To continue...

More on taxes...

To follow my last thought, Reagan raised taxes in four times in his last six years in office.  His only "lowering of taxes" was in 1981.  Yet revenues for the Fed went up each year he was in office.  Today, we are told this is due to his understanding of the Laffer Curve, but I'm beginning to question that.

I don't question the premise of the curve... it is simply common sense and mathematically proven beyond question... but simply saying that lowering taxes always increases revenue is NOT showing any understanding of the curve.  By making the same argument over and over again ("lower taxes means more revenue") we are ignoring the "curve" and instead making the case that it is nothing more than a rising vector... which it is not.

History shows us this is, indeed, the case.  Bush Sr. needed to better understand this "curve" so he could have avoided the "read my lips" gaff... he did increase taxes, revenues continued to climb through every one of his years in office, and they continued to climb through the next two administrations, as well... with even higher rates.

The long and short of it is, even if Obama got what he wanted... taxes to return to pre-Bush (Jr.) levels (meaning Clinton era levels), they would still be lower then they were in 1988, when Reagan left office.  Reagan's rates in '88 were between 21% and 22%... through Clinton's eight years, they averaged less than 20%. (Source HERE)  We can talk about the point at which the revenues for the Fed start to fall off on the Curve all day long... they might be 68% (under LBJ) or 75% (under FDR) or 50% (under Carter)... but they are all far higher than what we were paying prior to 2002 (39% top rate) and the economy was booming like it had never done before.

The difference, in my opinion, wasn't TAXES... it was the way in which the Government spent money.  The GOP Congress in 1994 brought into effect the Pay as You Go Act... and nothing turned the US economy around like a government that had spending under control.  Yes, that is what I am saying happened.  If the bill trying to be made into law couldn't pay for itself, then it didn't pass the House and Senate floors.  Today, that is seen as potentially dozens of small tax hikes spread over a four year time frame... it doesn't even seem to be what the GOP wants, let alone the Dems... but history shows us that it works.

Frankly, I simply do not see how we can reduce or eliminate the deficit without a tax hike in our future.  I'm not saying that we need Carter-era rates simply to maintain the rate of spending today... but reduced spending coupled with small, limited tax increases will do for us what they did for Reagan in 1988.  His plan was for every $1 in tax rate increases, there would be a $3 reduction in spending.  Why wouldn't THAT work now?  Why isn't THAT the Reagan model we are shooting for?

We really need to stop calling Obama the "tax and spend" President... his rates for the first term are far lower than the President that the GOP touts as the "yardstick" of fiscal conservatism.  We're probably pretty lucky THAT has not been a focus of Democratic campaign headlines, right?

Let's play a game...

I'm going to make some rather serious posts in the next coming days.  Let me tell you why...

I was driving home last night (Friday night) and was listening to Levin on the radio.  He was, of course, beating up Obama and beating up anyone calling in to his show, conservative or otherwise.  His discourse (I can't call it a discussion) brought up several points that struck me as more than odd, so I spent hours last night after I got home checking on what he said.

I know F. Ryan and Jambo are both busy people... but I'm really hoping there is some time for both of them to chime in as I post and check my thinking.  The game I want to play?  Let's look as closely at the Romney-Ryan campaign promises and the conservative agenda (as it stands now in 2012) as we have with what the Democrats are saying and doing.  As I do this, I'm hoping Ryan can rebut or counter my questions, and Jambo can offer some objective rationale as it is needed.  We have all spent time criticizing Obama's policies and agendas, but after hearing Levin last night, I'm wondering how much "Kool Aid" we are drinking by simply accepting as gospel all that the conservative realm tells us.  I'm not singling out Levin here, either... I'm rapidly growing very very tired of Beck's fixation (bordering on obsession) with the term "progressive".  And I still have unanswered questions about statements made by the Romney-Ryan camp since the GOP convention.


So, I'm simply going to begin.

Let's look at the single biggest issue between the two candidates and their parties as I understand it to be:

TAXES.

Obama has said he wants taxes raised, mostly for those individuals making more than $250k annually.  He wants to do this to raise revenue for the Federal government, without massive spending cuts.

Romney-Ryan want to (at best) cut taxes, or (at least) leave them where they were since Bush's tax cuts in 2002.  They insist this will increase revenue by stimulating economic growth and generating a greater income tax base.  They give credit for their idea/plan by calling it "Reaganomics"... or at least harkening back to those heady days when Ron Reagan was at the helm.

Can we take a look at this, just a little bit closer?  Bare with me here...

Dec. 1980.  US Prime lending interest rate hits the all-time high of 21.5%... meaning, in short, that borrowing money had become more expensive than at any other time in American history.  To counter this, Fed Chair Paul Volker sets interest rates at an all-time high, too.  By the time Reagan is sworn in, Fed revenues will fall short enough to make the biggest deficit to date.  Reagan cuts taxes.  It's a big cut, too.  What happens?

Nothing.  Really... nothing happens.  The first full year that the tax cuts were in place (so by the end of 1982), the growth rate of the GDP was -8.9%. Unemployment had risen 1.1%.

Ahhh... but then, what happened?  The Fed dropped rates to below 11% for the first time in almost 6 years, and by the end of the next calendar year, the GDP had grown 5%.  By the '84 elections, the GDP was 34% bigger than it was when Ron took office.  Good news, huh?   What else happened in 1982, BEFORE the "recovery" began?

Reagan signed into Law the Tax Equality and Fiscal Responsibility Act 1982, which was the single largest tax increase in US history to that date.  Reagan raised taxes, but reduced spending, and thus reduced the deficit by increasing revenue AND slowing spending.  This is important... the TEFRA increased revenue by raising taxes, which was 100% contrary to what Reagan promised would happen when he detailed the Laffer Curve during his election campaign and his first year in office.

So, which was actually responsible for the "boom" that followed the Reagan Era?  Was it the tax cuts that were all but erased in 1982/83, or the Federal Reserve interest rate manipulation?  One is squarely on the shoulders of the CIC... the other is utterly out of his control.

Reagan came into a disastrous economy, and did what it took to turn it around.  The size of government grew at roughly 2.3% for his first term.  GDP growth averaged 5.1% his first term.  Taxes ended up roughly 1.7% lower across the board, but the only real cuts were to the poorest of Americans when he raised the tax threshold to $12k/year.

Obama's also came into a troubled economy.  Government has grown at a rate LOWER than Reagan's did... 2.2% in his first term.  GDP has grown at a rate of 15.9% in the first three years... substantially better than Reagan.  Taxes remain the same (for now) at 2002 levels... just where Bush Jr. had them.

The big difference is the national debt as a percentage of GDP.  When Reagan came into office, it was roughly 33% of GDP, and when he left it was a whopping 52%.  When Obama came into office it was 86%, and now sits just over 101% of GDP.  According to my math, Reagan increased the debt by 37%, while Obama has increased it by only 15%... so how does that jibe with what we keep hearing about "fiscal responsibility?"

I hope you all see the disparity here.  I'm NOT voting for Obama... but I'd like this discussed, at length if it isn't too much trouble.  I'm confident that less spending is the best road... but how to get there?  Lower taxes would be nice, but a balanced budget WON'T happen unless we raise taxes significantly over the short term, or slightly over the very long term.

Am I wrong?

Scars... Admittedly a bit late.

I think the final tally on hours lost comes to three full shifts. That's a lot, considering I am part time and I am scheduled eight shifts max in a pay period. This check is going to suck.

 I have commented in the past about scars, symptoms of trauma, crap like that. I try to be pro-active about anniversaries... If you don't like a date because shit happened that time last year or two years ago or a decade, then do something to change it. Me? My divorce was finalized Aug 29, 2008. So when Isaac was pissing on us I looked around and thought, "Shit, didn't those four years fly by?"

 What makes me kind of quiet and sad is the inevitable reality of the post storm world. Our Bund scattered to the wind seven years ago. I've seen Ryan and Titus twice in the time period. Neither Titus nor I have seen Ryan's kids in seven years. Titus hasn't seen mine in six years. The people I work with now, out of the literally hundreds, less than five were veterans of the shift Titus, Ryan and I worked. Scattered. Other things cause the occasional pang. Shift pitchers at Famous Joe's. Tournament dealing. Ms. Selma jokes. Watching Mic chase the ball rolling off Titus' roof. When people move, there is a chance they come back to visit, and you can see places you haunted in the past and have an anchor point, a "I was Here" moment that plots a GPS marker on the path of life. But the storm took all that away. No revisiting. No GPS marker. Except for fading memories, it's a world that has no physical trace except for before and after pictures. Sad.

 Oh well. My exercise in nostalgia is done. Next Aug 29 Carpe Diem.

No surprise...

Of course, Ryan latches on to the ONLY reference to a Democratic President in the entire speech... and that a reference to FDR.  I would expect no less, mores the pity.

Want to find something to be afraid of?  How about the over-all nature of the entire speech?  How about the vast amount of coverage it is getting this morning compared to what came out of the RNC last week?  How about the enthusiasm it is garnering in otherwise rather tepid circles?

I listened to the entire thing.  It was a good speech, and it was very well given.  Obama did a masterful job of making himself seem personable, friendly, enthusiastic and energetic... all at the same time.  He mocked the "right" while ignoring the "left", all without making anyone but Romney and Ryan into specific examples.  He brought the baggage of special interest into the ring by touching on gay marriage, coverage for birth control and abortions, amnesty for illegals, the future of Medicare and unemployment coverage... all without addressing them, but only as examples of GOP intolerance and bigotry.

He is very, very good at purposely misleading the issues in the eyes of his audience.  He spoke of the GOP's drive to keep "health" decision choices out of women's hands, when that is NOT NOW, nor has it EVER BEEN the issue with the GOP.  It isn't a question of whether a woman can obtain birth control or abortions if she should choose... she can, in all fifty States.  It is a question of whether or not the Government is going to guaranty coverage for such proceedings through insurance providers.  He (or his speech writers, I should say... no way did he write that!) made sure that was NOT touched on, only the narrow, intolerant "Not gonna happen!" attitude that he wants to portray as the GOP platform.

He did something else in the speech that is very rare nowadays... He specifically addressed conservative claims and concerns about his positions.  He did it very well, too.

He admitted to wanting to raise taxes on those making more than $250k, but did so by saying:  "I want to reform the tax code so that it's simple, fair,and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000, the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a whole lot of millionaires to boot."  Masterfully done!  He is not admitting to wanting to do anything that hasn't already worked in the past.  It worked in Clinton's second term, it will work here.

When conservatives call out Obama on expanding government, or that he is of the opinion that more government solves everything (something we've all said here, too), he says:  "We don't think the government can solve all our problems. But we don't think that the government is the source of all our problems, any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles. "  In other words, government isn't the problem, as Reagan said it was... anymore than the rest of the "bad things" the GOP keeps rambling on about.  He even included "corporations" in his list, which is NOT something I've ever heard a conservative call a "problem" in the past.

He went on to say:  "We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we certainly don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules."  I assume this is an attempt to put to rest the question of how to get people OFF of the dole, once they are on.  He has made himself seem rationally opposed to "lifetime welfare"... but gives no specifics at all as to how to avoid the trap.  This is borderline brilliant, in my opinion.

Finally, he said:  "We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe."  How many times have you heard Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, rant about "rights with no responsibilities" when discussing the Democrat's fascination with the "nanny state"?  He took Kennedy's famous line and twisted it perfectly to fit into the liberal agenda WITHOUT making it impossible for moderates... or even conservatives... to support the words, if not the sentiment they were given in.

He did this again in the speech when he quoted the very first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln.  And again, when he quoted Dwight Eisenhower.

This was a great speech for him.  He'll see real "bounce" off this, and you KNOW it will be quoted ad nauseum for the rest of the campaign.

Fear and Loathing in Charlotte

The President's speech ... no line from its' delivery should scare - and I mean literally cause fear, a shudder down the spines of Americans - than the following:

" And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one."

Forget any notion that I'm simply beating up on FDR. Been there. Done that. Won that (hehe). However, there is a school of thought out there that I lend some credence to, that it was not WWII, alone, that ended the era of depression, recessions, and unemployment collectively referred to as the Great Depression. It contends that more than high taxes or massive regulation, a free market can not abide one thing above all - unpredictability from its' government. Many of FDR's deals, taxes, tariffs, and various government excursions into the private sector had yearly sunsets attached. They were in constant need of renewal. In addition, he routinely rolled out new plans meant to either replace, remove or build upon old ones (both via rhetoric and signed law). Add to this that along the way one law after another was tossed out or confirmed by the SCOTUS (the many challenges a result of his routinely pushing the boundaries of Constitutionality). Businesses had no idea whether this years law would apply next year. And that uncertainty had one effect - it was paralyzing. FDR was quite literally "experimenting" from a socialist (and that's what the man was, his second bill of rights speech makes that abundantly clear to even the casual observer of history) rolodex of ideas, plans and programs born of an ideology that governments should be in the business of guaranteeing results.

This theory then goes on to conclude that the markets finally went into legitimate, sustainable recovery upon FDR's death. Truman did not continue the model of yearly experimentation, of routine, radical roll outs. I'm not saying he massively rolled back what was law. But he did end the cycle of year in and year out roll outs of new, untried, plans (or "deals"). In other words, had FDR lived, America's post war boom would have never occurred - his style of governance was simply too unpredictable for markets to catch their breath (as a side note to this theory I would contend that attempting his second bill of rights, no matter how slowly or deliberate, would have been a death knell to the post war American economy).

At any rate, fast forward, and here we are again. This president, not content with passing the largest unpredictable - in its many phases, multi year roll outs, and uncertain interpretations - new mandate in US history via Obamacare, he has now flatly promised to continue "experimenting" with solutions, solutions provided by, guided by, an eerily similar ideology to the man he seems to so admire (I mean FDR, not Lenin ... although...).

Just think about that line, that word: experiment. Experiment? An avowed "I think it works better when you spread the wealth around" ideologue has a plan. It's big. It's audacious. And here it is - he's going to EXPERIMENT with the US economy. Well I feel better already. You're going to experiment. Gotcha. No worries. I'm sure the market loves the idea of experimenting. I'm telling you friends, this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) goes hand in hand with "fundamentally transforming America." Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market, individualism over collectivism, private property rights, the basic tenets of the Constitution, all of this, in his view, leaves too much up to chance. It doesn't say "what the government must do on your behalf." These ideas, those notions aren't in the business of guaranteeing results, only process. And he finds that insufficient. Antiquated. Those are cute, quaint little ideas from "the era of black and white television" (as he described the RNC convention). And tonight he promised to experiment with alternative models until he finds one that "works."

So ask yourself, with this promise on the table, how many "bold experiments" could we expect to see rolled out in an Obama second term? To paraphrase a truly eloquent "Bill",  dear friends, pray you avoid this place.

Bill still has it, huh?

Man, can that guy get a crowd riled up.

Still, everyone knew he could talk, and he has only gotten better since that now infamous camera-spot... "I did not have sex with that woman."  (Side note:  Funny how a party so enamored with leftist/liberal groups like NOW and the LoWV can so easily forget that the man lied under oath and was subsequently disbarred from legal practice because of an extra-marital affair during his terms and more than five accusations of sexual misconduct/assault over the course of his political career...)

What I found amazing were two facets of his speech.  First, his ability to give a speech nominating and supporting Barack Obama as President, while managing to plug himself and his former administrations as often as humanly possible without nominating himself.  Out of a 49 minute speech, he must have patted himself on the back at least 18 times, repeatedly comparing the last four years to his eight in office.  I can't fault this, though.  Clinton's legacy is very positive, and connecting this administration's policies to those that Clinton/Gore managed is probably a good strategy.  After all, outside of Clinton, how many "popular" Democratic Presidents have there been in the last fifty years?  They really don't have much success to point to, do they?

Secondly, his zingers.  The guy ripped on the GOP and the Romney/Ryan camp repeatedly, using some pretty harsh words... but he did it with a smile, and never making himself seem like the "hateful" sort of politician that the GOP keeps promoting (his words).  These were world-class slams, mind you... measurable and specific without the need of "quotes" and readily understood to anyone listening... withotu ever managing to sound harsh, bitter or vindictive.  He slapped the GOP while Romney (I think) went out of his way to sound conciliatory to the Dems... which will now be weighed against the DNC speeches.

This was an important speech, and I think Bill did a good job for the Dems.

Michelle's speech...

They said she stole the show... and I believe it.  She gave a great speech.  I loved it.  And I am not being sarcastic.

Here's what I loved about Michelle Obama's speech:

She showed me the value of a hard day's work and an honest, fair wage.  She showed me the success that comes from working towards goals with dignity and determination.  She laid out the importance of a charitable heart in today's society.  She used herself and her husband as a prime example of the limitless nature that American values offer those that do more than simply give it lip-service, but instead live them each and every day.

She should have been giving the speech at the RNC... rather than the DNC.

This speech was great because it took almost EVERY aspect of the conservative agenda and applied it to why the President's plans and policies need another four years.  She detailed the manner and means by which her father put her through college when he didn't have the money himself by taking out and repaying student loans, always on-time.  She told of how he worked hard through a disabling disease to ensure a happy, healthy home for his children.  She explained his integrity and honesty through examples of his pride in and commitment to his children's education and success outside of the home.

She went on to detail how hard her husband worked to come from humble beginnings to the pinnacle of political power, and how he hasn't compromised his principles along the way.  The same man that drove the rusty car and wore shoes a half size too small is sitting right now in the Oval Office awaiting my vote to keep him doing the job that so desperately needs to be done.

How badly has the GOP lost the message, when the First Lady does a better job of selling the "conservative ideal" than the GOP candidates at the RNC?  Is anyone going to point out that both Barack's and her own success came to them even though Obama wasn't President yet?  They succeeded during (and because of, I feel) the policies and agendas put in place during the early 80's... and that means under the leadership of Reagan himself.  How many times have we here compared Michelle's own actions and agendas to those of Nancy Reagan?  Nancy said "Say NO to drugs!" while Michelle says "Say NO to fast food!"  Why the change?  Because Nancy's efforts are still working today, and drug use has been reduced in this country.  The same "choices" in women's health decisions that Michelle spoke of last night exist now, just as they did in the 1980s... nothing has changed, and those choices have grown exponentially, in fact.

She told us that without student loans, neither she nor her husband would have been able to go to college.  That is very possibly true, but it is no less of a factor now than it was then.  They GOT the loans through Federally guaranteed institutions then, and the same loans are available today to even more young adults.  The difference is that the cost of a university education has increased 125% faster than the cost of living has increased.  The knowledge hasn't gotten more expensive... but the people that teach it have, thanks in large part to the unions they belong to.  I feel this was dramatically demonstrated in my home State of Wisconsin just last year.  She, of course, failed to mention this... as I'm sure a large portion of her supporters are members of the NEA.

The long and short of it is simply that the Dems have decided to present their message in the most appealing and expedient manner they can... and they are gaining some real success in their efforts.  They seem to have realized that the public wants clear, measurable details of how things are going to work... and if the rest of the speakers at the DNC follow Michelle's lead, they will have even more success.  They are selling the American Dream as the DNC plan... whether it is true or not.

The GOP had better start doing that very, very soon.