Precisely the thought I had. Nationally, this sort of thing is a blow to the credibility of the whole Democratic party. The public looks at something like this and thinks, "hell, I could have just voted for a Republican and got the same thing."

I think the good citizens of New York need to help Chuck Shumer understand that protecting the obscene profits of a few billionaires is going to hurt rather than help him in the state politically. Surely the constituency for this is numbered in the hundreds for and millions against.

New Yorkers, please please please let your Senator know what you think of this abominable proposal of his.

Who's the wanker here? You acknowledge that Schumer has a responsibility to his constituents and ignore the fact that he has put forward a number of proposals to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Not only that, you ignore Schumer's very frank recognition of the difficult position he is on this issue. That hardly seems to qualify his as a wanker - how about just a Senator who is caught between the need to uphold the interests of his constituents (his utlimate responsibilty in a representative democracy) and his desire to fund a more activist gov't.

And so what if Robert Rubin wants to change the tax system - does he represent New York State? Does he have to raise $ for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte? Sheesh, you'd think with all the good Chuck Schumer has done for the Democratic Party that the liberal blogosphere might cut him some slack for not walking in lockstep with them 100% of the time. I guess not.

I think the good citizens of New York need to help Chuck Schumer understand that protecting the obscene profits of a few billionaires is going to hurt rather than help him in the state politically. Surely the constituency for this is numbered in the hundreds for and millions against.

Posted by: Tom Hamill on July 30, 2007 at 12:19 AM

Trouble is, protecting the obscene profits of those "few billionaires" can help Schumer in the state politically. Why? Because the dollars from supporting such a move are billions for and hundreds against, so to speak.

But Schumer is simply being a whore on this. Heck, even Hillary Clinton, corporate sellout that she is, supports raising these taxes.

Campaign finance money is 1st Amendment Free Speech.

Unfortunately, you and I can't afford to speak too loud.

If you write a book about how much you love the middle class, the least you can do is have the gumption to support taxing hedge fund billionaires at the same rate as everyone else.

Nonsense Kevin. I don't usually agree with Chuck Schumer, but what you support is equivalent to supporting QUADRUPLE taxation. First the corporation tax, next the capital gains tax, and after that the dividends tax. Now you support taxing them for the FOURTH time. How can you justify taxing the same income four times? That's unconscionable.

Link
"The companies owned by private equity are taxed on their profits at the corporate tax rate of ~35%. The profits are then taxed again on the private equity level at the capital gains rate of 15%. If the owners of the company choose to withdraw their profits in the form of dividends, they are taxed again at the dividend rate."
"The Democrats claim that it is unfair that private equity firms pay "only" 15% cap gains while other companies pay the 35% corporate tax rate. While one can certainly argue the merits of axing the corporate tax, which is paid almost entirely by labor, the deceitfulness of Democrats is obvious. The private equity partnerships already do pay the corporate tax when the businesses they own pay their taxes. They then pay 15% capital gains tax on top of that, and, in order to see any of their profits, another dividends tax. This amounts to triple taxation! The Democrats think these private equity firms should be taxed even more, and in the name of "fairness.""

MC: "You acknowledge that Schumer has a responsibility to his constituents and ignore the fact that he has put forward a number of proposals to increase taxes on the wealthy.

"Not only that, you ignore Schumer's very frank recognition of the difficult position he is in on this issue..."

Apparently, the hypocrite who acknowledges his hypocrisy is better than the hypocrite who doesn't.

"I really hate the Democratic leadership sometimes. It's good thing for them I hate the Republican leadership so much more."

Yes, Kev, it's the difference between an aunt you don't quite trust and an uncle who actually abused you when you were too young to know what was going on. Too much? That only half-describes what has been done to America in the last 6 years. Does anyone want to vote for Uncle Ernie?

The private equity partnerships already do pay the corporate tax when the businesses they own pay their taxes. They then pay 15% capital gains tax on top of that, and, in order to see any of their profits, another dividends tax. This amounts to triple taxation! The Democrats think these private equity firms should be taxed even more, and in the name of "fairness."

Do you even know what carried interest is?

I am very interested in MC's suggestion that no senator should ever vote against any of their constituents' interests. I would dearly love to hear about how MC thinks any senator would ever vote again, given that nearly every vote of importance will disadvantage some portion of their constituents.

I will generously assume MC is sincere, i.e. that MC hopes all the congresspeople will follow this principle, and restrict their votes to resolutions acknowledging the cuteness of puppies (or does that hurt the feeling of cat-owning constituents?). This will of course make it easier to let Dick Cheney get on with running the country.

Remember, Kevin, no description of Schumer would be complete without an explicit mention of his being the worst sort of whore for the Israel lobby.

Because hypocrisy always metastasizes.

Remember, Kevin, no description of Schumer would be complete without an explicit mention of his being the worst sort of whore for the Israel lobby.

Where do you think a substantial amount of that undertaxed money is headed?

Well Carl Levin didn't support raising fuel-economy standards either but than he didn't exactly get in the way of the recent bill very noticeably either.

Just as long as Schumer doesn't get in way - appearence is everything I guess - BUT for the record I don't like ANY of the New York Dems - that includes Hillary. New York congress members seem particular crooked, Democrate, Republican or otherwise. And Hillary isn't being straight either about this Iraq thing either. Hillary's YourTube debate made it look very much like she is planning on stay in Iraq for another year while she test the debating waters with Iran.

She is really being coy with voters on issues surrounding the war with Iraq.

Yes, Schumer has his gilded traits. But he was the one who finally (finally) outD'Amatoed D'Amato. And for that I am eternally grateful.

At last, Kevin Drum and I are on the same page.

This, our current crop of elected Democrats really can't be the best among us with ambition, intelligence, with a firm moral compass and a desire to serve in office instead of using the office to attain obscene riches and power.

Or is it?

Tom Hamill: "Nationally, this sort of thing is a blow to the credibility of the whole Democratic party."

Despite your all-too-readily apparent eagerness to wish it so, Senator Chuck Schumer's behavior is hardly representative of Democrats in general.

And further, unlike the majority of Republicans, we're certainly not adverse to upbraiding one our own and if necessary holding that person accountable as the circumstances would warrant.

I really hate the Democratic leadership sometimes. It's good thing for them I hate the Republican leadership so much more.

But that's all the major parties have anymore. They don't want you to vote for them so much as they want you to vote against the other bunch. That's the rut America has to break out of if we're ever going to have responsible government again. And that's going to require a progressive populist movement that's not based in Washington.

Blecch. I really hate the Democratic leadership sometimes. It's good thing for them I hate the Republican leadership so much more.

Be hard to imagine the Green leadership supporting this...

Be awfully nice to be able to vote for a leadership you even kinda like sometimes but it seems those who do this get thumped on even more than those who vote for the R-complex party.

(and I think the only way the Dem leadership is going to actually be moved in the right direction is through a combination of internal pressure AND through the external pressure brought about by fear of losing votes to the Greens or other parties. ie. you need people working both within and without; it's not one or the other). Otherwise, some constituencies will always be more equal than others.

But I ain't got a dog in this fight.

Hate is a strong word, Kevin. However, when the most ostensibly far left candidate in the Democratic field, Dennis Kucinich, isn't willing to say that we have an out-of-control miitary-industrial cabal that is sucking the lifeblood out of this country, you know the Democratic Party is in trouble.

Until we get money out of politics and teach people that terrorism is a manageable, criminal activity that doesn't require a bloated $600 billion Pentagon to handle, this country is way-y-y fucked!!!

Until we get money out of politics

Still think the best route to this is to dry up the need for so much money (if there's a need the money will somehow find a way; kinda like drugs) and the single best thing to do along these lines is to give over lots of prime time on the networks to politicians of all stripes in exchange for the media giant's protected (and at the moment free; a sop worth billions of dollars) use of the airwaves - and if they balk, let anyone who chooses set up on their frequencies.

This whole thing ought to be characterized as an enforcement action. It isn't a tax cut, or the closing of a loophole: it's ensuring that the IRS properly enforces the tax code.

The profits are then taxed again on the private equity level at the capital gains rate of 15%.

It's generally a good idea to have at least a bare minimum of understanding of the tax code before talking tax policy, noodle head. There is no "private equity level" of taxation. That's why we call them "pass thrus."

..."Until we get money out of politics and teach people that terrorism is a manageable, criminal activity that doesn't require a bloated $600 billion Pentagon to handle..."

I'm with you re: the effect of big money in politics, and I'm with you about the military budget bloat (and would add LOTS of other bloat), but I balk at the "manageable, criminal activity" definition in terms of terrorism.

If foreign governments are involved in the use of and support for terrorism, and if international organizations are at its core, then how is this merely a matter of enforcing US laws, which is all the (enforceable) law we have to apply against "criminal" activity?

If one supports the use of diplomacy in one's arsenal of tools against terrorism, and if one believes that foreign policy and trade policy are necessary tools to use, then does it not follow that global terrorism calls for measures that are above and beyond "law enforcement"?

We can still have legitimate and meaningful debates about how and when the threat of and use of military intervention is wise, but to think of terrorism is "merely" criminal I think is to deny its very nature. It kind of implies (1) isolationism and (2) a reactive stance more than I am comfortable with.

I believe it IS important to develop more and more precise "tools" for the military branches to use, and use judiciously at that, against global terrorism ... but I can't all the way to your implied position. But maybe I don't interpret your position accurately.

Al wrote:

That's unconscionable.

You're really misusing that word, Al. Corporations are not exactly in dire straits, and there are as many of them around as it takes to produce an abundance of the products and services we need. In almost any town in America, one doesn't have to drive or walk far to get to a supermarket that has not only every kind of food product a person could want, but has it in about about 6 or 7 varieties. Corporations are in a position to thrive in this country like they have been at no other time, in no other place, and the reason they are able to do so well is because we choose to let them be here, and we provide the environment and the markets and the resources for them to use to their advantage. There's inherent right to have a corporation. Finally, the rich-class, the exec boards and their families class, is doing better financially compared to the average American than they have in a long, long, time. To try to cover up this injustice, the conservatives are trotting out the old name "the Gilded Age," which actually sounds nice to a modern person, and doesn't carry the meaning it used to have unless you've read about it-- so, propagate the moniker, but not the knowledge, and, "Wow!! We're ina gilded age!" This result is not something to be proud of any more than a fraud is something to be proud of.

The rich owe us something for providing the environment in which to profit, for providing them with the chance to provide the free and the brave with such great goods and services. The whining and complaining is arrogant and disgraceful.

I always thought he was something of a moron.

Of course it could be an act -- helping people forgive him for boneheaded moves and making people overly appreciative when he actually chases the ball.

1600 SAT, valedictorian, Harvard, Harvard Law . . .

OK, he's just a big wanker and he's going to get away with it.

Kevin is turning into Brojo. An sniffing self-styles intellectual in love with theories but having nothing but scorn for real life politics. What's wrong, Kevin, are Democrats winning too much? Feel more comfortable with your ideals and a Republican majority. Grow up.

There's inherent right to have a corporation.

Should have been, "There's no inherent right to have a corporation"-- any more than there's an inherent right to build a tree house in your backyard, throw mud into the street, and so on.

I know this is somewhat redundant but I think it bears repeating. If a Democrat does one thing that 's objectionable then suddenly they're compared to Satan Or Bush Or Cheney{All the same you know]. Some judgement of the foibles that they commit should be prerequisite to making political comments. I'm so tired of that old refrain about picking the better of two evils. Of course politicians make mistakes. They're human. But making even the slightest comparison of Shumer to the gang of criminals that have been running this country for the last six years is lightweight at best.
When people like Shumer start to relly fuck us over then maybe we should go after them with the same vigor reserved for the cabal of Bushco.

Campaign contributions are protected 1st Amendment speech.

I don't know where you poor schmucks get off voicing your opinions. Al is the only one here who is rich enough to have protected free speech.

I wouldn't be surprised if Joe "MBNA" Biden was with Schumer on this one. Looking out for the little guy my ass.

dr sardonicus said:

But that's all the major parties have anymore. They don't want you to vote for them so much as they want you to vote against the other bunch. That's the rut America has to break out of if we're ever going to have responsible government again. And that's going to require a progressive populist movement that's not based in Washington.

I'm a card-carrying Dem, who's thinking about ripping his card to shreds. Because the quote has it exactly right. No rank & file Democrat should expect anything but disappointment in this shank end of the Cheney criminal syndicate's tenure, because Democratic "leaders" like things precisely as they are: You couldn't ask for a better whipping boy than the Idiot Prince in the White House, and you couldn't ask for a better cause than our ongoing war crime in Iraq. Why should Dems want to upset that delightful apple cart?

Like every other leftie, last November's results made me cautiously optimistic, but 6-7 months on, the inescapable conclusion is that once again I was played for a fool. The Dems have no desire, none, to do anything at all about impeachment, our military-centric foreign policy, our slide into full-blown imperialism. They have the tools, they could force a showdown on these issues. But oh no: Golly, if we did anything, that might offend somebody. Wait 'til next election, they always say. We'll finally be in control, and then you'll see some change, you bet! In the meantime, send money!

The Republicans milked the abortion issue (among others) in pretty much the same way. I would've thought that, with the White House and solid majorities in Congress, the GOP would have finally delivered on their promise to end, or at least severely restrict, a practice that they claim is abhorent. Yet, strangely, abortions are still performed in these here United States. Oh, but Republicans are manipulative and dishonest and cynical -- quite unlike our "progressive" Dems heroes.

In my neighborhood, there's a challenger in the Democratic Congressional primary (Donna Edwards) whom I'd like to see win. I might keep my party affiliation for that race. But I'm really tempted to switch to the Republican Party so I can cast a primary ballot for Ron Paul. His economics are pretty much anathema to me, but he's the only guy who's got a shot who's talking seriously and lucidly about what Empire is costing us.

In any case, in no event will the national Democratic party get another nickel from me. What's more, if Clinton is the nominee, she will never get my vote. We don't need empire, and we sure as hell don't need dynasties, and Hillary stands for both.

Kevin

With powerful money voices like Blinder, Bill Gross, Ben Stein, Jeremy Grantham, Warren Buffett lining up on the side of closing this egregious tax loophole, perhaps the deal is done and we can see this as the party allowing Schumer to take this stand as a show for his constituents.

Apart from the AEI and the "no tax is a good tax" crew, there appears to be a growing consensus among economists at least that allowing this loophole to stand creates significant distortion in the capital markets by incenting speculative financial leverage on the parts of the agents who stand to gain the most.

Irony alert: MeatHead Republican wrote: I hope you grow up eventually

OMG, a NY Senator is a Wall Street shill. Schumer is a whore!

Of course he is - how do you think you get re-elected? Can you imagine an Iowa or Illinois senator being a corn whore, or a California senator being a copyright whore?

The only way to do something about this is clean election laws, like in the People's Republic of Arizona.

You want D'Amato back? He was good entertainment, especially when he was investigating Whitewater. Much like having Willy Sutton investigate a bank robbery. Back when D'Amato was supervisor of Nassau County, he was heavily linked to sleazy land deals about Mitchel Field. Never convicted, or even indicted though, so at least he was a good crook.

I really hate

Hate is not the opposite of love, which is apathy. Hate is a strong emotion against something, in this case alignment with a super small wealthy minority, that would seem to be antithetical to the larger goals of the Democratic Party to better distribute our nation's wealth. Schumer is not only a traitor to economic fair play, but that is a good enough reason to hate his political service and support a better candidate.

What a hypocrite.I never have thought much of him and now even less.

'If foreign governments are involved in the use of and support for terrorism, and if international organizations are at its core, then how is this merely a matter of enforcing US laws, which is all the (enforceable) law we have to apply against "criminal" activity?'
--Terry Ott

Terry:

I didn't say only U.S. laws, I meant international laws, as well. We need to work with Interpol and other countries law enforcement agencies more effectively. Terrorism is not a problem that has a military solution. A couple questions will help illustrate my point:

1) How would/did our bloated military help prevent or deter the 9-11 tragedy? Answer: It didn't.
2) How was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin Al-Shahib and Ramzi Yousef, who planned the first WTC bombing, brought to justice? Answer: Good old fashioned police work. In fact, except for Mohammed Atef and Zarqawi, none of the top al-Qaeda operatives have been killed by the U.S. military.

One other point that most Americans don't even know, because the Bushies have kept it under wraps, is that the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to a neutral Muslim country on September 20th, 2001 and again on October 1st, 2001, if the U.S. could offer proof of bin Laden’s involvement. In both cases, the U.S. refused.

So, state sponsorship of terrorism, or a country allowing terrorists to operate within their borders, doesn't mean that our only choice is to go to war with that country. Economic sanctions, "no-fly zones" and other measures are often more effective. George W. Bush and his cronies view war as a money-making opportunity, so they see violence as a first resort, not a last.

Bush comes from a long line of war profiteers - in fact, much of the family wealth comes from grandpappy Prescott arming the Third Reich. Look it up.

No, we need to de-fund the war machine and cut the Pentagon's budget by 75% or more, if we want to survive as a Republic. Imprisoning war criminals like Bush and Cheney will also help.

Peace is the only answer.

TCD

I agree with Kevin completely.

I disagree with Schumer, and wrote him to ask that he support closing the carry trade loophole. But this is hardly the biggest issue in town! Anyway, the benefit of having a large country with lots of senators and representatives is that those not directly involved in a particular issue the way Schumer is here can vote for the public interest. Leave ideological purity to the elephants.

Kevin, third party.