It was an interesting economic analyses, but then he succumbed to political paranoia. "The oil, mining, defense, media, and pharmaceutical firms who form the core of their constituency rely on monopoly power, patents, and the control of public resources for their profits. They do not depend, very much, on strong consumer demand." Yeah, that's it...( the media???? mining??) I have found that many people who know economics very well are totally cluless when it comes to the political game. This includes people on boths sides of the aisle.
In the article: "In the near term, it is true that new tax cuts and more military spending may bring another false dawn. The second quarter GDP growth of 3.1 percent was a sign of this."
Ah yes, the old "It'll get better before it gets worse" argument... Besides, who cares about the eoncomy?
Absolutely. Then they can cut programs they don't like. If we repealed the ridiculous tax "cuts," we wouldn't be mired in horrendous deficits, we'd be able to afford the Iraqi occupation, and we wouldn't have to cut social programs. But, dammit, those millionaires need their extra nickel!
You're either painfully slow or disingenuous as hell - probably both. I guess you missed the part describing the tax initiatives of the current administration This is a fact. What your quoting information from 1995 has to do with what Bush is doing in 2003, I have no idea. Also, note the sly use of the future tense here, something that obviously eluded you at your first reading: I guess in the Alabama school systems reading comprehension's not over-stressed.
nice table, but how many times do you have to be reminded of the fact that FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ARE ONLY PART OF THE OVERALL TAX BURDEN? You know that thing called FICA that appears on your paycheck? That's part of the tax burden too, and it is far more regressive than income tax. In addition, so are many state, local, sales, and property taxes. This is a common tactic of right wing demagogues, only talk about income taxes in order to help their cause. Very dishonest.
Samuel, please give me some examples of how the "right wing demagogues" only talk about income taxes to help their cause. Thanks in advance.
Please how irrelevant can you get. So you're suggesting that the right hypes up their income tax cuts, while raising other taxes? Getting into an argument on which party reduces the tax burden will always favor the republicans.
My only suggestion was that republicans myopically focus on income taxes in order to make it appear as if the rich are paying a greater share of the tax burden than they actually are. Bamaslammer did it in this thread, you asked to see it being done again, and I showed it to you. That was pretty obvious from the post, and a simple concept in general; you seemed to comprehend it the first time around. What seems to be the trouble?
But do you deny that the "rich" pay FICA, Social Security and state and local taxes as well. Ridiculous. Why are you so opposed to people keeping more of the money THEY earned? Jealousy is such an ugly, ugly thing.
Bamaslammer, without getting into a war of the wallets, as a single male working fro a wall street law firm, let's just say I pay a pretty damned decent amount of taxes every year, so that ain't it. BUt in any event, go back and read my post; other taxes and fees aside from income tax are often regressive rather than progressive.
This is not your father's Wall Street. Well, Sam, to get this closer to the thread topic, do you think hair styles have any influence on a bad economy?
Taxes. Here's a sample of how Texas dealt with it's budget crisis: House puts its focus on austerity Budget that eschews tax hikes may squeeze Texans on the margins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Gary Susswein AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, April 18, 2003 Texas lawmakers are departing sharply from budget-writing strategies emerging in other large, high-deficit states. While California, Florida and New York are balancing spending cuts with tax hikes, Texas is largely focused on reducing services to many people who hover on the edges of poverty and sickness. The $117 billion spending plan passed by the Texas House this week marks a watershed in the way the state spends money, building on its reputation for low spending and low taxes. And it reveals a philosophy that is more protective of taxpayers who pay for services than of Texans who receive them. If the House plan becomes law, citizens will still pay the property, sales and other taxes they've always paid, and the government will still educate children and care for many of the neediest and sickest Texans. But without new taxes, the state won't take care of the not-quite-as-needy and not-quite-as-sick or supplement basic classroom education as much as it used to. And the new Republican leadership says that's exactly how government should work. "We've really pushed back or stopped the growth of government," said House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who took the helm after the Republican landslide victory in November gave the GOP 88 seats in the 150-member House. "It does reflect the majority of average Texans," he said. "We've had a control change, and the people voted that control change in." Lawmakers still have to reconcile any differences between this budget and a Senate version that is still in the works before sending a final bill to Gov. Rick Perry. But many of the cuts in the House plan likely will end up in that final version, which will close a projected $9.9 billion budget hole. On paper, the House plan is almost exactly the same size as the current state budget. That doesn't account for a growing population and softening economy, which continue to put a strain on Texas schools, health care, social service programs and prisons. And it doesn't allow the state to continue a decade-long expansion of those services. Texas ranks 45th in the nation in per-capita health and human services spending and 41st in per-capita education spending. But even critics say the state has made huge strides in recent years, especially by establishing the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). That program provides health coverage to about 500,000 children — and is one of the primary areas targeted by the House. "We shouldn't be supporting families who are making between $38,000 and $45,000 a year," Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said about reducing eligibility for the program from 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($48,000 for a family of four) to 150 percent ($36,200 for the same family). It's an attitude that reflects the do-it-yourself individualism that is basic to Texas culture. "We're going to lose a lot of kids from CHIP, but perhaps now their parents will go back to many of the private health insurance plans that they had before CHIP was available to them," Berman said, adding that there are always churches and clinics to help those who fall through the cracks of the state's social service network. The budget also eliminates Medicaid coverage for pregnant women who earn more than 135 percent of the poverty level, requires children on Medicaid to re-enroll every six months instead of every year and eliminates home care for 56,000 elderly and disabled Texans. It cuts aid to colleges by more than 10 percent, delays the purchase of new textbooks by a year and eliminates teacher training programs. And public schoolteachers who now get about $80 a month from the state to pay for health insurance costs would get only about $40. "That $80 a month doesn't look like much to somebody, but that can get you two doctor's visits and one prescription. And when you have a kid that can happen all the time," said Barb Stevanson, a teacher at Sanchez Elementary School in Austin. She said some of her co-workers pay up to $250 a month to get just one child on their insurance plans. But the Republican House members wonder why they should pay teachers — who already draw a taxpayer-funded salary — $1,000 a year to pay for something that other working Texans pay for without any government help. "I wish I had a magic wand. I wish I could wipe away every tear with an appropriation from the State of Texas," said Rep. Ray Allen, R-Grand Prairie. "But I am not a magician. I can't print money." Other states facing budget shortfalls over the past two years haven't printed money, either. But they have raised taxes while also cutting services. In California, lawmakers are looking at 117 tax and fee hikes, including higher gasoline and sales taxes and surcharges on beer, professional licenses and college courses.It's not a matter of whether to pass the new taxes to help fill a $30 billion budget hole, bit which taxes to pass. In New York, Republican Gov. George Pataki is quietly shopping a sales tax hike on top of other proposed tax increases, according to published reports. And in Florida, the House and Senate are at a stalemate over a proposal to raise taxes by $1.4 billion. In all, 23 states also raised taxes or delayed tax cuts last year, and 24 are looking at tax hikes this year. During Texas' last two fiscal crises, in 1987 and 1991, the Legislature supplemented spending cuts with hikes in the state sales and gasoline taxes. Not this year. Lawmakers have agreed to tweak the state's corporate franchise tax to get more companies to pay but have ignored bills that would expand the sales tax, raise the cigarette tax and introduce an income tax. The average Texan pays $2,456 a year in local and state taxes, less than in 38 other states. The poorest 20 percent of Texans pay 17.6 percent of their yearly income in taxes and the wealthiest 20 percent pay 5.1 percent, according to statistics compiled from comptroller's office data. The House Republicans say new taxes would be a hardship on Texas families and would drain money from an economy that needs to be jump-started. Instead, they found money in other ways. Those include consolidating a dozen health and human services agencies and lowering the projected number of Medicaid recipients from what House members had accepted less than a week earlier. Those ideas are consistent with the new philosophy of less government, even if they haven't passed actuarial muster yet. "The problem is our projections have been off every year, and we've always been under (actual caseloads), including this year," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, one of 45 Democrats who voted against the House budget early Thursday after three days of debate. He and other Democrats argue that the budget won't even help the neediest Texans, as the Republicans claim, and point to a litany of programs that are on the chopping block. There's the Children with Special Health Care Needs program, which provides medical services for kids with epilepsy, cerebral palsy and other diseases that their insurance doesn't cover. Its budget will be cut from $80 million to $71 million, and the 1,500-person waiting list will likely grow. There's community care for elderly and disabled, which will be eliminated, leaving 56,000 elderly and frail Texans without home health care. "I don't believe they're intentionally trying to hurt people," said Democratic caucus chairman Jim Dunnam of Waco, who led an unsuccessful charge to put more money in education and health and human services. "But I believe they're intentionally cutting programs because they don't believe in them." And in the end, Texans could actually end wind up paying higher taxes when those programs are gone. Not to the state, but to local governments that may have to do more when the state does less. Take children off state-funded health insurance, for example, and many will end up at public emergency rooms. Cut state aid to schools, and local school districts — at least those that aren't at their taxing limits — may have to raise local property taxes to avoid laying off teachers or eliminating programs. "My biggest concern is that the state will leave here basically saying, 'We didn't raise taxes, we didn't raise user fees,' and expect us to pick up these programs," Tarrant County Commissioner Glen Whitley said at a recent Capitol press conference, warning that property taxes could rise as much as 25 cents for every $100 of assessed value. Central Texas officials have not been as specific about how much more money they will need. Republican leaders say if taxes go up, it's because citizens want something more from government. Not because they need something more. "This budget will not fund everything everyone wants," said House Appropriations Committee chairman Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston. "It will fund the basic needs of Texas." gsusswein@statesman.com; 445-3654
