On Thursday a small group of Senate and Assembly members will hold the first of what's expected to be a slew of daily public sessions to wrangle over the details of the budget.
Schwarzenegger has called for cuts that would hit every corner of the state. He announced plans to lay off 5,000 of the state's 235,000 workers and has proposed slashing education by up to $5 billion, selling state properties, borrowing $2 billion from local governments and potentially reducing eligibility for healthcare programs.There is only one way to control spending: Cut taxes.
I'm not sure if the Tax Day Tea Partyists are the "right wing radicals" Homeland Security referred to in its spurious report or not, but either way, I support this movement wholeheartedly.- WashingtonThere isn't a whole lot we can do (until the next election) to let the morons in government know that we will not tolerate increased spending and higher taxes--this is one.
City: Kennewick, Richland, Pasco
When: April 15, 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Where: John Dam Plaza - Located between George Washington Way and Jadwin Avenue, north of Knight Street
- New York
City: New York City
When: April 15, 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Where: City Hall Park
- Utah
City: Provo
When: April 15, 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Where: US Post Office Provo (East Bay), 210 East 900 South CHANGE: Old Utah County Courthouse at the corner of University and Center
- California
City: Simi Valley
When: April 15, 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Where: Reagan Library, 40 Presidential Drive
We're constantly told that taxes don't matter to business and investors, but listen to that noted supply-side economist, Alec Baldwin. The actor recently rebuked New York Governor David Paterson for threatening to try to help close the state's $7 billion budget deficit by canceling a 35% tax credit for films shot in the Big Apple.I love 30 Rock and am a fan of Baldwin's character in it. However, I despise most of Baldwin's politics--apart from this strange urge of his to cut taxes during an economic downturn. How very enlightened and progressive of him."I'm telling you right now," Mr. Baldwin declared, "if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television is going to collapse and it's all going to go to California." Well, well. Apparently taxes do matter, at least when it comes to filming "30 Rock" in Manhattan.
Believe it or not, Mr. Baldwin's views are shared across the movie industry, which is pleading in state capitals across the country for most-favored-tax status. Hollywood productions are highly mobile and can film just about anywhere. So they have taken to shopping around the country -- and the world -- for the most lucrative tax avoidance deal.
this is the same Hollywood film industry whose members fund causes and candidates that favor raising taxes on everyone else. The Motion Picture Production and Distribution industry last year gave $14 million in political contributions: 89% went to pro-tax Democrats. A few years ago, director Rob Reiner funded a successful California initiative to raise the state income tax rate to more than 10%. Unlike a film shoot, which can relocate on a moment's notice, your average small businessman in Encino is stuck paying the highest tax rate in the country -- at least until he gives up and moves to Reno.This is the type of anecdote that turns all those progressive liberal tax enthusiasts on their head--this is the hypocrisy that proves the rule. Like their dearleader, the teleprompter, they see progressive, confiscatory tax rates as social justice.
states shouldn't chase smoke stacks or film production crews with specific tax breaks. It makes much more sense for cities, states and the federal government to lower tax rates for everyone. New York City can survive without Alec Baldwin and "30 Rock," but it can't function without the thousands of small businesses that pay taxes without the benefit of lobbyists and loopholes.Though I'd hate to see 30 Rock go the way of Arrested Development, it would be amusing (cue schadenfreude) if liberal Alec Baldwin lost his job to higher taxes too.
This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.Asking for someone, anyone, among the few remaining Obama supporters who read this blog to defend this bill is unfair. I would be asking them to defend the indefensible.
We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
[...]
Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.
[...]
Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.Let the great stimulation competition of 2009 begin.Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can.
Gov. Paterson's proposed $121 billion budget hits New Yorkers in their iPods - and nickels-and-dimes them in lots of other places, too.(h/t Matt L.)Trying to close a $15.4 billion budget gap, Paterson called for 88 new fees and a host of other taxes, including an "iPod tax" that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other "digitally delivered entertainment services."
"We're going to have to take some extreme measures," Paterson said Tuesday after unveiling the slash-and-burn budget.
The proposal, which needs legislative approval, did not include broad-based income tax increases, but relied on smaller ones to raise $4.1 billion from cash-strapped New Yorkers.
Movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages would be taxed under Paterson's proposal. It also extends sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and removes the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110.
The latest number, which includes the Citigroup rescue, is $7.7 trillion. That’s roughly half of America’s GDP.Really? You think everything they've done so far is just hunky dory?
[...]
[A]ny way you slice it, we are talking about really, really large amounts of money here. Barry Ritholtz, a financial blogger and Wall Street analyst, offers some perspective. Adjusting for inflation, the Marshall Plan cost $115.3 billion. The Louisiana Purchase: $217 billion. The race to the moon: $237 billion. The New Deal: $500 billion (estimated). The Korean War: $454 billion. The Iraq war: $597 billion.
You can add all of these things together and still not come close to what taxpayers are on the hook for already. You could even throw in the Savings and Loan bailout ($256 billion), the Vietnam War ($698 billion) and all of NASA ($851 billion) and still come up short.
[...]
Obama says he doesn’t want spending as usual when it comes to formulating his impending mother of all stimulus packages. (Estimates vary from $500 billion to $700 billion, but who knows how high that number will go?)
So far, all we know for sure is that he wants massive increases in infrastructure “investment.” That’s fine with me, so long as it’s the infrastructure we need (though history shows such expenditures usually come on-line well after a recession is already over).
But rather than blow money on a lavish reenactment of the New Deal, or continue bailing out undeserving corporations, why not really think outside the box? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) suggests an across-the-board reprieve on paying 2008 income taxes. This would leave an extra $1.2 trillion in the hands of Americans, who are the best stewards of their own money. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell proposes a one-year moratorium on corporate income taxes in order to stimulate investment, job creation and the like. That wouldn’t be as popular, for understandable reasons.
The details can be negotiated, but this sort of approach would certainly create more jobs and spur more consumer demand than paying for a lot of asphalt. It would buy a lot more prosperity than any corporate bailout. Politically, it could buy Obama and Congress a year to formulate a serious tax-reform proposal. And — here’s the amazing part — it would be much cheaper than what we’ve spent already.
Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.Whether that feelgoodedness comes from the collective cool transferred to them by the Obama camp (another way Obama is a collectivist) or because they believe the hype and the rhetoric or perhaps even because they think electing Obama will somehow help America get past its history rather than Presidentializing a racial grievance monger--whatever reason they feel good about voting for Obama, my sense is that it's going to turn into a feel-bad outcome.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.
When one thinks of all the men who have put their lives on the line in battle to defend and preserve this country, it is especially painful to think that there are people living in the safety and comfort of civilian life who cannot be bothered to find out the facts about candidates before voting to put the fate of this nation, and of generations yet to come, in the hands of someone chosen because they like his words or style.
48 percent -- DemocratsI'd been led to believe there were more libertarian economists.17 percent -- Republicans
27 percent -- Independents
3 percent -- Libertarian
5 percent -- Other or not registered
(This is analysis, not spin)
I want to point out two things:
On international trade, McCain is favored 51% to 26%. This probably has something to do with the fact that McCain is a free-trader and has demonstrated that time and time again, even when it has hurt him. He has opposed the ethanol guys and told Michiganians that the old jobs weren't coming back.
In my opinion, the single greatest thing that could be done for the world--especially the world's poor--would be an immediate end to trade barriers, subsidies, etc.--in short, free trade everywhere.
Meanwhile, Obama wants to unilaterally re-negotiate Nafta--a free trade agreement that is arguably George H.W. Bush (his administration did the heavy lifting) and Bill Clinton's greatest co-accomplishment. This might have something to do with his low score, despite the huge ideological split which should result in an unbeatable advantage.
The other thing I want to point out is item #12: "Increase taxes on wealthy." This is classic, leftist, redistributive, class-warfare language and causes me to question the neutrality of this poll. A neutral poll would not phrase a question like this. It would be something without classist language like, "tax policy."
UPDATE 3:06pm MDT: Pendulum Politics contributor, RD, writes:
I agree with your conclusions about economists in today's post. I don't know for sure, but it looks like the survey methods were biased. For example, question 12 might have read, "who is more likely to increase taxes on the wealthy?" The answer to that is obvious, and may not reflect normative conclusions of those surveyed. I have a hard time believing that most economists think Obama will be good for the economy, though they are likely to have widely varying views about other issues.
In a follow-up, he added this caveat:
(emphasis added)When I say most economists don't think Obama would be good for the economy, I am basing this on his rhetoric. Whether he sticks to his platform when in office has yet to be seen (and is, in my opinion, unlikely).
