Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Graph of the Day - February 17th

Long time away from writing, but I certainly have been thinking a lot. More garden related blogs to come in the next few days, but today's is political.

Arkansas Republicans (and a few turncoat Democrats) want to give a massive tax break to wealthy Arkansans while looking into a budget that cuts education and services to children and the poor.

Here is their plan to cut state capital gains taxes. I say if they are looking to cut 55-65 million dollars in taxes this year they should go ahead and completely eliminate the food tax.


For more on this read the press release from Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families. It has a link to their entire report on this issue and how it hands money to the wealthiest Arkansans.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Graph of the Day - September 7th


It's funny how many people look back to the 5o's, 60's, and 70's with nostalgia yet they vote hard core corporatist Republican. You would think that people would figure it out that tax and economic policy matters in creating a more equitable society, one that more people enjoy living in. Income equality matters. Everyone doesn't have to make exactly the same, but everything works better when Americans are all playing in the same economy. As is, the wealthy play in completely different economies, often insulated by geography and other barriers.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Graph of the Day - August 24th

Tax cut proposals by income level



Republicans want to give Millionaires an extra $700 billion over the next ten years. They think it will be good for the economy. How are we to expand the American economy when the vast majority of Americans are losing ground?

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Graph of the Day - July 17th



Okay, it's not the greatest graph from a basic design standard. The visual hierarchy is a little funky since the title is so understated, but the point of this graph is obvious: traditional fossil fuels is already highly subsidized more so than renewables.

For those market-worshiping conservatives (remember, libertarians wouldn't be supporting those huge market altering tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal), this is what people mean when they say that renewable energy doesn't get a fair break in tax incentives.

A very important distinction between the fossil fuel subsidies and the renewables is that the former are written into permanent U.S. tax code and create predictable incentives that drive business decisions. The latter are temporary and are approved year to year and sometimes not. The renewable energy industry doesn't get to plan for continued and efficient growth like the fossil fuel industry.

The Democrats want to end some of those Big Oil subsidies, but good luck ever getting Big Coal to ever pay it's fair share. The subsidies for Corn Ethanol are listed under "climate protecting" but that is highly controversial. All of this might create decent economic policy, but it is horrible environment policy. Energy policy must be somewhere in the middle.....it cannot be considered merely a part of economic policy. The renewable energy subsidies should be made permanent and predictable. Europe has figured it out...why can't we?

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

What is your Pearl Harbor?

During any discussion of current politics, one of my brothers always points out that he doesn’t want the rules to change midgame. He feels like significant changes in healthcare, tax structure, and global climate change are unfair to those who are in the middle of their lives. Now, says he doesn’t purposely want to destroy the environment or deny people medical care, but he doesn’t want to be told what he can and can’t do and he doesn’t want to have to pay for other people.

So let me get this right: changing our expectations and our commitments in a changing world is un-American? Liberals and Democrats are lambasted as un-American because they see current challenges abroad and within as calls to collective action and higher duty?

Where is this coming from you ask? What set you off this time Casey?

Well, let’s start at McDonalds at about 8:15 this morning. For a grad student like me with mainly night classes and flexible research hours, this is actually early for me to be up and around. Normally for breakfast I try to eat two eggs at home with some kind of fruit and a little whole grain, but this morning was just another piece of a horrible week and a half, so I threw my hands up and surrendered to mass produced food-like products.

Considering that my grandparents live at least 4 hours away and I am perpetually stuck in either collegiate or organizing mode, I don’t have a lot of contact with folks who are significantly older than me. But like many McDonalds during breakfast hours, the McDonalds closest to campus had a fairly good sized crowd of older folks “dining” this morning. There were two noticeable groups actually. I will get to the second one in a minute, but the older crowd is what made me start thinking first. The older crowd tended towards men and coffee. Some perhaps were only there for coffee and a few were reading newspapers. Most were probably retired but I heard one talking about a job he had to do next week. A few wives had tagged along with their husbands. These folks were probably the age of my grandparents. WWII cohort. The Greatest Generation. I didn’t listen long enough to hear any general political talk, but I heard a random “Russia didn’t even win a gold medal”, a reference to what I thought was an amazing Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Nothing special here really, just a bunch of old men enjoying coffee with their friends.

Now, about these old men coffee drinkers and the Greatest Generation. The world owes the relative “peace” of the last 6 decades to this generation. They were presented with a situation that called for sacrifice and changed expectations. A changing world called on them to create a new reality. As the world continues to change and we are presented with new situations, wouldn’t it make sense that we must change with the changing times?

I say accepting new conditions and proactively attacking the coming problems is as honorable as what Americans did during WWII. They certainly accepted a way of life far different than they would have preferred. We complain about regulations that might possibly raise the price of dirty energy or gas guzzling cars, but they couldn’t buy cars at all during the war. Why not tax sugary drinks that are fueling our obesity crisis when our forefathers experienced rationing of sugar, butter, and all kinds of things in order to achieve a group goal.

I guess sacrifice is more honorable when it comes voluntarily from every single individual, but plenty of those soldiers in WWII and Korea and Vietnam were conscripted. We certainly don’t down play what they did and their forced sacrifice is still probably what was needed.

The United States probably should have entered WWII before they did. It was too controversial to step into the war before we were totally surprised at Pearl Harbor. Sure, many people then volunteered with the threat of imminent destruction at hand. Are we going to have to wait until disastrous conditions occur? What if it is too late with too many PPM CO2 in the atmosphere? Do we have to wait for universal health insurance until it is evident that the American economy cannot afford to spend nearly double what other countries spend? How long must we give tax breaks to the rich holding onto the idea that it will make anyone but the wealthy wealthier?

So tell me climate change skeptics, what is your Pearl Harbor? At what point will you believe and allow substantial policy change to occur?

Middle income and working class Americans who face service cuts and tax hikes, what is your Pearl Harbor? At what point will you ally yourselves with each other, rather than with the wealthy whom you hope to someday join?

All you Americans who fear insurance and medical bills getting in the way of your dreams, what is your Pearl Harbor? At what point will you demand care for people over profits?

What is your Pearl Harbor?

Monday, February 15, 2010

State of the Union: late, but here are my responses

I watched the State of the Union and everyone seemed to immediately ask for my opinion. It was a little weird. I had no idea as many of my friends would be watching it as did. And for some reason they all wanted to know what I thought. Here are some of the things that came out of my mouth immediately. Then there are some things I thought longer about.

***********************************************************************

That is the man who made me postpone grad school to go to long shot Georgia and most important swing state Florida. It's been awhile since I saw him, but I saw him tonight.

I don't quit. That has been my feeling for a long time about certain things. It does not mean that I don't fail. It just means that I don't quit. It took me 7 years, off and on, to finish my undergraduate degree. Some thought I was a failure, but I didn't quit. I first went to Florida thinking I could have an impact on an election, but that campaign did not work out for me. I didn't quit though....the day after I drove back to Arkansas is when I got the call to come work for Senator Obama and that led me back to Florida and I had an impact.

After the SOTU, an ex started texting me. He is 31, total corporate guy, making big money, never cared at all for politics, but thought that it was neat that I always was involved and aware and passionate. We dated like three years ago. Anyways, he starts texting. About how he watched...evidently really for the first time....and he cried...he bawled. I only choked up a bit, but had not cried. Then he sent me this: "Thx for doing what you have for him and all of us." That's when I cried. Obama moved a self-centered, corporate consumer to tears. I couldn't get through to this guy why I cared so much about everything. I had to go to Florida and put Obama in the White House so it would finally sink in.

My oldest brother dared to edge into discussion of the speech during dinner last night. I don't think his wife wanted us to start down that road but we did. All in all it was a calm and respectful discussion. My brother thought it is was ridiculous that the President so thoroughly called out the Republicans on their obstructionism. I thought it was completely appropriate. He didn't get one House Republican vote on the stimulus bill, but plenty of them have been all over those check presenting ceremonies when they "deliver" funds and jobs in their districts. Congressional Republicans have adopted a level of obstructionism that is unprecedented. It is not hyperbole. In the Senate the Republicans have threatened to filibuster EVERYTHING the President has attempted.

My brother said everything they (the Democrats) have presented has been unworthy. Well that is certainly how the Republicans have treated it. I don't buy the "they are jamming health care reform through too fast" argument. We are generations behind our peer nations in providing a minimum level of health care to ALL Americans. FDR tried, Truman tried, Johnson tried, Clinton tried, and Obama is trying now. Oddly enough, what little Johnson achieved in the field has become one of the most cherished social programs in American history. This should not be a bipartisan issue.

My brother was impressed by one particular part of the speech. He really liked that Obama explained his small business credit effort by describing that this would be from funds that the Big Banks have returned to the government. (Note: not only have funds been returned, but the FEES paid to the government in 2009 were XXX BILLION) This kind of reasoning and communication about it really connected with my brother and he expressed that more things like this should be done. I politely added that when President Obama gets to actually talk to the American people rather than Fox News "reporting" on it, it all makes better sense. (okay, now I sound like Sarah Palin with her "take it straight to the American people" line!)

Fox News provides a decent segue to the events surrounding the SOTU. The following day the House Republicans allowed President Obama to speak to them and answer questions. Don't ask me why the party that accuses Obama of being an expert orator allowed him to get up on national television and lecture their party. Anyways, if you didn't watch the entire thing, you really should.

Now back to the SOTU. I was particularly moved by President Obama's emphasis on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I especially like that he makes it an appeal to the humanity and patriotism of all Americans. I think the tide is turning in a very big way on DADT. I think it will be gone by 2012 for sure. No promises, but huge majorities of Americans support the repeal, so you would think things would start to move. An interesting thing about this polling is that when LGBT Americans are described as "gay men and lesbians" as opposed to "homosexuals" the strongly favor repeal category sees a 17% increase (thank you CBS). I guess this little change in wording might be the reason why more people support allowing women to fight in our armed forces than allowing "individuals prone to bleeding out of one of their orifices every 28 days" to do so. I think LGBT people should demand to be described in ways that are less de-humanizing than the very clinical approach of "homosexual."

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Obama wants to raise taxes??

I don't know if I can be more clear about the difference in the tax plans of McCain and Sen. Obama.  Every family that makes less than 112K a year would benefit more from OBAMA's plan.  Who wants to help you be able to afford health care? OBAMA.

The Democrat's just closed a huge ENRON loophole in the oil law that previously allowed companies to do WAY TOO MUCH speculation in the oil markets.  Since they closed the loophole, gas has dropped nearly 30 cents where I live.  World supply has not increased and world demand has not decreased.  Go figure.

Democrats lowered your gas prices this summer...

Sen Obama wants to lower your taxes (if you make less than 600K a year). 


See for yourself:


..