The Paris Hilton Tax Break

I shocked someone recently with my answer for why I thought the Bush era tax breaks should end. I do not hide the fact that I am a liberal to anyone, and when asked a question, sometimes my answers get stereotyped. When I said I think the tax breaks should end, the other person said, “I am sure it is because you think the rich should pay more.” I answered “no, increasing taxes by 3% is such a small amount I cannot understand why anyone would chose to fight over it.” I find it hard for anyone to defend extending the Bush era tax cuts, especially considering how small the actually increase will be. Those who advocate leaving the tax cuts in place ignore evidence that they are the cause of the budget deficits. David Stockman, the legendary Reagan budget chief who presided over the Gipper's supply-side tax cuts, announced that the "debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts." Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who famously helped sell the 2001 Bush tax cuts to Congress, declared them simply "disastrous." Even Republican experts can see that ending the tax cuts can only be beneficial, but there is still a strong vocal minority in Congress that believes the cuts should continue.

For me the most incredible tax almost all right wing nuts are against is the dreaded ESTATE TAX. I find it incredible hard to believe anyone can be against a tax they will never be penalized by and can only benefit from. The group of people that are against the estate tax are the group of people that have little to no hope of ever making it into the class that will pay this tax. The fact that only 2 out of 1000 estates will own any tax, why would the other 998 fight to free them of the burden, only to inevitable have their income tax or some other tax increased to make up the short-fall of no estate tax. This is where my answer to my friend baffles him and forces him to agree with me. First the mega wealthy have ways of passing on their wealth to the next generation and rarely have the whole estate tied up and taxed. Second, I cannot see how anyone can complain about inheriting one billion verses two billion dollars, while that is a lot of money; keep in mind that the heir did not earn it. Rather they were lucky enough to have the misfortune of being born into a rich family and fortune smiled on them.

Again it simply does not make sense to me to be so up in arms over a tax that will not affect the vast majority of people. I think we have better issues to take and complain about, especially the sales tax and other crazy taxes the state gets away with assessing to us. My final word and food for thought, why should people that go out and work and sweat pay more in taxes than those who have it fall into their laps.

…but who is the Brain?

I think I shall jump off of one band wagon and on to another one, by beating up on America’s favorite punching bag of this election season, Christine O’Donnell. Of the crazy things said by Christine O’Donnell has said this is pretty funny.

"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." - Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor, 2007.

I find it hard to believe she thought “Pinky and the Brain” was a documentary on the lives of mice with fully functioning human brains. I mean who could believe two mice with British accents could have such straight teeth?

I can see O’Donnell being mistaken for Pinky especially in that nice dress, but the real question is who is the Brain of the Tea Party? Can it be Sarah Palin? Maybe, but I think she may refudiate that label, even though she may think she is smart enough to take over the world.

How about Mike Huckabee? I, think that is impossible, after all Brain is a scientist, and Mike still believes in the Theory of Harry Potter, the talking snake and the spirit in the Sky. So Mike is not the Brain of this operation.

Newt Gingrich seems like more of a credible candidate; both are short, fat, white guys. The only problem is Brain seems to be more loyal than Newt, I mean Brain is still with Pinky after all these years, and Newt is working on wife number three. I suppose this would be that same disqualifier to Rush being the Brain.

So reader who took time from your busy day to glance at my Blog, who do you think is the Brain if O’Donnell is Pinky? Leave me a comment and why they could or could not be the brain in the comments below.

I seem to have disappointed some

A good friend today said he was shocked by my posted. Shocked that they are not outrages or crazy. He can recall a time when I would just say and do outrages things in order to drive people crazy. He called me the original troll.

Maybe I am slipping in my old age, but I think I will have to come-up with some thing nuts just to satisfy my good friend.

Folksy Fascism

I have decided that I too will jump on the bandwagon of comparing people whose political Ideology I do not like with Fascism. I was inspired after reading about Dr. Seuss; we need to bring back “folksy fascism” to describe what Sarah Palin, Tea Party people and now Christen O’Donnell. I can think of no better term to use to describe this group of people. They are determined to force the rest of us to accept and live by their “higher” standards, as if they possess the right higher moral code. These folks want us to believe they have all the right answers, even answers to questions that never existed.

Christen O’Donnell has exploded on to the political scene after many failed attempts, failed attempts at the hands of more rational people. She, like other religious fascist, thinks that all aspect of human sexuality needs to be controlled. Sex to them seems to be an area they have not issue allowing the government to intrude into our lives. Not Health Care though, that place the sanctity of the Doctor-Patient-Health Insurance is more sacred than the Home or Bedroom. They believe that the proper place for the government is to regulate what we do with our bodies or what we put in it, but not to regulate what corporations do with our environment or put in it. It is nothing more than a brand of control, a selling of ourselves so they can feel good about something.

This is folksy fascism, this “oh gosh darn, how is that hopey changy thing working for ya?” This is what the Tea Party ultimately wants to bring to us. They think we need to be saved from something, and they know what it is and how to save us. I hope that we continue to push back and point out the crazies and call them what they are “Folksy Fascists”

Palin the Accidental Politician

Maghan McCaine describes in her new book "Dirty Sexy Politics" her reaction to hearing her father's choice for Vice-President, "Who the hell is Sarah Palin?" Her reaction is probably the same one most of us had when we heard Sarah Palin's name for the first time. From that moment forward Palin cemented her legacy in the political mind of America.

Her name is now synonymous with Tea Party and no one can deny she has political adeptness that seems to defy logic. The question though is does she deserve this position in Americas political pantheon? I believe she does not, I truly think she is, in the most literal sense, an accidental politician. Palin is adept at the use of wedge issues to gain support. In her first run at political office, city council, she campaigned on opposing closing Wasilla's bars two hours earlier. An issue that defies logic for her considering she is a member of a church that opposes drinking. When she ran for Mayor of Wasilla she introduced national or at the minimal state issues regarding abortion, gun rights and term limits. Issues that are divisive and almost rarely issues at local levels she used to divide and win. Her campainge was so effective making these issues front and center she was called Wasilla's first "Christian mayor."

This was the beginning of the Political career and campaign style of Sarah Palin. This style carried her through a republican primary, knocking off an incumbent Governor, and a few years later helping to knock out that same governor's daughter from a Senate seat. She did not even complete her first term before she was tapped to run for Vice-President, but these style stayed with her through the national spot light. This type of wedge issue is Palin's bread and butter, and it servers her well as she emerges as one of the Tea Party darlings.

What makes her the accidental politician is that she has no fresh ideas, she does not bring anything to the table but division and diversion of the real issues. The only thing Palin has going for her, and a consequence is what keeps her in the political spot light is her looks. If it was not for the fact she is sexually desirable by the masses of GOP men, she would have long ago been relegated to the dust bin of political history. She would have found her place next to all other failed Vice-Presidential nominees, never to be heard from again or to have been a faint memory to all but historians.

What will happen with Palin and her brand of politics? In my opinion this is nothing more than a form of negative campaign ads, and like negative campaign ads they are slightly effective at turning out the voters, but they are more effective at turning off your target audience and turning out your opposition. The Tea Party is doomed to fail, as I have blogged about in the past, the average Tea Party member cannot come to terms with how this country has changed and how it will continue to change. Palin and Beck will capitalize on it for the short term, but they, like the Tea Party will soon pass.

Fable of the Bees

I was inspired from the Blog The Big Picture to read the "Fable of the Bees" and how it relates to what is currently going on in the US economy versus Germany. More to the point it deals with the paradox of thrift, the idea that the more an individual saves, the less the whole group saves overall. Broadly the increase in savings will harm the over all economy. To me it is a no brainer, as long as people are out buying stuff, what ever that stuff may be, then in turn it keeps people making, shipping and selling that stuff. But during a recession, people panic and business lay-off as consumption slows. And here is where the paradox sets in, as people try and save more, they naturally spend less, and as the spend less more businesses panic and lay off more workers. While saving for the future, we are in turn killing that future.

Saving is not a bad thing, to me overspending is the problem. Buying with credit is not a bad thing, it becomes a bad thing when we use credit to buy disposable things. Buying a house is good, buying food is bad. But I get off my point, saving is not a bad thing, and by nature we should save when times get tough. That is why I am with Keynesians on this one, in recessions the government must step in and start consuming. Governments need to invest in infrastructure, be the ones who buy roads and bridges. I am all for the stimulus bill, I think this is an opportune time for the government to start investing. There is much complaining about the deficit running up, but when is a better time to borrow money than when the cost of borrowing money is at its lowest? With people still working, tax revenue is still being generated.

If the government gets involved and applies a slow steady hand then as a whole the economy will merely slow down and not stop. This will keep people working and will allow consumption to continue. This will also keep our infrastructure in good shape or improving what we already have. With Keynes solutions many problems can be avoided, the biggest is the paradox of thrift