national debt

On This Week, Republican candidate John McCain defends his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts: He opposed them because they weren't combined with spending cuts.

But he would push through his own tax cuts, even without spending cuts.

Straight talk? Ha!

And you have to hear him defend his embracing of his own controversial pastor's endorsement. More straight talk there, too. Yep.

Yes I mock, though I think the nervous liar's giggle was probably genuine.

Video.

[Memo to George: I note that McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, either. So why didn't you ask that, too, if it's such an important issue?]

Apparently being poor in America means going out to eat, living a comfortable life, but perhaps having to cope with an "old car" or a "black-and-white television" -- as opposed to back in the '50s, when people had to live "modest lives."

Apparently there's no "net" cost to globalization borne by America. On the whole, it's not like anybody is suffering, right? Right?

Apparently "centralization of power" -- of which O'Rourke claims to be suspicious -- does not include the multinational conglomerates that run our government and have quite a bit of power, thank you very much.

Apparently there is no real poverty in America. Apparently the disappearance of the middle class didn't happen because apparently there never was a middle class -- just people living "modest lives."

Apparently we're supposed to be happy because we're better off than Lebanon and Russia.

Apparently there is no economic basis for requiring trading partners to follow similar rules about the environment or child labor.

This from the white male living in his suburban house in the suburbs, enjoying what -- six-figure income? Seven? What does P.J. O'Rourke know about poverty in America?

Obviously not much.

mp3

It doesn't sound like much of a strategy. Frankly it scares the hell out of me that Mr. President is so twisted stiff about Iraq that he'll risk breaking the Army and leaving our country unable to respond to any threats to our national security and/or vital interests elsewhere in the world.

For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of about 20,000 additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to include pumping $1 billion into Iraq's economy, is the answer for a more than 3 1/2-year-old war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

The administration plans to expand an existing program to decentralize reconstruction efforts. Ten units known as Provincial Reconstruction Teams will be expanded to 19, with the additional units based in Baghdad and in Anbar province, seats of most of the worst violence. The teams, under State Department control, will administer some of the economic aid, including an effort to provide small loans to start or expand businesses.

Senator Ted Kennedy says that Congress should vote on this troop surge.

“The president’s speech must be the beginning – not the end – of a new national discussion of our policy in Iraq,” Kennedy said. “Congress must have a genuine debate over the wisdom of the president’s plan. Let us hear the arguments for it and against it. Then let us vote on it in the light of day.”

Asked whether the supplemental spending request would provide a vehicle for his legislative proposal, Kennedy replied, “The horse will be out of the barn by the time we get there.” Although the request is expected to reach Capitol Hill next month, Congress typically spends months working on such spending proposals. Kennedy said immediate action is needed to forestall the troop surge.

With our nation perhaps more vulnerable and unprepared for foreign (non-nuclear) threats since perhaps World War I, maybe such a vote would be a good idea. The President has the Constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign policy, but when he endangers the entire nation in pursuit of an escalation of a failed policy, it's in our national interest to try to avoid that.

If the President persists in spilling our national blood, treasure -- and yes, international political and moral capital -- in the middle of Iraq's civil war (or "sectarian violence," take your pick), then perhaps impeachment should be seriously considered by the don't-rock-the-boat-too-much Democrats.

(For the record, I believe that if Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about fellatio, George W. Bush can and should be impeached for lying about Iraq and leading America into a quagmire. I don't think it will happen, but if Bush further risks our national security by over-extending our military even more, then we all should be asking, "Why not?!")

"No Surge" icon is from these T-Shirts. Very clever.

Now that the GOP hogfest at the pork trough is over, the profligate President Bush has decided to play at being a fiscal conservative:

President Bush on Wednesday challenged Democrats taking over Congress to join him in balancing the budget within five years and urged them to cut thousands of pet projects from future spending bills.

Whose "pet projects" is he talking about? After all, the Republicans have been running Congress. Does he really want to cut all the Republican "pet projects"? Will the profligate Republicans still in office go along with axing their earmarks?

Of course, since they were too busy -- or just plain lazy -- to be bothered with passing any spending bills for the 2007 fiscal year, the Democratic-run Congress will have to mop up the mess from last year's Republican-run Congress as well.

Dr. S sums it up well:

He talks about balancing the federal budget without mentioning that he was handed a balanced budget when he took office, mentions No Child Left Behind without mentioning what a failure that is, and mentions the USA PATRIOT Act (let’s not forget it’s a clever acronym) without mentioning what an affront it is to the principles upon which this great nation was founded.

The Bush cheerleaders have suddenly gotten the balanced budget religion, too. They love their hero.

As we knows, Democrats are only committed to increasing their power, not working with Republicans for the greater good.

And Cheney, Ney, DeLay, Abramoff, Libby, Bush, et al. are all selfless public servants. Uh huh.

TexasFreds has a more honest response:

Bush must be drinking again… A balanced budget?? In 5 years?? And he has 2 years left?? And he expects a Dem controlled Congress to spend LESS money than his Republican controlled Congress spent?? Maybe he’s NOT drinking, looks more like he has just lost his mind…

As Capitol Hill Blue reports, Bush also wants to make his tax cuts for the rich permanent. The corporate executives need a break, ya know?

In the Chicago Tribune Swamp, Mark Silva writes:

Bush took aim at "dead-of-the-night'' budget deals that funnel billions of dollars to special projects without any oversight, and he vowed that the government will produce a balanced budget by 2012 -- four years after he leaves office.

Bush is good at that -- starting things he can't finish. One might say it's his specialty.

Frankly, I'm surprised Bush even brought the subject up. After all, we had not only a balanced budget, but a budget surplus, when Bush took office. And now he wants the Democrats to clean up after his mess.

Just like the Democratic leadership of Bill Clinton led to the cleaning up of the similar budgetary mess left by Ronald Reagan and George the Elder, even while the GOP-run House was obsessing over The Blow Job.

President Bush today crowed over the "success" of having given the wealthy a pass on financing his rapidly growing national debt.

"Cutting your taxes worked," Bush said. "Unfortunately, the Democrats are still determined to raise your taxes, and if they gain control of the Congress, they can do so without lifting a finger."

Bush said taxes are a huge issue in the Nov. 7 election. He said the tax cuts orchestrated by his administration have left more money in the hands of workers, families and small businesses — money they have used to sustain a bustling economy.

Actually, the vast bulk of the GOP's tax cuts went to the GOP's "base": the millionaires and billionaires. Workers, families and small businesses got the crumbs of the tax relief cake ... if anything.

Tax Cuts for "the haves and the have mores"

When President Bush goats, "You're my base: the haves and the have mores," when talking to a roomfull of the wealthiest people in America — the Republicans' fundraising base — it's should be no surprise to anyone but the news media that average folks like you and me have not seen much upside from tax relief for the Donald Trumps and Paris Hiltons of the world.

Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy:

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

Tax Burden Shifting off Wealthy onto Everyone Else

$197 Billion in Tax Cuts to Top 1% of US Taxpayers as Big as States’ Budget Shortfalls of $200 Billion

...The report identifies five main areas of shifting tax burden:

FEDERAL TO STATE — a 15% shift in tax burden between 2000 and 2003

PROGRESSIVE TO REGRESSIVE — at the federal level, a 17% decline in the share of revenue from progressive taxes and a 135% increase in the share of revenue from regressive taxes since 1962

WEALTH TO WORK — A tax cut on unearned income — such as inheritance or investment — of between 31% and 79%, but a tax hike on work income of 25% since 1980

CORPORATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS — a 67% drop in the share of federal revenues contributed by corporations and a 17% rise in individuals’ share

CURRENT TAXPAYERS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS — record deficits that shift the tax burden to our children and grandchildren

“When President Bush and Congress trumpet, ‘Here’s a tax cut', we say, ‘Taxpayer beware!’ said Chuck Collins, United for a Fair Economy co-founder. “Unless you are super-rich, it’s a tax SHIFT, not a cut. Non-wealthy taxpayers will pay for these tax cuts with increased state and local taxes or cuts in public services.”

Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich

• Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated togwb0602a.gif - 10559 Bytes receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
• By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
• ...
• As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

The Spiraling National Debt Threatens the Economy

Debating the tax cuts:

If the government still is running big budget deficits when businesses are trying to borrow money to expand, then companies could find themselves competing for funds with Washington, an effect economists call "crowding out."

According to a Federal Reserve study in May 2003, interest rates could rise a quarter percentage point for every projected one-point increase in the ratio of the federal deficit to gross domestic product. A big jump in interest rates would put the brakes on the economy by raising the cost of borrowing.

More recently, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the International Monetary Fund and other critics have warned big deficits could fuel higher interest rates and financial disruption.

The notion that what amounts to reckless credit-card spending on the part of Bush and the Republican Congress might actually not make good economic sense is something the Republicans don't want to hear. Instead, they continue to claim that if the wealthy are more well-to-do, then the rest of us will benefit. How is always vague. Bigger tips for waitresses? More demand for limousine drivers and shoeshine boys? More positions for nannies, maids and gardeners? Yes, giving the wealthy yet more tax advantages could definitely benefit the servant class.

But what about working families?

Slowdown is Here Already. Is the Remedy More of the Same?

And now, despite the escalating speculation of the investor class in the stock market, the economy is stalling:

The
Commerce Department reported Friday that economic growth during the July-to-September period clocked in at an annual rate of just 1.6 percent — a subpar performance that mostly reflected the deepening housing slump. Investment in homebuilding was cut by the largest amount in 15 years.

The cause? A record drop in the housing market:

Economic growth in the third quarter was well below Wall Street forecasts for a 2.2 percent increase and reflected a range of influences that combined to slow the economy.

The report showed a striking 17.4 percent annual rate of decrease in spending on new housing - the biggest decline in 15-1/2 years.

In addition, growth in business spending on inventories slowed to only a $50.7 billion rate, subtracting 0.1 percentage point from GDP growth, and the value of imported goods accelerated sharply to a 7.8 percent annual rate of increase in the third quarter, more than three times the second quarter's 1.4 percent increase.

If the economy is doing so well, why are so many families having their mortgages foreclosed and their homes taken away? Why can't people afford to live at the level they did just a few years ago?

By contrast, the GDP report showed business investment remained healthy and consumers picked up their spending pace.

Nonresidential investment, which measures business spending, rose at an 8.6 percent annual rate in the third quarter, close to double the second quarter's 4.4 percent. Consumer spending, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of national economic activity, increased at a 3.1 percent rate, up from 2.6 percent in the second quarter.

Yes, but where are these companies investing? Malaysia? India? China?

Meanwhile, how are consumers paying for all their spending? Credit cards? Borrowing against the homes they cannot sell?

Passing Debt on to Others (i.e., your children)

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.62 billion per day since September 30, 2005!

Maybe it's time we measured economic vitality on more than Dick Cheney's investment portfolio.