In the Arena

Random Notes

I’m still sifting through the various somersaults the Obama Administration is spinning to cut the budget. I’ll have more to say about that, and the budget fight, over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, two thoughts:

1. All this would be an awful lot easier if we just…raised taxes. Not much. Just back to the Clinton levels for the wealthiest Americans, and perhaps completely lifting the cap on social security taxes, which would go a long way toward solving that problem. (As a matter of fairness, we could lower the retirement age for people in the lower income brackets and raise it for those in the higher brackets–but that’s another story.)

2. In the end, I think Obama has a strong hand here. People really don’t want the social safety net cut. They don’t mind raising taxes on the wealthy, or cutting the pentagon budget (which could certainly use a significant post-cold war trim). If the Republicans want to inflict pain, let them try. Let them shut down the government while we’re at war. Let them close the national parks during spring vacation. Republican deficit-reduction fetishism is a sometime thing; it only happens when Democrats are President. Most people outside of DC–and the guilty precincts of Wall Street where speculators, having hollowed out the American economy, cling to the “high-minded” notion of deficit cutting as a way to pretend they’re righteous–don’t care all that much about the deficit. They probably should, but they don’t. Obama shouldn’t forget that.

And on another note: As Kate Pickert reports below, Andrew Breitbart got served at CPAC. Unfortunately, I didn’t witness this stellar moment…but I did watch, in horror, as Breitbart inflicted himself on the audience for a half hour in a decidedly juvenile and incoherent manner. He claimed Attention Deficit Disorder as an excuse for his incoherence, but I think this is wrong: the boy clearly has no addition deficit when it comes to himself. A more precise diagnosis would be terminal narcissism. What a creep.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • apr2563

    Joe, does the traditional media understand why we don’t trust any of the pols or them. They almost all sell their souls to oligarchs and little is made of it in the press.
    .
    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/09/dodd_may_be_top_hollywood_lobbyist.html
    .

    Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) “is in negotiations to be named president of the Motion Picture Association of America, the most sought-after and lucrative lobbying job currently open in Washington,” Mike Allen reports.

    Dodd has been mentioned for months as a possible head for the MPAA, after several other top candidates, including former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) wound up not making deals.

    Flashback: Dodd told the CT Mirror last summer he would not become a lobbyist after leaving Congress.

  • charlieromeobravo

    “All this would be an awful lot easier if we just…raised taxes.”
    .
    Why do the obvious and logical thing when we can line our rich friends’ pockets so they can keep donating to our campaigns though, right?

  • apr2563

    By the way Joe, if you haven’t already, get the DVD Restrepo. It is the most gut wrenching documentary about a company deployed to Afghanistan’s most dangerous area. We watch for 15 months as they fulfill their service for a generally uncaring US. It is nominated for an Academy Award and certainly deserves it.

  • nflfoghorn

    Nobody has the backbone to mention the elephant in the room. Not even BO (especially not him).

  • shepherdwong

    Yes, of course, raise taxes on those who can best afford them and who have done such a wonderful job of using their political power to take more and more wealth exclusively for themselves – it’s a no-brainer.
    .
    But seriously now, why can no one in your industry, no one, talk about the budget problem that afflicts us? All the Beltway gasbags are constantly patting themselves on the back for their seriousness about the budget deficit, for talking endlessly about things other that what’s driving the deficit – healthcare cost inflation.
    .
    David Gregory can spend all morning asking why politician “x” can’t be an adult and say we’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security to deal with the deficit and the wizards he assembles for their sage wisdom all nod like chimps while the 800lb. healthcare cost inflation gorilla stinks up the room.
    .
    So is it that too many sacred corporate cows – the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries in particular – stand to be gored if we actually concentrate on what’s driving the budget deficit, or are all Beltway journos just know-nothing hacks (don’t answer too quickly), or do they just like sticking it to working people for some sick, obscure reason?

  • apr2563

    Well said.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    “He claimed Attention Deficit Disorder as an excuse for his incoherence, but I think this is wrong: the boy clearly has no addition deficit when it comes to himself. A more precise diagnosis would be terminal narcissism. What a creep.”

    There few mixtures more toxic than narcissism and self pity.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    There “are” few mixtures more toxic than narcissism and self pity.

  • http://2thirdsrocks.wordpress.com 2thirdsrocks

    Damn Joe, you sound just like a typical mushbrained, jackass liberal.

  • apr2563

    Also Joe, it seems that the Swamplander reporters all leap on the same subject. Today it is the budget. This weekend it was the CPAC convention.
    We readers can handle more than one or two topics.
    Remember the Middle East?
    .
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/iran-ignites.html
    .
    Iran Ignites
    “Mubarak … Ben Ali … Now it’s your turn, Seid Ali (first name of the Supreme Leader)”

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Yep, return taxes to 1990s levels, dial down an occupation or two, and we’ve just about balanced the budget. See: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=809205qv
    -
    But, our discourse is biased toward stupid, so, why do the responsible thing.

  • freeinpa

    “In the end, I think Obama has a strong hand here. People really don’t want the social safety net cut. They don’t mind raising taxes on the wealthy, or cutting the pentagon budget”
    .
    Of course we don’t need defense or jobs, we can just live off the government. Oopps, who will be left to pay taxes.

    The rate of increase of entitlement spending still outpacing tax revenues we still grow deficits. The idiot meme of “just raise taxes on the wealthy” assumes that they just turn over more cash without any change in behavior. The only place where economics occurs in a vacuum is inside a liberal’s head.

  • freeinpa

    “Yes, of course, raise taxes on those who can best afford them”

    .
    And of course you know the personal finances of everyone to determine “who can best afford it”. Because someone making 250,000 in NYC is the same as earning $250,000 in Buzzard Breath, Montana. And you determine how much money is enough for anyone to have for his family.

    .
    Seek treatment for your god-complex

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Yes; if we return tax rates to 1990s levels, then people will flee America just like they did in the 1990s, because people earning $250K+ hate America so much that they can’t stomach tax rates half what they were under Eisenhower. On that, we can all agree.
    -
    In reality, though, our tax receipts are at historical lows, and our tax intake is at the very very low end of the OECD. We can bump a few things up a few points in order to fix the deficit.
    -
    Or we can whine and scream about the deficit & do nothing. Whichever.

  • freeinpa

    “We readers can handle more than one or two topics”
    .
    Seriously, we have been talking about the economy for 2 years and you still don’t understand it.

  • 53_3

    Sense and Sensibility, Joe.
    .
    Here, you have both…

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Elvis, we can also fire most of our police, firefighters, public school teachers, road workers, sanitation engineers, etc., etc.

  • shepherdwong

    And if that doesn’t do it, a 50% top rate on incomes over a million ought to. Under the circumstances (the complete failure of elite leadership over at least the past decade or so) it’s the least they can do. “Everyone needs to sacrifice” don’t you know.

  • shepherdwong

    I’m pretty sure that the idiot meme is that multi-millionaires and billionaires are going to pass on taking that next million if it is taxed at three percentage points more than the previous million. But please feel free to explains the economics of it.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Nobody went screaming from this country when the top rates were 70%. We didn’t have massive unemployment when the top rates were 70%.
    .
    Of course the people paying those 70% top rates were from a different generation. They didn’t mind paying high taxes because they understood, having grown up during the depression, that government spending made our country stronger. Today’s tax payers are by and large the same kids who grew up during the Reagan era of “me first and (blank) everybody else.

  • paulejb

    Joe Klein,
    .
    A response to your random thoughts.
    .
    1. There is nothing that prevents liberals like yourself from sending a donation to the US Treasury in the name of the government program of your choice.
    .
    1a. Liberals should declare a moratorium on demagoguing Social Security. That way, responsible adults can make proposals without fear of being maligned for purely political reasons.
    .
    2. It is human nature to desire a free lunch at another’s expense. It is despicable to encourage that selfishness for political advantage.
    .
    2a. The nation is approaching the abyss and you are harping on the closing of National Parks in the springtime. Doesn’t say much for your priorities, Joe.
    .
    Blaming Wall Street is a cop out. Big government types and Wall Street types have been in each other’s pockets for years. The cozy relationship was revealed by the TARP bailouts.

    As I averred on an earlier thread, Obama and his crew “have learned nothing and forgotten nothing” as Tallyrand said of Louis XVIII.

  • shepherdwong

    Seek treatment for your god-complex“.
    .
    No need. So far, other than my dog, you’re the only one who thinks I’m god-like (coincidence?). Just ask my wife.

  • shepherdwong

    It is human nature to desire a free lunch at another’s expense. It is despicable to encourage that selfishness for political advantage.
    .
    And that free-lunch selfishness has been the basis for Republican economics and politics since Reagan foisted it on the country more than thirty years ago. “Despicable” is the perfect word for it, thanks.

  • paulejb

    apr2563@1,
    .
    Former Senator Chris Dodd as president of the Motion Picture Association of America.
    .
    Who could be a better choice for the fantasy industry? Just look at what he accomplished for the mortgage industry.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@11.1,
    .
    Hi, Wong.
    .
    As usual, you distort the facts. You and Joe Klein are talking about picking other people’s pockets to favor your choices.
    .
    As I have said before, a liberal is always the first to give you the shirt off someone else’s back.

  • paulejb

    The debt now equals the nations entire economy.
    .
    Either Obama is either in denial or intends to bankrupt this country. What’s your guess?

  • shepherdwong

    No need to guess. He’s doing what Democratic presidents have been doing for the past thirty years: cleaning up the messes left to him by Republicans.

  • paulejb

    shepherwong@12.1,
    .
    Even you must be giggling as you write that. Two years in and Obama is still digging. It’s as if his people are afraid to tell him that he needs to stop digging if he wants to get out of the hole.
    .
    The shelf life of the blame Bush excuse has expired, Wong. The looming disaster belongs to Obama. He owns it lock, stock and barrel.

  • paulejb

    erieangel@9.2,

    You are right, angel. Politicians always attempt to inflict the most pain on the public when forced to make cuts. Their pet projects always survive while essential services are sliced to the bone.

  • megatronrises

    I make less than $35,000 and I live in NYC. I am by no means down on my luck or in destitution.
    .
    I’m pretty sure those hacks making $250,000 – over 7 times what I make – can stand to give a little something extra so that those roaming the streets asking for a dime can actually get a meal. Or so that the single, overworked mothers can count on their children having a better education and a better chance at upward mobility than they had. Wait, those reasons don’t work for you? How about reducing the deficit?
    .
    Any way you slice it, $250,000 is A LOT of money.

  • megatronrises

    oops… supposed to be a response to 4.2

  • megatronrises

    see 1.2

  • shepherdwong

    The shelf life of the blame Bush excuse has expired…
    .
    In your sick, partisan dreams. See, that’s the thing. Republican clusterf#cks tend to screw the American public for generations. We’ll be paying for yours and Bush’s mistakes for decades to come.

  • shepherdwong

    You and Joe Klein are talking about picking other people’s pockets to favor your choices.
    .
    No, we’re talking about a 21st Century democracy, paid for through progressive taxation so that the struggling poor don’t pay huge portions of their incomes to taxes, while the comfortable rich pay only miniscule portions of theirs – you know, the way Republicans always try to make it. I learned about it in grade school, something about “Civics,” the rights and duties of citizenship. Home schooled?

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@12.3,
    .
    Sparring with you is such a delight. It is like cornering a rabid dog.
    .
    In two years, Obama has done more damage to the economy than Bush could have done in 100 years. Obama makes Carter seem like a genius. The budget he submitted today is so deceitful that it must indicate either pathological denial or a sinister agenda. What’s your guess?

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@11.3,
    .
    Here you go, sparky. Just what you asked for.

    http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    Don’t you think that the top 1% is paying their fair share?

  • paulejb

    megatronrises@1.2,
    .
    “$250,000 is a LOT of money.”
    .
    It must be. Democrat politicians in NY persist in saying that people earning that much are millionaires and billionaires.
    .
    Hell, they probably believe that you’re rich with your $35,000. I’d watch by back if I were you.

  • shepherdwong

    In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

    Nope. You?

  • shepherdwong

    Sparring with you is such a delight. It is like cornering a rabid dog.
    .
    Hey, as long as you enjoy being chewed up and spit out (even rabid dogs have standards), who am I to complain?

  • paulejb

    shepherwong@11.5,
    .
    The top 1% also pay 38.02% of federal income taxes each year. The bottom 50% pay only 2.7% each year.
    .
    Should we just confiscate all wealth? I imagine that would pay for about 1 year of Obama’s spending.

  • paulejb

    shepherdwong@12.5,
    .
    Not a scratch on me, Wong. Your bark is worse than your bite.

  • robbert5

    Paulejb:

    It is called progressive tax, the bigger share of the burden is placed on the broadest shoulders. I think it is fair to ask those who have the most to pick up the biggest part of the burden don’t you?

    I am also ashamed to be part of a society where the bottom 50% can’t even afford to pay only 2.7% of the federal taxes. And so should you!

  • paulejb

    rbwwinla@11.7,

    Did you notice from the charts that the bottom 50% can make up to $33,000 without incurring any federal income taxes. Not exactly poverty level, rbww.

  • rdw56

    If Obama has such a strong hand why wasn’t he able to raise taxes 1% on just millionaires. Joe is among the thong of old MSM dogs who were certain once Obama increased domestic spending we’d like the new services and vote to pay for them. It’s called being out of touch.

    Joe refuses to grasp we live in the age of Reagan, not FDR. The New Deal has been proven to be a disaster extending the depression. We know big govt doesn’t work. RR averaged 7.7% growth and added 5M jobs the 1st 18 months of the 83 recovery. Obama did exactly the wrong think in increasing spending. We are not going to consider tax increases until spending is lowered to 20% of GDP.

    The political fact of life is the GOP leadership can’t cut a deal on taxes because they can’t deliver the numbers. The TP controls the house.

  • rdw56

    I think it is fair to ask those who have the most to pick up the biggest part of the burden don’t you?

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

    That’s why a flat tax with no exemptions makes so much more sense. The rich would pay a lot more. What you can’t get your head around is the fact the least progressive the tax rates the more progressive the tax collections. The rich can time incomes and show it in various forms. They get to game this system. When rates are low the incentive to game income is low and they declare more income. When tax rates are high they defer income in a variety of ways and invest in non-taxable assets and tax dodges like real estate. The tax lawyers aren’t working for the middle class. They’re using their magic for the rich.

  • rdw56

    They didn’t mind paying high taxes because they understood, having grown up during the depression, that government spending made our country stronger.

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

    They did so you twit. They raised rates supposedly to end the depression. We now know they turned a recession into the depression. It wasn’t a depression in Europe or Canada. One of the reasons Reagan was so strong on lowering rates is he saw how rich people reacted. Most either stopped working or started working more on getting their income under the table. Reagan himself did what the other top actors did. They made only 3 pictures a year and started investing in real estate. Reagan lived the stupidity of 90% rates and 70% rates.

  • freeinpa

    “Random notes”

    Definition- at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way

    JK titled his post correctly: without aim; in a haphazard way.

    JK in a nutshell:

  • rdw56

    Today’s tax payers are by and large the same kids who grew up during the Reagan era of “me first and (blank) everybody else.

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

    You are not far from an epiphany, Put another way we live in the age of Reagan where 70% rates are folly and the thought government bureaucrats can spend our money better than we can is apostasy. Pity Obama didn’t listen to Larry Summers and do a decent job designing the stimulus. There are programs that can be stimulative but he missed too many of them. Of course we can all see with our own eyes the stimulus didn’t stimulate.

    The Obama administration will not be without what will be for liberals towering ironies. His defense and national security policies are to the right of GWB. After aggressively opposing everything as a Senator he made them the law of the land now approved by both parties. His economic policies have further tarnished the concept of Big Govt managing the economy to a new generation. He’s created the largest and most powerful 3rd party movement in our history. A party so large and so savvy it doesn’t form a central leadershp but stays grass roots. Why put up a 3rd party slate to split the vote when you can become the majority of the majority party?

    How cool is it the reason Obama could not raise taxes 1% on even millionaires is the grass roots movement he created?

    A little math. To be 30 in 1980, the children of those who suffered the depression and to experience 1st hand the stagflation and incompetence of Carter to then witness the even more stunning success of Reagan is to know 70% tax rates are a crime against nature and the best govt is small govt. Those 30-yr olds are now 60. Obama has now proven to a new generation what their parents told them about tax and spend liberals.

    The age of FDR has long passed. What was dogma for 50 years, the New Deal ended the depression, is now example of bad propaganda. Old war horses like Joe and the extreme left still believe but the mainstream view is the Reagan legacy.

    There will eventually be an agreement to raise some tax rates but not until AFTER spending is cut and we are certain to get it back to 19%-20% of GDP.

  • rdw56

    I’m pretty sure that the idiot meme is that multi-millionaires and billionaires are going to pass on taking that next million if it is taxed at three percentage points more than the previous million. But please feel free to explains the economics of it.

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

    I’ll help you. It’s quite simple. They’re not going to pass up a dime. They’re just not going to declare it. One of the great liberal icons is Warren Buffett. Worth in the area of $50B. Warren famously ONLY takes $100K a year in income. Warren famously was separated from his wife for 30 years not getting divorced while living in different states.

    Want to know why?

    T A X E S!!!!!!

    Warren is your classic liberal. Taxes are for other people to pay. Divorce is a tax event. So what you do is spin off a little $3B trust and put your wife in charge. A $3B trust had to distribute no less than $150M each year. Ya think handing out $150M to cultural programs made Suzie Buffet popular in San Francisco? Ya think? Do you know what Warren paid in taxes to set up that trust? ZERO!!!!! Where do you think her annual salary came from? How about housing expenses? Private jet expenses?

    Let’s get to Warren and his $100K salary. Famous for having the same house in Iowa for 40 years he’s kind of shy in talking about the $4.5M vacation home in California and then there’s that $15M jet he owns he at least proves his sense of humor naming ‘indefensible”. It is astonishing how that man has been able to stretch that $100K a year and still as he says frequently, “pay less taxes than his secretary”. That no doubt is a true statement.

    What liberals cannot get their thick heads around is the difference between what Warren declares as income and what he actually makes. You will find the same is true for Gates, Walton, Dell, Jobs, Michael Moore, Speilberg, Streisand, Jagger, Jay Rockerfeller, Bill Clinton, etc.

    For such an honest and forthright liberal as Warren Buffet he had declared less than 1% of his income. Not that he’s greedy. Not that he doesn’t have total confidence Obama would spend his money wisely. This is one case when you ignore what a man does and listen to what he says. Well, if you are a total moron.

  • freeinpa

    “No need. So far, other than my dog, you’re the only one who thinks I’m god-like”
    .
    No I think you are an a$s. I said you have a god-like complex. Quite different.
    .
    “I’m pretty sure those hacks making $250,000 – over 7 times what I make – can stand to give a little something extra”
    .
    Now you are at the heart of the matter- wealth envy! ANd who are you are any other liberal to say what someone can “stand to give”. It is the imbecilic entitlement mentality like yours that has our spending through the roof.
    .
    Give something extra? I would say since the top 25% already pay 86% of federal taxes they have given something extra.

  • rdw56

    rdw – upper hand? Not in NYS.

    Republicans, Take A Lesson From New York
    Share8 Share Post Print
    February 14, 2011 Posted by John at 7:07 PM

    Those are words I never thought I’d write. But Governor Andrew Cuomo has taken a hard line on that state’s budget crisis, and the New York Post headlines that Cuomo now has a 77 percent approval rating, the highest yet recorded by the Siena poll for a Governor of New York. The Post, which might be expected to know better, writes:

    Gov. Cuomo is backed by an astronomical 77 percent of New York voters, despite a rancid economy and a cut-to-the-bone state budget plan that could lead to 10,000 state workers being laid off, a new poll out this morning shows.

    Despite?! No! it is precisely because Cuomo has proposed what voters perceive as a “cut-to-the-bone state budget plan” that includes laying off state employees that 77 percent are backing him. The time is right for Republicans to confront demagoguery head-on. Voters understand that we are facing a fiscal crisis, and that the Democrats in Washington have no intention of doing anything about it.

  • rdw56

    They don’t mind raising taxes on the wealthy, or cutting the pentagon budget”

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

    Joe is so liberal. He and almost all of the MSM have been saying this since forever and have been wrong. It’s old time marxist class warfare ideology. This old farts are all ivy league products of the 60′s who think they’re in the mainstream. What makes it so much worse today is these deficits are so huge they can raise taxes to 90% on the wealthy and it won’t close the deficit. Cutting the defense budget 20% won’t lower the deficit much more than 10%.

    Spending in this budget is an astonomical 25% of GDP. It’s not going to sell.

blog comments powered by Disqus