Pay go for everything. This is too sick, depressing, noxious….

Right on!

Who cares what this fuck thinks?

Levin has always struck me as inept. I’m sure others will disagree, but today’s example isn’t the first time he’s gone it alone when there was pretty clear need for message discipline. Just talks before he thinks, Biden-like.

No surtax, no money, no war.

But these whores are going to start balancing deficits by cutting and gutting services instead of a surtax for War or say, a Tobin tax.

THanks, Carl.

Don’t you go talkin’ about my Joe like that. Ha.
Are you going to be here tonight, like as the Host?
Good questions at the Book Salon, sir.

There are a couple issues which David Dayen might not have taken into consideration when looking at Levin’s comments today.

First, Levin has probably been hammered by his constituents in Michigan for considering new taxes. He may have to backpedal on this point publicly for this reason. Until you understand the desperate situation his state is in — been as bad as California for years — it’s easy to say that he’s simply flip-flopping.

Secondly, Levin went to Afghanistan late summer/early fall and came away with a completely different opinion recommendation than Gen. McChrystal. His report didn’t generate the kind of media attention McChrystal’s report received, though (and this is probably not a coincidence). Bottom line: Levin has not supported an escalation of troops.

My gut tells me he’s gotten so much push back about the taxes that he’s pushing to starve the effort instead. I’ll have to nose around; I know he was looking very carefully into the costs.

He’s a low-key dude, Teddy. You need to ask Marcy her opinion.

Might also help to look at some of the work he’s done on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations. He’s done some tremendous work, but because it’s tedious and un-sexy, it doesn’t get the air time it deserves. Like the work he did on offshore tax havens; do you think that corporate-owned media outlets are really going to push that one?

Target the surtax at non productive Capital, like Wall Streets fancy financial transactions.

‘Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we’re not going to have a draft, we’re not going to pay for it, we’re not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.’

IIRC, Dowd’s son served, or is serving, in Iraq. And he parted company with Dubya (late, but still… a ‘bellweather’).

His point about the ‘blood’ part of ‘blood and treasure’ certainly seems like one of the more gutsy remarks made on these programs for awhile.

As for Dan Senor:

SENOR: If [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [House Appropriations Committee Chairman David] Obey were being intellectually honest about this they would wage a war against the President’s surge policy Wednesday morning. As opposed to doing this via some proposed surtax.

Kettle calling Pot on Line 1. Urgent!

And, what’s the result of this ‘tremendous’ work on tax havens. Initially some 30 plus. All gone?

Teddy, honestly — if you’d been hanging out at some of EW’s liveblogs, or if you’ve ever watched Levin lead a hearing (torture and tax havens come instantly to mind)**, that man is impressive.

His torture hearing was phenomenal.
Not sexy, not fast-paced.
But someone brilliant had to have collected tomes of information, synthesized it, figured out what questions to ask (always a challenge!), and who to invite, and that single hearing was a model of what government can and should do.

No voices were raised; no one was taken out in leg irons.
But it was a drip, drip, drip sort of process that showed a phenomenal mastery of a whole range of complex issues.

The staff really deserved huzzahs.
But as Committee Chair, it was really Levin’s project.
It was a-w-e-s-o-m-e.

** I sometimes have C-SPAN on as ‘white noise’ and background while doing other tasks, so I’ve actually had one eye on a number of Levin’s hearings. We’re lucky he’s on ‘our side’. Hugely lucky.

Dunno.
I’d sure like some updates, but it seems at the moment the focus needs to be on health care reform and end-of-year-budgets.

It’s fine by me if they don’t get to tax havens till 2010.
I’d rather they do it right, than do it this month.

Like the work he did on offshore tax havens; do you think that corporate-owned media outlets are really going to push that one?

Thanks, Rayne ;-))))))))))))

I’m still wiping tea off my monitor!

Soon to be stricter legislation combined with 14,700 accounts identified and taxed is a start.

I’d rather we attend to addressing immorality of the Afghan and Pakistani killing fields, followed by reforming Capitalism, without which we’re merely throwing money into a black hole owned by Banksters and Insurance Companies.

Penalties proposed by Levin-Coleman-Obama Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act:

Not to exceed 150% of the promoters’ gross income from the prohibited activity.

Steal your third candy bar and you have some mandatory shit coming your way in California (no way you can just get out of jail by giving back 5 candy bars!)

Steal millions from tax payers,-not so much.

Fuck these Senatorial bloviators!

So why isn’t the WAR required to be “revenue neutral” or have a statement “as to how it will be paid for without hanging it around the necks of our children and our children’s children”?

But health care…which clearly would enable people to be more productive, contribute to their childrens’ and children’s childrens lives…and even benefit those descendents in the long run…MUST be paid for…NOW!

Reforming capitalism?

How the hell do you reform that system without ripping it completely down, something that will slam-bang guarantee a whole raft of bad shit (people not being able to buy basic necessities for one) happening?

What do you think is happening now?! The system is crashing, and the Pirates having set the whole ship of fools ablaze are pillaging and obsconding.

Re. basic necessities: “There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps, according to an analysis of local data collected by The New York Times.”

I know…and how do you think those food stamps work? You think grocery stores are going to accept them if there is no system to back it and make sure the grocery store gets actual money for them?

Chill out, not everyone you disagree with is inept, a Republican or god knows what. I’m for the tax, but Levin seems to want to support Obama on Afghanistan while, coming from Michigan, he knows that a tax now is not going to help Michiganites.

In 2006, when W was still president was the time to enact taxes to pay for W’s wars. I actually agree with that. May be the inept is not Levin but rather the Democratic party leadership.

A better argument against the war in Afghanistan is that if the Taliban win, Al Qaida will stay in Pakistan where the US doesn’t have the freedom it will have in a taliban Afghanistan.

I simply don’t relate to the governing philosophy of the post-new deal democrats. FDR raised taxes on the top rate a full three times during a recession. Who fucking taught Carl Levin his history? Milton Friedman?

Most notable about this exchange [on ABC this morning] is the casual remarks from George Will and Matthew Dowd that there will not be a surtax.

Actually, I kind of thought that Matthew Dowd’s last comment quoted by David Dayen above was at least as notable:

David Obey’s idea I think underlines the problem that we don’t ask people — when we say these things are important — we don’t ask the country to come together for them.

I agree that when leaders say things are so important, then they should ask the country to come together for them, i.e. PAY FOR THEM.

This has touched off a major debate inside the Republican Party, forking them between the war fever and the anti-tax fervor of their base.

Seems to me that most of this debate inside the GOP is total bullshit, seeing how they were willing enough to pull out the country’s credit cards year after year to pay for wars during Bush’s two terms.

I think that David Dayen’s larger point is that there should be a much stronger set of leaders running things at the White House, the House, and the Senate. As it is now, there are far too many Democrats in office who are running around in too many different directions.

David Dayen’s right:

[Critics of Obama's plans for Afghanistan] could have [should have] used the argument that our presence in Afghanistan does nothing for our national security, fuels the insurgency and props up a corrupt government that inflames the local population, leading to no good outcomes whatsoever.

This would be the best argument, though in fact it only leads to the conclusion that we must demand the best possible plan to achieve clear goals in Afghanistan rather than a withdrawal of troops.

My guess is that some want to focus on cost because it’s the only argument that leads to the conclusion that the war should be ended now.

In every debate of consequence, the current weak Democratic leaders do far too little to rein in critics with their various views about the problems and the solutions, even if their views do sometimes have merit, and make sure that we get the best possible policies in place to achieve clear goals as efficiently as possible.

GEORGE WILL: And there’s going to be no surtax. We all agree on that. So everyone, relax.

…we’ll still be able to afford that extended vacation on the Mediterranean with the new yacht we bought. BTW Anyone up to watch the Redskins in my luxury-box? I’ve ordered a great buffet from Enrico’s and half of it would go to waste if I don’t bring a few friends over. I’ve already invited Cantor and Rahm and maybe we could get a couple of off-the-record quotes on Israel’s construction on the West Bank or on healthcare. Watcha say!”

“Inept” is not a word I would use to decribe Carl Levin, Teddy. Levin is much more insidious and dangerous, in my opinion, precisely because he is extremely competent, smart, focused, and successful at playing the legislative game as it is now practiced.

Don’t let Levin’s genial looks and manner deceive you. His backroom dealings, more so than his few public actions, are what worry me, and Levin is very cunning at disguising his ways and means. [Yes, Levin oversaw that Armed Services Committee study of Pentagon (but not CIA) practices under Bush - but it was conducted completely behind closed doors, and Levin carefully waited to release it until the last day the Senate was in session in 2008. How many Americans have heard anything about its contents, or seen any accountability brought to bear because of its findings?]

Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (and, though not a formal member, privy to all information shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee) is an extremely powerful force in Congress with regard to our wars, their funding and operation, and the absence of meaningful Congressional hearings/oversight about same. Levin is a keeper of secrets, not someone unable to maintain “message discipline.” He knows exactly what he’s doing.

A better argument against the war in Afghanistan is that if the Taliban win, Al Qaida will stay in Pakistan where the US doesn’t have the freedom it will have in a taliban Afghanistan.

Could you go over the logic of this for me? Maybe I’m missing something but IF the NATO and Karzai government “wins” wouldn’t that mean AQ would be driven out to Pakistan? Whereas if the Taliban win, the country will represent a “safe harbor” for AQ? At least that’s what happened when the Talib’s controlled 80% of the country in 2000.

The deficit is huge, in part, because George spent other people’s money. As a true Bush, he never paid it back. Shrub spent borrowed money, telling us what he was doing was essential to our very survival, but it was not important enough actually to pay for. That huge deficit is one reason ConservaDems are now telling us our economy can’t tolerate new taxes. But they, too, keep spending like a Bush.

Afghanistan has become Mr. Obama’s “War to end war”, but it’s only worth promising to pay for. We are told that Afghanistan, like Iraq, is the war that will save us from the tyranny of foreign terrorists, and we are adding both troops and, almost certainly, but without admitting it, we are substantially raising the number of mercs. But the cost of borrowing for such wars makes our deficit too big, it hurts our economy so much we can’t raise taxes to pay for it.

Horseshit. Every serious administration raises taxes and demands a levy of troops to fight its important wars. The Dems are afraid to impose necessary taxes because they are still fighting the Reagan PR wars, and losing. All taxes are bad and government is inherently incompetent, said Reagan and Bush, though it didn’t stop either from moving heaven and earth to run it. That claim is wrong on many levels, but the Dems have never figured out how to counter it. As is said of many generals, they are fighting yesterday’s political battles with the day before yesterday’s tactics.

I’m beginning to think neither political party wants to run a government; they just want to campaign to keep the other guy from doing it. Health care? That’s not even worth promising to pay for, according to this administration and its nominal opponents.

I agree that when leaders say things are so important that people have to die for them, then they should ask the country to come together for them, i.e. PAY FOR THEM.

This has touched off a major debate inside the Republican Party, forking them between the war fever and the anti-tax fervor of their base.

But the difference between what Dowd is saying and what the Surtax proposed by Obey is getting at is that Dowd wants EVERYONE to pay for the war. Obey is laying it on those that have benefitted immensely over the last eight years from the wars.Those that made millions from their investments in military contractors and energy corporations (remember what the oil companies were charging the military for a gallon of gas in Iraq? Something like 2000% what it cost in Kuwait).

Dowd wants us to “share the burden”…Obey lays it on the wealthy. Will and the others say “Don’t sweat it…we’re not gonna have a tax increase to pay for the war. Because if they did put it into place the MSM would attack them like banshees.”

You make some excellent points!

Thank you for clarifying that distinction. Republicans have indeed become the party of privatizing profits and socializing costs/risks/losses.

Dameocrat @ 23 made a good point about raising taxes on the top rate during a recession.

Getting the assholes who have benefitted most $ over the last 8 years to pay now would be fair and will feel good.

Anyway, however they arrange for the country to pay for it, the mess in Afghanistan created by the neocons over too many years I think still needs to be fixed.

A debate focused on troop numbers or even on how we’re paying for war misses the point that what we should want is the best possible plan – with clear goals and exits – and then to see results in the speediest end realistically possible.

It didn’t take long for the war tax to be destroyed. As per the usual plan, now it won’t even be used as a place to start talking to get to what could really be done. Now we will go on spending for war forever. petraeus is explained in PARADE magazine as saying that we could be fighting the Taliban for the next 10 years. This will help obama to forward the rethug policy of being unable to continue paying for any domestic needs because the war costs too much. It is the dims way of eviscerating SS, Medicare, and any other social spending.

Thanks, Carl Levin. If he were so brilliant, he could have figured it out if he wanted to work on ending the wars.

But Democratic threats have been proven to be so idle over the years that nobody accords them a smidgen of respect. And thus we have a failure to govern.

And that failure will come home to roost in the 2010 midterms — see http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/28/enthusiasm-gap-points-to-crushing-democratic-defeat-in-2010/

As long a the repubs are controlling the war spending there will not be any funds for the Dem agenda like green jobs. Can’t they see that? Pay Go if you want more war BO Bush Jr. Pay Go or shut up. Aren’t we done fighting GOP wars?

A war surtax would really give Republicans trouble, in addition to being the right policy, to show the real cost of war, instead of living in this fantasy world where our actions abroad have no effect on our actions at home.

i was and am against both wars — not just in theory but in action, organizing, protesting, losing friends over, etc.

but being against the wars has nothing to do with the economics of the issue, and increasing aggregate taxes right now, in the midst of a massive recession, imo would not be only stupid, it would be economic national suicide. which in my book, makes it not just a stupid policy but an immoral policy.

taxes don’t fund fed gov spending. except maybe in some neoliberal fantasy land.

The problem is, the tax is on people(couples?) making over $250,000/yr(or it might even be $500,000/yr). So that’s going to effect very few people in Michigan(and elsewhere).

The trouble with your analysis, Rayne, about Levin opposing the surtax because of his Michigan constituents is off base: Obey’s surtax would be on the wealthy, not the suffering workers of Michigan.

I think the diarist is spot on: the Democratic party is much better as the party of opposition than it is as the governing party. It lacks discipline, focus and directionm, especially with Hamlet in charge in Washington.

Slow learners

“The chairman of the Armed Services Committee backed off his support for a war tax today, saying the state of the economy prevents any tax increases.”

After the events of 2008, it’s still an unquestioned article of faith that you can’t possibly tax the wealthy, because that would be robbing the money that invests in job creation.

Haven’t we learned that the rich park their idle money in scams like CDSs that, far from capitalizing anything and actually deserving the name “investment”, are really just side bets in markets grown so far beyond any control that they constitute economic weapons of mass destruction?

Wake me up when the top rate, the rate on income, and I mean all sorts of income, over, say, $250,000, is about 99.9%. Until we get there, any and all political discourse in this country is just empty words, lacking any seriousness of purpose.

Kind of proves The poll be Research 2000.

It does make me wonder about the scuttlebutt. In 2006, the Democrats did not wanting power back. Is this now a reaction to gaining it?

Now, it’s 2009 and they are pissed off at the voters?

the neoliberals are the ones that think the rich don’t need to be taxed. FDR raised taxes on the top rate three times.

In 32 it was raised from 25 to 63% then in 36 from 63 to 79%. In 1940 it was raised to 81%. Then during the war he raised to times to 94%. Look at the charts.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

The neoliberal dummies are the ones that bought into trickle down garbage.

oh, i’m all for taxing the rich. a lot. especially capital gains taxes. and a bunch of other stuff.

but that’s not what i was objecting to – it’s the idea that the war needs to be paid for by increasing taxes overall that is both stupid and dangerous.

Obey is proposing a windfall to pay for it, not a tax on everyone.

The middle and working classes would be the ones paying it anyhow. The rich would ensure that there were plenty of loopholes in any tax bill.

that would still be an increase in total taxes unless matched by a decrease in other taxes. i’d be all for it then. especially if the decreased taxes were in, for example, payroll taxes because i hate them for being so regressive.

excellent point.

but i still don’t think a war surtax (to “pay for the war”) is good policy, especially at this particular time (just the opposite).

A Tobin tax targeting only brokerage houses and investment banks and taxing every share transaction at brokerages and taxing every fee paid to investment banks would be a good start. That and assessing a progressive capital gains tax at time of sale. The longer the shares held the lower the tax. No limits and no exceptions.

Neither do I.

most excellent!

can we put you in charge of tax policy? please?

I’ve been advocating that here for a long time. Never called it a Tobin tax, though. Reasonable and fair. If one has the money to play at those tables a little off the top for the house should be acceptable. The house being the Treasury, of course. Allegedly our Treasury.

allegedly, lol. yeah, right. with timmy in charge.

gotta go….. have catch up with you later – hopefully tomorrow (haven’t even visited your caturday thread today!)

I’m beginning to think neither political party wants to run a government; they just want to campaign to keep the other guy from doing it.

I agree governance is not their goal. Re-election is and in furtherance of that they routinely sell themselves to the corporate entities that fund their campaigns.

I think we’re all totally kidding ourselves. The war tax issue is as divisive for Democrats, whose President is going to announce an EXPANSION of the number of troops on Tuesday night, as it is for Republicans.

Is the Congressional Democratic party united in its determination to fight its own President for fiscal transparency on the Afghanistan war when, in fact, many Democrats, including Obey do want to use the issue to scuttle the war expansion?

To ask this question is to answer it. The GOP will figure it out one way or another. There are a million resolutions they can introduce to pay for it — one-to-one offsets for foreign aid, or Medicaid, or the health care bill, or whatever, to give the appearance that they want to force a “tough choice” between war spending and other wasteful “gummint spending.”

I like the war tax idea because I’m opposed to the war, and believe that at a minimum forcing accountability on warmongers of either party would be a step toward a saner foreign policy debate in this country. If played with both aggression and finesse, the Democrats might possibly put the Republicans in a box. But a play like that requires a united party, and the Democrats are hopelessly divided on issues of war and peace generally and the Afghan war in particular. Believing that this is an easy squeeze on the GOP is utterly delusional.

Makes me happy to see folks using the term neoliberal.

Wiki has a piece on neoliberalism that’s a good primer.

In the updated intro to Naomi Klein’s No Logo she writes about how corporations have become shells that make nothing and sell their brand. Compares that with the government today. Doesn’t govern, pays corporations to do what government used to do and sells the government brand to the public. Something goes wrong, “Blame it on Halliburton. We hired them to do it.” She goes on to say that Obama makes Grand Symbolic Gestures, e.g., closing Gitmo while increasing the capacity of Bagram prison. All show and no go.

selise, Don’t forget some old-time Hooverite religion land, as well.

The top rate was raised in 1932 to 63%, but that was done under Hoover, not FDR. It is the single largest increase in the top marginal tax rate.

I knew Dems would try to sabotage the war tax. The powers that be don’t want accountability for their wars.

paul rosenberg this weekend: Naomi Klein nails brand “Obama”

i never read no logo. guess i should add that to my list.

lol. and i should have linked to your most excellent diaries on the subject. think i got “national suicide” from you and them too. gonna have to get the links handy so i’m prepared for next time they are needed and don’t have time to go searching.

p.s. i’ve put aside keen’s debunking economics temporarily to read wray’s understanding modern money. it was recommended to me as a must read by three people in one week (two of them economists associated with levy). i’d read some of wray’s blog posts at kansas and working papers at levy — he’s one of the guys i consider the three musketeers (along with mosler and bill mitchell) on research into macro econ re fed fiscal policy in the age of modern fiat money. so far (chap 3) it’s a great read (macro econ that makes sense!) and helping me to pull together lots of the stuff i’ve been reading and thinking about this year. will let you (and SD) know more when i’m done as i think this stuff may be of interest to you too.