news-and-politics-beyond-soaps

Deficits, Spending, Taxes and Gas Prices Are All On the Decline

Thu, 17 May 2012 02:21:41 +0100

According to Michael Linden, Director for Tax and Budget Policy, Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office. Linden shared the following in a recent column:

In January 2009, before President Obama had even taken the oath of office, annual spending was set to total 24.9 percent of gross domestic product. Total spending this year, fiscal year 2012, is expected to top out at 23.4 percent of GDP.

Here’s another interesting fact. Taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009. Back in January 2009, the CBO projected that total federal tax revenue that year would amount to 16.5 percent of GDP. This year? 15.8 percent.

One last nugget. The deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office. Back then, the CBO said the 2009 deficit would be 8.3 percent of GDP. This year’s deficit is expected to come in at 7.6 percent.

The fact is that Obama inherited a disaster of a federal budget. Eight years prior, when President George W. Bush took the oath of office, there was a $281 billion surplus. By the time Obama was sworn in, he was facing a $1.2 trillion deficit. Inconvenient though it may be for conservatives (especially those who are running for president), the truth is that spending, taxes and the deficit are all lower today than when President Obama took office. GDP has grown as the recession receded. This is good news. The reason for this is that the economy is recovering, albeit, slowly. Just think how much further along the recovery we would be if not for the obstruction by the Republicans in Congress (example: their refusal to pass the Jobs Bill or increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires).

In related news, according to the May 14th AAA Fuel Gage Report (http://newsroom.aaa.com), the national average price at the pump has now declined for 28 consecutive days and is 21 cents lower than the April 6 peak of $3.94. This streak of declining prices is the longest since 2010. As of Monday, the national average price for a gallon of regular self-serve gasoline is $3.73. This is five cents cheaper than the price one week ago, 17 cents cheaper than one month ago and 24 cents cheaper than one year ago.

DEAR MITT: NO MORE LIES

Wed, 09 May 2012 07:55:44 +0100

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, Former Governor of Michigan, calls Mitt Romney out on his taking credit for saving America's Auto Industry, and declares him unfit to be President of the United States.

WHY DO NEARLY HALF of AMERICANS PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX?

Wed, 02 May 2012 21:05:06 +0100

You may have heard the claim that about half of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. That’s a true fact. Slightly less than 50% of all households paid no Federal Income Tax in 2012. The number one reason should come as no surprise. It’s because they have low incomes.

I'd like to remind those who whine that, "46% of people don't pay Federal Income Taxes", that, in fact, that group pays exactly what a Millionaire pays on that same first share of their earned income. In other words, if you were a couple with two children who earned $32,000 in 2011 and paid no Federal Income Tax, no couple with two children who earned over $1,000,000 dollars paid taxes on their first 32K either.

Many Seniors also account for part of the 46% who pay no Federal Income Taxes. They too, pay nothing on the first 32K in benefits, and then are taxed on any amount over that.

(NOTE: Any couple with two children earning less than $32,000 paid no Federal Income Tax this year because their $11,900 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,800 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax. If you are single, you can earn up to $25,000
before owing federal income tax...same thing for singles earning over a million bucks a year...their first 25K is fed tax free.)

(NOTE: All workers still pay FICA, no matter how much or little they earn, which is 7.5% of their income. If they are self-employed (such as yours truly, or say, a home daycare provider), they pay double that. In addition, there are many other taxes in our fair land that everyone pays regardless of income, including sales taxes, state income taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes. These are regressive taxes. In other words, the less money you earn, the greater percentage of your income these taxes take up.)

If you ask someone with an income of over a million dollars a year if he would rather make far less and pay less (or even nothing) in taxes, he will tell you of course not.

Lastly, if you truly wish for families of 4 earning 32K to pay Federal Income Taxes, you are asking for that same amount that YOU first earn to be taxed as well, thus increasing YOUR overall tax burden!

Just something to keep in mind.

ARE REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT THE WEATHER, A FETISH...WHAT?

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:19:16 +0100

On Monday, April 16th, Senate Republicans voted against the wishes of the American people when they blocked legislation to make millionaires pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class families. According to the most recent survey taken just prior to the vote by CNN/ORC International, 72% of all Americans supported the Buffett Rule -- including 9 out of 10 Democrats, 7 out of 10 Independents and 53% of Republicans.

Commented Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) after the vote,"It is absurd that at a time when our country has a $15.6 trillion national debt and enormous unmet needs, the wealthiest people in this country have an effective tax rate that is lower than many middle-class people. It makes no sense that the richest people in America pay an effective tax rate lower than small businessmen, nurses, teachers, police officers and others.". Senator Sander had cosponsored the measure named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who says it is unfair that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.

In addition, the proposed GOP Ryan Budget, which Mitt Romney whole-heartedly supports, would cut the tax rate for millionaires by an additional 12%, while simultaneously raising taxes on lower income families (most of which are households headed by single mothers) and slashing programs supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Senator Sanders, "Nobody should be talking about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education, as many of my Republicans colleagues would like to do, while maintaining huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. In terms of the distribution of wealth, as hard as it may be to believe, the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. The richest people and largest corporations are doing phenomenal well, while the middle class is collapsing and poverty increases. This is not what democracy looks like. This is what oligarchy and plutocracy look like."

Are you outraged yet?

Every dollar devoted to the middle class causes the economy to grow three times faster than a dollar for the rich, according to statistics kept at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Millionaires save most of the income gained from tax cuts. On the other hand, middle class families spend more when they receive tax breaks which creates demand and stimulates the economy.

Until 1964, the top tax rate in the U.S. was 91 percent, yet somehow, both this country, and the very rich, managed to survive, indeed prosper, regardless! That year, Kennedy cut the top tax rate from an exorbitant 91 percent to 70 percent. (In contrast, Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress cut the top tax rate from a historically low 39.6 percent to 35 percent.) However, by increasing enforcement and cracking down on loopholes, including the use of foreign subsidiaries for tax evasion, Kennedy actually increased government revenue. On the other hand, the Bush tax cuts for the rich cost the nation $700 billion dollars in government revenue, and today Republicans are fighting against putting limits on outsourcing and foreign loopholes.

The Republican candidates keep telling us to wait...that something will eventually "trickle down" to the middle class. I'm not sure if they're talking about the weather, a fetish, or just asking us to bend over.

WAR ON WOMEN: Extended Cut

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:52:04 +0100

This video seems to complement my previous article, just below, perfectly. These women repeat word for word the recent quotes of Republicans who are currently running for office and those involved in their campaigns, GOP elected officials past and present, and Conservative talking heads. Pay attention to the name of each person being quoted; it appears onscreen as their own words are heard through the voice of a woman.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE CENTRIST WOMAN

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:22:35 +0100

I would call myself, if I had to pick a label, a social libertarian, fiscal moderate, and an ecological conservative. I am put off by big-government meddling into people's private lives, excessive spending on wars without funding, and government subsidies to oil corporations who are making record profits while my gas prices remain high and Wall Street speculators make out like bandits.

I am frustrated by the waste of my tax dollars on the burgeoning prison industry, the failed War on Drugs, the erosion of civil rights (via President Obama's approval of the NDAA and the extension of the Patriot Act) and the general rape and pillage of the land and its denizens without a thought for the long-term ramifications. I believe in equal rights for all, women's reproductive rights, the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, personal responsibility, social responsibility, and investment in this nation's future. I am a staunch believer in the First Amendment and its intent of separation of church and state which protects our freedoms from those who wish to impose their religious beliefs upon us-- and remains one of the most important founding principles of this nation.

I support social security, medicare, a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, affordable health care for all, government stimulus in times of recession, and regulation of the finanical sector (as in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that was most unfortunately repealed three decades ago). I believe in fighting wars only when those wars are really necessary, doing right by our troops, their families and veterans, and the like. I believe that Congress should abide by the same laws as the rest of us, and take part in the same system of health care, retirement and social security as do the American people they represent.

I believe that, rather than being "evil," government builds our roads and bridges, funds education and national defense, ensures the products that reach the market are safe, and provides other essential services. I am not so much a supporter of "less government" as I am of a more efficient government. I accept the findings of empirical science; that's why, e.g., I get my family a flu shot each year, check the expiration dates on milk, consult the USDA climate charts before choosing what to plant in my garden, and why I believe the scientific journals that inequivocably state that human activity (our carbon burning activities) is directly responsible for the rapidly increasing rate of global warming.

Very few politicians fit my mold. At one time, I was a registered Republican. Currently, I am an Independent who, I suppose, leans left of center--mainly because "center" has been moved so far to the right it is barely visible. The complexities of the myriad factors involved in selecting a single person as head of state leave us wanting in making reasonable decisions. For many, it is, "hold your nose and vote for the least objectionable." Nearly everyone will end up compromising their principles to decide how to cast their vote for President.

The current Republican stance on women's health and basic rights is no more popular with the majority of men than it is with women. Aside from the issues of basic morality and freedom, the idea that "biology is destiny" for women brings out the pragmatic point of view in today's society. Women working outside the home has become a necessity for most of America's households. Men don't want their significant others to be barefoot and pregnant any more than most women do, and yes, single mothers do exist-either by choice or circumstance.

Pragmatism aside however, who do these current crop of GOP candidates think they are to dictate the most basic freedoms of womanhood -- freedoms that were decided many decades ago? How can any rational person not see the connection between lack of birth control, sex education, and the need for abortion? Why would a party that is so against having a social safety net, want women to have more children than they could possibly afford to care for? Do they want to see begging in the streets and large numbers of abandoned children?

If the minds of the current crop of Republican candidates are so irrational, how could anyone possibly consider them for president? You don't have to be a genius to be president, but at the very least, one needs a logical mind that doesn't live in the land of make-believe.

The Republicans are systematically alienating one group after another. It is only a question of whether they are sufficiently abhorrent to enough people to overcome the mindless hatred of President Obama they have managed to nurture, largely through disinformation and fear-mongering.

It appears that the Republicans are betting on that large group of haters to go with their moneyed "One Percenters", who salivate over promises of a license to do whatever they wish in finance, pharmaceuticals, insurance, oil and mineral mining, etc.. Make no mistake - their big backers don't care a whit for all these social issues - they just want the EPA, FDA, SEC, CDC etc. gone or disabled, along with unions and labor laws. The religious and social agenda so frequently touted at an ever increasing screeching intensity is but a smokescreen to cover their real intent.

Fify-one percent of American voters are women. If a bloc like "centrist women" is sufficiently opposed to this agenda, the Republicans may just have blown it. In the end, the GOP may learn the hard way that if you don't respect us, don't expect us.

THE TRUTH ABOUT RISING GAS PRICES

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:31:01 +0100

Though oil demand is at its lowest since 1997, oil prices (and gas prices along with them) are once again on the rise and the GOP wants even more handouts to Big Oil.

Analysts project that gas prices will top $4 a gallon nationally and perhaps reach record highs later this year. Despite relatively low demand and surging production levels in the U.S., prices are rising due to a variety of factors, including instability in the Middle East, but even more so, unregulated Wall Street speculation.

Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it's almost the reverse.

"On Tuesday," according to reporting by McClatchy's Kevin G. Hall, "Oil [prices] rose past $106 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a gallon — thanks again in no small part to rampant financial speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions. Because speculators dominate the market, their predictions of higher oil prices -- which were rampant on Tuesday -- can make their prophecies self-fulfilling."

Hall's report highlights the fact that despite rising prices at US gas pumps, demand in the US was so low it has "become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it generates."

This fact contradicts the familiar refrain from GOP politicians and operatives who claim that the Keystone XL pipeline is absolutely needed to solve US energy woes or would lead to lower prices for consumers.

Financial speculators are "piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices... oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading..."

In short, oil prices are inflated due to speculation....and speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices, not supply and demand.

Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. says, "These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make money. It's our fault because we are allowing them to do that. Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby. I've been in this business 30 years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors."

For their part, Republicans have latched on to these rising prices as proof that President Obama has pursued an “outrageously anti-American” energy policy. As with most other overheated conservative attacks on the president, the facts don’t line up in their favor.

Here are FIVE Key Facts about Rising Gas Prices, the GOP, and Big Oil.

1. Domestic Energy Production Has Soared Under President Obama: The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a record last week, having quadrupled in number over the past three years. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”

2. President Obama Has Taken Huge Steps to Reduce Our Dependence on Oil: In addition to overseeing a dramatic increase in domestic energy production (including from renewable sources), the president has also taken steps to reduce the amount of oil we consume. Most notably, new modern standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon will cut U.S. oil use by 2.2 MILLION barrels of oil per day by 2025 — a move that will save consumers $1.7 TRILLION and also cut greenhouse gas pollution by 6 BILLION metric tons. The 54.5 MPG standard by 2025 builds on an earlier Obama administration policy to increase fuel efficiency to 35.5 MPG by 2016, a one-third improvement to fuel economy standards that had previously languished in neutral for more than 20 years. Even as gas prices are rising, Americans’ cars are becoming significantly more efficient.

3. Big Oil Made a Record $137 BILLION in Profits Last Year: Just the five largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, and Shell — booked a combined profit of $137 BILLION in 2011, even though these companies produced 4 percent less oil in 2011. And of course Big Oil’s record profits are directly related to increasing pain at the pump for American consumers.

4. Republican Politicians Oppose Ending Taxpayer Handouts to Big Oil: Every Republican presidential contender and nearly every Republican member of the House and Senate has signed a pledge to oppose ending taxpayer handouts to Big Oil — handouts that will add up to more than $40 BILLION over the next ten years. In addition, Republicans have repeatedly voted in lockstep to block efforts to repeal the tax giveaways to Big Oil. President Obama, however, remains undaunted and has once again included repeal of these wasteful giveaways in his budget for 2013.

5. Republican Politicians Want to Cut Big Oil’s Taxes Even More: Both the House Republican budget plan released last year (and supported by nearly every Republican member of the House and Senate) and the tax plans of every GOP presidential contender call for cutting the corporate tax rate by one-third or more. This huge tax cut could result in another big windfall of billions of dollars for Big Oil. By contrast, President Obama has proposed closing wasteful tax loopholes and wants to clamp down on the use of foreign tax shelters (ExxonMobil uses at least 20) that allow huge corporations to avoid paying their fair share in U.S. taxes.

In summary, instead of giving billions more in handouts to Big Oil despite the industry’s record-breaking profits, President Obama has presided over a dramatic increase in domestic energy production coupled with unprecedented efforts to decrease Americans’ spending at the pump by modernizing fuel economy standards.

Read more on this subject :
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/21/139521/once-again-speculators-behind.html
http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php?cmpid=twitter
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/oil_infrastructure.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/16/we-can-t-wait-driving-forward-new-fuel-economy-standards
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/five-facts-about-gas-prices/

CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIST on Where the Right Went Wrong

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:40:11 +0100

Conservative Economist Bruce Bartlett wrote "the bible" for the Reagan Revolution, worked on domestic policy for the Reagan White House and served as a top treasury official under the first President Bush. Bartlett argues that right-wing tax policies -- pushed in part by Grover Norquist and Tea Party activists -- are destroying the country's economic foundation.

DING-DONG SHE'S GONE!

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:59:19 +0100

As reported previously below, Karen Handel, vice president for public affairs at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, had come under pressure to resign following public outcry over the announcement Komen would pull funding from Planned Parenthood.
On Tuesday, she did just that.

Click to read her Resignation Letter.

Whether or not the Komen foundation will regain its reputation or be able to maintain the same level of donations after this public relations disaster remains to be seen. From where I am sitting, it will be an uphill climb. One other point of heated contention among the public is the salary paid to Komen head, Nancy Brinker, said to be approximately $500,000 a year.

KAREN HANDEL of the KOMEN FOUNDATION SHOULD RESIGN

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:54:41 +0100

Karen Handel: Exposed

A Susan G. Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel, Komen's staunchly anti-abortion and newly hired vice president for public policy, was the main force behind the breast cancer charity's decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.

"Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said, 'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"

Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned Parenthood policy...

...The source said Handel submitted a final version of the new grant criteria to Komen leadership in November, and the board approved it in December, at which point Komen's top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned "on the spot."

"It was apparent to everyone in the organization that Karen was doing everything in her power to defund Planned Parenthood," the source said, "and that's why Mollie Williams quit."

Williams has previously declined to comment on why she left, but she told National Journal that she respects the work of Planned Parenthood...

...The backlash against Komen was intense...The charity struggled to deal with the pressure, especially in a face-off against Planned Parenthood, an organization whose fine-tuned political team has experience in these high-pitched, high-stakes debates....

..."Komen's not equipped to spend its days fighting political battles," the source said. "Abortion is not our issue, and...this investigation criteria...blew up in their faces. They were just naive in the face of [the] incredibly sophisticated Planned Parenthood operation."

Stunned by the fallout, Komen leadership decided within three days to reverse the Planned Parenthood decision and apologize. But the Komen insider said Handel was furious about the cave and fought against it up until the point that it was announced Friday morning.

"It became clear Thursday night that something had to give," the source said. "Nancy Brinker, Liz Thompson, the board, and leadership were saying, 'We're really worried about Komen's mission if we don't figure this out.' But Karen was still arguing against it as of Friday morning -- she was horrified that we were caving. She's politically tone-deaf."

In light of the political damage and the abrupt reversal of the Planned Parenthood funding decision, pressure has mounted inside Komen for Handel to resign.

"Everybody in the organization wishes she would do the right thing," the Komen insider said.

For the full story: Go HERE