Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 9, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

TAX CUTS!....Here's the latest desperate plea for attention from the White House:

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

....The focus on economic issues on Bush's last day in Washington before leaving town today for most of the rest of the month reflected a White House strategy to confront Democrats on tax and spending issues. With most of his second-term domestic legislative agenda in tatters and his strategy in Iraq under bipartisan fire, Bush appears eager to return to familiar issues that animated the beginning of his presidency and might rally disaffected Republicans behind him again.

He really is like a windup doll, isn't he? No matter what's going on in the outside world, no matter what problems we're facing, no matter what the political situation is, you pull the cord and he says "Tax cuts!" It's like he's the Manchurian President.

Kevin Drum 1:08 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's *like* he's the Manchurian President?

I've been pretty much convinced for years that he IS the Manchurian President.

Posted by: kis on August 9, 2007 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

If you pull the cord again he might say something about drilling in ANWR.

Posted by: B on August 9, 2007 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

And who pulls that string? Why Darth Cheney, of course!

Posted by: Jeff S. on August 9, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

The third pull results in "If we don't cut corporate taxes, the terrists win".

Posted by: bmaz on August 9, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

and a fourth pull results in:

i know the iraqees love freedom(*)

(*) i don't know why, of all his sound
bites, this one bugs me the most

Posted by: wschneid25 on August 9, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Does he really think he's gonna get anywhere with this? He's just gonna put this country deeper into debt. The Republicans are trying their damndest to wreck this country. Where the hell are his economic advisors? Are they snorting coke with Kudlow?

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience on August 9, 2007 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Um, Joke Line's Conscious, tax cuts CAUSE increases in revenue and reduce deficits. Didn't you see the Laugher Curve from the All Street Journal that Kevin posted a while back? Any tax rate above zero causes zero revenue, while zero tax causes a positive revenue. Brilliance is lost on you small minded provincial ivory-tower libs.

Posted by: anonymous on August 9, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Blame the Democrats for this one. They could have had a principled fight over warantless wiretapping (and the preservation of judicial supervision as per now eviscerated fourth Amendment), they also could have been threatening impeachment of AG (who is the AG), if not Bush and Cheney themselves for authorizing it in the first place.

But no. Not only did the Democrats NOT make a fuss, not only did they give their blessing for warantless wiretapping, but also they put the fox in charge of the hen house so now AG2 is responsible for oversight instead of a neutral judge.

If this administration isn't on the ropes, it's on the attack (and usually it's on the attack even when it's on the ropes).

The Democrats let this administration off the hook yet again and will soon learn to regret it, if indeed the Democrats are even capable of regret or learning from their past mistakes.

This is what you get. Instead of arguing about this administration violating the law and constitution, or about the AG lying under oath to congress, or about Iraq, the Democrats will now be fighting on ground that is much more favorable to Republicans: tax cuts. You would have thought the Democrats would have learned from Walter Mondale.

It's only a matter of time before the Democrats find themselves losing the same idiotic arguments over the same emotional non-issues of flag burning, prayer in school, and the intentionally-undefined concept of "family values".

Anyone know how hard it is to emigrate to New Zealand?

Posted by: Augustus on August 9, 2007 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

I think this is a sure sign that he's worried about his legacy: "Sure, I've messed up stuff in Iraq, and the U.S. is disrespected throughout the world, and the subprime housing crisis is about to bring down the economy, and the Justice Department is a joke, and the U.S. is associated with torture, and I've watched as New Orleans collapsed...... but I did manage to cut taxes? Can't argue with that, I did manage to do that. Can I at least get some respect?"

Posted by: msmackle on August 9, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

No matter what's going on in the outside world, no matter what problems we're facing, no matter what the political situation is, you pull the cord and he says "Tax cuts!"

Are you talking about Shrub, or about every Republican on the planet?

Posted by: craigie on August 9, 2007 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

it's not george's fault. it's the only idea, excuse me, only domestic idea that the republican party has. of course on the foreign policy side, they've got one idea as well: war.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on August 9, 2007 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

you be the judge:

ange

babs

Posted by: along on August 9, 2007 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

whoops, flipped em. well I guess they are interchangeable...

Posted by: along on August 9, 2007 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

"It's *like* he's the Manchurian President?"

You mean programmed to destroy the US to the benefit of China?
As commenter (1) said, that *like* is misplaced. He IS the Manchurian President.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on August 9, 2007 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Thank God I'm not rich. I despise all of Bush's policies, everything he's ever done, everything he stands for, everything he is, but if I were rich person who despised him he'd certainly present me with quite a dilemma. He'd keep giving me these tax cuts I don't need, and I'd have to say, "well, I don't really need this, but if you insist.... I guess I could use that extra yacht, that extra French High Renaissance chateau complete with moat."

So, let's just think about something useful: real-world fixes to social security. First and foremost, just make people ineligible until they're a few years older. With our modern life expectancies, people are just hurting themselves by drawing on social security as young as 62 or 65 or whatever.

(Of course, any programs that help people are anathema and Commooonism to Bush unless charity just consists of tiny amounts doled out by such rich people as deign to give it, and recipients of charity first bow down before Mother Church.)

Posted by: Anon on August 9, 2007 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's like being governed by a Chatty Cathy(TM) doll*.

*stolen from a classic Steve Martin line.

Posted by: IdahoEv on August 9, 2007 at 4:27 AM | PERMALINK

Have we ever seen anyone in public office who is so truly out of his league? I mean, this guy is just so pathetic out there, standing at the rostrum trying to explain himself, that I almost begin to feel sorry for him -- that is, until I see that trademark "I'm so way cooler than you" smirk of his. Then I just want to reach into my TV and smack that look of contempt and entitlement right off that putz's face.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on August 9, 2007 at 4:50 AM | PERMALINK

No matter what's going on in the outside world, no matter what problems we're facing, no matter what the political situation is, you pull the cord and he says "Tax cuts!"

Economy's going good? CUT TAXES!

Economy's going bad? CUT TAXES!

Got a toothache? CUT TAXES!

I guess there's some virtue in predictability....

Posted by: Thlayli on August 9, 2007 at 4:58 AM | PERMALINK

Happy Anniversary!!!

NIXON RESIGNS

August 9, 1974

Thirty-three years ago today, the second most corrupt Republican president in American history resigned in disgrace, edged out in Republican corruptness by our current Republican president, George W. Bush.

Anyway, Cinemax is rerunning "All the President's Men." It is a potent reminder of how far Republicans will go to gain and retain political power, including illegally using our national intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes.

Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and all the mad-dog Blue Dog Democrats should be forced to watch "All the President's Men" to help them understand the criminal mind-set of certain Republicans.

I'm certain they will sit there and realize that they are watching a movie from the 1970s about Watergate that perfectly depicts the "culture of corruption" Republicans of today, using the same criminal tactics, with the only difference being that the names have changed.

And if the Democratic leadership won't willingly cooperate in viewing "All the President's Men," then they should be strapped into a chair like in "A Clockwork Orange," have their eyes forcably kept open, and be made to watch hour after hour after hour...until it finally dawns on them how gravely in danger our democracy and our liberties really are.

Posted by: The Oracle on August 9, 2007 at 5:03 AM | PERMALINK

The Democrats should have one, loud response:

STOP STEALING FROM OUR CHILDREN!

That's what this is - generational theft. The GOP is writing a mountain of bad checks with our children's name on them, and we need to say that loud and clear, so that even the retards who continue to vote Republican can understand it.

Bush is a one-trick pony. Tax cuts is all he can do. More evidence that the man is so deeply in the pocket of corporate America, he can't hear the cries of the children who have no health insurance and are going to bed hungry. All so that greedbags like William Maguire of United Health can make a BILLION dollars and pay little or no taxes. The love of money is the root of all evil.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on August 9, 2007 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

The dollar has been devaluing against other currencies--the British pound is now worth $2.00 and the Euro is worth abou $1.30. In 2001, when GWB took office, both were worth about $1.00, iirc.

In theory, doesn't the devaluation of the dollar make the US a cheaper place to do business? Economists, help me out here. Another thing that occurs to me is that the rest of the world is starting to ignore the US and take their business elsewhere, not because we are expensive, but because our government is crazy.

I have to admit that I have never thought of "chatty Cathy" and the Manchurian Candidate together before. Whoa. That's a marriage that won't last.

Posted by: PTate in FR on August 9, 2007 at 6:11 AM | PERMALINK

Is Jerome Armstrong eligible for tax cuts so that he can pay his fine for breaking FEC laws? Or has Kos directed you to ignore this story AGAIN & you guys still march in lockstep?

Wait, that was rhetorical.....

Posted by: RW on August 9, 2007 at 6:44 AM | PERMALINK

"No matter what's going on in the outside world, "

Bush has never paid attention to the outside world. He is totally oblivious to truth, reality or anything.

Posted by: POed Lib on August 9, 2007 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

He's a putz. He was a putz when he fouled up at Harken Oil. He was a putz when he was asked to leave the sinecure Board of that Blackstone investment. He was a putz when he worked the Rangers grandstand like a hot-dog vendor.
He's always been a putz. He always will be.

Posted by: glazovsk on August 9, 2007 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

- National Debt at end of Clinton's term: $5.7 trillion
- Projected Surplus when Bush took office: $5 trillion
- Year then projected to completely pay down the National Debt: 2013
- Time it took Bush and the GOP to erase the entire surplus: less than 4 years
- Current National Debt: just shy of $9 trillion.
- The National Debt continues to increase an average of $1.41 billion per day

Bush is pushing for tax cuts again and always because the GOP may only have a couple more years to plunder the treasury with for themselves and their constituents with tax cuts, no-bid contracts, bridges to nowhere, 15 billion-dollar marriage promoting slush funds, outright gifts to the energy industry and military-industrial complex, etc., ad nauseum.

Are we surprised?

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on August 9, 2007 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone know how hard it is to emigrate to New Zealand?

Oddly enough, yes. Answer is not that hard, as long as you're still of breeding age and planning on raising a family there. They've got an underpopulation problem I guess. There's an online form you can fill out to find out your eligibility index. My wife and I tried it out after a trip there (from which we returned on Sept 7, 2001). We did great until we hit that age one, then our numbers plummeted.

Posted by: DrBB on August 9, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

The rich have a detrimental effect on society. Just look at our rich-kid president and his criminally greedy administration.

We have a party that advocates more for the rich and less for the rest of us. We have a party that advocates protection for the rich and improvement for the rest of us. We need a party that advocates more for the rest of us and less for the rich, who (contrary to the fictions that they and their hagiographers love to embellish) didn't earn what they have.

There is no reason that they shouldn't join the rest of us as we struggle desperately to survive the harm they have caused. Tax them until they are extinct.

Posted by: Giacomo on August 9, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

I am less of a fan of Bush than Kevin, but everyone should read the whole article. Bush appears to be looking for a revenue neutral plan that would close loopholes in order to pay for a cut in rates. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. We should reserve judgment until he makes a proposal.

Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

The corporations would use their windfall money to become more competitive... Ya, sure. I gots a bridge I can sell ya.

The executives and directors would pocket the money faster than you can say 'rip-off'.

>"The Republicans are trying their damndest to wreck this country."

You haven't been doing enough background reading. That was the Rovian plan all along. "In order to save the country, we had to destroy it."

From the wreckage would arise a new, rejuvinated USA modeled after the 1890's. Ya, sure.

Posted by: Buford on August 9, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Anonymous referring to the "Laugher" Curve! You can't make this stuff up! That's right, moron, just cut rates to 1%, and revenues will jump through the roof, right?

Better trolls please.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 9, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, Dubbya is an idiot but I've always been very intrigued about the concept of eliminating corporate taxes altogether. They represent about 10% of total tax revenues (~$100 billion), that number has been declining for years, and the tax rules and loopholes with respect to corporations are mind numbingly complex. Why not just scrap them all together and offset the lost income with higher marginal rates on income and raising the tax rate on capital gains. You would get the following benefits:

1. Some of the lost revenue from corporate taxes would be recovered through higher dividends to shareholders, as companies would have more cash to pay out.

2. You could raise the rates on capital gains to help offset lost revenue.

3. Companies would have less incentive to pile on debt (since the interest is deductible) which would lead to healthier balance sheets and more equity.

4. Companies would have more profit with which to reinvest or pay higher wages.

5. This would result in increased competitiveness of US corporations, which marginally would allow them to keep more jobs here. Also it would eliminate the distortions that incent companies to build/close plants and factories on the basis of who gives them the most tax breaks. Tax considerations should NEVER drive corporate decisions, but they do.

6. Taking this approach would allow Dems to break the GOPs stranglehold on big business.

7. Lower corporate taxes could be used as a quid pro quo for companies supporting universal health care.

Seriously folks. I'm a good liberal but I'm also a banker and this stuff makes sense. It doesn't get discussed enough in blogs and in the media but this isn't just the fantasy of supply siders and the like. There are legitimate economic benefits to eliminating corporate taxes and I do believe the lost revenue ($100B) can be recouped. Politically, this would be hard to sell for Democrats but it could be part of a more comprehensive tax reform coupled with getting universal health care.

Posted by: David68 on August 9, 2007 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

The economy is about to go in the toilet. Bush will say it's the Democrats fault because they didn't give him the tax cuts he wanted.

Posted by: Jose Padilla on August 9, 2007 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

We should borrow all we can from China and eliminate all the taxes that can be covered by borrowing.

We don't really have to pay those nasty Chinese back, do we?

Posted by: Luther on August 9, 2007 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Karl Rove wants to get the Dems on record against a tax cut.

Posted by: mdsand on August 9, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Rather than reflexively respond to Bush's tax cut proposal with our own reflex of opposing any tax cuts, maybe there is a tiny bit of value here... with a big caveat.

As your post last week made clear, there are plenty of countries with lower tax rates that migh be somewhat surprising (Germany, Canada, UK, etc.) Maybe our corporate tax rate, measured in a vacuum is too high. But let's consider what corporations in these countries pay for that aren't taxes, such as health care, better social net/unemployment insurance, etc., all of which is separate and apart from the pure "corporate tax rate." The GOP constantly complains that we can't have an employer mandate or single payer system for health care because it would raiase the costs of doing business here in the states. But if you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the cost of doing business including the government-imposed expenses to operate in these contries apart from the naked corproate tax rate.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, I would be all for cutting the taxes of Wal-mart and McDonalds if they were also mandated to provided a minimum level of health insurance to its employees rather than relying on public support for its low paid and uninsured employees. So, if the GOP wants to run around and embrace a tax cut for corporations, the Dems need to get out in front and tie the tax cut to social responsibility and health care reform.

Posted by: do on August 9, 2007 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Um...less than 100 billion is about 10% of our tax revenue? We take in less than a trillion a year? With $500 billion deficits? You sure you have your numbers right, Mr. Banker?

Posted by: Joe on August 9, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

do, I might be on board with your thinking if there wasn't an Iraq war. As long as we are putting that war on the national credit card, jeopardizing social security down the line in the process, we can't really afford additional tax cuts.

Posted by: corpus juris on August 9, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

President Bush has Lyme disease, cutting taxes, cutting brush, dangerous work.

Posted by: JohnF on August 9, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing good will come out of dealing with this noxious regime. With a sane executive branch some good might come out of this. But with Bush in charge? Raising taxes on the rich? Not in a million years; he is their servant. We need more social responsibility from corporations, more taxes on the rich (inheritance, income, and capital gains), and closing tax loopholes that benefit corporations and the rich.

We can then use the money to re-invest in society, and in particular to provide universal health care. That will be a big, big benefit to responsible corporations - far more than corporate tax cuts.

Posted by: Marc on August 9, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

If America worked better with low taxes, wouldn't we know after seven years under Bush? Have lower taxes helped re-build Iraq after the war or rebuild the Gulf States after Katrina? Have lower taxes lowered our deficits? Helped maintain our crumbling infrastructure? Are Americans healthier under Bush? Do fewer nations have nuclear weapons? Is the environment cleaner? Have we reversed the human contribution to global warming? Have our individual rights been protected? Are more people enfranchised to vote?

Here's the GOP platform in a nutshell: "We'll tell you what and how much to fear (high taxes, government regulations, terrorists). And recognize that if the GOP defines your fears only the GOP can relieve them."

We need to put this GOP train wreck to rest for a long time.

2008, baby. 2008.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on August 9, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

What's most depressing is, the first words out of the Democratic leadership will be "We want to cut taxes, too!"

Reagan-era Republicanism is dying, you fools. Take it off life support and let it die.

Posted by: brewmn on August 9, 2007 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

The only problem with the Manchurian part is that he would have had to have been in a combat zone in order to have been taken prisoner. Unless he had been abducted in Birmingham by Red Army mad scientists who had come ashore from the Gulf.

But, he is a windup Rovian toy which can be used to play to the base at any moment. Tax cuts is the single thread which holds the Repugs as one.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on August 9, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Again people, the article says Bush is looking for something that is REVENUE NEUTRAL. I don't trust the guy at all, but if he proposes a plan it will be analyzed to death, and we can see whether it is a cut or is REVENUE NEUTRAL. REVENUE NEUTRAL means that it won't affect the amount of money taken in by the treasury - loopholes will be closed and rates will be cut, much like the 1986 tax bill that closed manyy, many loopholes for the rich and cut the top rate to 28%. What part of REVENUE NEUTRAL do you people not understand?

Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2007 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Hey MeLoseBrain -- Read anonymous's post again. It's called sarcasm. Sheesh.

Posted by: shnooky on August 9, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

"Um...less than 100 billion is about 10% of our tax revenue? We take in less than a trillion a year? With $500 billion deficits? You sure you have your numbers right, Mr. Banker?"

The federal government takes in about $1 trillion per year in tax revenue, of which $100 billion (10%) is in the form of corporate taxes. Those are facts.

Of course getting rid of the $100 billion would need to be offset by tax hikes elsewhere to make it a revenue neutral proposal. I don't know how much you could raise but you could eat into the $100 billion by (a) raising marginal income tax rates to Clinton-era rates, (b) raising the tax rate on capital gains to levels on par with other income, and (c) some of the lost tax revenue from corporations would be recouped through higher dividend payout rates to shareholders, which would then be taxed at the individual level.

Posted by: David68 on August 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, steve, live by the sound bite, die by the sound bite.

This is coming from a party that has since forver run campaign ads based on the premise that defeating a tax cut -- revenue neutral, right -- is the same as a tax increase.

If it's revenue neutral, it's not a tax cut.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on August 9, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Manchurian President" implies he's not conscious of his own actions.

Plus, he just went through another round of "Make me the decider or we all die." and won again. Is this really a desperate plea for attention?

Posted by: Boronx on August 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: Have we ever seen anyone in public office who is so truly out of his league?

Oh, yes! Sonny Bono, George Murphy, Edwin Meese, Lester Maddox, Tommy Thompson, James Watt -- If I resorted to Google, I could probably come up with a couple of dozen people as bad as GWB. Granted, they weren't in a position to do as much damage as he is, being president and all, but in their own way they made politics safe for incompetence.

Posted by: anandine on August 9, 2007 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

DAvid68: You could raise the rates on capital gains to help offset lost revenue.

As a theoretical possibility, yes.

As good public policy, yes.

As for getting it past a filibuster, not a chance in the fucking world. Even Schumer and some other democrats would vote against it.

Posted by: anandine on August 9, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't cutting corporate taxes, while at the same time, proposing borrowing money to build-out infrastructure to support corporate economic activity, essentially the same as - er, subsidies, which is awkwardly similar to, um, COMMUNISM?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on August 9, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

This morning the decider had a press conference. Somebody asked him about the corporate tax cuts. His answer was a real Texas two step. Near as I can tell the proposal was a preliminary idea floated by the treasury department that was run up the flag poll to see who would salute. Because Bush insists any tax cut be balanced with the closing of individual tax loopholes to remain revenue neutral not many are saluting. Most of his supporters want to keep their tax loopholes. They paid lobbyists real money for those loopholes.

Posted by: corpus juris on August 9, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

shnooky, you're right, obviously a parody troll. I'm an idiot.

Steve, the problem with Dumbya's "Revenue Neutral" pose is, where is that revenue neutrality going to come from? Don't assume he means that closing loophole in corp tax law will pay for the tax-rate cut. It's more likely that he'll want to cut expenditures elsewhere, like in health insurance for kids, or Food Stamps, etc.

I'm well past the point of trusting anything he says.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on August 9, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

What part of REVENUE NEUTRAL do you people not understand?

Steve: What part of "Bush" do you not understand. Ever since he doublecrossed Kennedy on No Child Left Behind he's cheated on every deal he's made. The "Plan" will be revenue neutral, the law will somehow miss those loopholes. It's a tax cut for the rich.

Posted by: tomeck on August 9, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Did any one else notice what I thought was a stunning departure from the historical main current of Republican description of terrorism in general and 9-11 in particular: In the press conference today, Bush described the 9-11 hijackers as "kids" who had been "lured" into crashing the airliners. Maybe it was a transcription error- I was watching the closed captioning on CNN- or maybe I missed some context, but if that is what Bush said, was it a slip-up or a new direction?

Posted by: richard on August 9, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

richard

I noticed the same thing, and was shocked. Of course most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and we know just what kind of warm handholding spot the decider has for the House of Saud in his heart.

Maybe Osama needs some medical treatment and the Bin Laden family has asked George for a pardon so he can fly to Walter Reed for care. This is just the first step in making sure no Saudi terrorists are ever punished.

Posted by: corpus juris on August 9, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Reality makes more sense if we look at GWB's presidency as one giant trolling exercise.

Posted by: astrid on August 9, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I cut two tax in the morning.
I cut two tax at night.
I cut two tax in the afternoon, it makes me feel alright
I cut two tax in time of peace, and two in time of war
I cut two tax before I cut two tax,
And then I cut two more.

Posted by: Bill on August 9, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Its about 2008, the shrub is being told to dust off the old republican campaign reliables. It doesn't matter if they pass, they just need to be in the headlines. I suppose their focus group research shows that this is how far back from the next election their supporters memories go.

Tax cuts.
Anti-immigrant laws.
Something about abortion I suppose.

Posted by: jefff on August 9, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Bush opposes a 5 cent tax increase on gas for bridge repair. Gas prices go up and down by more than 5 cents on a daily basis. Who would notice?

Maybe Bush can propose a supply-side CUT in the gas tax in order to get more revenue to repair bridges. (Snark)

Posted by: bakho on August 9, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Revenue neutral? Wonder if he'll have the same committment to that as he did to letting the cuts sunset? Well, maybe he will if the loophole that's close is the home mortgage deduction. But most likely, revenue neutral will fall by the wayside. How do you know if Bush is lying? His lips are moving.

Posted by: demisod on August 9, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

David68: "...There are legitimate economic benefits to eliminating corporate taxes and I do believe the lost revenue ($100B) can be recouped. Politically, this would be hard to sell for Democrats but it could be part of a more comprehensive tax reform coupled with getting universal health care."

I agree with you. A strong argument could be made that reducing or eliminating the corporate tax would make our businesses more competitive, and the Dems really should be taking the lead...though, sigh...not much hope there. Maybe the Repubs could tell them it was necessary for the Global War on Terrorism?

Still I am sorry that the idea is ruled out. Tax policy should be structured to achieve economic goals. Our problem is that the Bush taxes are, like everything he does, are topsy-turvy. They don't raise sufficient revenue to cover expenses, they do increase inequality in the US, they don't generate middle-class jobs or have not raised wages for the bottom 70% of the population.

If reducing or eliminating the corporate tax would encourage middle-class job creation and increase wages, I'd say we should go for it. I'd also bargain on capping executive compensation. Personally, I'd favor a 100% tax on any compensation over $25 million.


Posted by: PTate in FR on August 9, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I'd favor a 100% tax on any compensation over $25 million...

... and a guilotine for any compnesation over $50 million.

Posted by: tomeck on August 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

R. Porofatto at 8:27 a.m.:

Bush is pushing for tax cuts again and always because the GOP may only have a couple more years to plunder the treasury with for themselves and their constituents with tax cuts, no-bid contracts, bridges to nowhere...

The $350 million Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere" is the pet project of DEMOCRAT Rep. Don Young.

Typical lying liberal.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on August 9, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

The $350 million Alaska "Bridge to Nowhere" is the pet project of DEMOCRAT Rep. Don Young.

Don Young is a REPUBLICAN, you idiot, as are the other boneheads who pushed this useless project Murkowski and Stevens.

Posted by: trex on August 9, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

A glimpse of the economic genius at work.

GWB today, explaining why he is against the gvmt helping to relieve the credit crisis:

"Another factor one has got to look at is the amount of liquidity in the system. In other words, is there enough liquidity to enable markets to be able to correct? And I am told there is enough liquidity in the system to enable markets to correct."

And as the moron spoke, this is what was happening in the economy today:

The Federal Reserve injected $24 billion to the United States banking system to keep its benchmark overnight lending rate at 5.25 percent, after it opened this morning at 5.5 percent. It is common for central banks to step in to stabilize the financial system when banks are either pumping too much or too little money into the markets. What was unusual about the move today was the size and speed with which the banks acted. "There is certainly a liquidity crisis in the financial system that the normal players themselves are having a little bit of difficulty working out," said Jane Caron, chief economic strategist at Dwight Asset Management, a bond firm based in Vermont. "The Fed provided some assistance."

Posted by: Disputo on August 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Not Manchuria, Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on August 9, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Typical lying liberal.

Young is a REPUBLICAN, you ill-informed, ideological bootlicking jackass.

I would say that you are a typical idiotic conservatard who doesn't let facts get in his way.

Difference between what you said and i said..My assertion is true.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on August 9, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Oops - trex got there first, and did a fine job of setting the record straight without my help.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on August 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Did any one else notice what I thought was a stunning departure from the historical main current of Republican description of terrorism in general and 9-11 in particular: In the press conference today, Bush described the 9-11 hijackers as "kids" who had been "lured" into crashing the airliners. Maybe it was a transcription error- I was watching the closed captioning on CNN- or maybe I missed some context, but if that is what Bush said, was it a slip-up or a new direction?

No transcription error. I heard it, and was just as shocked as you.

Apparently although the innocent men and boys being held at Gitmo are all killers in GWB's eyes, the 9/11 hijackers are just some innocent kids led astray, presumably by Bill and Hillary.

Posted by: Disputo on August 9, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Don Young is a REPUBLICAN, you idiot, as are the other boneheads who pushed this useless project Murkowski and Stevens.

Of course he is. But sportsfan isn't fully to blame for always getting it wrong. Fox has probably identified the entire Alaskan Congressional delegation as (D) by now. OOPS!

Posted by: shortstop on August 10, 2007 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Fox has probably identified the entire Alaskan Congressional delegation as (D) by now. OOPS!

You know that never occurred to me but that very well may be what is going on here. Remember when Fox labeled serial pedophile and all around asshole Mark Foley a (D)?

When you choose to get your news from a propaganda organ you shouldn't be surprised when that organ forces you to suck it.

Posted by: trex on August 10, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

You know that never occurred to me but that very well may be what is going on here. Remember when Fox labeled serial pedophile and all around asshole Mark Foley a (D)?

Why, yes, I do, and I remember several similar examples of Fox "errors," too.

When you choose to get your news from a propaganda organ you shouldn't be surprised when that organ forces you to suck it.

Whatever overdue library book you read that in, it's time to return it. :)

Posted by: shortstop on August 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly