The Republican Watch (Num. 1, Vol. I)

A new series I've decided to start, to keep an eye on those sneaky bastards in the majority down in D.C. It'd be nice if I could do this weekly, but I won't, so I won't bother promising that.

#1: Social Security Reform

Bush had a speech last night. I didn't watch (I didn't even know it was on) but I read about it this afternoon in the paper. Basically, his plan to make Social Security solvent (maintaining at least a break-even cash flow) is to tie benefits for the "higher earners" to inflation rather than to wages, which generally rise faster than the former. Experts believe this will make up for about 70% of the shortfall. However, this is not acceptable.

The first issue is the definition of "higher earners." Bush says that everyone making more than $20,000 a year has benefits cut. This is more than 70% of the population. The problem created here is that the extremely poor maintain decent benefits, and the wealthy don't need the benefits since they have pensions and stocks and whatnot...but what of the middle class? They get less of a check each month but don't have any means to cover up their losses. Therefore, once again, the Bush administration has shafted the middle class.

A much better solution (but one many Republicans are adamantly opposed to) is to raise/eliminate the payroll cap on social security taxes. Currently, any money a person earns over $90,000 a year is not taxed by social security. This is pissantic (a word?). Why should people earning larger amounts of money be exempt from paying taxes? Does it not follow that the poor, who need every penny the get, should be exempt, if anyone at all? The income tax system has taxed the rich more heavily than the poor for years, and it has worked out fine - the upper income brackets have not collapsed (more on that later). Eliminate the payroll cap and we'll fix the social security deficit without lowering benefits!

Oh, and private accounts defeat the entire purpose of social security. There is no "security" in the stock market, and most Americans realize that, and oppose Bush's plan.

#2: Filibuster Busters

So this pisses me off. The Democrats managed to defeat seven of Bush's nominees for judicial appointments in his first term (these guys are crazy, by the way). So what does Bush do? He re-nominates them in his second term. Not since FDR tried to stack the judiciary has a President so blatantly disregarded unwritten law (not the band) on judicial issues. Furthermore, the Christian Right Republicans have seized on Bush's move to try to beat down the filibuster law in time for Rehnquist to keel over and be replaced. And since the leader of the Republicans in the Senate (Bill Frist) is one of them, they've had no trouble pushing the issue. The problem they have is that it takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster, and the Republicans only have 54 members in the Senate. A successful filibuster manages to run the time down on an issue to avoid bringing it to a vote, at which point it is dismissed. This is how it has been done since the 1st Congress. If they succeed in doing this, the Democrats have threatened to shut down the Senate and stop it from functioning. Otherwise, the Republicans will be able to ram through anything they wish.

#3: Tax Breaks For The Rich

This isn't exactly topical, but I found it interesting and decided to mention it. Crazy brackets "{ }" denote my additions. From Molly Ivins' column:

"The Tax Justice Network recently reported that the world's richest individuals have plaed $11.5 trillion {the US budget for 2005 was $2.57 trillion} in assets in offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes, a sum 10 times the GDP of Britain. The most authoritative study yet done shows that rich people clip $860 billion in coupons a year off this money.

"'Governments appear unable, or unwilling, to prevent the rich [from] employing aggressive strategies to minimize their tax liabilities,' said the Observer of Britain. We can emphasize the 'unwilling' with this administration."

I just found that sum to be staggering. I mean, honestly, what can you do with that kind of cash?

A Week In The News

So I haven't been writing much lately. I was in South Carolina on vacation, the land of evangelical churches every 30 feet and strip bars every 25. And fireworks. Tonnnnnnns of fireworks. But that's another day. Today, I would like to revisit two of the people making news last week.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ah yes, a new pope. For about the past 50 years, popes have really just been figureheads that nobody really listens to, and that's why everyone loves 'em. "No contraception? Pffff...screw that. Awww, you're so cute when you're mad!" If anybody actually listened to what these guys were saying, they'd try to have him uninstalled. But anyway, we've got a new lame duck for the next 10 years or so (the "new" guy isn't so new...he's in his 80's). I just thought I'd bring him up because he has a bit of an interesting past that the Catholic Church has been trying their damnest to suppress. You see, this guy, Joseph Ratzinger, is a German, and he was a teenager in those crazy '40's. So what does that mean? Well, only that he was a member of the Hitler Jugend for a few years before deserting once the shit hit the fans ('44). A lot of talk about the deserting, not much talk about what exactly he did in the Hitler Youth. But hey, they were just like the boy scouts, really...just with a bit more hero worship and a slightly genocidal tilt. But hey, everyone's got something wrong with them, right?

“Israel is hopeful that under this new papacy, we will continue to move forward in Vatican-Israel relations and we are sure that considering the background of this new pope, he, like his predecessor, will be a strong voice against anti-Semitism in all its forms,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. [emphasis mine]

Oops.

John Bolton

My old friend is now in the last spasms of life before being tossed on the scrap heap of history. The 18 member Senate Foreign Relations Committee (10 Republican, 8 Democrat) recently voted to hold off voting on Bolton for three weeks after at least three Republicans on the council expressed doubts about Bolton's veracity as UN ambassador for the United States. Allegations have come out in the past few weeks that he tried to have dissenters in his department fired over a disagreement concerning Cuba's "biological weapons" (Bolton doesn't realize they're just cigars). Also, a woman alleges that he chased her through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at her while screaming, and sending threatening letters to her under her door. What are we, six years old? The guy is a douchebag, and he won't even get by the Senate FRC.

So that's my take on the news.

Why To Oppose A National Sales Tax

You may not have heard about it yet, since Bush is obsessed with destroying social security, but his plan for revamping the income tax code basically consists of eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax of 23.5%. While in theory this is a decent idea, here are three key reasons why it shouldn't be allowed to happen:

1. Increased tax burden on those who do not pay income taxes.
-This hits me hard. Since I only made about $1200 last year and payed no income taxes, having to pay a national sales tax would hit me where I hadn't had to pay before. This applies for most teenagers who work part-time jobs, and actually for anyone who works part-time. This tax, therefore, would add extra burden to the poorest of the country, something Bush seems to care little about avoiding (look at his tax cut policies in 2001).

2. Sticker shock will crash the economy.
-23.5% is not a small number. Instead of buying a $200 TV, for instance, you would be buying an almost $250 TV. While this may seem reasonable since you are no longer paying an income tax, the drasticaly higher prices will scare consumers, even subconsciously, from making some purchases. Consumer spending may drop as much as 5% after the implementation of this tax. Usually, if consumer spending doesn't rise at least .5-1.5% something is wrong with the economy, so a drop of 5% would be catastrophic, causing a stock market crash and a severe recession, if not a full-blown depression. Even gradually phasing in the tax (at say, 6% a year) would cause a less drastic effect on spending, but would be spread out over a period of a few years since prices are constantly rising, eroding consumer confidence and hurting spending further.
3. Potential for deductions at the upper end of the spectrum.
-It has already been stated by adminstration officials that food will be exempt from a tax, being such a necessity of life (it's actually supposed to be exempt from state sales taxes too). There is probably a good chance that massive purchases, such as a house, will also be exempt from taxation, since a $200,000 house would become a $247,000 house, a serious extra burden. This itself is a foolish idea, since it will decrease government revenues, a dangerous thing in this time of deep budget deficits. The real fear I have though is that this will be turned into a blanket exemption for everything over, say, $150,000. Who buys things over $150,000? Why, the rich of course. It is little stretch of the imagination to foresee the Bush administration exempting such purchases as yachts, mansions, and private jets from taxes under the same law intended to prevent a drastic increase in housing costs. My fear is that this tax will be used as just another vehicle to allow the rich to evade taxation, like the elimination of the Estate Tax in Bush's first term.

So that is why a national sales tax must be suppressed, preferably before ever getting to a congressional vote, where Republicans of all stripes will back it.

04.25.05 EDIT: The Estate Tax bill just passed a short while ago. It's been in the news and I somehow missed by, oh, four years.

Vote. And You Don't Have To Be 18.

The Republicans in the Senate want to take away the filibuster option so they can get some crazy religious nuts into judiciary positions. The filibuster is the last defense of the little man, and has been around for hundreds of years. Just sign this and, though it probably won't make a difference, it'd still be nice.

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/usatoday.php?source=5120