
Your ideas about the military in today’s world are not only nonsensical, they are dangerous. The last place we should be making cuts today is in our military, especially our carriers. In fact we should have more carriers, not fewer.
Last point you guys on the left have got to understand….the money I earn belongs to me, not the government. Allowing me to keep more of what I earn is not a form of increased government spending.
I’m not positive I like the flat tax idea. It starts to get very regressive at the lowest income levels. But however many levels there are and so forth needs to work simply. You should be able to easily understand your taxes. (I honestly think this is a good bit of the reason people hate them so much, they make no sense, and seem almost arbitrary.)
I didn’t know we gave Federal $ to ACORN, but we probably shouldn’t. I don’t necessarily see any specific problem with having state TV and Radio, which is what NPR and PBS are, but given that we don’t actually invest enough in them that they are non commercial at this point, there seems like less of a point in dying on that hill. As for planned parenthood, a very small amount of what they do has anything to do with abortion. Primarily it is women’s health services for people that can’t afford it, and I think we should be doing a lot more on health services for people that can’t afford them if for no other reason than that it saves money in the long run. Farm subsidies are economic manipulation and cost a whole hell of a lot more money than planned parenthood.
Your last point, you live in a society. Which means you pay for it. Government is a service you buy just like Starbucks, it ins’t free, and if it’s too expensive find one that’s cheeper and move there but get over the “it’s my money” cry baby bullshit, all it does is make you sound like a selfish ass that doesn’t know how to live with other people. Is it still your money after you fork it over for a late? Didn’t think so. Starbucks has to charge enough they don’t go bankrupt, so does the US Government. Get over it.
As to your penultimate point. If you are not willing to cut the military and or raise taxes you are not serious about the budget problems our country faces because they simply cannot be achieved without one or the both of those actions. The US, right now, has more carriers than the rest of the world combined. That is totally unnecessary.
Most of the military is a massive waist of money. We don’t need to be ready to fight Russia or Germany. We shouldn’t be fighting Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan.
We need to be ready to fight insurgent groups, and terrorist cells and the like. The investment we need is in very high quality intelligence, and things that can make precise and surgical attacks. Predator drones and special forces and the like. The rest of it just serves to make you feel like you have big cock, the military doesn’t need to be flashy it needs to be effective in fighting the targets we actually need to fight. Big artillery battles and calvary charges and so forth are dead. Big war is over. And if it makes a come back, the ramp up necessary by any other nation to make an attack on even a quarter of our current military preparedness would give us more than enough time to respond. What hurts our military preparedness is attacking and being involved in conflicts that we shouldn’t be involved in. Yeah, we need destroyers with cruse missiles, we need carriers that can launch and land drones, we need subs that can conduct surveillance, we need satellite images, and we need special forces. And we need IT and data services to connect all of this in real time. We need to be smarter, faster, better informed, and more agile then the other guy. Even larger aircraft carriers that cost more per unit than the entire discretionary budget of the US don’t do any of that. It’s stupid and wasteful.
Put more specifically, IKE was 100% correct, the Military Industrial (Congressional) complex is going to be the death of this country. And their PR campaign is good enough to make you think we need to be sunk by it. They’ve managed to shout down and make it political suicide for anyone to actually talk about a limited military. A key point to many of the founders who saw and understood big standing armies are dangerous things. For the first several decades having ANY standing Navy was seen as Constitutionally questionable and an unnecessary waist of money. A small force was ultimately agreed to, and was used to put down the Barbary Pirates, saving the country quite a lot of money. But again, until after WWII, peace time military force in the US was very small and we did just fine in WWII. We don’t need it and we can’t afford it.
dcl:
World War II was partially caused by the US withdrawing from the world stage and disarming after WW I. We learned our lesson, even if some are beginning to forget. We were able to spend years re-arming to fight WW II. An attack on the US or our interests today will not allow us this grace period.
The US is for all intents and purposes an island nation. We absolutely need the sea lanes to remain open. It is the US navy that accomplishes this. If the US retreats from our responsibility, the pirates off Somali will spread worldwide.
Carriers, besides allowing us to preserve the open seas are a form of power projection. Something close to 90% of the world’s population is covered by our carriers. Not only do these carriers protect the seas and project US power, they often are used to preserve lives after disasters.At any one time, a third of them are either in dry dock or working up their crews.
As to the flat tax regressitivity:
I would have several levels….beginning at 5%. And everyone would be required to pay at least 5%. No one would pay more than 33%. Absolutely no deductions.This includes people whose sole income is a government check. If you did not pay your taxes at any point in an electoral cycle, you would not be allowed to vote. (I’d also move tax day from April 15 to the first week of November)
An interesting perspective on the “fairness” of the current tax system …
“”How Taxes Work” was published (in shorter form) in the letters column of the Chicago Tribune on 4 March 2001, submitted by one Don Dodson:
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared.
Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling very generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively.
The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59. He realized that he was forced to pay for not only his own meal but the unpaid balance left by the first five men.
The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices.
Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80. This clearly would not affect the first four men. They still ate for free. The fifth and sixth men both claimed their piece of the $20 right away. The fifth decided to forgo his $1 contribution. The sixth pitched in $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid $5. The eighth man paid $9. The ninth man paid $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52.
Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry outbursts began to erupt.
The sixth man yelled, “I only got $1 out of the $20, and he got $7,” pointing at the last man.
The fifth man joined in. “Yeah! I only got $1 too. It is unfair that he got seven times more than me.”
The seventh man cried, “Why should he get $7 back when I only got $2?”
The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man.
The first four men followed the lead of the others: “We didn’t get any of the $20. Where is our share?”
The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him.
The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner.
But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it. “
From recent reports about GE, it would seem that we need an Alternate Minimum Tax for corporations, whether they be GE or Unions or financial institutions or whoever … details here …
Gahrie, I think I could get behind that plan. I’d even go for killing off corporate taxes if all benefits were included in income and taxed. I think that would encourage economic re-investemnt in the company. If it is cheeper to make the company stronger than take it out and put it in your pocket if you don’t actually need the cash I think you are less likely to do it. I could be wrong, but it seems reasonable. It also seems that getting corporate lobbyists out of the tax debate should improve overall fairness. Specific tax rates are always tricky because you can create odd little twilight zones where you actually take home more if you make less. I’d perhaps start a little lower than 5% (but I do like your idea that everyone pays something) and perhaps go a little over 33% Perhaps as high as 40%, but that seems like it might be getting too high, unless we are talking about stratospheric income levels, as in 9 or 10 figures. And that’s realized income in the year, if your share in the company you own goes through the roof, only what amount you take out as cash per annum should be taxed.
Yes Al, math and percentages… Oh my… I can be equally churlish and suggest the restaurant should have raised their rates instead.
@Alasdair – The flaw in the restaurant analogy. Everyone is getting an equal share of benefit, not true in a society, some people benefit more than others, the wealthiest most of all.
David K:
Your response at #15 is extremely illustrative.
You, and many of those on the Left, are concerned with the “wealthy” man (note the analogy Alasdair used does not talk of wealth, merely the amount each person contributed.) Would it change your mind if we called one of the first four diners “GE”?
I, and many of those on the Right, are concerned with the four freeloaders. Not just because we don’t like freeloaders, but also because sooner or later, the freeloaders try to lynch the tenth man.
While you guys debate hypotheticals, others consider the facts. Right or wrong, the wealthy — most of all the super-wealthy — simply don’t pay the tax rates conservatives like to pretend they pay. Is that an argument that they should pay more? Not necessarily! But let’s base our discussion in reality, and not inane hypotheticals that exclude inconvenient facts and bear no relationship to real life.
P.S> The first person who says “OMG YOU LINKED TO ANDREW SULLIVAN WITH THE WORD ‘FACTS’!!!1!” without actually reading or responding to the linked post (which is comprised entirely of commentary by people not named Andrew Sullivan) gets banned.
Kidding. But it will be annoying and altogether predictable if someone says that.
Brendan Re you #17:
That is one of the beauties of my plan….absolutely no deductions. No more G.E. getting away with paying no taxes. Complete transparency.
And as for the real life, as I have cited on your site before, the top 15% of all taxpayers pay the vast majority of the taxes.
I can’t resist repeating my questions that go unanswered:
What percentage of their income should the wealthy pay in taxes?
At what level do taxes become a form of involuntary servitude?
If Obamacare is Constitutional, what limits are their on governmental power?
From my understanding, raising the debt ceiling would allow the US to pay bills we’ve already obligated ourselves to pay. It seems to me that discussions on the debt either need to include incurring no future obligations, such that the ceiling wouldn’t be raised in the future, or raising taxes to increase revenue such that we could pay down our current debt. Since no one is going to raise taxes in this political climate, it seems to me that the Republicans are going to make an issue out of raising the debt ceiling now when they should have done it before obligating us to pay the damn bills in the first place.
Personally, I wouldn’t fight so much about about the debt ceiling, but I would raise effing hell about entitlements and defense spending. Or we can take a peak at what percentage we are over budget and pass out equal cuts to all departments. Everyone, become 10% more efficient. *zap*
@gahrie, in 1930, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of their income in taxes. That seems a bit much to me. But when we have corporate CEOs pulling in $100m/year, perhaps a higher rate is acceptable. I think they may be able to make it on $50m a year. I think we need more brackets at the very top. From $250,000-$10m, 30% is fine. $10m-$25m 35%. $25-$35m 40% $35-50m 45% $50m and up 50%. Viola. Done. But personally, I don’t think taxing the wealthy is going to magically close the gaping holes in our budget. But it does satisfy some more primal urges in me to move us toward a more egalitarian distribution of wealth that I think benefits social cohesion.
Rebecca Re #21
OK…I could live with your numbers while we have a national debt. (I’d like to see them lowered once we have paid off the debt, but that is an argument for another generation most probably)
What do you feel about my suggestion that everyone have a stake in the game? The bottom 50% of taxpayers actually pay no income taxes…do you think asking them to pay 5% is too much to ask?
“And as for the real life, as I have cited on your site before, the top 15% of all taxpayers pay the vast majority of the taxes.” And they control an even vastly greater majority of the wealth. Why shouldn’t those who clearly benefit the most also have to contribute to the nation that makes that possible? Especially since they have a disproportionate amount of influence over Congress and laws due to the amount of wealth they control.
And we go back to my post #5…….
But it does satisfy some more primal urges in me to move us toward a more egalitarian distribution of wealth that I think benefits social cohesion.
Re-reading this thread, I was struck by your honesty here. You apparently believe that one purpose of tax policy is to regulate the distribution of wealth. I feel that that should never be the purpose of tax policy. The sole purpose of tax policy should be to confiscate just enough of the nation’s wealth necessary to fund the essentials of government. Period.
I think it would help social cohesion if Democratic politicians stopped engaging in class warfare, especially since for so many of them it is hypocritical.
gahrie – but then, if they stopped being hypocritical, they would also have stopped being Democrats, neh ?
Becky #21 – not only is in not going to magically close the gaping holes, even if you taxed the top 10% of the population at 100%, you *still* wouldn’t bring in what our First Occupant wants to spend …
Still, it is good to know that DC Vouchers got re-instated … it will do the First Occupant’s children a power of good to be going to school with kids that only could afford the school because of vouchers … (not to mention that it’s a lot better for those kids, too, not to be trapped in the DC public school system the way the First Occupant wanted for them …
G. I think if the debt is paid off obviously we can pay less in taxes. Assuming we don’t go on a spending binge. The important thing is we don’t start slashing taxes when we eliminate the deficit, but hold on until we’ve taken care of the debt (Though I do agree to some extent with the Hamilton argument that some national debt is good. I think perhaps there should be a Constitutional amendment when we get out of debt that the only people legally allowed to own a T-bill are US Citizens.) After all slashing taxes out of deficit is like going out and buying a Porsche as soon as you start bringing in more money than you are sending out each month on your personal budget.
I kind of like Becky’s numbers on tax brackets, so I’ll second there also.
I agree also, that as a general rule trying to make any policy with the tax code is a bad idea. It inherently makes people think it is unfair. The point of taxing people that make more at higher rates is simply that they can afford it versus the base cost of living, where as those that are much closer to the base cost of living, in terms of income, simply cannot.
Policy issues like income fairness should be handled more directly though laws where you honestly state what you are fighting for. I would support compensation ratio laws like they have in Germany and other places in Europe where you are only allowed to compensate your highest paid employ X times the compensation of the lowest paid employees. But I think those sorts of things should be handled directly openly and honestly and not hidden in the tax code.
Al, actually if you taxed the top 10% at 100% you would. Stop being hyperbolically daft. The part of the budget we are talking about it a pittance compared to the entire budget. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter, but it is asinine to say that Planned Parenthood and NPR are what is bankrupting the country. You know what is bankrupting us? The thinking that leads to developing a second complete engine system for the joint strike fighter when the military says they don’t need it just because the second engine is being developed in the speakers district.
Republicans talk about cutting waist and improving efficiency, except for where it might actually make a difference, in the military. I know I keep going on about the military, but think about it this way. You are in economic trouble for some reason. You’ve already cut out all luxuries and are still having trouble making ends meet. But you are spending 50% of income on a really nice house. If you aren’t looking at down sizing the house, you are not going to make those ends.
dcl – if you tax pretty much *anyone* at 100%, you quickly find that they stop doing anything that can be taxed … in the 1900s, a whole lot of prosperous folk left the UK cuz taxes there were so high and they were sufficiently prosperous to be able to afford to move … the Labour Party did their “Politics of Class Envy” schtick, and those who could afford easily to leave upped and did so …
From this CBO article, the top 10% in 2005 had an average income of $339K … since that’s an average, and includes the Gates and the Buffets and the Heinz-Kerrys, the range of incomes in the top 10% has to go from somewhere below $300K up to the billionaires …
Take a look here to see how the top 10% in the US compares with the top 10% in other countries …
NPR doesn’t deserve to be defunded because it is too expensive … it deserves to no longer receive federal funds because it doesn’t represent and reflect the diverse public in this country … now, if you are proposing that FoxNews shoudl get the same level of federal subsidy that MPR gets, you would be being consistent in supporting diverse broadcasting … or ism that not what you would like to suggest ?
Oh – and dcl#27 – it’s actually the First Occupant’s First Wife who is proposing “cutting waist” … the GOP wants to cut waste …
I typed a long reply explaining defense policy for those who think that just because no one else has more than one carrier we should only have 3. Then Mozilla decided to crash.
So, shorter, more caustic reply: You tell DoD what you’re going to take off the plate and where the manpower’s going to come from there sweetcheeks and I’m pretty sure they’ll be happy to cut all day long if it means saving the Republic. Unfortunately, our Chief Executives of late seem to think that you don’t need the D, I, or the E if you’ve got the M and, hell, you’re only asking Congress (or, erm, not) to be polite when you decide to start bombing people.
__________
To be blunt, anyone who starts spouting off about “we have no threats, won’t it be great when schools have all the money they want and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber, kill the (insert expensive weapons system)” doesn’t pay much attention to history or the world situation. If you want to go fight the folks who mean this country harm with an airframe that is 40 years old then knock yourself out.
James Young – you are apparently forgetting that the only country likely to try to invade ther US is Israel – and the thing which holds Israel back from doing so is the fear the Israelis have that *they* might win if they did invade the US – and then what woudl they do ?