"Strange Negotiations" - David Bazan
You blew all your inheritance
And now you're trying to pin the blame on me
And I could write you off so easily
Except a hundred million other people agree
A song for the times if ever there was one.
- So maybe Richard Cohen and David Brooks read this blog after all. After writing about the abdication of the mainstream media with respect to the incredibly extremism of the Republican Party, I awoke today to virtually twin columns from two of America's more annoying "moderates" and found both of them denouncing the Republican Party in unusually robust terms. It will be interesting to see if this trend lasts and spreads. I actually think stuff like this matters -- if the theme of collective madness within the GOP actually takes hold as a kind of conventional mainstream media wisdom it could prove helpful in the upcoming budget battles and the 2012 election. I'm not holding my breath, but will watch with interest over the next few weeks.
- A law professor of mine once noted that all legal arguments entail a moment where one "puts the bunny in the hat" so to speak. This article bemoaning the fate of families earning $250,000 a year, shows a nice sense of that sleight of hand, arguing, as it does, that most of these families, even when living relatively modest lives, somehow end up in the red over the course of a year "after taxes, saving for retirement and their children's education." Did you see how they did that? So what is the assumption in the article -- that the couple at issue "take[s] advantage of all tax benefits available to them, such as pretax contributions to 401(k) plans and medical, childcare and transportation flexible spending accounts." So in other words, this couple is tucking away the maximum 401(k) contribution for both of them, i.e. $16,500 a year, and they are "squirreling away $8,000 a year for their kids' ("a toddler and a school-aged child") college education." In other words, our oppressed couple is saving $51,000 a year -- roughly equivalent to the median household income in the United States. They also have 20% equity in their home and are making mortgage payments on it, by which more equity is being acquired each month. In short, these people are on their way to a seven figure net worth, even in a mediocre investment environment, in a relatively short time -- probably about fifteen years. In a good investment environment, that $33,000 a year in 401(k) contributtions (assuming no employer match), and $16,000 in college savings, presumably in a section 529 account, is going to result in substantial and growing investment income -- all of which will accumulate tax free (along with the tax deferred contributions). Assuming, based on the age of their children, that this couple is in their mid-thirties to early forties, they look to be in a position to retire with a couple of million dollars and a fully paid off house. Is this really where we are going waste our sympathies. And aren't these people receiving enough advantages from the tax code?
What else is going on out there?
And aren't these people receiving enough advantages from the tax code?
Two words -- constituent service. The stinking rich, while powerful, still don't have all the votes they need to put together a government. They need allies.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | July 05, 2011 at 06:44 PM
As one of these people, I can at least assure that not all of us are in cahoots with the rich.
But I can't see this kind of pity for those of us who are able to accumulate real assets -- with huge help from the tax code. (Being over 50, I am now allowed to squirrel away $22,000 a year with a huge tax break, plus the earnings on the 401(k)-- this article totally overlooks how much this sets this group (moi included) from the average American.)
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 06:56 PM
i have an internet crush on cohen -- love that link.
brooks, not quite as much, but what's not to love about "The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency", or "If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern. And they will be right."
we've never gotten anywhere close to the $250,000 mark -- nor have we always had the means to take advantage of tax-beneficial retirement savings, nevermind the college savings yadda. but we're still very fortunate, and don't mind taxes.
everybody should just stfu about taxing rich people, except those who are pointing out that the across-board ban on taxation measures really only benefits the very very rich. i cannot think of any reasoned argument against taxing them at higher rates than poor and middle class people pay.
Posted by: kathy a. | July 05, 2011 at 07:49 PM
My husband and I are well-paid, and while we can and do take advantage of tax-deferred savings, we're still taxed at a high rate because we have no deductions. Commies that we are, we shrug, quote Holmes' line about taxes being the price of civilization, and go on our merry way.
Posted by: Beckya57a | July 05, 2011 at 09:01 PM
P.S. I always find it interesting that the rich folks envying the "lucky duckies" who don't make enough to pay income tax (those people still pay a lot of other taxes) never volunteer to join them.
Posted by: Beckya57a | July 05, 2011 at 09:11 PM
kathy,
I suspect that you are confusing your Cohens -- this is Richard of the Post, who is often really horrible. I believe that you might instead fancy Roger Cohen, who writes, fairly admirably, for the New York Times. He had a recent column about New York and 9/11 that drew a lot of praise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03cohen.html?ref=rogercohen
becky,
We have a lot of deductions because of a large mortgage and DC's high income tax and property values. But each year AMT really takes a bite out of the value of those.
Not that I'm complaining. I think there should be a cap on those kinds of deductions. Hell, if the Dems don't agree to "fix" AMT and let the Bush tax cuts expire, a whole lot of revenue will be generated. (Of course, AMT is a classic blue state tax, affecting people by and large in high tax, high property value states. I am pretty sure if you picked the ten states with the highest percentage of AMT payers, they would all be states that voted for Obama in 2008.)
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 09:16 PM
no, it was just a one-column crush. i thought it was really great for someone who does not usually do this kind of thing.
Posted by: kathy a. | July 05, 2011 at 09:23 PM
becky,
As I suspected, according to this article,
http://economic-legislation.blogspot.com/2011/04/alternative-minimum-taxpayers-by-state.html
the places with the highest percentage of AMT payers are New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, DC, and Maryland -- all Obama states.
And the five lowest states are Tennessee, Alaska, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Alabama, among the reddest states out there.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 09:25 PM
kathy,
I believe that is more akin to an embarrassing one-nighter that was surprisingly good. :-)
becky,
Reading further about the AMT, it really is a classic "professionals" tax -- one that will have a huge impact on couples making between $200,000 and $500,000, affecting 92% of them, while affecting less than half of those in the $1 million and up category.
In a relatively short time, AMT, left as it is, will generate more revenue than the ordinary income tax.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/upload/Elements/II-4KEYELEMENTS_AlternativeMinimumTax.final.pdf
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 09:35 PM
Ah, seek and ye shall find.
According to this report from 2005-06 from the Congressional Research Service, the following are the top ten states in terms of percentage of AMT payers:
1. New Jersey
2. New York
3. Connecticut
4. District of Columbia
5. Maryland
6. California
7. Massachusetts
8. Virginia
9. Rhode Island
10. Minnesota
As I suspected, each one an Obama state (although Virginia is not very blue -- I suspect though that almost every AMT payer lives in the blue Virginia counties.)
The low ten AMT states:
1. South Dakota
2. Mississippi
3. Tennessee
4. Alaska
5. Alabama
6. North Dakota
7. West Virginia
8. Wyoming
9. Louisiana
10. New Mexico
Okay, nine out of ten is pretty good.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22083_20080715.pdf
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 10:03 PM
I always feel like there is some weird sort of mathematical misunderstanding that causes people to feel like everything added up together really *ought to* equal somewhat less than the total. As if that even made sense. If someone really had a high income, than after adding up spending and saving, there would be a little extra left over, neither spent nor saved. Instead, someone who spends twice what a just-ordinarily-financially-successful person earns and then saves more than that ordinary person earns finds there is *just nothing left over* so, there you go, just marginally getting by.
I think I see this same thing in other contexts, too. It seems like this is some sort of widespread cognitive quirk, that people somehow quite frequently end up feeling that if you add everything up, it just should not equal the total, there ought to be some extra somehow.
Posted by: Beige | July 05, 2011 at 10:07 PM
Beige,
I think you're correct.
I think that the way I would describe it is there is this tendency in most people -- certainly as I experienced it -- to live up to whatever your income is. There is, up to a point, always something more to spend money on. But, if one has the luxury of making a point of including in that "spending" making the maximum contribution to a 401(k) every year, one may feel like there isn't much left over, but voila, at some point you've tucked away a boat load of money -- which, of course, completely distinguishes one from the great mass of Americans.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 10:34 PM
On the other hand, given that AMT has never been adjusted for inflation the day is coming when everyone will be subject to it (except of course for the very wealthiest that it was originally created to make sure would have to actually pay some income tax instead of zero, as was happening at the time and unless I'm much mistaken is now happening again).
Posted by: oddjob | July 05, 2011 at 10:38 PM
oddjob,
Ideally AMT would be reformed because of what you say -- and the patch for it would include some much more progressive taxation on things like capital gains and dividends and income over $500,000 -- although higher tax levels are probably needed on a pretty broad swath of the citizenry.
I think the fact that AMT is going to expand as you say is probably the greatest leverage for those in favor of reasonable levels of taxation -- although it is more than a little galling that playing this bluff by and large hurts people in Democratic states.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 10:53 PM
I'm guessing that the only reason my home state of Washington isn't on the top 10 AMT list is because we (insanely) have no state income tax. We certainly have a lot of Dem high earning professional types.
Posted by: beckya57 | July 05, 2011 at 11:10 PM
becky,
I was shocked to see how low Washington was on the list -- 32 -- whereas Oregon was at 11, more or less where I expected.
But yeah, the absence of an income tax -- in DC it's 9% -- would do that.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 05, 2011 at 11:22 PM
Washington papers were writing editorials about our absurd tax structure and recommending an income tax be adopted before we moved here--in 1985.
Posted by: beckya57 | July 05, 2011 at 11:48 PM
I liked Atrios' take on the whole thing:
And as one who's also in the age and income bracket where I'm taking full advantage, I concur with the ridiculousness of the whole meme of "if you sock away as much money as possible in a bunch of tax shelters the government designed especially for folks like you, it's a shame that somehow you don't have money coming out the wazoo to spend on fripperies as well."
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | July 06, 2011 at 05:33 AM
I think the fact that AMT is going to expand as you say is probably the greatest leverage for those in favor of reasonable levels of taxation
When I graduated from Penn State in 1981 a starting salary of $25,000 was a very handsome beginning salary, the sort of starting salary earned by then highly sought after computer science graduates. Now it's what a waiter earns in Boston and not close to enough to get by on one's own here.
IIRC when the AMT was instituted in '69 it was levied on people earning more than $50K in adjusted income, something that at the time was only earned by the very wealthiest people.
Given what's happened to the $25K salary during the last three decades my guess is that by the time I'm 80 or 85 an annual salary of $50K will be what a struggling waiter in Boston earns and not remotely close to an income on which one can live on one's own here.
At that point if the AMT hasn't been properly addressed its existence will be an obsenity.
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 09:19 AM
A long-out-of-work editor friend of mine in NYC recently moaned that after four years of looking, she still hasn't found a job. She casually mentioned that she's looking for a minimum of $55/hr, "so they know I'm willing to take anything I can get at this point."
When did $100,000 become starting salary?
I must not live right.
Posted by: Paula B | July 06, 2011 at 10:10 AM
I just took a peek at the Obama Twitter Town Hall and may barf. Republicans have co-opted it with snark, and real questions are about junk like legalizing pot. We're doomed.
Political debate is a circus, not even a fun one.
Posted by: Paula B | July 06, 2011 at 11:57 AM
l-t c,
I meant to give Atrios a hat tip on this -- not that he needs it. But, yeah, he put rather pithily what I was trying to get at. But being a lawyer I like to actually prove the case a bit more.
oddjob,
I do think AMT will need to be addressed. But it should be used for maximum leverage on other things.
$25,000 was my starting salary as a lawyer in 1985. Even then that was not really a princely sum -- the corporate kids were getting about $50,000 a year, which then quickly jumped to about $65,000 within a year or two of that.
Paula,
I can't really imagine being out of work for that long and holding out for that kind of money -- especially when you realize that the longer you don't work the less employable you are.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Quick 'open' on Michelle Bachmann's new found love of John Quincy Adams -- from the Las Vegas Gleaner, another of the great Nevada blogs.
What a hero for the TP!
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | July 06, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Prup----Maybe she's converted?
Posted by: Paula B | July 06, 2011 at 12:31 PM
SC - After 9 years of blogging, Atrios is clearly getting a bit tired of hearing himself say the same things over and over again, but sufficiently pissed that the need to say them is stronger than ever that he's willing to do it anyway.
He's boiled it all down to these short blurbs, and I get the feeling that a lot of people tend to overlook him nowadays. But those blurbs are generally right on target. He's still one of my essential reads every day.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | July 06, 2011 at 01:48 PM
Geithner can go or stay ... the damage is done
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 01:57 PM
l-t c,
Atrios was my gateway drug into the blogosphere and remains the first thing I read most days, even if he sometimes seems to land in the Hamsher-Greenwald camp more than I would like.
But he is really pithy, has been right on almost everything of importance, and is also quite funny as well.
Jim,
The Michelle Bachmann - JQA thing is inexplicable. A high tariff, big government guy (for his day), a diplomat, and an intellectual -- I would guess that of all the people to occupy the White House, only Jefferson, Madison, and possibly his own father, had his intellectual firepower. (That he served as the secretary to the American Representative to Russia at the age of 14 is just one of the remarkable things he did.)
Alas, like his father, he did not believe in the efficacy of party politics (and had the same puritanical lack of charm seemingly), leaving him largely a noble, but ineffective presence in the Oval Office.
His service for 17 years in the House, where he was a tireless opponent of slavery, after his presidency ended is one of the most noble feats of public service in the history of the Republic.
One of the things that puzzles me is how as a young man I could have bought into the notion that Andrew Jackson was a superior person to JQA.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 02:06 PM
...As it happens, the willingness of the rich to defend their wealth from taxation to the point of national ruin is nothing new in world history, as Francis Fukuyama recounts in his magisterial new book The Origins of Political Order....
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 02:17 PM
"House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), talking to reporters two weeks ago:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), talking to reporters this morning:
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 02:23 PM
...Welcome to Austerity in America. We can afford tax breaks for millionaires, but can’t afford five-day school weeks.
I often think about a story President Obama told a while back, after he returned from a trip to East Asia. He shared an anecdote about a luncheon he attended with the president of South Korea.
Yes, used to be....
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 02:32 PM
It's a shame he doesn't have, I don't know what you'd call it, a pulpit, perhaps, from which to speak to this issue.
Alright, unfair and Hamsheresque, but I am in a bad mood.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 02:58 PM
Sir C, It's not unfair. I understand that the public is on the side of austerity, but in 1939, the public strongly favored isolationism. FDR, at every opportunity, deftly moved the conversation and policy, building support for interventionism along the way. This Administration has done none of that type of spadework to make room for Keynsian solutions. Either the Administration believes in austerity or is politically inept. I think the first answer is the correct one.
Posted by: Joe S | July 06, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Obama prevented himself from using Keynesian solutions pretty much as soon as he selected his economic team.
Posted by: oddjob | July 06, 2011 at 04:24 PM
That's not entirely true. Apparently, Romer pushed hard for Keynsian solutions and, amazingly Larry Summers (who I'm not a big fan of) understood the crisis as a liquidity trap. Certainly Jared Bernstein knew what was what. Those voices, for whatever reason, were not heeded. I don't think we can really blame it on the political circumstances either. There were always things which could have been done (like further payroll tax cuts and what not) and the Federal Reserve could have done things to increase the velocity of money.
Posted by: Joe S | July 06, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Sir C--"I am in a bad mood." Maybe a little Pantha du Prince would help. Music was a 'Mother's Day' gift to me, and it's become my go-to pick-up. By the time you get to Behind the Stars, you could be up and dancing. :)
Also, one can actually multi-task to this----in a good way. LCD on a-very-mellow day-ish. Actually, Tyler Pope guests on one track.
The more ghoulish the GOP becomes, the more I need some tunes.
Posted by: nancy | July 06, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Well, I think that ARRA was certainly the attempt to use a Keynsian solution to the problem.
As I see it, the economic team, and particularly Summers, were overly optimistic about the prospects for recovery and viewed stimulus as more of a safety measure than an absolute necessity. Hence the overly small bill and the one shot nature of the effort.
In the end, I think Obama bowed too easily to political difficulty -- which was genuine -- thinking that the recovery was going to occur anyway. He shares culpability with his economic advisers for this.
Of course, since the 2010 elections, there isn't a whole lot that he could do, but I think he should be fighting for Keynsian action, rather than trying to co-opt the politics of austerity. Having said that, it is not clear to me that the public really understands the issue in a way that would be useful.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 05:02 PM
Evidently Obama agrees with me:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/obama-i-underestimated-magnitude-of-the-recession.php?ref=fpa
Interesting. And kind of refreshing, if frustrating as well.
nancy,
I'll have to give a listen. Music indeed does wonders, although I am drawn to stuff like Dave Bazan, which doesn't always improve the mood.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 05:27 PM
nancy,
He sounds like he grew up listening to Kraftwerk and Brian Eno.
I'm just listening to "Stick to My Side" right now -- very interesting sound.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Nancy -- definitely invigorating sound. Thanks!
Posted by: Paula B | July 06, 2011 at 06:06 PM
Paula, Sir C--Courtesy of my son, the once upon a time serious French horn player. One never knows about these things. I think there's a topic discussion possible though, similar to the previous one about summer reading lists: The music one takes along on the ride, while heading toward the looming cliff.
Most discussed right now, by young persons, over a beer, in Seattle is "Why are we only hearing about the debt ceiling? Hello? Anyone care about us?" So their soundtracks might be surprising.
Posted by: nancy | July 06, 2011 at 06:55 PM
re: music one takes along on the ride, while heading toward the looming cliff.
I'd like the Brahms' Requiem, or Dobie Gray's Drift Away. Either one. Maybe both.
Posted by: Paula B | July 06, 2011 at 07:08 PM
nancy,
Tell them that raising the debt ceiling has always been a perfunctory political act -- oh the Dems made mischief with it a bit, voting against it when it was sure to pass as a protest against Republican irresponsibility, but the political class has always been responsible enough -- until now -- to realize that a threatened default on the debt was nuts.
The debt ceiling has been raised more times than I care to think during our lives -- pretty much without a hint of controversy.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 06, 2011 at 07:43 PM
the debt ceiling is partly just the boogy-man du jour -- a diversion from the anti-job, anti-worker, anti-old-and-sick-people policies that the Grand Old Farts have to offer substantively, and also a diversion from how the fuck we got to this debt mess anyway.
but some of these people are so freaking overboard that they personally would not mind ruining the credit of the nation, such is their devotion. ayn rand and everyone who thinks she hung the moon have a lot to answer for. ayn herself is already dead, which makes it easier for her.
Posted by: kathy a. | July 06, 2011 at 07:52 PM
in good open-thread news -- DADT is history, baby! or close to it.
Posted by: kathy a. | July 06, 2011 at 08:08 PM
kathy, SirC--re the debt ceiling "crisis"--I'm reminded of the "spike strips" deployed by law enforcement to impede a vehicle from going forward. Strips get thrown down, and if you back up, your tires are shredded and rendered useless. The Dems keep backing up over the spike strips thrown down by the crazy GOP who only want to blow out the tires and bring things to a permanent halt. Not to mention the tires are now shredded and have to be replaced. Middle class pays the repair bills, of course.
Posted by: nancy | July 06, 2011 at 08:32 PM
well, i'm passing teh chips and guacamole, some small sandwiches and other snacks, and some modestly-priced adult beverages, because people just talk better with a little nourishment.
this might be a good time to share our feelings about the debt ceiling with, for example, every congresscritter we can think of.
Posted by: kathy a. | July 06, 2011 at 10:10 PM
joe, i incline toward the obama was politically inept about stimulus, but the last few months do make me wonder. even his ineptitude, as SC points out, was relative. he knew enough to go for stimulus. presumably he was pushing for QE. but he is personally austere (something i, the don't walk on your mortgage just cause you can rationalize it guy) get, but don't approve of writ large. i doubt obama thinks that austerity will make things grow, but his personal austerity seems to limit his ability to call for big things. a call for big things---college, trains, bridges, wind and solar, lots of others---which could be balanced by saying we all do this for each other; you each hang tough for us. without him being willing to do the former, i understand, why the latter is less present than it once was
Posted by: big bad wolf | July 06, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Musically I am think Desolation Row or maybe the Gates of Eden.
I don't think the so-called public has a clue what is going on inside the beltway. Nobody is paying any attention to the center ring because the other two rings are taken up with clown car routines and a high wire act without a net. Meanwhile, outside the echo-chamber the rest of the world is saying WTF? And that don't stand for win the future.
From what little I know, I think the republicans have decided that throwing the world economy into chaos and wrecking the credit of the US is a perfectly fine outcome because #1 they are all rich and won't be affected, and #2 everyone will blame Obama.
In a kind of perverse way I hope they do drive us off a cliff. All the democrats and independents who can balance a check book but stayed home last election will get exactly what they deserve, the government they let morons elect. Obama may indeed be a one term president, I would quit if I were in his shoes. I'd drop the pretenses and give a farewell speech that really tells it like it is, but I don't think he is put together that way, sense of duty and all that happy bullshit. No sane person would want his job given the nature of the so called friendly opposition. Friendly my ass.
Let us now observe things from a realistic perspective if you please. We have seen unfold over the past 2 and 1/2 years what is probably the most egregiously partisan and pointless resistance to governing since the civil war. Indeed there are a few who would welcome even greater confrontation. Were the matter only ideological it would conform to many historical impasses which we could learn from. The parallels are obvious and striking. But it is not just that, graver things are taking place that we can only neglect at extreme peril.
The foremost thing is that the population of humans on this finit planet shows no signs of leveling off let alone receding to a level that might be sustainable for a few hundred years. Essentially no one is doing anything at all about that problem, yes a few places and a few people dedicate some interest, but in general unfettered human breeding is looked upon as a good thing. A god given right. It isn't.
Even more grave, we as a population have reached the point where our collective impact on earth's ecosphere is making fundamental changes that we can recognize but are but poorly equipped to understand. The evidence, such as it is, points to the highly probable result that the changes invoked by our immense lust for burning fossil carbon will make the earth's envioronment very different. The changes that will occur may in fact impact the entire global ecosystem.
So whilst we quibble over a financial construct that has no basis at all in reality, this insane upside down lunacy that we call capitalism, the earth is literally moving under our feet, slowly enough so that we can detect its directions only with great care and effort, but towards a kind of expurgation that makes our history of horrors almost comical.
The tremendous irony is that we alone among all the millions upon millions of species that have lived on earth, have found a method to both predict with moderate accuracy the future, and then take steps to adjust to it. It may only be a coincidence but human technology and science really took off about the time this republic was founded. Over three centuries we have found out many of the arcane and counter intuitive principles that rule the nature of reality as it passes through time.
It is good to be old.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | July 06, 2011 at 11:55 PM
I'm surprised there has been as little discussion or comparison of the Minnesota Government shutdown. The parallels are striking; a Democratic Executive who ran on increasing taxes on the wealthy and won, is unable to find any form of negotiation with a far-Right legislature, and who have shut the government down -- and are, of course, saying it is all Dayton's fault for not giving in.
Of course the Federal shutdown would have International Implications that Minnesotas does not, but I wonder how the eventual resuolution of the crisis will affect the Federal one.
That's one reason why I hope that any organization or union that can help put pressure on the Legislature and can mobilize the citizenry against them. But the main reason is the effect the situation is already having on Minnesotans.
From the Minnesota Star-Tribune of last Sunday:
The star-Trib has a lot more on the crisis if you click on the special section on "State Shutdown."
Can anyone tell me why I am the first to bring this up in detail?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | July 07, 2011 at 03:31 AM
Jim,
I haven't written about Minnesota because I don't feel I bring all that much knowledge about it and, I guess, what's going on seems soewhat self-evident. The Repubicans are wreckers with no sense of responsibility whatsoever. But I think you're right --- it's an important story in that the pure nihilism of the GOP is being played out writ small for all to see.
KN,
I don't really wish calamity on people who were too ignorant to understand the implications of voting Republican or not voting at all.
I do wish the President would take a shot at educating the public a bit about the implications of austerity in the coming moment. But the inside the Beltway meme about the need to cut the deficit seems to be overwhelming the narrative and he doesn't seem inclined to try to challenge it.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 07, 2011 at 09:16 AM
Sir C:
It is not just an important story, it may give us a clue as to how the story will play out in the 'center ring' of Washington. It also has indications as to how successful the Republicans will be in deflecting the blame for their onw recalcitrance to a 'bipartisan problem.'
But that's just the start. It raises questions about both the media and more about the blogosphere -- especially comparing the reaction towards Wisconsin and towards Minnesota. I don't think many people would have to ask who Scott Walker is -- he's got the full Snively Whiplash costume on, the 'boo' lights are plugged in, easy target. But how many people know who Mark Dayton is, how many people on our side are willing to celebrate a hero and not just boo a villain.
The thing is, after I posted last night, I was sure that people would hand me my head for having believed that the story was being ignored. Sure, Steve Benen, PFAW, and MMfA have barely mentioned it, but there would be daily updates and posts on C&L -- oops, they haven't even mentioned it since Sunday -- or somewhere in the blogosphere.
I'm still looking.
Meanwhile, while I have been one of the people who have been protesting the thought of Primarying Obama, if he fails as badly in this crisis as it looks like he's going to, and if Dayton wins his battles, I know which of them I'd vote for in 2012.
More on thias -- and happenings in other states -- later.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | July 07, 2011 at 10:24 AM
Meanwhile, in Texas:
Alto, Texas is preparing for a crime wave, after the small East Texas town put its entire police force on furlough…
In an effort to save money, the city has laid off its police chief and four police officers for six months — longer if Alto’s finances don’t improve.
In the meantime, the county sheriff’s department will take over law enforcement duties for the town of 1,200, according to the AP. The sheriff’s department is already responsible for policing the nearby city of Wells, which laid off its sole police officer last year.
Alto residents have every reason to fear a rise in crime will follow the police force’s departure. The town’s per-capita crime rate is already above the state average. There were 66 crimes in Alto last year, compared to 51 the previous year.
“Everybody’s talking about ‘bolt your doors, buy a gun,’ ” said Monty Collins, Alto’s mayor, who opposed the City Council vote to furlough police officers.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | July 07, 2011 at 10:28 AM
It's starting to sound more and more like the Romney years in Massachusetts. How do we get THAT story out?
Posted by: Paula B | July 07, 2011 at 10:52 AM
For those who love to read state budgets, all of Romney's proposed Massachusetts budgets and final versions are available at http://bit.ly/nC1QTb, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. In addition to the raw numbers, analysts offer their take on proposals, as well as look back on previous budgets and the impact of raising or lowering funding for various services.
Here's a snippet from the introduction to the 2005 budget-proposal overview, as reviewed by the MBPC on February 6, 2004:
“spending on essential services like education and public health has been cut dramatically. Over the last two years Massachusetts led the nation in cutting per pupil K-12 education funding. Public health funding has been
reduced by 27 percent over three years, causing the elimination of Massachusetts’ anti-smoking program
and deep cuts to substance abuse services, HIV/AIDS programs, domestic violence and sexual assault programs,
and family health programs. Altogether there have been approximately $3 billion of spending cuts since the fiscal crisis began.
“The second problem the Commonwealth must confront is that, as the fiscal year 2005 budget process begins, the state faces a structural budget gap of more than a billion dollars. That means that projected FY 2005 revenues are more than $1 billion less than the cost of
maintaining current services”
Still, as I recall, Romney wanted to CUT taxes more (to promote jobs, etc.), but Mass voters said no in a statewide referendum. It got worse before it got better (when Patrick came in an undid a lot of the damage).
Sound familiar? Of course, his handlers will call up this stuff as proof of his qualification for the presidency, and fail to mention the human side of "reigning in spending."
Posted by: Paula B | July 07, 2011 at 11:39 AM
KN--Thanks, I guess, for your sobering global view, but I can't even think that far ahead, especially when I try to imagine the lives my grandchildren will lead. I worry about them, but also about how their parents will or will not be able to prepare them for what's ahead.
One of my grandfathers was an infant when his family staked a homestead in the Oklahoma Land Run of 1893. The cultural distance between his life and mine is staggering, but maybe not so much as the contrast between my relatively comfortable lifetime and what my five toddler grandchildren will experience.
Posted by: Paula B | July 07, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Jim,
No matter what, primarying Obama is a horrible idea. And Dayton is not exactly a dynamo. He is doing the right thing here, but he is not what I would describe as an overwhelmingly compelling candidate.
I do think the story is quite important. I've seen some decent stuff on TPM about it -- not sure about other places.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 07, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Sir C - It would be hair splitting to argue the point, however, it is also a well made point that we deserve the government we elect. I don't know what the national percentages of the turnout of eligible voters was in the last national elections but I would be surprised if it was more than 35%. That means that 65% of the electorate opted out allowing 17.6% of the electorate to anoint what must be the biggest bunch of nutjobs to positions of power in at least the last 150 years and perhaps ever.
I suppose it is a little mean spirited to hope they will suffer for their 'willful' ignorance. So be it.
Paula B - I really do sympathise with your worry. Your concern is justified. If you have grandchildren we must be about the same age, I am in my early 60s. I made a decision very early in life not to have children because I did not trust in the wisdom of humanity. Experience has only reinforced that distrust. It is quite true that the world could be a very different place, full of profound potential, more egalitarian, more just and more fullfilling. All those possibilities indeed still exist and in a few places flourish, think of them as if they were polar bears.
It really is not a matter of thinking far ahead, it is just a matter of trying to be in touch with the present. It is very complicated. The complexity makes it easy to lie about. And makes it hard for individuals to stay informed. But the second is a choice, a matter of priorities. Choices have consequences.
I have no family history that I can compare with the change between you and your grandfather. I know what it must have been more or less by default, but I have no specific knowledge to speak of.
I have no ill wishes for anyone as SC seems to infer. What I have is a kind of quiet contempt for those who abrrogate the almost trivial duty of voting from an informed perspective. Such a simple thing. In time, and not necessarily a long time, it will become much less simple.
Prup - believe it or not even I, out here in the boonies am aware of MN. I admit I was not up to speed on the development - it came as something of a surprise. I have a hard time seeing any predictive or other useful linkage though with the national scenario.
Political hostage taking is deplorable on any level but at the federal level consequential in far too many ways that no one can logically foresee and in enough ways that can be clearly seen that such behavior must be either perverse or insane.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | July 07, 2011 at 10:40 PM
KN,
I know you don't have ill wishes for people -- at least the non-Republican people. :-)
I share your frustration that people don't seem to take their duties as citizens as seriously as they should. But, what can you do really? A better media might help a bit.
I still am not looking forward to the economic Armageddon that the idiots in the GOP seem determined to bring down on us.
Posted by: Sir Charles | July 07, 2011 at 10:50 PM
>>All those possibilities indeed still exist and in a few places flourish, think of them as if they were polar bears.
KN--Meaning rare? If not, please explain. Thanks for your concern and kind words. And, yes, we are contemporaries, near the head of the line in the Baby Boomer parade, more or less.
I know my own father worried about the world his grandchildren inherited, but that was before he saw the potential for widespread ecological change, famine and severe fuel shortages, class warfare and global economic depression. These hideous scenarios are no longer so far-fetched. Two of my grandchildren may spend much of their lives in Europe, but I don't think that will be any better, do you?
Posted by: Paula B | July 07, 2011 at 11:21 PM