Their Own Tactics Against Them

Seems that conservatives aren't pleased when the tactics they have employed in referencing "costs" since Obama took office are used against them.

Vanity Fair has the relevant data:

It would seem that in an era of Fiscal Responsibility™, a performative rendition of the Constitution might have been one such eliminated endeavor. For an estimate on just how much the Republicans would have saved if they had decided against the tedious exercise, VF Daily checked with Peter Keating, the co-author of “The Cost of No” and VF.com’s resident expert on Congressional wastefulness.

“The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

“When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.”

And while conservative "concerns" about use of tax dollars have clearly fallen on partisan lines, it's those same conservatives that cry foul.

Ha ha! Yes, we can tell that this analysis is strictly non-partisan. Say, how much did Nancy Pelosi’s speech, complete with its rambling partisan defense, cost us? Wait, Vanity Fair and Keating are too busy venting outrageous outrage over the reading of the foundational legal document that members of Congress swear to uphold and defend.

How do VF and Keating reach their conclusions? They take the cost-per-minute of the House being in session, complete apparently to the cost of cleaning staffs, and apply that to the time needed to read the Constitution. Of course, this is simply bunk. The House did not come to session to read the Constitution, so those fixed costs — including salaries — would have been spent already regardless of whatever gets said on the floor. The cost doesn’t come from the reading; it comes from the existence of Congress itself.

There isn’t even any opportunity cost involved, since the reading of the Constitution won’t prevent any other business from being conducted. It will take much less time to read the Constitution than to, say, name post offices and hear debate over whether to designate February as National Toothpick Month, complete with testimonials to the toothpick industry and how it contributed to the greatness of America by removing the remains of porkchops from the teeth of red-blooded Americans. There actually isn’t much extra cost in those efforts either, except for the paper needed to publish the bills, because once again, Congress would already be in session. Those cases matter because politicians like to use those resolutions to claim productivity, when in fact they’re wasting time — but not much money.

One can literally sense that Ed Morrissey is really stretching the limits of his own rhetoric to validate what is ultimately attention whoring to the conservative base.

But one has to ask why Republicans didn't offer this up before. Oh, that's right - we didn't have a President with a funny sounding name that was more intent on a Domestic agenda that included ALL people prior to 2009. Silly me.

So here's my next question for Morrissey - and any other conservatives that have a new found love for our "sacred documents". What else is going to be read in the Lower Chamber now that the GOP/Tea Baggers/Koch Industries have a louder voice and a higher vote count?

- The Emancipation Proclamation?
- Declaration of Independence?
- Any of the letter of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin?
- Atlas Shrugged?

There's always going to be a cost related to anything done by members of Congress, and it's always going to be footed by the tax payer. It's just that Little Eddie can't stand it when someone points out that the logic used by him and his compatriots is just as "bunk" as what Vanity Fair did. Had he the intellectual honesty to realize that that is what Peter Keating and Juli Weiner were attempting to accomplish - at least that's how I read it - then perhaps he and others like him would seek to be just a shade more serious now that they have a modest majority in Congress.

I'm not looking for that to happen though.

Notes From A Family Christmas Gathering

Went to visit some family in Tennessee on Christmas Eve and the conversation quickly turned to complaints regarding Democrats in Congress and Barack Obama.

To put it bluntly, I have more than a handful of people in my family that know just enough about the political process to be dangerous in a conversation. By that, I mean that they are more than willing to be spoon fed talking points from Fox"News" and take here say as fact.

My father-in-law instigated the bitch-fest by proclaiming that I was "an Obama fan" and then proceeded to launch into some odd anecdote about the Black Eyed Peas having a video on their website that made Obama out to be Jesus, or something. He's a rather peculiar individual - who happens to be a "birther" - but when it comes to the family, his heart is generally in the right place.

From there, it was like the spirit of Glenn Beck descended on the living room, as my brother-in-law began lobbing specious generalities about how there was "this guy" that proclaimed Obama was God and that his taxes had been raised to pay for all Obama's "stuff".

I sat quietly on the couch and attempted to entertain the children while their parents and grandparents ignored them in favor of doing the "good work" that Boss Limbaugh would have them do. But all the while, I was paying close attention to what they were claiming.

Here's some of the highlights:

- There will be no Child Tax Credit available when you file next year
- Congress ( read: Democrats ) voted themselves a pay increase for 2011
- Obama gets a pay raise
- You won't be able to deduct interest payments on your mortgage

Needless to say, all of these are patently false.

What was stunning was the ease with which the specious, the vague, and the general lack of context or fact threaded itself through the roughly 30 minute tirade. These 5 adults had absolutely no problem with giving in completely and unblushingly to propaganda and apparently felt more educated as they made their way to the dinner table. It was a "focus group" moment that Frank Luntz would have creamed his pants over.

I wasn't chastised, to my face anyway, for my socio-political ideology but also didn't feel like wading into the ever murky swamp of a modern conservative complaint session. Honestly, I've done my best to not discuss politics this Christmas season in favor of making sure that everyone in the family had a good time with one another. There is a small part of me that wonders how those 5 that were so eagerly lapping up falsehoods, misstatements, and hyperbolic rhetoric would have reacted had I simply asked for "proof" of their claims. I think I already know the answer though.

Damning The Less Fortunate

Yep, this idiot is openly advocating for the poorest in the country to be taxed more.



I've asked this many times before - if the Bush tax cuts for the richest in the country were designed to bolster the economy ( and they clearly failed ) why are conservatives so eager to keep them in place?

Observations From The Corner

Yesterday afternoon, several dozen people ( all white and most above the age of 40 though I did see a few kids holding signs and looking rather puzzled as to what they were actually doing there ) gathered in an abandoned parking lot in downtown Madisonville, KY.

There were the obligatory "Get Your Hands Of My ____" signs and a few timid shouts at cars that honked their horns as they passed. Overall, the atmosphere felt a bit forced and lacking in the passion that one would think a Tea Bagger would have. In all, it wasn't really a "march" or a "protest", just people idly shuffling around.

The one thing that made the event almost worthless to capture on film, aside from the fact that no one wanted to appear on camera, was this extremely annoying band that played 70s standards at an almost ear piercing level. One had to wonder if the low turnout had anything to do with the heat emanating up from the concrete, the near inaccessible parking area, or the amateur-hour band that couldn't figure out how to turn down the treble.

I stayed about an hour and actually had a few revealing conversations. I say revealing because the overriding sentiment from the 6 or so that would actually speak to me was one of complete lack of ability to fact check everything they took in as truth. Each and every time one of them would repeat something that Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh had said about Obama, taxes, or government in general, I would ask them if they had verified these claims. I got more than a few odd and puzzled looks. This was usually followed up by "but they fact check these things before they say them". It was quite exasperating at times.

As I left, there was this woman that came up to me and asked if she could pray for me. Not being a particularly religious person to begin with, I asked why she thought I needed to be prayed for, to which she replied - with a particularly morbid grin - that Obama was "the anti-christ".

I had to make my exit as gracefully as possible, as I nearly burst into uncontrollable laughter at that point.

Tea Bagger Polling

According to a new CBS/NYT Poll, 25% of those within the Tea Bagger movement think that violence against the government is acceptable.

While this number is dwarfed by those that call it unacceptable ( 71% ) it only takes one act of violence to tarnish the entire movement. Some have argued that recent terrorist activities in America are somehow connected to the Tea Baggers. But the jury is technically still out on those.

What's more interesting to me is the fact that a plurality of Tea Baggers consider Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's programs on Fox "news programs".

Considering the eliminationist rhetoric that comes from Beck and the continual hype of Obama's "anti-Americanism" by Hannity, I'm quite surprised that the number of those accepting of violence against government is as low as it is.

But likely the most bizarre of realizations coming from a poll of Tea Baggers is that more than half of them think their tax burden is fair.

Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.

Is that 52% made up of people that are just wanting to feel like they are part of something? Do they realize what they are a part of? My guess is no for the later.

Think Progress has more.

Tea Bagger Tax Problems

Considering that this Tea Bagger is going after one of conservatives favored characters, I'm wondering how they are going to spin this. After all, they don't have tax problems, remember.

Ashjian, a small-business owner, has an IRS lien on his property because he owes more than $200,000 in back taxes, according to the county recorder.

He has also run into questions about his business background.

The 46-year-old longtime Southern Nevada resident has owned a number of small businesses, at least one of which has faced financial problems.

According to documents obtained from the Nevada State Contractors Board through a public records request, his company A&A Asphalt Paving Co. faces a complaint for passing a bad check to a vendor last October for $981. Ashjian shut the company down a month later, he said in an interview.

I'm sure that there will be plenty of financial assistance for this guy from Club For Growth and Freedomworks, but he'll have to figure out a way to hide paying off his taxes with campaign contributions. I know I'm speculating more than I should,
but am I the only one that thinks that this guy is more of a scam artist than anything else? What a great way to scam some money from people to get out of a debt problem. This could get interesting.

What They Think Brown Can Do For Them

When information came out recently that Scott Brown voted against aid to be given to rescue responders to the attacks on Sept, 11th, the conservative Right was quite literally silent about it. And their silence spoke volumes, as always. His response was, quite literally, that it simply wasn't a priority:



As Think Progress reports, it seemed that Brown's "priorities" lay with his masters in large corporations and their ability to leisure activity space:

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.

Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote.

But this isn't the only blemish on Brown's record that conservatives are overlooking - and hoping the Massachusetts voter will as well.

The structuring of his campaign staff is quite unusual, as they are listed as "consultants", not traditional employees. This is a psuedo-clever - albeit apparently legal - way to remove Brown from the liability of payroll taxes and offering health insurance.

As stated before here, Brown is largely supported by Wall Street interests and big corporations. They have, after all, filled his campaign coffers more than anyone else. In normal electoral situations, this would set off a firestorm of criticism within the conservative movement. But, this is no normal election Massachusetts is facing tomorrow. And to that end, it would appear that conservatives are willing to have a puppet take the place of the late Ted Kennedy simply so they can have one opposition vote on one bill.

But who's to say that this version of reality that conservatives are banking on is what will really happen. It's dangerous to put all your chips on one number in just one game.

bob Cesca quotes John Chait on how a Brown win might not be so bad after all.

1. Finish up the House-Senate negotiations quickly and hold a vote before Scott Brown is seated. Republicans will scream, but how could they scream any louder? It's a process argument of murky merits that will be long forgotten by November.

2. Get the House to pass the Senate bill, and maybe use a reconciliation bill (which only needs a Senate majority to pass) to implement as many House-Senate compromises as possible.

3. Go back to Olympia Snowe. I have not seen any persuasive reporting, or even conjecture, about what Snowe is actually thinking. Her substantive demands have been met.

While I agree with the first two, the thought of going back to Snowe makes little sense to me. But that's another issue for another time.

And while conservatives are more than willing to ignore Brown's character, casting him as the iconographic figure that has broad populist support, the reality of this race is that Brown is to the left of Dede Scozzafava, the Republican woman that conservatives attempted to push aside by endorsing Doug Hoffman - and we all saw how that turned out. Once Hoffman finally made up his mind on concession ( after three times ) he was largely removed from any and all conservative discussions. To them, he was dead.

If Brown loses, and right now that's a fairly big "if", he's got a lot of work to do if he's going to make conservatives happy. And this has little to do with the state he's allegedly running to represent. He's got the entire conservative movement breathing down his neck. Not to propose anything but to obstruct everything. It's not really a difficult task, as Republicans have been marginally successful at it since January of last year. The question that conservatives and tea-baggers need to ask is this - are Scott Brown's priorities going to stay the same if he wins?

The Taxman Cometh

The unifying factor amongst the GOP - whether they be on the fringe, a centrist, or the most milquetoast moderate - is that they all claim to be masters of various schools of thought. From economics to medical care, proper legislative technique to media accuracy, and even taxation. The later, at least since Obama's ascendancy to the Presidency, is the gold-standard for exactly how honest and knowledgeable you are as a person a especially as a politician.

Many conservative voices have pitched upward with rage anytime a Democrat may have a problem with their taxes. Not the least of these was America's favorite wingnut paranoid-delusional: Glenn Beck.




But it seems that he has problems of his own when it comes to taxes.

As Beck evolved from a medium-market local radio personality to a one-man media empire with top-rated radio and television shows, best-selling books, a monthly magazine and a traveling one-man comedy tour, his production company, Mercury Radio Arts, has at times struggled to keep up with the heightened tax and filing demands accompanying his success.


Mercury, a private corporation that lists Beck as chief executive officer and his wife, Tania Beck, alternately as vice president or secretary, since 2007 has fallen behind on its New York City business income taxes and has been cited for filing errors related to its obligations under Texas franchise tax and New York state workers' compensation insurance rules.

I'd like to see some other prominent conservatives tax records. Perhaps Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity would care to show how pristine their papers are.

The Stupid!!! It Burns!!!!

These people really have it together, don't they.



Lots of complete and utter confusion on what's really going on coupled with such an open embrace of ignorance. Keep it up folks, you're doing a great job of looking like the dithering idiots the bulk of the population thinks you are.

Guess Who's Coming To School

Candidate Obama, from my perspective, has had a more unique and honest perspective on the future of America - moreso than any presidential candidate before him. And the reason behind that is due to the fact that he sees America the way it really is, flaws and triumphs side by sida, and knows that the only way that the country will benefit is by the children of this land to learn, to stay in school, to have passion for not just their country but the educational process.

This does not sit well with conservatives.

Not content with an unprecedented four primetime news conferences to date in his young administration, President Obama now needs to address the entire public school system. And not just for a Hey-Kids-Howya-Doin-I’m-Your-New-President-So-Be-Good-In-School-This-Year-Mmmkay? speech.

You know, like back when I was a kid and Jimmy Carter would come around and hand out balloon animals at parties. Or maybe those were clowns. I get confused. Anyway.

Nope, Obama can’t just say hey to the kiddies and encourage them to do their homework. He has to make this a — what does the Left call it? — a teachable moment. A speech-in, if you will. Teachers have even been given handy instructions on how best to integrate The One into the classroom.

Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation — and it is the Washington Obama way now.

And while the rabid, frothing, emo wing of the conservative movement cries and whines that Obama is attempting to indoctrinate our children, let's take a look at the reality of this.

The President is actively seeking the opinions and ideas of the children of our nation. He is not just encouraging them to stay in school, to study, but to make their voices heard. What other president has offered this type of honest connection with the future generation that is going to lead this nation?

And it's almost certain that many of these children will grow up to have different ideals than his. Many will grow up to be Republicans. In all likelihood, the next Rush Limbaugh just may be sitting in a classroom next week in Iowa and hears Obama speak and doesn't become this zombie, socialist, marxist, communist, deviant that every conservative pundit from Malkin, to Hannity, to Ingraham, to Savage, on down to the three stooges of morning TV ( Fox and Friends ) claim will happen.

But let's take a step back. Is this really such an odd thing for a president to do?



Yes, Gretchen, very interesting.

But it doesn't stop there.

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes...Do Sean Hannity and the folks at NewsBusters think President Reagan was engaging in Maoist indoctrination? Do Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily think Reagan was pulling a Mussolini or attempting to assemble his own Hitler Youth? Or is it possible that the conservative media has decided that if Obama is for it – whether “it” means “universal health care” or “stay in school” – they’re against it?

Not only are we seeing another classic example of the rank and very loud hypocrisy from the Right, but there is another aspect of this that needs to be addressed. And that is, who are we to trust with the future of our nations children?

Do we trust them to those that teach the whole of American history, the good and the bad linked hand in hand in lessons learned and goals acheived? Or, do we leave the education of America's youth to those that wish to selectively edit American history, to revise widely known facts, that favor religious beliefs over scientific facts?

And While You Guys Where Shouting About Taxes

Recently released documents show that one of the "leaders" of the April 15th tea-baggery parties is a ( cue scary music ) Tax cheat!!!!

Well no wonder he doesn’t like taxes very much. According to documents obtained by Teablogging by running a goddamned simple Nexis search on the internets, national Tea Party organizer, Top Conservatives on Twitter cofounder and TCOTReport.com publisher Michael P. Leahy has, over the past 16 years, amassed nearly $150,000 in state and federal tax liens, small claims court judgments and civil suits.

While conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin and the fine folks at RedState, Townhall, Powerline, talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, as well as their primary media outlet and major sponsor Fox"News" have chided tim Geithner and Kathleen Kathleen Sebelius tax infractions that are minor in comparison to Mr. Leahy, this falls into the catagory of poetic irony. You would think that a person that is an alleged "leader" of a movement that is supposed to be knowledgable of our tax system to such an elevated degree that he would at least knows that he owes money.

But, the tea-baggers aren't exactly known for their intellect.

Homestate Poltical Funnies

Joel Pett in the Lexington Herald-Leader



( h/t to Bill Tchakirides at The Lobsterscope )

The Tax Day Top 10 List

Jon Perr @ Crooks&Liars bring us the Top 10 Republican Tax Day Lies.

Lie #1: President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.

Of course, they're not talking about small business. As CNN concluded in October, "fewer than 2% of small business owners would pay more under Obama's plan." But in case there was any doubt about the Republicans' deception on the point, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center quickly put it to rest:

Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.

Lie #2: The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.

...as the Washington Post explained, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of estates would pay no taxes whatsoever:

The estate tax is scheduled to disappear in 2010, only to be resurrected the following year at its 2001 level, when it applied only to estates worth over $2 million per couple at a rate of 55 percent. In fact, no one expects it to return to that level -- although letting it do so would be a far more rational response to the current crisis than the Lincoln-Kyl approach. Rather, President Obama has proposed holding the tax at this year's level: an exemption of $7 million per couple, with a 45 percent rate for amounts beyond that; this would cost $484 billion over 10 years. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has endorsed this solution, with indexing for inflation. This would hardly be punitive. At that level, 99.76 percent of estates would incur no tax whatsoever. Those who owe would pay, on average, $2.25 million less than they would have paid at the 2001 exemption level. Why in the world should these folks get more of a tax cut?

Why? Because even in a time of national economic calamity, the Republican Party remains committed to dramatically shifting the tax burden away from the wealthiest Americans. (And unfortunately, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and nine other Democrats are aiding and abetting that transfer by supporting a lower tax rate of 35% for estates starting at $10 million per couple. The price tag? $250 billion.)

Lie #3: 40% of Americans pay no taxes.

As FactCheck among others noted, Republican conveniently ignore sales, excise and most of all, payroll taxes. Starting with the first dollar they earn, virtually all American workers pay the 6.2% Social Security tax (on income up to $97,000) and another 1.45% for Medicare. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center concluded, "three quarters of filers pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."

That millions of hard working American families pay no income taxes is due in large measure to the Earned Income Tax Credit. Created in 1975, the EITC "a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families" that results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit when the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities detailed in 2005, the EITC has not only been extremely successful in reducing poverty, it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. None other than Ronald Reagan called it, "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

Read the remainder of Perr's post @ Crooks And Liars

These, and the preponderance of right-wing lies, that have created this "cut-and-paste" style of discourse amongst conservative voters is a perfect example of ignorance disguised as fact. It's all memorize and repeat. They will never be prepared to answer the real questions that need to be asked or provide any type of substantive alternative that doesn't simply just benefit their own self-interests.

How Dare Someone Provide Perspective

.....don't you understand that this is a "teabagging" event!?



That man later posted a diary at Daily Kos

I worked my way up to the front ... well, it wasn't so much front as it was middle. It ended up being like a "theater in the round," with the main action taking place in front of a bust of Andrew Jackson, once the governor of territorial Florida with its capital in Pensacola. I took lots of pictures and videos there (some of which I hope to post shortly at Blast Off!), and I was thinking about what I might say if and when I got up there. Still, I wasn't sure I wanted to do it. People were, well, rather rambunctious in their Obama hatred, and the shouting and craziness was, to be honest, a little unnerving.

But when a couple of my friends showed up, one offered to film my "speech," so I figured I'd go for it. I gave a lot of thought to what I wanted to say, making sure to draw the crowd in so they'd listen carefully before bringing the rhetorical hammer down. I guess it worked. :) After I spoke, the MC of the event calmed everyone down and said, "All opinions are welcome here. And besides ... he's half right." That helped defuse the situation a bit, as did the next speaker, who started by complimenting me on my hat (it's a Baltimore Orioles hat -- I was born in Baltimore and I'm a lifelong O's fan).

Anyway, a few, including my girlfriend, have chided me a bit for putting myself in harm's way. "Someone could have had a gun," they say. Well, that's true ... but I've never really been the type to stand around and watch, especially when half-truths and lies are being disseminated with no one to challenge them. Sometimes we have to take a little bit of risk, I think, in order to accomplish things. So many people throughout history have taken such risks ... maybe I'm foolish to do so, but I can only do so much from behind a laptop keyboard. I'd like my kids (9yo boy, 3yo girl) to know that their dad stood up for something important, at least once.

There's been quite the discussion where I worked about the "teabaggery". I work with a preponderance of Right-wing, conservative, Republicans. They are all wound-up so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal in their ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond.

I asked them why, all of a sudden, they are upset that they have to pay taxes. I asked them, since they are so concerned that we are becoming a "socialist" country, if they would be willing to stop using the things that are paid for by their tax dollars. You tend not to get answers when you ask relevant questions.

They talk about having a sense of "history", when they don't seem to have it. It was all wine and roses until January 20th for them. It's a wonder to behold how crazy they are becoming.

Hannity Breezes Past The Obvious And Fox Let's Us Know Something

Sean Hannity - and his producers, most likely - try and go the "hot chick-pundit" route as Sean seems to think he can pull one over on them both. He's wrong.

BarbinMD highlights a brunette-beatdown on Hannity's own Fox"News" program.



It seems that Sean , like man lunatic-fringe conservatives, are blatantly misusing the term "socialism" when it comes to Obama. But, most of you know that already.

When she talks about having "faith" in America, and that that same "faith" extends to the American pulic, Sean - in true reactionary fashion says:

Where has Socialism worked?

Our lovely pundit counters that the Obama administration isn't the first to spend or raise taxes. To which Hannity says "not on this level".

Kind of a flacid retort, taking into consideration what Obama is having to correct.

The money-shot is when she mentions Reagan raising taxes and Hannity counters with a pathetic:

...only slightly, as an adjustment

I'd love to see the actual numbers on Reagan's spending and taxing, just to see how Hannity's deity plays out against W and his father.

Also, there's this poll from Hannity's same home-court that seems to paint a slightly different picture of Obama that he is willing to admit.

Per Diem Palin

Are you serious?

The Governor, for instance, charged the state of Alaska a $60 per diem expense for an appearance on Fox News on November 9, 2008. A few weeks later, she billed taxpayers another $60 for a "phone call with Sen. Elizabeth Dole." (Dole had lost her reelection bid weeks earlier). On the 26th of November, Palin again turned in a $60 meal/incidental expense per diem report for "Phone call with Gov. Rendell, interview."

While all this appears to be "legal", I'm sure that the Alaskan taxpayers that have to foot this bill won't exactly be pleased.

You can read Palin's November and December expense reports to see how these charges are either a bit much or just curious in nature.

So, She Has Tax Issues Too? Interesting.

I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting to hear this mentioned on Fox"News"

Gov. Sarah Palin must pay income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her Wasilla home, under a new determination by state officials.



The governor's office wouldn't say this week how much she owes in back taxes for meal money, or whether she intends to continue to receive the per diem allowance. As of December, she was still charging the state for meals and incidentals.

"The amount of taxes owed is a private matter," Sharon Leighow, Palin's spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. "If the governor collects future per diem, those documents would be a matter of public record."

While within Palin's cheerleading squad will defend the woman no matter what she does, it should be reminded to them that these taxes are owed, in part, because Palin billed the state for staying in her own home.

Bob Cesna Has A Valid Point

The Republicans don't seem to mind it when Joe the Plumber doesn't pay his taxes.

And now we wait for the wingers to respond.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

When In Doubt, Make It Up

Are you serious?






Not sure who Quinn and Rose are, but I definately know who Lou Dobbs is.

Granted, I honestly don't think that taxes are "fair", and I have yet to have anyone show me a written law where is states - clearly - that we are required to pay Federal Income tax. But, do these people actually expect their audience to be so ill-informed, so willing to accept their idioctic claims, that they will beleive that 40% of American workers don't pay taxes?

More info here from MediaMatters.

The Envy of Every Industrial, Capitalist Democracy

It's amazing how people - given the particular job duties that they are required to perform, how much money they make at said job, and how their willingness to perform these tasks increases their job security - will justify a bad situation. And they do it all with no verifiable facts and are rarely, if ever, questioned.

H/T to Newshounds for the video grab:



So let's examine what a 'great' economic state we are in.

As I've said before, I'm not an economist, but I know when I'm being fed a load of horse excrament. So, here are some facts for this chap that thinks the American economy is just spot-on fantastic as droves of people from the UK and Europe 'flee' to America to take a bite out of what we've got.

1- Unemployment:

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MAY 2008

The unemployment rate rose from 5.0 to 5.5 percent in May, and nonfarm
payroll employment continued to trend down (-49,000), the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. In May, employ-
ment continued to fall in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and
temporary help services, while health care continued to add jobs. Average
hourly earnings rose by 5 cents, or 0.3 percent, over the month.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons increased by 861,000 to 8.5 million in
May, after seasonal adjustment, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.5 per-
centage point to 5.5 percent. A year earlier, the number of unemployed per-
sons was 6.9 million, and the jobless rate was 4.5 percent. (See table A-1.)

The unemployment rates for adult men (4.9 percent), adult women (4.8 per-
cent), teenagers (18.7 percent), whites (4.9 percent), and blacks (9.7 per-
cent) rose in May. The jobless rate for Hispanics (6.9 percent) was unchanged.
The unemployment rate for Asians was 3.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

2 - An Economic Recession Started in March 2001

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March, ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), composed of academic economists from Harvard, Stanford and other universities, joined a chorus of economists and investors who were saying that a recession had already begun. The group posted its decision on its Web site.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time. The declaration means the longest expansion lasted exactly 10 years. The previous record for uninterrupted economic growth was set in the 1960s, a period of eight years and 10 months lasting from February 1961 to December 1969.

3 - Bush's Tax Cuts Benefit A Small Percentage Of Americans

...Economists and tax analysts have long known that the biggest dollar value of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts goes to people at the very top income levels. One reason is that two of his signature measures, tax cuts on investment income and a steady reduction of estate taxes, overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest households.

But the Congressional study offers additional insight because it incorporates information about what people paid in 2004, the first year in which taxpayers could take full advantage of the cuts on stock dividends and capital gains.

The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003....

4 - The Dollar is the New Peso

It’s no secret that the dollar is on a downward spiral. Its value is dropping, and the Fed isn’t doing a whole lot to change that. As a result, a number of countries are considering a shift away from the dollar to preserve their assets. These are seven of the countries currently considering a move from the dollar, and how they’ll have an effect on its value and the US economy....

Countries are growing weary of losing money on the falling dollar. Many of them want to protect their financial interests, and a number of them want to end the US oversight that comes with using the dollar. Although it’s not clear how many of these countries will actually follow through on an abandonment of the dollar, it is clear that its status as a world currency is in trouble.

Obviously, an abandonment of the dollar is bad news for the currency. Simply put, as demand lessens, its value drops. Additionally, the revenue generated from the use of the dollar will be sorely missed if it’s lost. The dollar’s status as a cheaply-produced US export is a vital part of our economy. Losing this status could rock the financial lives of both Americans and the worldwide economy.

In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the above statement appeared in November of last year.

And as far as the statement of people fleeing to come to America because of the economy.....

With a wheezing economy that’s struggling with housing and credit problems - as well as a weak dollar - it’s clear the United States won’t be in the investment spotlight this year.

But don’t despair. Because a trend that has long been talked about - economic decoupling - is finally starting to manifest itself as other world economies, particularly the so-called “BRIC” markets of Brazil, Russia, China and India, have continued to grow even as the U.S. economy has slowed. That means profit opportunities abound for U.S. investors, despite myriad messes on the home front that include a collapsed housing market, a mortgage crisis that turned into a five-alarm credit conflagration, and a plunging greenback that seems to have left its parachute on the airplane that it jumped from.

Some of the profit pathways to play:

- Investors can eschew the U.S. market completely, and pursue profits abroad.

- They can latch onto the U.S.-based members of the “Global Titans” club, companies with their headquarters in America that derive a hefty chunk of their profits from overseas markets.

- Or investors can ferret out U.S. investments that are either immune to some of this country’s current economic afflictions, or that are problem-plagued now, but a good bet for a turnaround later.

You're more often to hear that a fair tax system only "punishes" the successful. Well, that's a nice talking-point to stir-up your base with, but it's really nothing more than that. Sure, people that have worked hard their lives to get where they are deserve to have nice things. But, who's doing the talking here? Who(m) is truly afraid of being 'punished'? Are they talking about the man that struggled as a child in a poor neighborhood in Detroit, managed to go to a great college, became an award-winning chemist, and is now working on a cure for AIDs? Or, are they talking about a man who dropped-out of college, made sure they didn't have to be drafted to fight in Vietnam, and ended up hosting talk-radio show where they continually tell their audience that a fair tax punishes the successful?