united colours of vruz

vruz: pound foolish complainers take note.

—via randomactsofchaos:

Looking for an extra trillion dollars in deficit reduction to round out your shiny, new budget plan, but don’t actually want to make any real cuts? Look no further: a quirk in the way the Congressional Budget Office scores spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan offers an easy trillion dollars or so in deficit scamming for any legislator who wants to claim it, just by changing the budget assumptions to reflect policies already in place. At this point, it’s gunning for the title of Washington’s Favorite Budget Gimmick.

Here’s how the gimmick works: The CBO’s scoring rules assume that war spending remains at a constant level growing with inflation - even in the midst of a troop drawdown. So deficit fakers can take advantage of this by instructing the CBO to account for an already-planned troop reduction.

It’s a bipartisan, bicameral gimmick: The Republican budget passed earlier in the House this year used it to tout an extra $1.3 trillion in deficit savings, and Democrat-friendly budget geeks called them out for it. A debt deal plan released by the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate over the summer did the same, and the AP called it a “glaring $1 trillion dollar ploy.”

And now President Obama, whose first budget director told the New York Times that “the president prefers to tell the truth rather than make the numbers look better by pretending,” is following suit. The administration’s package of debt-reduction recommendations claims $1.1 trillion in war-related deficit reduction. But as The Washington Post reported this morning, they’re still fake. “Because Obama has no intention of continuing war spending at the last year’s elevated levels, that $1.1 trillion would never have been spent.”  Which means that the $4 trillion in deficit reduction the White House claims to have come up with is actually more like $3 trillion, of which half comes from tax hikes.

vruz: dear president obama:  you’re doing it wrong.  great salesmen are usually lousy negotiators. great negotiators are usually lousy salesmen. warren buffett is quite possibly the best negotiator in the world, and you are the best salesman in the world. that pretty much explains everything that happened since 2008.  please find a way to get better at negotiation, you suck at it. maybe use buffett himself, now you have closed this sale? thanks.

—via robertreich:

Warren Buffett is a tough negotiator, which is one reason why he’s the second-wealthiest person in America.

So when the President refers to his new initiative to raise taxes on millionaires as the “Buffett rule” we might expect he’d start the bargaining from a tough position.

But this is Barack Obama, whose idea of negotiating is to give away half the house before he’s even asked the other side for the bathroom sink.

Apparently Obama will propose that people earning more than $1 million a year pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class earners. That’s aiming mighty low.

America’s median income is about $50,000. The typical taxpayer at that level pays approximately 20 percent in taxes. 

Granted, that’s a higher rate than most of today’s super rich pay because of countless deductions, credits, and loopholes – including, especially, their ability to take their incomes in the form of capital gains, taxed at 15 percent. That’s a big reason Buffett’s hundreds of millions a year are taxed at just over 17 percent — a lower rate than his secretary faces, as Buffett often says.

But a 20 percent rate is still ridiculously low compared to what millionaires and billionaires ought to be paying. Officially, income over $379,150 is supposed to be taxed at 35%.

And even 35 percent is a pittance compared to the first three decades after World War II. Before Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the rich in 1981, the highest marginal tax rate was over 70 percent. Under Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.

The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it’s 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains – comprising most of the income of the super-rich – were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They’re now taxed at 15 percent.

Meanwhile, the top 1 percent’s share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 percent’s share has tripled. And they’re doing better than ever. The last time the top 1 percent got that much was in the roaring 1920s.

So much money is now concentrated at the top that what we really need are more tax brackets at the high end, higher marginal rates in each bracket, and a tax code that treats all sources of income – whether ordinary or capital gains – the same.

The marginal tax rate ought to be raised to 50 percent on income between $500,000 and $5 million, 60 percent on income between $5 million and $15 million, and 70 percent on income over $15 million.

In light of our history, and in the face of future budget deficits that will otherwise cause taxes to be raised on the middle class and government services to be sliced, this is the least we should expect from the richest among us.

Why shouldn’t the President be calling for this, instead of asking that millionaires and billionaires pay at a rate average earners pay?

At least begin from a tough negotiating position, Mr. President. You might as well. Congressional Republicans will oppose any tax increases on the wealthy, whom they call “job creators” — even though big companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash and aren’t creating any jobs at all, while 99 percent small-business owners, who account for most new jobs, make under a million dollars a year. (GOP Budget chief Paul Ryan has already accused the President of waging “class warfare” with his millionaire tax plan.)

And you can also bet Republicans, as well as their allies on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, will continue to harp about the large portion of low-wage earners who pay no income taxes — without mentioning that they pay a higher portion of their incomes than anyone else in payroll and sales taxes.

Besides, the public supports raising taxes on the rich. (In an August CBS News/New York Times survey, 63% of respondents favored increasing taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year to help close the budget deficit.)

We don’t yet know the details of the President’s proposal. The White House hasn’t said what the minimum rate on millionaires will be, or how they’ll define a “middle class” income. Maybe he’ll surprise us by starting out much higher and tougher.  

I hope so. But as he’s proven time and time again, when it comes to negotiating Barack Obama is no Warren Buffett.

Dear Mr. Obama,

by Gershom Gorenberg, The American Prospect

A clever person succeeds in climbing out of the hole that a wise one avoids falling into. So says a Hebrew adage often applied to national leaders. To my great sorrow, you have already missed the chance to respond wisely to the upcoming Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition. You still have a few days left to be clever. I desperately hope you use them.

You strode into a foreign-policy hole during your Middle East speech last May when you dismissed Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas’s plan to ask for U.N. membership an attempt “to isolate Israel at the United Nations.” If anyone missed your implied threat, a State Department spokesperson made it explicit last week, explaining that if “something comes to a vote in the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. will veto.”

This is a mistake several times over. Despite the habitually panicked tones from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian statehood is a gain for Israel. By promising a Security Council veto, you’ve tied your own hands in shaping a resolution that looks certain to pass in the General Assembly, and have harmed America’s ability to broker Israeli-Arab diplomacy.

— read more —

vruz: do right wingers still really think obama is a leftist?