The Blue State

Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P."Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice amongall taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal incometax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in orderto raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

The Birth Tax We Did Not Have a Say in

If you listen to conservative talk radio on a daily basis, you might think by now that every American chooses whether to be rich or poor.  Many senior citizens choose to work into their 70s, not because the cost of living is so high.  Students choose to be in debt, it's not the lending industry's fault at all.  Many poor families choose to go bankrupt, it is not because their health care costs are so high.

But at least conservatives agree that people do not choose where or when they are born.  In that case, what excuses do we give our children for paying $12 billion each week for a failed war?  This is nothing more than a birth tax that will be passed on to future generations.  Even if we withdrew most of our forces, we will still pay up:

The Bush administration and Congress have allocated $577 billion to theconflicts through the end of the current fiscal year, but that amountis only a small down payment, the report suggested in examining theimpact of various deployment scenarios.

If today's troop level -- roughly 180,000 -- is cut by 85 percent by2010 and remains at that level through 2017, the total cost of the twoconflicts would be an additional $472 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office figures. If U.S. troop deployments were cut more gradually -- to 75,000soldiers, or by about 60 percent, by 2013 -- the additional costs wouldbe nearly $600 billion. Keeping troops at that level for five yearsbeyond that would cost $300 billion more, the report said.

The Republicans like to talk a lot about the so-called 'death tax' -- just another name for an estate payment that the richest 1% pay.  Just think, if people are this outraged about the Hilton sisters inheriting slightly less money after their parents pass on, then shouldn't we be even more outraged by a tax on children that have not been born yet?

Remember, the birth tax not only consists of money -- it represents all of our problems that the next generation will inherit, including our reduced standing in the world community.  Oh, they'll have fun with this.

Social Security on the line this November

Right before the 2004 election, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was accused of scaring seniors into thinking President Bush wanted to privatize Social Security.  Unless you missed all of 2005, Kerry's prediction turned out to be accurate, although the GOP failed to get it passed.

Many believe that after November, the GOP will renew its push to privatize the system -- This privatization scheme would cut guaranteed benefits for seniors and add $2 trillion to the National Debt in transition costs (National Debt = Birth Tax).  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a sudden spike in the National Debt beyond what it already is today would lead to higher interest rates.

The only way to assure that this privatization scheme does not pass the House and Senate is by voting blue.  Politics is usually complex.  But that reality is quite simple.

Bush to privatize Social Security if Dems don't win majority

A lot will be at stake this November -- maybe even more so for seniors and young Americans.  The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that President Bush will restart his push to privatize Social Security in 2007 if Republicans regain control of the House.  John Marshall of TPM Cafe reports:

In an interview published today in The Wall Street Journal (sub.req.),President Bush told editorial page editor Paul Gigot that next year heplans on partially phasing out Social Security and replacing it withprivate accounts, and that he thinks he can do it as long as theRepublicans retain control of Congress, which he thinks they will.

President Bush's Social Security privatization proposal calls for private savings accounts.  The proposed switch from public to private accounts would add $2 trillion to the National Debt over the next ten years due to transition costs.  Ten years after that, the privatized Social Security system would cost $3 trillion, $5 trillion the decade after that, and $5 trillion the decade after that -- most of which would have to be borrowed from foreign banks in China and the Middle East.  All this added debt would be a birth tax on future generations.

Lastly, even more fundamentally, Bush's privatization proposal cuts guaranteed benefits for seniors and future retirees:

According to the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, amiddle-class worker retiring in 2022 would see guaranteed benefits cutby 9.9 percent. By 2042, average monthly benefits for middle- andhigh-income workers would fall by more than a quarter. A retiree in2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefit now promised.

This is what the President and his Republican Congress want to happen next year if they regain control of Congress.  So who are you voting for this November?
-------------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about Social Security: Digg, Raw Story, TPMCafe, Crimes and Corruptions of the New World, Speaking Truth to Power, The Pennsylvania Progressive, Impolitically Correct, The Opinion Mill, Democrats.com, Mass Eye Opener, Suburban Guerrilla, Running From the Thought Police, News Trash, Celtic Progressive.

Stevens admits he did it

Within the last hour or so, Ted Stevens' office now admits that their boss was indeed holding the bill up.  TPM Muckraker blog once again has the story:

A spokesman forSen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) just confirmed his boss was the man behind thesecret hold on the Coburn/Obama spending database bill, which has captivated  a segment of the political blogging community in recent days.

"Sen. Stevens does have a hold on the bill," said the spokesman, whowould only speak on the condition he not be named. He added that Sen.Tom Coburn's (R-OK) office was notified of the hold after it wasplaced. So Coburn's comments two weeks ago may have been duly informed.

Now this is where Stevens' rationale, if he had any, for holding the bill falls completely apart.  It's as if a teenager tip-toed down to the kitchen in the darkness of night to grab a beer, only to have the kitchen light immediately flipped on by his parents.  He's exposed.  What will be Stevens' next move? Will he chug the beer, or give up and hand it over?  Stay tuned.

Ted Stevens hates transparency

The earmark bandit has been caught!  Yesterday, I suggested that Ted Stevens may have been the annonymous senator who blocked a bipartisan bill that was specifically designed to deter lawmakers from secretly adding pork into their bills.  It would create a national database that monitors every bill on the Senate floor, especially those with earmarks.  The public list would also contain the name of the senators that added the pork and the special interest groups that would benefit.

Due to Stevens' checkered past, it didn't take a genius to guess that he might have had something to do with the roadblock.  As it turns out, according to The Times Record newspaper in Arkansas via TPM Muckraker blog, Stevens has been outed by Tom Coburn (R-OK):

One of the senators most criticized for hispersonal projects, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has a hold of his own onCoburn’s bill to make public the spending patterns of the government.Called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, thelegislation calls for the creation of a database open to the publicwhere citizens can track government spending.

“He’s the only senator blocking it,” Coburn said of Stevens.

There you have it!  So one senator, Ted Stevens, is desperate to deter accountability and transparency.  This is not a matter of a clear majority siding with Ted Stevens, or even a small minority for that matter.  Mr. Stevens is on his own, and his Republican Party is too stubborn to put a leash on him.

If you recall, Stevens was the senator who in 2005 secretly inserted $453 million into a budget bill to build a highway in Alaska that connected to two towns: one with a population 8,900, and the other with only 50 people.  As a result of bills like this, Alaska ranks number one in federal per capita spending.

Please e-mail your Senators and ask them to put pressure on Ted Stevens to stop blocking this transparency bill.  The National Debt is a serious problem, and it's about time we exposed those who waste our money.

(It should be noted that Ted Stevens is also the one who, on the Senate floor, said that the internet is "a series of tubes.")

----------------------------------------------------------

Other sites blogging about this issue: TPM Muckraker, Public Knowledge, MRDTalk, Bizzy Blog, Reality Well, Porkopolis, Impudent Domain.

Earmark bandit still on the loose

The earmark bandit has still not been caught yet.  I am referring to that anonymous member of the Senate who blocked legislation that would create a national database that lists the name of each entity that receives appropriations.  With the bill now in jeopardy because of that unnamed Senator, one can only guess who that sneaky person was.

If I were in Vegas right now, I would bet my life savings on the likelihood that Ted Stevens had something to do with it.

The current problem stems from the fact that while we know earmarks exist, they all happen under the radar screen.  For example, nearly half of the recent $286 million highway bill that was signed into law by President Bush will now apparently go towards building Interstate 69.  Unfortunately, this new interstate will shadow the path of another freeway that already exists.  Unfortunately, we never had a database that showed the public what the bill contained before it passed, so now any debate about Interstate 69 is moot.

Please write to your Senators and tell them to get this database bill passed because pork like the kind in the latest transportation bill is adding to our National Debt, which is nothing more than a birth tax on future generations.
-------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Sunlight Foundation, The Truth Laid Bear, Porkopolis, Bring it On!.

Estate tax cut: No estates under $3.5 million would benefit

Bill Frist's estate tax cut for the very rich is a shame.  According to a study from The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 43% of that tax cut would go to estates with values of $20 million or greater.  In total, no one with an estate worth less than $3.5 million would get a dime from this tax cut.

Why is an estate tax cut so much more important to Bill Frist than a minimum wage hike?  That was a rhetorical question.  Frist is paying back the super lobbyists that have been supporting him all these years, making darn sure they will continue to support him when he run for president.
---------------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Daily National news, Random Musings, Mutualist Blog, TPM Cafe, The Ford Report, Left of Calvary, Pink Dome, Progressive Thinking, Americablog, Grouchy's Liberaltopia, Economist's View.

Cartoon: Minimum Wage

This cartoon refers to the trick Senate Republicans tried to pull this week.  After the GOP suddenly reversed its stance on the minimum wage issue, Senate Dems knew there was a catch.  Attached to the Republican minimum wage hike bill was a tax cut that will only help the richest two percent of all American households.  When it came time to vote, the Democrats told the Republicans to bite themselves.

(By Mike Keefe, The Denver Post, Cagle Cartoons)

Oh, and by the way: had the Democrats buckled and supported this GOP bill, it would have added roughly $2 trillion to the National Debt between 2012 and 2021.  So if you were wondering which party is more fiscally responsible, now you got your answer!
----------------------------------------------------------
Other sites blogging about this issue: Center for American Progress, Mauledagain, The Ward Report, Flashpoint, Pleasing to Remember, Wash Park Prophet, Say Anything, The Christian Left, Birmingham Blues, The Liberal Journal, OH-12, Voice of Dakota, Political Dogs, Internal Colonization.
 

Senate Democrats continue to stand firm on Paris Hilton tax

We all know that the Democrats have tried for the last six years to pass a minimum wage hike.  In June, Republicans blocked such legislation from even coming up for a vote.  Now, with the possibility of the Democrats taking back the House and Senate becoming more real, the Republicans are reversing course.  But there's a twist.  Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist unveiled a minimum wage bill that also included a repeal of the estate tax on the richest Americans.  There was some worry that if the Democrats opposed such a measure those inside organized labor would flip out.

But after the Democrats stood firm late last night and rejected the bill, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney understood why it needed to be done:

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the proposed estate taxreduction, estimated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars,would have led to cuts in health care, food stamps and othergovernment benefits and "end up hurting the very same peoplethat a minimum wage increase is supposed to help."

Republican Senator Charles Grassley admitted that Bill Frist's legislation was pretty stupid:

"The bottom line is that we bet on the wrong horses,'' saidFinance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican.  "Maybe we should've taken a bet that was more likely to payoff.''

But Bill Frist still tried to spin it as a Democratic Party attack on working Americans:

Frist countered that the failed package was "important to millions ofhard working Americans." And he said the "death tax" on inheritedwealth has meant "90 percent of family businesses do not survive thatthird generation" because they cannot afford the taxes or the cost offinding tax shelters.

Because the Democrats only developed a spine very recently, it doesn't surprise me that Bill Frist thinks he can get away with a comment like that.  It is factually inaccurate that the estate tax, or the death tax as he calls it, causes 90% of third-generation family businesses to go under.  Why?  The estate tax only affects the richest 2% of all American households.  Removing the tax would only increase the division between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.

Let me put it in perspective.  Thirty years ago, the richest 1% owned one-fifth of America's wealth.  Today, the top-1% own one-third.  Eliminating this estate tax is just part of Bill Frist's effort to empower the already powerful.  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D) alluded to the same idea immediately after the vote:

"They (Republicans) can get 6.6 million Americans an increase in theirbasic minimum wage as long as we promised that the fattest of cats inAmerica would get a great big bowl of tax cuts," said Sen. RichardDurbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

I would like to see the Democrats reintroduce their own minimum wage bill once again, which unlike the Frist legislation does not include a tax cut for people like Paris Hilton.