I could almost feel bad about picking on poor Ruth Marcus, another overpaid Washington Post columnist, lawyer and true Villager (married to the head of the FTC). After all, she's probably just looking out for her boss, and Amato did just chide her yesterday.

But when you read this petulant hatchet job on Rich Trumka and progressive taxation, I think you'll understand:

This graphic depiction of income inequality is, understandably enough, at the center of Trumka's worldview, a perspective that became clear when he came to lunch last week at The Post. Growing income inequality is troubling. It would be troubling in the absence of a budget crisis. But that does not mean, as Trumka would have it, that the solution to the nation's fiscal woes is always, or only, reducing income inequality.

In short, soaking the rich gets you only so far.

Take, for example, what Trumka calls "the current deficit hysteria" and its cousin, entitlement spending. "We don't have an entitlement problem," Trumka says. "We have a revenue problem." In the world according to Trumka, no benefits need be cut, no retirement ages adjusted. Simply requiring the rich to pay a fairer share would bridge the gap.

I'm all for a more progressive tax code. But consider: The Tax Policy Center examined what it would take to avoid raising taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year while reducing the deficit to 3 percent of the economy by decade's end. The top two rates would have to rise to 72.4 and 76.8 percent, more than double the current level. You don't have to be anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist to think this would be insane.

Amato's right: Ruth isn't one for reading history books, or she would know that in 1945, we had a 94% tax on income over $200,000. And it stayed at over 90% until 1964, when it was lowered to 77%. Of course, Republicans have been hacking away at it since then!

Or ask Trumka about whether the eligibility age for Social Security, now 62 for partial benefits, should be raised. This former coal miner -- and son and grandson of coal miners -- erupts. His father worked 44 years in the mines, suffering from black lung, "and if you had said to my dad, 'You have to work until you're 63,' that would have been a death sentence." Fair enough. Some people may need special protection.

But, an editor asks, gesturing around the gleaming conference table at the middle-aged assembly, what about those who do not work in such punishing occupations and for whom the current system would provide two, maybe three, decades of benefits? "What's wrong with that?" Trumka asks indignantly. "The rest of the world does that!" Yes, and how are things going in Greece?

Fresh from The Post, Trumka told the new fiscal responsibility commission that the best way to fix Social Security would be to raise or eliminate the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax.

Again, sounds simple, and raising the cap makes sense -- in isolation. But combined with other taxes on the wealthiest? The Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising the cap to cover 90 percent of earnings would raise taxes on the highest earners by 6 percent for those born in the 1960s and by 15 percent for those born in the 2000s. Add that to higher income tax rates and you're talking real money, although that change would fill only about one-third of the shortfall.

Oh, boo frickin' hoo! Why, I can hardly see through my tears. Hey Ruth, the working and middle classes have been carrying the weight for the wealthiest for a while now, and they've been making out like bandits. Are you seriously suggesting that we continue to carry the burden because... well, because you like it that way?

Finally, ask Trumka about whether generous pensions and health benefits promised to public employees remain affordable -- were they ever? -- in light of strapped state budgets. Should public employees be called on to sacrifice? Trumka fairly bursts with outrage: "Were they the ones that caused this crisis? Were they the ones that lost 20 percent of the wealth in this country?"

No, but isn't it hard to defend outsize benefits to public-sector employees when wages elsewhere are stagnant and the unemployment rate is so high? Not to Trumka. "Why is that hard to defend when a guy in a hedge fund made $4.4 billion last year?"

Guys in hedge funds make outrageous sums. Union members -- even public-sector union members -- don't. Trumka's frustration is reasonable. His one-sided, tax-the-rich reflex is not. It is the shortsighted bookend to the no-new-taxes mantra of the ideologues on the other side of this stale, and seemingly stalemated, debate.

Let's get this straight. Because you and your husband (and your bosses) are used to a certain serene lifestyle, it seems only fair that nothing disturbs it. So instead of having the rich finally start to carry a proportionate burden, you offer to split the difference with those so battered by the wealthy in the past ten years?

Really, Ruth. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Terrance Wall, a disillusioned Republican, tells about how he got screwed by his Republican opponent. What a fool.

And Digby summarises his plight thusly:

This sounds like a very nice, conservative fellow who is laboring under the delusion that the Republican party is sincere. He apparently didn't know about such recent historical luminaries as Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed or Grover Norquist. It's quite a gap in his education.(There are other gaps as well -- he also thinks that he needs to save the United States from going the way of Russia.)

I'm sure the party establishment finds him to be adorably naive.

ROFLMAO.

Avowedly With Them

via Digby :read the whole post:

Excerpt:

Sadly, being plagued with some incurable need for intellectual honesty, I can't find it in me to claim with a straight face that Dana Rohrabacher and Grover Norquist are really in cahoots with terrorists. But if one were to rely on actual evidence rather than the wild, unsupported halluciations we see breaking out in the right blogsphere as they routinely accuse the Left of supporting terrorism, it's clear that one could quite seriously make a case that one of the most powerful Republican members of congress and the single most powerful Republican activist are literally working with terrorists.

These right wingers should probably watch their steps. Their glass houses are lying in very sharp shards right under their feet.

Propose Constitutional Amendment Against "Thanksgiving Gay Parades"

A gay Spongebob eyes a new candidate for unnatural marriage.

"Only in New York," said Senator Rick Santorum, who alleged that, since the addition of Spongebob to the parade, he had seen the Sesemae Street Grover balloon in unnaturally close proximity to Scooby-Doo's tail.

The allegation that Spongebob Squarepants, a cartoon character who appears on the Nickelodeon TV Network, is homosexual, caused a great deal of controversy among fans. "Spongebob is not gay," said Anita Physic, a viewer from Oklahoma. "He's just a kid, really."

Republicans scoffed at the assertion. "Oh, please," said Santorum. "It's obvious. He lives in a pineapple under the sea."

Hey conservatives, heads up on this. It's a very big deal. Ireland, long-time darling of conservative anti-taxers, is in some deep fiscal trouble. Not because they've overspent, but because they've undertaxed.

Via NPR:

Wage taxes, too, have long been much lower than in other European countries, says Fintan O'Toole, a columnist for The Irish Times and the author of Ship of Fools: How Stupidity and Corruption Sank the Celtic Tiger.

"If you were working in Ireland, well, very large numbers of people were kept out of the tax net altogether," O'Toole says. Many middle-class people paid no taxes either, he says.

But the economic collapse of the past few years — unemployment has gone from 4.5 percent to more than 13 percent — has exposed the downside of Ireland's low-tax policies, and forced it to backtrack somewhat, he says.

Gosh. Grover Norquist's wet dream, right there in Ireland. Only...it's not all good in the land.

Unfortunately, it was necessary for Ireland to raise taxes, which they did, along with draconian cuts to other government programs. What they haven't done is raise taxes on corporations. Barry O'Leary, head of the Investment Development Agency of Ireland, explains:

"We're pretty clear on the benefits it brings for Ireland," he says. "And we don't want to damage those benefits at all by increasing the tax rate. So it is not on the horizon at all."

The consequence is twofold: People don't have the money to spend on discretionary items, and they can't afford the houses corporate money built, so they remain empty.

"When people used to come to Ireland from abroad in the 1960s and 1970s, one of the sad things you'd see on the landscape was all these empty houses, and they were the sort of physical manifestation of famine in the 19th century, of mass emigration, of the kind of depopulation of whole parts of the countryside," O'Toole says.

"So it's pretty sad to create that out of disasters like famine and emigration," he continues. "It's really insane to create it out of a boom. So out of prosperity we managed to create all these empty houses, which have the same ghostly presence on the landscape as the houses from the 19th century had.

Empty houses while people bear the burden of economic downturns and corporations continue to bear less of a burden than they? This is what the Republicans, teabagger and moderate alike, live for. It's what gets Grover Norquist out of bed in the morning, this notion of letting enterprise run roughshod over worker, retiree, and entrepreneur.

Ireland has some lessons for us to learn, and hopefully the Irish government will learn a few as well.

DOWNLOADS: (1032)

PLAYS: (2079)

Embed

RushBo, General of the conservative movement gave his orders to the rank-and-file teabaggers today on Fox and Friends with Gretchen Carlson: Do not desert and get with the program.

How will the Tea Party movement like being told what to do? If the teabaggers were really part libertarian, they would create a third party because many of them do come from the Ron Paul party and they aren't fans of the GOP, but as many of us know, most tea partiers are arch conservatives and really only want and see all progressive policies revoked, including Social Security and Medicare, while making sure all the brown people stay where they belong. Hey, maybe I can write a letter and see if Grover, Ralph Reed or even Jack Abramoff (from behind bars) will cosign it, asking the Tea Party movement to stay true to their values and form a third party if they really hate the Republicans.

Carlson: One thing I like to do at the end of interviews is quiz the interviewee on a scale of one to ten. So on a scale of one to ten: Do you think Barack Obama will be re-elected in three years? Limbaugh: One being no, and ten being absolutely?

Carlson: Yes.

Limbaugh: Ah, one.

Carlson: One. Really?

Limbaugh: Yes.

Carlson: On a scale of one to ten, will Hillary Clinton challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic -- ?

Limbaugh: Seven.

Carlson: Seven.

Limbaugh: Laying the groundwork even as we speak.

Carlson: In what way?

Limbaugh: Saying, ‘No, I have no desire to run for president.’ They say that – it’s like a coach getting a vote of confidence from the owner, and gets canned the next day. Saying you don’t want to run is a clear signal that you’re thinking about it and you want to. The Clintons have just as much ambition to get back there as Obama had to get there. And it’s – they will pounce on this weakness.

Carlson: On a scale of one to ten, that the Tea Party will become the Independent Party.

Limbaugh: Three.

Carlson: Why?

Limbaugh: They’re going to come to senses and realize that all third parties do is guarantee the election of the Democrats. The Perot party was the same thing. Let the Democrats do the third-party thing. The success here in the future is gonna be conservatism dominating, retaking if you will, the Republican Party.

I'm not sure why the Generalisimo is so worried that they would start an independent party. Many Teabagger leaders already have been telling the media that they indeed not only want to be part of the GOP, but they want to own it.

MATTHEWS: Matt, how about third party? What about the Tea Party? Sarah Palin is kind of hard to read. She is fascinating. Let‘s face it, we‘re all fascinated with her, because she‘s exciting as a political figure right now. But she‘s talking third party. I mean, she answered the question of Lars Larson. Maybe it just came to mind, but she said, yeah, I might go third party, something like that. Would you guys knock off an incumbent Republican by going third party? You know how the vote splits. Split the right, the Dem wins.

KIBBE: The better way to do it is to take over the Republican party. Frankly, that‘s what our goal is. We need to replace the Republican establishment with fiscal conservatives that are actually willing to cut spending.

If they pull it off, you can forget about public education, EPA, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, women's rights and the like. And the sad part is that the teabaggers' own lives will be just as damaged by conservative rule as the rest of America -- and yet they will be happy in doing so.

Grover, since you've always been such a kind and caring (translation: really creepy) American, I thought I'd help you out by further explaining your new talking points on health-care reform:

Over the August recess, Congressmen will be holding townhalls on health care. There’s likely to be a lot of spin and doubletalk from very nervous Democrat members. We’ve assembled a dictionary to help you wade through the rhetoric and understand the real impact of healthcare “reform.”

No discrimination for pre-existing conditions: \prē-ēx-sisting con-df-shun\

One can wait until one gets sick to sign up for coverage, and thereby game the system, costing the rest of us.

Also: n. trick, fraud, ploy

Also: v. cheat, dupe, fleece

Hey, hon, I know you know better than this. We all know the insurance companies have been using harmless conditions like teen acne as an excuse to deny coverage to a 50-year-old. Shame on you, Grover!

No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays: \per-sŭn-al ex-pen-sĕs\

You can’t have a health savings account (HSA) even if you

want to keep one. If you want to save money on your premium

by having a high deductible, the government won’t let you

Also: v. coerce, coercion, coerced

Grover, I know HSAs are an element of Republican faith (see Golden Rule) but believe it or not, we have actual studies (done by people who aren't employed by conservative think tanks, so they might be true!) showing people delay needed care because of high deductibles and co-pays - leading to more complicated, serious illness. Not that you care.

No cost-sharing for preventive care: \prē-ven-tĭv kâr\

An unelected and unaccountable government board of bureaucrats will decide what procedures must be first-dollar, even if you don’t value them

See: arbitrary price inflation

Oh Grover, I know that "bubble" elites like yourself just don't understand: Unelected and unaccountable INSURANCE bureaucrats are making those decisions right now - and people are dying as a result.

No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill:

\ ĭn-shûr-əns kŭv-ər-ĭj\

This only happens in Helen Hunt movies, but Congress will demagogue it anyway to scare us.

See: global warming hysteria, cap-and-trade

Really, Grover? It only happens in Helen Hunt movies? Are you calling a CIGNA VP a liar? Rescission is a well-known insurance industry practice. You know better.

No gender discrimination: \jen-der dee-scrim-in-a-shun\

You’ll be forced to have your tax dollars pay for abortion and other things you disagree with. You’ll also be forced to purchase a plan which covers abortion on demand for all nine months

See: conscience clause

First of all, Grover, for the past eight years, I've had to pay for all kinds of things I disagree with: A trumped-up war, torture, tax breaks for the top one percent... Normally, I'd say, hey, the other guy won and he gets to do what he wants, but I'm pretty sure your guy stole the election with help from the Supreme Court.

And the part about "abortion on demand"? That's an outright lie, and you know it. At this point, it looks like abortion won't be covered at all. But you just don't care, because you'll push any button that works to keep your corporate overlords from losing this fight.

No annual or lifetime caps on coverage: \kăps\

Congress will tell insurance companies how they have to price their coverage and determine risk

See: arbitrary price inflation

You're right on this one, Grover. No more people denied expensive, life-saving cancer treatment because they were also in a bad car accident 20 years earlier. Boo hoo.

Extended coverage for young adults: \əx-stən-dəd kŭv-ər-ĭj\

1.“Children” up to age 30 will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance at taxpayer expense

2. Inculcating the culture of entitlement and preening a generation of welfare-dependents

See: slackers, mom’s basement

Actually, Grover, you may not know this but there's a major unemployment crisis outside that privileged bubble in which you live. Many of these young adults are so desperate to find work and pay their school loans, they're taking minimum wage jobs with no benefits. It would be nice to know that if they get sick, they won't have to die to impress people like you.

Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid: \gâr-ŭn-tēd ĭn-shûr-əns\

Another red herring that Congress will use to scare people into adopting government medicine

Also: scare tactic

See above for "rescission."

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has been a favorite of the Grover Norquist crowd for quite a while, in part because of his fealty to the far-right agenda on taxes and spending. But once in a while, reality gets in the way of conservative talking points.

In the past two years, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota twice vetoed legislation to raise the state’s gas tax to pay for transportation needs.

Now, with at least five people dead in the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge here, Mr. Pawlenty, a Republican, appears to have had a change of heart.

“He’s open to that,” Brian McClung, a spokesman for the governor, said Monday of a higher gas tax. “He believes we need to do everything we can to address this situation and the extraordinary costs.”

Better late than never, I suppose.

Mike Finnegan is touring in Europe this summer.  Lambert Strether from CorrenteWire is filling in this week.  

Greed and fear? I don't do the greed part; if I were any good at making money, I would already have made some. Fear, I can do; but in common with most of the blogosphere, I do political fear of the criminal Bush regime, not economic fear. Of course, in the future, these two fears may merge, perhaps even quicker than we expect.

But even I noticed that the Dow dropped some large number of points yesterday. Mostly, though, the blogosphere didn't (and the wankosphere was too busy ferreting out lefties who drop the F-bomb instead of killing people, lke the Godly do).

So, when the Dow drops three million points and nobody blogs about it -- well, almost nobody (click on the man; he needs the hits!) -- did it really drop? Herewith the results of my random walk through the blogosphere.

Actually, I had a few false starts: My best hits on Technorati came from "Stocks AND Plunge," and they weren't very good. Sneaky Business at least rated the headlines. Then I checked out Brad DeLong. He's an economist! And for some strange reason, he's writing about Grover Cleveland:

The agitation seemed to [Cleveland]... a threat to law and order.... Coxey's Army was met with a barrage of injunctions and... the Capitol police.... The Pullman strike was smashed by federal troops who kept the mails moving, the union leaders imprisoned, and the union crushed. And the financial panic was dealt with through the highly orthodox and [highly] compensated assistance of Mr. Morgan.

The underlying causes... were neither understood nor dealt with... an opportunity was missed.... If, to take one of them, the problems arising out of the concentration of industrial ownership had been tackled when they were still malleable and subject to effective treatment, we might have been spared some aches and pains that are still with us.

Yes, well. But then Holden asks: Have you seen my Bush boom? Good question, and I have the answer:

Yes! It went thataway!

Continue reading »

Think Progress:

"Now Grover Norquist, one of the most important leaders of the conservative movement, declared the program illegal:

Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: “It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws."

How does this work into Karl Rove’s 2006 strategy?"