The Adventures of Romney Hood

Via Huffington Post:

STAMFORD, Conn. — President Barack Obama is labeling opponent Mitt Romney's tax plan as "Romney Hood," saying it takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

Speaking Monday night at a campaign event in Connecticut, Obama said the GOP plan "is like Robin Hood in reverse."

Obama says Romney's tax plan would give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while forcing middle-class families to pay up to $2,000 a year in additional taxes.

More On Scaife's Braintrust

A few days ago the editorial board over at Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review published yet another reality challenged attack on President Obama's policies.

Let's take a look at what they got wrong.  Here's the set-up:

Call it the Hobson’s choice of The Great Tax Debate — shaft the economy now or shaft the economy later.

President Obama on Monday called for a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for single filers making less than $200,000 and families making less $250,000. It’s a matter of “fairness,” he said.

Actually, it’s matter of politics; the proposal will be dead on arrival in the House. The president not only further seeks to stoke the furnaces of class envy, he fuels overall tax policy uncertainty that retards the spark of any hoped-for economic recovery.

And now some context.  The Citizens for Tax Justice created some artwork to explain what the argument is all about:

See that big red bar across the top?  See how much farther it extends than the smaller blue bar just below it?  See how all the other pairings of red and blue lines are more or less the same size?

That's the difference between what the Obama Administration wants to do with the Bush tax cuts and what the GOP wants to do with them.  All of the efforts extended by the GOP are all about protecting that long red bar.  It's about protecting that $50,000 difference.  That's fifty grand (on average) for every tax payer in the top 1%.

That's what they're fighting to protect.

And how many people are we talking here?  CTJ has an answer for that one, too:

President Obama’s proposal to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, would result in 1.9 percent of Americans losing some portion of the Bush income tax cuts.

Back to the Trib:

Don’t count on small businesses to jump for much joy. Oh, there might be short-term tax savings, but with only a one-year extension, they really can’t plan for any kind of long-term investment and expansion.

And “the rich,” those above the $250,000 threshold, certainly won’t be rushing to invest and expand. Individual taxes will rise anywhere from a rate of 33 percent to nearly 40 percent. Capital gains taxes will jump from a rate of 15 percent to nearly 24 percent. And the top tax rate on dividends will go from 15 percent to more than 43 percent.

So how many people are we talking here?  According to this memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, it's about 970,000 tax payers and they represent only about 3.5% of all small business owners.

All that money for such a small sliver of the population.  All that work to protect the already vast profits of the already fabulously wealthy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Republican Party and their defenders in the right wing media.

More On The Trib's Op-Ed Dishonesty

Take a look at this, from today's Tribune-Review:

The Congressional Budget Office is predicting that the debt of the United States will be twice the size of our economy by 2037. (It's now 73 percent of the GDP). And it more than suggests that tax hikes should be a part of the "solution."

And then:

There is no more compelling argument for spending cuts (real cuts, not simply reductions in the rate of spending increases) and real tax cuts (rate reductions that have the private capital-fueled stimulative effect that government spending in no way can mimic).

The historical record of such actions' success is indisputable. And that success has come in administrations both Republican and Democrat over the last century.

Buuuuut...when you actually take a look at the CBO Report, you'll see the depths of the mendacity at play here.

In the report, the CBO is comparing two separate scenarios:

• The extended baseline scenario, which reflects the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged; that assumption implies that lawmakers will allow changes that are scheduled under current law to occur, forgoing adjustments routinely made in the past that have boosted deficits.
• The extended alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates the assumptions that certain policies that have been in place for a number of years will be continued and that some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period will be modified, thus maintaining what some analysts might consider “current policies,” as opposed to current laws.

Doesn't give us that much detail there, does it?  Luckily, the CBO gives us a few more details about the scenarious.  Here's the first:

• Under current law, revenues would rise steadily relative to GDP because of the scheduled expiration of cuts in individual income taxes enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010; the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT); the tax provisions of the Affordable Care Act; the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth; demographic trends; and other factors. Revenues would reach 24 percent of GDP by 2037—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter.
• At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and interest—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

And the conclusion for that scenario?

That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative magnitude of other spending would more than offset the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security.

If you look carefully, they're talking about the tax benefits of "Obamacare" and letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  Nothing about the doubling of the debt by 2037.

That's the other scenario.  By the way, the CBO says, of these scenarios:

Those scenarios span a wide range of possible policy choices, and neither represents a prediction by CBO of what policies will be in effect during the next several decades.

So right there, there are TWO bits of dishonesty from Scaife's braintrust. One, that the "doubling of the debt by 2037" is a prediction and two that it's the only "prediction" they make. THe CBO report is more of a "if we do this, then this happens, if we do that, then that happens."

Now let's take a look at that second scenario.  Guess what happens there?

• Almost all expiring tax provisions are assumed to be extended through 2022. Specifically, for this scenario, CBO assumed that the cuts in individual income taxes enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, which are now scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2012, would be extended;

Ah...the Bush tax cuts.  There's other stuff in there, but that's the big one.  This scenario is where the bad stuff occurs:

Under those policies, federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 percent in 2037.

Funny how the braintrust didn't say that.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire, leave the Health Care Reform Act alone and the debt settles down a bit, extend the Bush tax cuts and the debt explodes:



And yet our friends at the Trib are using the report to push for more tax cuts and more spending cuts.

See what I mean?  Dishonest.

Flashback Friday!

I guess I picked a bad week to start sniffing glue because I could have sworn I saw President Clinton giving a White House press conference today on my teevee.
.

Thanks, Bernie!

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)spent nearly nine hours today criticizing the extension of the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. He received assistance from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) [really?!].

Here's a bit of it courtesy of Crooks And Liars and Think Progress:

Republicans Wage War On Christmas!

Republicans hate Christmas. They hate it so much that they don't want millions of Americans to be able to celebrate it. No toy train for little Johnny. No pretty dolly for sweet Sue. No Christmas turkey or ham. No Christmas lights. Maybe they think because Santa wears red and has a beard that he's a Communist.

There's no other conclusion to draw.

By voting no to extend emergency unemployment to millions of Americans during the holiday season at the same time that they refuse to extend tax cuts to millions more middle class Americans (unless they can give themselves huge tax breaks) they are saying no to holiday cheer and waging war on Christmas.

Instead of kids writing a letter to Santa this year, they need to write to Congress and ask them why they want St. Nick to skip their house.

[If Democrats can't sell this they don't deserve to be in office.]
.

More On Bush Tax Cuts

An very smart friend of mine clued me in on this. (Trust me, this guy is so wicked smaht, he actually knows the difference between emfindsamkeit and Sturm und Drang. - look 'em up, there'll be a test later.)

Anyway, in a Wall Street Journal article otherwise devoted to how the Democrats might use the repeal (or non-repeal) of the Bush tax cuts as an issue in the upcoming election, we find this graphic:

You might want to sit with it a moment. Picture paints a thousand words and all that. Everyone except that teeny tiny sliver of the American population making over $300,000 will see their taxes reduced by President Obama's proposed tax policies. For the very wealthy, the tax rate goes back to Clinton-era tax levels.

So therefore the GOP is against Obama's tax policies. Fighting tooth and nail to make sure their base (the "have-mores") get even more.

I realize that the Wall Street Journal is such a blatant mouthpiece for the Democrat Party that it will shamelessly and routinely lie to you about tax policy. All good competent economists know these things:

• Ronald Reagan was always right about everything
• Failing to repeal the Bush tax cuts will result in a the worst financial devastation ever.
• Taxes are always fairer under Republicans
• The economy is always worse under Democrats

As undeniable as Climategate.

An Update.

I touched on this in today's Jack Kelly Sunday posting.

Alan Greenspan had more to say about the Bush tax cuts.

From the Huffingtonpost:

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

Whah? They don't pay for themselves?

And Greenspan said that?

What will the wingnuts do now?

Jack Kelly Sunday

Jack Kelly's column this week begins with a smear.

So let's start there:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chose to dock his new $7 million yacht in Newport, R.I., instead of Nantucket, Mass., where he and wife Teresa Heinz have a summer home.

Could this have been to avoid $500,000 in sales and excise taxes that Massachussetts imposes but Rhode Island does not?

A "clearly perturbed" Sen. Kerry was not eager to answer, wrote the Boston Herald reporter who covered him in Weymouth Monday. On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry paid the Massachussetts taxes, which forestalled an investigation into possible tax evasion.

In this Breitbart-age of conservative "reporting", I would think that it's important for the good folks at the P-G to go over Jack's column each week with a finer toothed comb than what they're used to using.

Yea, I know. That's funny.

Let's go to the original story (from July 23) at the Boston Herald:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

Also found there is this:

“The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it’s based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons,” [Kerry's Chief of Staff David] Wade told the Track.

And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.” [emphasis added]

Um, Jack? If the Massachusetts Department of Revenue spokesperson says Kerry's under no obligation to pay the tax, then where did the "investigation into possible tax evasion" part come from?

Or did you just make that part up?

Then there's the quoted material. Where and when was Kerry described as being "clearly perturbed"?

In Jack's column, Kerry was perturbed and not eager to answer the question as to whether he registered the boat in Rhode Island to avoid the Massachusetts tax.

However, from this Tuesday at the Boston Herald:

Kerry continued to insist that he and his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz, would pay whatever taxes they owe on his new New Zealand-built Friendship sloop Isabel, but wouldn’t specifically address whether he’d cough up some $500,000 in state use and local excise taxes.

“Let’s get this very straight, I’ve said consistently we will pay our taxes, we’ve always paid our taxes, it’s not an issue. Period,” a clearly perturbed Kerry declared. [emphasis added.]

Looks like an answer to me, Jack. Looks like he was perturbed at being called a tax cheat, Jack. And it looks like he's saying they're gonna pay their taxes, Jack.

Jack? If you're going to accuse someone of "possible tax evasion" don't you think you should get the facts right?

And then on Friday, the Huffingtonpost had this:

Sen. John Kerry said he always intended to pay taxes in Massachusetts on his $7 million yacht but conceded he mishandled the public furor over his decision to dock the vessel in tax-free Rhode Island.

"I don't think I dealt with it fast enough, effectively enough. There's nobody to blame but myself for that," the Massachusetts Democrat told The Boston Globe for Friday's editions.

So the quote in The Globe could have been found on Friday morning.

The fact that Jack chose to put that directly in front of this part about Representative Charlie Rangel:

Sen. Kerry is hardly the only Democrat in Washington whose eagerness to impose taxes on others is not matched by a willingness to pay them himself. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York became a millionaire during 40 years of public "service." The House Ethics Committee has charged him with multiple offenses, including failing to pay income tax on rental property he owned in the Dominican Republic.

Makes the whole "guilt by association" smear complete.

For the record, it doesn't look good for Charlie Rangel. He should be investigated, no question.

Interesting thing: when Tom Delay was being investigated the GOP House changed the ethics committee. Just sayin'

But since Kerry's already paid the $500,000, the "fellow tax evader" connection is false and Jack should have known that.

But no point in letting the facts get in the way of a good smear eh, Jack?

But let's get to the heart of the matter - the Bush Tax Cuts. So says Jack:

Since nearly every reputable economist -- Keynesian or classical -- thinks raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea, this could have catastrophic consequences.

But what to the reputable economists say about the Bush Tax Cuts?

For instance Alan Greenspan? Take a look:

Congress should let all of former president George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire to cut the long-term budget deficit, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has said.

Mr Greenspan’s support helped persuade Congress to pass the tax cuts in 2001 and his comments thrust him into a heated political battle over whether to extend them beyond the end of 2010. “They should follow the law and let them lapse,” Mr Greenspan said in an interview.

“The problem is, unless we start to come to grips with this long-term [budget] outlook, we are going to have major problems. I think we misunderstand the momentum of this deficit going forward.”

The Bush cuts lowered income tax rates; created a new 10 per cent tax bracket; raised tax credits for children; and lowered taxes on dividends and capital gains. A “sunset” provision means that all the cuts will expire at the end of this year unless Congress extends them.

Doing so would increase the federal budget deficit by cumulative $2,567bn between 2011 and 2020, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

But you know, that was published in that radical left wing communist sympathizing rag, the Financial Times.

So not only is Jack guilty of a(nother) political smear, his argument is debunked by none other than Alan Greenspan himself.

Another Sunday, another column that makes Jack Kelly look silly.