Trickle down, turn around, truck a trail of bluster.
Pundits, reporters and analysts have been having a field day parsing the tax reform plans put forth by Jeb Bush and Donald Trump this week, noting that the plans really favor the ultra rich even as the candidates tout supposed benefits to everyone else.
To claim that the new plans would mean low and moderate income folks would pay no income tax at all ignores the reality that many of them don't pay any now, because their wages are so low and their standard deductions are so high.
As for favoring the wealthy, consider this: One part of the Trump plan, for example, would increase the tax rate on one source of income by 5 percentage points, but would decrease another by 15 points. The candidate insists that he will make sure all taxpayers pay their fair share, and his plan would cut taxes for everyone. But look at the numbers. By raising the tax on one income source by 5 percentage points and cutting another tax rate by 15 points, that's a net benefit to high income earners of 10 points.
And according to one analysis, low income households would save $250 in a tax year, while the one-percenters would keep $185,000.
That's supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics on steroids. It didn't work during the Reagan Era, and it won't work now. The rationale at the time was provided by economist Arthur Laffer, who sketched his famous Laffer Curve to "prove" that as tax rates go down, economic activity goes up, generating more revenue and thus more tax payments to replace the money "lost" through tax reductions. Moreover, as wealthy families and corporations increase their income, they therefore spend more, and the net benefits trickle down, over time, eventually, in the long run, to the rest of the population.
We should live so long. Even Jeb's father, George H.W. Bush, called it "voodoo economics" during the nomination battle with Ronald Reagan.
Now son Jeb is trotting out a plan that is nearly identical to that offered by Trump, except for some different numbers.
The candidates claim that the net result will be more savings for households plus an increase in economic activity nationwide to compensate for lost tax revenue, so the changes would be "revenue neutral," and could actually enable the federal government to reduce its deficit.
Despite his criticism of "voodoo economics," George H.W. Bush accepted the nomination as vice president under Ronald Reagan, both Republicans, and federal spending over that 12-year period ended January, 1993, left their successor, Democrat Bill Clinton, with a struggling economy and a national debt of $6.9 trillion. Even so, Clinton managed a revived economy and engineered a budget in surplus for four consecutive years.
Clinton's successor, Republican George W. Bush, cut taxes and increased spending, which more than doubled the national debt. In less than one year after Bush took office, his administration squandered a budget surplus and the national debt plummeted to $1.4 trillion.
So if past history is any indication of future performance, tax reductions that favor the already wealthy, while reducing spending that helps the needy, do not lead to economic health for the nation.
Moreover, as noted in this space September 15 in a post titled Political Economics, and an earlier posting August 28 titled Zombie Economics, national crises, downturns and depressions are far more likely to happen during Republican terms than when a Democrat occupies the White House.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Candidate Con
"Trouble. Oh, we got trouble,
Right here in River City."
Say something loud enough, long enough, to enough people, and eventually some will begin to believe it. Then you can build on that base of sham and bigotry, adding those who may not be sure of the message, but go along with what they perceive as the wisdom of the crowd and the candidate, and soon you have a political movement.
The True Believers gather around the candidate, who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of fact or reality.
He preaches the Great Truth to the local choir of True Believers, who embrace his message of Trouble and his vow to make things great again. As if things are not great now, but the master salesman can fix it.
"The Music Man" is the story of a master salesman -- really a con artist -- who tells the people of River City that there's Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, and persuades them that he can solve all their problems.
The fast-talking salesman-con artist insists he has the solution, to make things great again, since the coming of a new element that has drugged and robbed the countryside of its greatness. He plays on the fears and suspicions of people who are eager to blame someone for their problems, even those they didn't know they had.
But where's the evidence that River City is no longer great? The Music Man -- salesman/con artist -- blames it on pool. Not billiards, a fine, upstanding game, the salesman notes, but on the new game, pool. The reality, however, is that pool is largely a variation on the older, more traditional game of billiards. But because it's new, people can be persuaded that the new is to blame for whatever trouble there might be in River City. If, in fact, there is any trouble at all, and what troubles do exist have little or nothing to do with the newcomer.
Similarly, there is a master salesman today running for high office who insists there is trouble, trouble, trouble. He blames newcomers for it, and promises that if people join his band, all their troubles will be ended.
The reality in River City, however, was that there was very little trouble, and what little there was could not be blamed on a newcomer game. In addition, the salesman/con artist knew nothing about music.
In America today, there are problems, of course. There always are. But the economy is growing, the unemployment rate is down, and more jobs are becoming available. So where's the trouble? According to the leading candidate, it's the newcomers, the immigrants who are somehow different. Just as billiards is different from pool.
People often act on belief, but not always on reality. A master salesman/candidate/con artist cultivates preconceived beliefs to bank his billiard moves and score voter points to win the game. Except there's more at stake than just winning.
Meanwhile, we've got trouble. That starts with T and that stands for ...
Right here in River City."
Say something loud enough, long enough, to enough people, and eventually some will begin to believe it. Then you can build on that base of sham and bigotry, adding those who may not be sure of the message, but go along with what they perceive as the wisdom of the crowd and the candidate, and soon you have a political movement.
The True Believers gather around the candidate, who tells them what they want to hear, regardless of fact or reality.
He preaches the Great Truth to the local choir of True Believers, who embrace his message of Trouble and his vow to make things great again. As if things are not great now, but the master salesman can fix it.
"The Music Man" is the story of a master salesman -- really a con artist -- who tells the people of River City that there's Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, and persuades them that he can solve all their problems.
The fast-talking salesman-con artist insists he has the solution, to make things great again, since the coming of a new element that has drugged and robbed the countryside of its greatness. He plays on the fears and suspicions of people who are eager to blame someone for their problems, even those they didn't know they had.
But where's the evidence that River City is no longer great? The Music Man -- salesman/con artist -- blames it on pool. Not billiards, a fine, upstanding game, the salesman notes, but on the new game, pool. The reality, however, is that pool is largely a variation on the older, more traditional game of billiards. But because it's new, people can be persuaded that the new is to blame for whatever trouble there might be in River City. If, in fact, there is any trouble at all, and what troubles do exist have little or nothing to do with the newcomer.
Similarly, there is a master salesman today running for high office who insists there is trouble, trouble, trouble. He blames newcomers for it, and promises that if people join his band, all their troubles will be ended.
The reality in River City, however, was that there was very little trouble, and what little there was could not be blamed on a newcomer game. In addition, the salesman/con artist knew nothing about music.
In America today, there are problems, of course. There always are. But the economy is growing, the unemployment rate is down, and more jobs are becoming available. So where's the trouble? According to the leading candidate, it's the newcomers, the immigrants who are somehow different. Just as billiards is different from pool.
People often act on belief, but not always on reality. A master salesman/candidate/con artist cultivates preconceived beliefs to bank his billiard moves and score voter points to win the game. Except there's more at stake than just winning.
Meanwhile, we've got trouble. That starts with T and that stands for ...
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Number Games
A TV news anchor fell in love with the word "countless" during the Pope's visit to America, using it most tellingly in describing the "countless" number of airplane flights the Pope had taken during his visit as he landed in New York City.
Reality check: The number of flights could at that point be counted on the fingers of one hand, namely three flights. From Rome to Cuba, from Cuba to Washington, and from Washington to New York. Later, there would be a flight from New York to Philadelphia, and from Philadelphia back home to Rome. Total: Five airplane flights. Hardly "countless."
Then there was the college student years ago who referred to a trip from the U.S. to Asia across "countless" time zones. Total number of time zones on the planet: 24.
Scary numbers
Also in the news is the report that Caterpillar will cut 10,000 jobs. Stories like this are written in such a way as to imply that the same number of people will lose their jobs. But that's less than 10 percent of the Caterpillar corporation's total work force, and involves only management and salaried employees, not hourly workers. In addition, the cuts will be done over two years. And typically, corporate job reductions are done largely by not refilling a slot when someone retires, and by telling the personnel department to eliminate several positions. Which is to say, don't hire some new people.
Bottom line: Few people, if any, are actually fired, and big investors and stockholders are pleased to see cost reductions.
Reality check: The number of flights could at that point be counted on the fingers of one hand, namely three flights. From Rome to Cuba, from Cuba to Washington, and from Washington to New York. Later, there would be a flight from New York to Philadelphia, and from Philadelphia back home to Rome. Total: Five airplane flights. Hardly "countless."
Then there was the college student years ago who referred to a trip from the U.S. to Asia across "countless" time zones. Total number of time zones on the planet: 24.
Scary numbers
Also in the news is the report that Caterpillar will cut 10,000 jobs. Stories like this are written in such a way as to imply that the same number of people will lose their jobs. But that's less than 10 percent of the Caterpillar corporation's total work force, and involves only management and salaried employees, not hourly workers. In addition, the cuts will be done over two years. And typically, corporate job reductions are done largely by not refilling a slot when someone retires, and by telling the personnel department to eliminate several positions. Which is to say, don't hire some new people.
Bottom line: Few people, if any, are actually fired, and big investors and stockholders are pleased to see cost reductions.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Weasel Words and Fuzzy Phrases
Political candidates often play fast and loose with truth, to the extent that many of their statements are flat-out lies. It is therefore up to news media to expose these information manipulations for what they are. Sad to say, in the name of "balanced coverage," news media outlets report an opposing opinion regardless of its blatant asininity.
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) claims he was named a federal prosecutor the day before the 9/11 disaster. Fact: There may have been a private phone call asking him to take the job, but that appointment was not announced until December, three months later.
Candidate Carly Fiorina claims she doubled the revenue of the Hewlett-Packard Corp. while she was chief executive officer. True, through the acquisition of Compaq. Corporate profits, however, crashed, and she was fired.
They're Baaa-aaack!
You would think that by now the Birther Blowhards have given up on the claim that a President must be born in the U.S. to be eligible to hold that office. Even worse, the biggest mouth in the Birther movement now insists he won't comment on the issue. "I've moved on," says Don Trumpolini. Not that he would ever admit he's wrong. About anything. In any detail. Ever. He won't even use the cop-out phrase that he "mis-spoke."
Meanwhile, we haven't heard any protests from the Radical Righteous that Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican candidate, is ineligible because he was born in Canada.
Cruz is a U.S. citizen because his mother was a citizen, so there was no need for him to "renounce" any claim to Canadian citizenship. Not that he ever had it, since he returned to the U.S. as a child.
Similarly, Barack Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, so it would not matter where he was born. Even so, it has been documented that he was born in Hawaii. At last report, those islands were at the time part of the U.S. And they still are.
In any case, President Obama has only about 15 months remaining in his second term in office. Attention birthers: Give it up, already!
Here's a thought: Isn't it time the Blowhard-In-Chief produce his own birth certificate?
Ponderous Pomposities
"You have to understand that ... "
Implication: When you understand, you will agree.
"Don't you think that ...?"
The questioner does not want opinion, but agreement.
Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) claims he was named a federal prosecutor the day before the 9/11 disaster. Fact: There may have been a private phone call asking him to take the job, but that appointment was not announced until December, three months later.
Candidate Carly Fiorina claims she doubled the revenue of the Hewlett-Packard Corp. while she was chief executive officer. True, through the acquisition of Compaq. Corporate profits, however, crashed, and she was fired.
They're Baaa-aaack!
You would think that by now the Birther Blowhards have given up on the claim that a President must be born in the U.S. to be eligible to hold that office. Even worse, the biggest mouth in the Birther movement now insists he won't comment on the issue. "I've moved on," says Don Trumpolini. Not that he would ever admit he's wrong. About anything. In any detail. Ever. He won't even use the cop-out phrase that he "mis-spoke."
Meanwhile, we haven't heard any protests from the Radical Righteous that Sen. Ted Cruz, another Republican candidate, is ineligible because he was born in Canada.
Cruz is a U.S. citizen because his mother was a citizen, so there was no need for him to "renounce" any claim to Canadian citizenship. Not that he ever had it, since he returned to the U.S. as a child.
Similarly, Barack Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, so it would not matter where he was born. Even so, it has been documented that he was born in Hawaii. At last report, those islands were at the time part of the U.S. And they still are.
In any case, President Obama has only about 15 months remaining in his second term in office. Attention birthers: Give it up, already!
Here's a thought: Isn't it time the Blowhard-In-Chief produce his own birth certificate?
Ponderous Pomposities
"You have to understand that ... "
Implication: When you understand, you will agree.
"Don't you think that ...?"
The questioner does not want opinion, but agreement.
Religious Test
When you quote the Constitution, quote it correctly.
The lead editorial in the New York Times (9/23/2015) misquoted the U.S. Constitution when the writer said, "The freedom of religion embedded in the First Amendment rules out the very idea of a religious test for public office ... "
It's a major surprise to see a gaffe this serious from one of the nation's largest and most influential newspapers. Why? The ban on a religious test for public office is not mentioned in the First Amendment, but in the main body of the Constitution itself, in Article VI, and the wording is specific: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of religion," and the important thing to remember is that while the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, the Constitution itself guarantees freedom from religion.
Only in the past week have broadcast pundits been emphasizing the Article VI ban on any religious test for public office, but that issue was covered on this blog last March. In any case, editorial writers should have been aware of a ban that has been in effect since the Constitution was adopted in 1789.
For more detail, here's a link to a posting March 27, 2015, titled "Freedom From Religion": http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/freedom-from-religion.html. And here's another, dated March 24, 2015, titled "Religion and Politics": http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/religion-and-politics.html.
It's sad enough when candidates for President show their ignorance of the Constitution, but worse when it comes from journalists.
The lead editorial in the New York Times (9/23/2015) misquoted the U.S. Constitution when the writer said, "The freedom of religion embedded in the First Amendment rules out the very idea of a religious test for public office ... "
It's a major surprise to see a gaffe this serious from one of the nation's largest and most influential newspapers. Why? The ban on a religious test for public office is not mentioned in the First Amendment, but in the main body of the Constitution itself, in Article VI, and the wording is specific: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States."
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of religion," and the important thing to remember is that while the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, the Constitution itself guarantees freedom from religion.
Only in the past week have broadcast pundits been emphasizing the Article VI ban on any religious test for public office, but that issue was covered on this blog last March. In any case, editorial writers should have been aware of a ban that has been in effect since the Constitution was adopted in 1789.
For more detail, here's a link to a posting March 27, 2015, titled "Freedom From Religion": http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/freedom-from-religion.html. And here's another, dated March 24, 2015, titled "Religion and Politics": http://editorsrevenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/religion-and-politics.html.
It's sad enough when candidates for President show their ignorance of the Constitution, but worse when it comes from journalists.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Language Smorgasbord
Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina claimed that English is the official language of the United States. Not so. There is no such thing, even though many would like to enforce an "English Only" policy. English is surely the most widely spoken language in America, but it has not been nationally designated as "official." Nearly 35 million Americans speak Spanish at home, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center, using U.S. Census data. This makes Spanish the most widely spoken language other than English in America. The next in line are Chinese, with nearly 3 million speakers; Hindi, Urdu or other languages from India, 2.2 million; French or French Creole, 2.1 million, and Tagalog, the language of the Philippines, 1.7 million.
There are many who feel that English should be the official language of the country (Sarah Palin refers to the country's language as "American"), and even some proponents insist this is different from "English only" proposals. There are other countries that have designated one or more "official" languages (India has 22 of them).
The English language itself is an amalgam of many other languages, beginning when French-speaking invaders from Normandy dominated the island of Britain with its Anglo-Saxon speakers (themselves invaders from Germany), and earlier Celtic speakers. These three eventually blended to become a new language, known as English. And even though 85 percent of its vocabulary is rooted in the classical languages of Latin and Greek, English is classified as a Germanic language because of its grammatical structure.
In addition to extensive borrowings from Latin, Greek and French, English also borrows heavily from Spanish, especially in the West, with its many cities of Spanish names -- for example, San Antonio, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Fe, San Diego, as well as the states themselves, including California, Colorado, Montana, Arizona and Texas. Speaking of which, there is the story of the visitor to Texas who complained of the many people of Mexican heritage there. The visitor was reminded that Texas used to be part of Mexico. As were the other states mentioned, as well as the state of New Mexico.
Add to the English vocabulary the many words borrowed from Native American tribal languages, plus terms from other colonial-era settlers from Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and other countries and you have a linguistic smorgasbord -- itself a borrowed word, as are the many terms for food, borrowed from French, Italian, Chinese and other languages..
Diversity is one of America's great strengths, and this deals with a wide range of cultural, linguistic, ethnic, social, religious, literature, music, and many other areas that make America what it is -- not a melting pot, but a buffet.
Or a smorgasbord.
There are many who feel that English should be the official language of the country (Sarah Palin refers to the country's language as "American"), and even some proponents insist this is different from "English only" proposals. There are other countries that have designated one or more "official" languages (India has 22 of them).
The English language itself is an amalgam of many other languages, beginning when French-speaking invaders from Normandy dominated the island of Britain with its Anglo-Saxon speakers (themselves invaders from Germany), and earlier Celtic speakers. These three eventually blended to become a new language, known as English. And even though 85 percent of its vocabulary is rooted in the classical languages of Latin and Greek, English is classified as a Germanic language because of its grammatical structure.
In addition to extensive borrowings from Latin, Greek and French, English also borrows heavily from Spanish, especially in the West, with its many cities of Spanish names -- for example, San Antonio, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Fe, San Diego, as well as the states themselves, including California, Colorado, Montana, Arizona and Texas. Speaking of which, there is the story of the visitor to Texas who complained of the many people of Mexican heritage there. The visitor was reminded that Texas used to be part of Mexico. As were the other states mentioned, as well as the state of New Mexico.
Add to the English vocabulary the many words borrowed from Native American tribal languages, plus terms from other colonial-era settlers from Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and other countries and you have a linguistic smorgasbord -- itself a borrowed word, as are the many terms for food, borrowed from French, Italian, Chinese and other languages..
Diversity is one of America's great strengths, and this deals with a wide range of cultural, linguistic, ethnic, social, religious, literature, music, and many other areas that make America what it is -- not a melting pot, but a buffet.
Or a smorgasbord.
Friday, September 18, 2015
The Riley Syndrome
"My head's made up. You can't confuse me with the facts." -- Chester A. Riley
Belief without thought endangers freedom remains the guiding principle for brief essays in the Editor's Revenge commentaries. Unfortunately, too many people are so convinced in the righteousness of their beliefs that no amount of factual information will sway them. Political candidates play on these prejudged opinions to gain votes, and in the process help to spread bigotry, suspicion and other pernicious feelings that endanger the rights and freedoms of everyone.
This came up again during a political rally in New Hampshire when a questioner insisted that the current President of the United States "is a Muslim, and not even an American." Unfortunately, the candidate who fielded the question insisted he did not hear the comment, even though everyone else in the country with access to a TV set did hear it. The candidate's non-response response was something to the effect that "we'll be looking into that and other things as well."
This from the same candidate who was a leader in the so-called birther movement that claimed Barack Obama was not born in America and therefore was not eligible to be President. Did he not have the courage to endorse a position he previously held, or did he not have the courage to say the questioner was wrong?
Fact: The Constitution specifies that a president must be a "natural born citizen." This is different from "native born."
Fact: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" in the United States. So says the Constitution. And just as the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the main body of the Constitution guarantees freedom from religion. There is no requirement that a candidate for President be a Christian, or any other faith.
Fact: There are more Muslims in America than there are Jews, or Buddhists, or any of many other religious organizations.
Fact: If one parent is an American citizen, the child inherits American citizenship, no matter where the child is born.
Fact: Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas, so he is a U.S. citizen.
Fact: His citizenship was documented by a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, which was used to register to vote in Chicago at age 21. A claim that it was a forgery should have been lodged 40 years ago.
Fact: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was born in Canada to an American mother. If the birthers are correct, Sen. Cruz should drop his candidacy on the ground of ineligibility.
Just as voters are free to make their choices based on their own religious preferences, the government may not mandate that a candidate subscribe to one particular spiritual path.
Many readers may disagree with the comments put forth in these brief essays. But the purpose is to prompt thinking, and if a believer considers alternatives and remains faithful to an earlier belief, that's good, because the thinker has reinforced and strengthened the foundations. But to remain committed to an opinion even when confronted with strong evidence of an equally valid position and refusing to modify or even accept another view only proves obdurate bigotry.
Belief without thought endangers freedom remains the guiding principle for brief essays in the Editor's Revenge commentaries. Unfortunately, too many people are so convinced in the righteousness of their beliefs that no amount of factual information will sway them. Political candidates play on these prejudged opinions to gain votes, and in the process help to spread bigotry, suspicion and other pernicious feelings that endanger the rights and freedoms of everyone.
This came up again during a political rally in New Hampshire when a questioner insisted that the current President of the United States "is a Muslim, and not even an American." Unfortunately, the candidate who fielded the question insisted he did not hear the comment, even though everyone else in the country with access to a TV set did hear it. The candidate's non-response response was something to the effect that "we'll be looking into that and other things as well."
This from the same candidate who was a leader in the so-called birther movement that claimed Barack Obama was not born in America and therefore was not eligible to be President. Did he not have the courage to endorse a position he previously held, or did he not have the courage to say the questioner was wrong?
Fact: The Constitution specifies that a president must be a "natural born citizen." This is different from "native born."
Fact: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" in the United States. So says the Constitution. And just as the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the main body of the Constitution guarantees freedom from religion. There is no requirement that a candidate for President be a Christian, or any other faith.
Fact: There are more Muslims in America than there are Jews, or Buddhists, or any of many other religious organizations.
Fact: If one parent is an American citizen, the child inherits American citizenship, no matter where the child is born.
Fact: Barack Obama's mother was from Kansas, so he is a U.S. citizen.
Fact: His citizenship was documented by a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, which was used to register to vote in Chicago at age 21. A claim that it was a forgery should have been lodged 40 years ago.
Fact: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was born in Canada to an American mother. If the birthers are correct, Sen. Cruz should drop his candidacy on the ground of ineligibility.
Just as voters are free to make their choices based on their own religious preferences, the government may not mandate that a candidate subscribe to one particular spiritual path.
Many readers may disagree with the comments put forth in these brief essays. But the purpose is to prompt thinking, and if a believer considers alternatives and remains faithful to an earlier belief, that's good, because the thinker has reinforced and strengthened the foundations. But to remain committed to an opinion even when confronted with strong evidence of an equally valid position and refusing to modify or even accept another view only proves obdurate bigotry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)