Trickle down tax policy

Karoli has a nice post on Crooks and Liars today that rightly mocks Joe Lieberman and Kent Conrad for their opposition to allowing the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year to expire in 2011.

One particular argument for the high income tax break apologists has always been that raising taxes for these people on top will hurt "small business" in the U.S. This argument of course presupposes that capitalists will immediately reduce their economically beneficial activities if they are asked to pay slightly higher taxes. That must be why you can't find any capitalists in London, Stuttgart or any of the countless other places in the developed world where taxes are far higher than in the United States. But since most Americans are quite unaware of how much lower top tax rates are here compared to much of the world, we should consider a purely American example. A master plumber has a choice between remaining a one person operation clearing $65,000 a year in profits, or hiring on some other plumbers and apprentices and taking in profits of $350,000 a year. Will this plumber choose not to expand because of a minor increase in taxes? Not for any reasons of rational self-interest!

Karoli's post also makes another point. It refers to a study of tax data that shows very clearly that most small business income in this country is not taxed at the highest rates. This is true for two reasons: most small business owners make less than $250,000, and those wealthy folks who do report small business income very often derive only a fraction of their income from small business.

Progressives who want to argue in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts for wealthy folks expire should actually look to small business as a natural ally. A seamstress or landscaper with a fairly low income obviously has an interest in seeing the very wealthy pay more of their fair share. But I would also look to wealthy small business owners for support. If paying thousands more in taxes will help to make it easier to provide healthcare to employees, why not do it? The Republican assumption that most people don't like paying taxes is correct. But the Republican assumption that a minor increase in taxes, for those making over $250,000, can be successfully misrepresented as an attack on "small business," must be fought against with great vigor.

Spun out of control

Our Wild Western friend, The Existentialist Cowboy, has a fantastic post on why any U.S. PR offensive now launched is doomed to failure:

At a time when some 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in those "areas covered by the US military 'surge'", Bush efforts to define those thrown into any US facility as "terrorist" is absurd. An arbitrary exception to Due Process is thus made for people "accused" of being terrorist, though they are never formally "accused" or charged. They just "are". Bush says so.Terrorism is whatever Bush says it is. Terrorism should be dealt with by intelligence personnel and law enforcement. "Terrorism" as consisting of specific, prosecutable crimes should be treated like any other intelligence and law enforcement problem. It is understandable that Bush would not want to do so. To so treat those crimes robs him of the power he seeks. It deprives him of the various pre-texts he needs to wage war on the world. Free of "terrorist" distractions, the utterly failed and corrupt nature of Bush's miserable regime would become apparent even to his corrupt GOP base.

This corrupt Cheney/Bush regime never stood for much. Now it is merely lurching here and there in a desperate attempt to ensure its own survival. The big lie, however, has been exposed. The war crimes of these sick puppies are not in any way related to a genuine "war on terror." A genuine "war on terror," would combine very narrowly focussed attempts to bring down some real terrorist monsters like Osama bin Laden (hint to CIA: he isn't currently living in either Iraq or Iran), with a dramatic attempt to win the hearts and minds of the world by beginning to genuinely address the real, and perceived, inequities that poison so many minds against the U.S.

What the Cheney/Bush junta has established, however, is something very different. They have created (in classic 1984 Orwellian style) a permanent war mobilization as a pretext for hijacking a free country and turning it into a police state. This process is only in its early phases. If we are "allowed" to hold free and fair elections in 2008, and (unlike in 2000) actually install the new government we elect-- then, maybe our constitutional republic can be restored. Remember folks: eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

Waterboarding: just a "vigorous" way to get a bath?

Thers quotes the NYT's presentation of our Commuter and Thief''s brilliant argument about why it was vital to keep secret whether or not waterboarding was used by our interrogators:

When Mr. Bush was asked whether he considered waterboarding illegal, he said he would not discuss specific methods used in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. “It doesn’t make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not,” he said.

Then Thers goes on to prove once again why his blog should be required therapy-- for all of us driven close to the edge by this insane Cheney/Bush administration:

Ya know, with all due respect to the preznit (and I do mean all due respect), I gotta say, I kinda think the cat's out of the bag on the "do we use waterboarding" question. I don't know for sure, but I have a hunch Al Qaeda's picked up on this one.
Suspected Al Qaeda Terrorist About to Be Waterboarded: (smacking forehead) Good grief! Boy, I just did not see this coming! (Chuckles ruefully) You guys. If only I'd had time to prepare for this, I'd be able to keep mum about those plans to bomb the nuclear power plant! (Flings hand over mouth) Whoopsie!
Interrogators: Ha ha, caught you, Achmed!
Achmed: Outwitted again! You boys from the USA are too smart for our dusky asses! (Laughs) Well, might as well go ahead with the waterboarding, though. I can't complain about the facilities here, fellas, but I could use a bit of a bath.
Interrogator: Well, it is quite pleasant, and not at all torture! Here ya go!
Achmed: (Giving a big smile and a hearty thumbs up as his lungs fill with fluid) Glug!
(Credits roll to happy applause of studio audience)
Or something. Anyway, having to listen to rationales for torture as idiotic as this being offered by a grownup, never mind the President of the United States of America, is a form of torture all by itself, if you're at all possessed of even a vestigial brain and conscience.

Were you a screenwriter in another life, Thers?!?

Dangerous and Delusional

###################################################################

From the John Edwards website:

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about President Bush's remarks today on the war in Iraq.
"The president's remarks today defending his Iraq policy without regard to actual facts border on the delusional. The president claimed that the same people attacking U.S. troops today are the ones who perpetrated 9/11. It must be nice to live in a world where your actions have no consequences. There was no group called Al Qaeda in Iraq before the president's disastrous mismanagement of the war gave them a foothold, a fact the president flagrantly ignores. After being discredited again and again, the president is still trying to link Iraq and 9/11 - a rationale for the war that virtually everyone except Dick Cheney has now recognized was false.
"The president needs to stop pretending and start taking responsibility for the results of his failed strategy: There are more terrorists. Al Qaeda is resurgent and restored to full strength. And that's according to the Bush Administration."

We can't make progress, restoring sanity to our national leadership, without overcoming the deep denial that has fogged the judgement of so many for so long. We don't have to be nasty, we don't have to make gratuitous insults, we just need to tell the truth. Nothing in Edwards' statement is the least bit controversial. Very many of the people who eagerly cheered on the invasion of Iraq are now ready "to stop pretending." I predict the next year we will see the U.S. public cringe, with ever-growing embarassment, when they are forced to listen to this failed leader trot out his tired old lies in such a pathetic fashion.

The Awful Truth

Well, it's official, folks. The wheels have come off the Neocon bus. Long habits of contempt for the rule of law have led the Executive and the Cheney branches of our national government to openly defy the legislative branch. Rather than work together with the duly elected representatives of the American Republic to restore the badly shaken faith of most citizens in the good will of their government, Cheney and his faithful lapdog lil'Bush are telling the House and Senate to "go f@#* themselves."

Laurie Kellman reports from Washington, D.C. for The Associated Press:

"The Senate subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday, demanding documents and elevating the confrontation with President Bush over the administration's warrant-free eavesdropping on Americans.
Separately, the Senate Judiciary Committee also is summoning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to discuss the program and an array of other matters that have cost a half-dozen top Justice Department officials their jobs, committee chairman Patrick Leahy announced.
Leahy, D-Vt., raised questions about previous testimony by one of Bush's appeals court nominees and said he wouldn't let such matters pass.
"If there have been lies told to us, we'll refer it to the Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney for whatever legal action they think is appropriate," Leahy told reporters. He did just that Wednesday, referring questions about testimony by former White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The escalation is part of the Democrats' effort to hold the administration to account for the way it has conducted the war on terrorism since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The subpoenas extend the probe into the private sector, demanding among other things documents on any agreements that telecommunications companies made to cooperate with the surveillance program.
The White House contends that its search for would-be terrorists is legal, necessary and effective pointing out frequently that there have been no further attacks on American soil. Administration officials say they have given classified information such as details about the eavesdropping program, which is now under court supervision to the intelligence committees of both houses of Congress.
Echoing its response to previous congressional subpoenas to former administration officials Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, the White House gave no indication that it would comply with the new ones.
"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.
The showdown between the White House and Congress could land in federal court.
Also named in subpoenas signed by Leahy were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties the White House, Cheney's office, the Justice Department and the National Security Council have until July 18 to comply, Leahy said. He added that, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., he would consider pursuing contempt citations against those who refuse.
Gonzales, in Spokane, Wash., on Wednesday to discuss gang issues with local officials, said he had not seen the subpoena documents and could not comment on them directly.
"There are competing institutional interests," Gonzales said.
The Judiciary committees have issued the subpoenas as part of a look at how much influence the White House exerts over the Justice Department and its chief, Gonzales.
The probe, in its sixth month, began with an investigation into whether administration officials ordered the firings of eight federal prosecutors for political reasons. The Judiciary committees subpoenaed Miers, one-time White House legal counsel, and Taylor, a former political director, though they have yet to testify.
Now, with senators of both parties concerned about the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to root out terrorism suspects in the United States, the committee has shifted to the broader question of Gonzales' stewardship of Justice.
The issue concerning Kavanaugh, a former White House staff secretary, is whether he misled the Senate panel during his confirmation hearing last year about how much he was involved in crafting the administration's policy on enemy combatants.
The Bush administration secretly launched the eavesdropping program, run by the National Security Agency, in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspected of having terrorist links. The program, which the administration said did not require investigators to seek warrants before conducting surveillance, was revealed in December 2005.
After the program was challenged in court, Bush put it under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established in 1978. The president still claims the power to order warrantless spying.
The subpoenas seek a wide array of documents from the Sept. 11 attacks to the present. Among them are any that include analysis or opinions from Justice, NSA, the Defense Department, the White House, or "any entity within the executive branch" on the legality of the electronic surveillance program.
Debate continues over whether the program violates people's civil liberties. The administration has gone to great lengths to keep it running.
Interest was raised by vivid testimony last month by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the extent of the White House's effort to override the Justice Department's objections to the program in 2004.
Comey told the Judiciary Committee that Gonzales, then-White House counsel, tried to persuade Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse course and recertify the program. At the time, Ashcroft lay in intensive care, recovering form gall bladder surgery.
Ashcroft refused, as did Comey, who temporarily held the power of the attorney general's office during his boss' illness.
The White House recertified the program unilaterally. Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller and their staffs prepared to resign. Bush ultimately relented and made changes the Justice officials had demanded, and the agency eventually recertified it.
Fratto defended the surveillance program as "lawful" and "limited."
"It's specifically designed to be effective without infringing Americans' civil liberties," Fratto said. "The program is classified for a reason its purpose is to track down and stop terrorist planning. We remain steadfast in our commitment to keeping Americans safe from an enemy determined to use any means possible including the latest in technology to attack us."

Too bad these aspiring tyrants in the Cheney-Bush administration feel they have to keep Americans safe from allowing their own elected representative to get the full truth.