Susan rice has withdrawn herself from consideration of being Secretary of State. So John McCain got his revenge for nasty things she is reported to have said about him in the 2008 election process. Lindsay Graham has gotten revenge for the way John Bolton was treated by Democrats on his appointment as Ambassador to The United Nations. So now let's hope they are happy and we can go on to more constructive things.
I have no idea whether Susan Rice would have made a good Secretary of State. From what people say, she would have had to make some personality changes. Hillary Clinton did it so maybe Susan rice could have done it also. But for now, looks like she will stay as Ambassador to The Untied Nations.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
MICHIGAN POLITICS & RIGHT TO WORK
It may come as a suprise to many people, but Michigan has a long history of voting Republican in spite of the large factory worker population. In fact, they only started voting Democratic for president with the Clinton presidency in 1992 (http://www.270towin.com/states/Michigan and did vote for President Obama in 2012. The two Senators from Michigan are the well known Carl Levin and the lesser known Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats and the national Representatives are close with 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Thus in national offices, Michigan is Democratic overall, the state Senate, though, is something else with 26 Republicans and only 12 Democrats to total 38 members.* The state House of Representatives is almost as one sided with 63 Republicans and 47 Democrats to total 110 members.** The governor is also Republican.
With such a state Republican makeup, it should be no surprise that Michigan has become a Right To Work State. Not long ago, the state legislature was dominated by Democrats. The switch came in 2010, when, I guess, workers became disillusoned with the lack of economic progress under the Democrats and redistricting may have played a part also.
A detailed strategy of the Republican move to make Michigan a Right to Work State, is given at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100309219
* http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_State_Senate
** http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_House_of_Representatives
With such a state Republican makeup, it should be no surprise that Michigan has become a Right To Work State. Not long ago, the state legislature was dominated by Democrats. The switch came in 2010, when, I guess, workers became disillusoned with the lack of economic progress under the Democrats and redistricting may have played a part also.
A detailed strategy of the Republican move to make Michigan a Right to Work State, is given at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100309219
* http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_State_Senate
** http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_House_of_Representatives
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
INHERITANCE TAXES
An informative article on what might be in store for estate/inheritance/gift taxes is given at: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100296248
For the rest of this year, the estate/inheritance tax applies only to estates valued over $5 million and the tax rate on these is 35%; however, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the inheratance tax will apply to estates worth more than to $1 million and be taxed at 55%.
Republicans have been saying that the the tax, they call the "death tax," hurts farmers and small business men. Some Republicans would prefer to have no estate tax, as it was in 2010, but others will agree to leaving the estate tax what if is in 2012. In contrast President Obama proposes a exclusion of the first $3.5 million with a tax rate of 35% on those estate exceeding the exclusion sum. The estate tax raised $10.6 billion in 2012, according to the Tax Policy Center. At the 2012 rates, they estimate that the estate tax would raise a total of $161 billion by 2021, a 10 year interval. If the estate tax reverts to the old level, the estimate is a raise of $531 billion. Obama's plan is estimated to raise a total of $258 billion by 2021.
As to the estate tax hurting farmers, the Tax Policy Center says that fewer than 50 out of the 3,270 paying estate taxes were small farmers and small buinesses, and they paid less than 1% of the total taxes. "The top one percent of earners, by contrast, paid nearly 80 percent of the estate tax last year. The top 0.1 percent paid nearly half."
The goal is to reduce the Federal budget by $4 trillion by 2021 so letting the estate tax revert to $1 million would raise more than 10% of the total by itself. We are fooling ourselves if we think that lowering the Federal budget by $4 trillion can be done without pain on inheritance. So reluctantly, I would prefer to let the estate tax revert to the old level. It would not affect the poor and probably most of the middle class.
Note: After writing the above, I found a group of super wealthy people, including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who propose a $4 million exemption with a graduated tax rate starting at 45% for fortunes greater than the exemption:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100301732
For the rest of this year, the estate/inheritance tax applies only to estates valued over $5 million and the tax rate on these is 35%; however, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the inheratance tax will apply to estates worth more than to $1 million and be taxed at 55%.
Republicans have been saying that the the tax, they call the "death tax," hurts farmers and small business men. Some Republicans would prefer to have no estate tax, as it was in 2010, but others will agree to leaving the estate tax what if is in 2012. In contrast President Obama proposes a exclusion of the first $3.5 million with a tax rate of 35% on those estate exceeding the exclusion sum. The estate tax raised $10.6 billion in 2012, according to the Tax Policy Center. At the 2012 rates, they estimate that the estate tax would raise a total of $161 billion by 2021, a 10 year interval. If the estate tax reverts to the old level, the estimate is a raise of $531 billion. Obama's plan is estimated to raise a total of $258 billion by 2021.
As to the estate tax hurting farmers, the Tax Policy Center says that fewer than 50 out of the 3,270 paying estate taxes were small farmers and small buinesses, and they paid less than 1% of the total taxes. "The top one percent of earners, by contrast, paid nearly 80 percent of the estate tax last year. The top 0.1 percent paid nearly half."
The goal is to reduce the Federal budget by $4 trillion by 2021 so letting the estate tax revert to $1 million would raise more than 10% of the total by itself. We are fooling ourselves if we think that lowering the Federal budget by $4 trillion can be done without pain on inheritance. So reluctantly, I would prefer to let the estate tax revert to the old level. It would not affect the poor and probably most of the middle class.
Note: After writing the above, I found a group of super wealthy people, including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who propose a $4 million exemption with a graduated tax rate starting at 45% for fortunes greater than the exemption:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100301732
Sunday, December 9, 2012
GRANDMA
Grandmothers seem to be the epidomy or epidome of old age. You may remember the advertisement this last couple of years of grandma in a wheel chair being dumped over a cliff. Or you might have heard, grandma is being thrown under the bus. But consider that the average age of women having their child was 25 in 2006.* So lets say that a woman has her first child at 25 and that child has a first child also at 25. The first mother then becomes a grandmother at 50. While 50 might seem old to a, say, 17 year old, grandma is 12 years from being able to receive early Social Security and 15 years from qualifying for Medicare and probably is still working for pay. The grandchild will be in high school by the time grandma qualifies for Medicare. Let's say that, that child also has a first child at 25, then grandma becomes a great grandmother at the age of 75, old perhaps, but still short of the life expectancy at birth for women in the U.S. of 80.8 yrs.
Recall, however, that 25 is the average age for a woman at first birth of a child. Even if we run the same sequence at an age of first birth by a woman of 30, she can easily become a grandmother at age 60, still two years shy of early Social Security and five years from qualifying for Medicare. If we run the sequence for age 20, the woman becomes a grandmother at age 40, 22 years from early social Security and 25 years from Medicare coverage. She would become a great grandmother at age 60 and a great great grandmother at age 80, still within the life expectancy of an American woman at birth.
Whereas grandmother does sound old, in life grandmotherhood normally isn't all that old. She probably is still working and doesn't qualify for even early Social Security or Medicare. Whereas we probably should shift to great grandma for typifying old age, I doubt it will happen.
* http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf
Recall, however, that 25 is the average age for a woman at first birth of a child. Even if we run the same sequence at an age of first birth by a woman of 30, she can easily become a grandmother at age 60, still two years shy of early Social Security and five years from qualifying for Medicare. If we run the sequence for age 20, the woman becomes a grandmother at age 40, 22 years from early social Security and 25 years from Medicare coverage. She would become a great grandmother at age 60 and a great great grandmother at age 80, still within the life expectancy of an American woman at birth.
Whereas grandmother does sound old, in life grandmotherhood normally isn't all that old. She probably is still working and doesn't qualify for even early Social Security or Medicare. Whereas we probably should shift to great grandma for typifying old age, I doubt it will happen.
* http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf
Saturday, December 8, 2012
JIM DE MINT
It is hard not to cheer Jim DeMint , Senator from South Carolina, leaving the Senate for the Heritage Foundation. He will finally get his chance to do what many Republicans talk about when "serving" in politics, to leave it and make some "real money." My caution is that we don't know who will replace him. Unfortunately, there is no bottom of the barrel and things can get worse. After all DeMint had some redeeming graces, i.e. he approved of abortion to save the life of the mother, though he disapproved of it in cases of rape and incest. Of course, he opposes health care for the masses. He also doesn't want gays and single mothers to teach in our schools. He has been a negative critic of what others propose and was not a legislator, and he opposed our president at every turn.
Can he develop being head of the Heritage Foundation into a political powerhouse? Are the days of the heritage foundation being a conservative think tank over? Time will tell. After all, the most powerful Republicans seem to be outside of political offices. Consider Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh. Although he backed some conservative winners for the Senate, he also backed kooky losers, the likes of Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Richard Murdock, and Christine O'Donnell. There are those who feel DeMint lost the Senate for the Republicans through these backings. Well, at least he didn't back Linda McMahon who personally lost the Republican Party TWO Senate seats!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/jim-demints-greatest-hits-and-misses.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/06/good-riddance-mr-demint/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon
Can he develop being head of the Heritage Foundation into a political powerhouse? Are the days of the heritage foundation being a conservative think tank over? Time will tell. After all, the most powerful Republicans seem to be outside of political offices. Consider Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh. Although he backed some conservative winners for the Senate, he also backed kooky losers, the likes of Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Richard Murdock, and Christine O'Donnell. There are those who feel DeMint lost the Senate for the Republicans through these backings. Well, at least he didn't back Linda McMahon who personally lost the Republican Party TWO Senate seats!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/jim-demints-greatest-hits-and-misses.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/06/good-riddance-mr-demint/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_McMahon
Friday, December 7, 2012
SMALL BUSINESS CONTROVERSY
One frequently hears certain politicians talk about how restoring the temporary tax cuts,on even the wealthest 2% of tax payers earning over $250,000 would hurt small businesses, the main job creators. It is well known now that about 97% of small businesses earn less than $250,000/yr. A rather detailed consideration of this number is given by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities* that yields an even somewhat small percentage, perhaps 1.9%.
The Federal government definition of a small business is complex, but is usually given as 500 employees. For investment purposes, a monetary limit is usally adopted, say $2 billion. An interesting discussion of the problem is given by Ruth Marcus in the NY Times.** Some parts of this article are given in italics follow:
....the economic drag of higher rates on the wealthiest taxpayers is far less than the impact on the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising top tax brackets would lower growth next year by one-tenth of a percentage point, compared to a 1.3-percentage-point hit if middle-class taxes rose.
....according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,* 237 of the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, with incomes averaging more than $200 million, would be considered small-business owners. So would President Obama, because he receives book royalties.
...............................................................................
Rather, it sweeps in all taxpayers with business income, no matter how small a share of earnings, along with lawyers or hedge fund managers whose firms are organized as partnerships.
These upper-bracket “small businesses” are not making hiring decisions based on tax rates. Most don’t employ anyone. According to the Treasury Department, less than 6 percent of income to taxpayers in the top two brackets went to small businesses that employ people.
Warren Buffet recently said that the top 100 earners in the U.S. would be unaffected by the increase in marginal tax rates. This is so because of income tax deductions or loopholes. Nonetheless, raising the top two brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6% is estimated to yield $493 billion over 10 years.*** This sum would constiture about 12% of the $4 trillion austerity budget needed to return Federal deficit to 2011 values.
If you haven't read the Buffet op-ed article, you should: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html.
* http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2697
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-shifting-line-on-tax-cuts/2012/12/04/e50bd63e-3e46-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
***http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Raising_Revenue_from_Higher_Earners_11_15-2_1.pdf
The Federal government definition of a small business is complex, but is usually given as 500 employees. For investment purposes, a monetary limit is usally adopted, say $2 billion. An interesting discussion of the problem is given by Ruth Marcus in the NY Times.** Some parts of this article are given in italics follow:
....the economic drag of higher rates on the wealthiest taxpayers is far less than the impact on the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising top tax brackets would lower growth next year by one-tenth of a percentage point, compared to a 1.3-percentage-point hit if middle-class taxes rose.
....according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,* 237 of the wealthiest 400 taxpayers, with incomes averaging more than $200 million, would be considered small-business owners. So would President Obama, because he receives book royalties.
...............................................................................
Rather, it sweeps in all taxpayers with business income, no matter how small a share of earnings, along with lawyers or hedge fund managers whose firms are organized as partnerships.
These upper-bracket “small businesses” are not making hiring decisions based on tax rates. Most don’t employ anyone. According to the Treasury Department, less than 6 percent of income to taxpayers in the top two brackets went to small businesses that employ people.
Warren Buffet recently said that the top 100 earners in the U.S. would be unaffected by the increase in marginal tax rates. This is so because of income tax deductions or loopholes. Nonetheless, raising the top two brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6% is estimated to yield $493 billion over 10 years.*** This sum would constiture about 12% of the $4 trillion austerity budget needed to return Federal deficit to 2011 values.
If you haven't read the Buffet op-ed article, you should: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html.
* http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2697
** http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-shifting-line-on-tax-cuts/2012/12/04/e50bd63e-3e46-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
***http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Raising_Revenue_from_Higher_Earners_11_15-2_1.pdf
Sunday, December 2, 2012
NON-DEMOCRATIC HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Democratic members of the House of Representatives received more votes than Republican members in 2012 (53,952,240 to 53,402,643); yet the Republicans have many more Representatives (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/house-candidates-votes_n_2096978.html). How can this be? Representatives are elected in districts and not state wide or nationally. The party in power in the states can realign districts to minimize the opposing parties members and maximize their own. This is called "gerrymandering." It is usually done at the time of a census, but has been done at other times, also. Doing this, the Republicans won 234 seats to the Democrats 201 in 2012. Ah politics. How we manage to avoid Democracy in this country.
The same thing, of course, happens in the election for President because of the Electoral College method of choosing the President. In 2000, Al Gore received the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote which is what matters. Of course the Democrats called foul but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republican George W. Bush. The Republicans thought that might happen in this last election (because of faulty polling),* but Obama won both the electoral college vote and the numerical vote.
* Strangely, there were Republicans who thought that they would win the election for Presidency in 2012 (again because of faulty polling) and were all set for a celebration.
The same thing, of course, happens in the election for President because of the Electoral College method of choosing the President. In 2000, Al Gore received the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote which is what matters. Of course the Democrats called foul but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republican George W. Bush. The Republicans thought that might happen in this last election (because of faulty polling),* but Obama won both the electoral college vote and the numerical vote.
* Strangely, there were Republicans who thought that they would win the election for Presidency in 2012 (again because of faulty polling) and were all set for a celebration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
