Meta-Thoughts on Taxes (posted by DT)

I'm going Meta in this post, so beware!

One thing that interests me about questions around taxation is the basis for beliefs of liberals and conservatives. We're not talking to each other at all.

• Conservatives argue for lower taxes saying "we should be able to keep our money- the government should stay out because freedom means no government should do any more than absolutely necessary so that individual citizens can have maximum choice".
• Liberals tend to argue that taxes should be higher, returned to at least Clinton-era levels, and argue that economic history shows pretty clearly that those tax rates coincided with strong growth for the economy and increasing wages for the median American. Increasing prosperity for middle class and poor people is the main goal of society.

Both statements might be right! The Right really has no leg to stand on when they argue that a return to 1990s tax rates will slow the economy- all the historical evidence points the other way. But that doesn't invalidate the main argument of Low-Taxes people, that morally in a free society the government shouldn't be taking our money.

I'm often disappointed that political arguments aren't made honestly in the public sphere. It would be refreshing to hear a conservative say something like "I know higher taxes won't wreck the economy or even hurt it, but the fact is that lower taxes are a moral good in and of themselves, and if the Middle Class has to sacrifice some prosperity in exchange for freedom from government intervention, it's a small price to pay".

Well, on second thought, I guess I can see why they don't say that much; might not play too well with Joe Sixpack.

The Shirley Sherrod Fiasco (posted by DT)

My outrage of the day is reserved for Andrew Breitbart, the notorious right wing media mogul, who launched the recent attack on Shirley Sherrod, an obscure functionary at the Department of Agriculture. But my outrage isn't limited to Breitbart alone- the Obama administration needs to start learning something if it wants to compete with the Big Boys.

For those of you who are unaware, Breitbart put out a video that shows Ms. Sherrod, an African American, saying to an NAACP crowd that she didn't do everything she could to help a white farmer in her role in the Department of Agriculture many years ago. This was purported to be an example of the racism inherent in the NAACP and among liberals in general. There followed an uproar (stoked by Fox News of course) in which the NAACP condemned her, the Agriculture Department demanded her resignation, and the Obama administration backed the firing.

Then someone decided to go back and look at the whole tape, which reveals that the speech was really about Sherrod's redemption story, how she learned that poor white people have the same troubles as poor black people, and that her calling is to help them all- as she did in this particular case (the white farmer came out in strong support of her- "she saved my farm"). Now the administration is backpeddling, offering her the job back, and the NAACP is apologizing as well. I just checked Biggovernment.com and breitbart.com, and neither has offered an apology. Fox news also doesn't apologize.

Here's the story on Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39990.html

So to recap: conservatives lie, liberals run around scared and apologize, and now the lie has come out. Breitbart should never be taken seriously again- remember this isn't an error on his part- it was a deliberate smear, but of course he'll never feel the pain because the Right Wing Echo Chamber will keep supporting him. But what about the liberals? How often do we have to get kicked in the groin by these guys before we start fighting back?

Please please please, the next time the Echo Chamber pushes some non-issue to the top of the news, I would love to hear some powerful liberals tell them to shove it- "we'll act when the facts are in". And I should hope the Obama administration and their compatriots will go after those who use baldfaced lies to support their cynical agendas.

Unemployment, Tax Cuts, and Deficit Peacocks (posted by DT)

This week we're getting a wonderful window into the priorities of liberals and conservatives. We have virtually every Republican in congress opposed to the extension of unemployment insurance, ostensibly because they don't want to further increase the deficit. Why do I write "ostensibly"?

Well every last one of those same Republicans is in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans. This would make the deficit much worse, costing many times what unemployment extension (which is temporary, while tax cuts are permanent) would cost. They apparently see no contradiction here.

Someone in the Blogosphere coined a perfect term for such conservatives: Deficit Peacocks. They talk about the horrible deficit that is passing costs onto our grandchildren, but they are completely unserious about actually solving the problem in the long term.

The current Republican party is genuinely in favor of lower taxes- that's not fake. But you can't seriously propose lowering the deficit and cutting taxes. This just isn't that hard to figure out.

One other thing. If you believe in the claptrap that lower tax rates actually lead to increased revenue through massive economic growth, this post: http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/13/ezra-klein-is-dismayed-that-some-people-think-the-bush-tax-cuts-raised-revenue/ pretty much demolishes that argument. You can't get something for nothing, nice as that would be.

Torture and the Media Conspiracy (posted by DT)

I know "conspiracy" is a strong word, but I don't see how one can argue it any other way when it comes to the US media and its response to the US torture policies of recent years.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes

On Monday, I noted that this Associated Press article twice used the word "torture" to describe what the Chinese Government did to Xue Feng, an American geologist now convicted of obtaining China's "state secrets." AP used the word "torture" despite the fact that (a) the treatment to which the Chinese subjected him (a few cigarette burns on his arms) clearly does not meet the Bush/Cheney/John-Yoo definition of "torture," and (b) the Chinese Government vehemently denies that its treatment of prisoners rises to the level of "torture." I very satirically demanded that AP apologize to China and cease using the word "torture" to describe what it did in light of the prevailing American media standard as articulated by the NYT's Bill Keller, The Washington Post, and NPR: namely, that the word "torture" must not be used by Good Journalists (at least when it comes to the U.S. Government) if the abuse falls short of the Government's official definition and/or if the Government denies that what it does is "torture." That, explained our leading media mavens, would be "taking sides," and only Bad Journalists do that.

Now Greenwald's post goes on to talk about media transparency, but I'm interested in how it portrays torture (Greenwald is too of course). I've had lots of arguments with liberal as well as conservative friends and relatives about whether waterboarding is torture. I am shocked that it has now become the consensus in the US that pretty much anything goes when it comes to treatment of terrorism suspects, and I predict it won't be long before the same logic applies to plain old violent crime suspects too (I mean, hey, they're trying to kill Americans too, right?).

The next time you see a story about mistreatment of prisoners by other countries, just try this thought experiment: change the country from North Korea or Cuba or whatever to "United States". Would that change the tone of the story? Why? Do we get to brutally treat prisoners because we're "the good guys"? If Jack Bauer were doing his work for Iran, would we still be cheering him on?

What has happened to President Obama? (posted by DT)

As I noted last post, it's getting kind of demoralizing over here in LiberalLand.

Now there are of course lots of reasons why, but one that isn't really being noted much is the style of the President.

This is the guy with the oratorical skills to inspire Americans? The one who made such a splash at the 2004 Democratic convention? He's completely unrecognizable now- he could be the Most Boring President in history. It's like he's had a lobotomy.

Now I find this sober style comforting, and it works to make Obama seem like he's going to govern based on careful reasoning, and that's all to the good. But it's not such a hot style when his policies are being hammered, mostly through lies and distortions, by the same unrepentant Right that's responsible for the Iraq War, the deficit, and the destruction of our economy. Basically we have one side throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the fight, while the leader of the Left responds with carefully worded tropes.

I think Obama believed his own hype about "changing the tone" in Washington. The more unreasonable the opposition gets, the more he thinks he can find a way to work with them if he just stays cool. Well, it's not working.

I know Obama will get hammered by the Right and their lapdogs in the media if he starts acting like an angry politician ("What about his promises of a new tone in Washington!?"), but he's getting hammered for it anyway- I keep reading disingenuous rants from the Right about how Obama hasn't followed through on his promise to work with Republicans, when their clear strategy has been to block everything they can.

At some point the stick has to come out; not because it will change the GOP- they've found that obstruction works just fine, thank you- but because it will energize Liberals and get them to the polls. The demoralization I'm feeling must be shared by others, and lots of us need to know that our leader is going to fight for what we believe in.

The Whacked Out Right (posted by DT)

It's a tough time to be a liberal right now- demoralizing. Trying to step back though, we've learned something amazing about radicalism in the 21st century.

After Democrats won the 2008 election, the Republican party moved way to the Right. This was a surprise to some, and many predicted they would have years in the wilderness, as it seemed so clear that they had lost because they had already moved too far right for the electorate.

But a funny thing happened. They've just pulled the whole conversation and the country rightward right along with them! Yes, there's still plenty of great political debate, but now the Right has set its positions so far out there that the center keeps moving in their direction.

So here in 2010 we're debating seriously:

• Is Keynesian economics viable, or did Herbert Hoover have it right after all?
• Should we should hold BP accountable for spilling oil or is that a "government shakedown"?
• Are federal economic policies based on improving lives of the middle class, or should the total focus be on getting easy money to the Rich so we can hope they'll create jobs?
• Why should America take care of its vulnerable people?
• Torture of suspected terrorists (this debate seems over, actually, and I'm on the losing side- Americans are totally fine with a limitless police state when it comes to defending the country from Arabs)

In my email correspondence with my Nut Case Righties, the latest thing is one of them sent around an article from the "Globe" supermarket tabloid about Obama being born in Kenya. Nothing is too far out for these guys, and I'm supposed to have a debate about where the President was born. I'd like to debate about how to eventually balance the budget or what to do about Global Warming, but I can't because we're still stuck on a religious belief in no taxes and a refusal to believe scientists who say Global Warming is real!

If I've learned one thing the last year and a half, it's that nothing lasts long, and I guess liberals will be back. But it's demoralizing right now.

Beware 2012 (posted by DT)

I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning, and there was speculation about whether Sarah Pailin was a legitimate candidate for president in 2012. The pundits were talking about what sort of strategy she would need to win the primary, etc. Finally, Mike Barnicle (not one of my favorite people, but that's a topic for another day) opined that she would get crushed in the general election if she won the primary.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. I've come around to the belief (well stated by one of my favorite bloggers Matt Yglesias) that general elections are decided by the Fundamentals. If the economy is in the toilet, the incumbent loses. If things are great, the incumbent wins. So while part of me would root for a Pailin victory over a more electable Mitt Romney, the other part of me worries that if things are bad, Obama goes down regardless and I should probably hope for a less crazy Republican candidate. Romney turns my stomach and is an opportunistic liar with no real beliefs, but I think he has better judgment than Sarah Pailin and her ilk.

Blogging from Socialized Health Care Utopia (posted by DT)

Just finishing a great long weekend in Montreal, home of socialized medicine and lots of French culture. (By the way, this is my first time here, and it's a great city).

I continue to correspond with my right wing nut job e-friends, and this weekend's topic has been the Stimulus. Basically, there is no stomach in Congress for more stimulus spending, even unemployment extensions (I read somewhere that this is the first time ever that unemployment benefits were allowed to expire when unemployment was over 7%- EVER!).

Anyway, my correspondent insists that the stimulus has been a failure because unemployment is still bad (which it certainly is), and argues along with the Right Wing Noise Machine for austerity. I tried to helpfully link to this Ezra Klein post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/two_stimulus_talking_points_th.html, which I think is a pretty rock-solid argument that Stimulus has been important in keeping things from being worse. The response from my correspondent was :

There is so much evidence that Government spending is doing very little stimulating and just adding to our childrens debt that the case is closed.
Except,,,for a few die-hard far-left Socialist types who have tunnel vision when it comes to Government spending.
They ignore California, they ignore Greece, they ignore Europe, they ignore our deficit, they ignore our debt. It's sort of like the the guy who catches his wife in bed with another guy
and tries to convince himself she's not cheating on him.
People who want the Government to keep spending money it has to borrow, are either blinded to the danger by Liberal Ideology or they have a sinister agenda. They're not
stupid,,they must know it's hurting us, our children and our
grandchildren.
The evidence is there for all to see. It's all over America
and Europe,,they just choose to ignore it.

This guy essentially accuses liberals of Treason. I throw facts and charts at him, and he responds with this. Anyway, how about this analogy: a patient goes to the Emergency Room, close to death due to a major stroke. The doctor in the ER saves the patient. One month later, the patient is alive, but bed-ridden and requiring years of rehab. The patient complains that his treatment didn't work, because look, he's sicker than he's ever been before. The doctor points out that if he hadn't had the treatment he'd be dead.
That's stimulus- the treatment that saved us from a Second Great Depression. Unfortunately, the crash of 2007-2008 was so severe that no immediate treatment was going to bring us back to full health in just a year or two.

It continues to boggle my mind that the economy was completely ruined by conservative policies over the past 8 years, and now they're blaming the liberals who've had 18 months to clean it up. And people are buying it!