Clarifications From Those That Lack Clarity

Glenn Reynolds, over at the Washington Examiner says that Republicans should now seek "clarity" from those they just elected.

Really?!?!

But wasn't it the Republicans that were providing "clarity" to the Tea Baggers that voted them in this past week?

Oh, this is fucking rich.

With the deficit and the debt ballooning, with the economy remaining in the tank, and with tough choices on the horizon, what Americans need more than anything is clarity about what those choices involve, about who is making them, and about who is avoiding them.

Sometimes clarity will mean confrontation.

I find it hard to believe that Republicans have even the slightest notion of how to clarify anything. They have spent the better part of two years being anything but.

From wildly misrepresenting TARP, healthcare reform, and the multitude of success stories provided by the stimulus, it seems that Republicans - at least those that carry their water without asking the question "what would happen if we were actually in a position to do something" - are having to face the fact that if they don't provide specific examples of how to fix issues like rising debt and deficit spending then the Tea Baggers are going to turn on them faster than they did with their original messiah Scott Brown.

And in terms of confrontation, Republicans have a rich and storied history of being just that - confrontational - but lack the sand to actually throw the first punch. Well, if you're a Rand Paul donor, you tend to use your feet rather than your hands. But we already knew that.

ASIDE: as I - and many liberals/progressives - have stated before, the Democrats haven't been as confrontational as they should have been - especially with healthcare reform. While they aren't afraid to throw a punch, it all too often comes off like Ed Norton punching Brad Pitt in the ear in Fight Club - clumsy, yet effective to a fault.

More from Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds:

A move for clarity will meet much resistance. First, of course, from Congress itself -- including many Republicans. Virtually the entire superstructure of today's legislative branch is designed to minimize clarity, and hence accountability.

The survival instincts of politicians involve the avoidance of taking stands, and Republican politicians aren't immune from them any more than Democrats are. Republicans just have more to worry about in terms of Tea Party primary challengers.

I think we just saw Glenn admit what us Democrats already know, that the Republicans that rode headlong into election night victories are going to have to find a way to actually legislate in the completely unrealistic ways that the average Tea Bagger expects them to.

But in terms of resistance, it's already being met - and from within the GOP itself.

...from the administration, which despite its promises has never been much for transparency regarding its policy initiatives, and from its in-the-tank allies in the press -- which is to say most of the press, aside from fine institutions like this one. They will do their best to make the issues about race, about personalities, about class warfare, about anything at all except about the actual choices involved.

Republicans in Congress -- and the more elevated institutions of the press, like this one, that are not in the tank -- will have to fight such efforts and make sure that the facts come out.

Naturally, Reynolds has to point out that all these bad things you've been hearing about the Tea Baggers are nothing more than creations from the "liberal media". It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are widely recorded instances of racism, violence, how the "non-wealthy" in this nation are responsible for the financial crisis, how Christianity is being attacked, and general hatred toward all people who's voter registration card doesn't have the "R" checked on it. I'm thinking Glenn should change his blogger handle to "ProjectionPundit".

And saying that the Obama administration has completely renounced their desire to be a more transparent governing body is simply laughable. There is transparency, it's just that the Republicans like to call it "propaganda" because it sounds fancy and was instrumental in the Tea Baggers coming out to the polls for the mid-terms.

Could there be more transparency? Without question. But it's quite clear that anything short of having everyone in the Obama administration fitted with tracking devices, and cameras that would broadcast a live feed to every news channel in the world just isn't going to cut it.

But it's the closing paragraphs that really put this piece into perspective:

By listening to voters at town hall meetings, Republicans can not only show that they care, they can accomplish something else. They can actually learn something.

By not listening to voters, and not being straight with them, Democrats committed political suicide. Republicans should take a lesson, and promote clarity. In these times, voters will reward that.

The problems with Reynolds closing statement is that it is completely divorced from the reality of how the Tea Baggers got their information, how the Republicans that latched onto that misinformation, and how the Democrats lost as much as they did last Tuesday.

Democrats did, despite what you may have heard from people like Glenn Reynolds and his media masters at Fox"News", listen to the voters in America. The problem is that they didn't take it far enough.

Conservatives love to tout that the average American wants a complete repeal of healthcare reform, when in reality they want it to be furthered more towards a "public option" system. Conservatives will shout that financial regulation doesn't tackle Fannie and Freddie, while not taking into consideration that they need to be addressed as a single issue. From what Net Neutrality is, to clean energy initiatives, on down to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Republicans have never been about clarity, and the call for such at this point tells me that they aren't ready for their renewed responsibility.

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey seems to be backing away from the use of the word "mandate" - something that the Tea Baggers were claiming from the very first win on Tuesday night.

Did voters give the GOP a mandate for a complete reversal of direction, or did they deliver an ultimatum to the White House to start compromising with Republicans. Reading that mandate correctly will be the great challenge of the next few months, and for both parties, the stakes could not be higher for success and failure at reading it correctly.

Here's something that's not difficult to read - Republicans are starting to show that they aren't too sure they are pleased with what they have done. But make no mistake about it, they are going to find a way to blame Democrats for their own inadequacies and failures right up to election night 2012.

What Happens When A Conservative Tries To Be Clever: A Case Study In Reactionary Thought And The Consequences That Follow

---- cross-posted @ DailyKos ----

I have this bizarre ritual that I take part in.

Every morning, I read Michelle Malkin' latest blog-droppings. Then, it's over to HotAir - then Redstate, FreeRepublic, Townhall, Drudge, and maybe a few other conservative sites.

I do this to get a feel for what the lunatic-fringe has to offer-up as "serious discussion". Normally, the topics and comments fall along the lines of predictably tiresome drivel that doesn't so much further the national discussion as it makes anyone with two nerotransmitters to rub together and an ability to think for themselves say, "Are they serious?"

That was the situation that I found myself in when I read one of Michelle Malkin's postings today:

Tax hikes have consequences. Incentives matter. Only self-deluded wealth redistributors living in la-la-land believe otherwise.

Then she proceeds to link to a story about an attorney that is bound and determined to make less-than $250,000 in order to remove herself from the position of being taxed at the rate she was prior to the Bush Tax Cuts:

President Barack Obama’s tax proposal  which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more — has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it’s just by a dollar.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama’s tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

“We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00,” she said.

“We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama’s tax plan,” she added. “Why kill yourself working if you’re going to give it all away to people who aren’t working as hard?”

Something about that theory, that you are going to drop just below $250,000 and all will be better, didn't seem to make sense. So, I did some searching and found this article from Eric Martin at NewsHoggers:

The attorney featured in this article - who claims that she will refuse to see some of her clients in order to keep her earnings down to avoid being hit by Obama's increase of the marginal tax rate on earnings above the $250,000 threshold - is most likely doing those clients a favor. At least if her ability to grasp the concept of marginal tax rates is any indication of her reasoning skills generally speaking....

Allow me to explain the concept of marginal tax rates to our would-be Jane Galt.....The marginal tax rate structure means that you pay a certain rate for money earned within certain dollar amount brackets. So, to simplify with hypothetical rates: you pay zero income taxes on dollars 0-20,000, then you pay 15% on dollars 20,001-50,000, you pay 25% on dollars 50,000-100,000 and so on. You don't pay a higher rate on all of your dollars just because some of your dollars make it into a higher tax bracket. Only those dollars above the given threshold are subject to that rate.

The tax rate on earnings above $250,000 is presently 35% (lowered from 39.6% by Bush). Obama is proposing to restore that rate to the Clinton-era level of 39.6%. What this means is that for a married couple earning $300,000 (after above the line deductions), the dollars that they make above the $250,000 threshold would be taxed at 39.6% rather than 35%. But all earnings below the $250,000 would still be taxed at the same tiered rates as before! You don't pay 39.6% on all of your earnings simply because you surpassed that level!

So the the Obama plan would mean that our hypothetical couple pays $19,800 rather than $17,500 on that $50,000 that falls into the $250,000 and above tax bracket. A difference of...$2,300. But the person still takes home $30,200 of that $50,000, as opposed to $32,500 out of $50.000. Slightly less, but generally speaking, making more money is viewed as a good thing by most individuals, even if there is a slightly higher rate applied to those extra earnings.

Now let's go back to the reasoning of our Louisiana attorney....This woman is going to turn away clients, and turn away income, so that she ensures that her income does not surpass $249,999, rather than subject any additional dollars to a slightly higher rate of taxes. Presumably, she would rather have $0 tax free than $50,000 taxed at 39.6%. But, mind you, she was quite willing to work for the extra $50,000 when it was taxed at 35%. The net effect: she will have $30,200 less dollars in her pocket just so she can avoid giving the federal government an additional $2,300, and she will have alienated clients and caused them to look elsewhere for legal services - damaging her business long term.

As I said: those clients she turns away as part of her grand tax-gaming scheme should feel lucky.

You see, this is what happens when the inane ramblings of the lunatic-fringe Right are taken to heart.

Also, if you have no grasp of how taxes are taken, you are far better of listening to a CPA rather than Malkin, Limbaugh, Hannity, or any of the host of ill-informed prattle-heads that continually try to convince the American voting public that they know what they are talking about.