Progressive Economic Policies #4

Chris wrote,

HCR, which has to have a tax increase to be paid for, and proposals such as cap and trade are going to increase costs to live, much less do business. Long term job growth will not happen in this type of economic climate.

Wouldn't this be part of the reason Obama is still asking for yet another spending bill? Businesses aren't inclined to invest while unsure/uncertain of long range costs.

No!

You've read the misrepresentations ... here's the actual information ... the WSJ is not an advocate of the Middle Class ...

FACT: HR 4872 did not include a public option and allows a market-based mechanism and insurance exchanges to bring down the cost of health insurance by opening the market for private insurance companies to millions of new customers (Sections 1311-1313; 1321-1324).

American Health Benefit Exchanges: Requirements
Section 1311(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

American Health Benefit Exchanges: Certification of Qualified Health Plans
Section 1311(d) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

.

Chris ...

Posted thew wrong response ... but the info in #2.3 is still interesting and addresses another misrepresentation by the WSJ et al.

Hang on ... I'll post what I had intended.

NOT TRUE: Health care reform would tax all small businesses
NOT TRUE: The House Democrats' bill will raise income taxes on small businesses.
• Wall Street Journal editorial: "The health-care bill is a jobs killer, with its 5.4-percentage point income surtax that would hit small business especially hard." [Wall Street Journal, 8/9/09]

REALITY: Ways and Means committee stated that according to JCT, only 4.1 percent of small-business owners would be affected by surtax. The legislation would http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/catext3200.pdf#page=196 http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwaysandmeans.house.gov%2Fmedia%2Fpdf%2F111%2Fcatext3200.pdf%23page%3D197 http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/catext3200.pdf#page=197">establish a 1 percent tax on joint income exceeding $350,000 but not greater than $500,000 per year; a 1.5 percent tax on joint income exceeding $500,000 but not greater than $1 million per year; and a 5.4 percent tax on joint income exceeding $1 million per year. Single filers would be subject to the surtax starting at income exceeding $280,000 per year. The House Ways and Means Committee stated, "Using the broadest definition of a small business owner (i.e., any individual with as little as $1 of small business income), the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that only 4.1% of all small business owners would be affected by the health care surcharge."
CLAIM: House Democrats' bill would subject all small businesses to an 8 percent payroll tax as a penalty for not providing insurance to employees.

• GRETCHEN CARLSON: "[T]he real victim, potentially, of this health care reform ... is the small business owner. ... [T]hey are going to be hit potentially with this health care reform if they don't offer health care to their employees -- an 8 percent penalty on them." [Fox & Friends, 7/16/09]

REALITY: Companies with annual payrolls of less than $250,000 would pay no penalty under the House bill. The House bill would establish a 2 percent payroll penalty for employers with combined payroll between $250,000 to $300,000 that don't offer health insurance to employees; a 4 percent penalty for employers with $300,000 to $350,000 in payroll; a 6 percent penalty for employers with $350,000 to $400,000 in payroll; and an 8 percent penalty for companies with annual payrolls exceeding $400,000. Additionally, the bill establishes tax credits for small-business employers that do provide health care.

I will read your other columns when I get a chance - this was an interesting read. As for healthcare, I saw a brief interview on O'Reilly's show last night about the healthcare bill, and the fact that insurance premiums are going UP all over the country - by as much as 21%! Why do you suppose THAT is? Could it be that insurance companies are making the average consumer pay extra to help cover those formerly excluded people with pre-existing conditions? You know, those new customers that were supposed to push the rates DOWN? C'mon, you guys didn't REALLY think that premiums would go down, did you???

The reality is that there was no massive infusion of money from the federal government coffers. The government had to borrow money to conduct the war. Much of that money came from the private sector. The expansion of industrial output was the reason the fist depression was ended. Today we have pretty much eviscerated our heavy industrial base and such an effort would be very costly indeed.

The government had to borrow money to conduct the war. Much of that money came from the private sector.

As it does today...it comes from individuals, corporations, and countries buying T-Notes, T-Bills, etc. Either way, it's federal debt today...and it was federal debt during WW2.

If wars alone solved recessions/depressions, then we shouldn't be in a recession now, remember the two going on for some time.

SC Texan;

What are you talking about?

Wars can stimulate an economy unlike fiscal spending because of a unity of purpose

I would agree with you, Chris, if you had said "Wars used to stimulate an economy unlike fiscal spending because of a unity of purpose."

I believe the last decade has proven otherwise. On September 12, 2001, about 90% of us supported President Bush (including lefties like myself) in his efforts to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Would I have been willing to pay higher taxes to support this effort? Absolutely. Would Republicans have been willing to do so as well? I would say they would have, too...I can only say "Absolutely" for myself. We had a unity of purpose, and I think America would have made sacrifices (both financial and with their time) to achieve that purpose.

But what happened? We (who were not in the military) were told we didn't need to make any sacrifices. We were encouraged to live life as we had been living it. We were encouraged to go out and spend our tax cuts. We weren't asked to do a damned thing if we weren't wearing a uniform...except honor those who wear that uniform. And to this day, I don't know and haven't met a single person - liberal or conservative - who doesn't hold our soldiers in the highest esteem. Even those of us on the left who have grown weary of Afghanistan (and who never supported Iraq) have the utmost respect for the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.

In short, if we were told on September 12 that we would need to make sacrifices to support our brothers and sisters in uniform, we would have done it. We would have paid higher taxes to support the war efforts, we would have supported the companies making military supplies (through investment and everyday purchases), we would have looked at our 2000-square-foot homes and realized that we didn't need 4000-square-foot homes, we would have been satisfied with the goods we owned considering that we just sent our young heroes over to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. All of this probably would have kept us from hitting the economic doldrums that surfaced in 2007.

Instead, we were encouraged to grow the economy through over-the-top and irresponsible spending. We became the "look what I got" people with a myopic attitude of singularity ("what's in it for me?").

George Bush and the Republicans could have been in power for twenty years had they moved our country in the direction of unity of purpose...but the ball was dropped, and we proved ourselves too selfish a people to even hold a candle to the light that was our Greatest Generation.

Sorry for the long post...just had my third cup of coffee...

For Bush to have said that we would have to make sacifices for multiple years, I would venture a guess that it would have been accepted initially; but eventually (within a year or two); it would have changed to skepticism and then protest.

Perhaps, but I'm not so sure. If Iraq hadn't happened (which is where our former President Bush lost a lot of us on the left) and if we were hearing positive updates from the front (think about World War II...the American people knew what was going on in Europe and the Pacific), perhaps we would have stayed behind it if progress was made. If there was no progress, then I completely agree with your sentiment about skepticism and protest...and perhaps rightfully so.

That said, we really weren't encouraged to see what was going on behind the curtain...live your lives! We'll get them over there so they won't get us over here! Etc. Ironically, the result of keeping us in the dark, keeping us looking out for ourselves, keeping us shopping, is arguably what led to skepticism and protest.

I strongly believe that the encouragement of a unity of purpose could have built more trust in our government (from both sides of the aisle). Now, however, democrats don't trust that republicans have our best interest in mind...and republicans don't trust that democrats have our best interest in mind. And our news cycles (from the left and the right) are filled with skepticism of, protest to, and hate for what the other side is doing or proposing.

With the exception of a small percentage of our citizens, on September 12, 2001, we were a unified nation...and now we're not. To me, that is the real tragedy of the last nine years. We had a chance to grow with a unity of purpose and didn't take it. Rather, we became 150 million islands on one side and 150 million islands on the other, pointing fingers at the other side for the break up. And now we can't even talk with each other about potential solutions to our ills.

It's sad...and I don't know how we'll get the unity back. And when I refer to unity, I don't mean communistic unity...rather, like a bunch of individual athletes win only as a team, we should have both individual and unity purposes living together...a hybrid of the most extreme views of each party.

WW2 was funded by the sale of War Bonds - bonds sold to the general public. Or did you think the gov't waived some kind of magic wand and just made the money appear out of thin air? The only other way it could have been funded was with tax increases. Hm, apparently Roosevelt didn't think tax increases during a depression was all that great of an idea - imagine that!