Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

I Got Them Old #DemExit Blues

I'm no stranger to political disappointment.

My first presidential election cycle (at 19) was in 1980. I voted for Ted Kennedy in the primary. Come November, as I was driving from work to my poling place, a little before 7 PM, Pacific Time, President Carter conceded the election to Ronald Reagan. I went in and voted for Carter anyway, just for the hell of it, even though the election was technically over.

In 1984 I became an early fan of Gary Hart and he was my primary choice. He was way in the back of the Democratic field that year (when the time came, I got behind the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, like any good little Democrat would), but for the next four years I read all I could by and about Hart, and was ready for him in '88.

Although an early leader in 1988, the Hart campaign went down in flaming hubris. Talk about disappointment: I'd just spent four years promoting the jerk who dared the press to follow him and "accidentally" discover him with his mistress. My second choice, Jesse Jackson, got my primary vote. Jackson didn't get the nomination either. I voted for third choice, third-rate, Mike Dukakis, in the 1988 general election. He didn't win.

In 1992 I distrusted Bill Clinton and the whole Democratic Leadership Council gang, but once my primary choice, Jerry Brown, was out of the race, I watched the Democratic Convention, drew a deep breath, and volunteered to help elect Bill. After a dozen years of voting, I finally backed a winner!

Monday, May 11, 2015

Democrats Against Democracy

Last week Allen Clifton, co-founder of Forward Progressives, wrote a column with the terrifying title Bernie Sanders Is Already Making It More Likely Republicans Win The White House In 2016.

How dare Bernie do such a thing! Hasn't Senator Sanders read any newspapers over the last six or seven years? Didn't anybody tell him that Hillary is going to be the nominee? Or is the grumpy old Senator from Vermont under the mistaken impression that the primaries have any other purpose than to reinforce what the party leaders have already determined to be our preference? (note: that was sarcasm you just read.)

Geeeshhh! Give me a freakin' break! What is Clifton so terrified of? This...
.. what I ultimately fear Sanders is going to do is get liberals worked up just enough to where when he eventually loses the Democratic primary election to Hillary, it's going to cause many to become apathetic and refuse to show up in 2016 to vote for the "not liberal enough/basically a Republican" Hillary Clinton.
Well, guess what, Mr. Clifton: It didn't take Bernie Sanders officially entering the race for many of us on the left to recognize that Hillary is no progressive. There were reasons why we didn't support her candidacy in 2008, and nothing since then has convinced us that we were wrong.

Let's get this clear from the start: If Hillary is nominated and loses, she will have lost it on her own accord, and not because she will be forced to debate an actual liberal before facing the Tea Time Circus. As Harry Truman so perfectly put it, "When a Republican runs against a Republican, the Republican will win every time."

Please continue the rest of this rant at Daily Kos....

Monday, December 03, 2012

Marginal Tax Rates 101

With all the current hysterical coverage of the impending "Fiscal Cliff" - or "Obama Tax Storm," depending on who you're listening to - and seeing what certain of my friends and associates are saying or posting online about it, it is unbearably clear that most Americans haven't the faintest idea of how marginal tax rates work.

It's not their fault. Politicians and the media have been talking down to us and "simplifying" the discussion for so long, that they'd have you believe things that simply are not true. For example, you may accept as "fact" that President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%.

Using that statement and some basic arithmetic, you would assume that a family with $251,000 in income would see their taxes rise from $87,850 (35% of $251,000) to $99,396 (39.6% of $251,000) - a total tax increase of $11,546. You would also be wrong.

The statement "President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to raise the tax rate on those who earn more than $250,000 from 35% to 39.6%" contains three major "simplifications" that lead to these sloppy (and expensive) calcluations:
  1. Uses "earnings" (implying total gross salary) instead of "taxable income" (after all deductions, adjustments, and exemptions).
  2. Implies that you pay a single rate on all your earnings, instead of explaining how marginal rates apply.
  3. Uses a $250,000 figure that is two decades out of date. That figure for the 2012 tax year is actually $388,350.
Let's take these one at a time...

Earnings versus Taxable Income: Nobody, but Nobody, pays income tax on 100% of their income. Each version of the IRS form 1040, from the one-page EZ to the more complicated versions with dozens of attached schedules and sub-forms allows you to reduce the amount of income on which you owe taxes. Frankly, the more complicated a form you use, the more you are reducing your tax liability.

But even a single guy, just starting out, with no dependents, educational expenses, mortgage, or anything else to deduct, just using little old form 1040EZ, will take a standard deduction of $5,950 for 2012. That means, if he earns $30,000, he'll only pay taxes on $24,050. That tax will come out to $3,173, or about 10.5% of his gross income, or 13.2% of his taxable income, even though he's in the 15% tax bracket.

What's that? You don't get how somebody in the 15% tax bracket only pays 10.5% in taxes? Let's move on to that second "simplification" ...

Marginal Rates apply to earnings above the margin: When politicians talk about raising the rate on "incomes above $250,000" (really: taxable income above $388,350), they only mean the increment, or margin, above that figure. It doesn't change the taxes paid on the first "$250,000" you earn ($388,350 taxable).

To explain, we'll build a more complicated example than our single guy above. Let's assume a couple with a nice home, two kids, and combined total salary income of $450,000. They're going to file jointly, so they'll look at Tax Rate Schedule Y-1. Their taxes will be:
  • 10% on taxable income from $0 to $17,400, +
  • 15% on income over $17,400 to $70,700, +
  • 25% on income over $70,700 to $142,700, +
  • 28% on income over $142,700 to $217,450, +
  • 33% on income over $217,450 to $388,350, +
  • 35% on taxable income over $388,350.
But, before they figure out their taxes, they'll itemize their deductions to reduce their gross actual income and find their net taxable income:
  • Mortgage Interest: $16,500
  • Two Kids ($3,800 each): $7,600
  • Charitable Giving (1.5% of their income): $6,750
  • Business Expenses: $7,500
  • Miscellaneous: $3,500
  • Total Deductions: $41,850
(This is a real simple example with modest deductions - I didn't include any medical expenses, educational expenses, deposits to retirement accounts, etc. - These are just a few of the ways to reduce your tax liability.)

So, using Schedule Y-1 above, here's what their federal income taxes will break down to:
-->

 Earnings  Tax
Deductions  $41,850 $0
10%  $17,400  $1,740
15%  $53,300  $7,995
25%  $72,000  $18,000
28%  $74,750  $20,930
33%  $170,900  $56,397
35%  $19,800  $6,930
Totals:  $450,000  $111,992

Their bottom line is $111,992, or 24.9% of their total income of $450,000 ... even though they're in the top 35% bracket.

Using the media/political simplification of all things numerical, we would have thought they were paying $157,500 in taxes (35% of $450,000). We would also assume that the Democrats' proposal to let the top rate return to 39.6% would increase their taxes by $20,700 to $178,200 (39.6% of $450,000).

But, now that you know how real math works, you know that raising the top marginal rate on this well-to-do family will bring their total federal income tax burden to $112,903. An increase of only $911 (0.2% of their total income) - quite a bit less than the $20,700 certain politicians and journalists would suggest. Because, now you understand, the rate change from 35 to 39.6% only applies above the margin, to that last $19,800 of their taxable income.

So, where's  $250,000 in all this? When President Clinton's tax increases created the 39.6% rate twenty years ago, it was for taxable income over that figure. And, because politicians and journalists are lazy, they've just continued referring to that number ever since (if you don't like "lazy" please come up with a better explanation that doesn't include "lie"). But the cut-off point for each of the tax brackets actually adjusts each year for inflation.

By 2003, when the Bush tax cuts were going into effect, "$250,000" was $311,950, but we kept saying "$250,000" out of habit. During the 2010 "Fiscal Cliff" discussions, "$250,000" was $373,650. Today, it's $388,350. Is that really so hard for reporters and politicians to understand? Never mind...

But aren't we Taxed Enough Already? The Tea Partiers are both wrong and right on this. Regarding federal income tax rates they are completely wrong. Current federal income tax rates are at their lowest point in over 60 years. And, yes, because the base line for each marginal rate has gone up at least as fast as inflation (why $250,000 is now $388,350), that means this year's tax burden is less than last year's.

But, in part because federal income taxes have been held at historically low levels for a decade, other taxes and fees have gone up. States, not getting as much as they used to from the feds, may have increased their income, property, or sales taxes, as well as made cuts. Counties and cities, not getting what they used to from the states, may have raised local sales taxes or passed "special assessments" added on to property tax bills, and/or made cuts in services. Across the board, fees for everything from parking to getting married etc., may have increased to make up for shortfalls from another area.

Because sales taxes, use fees, etc., are not progressive, like the federal income tax (multi-tiered, the rich pay a higher rate), the burden of these taxes falls more on lower and middle income earners. So, depending on where you live, what you earn, and a few other factors, you may indeed feel as if you're paying more in taxes over-all, even with a smaller annual bill from the IRS.

Bottom Line: You probably know where I stand on this. I don't believe it's asking too much of a family that earns nearly half-a-million dollars annually to kick in another grand in taxes when the country faces a fiscal crisis. To insist on holding even this top rate down will only result in more cuts in services and/or increased taxes and fees elsewhere down the line.

But regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the politics, can we all at least agree to use real numbers and real math?

For more fun with tax brackets, this page on moneychimp.com has an easy, interactive tax calculator that allows you to see how all of this works and check your tax rates across time and space.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

George McGovern: Acts of Faith

"Politics is an act of faith; you have to show some kind of confidence in the intellectual and moral capacity of the public."
"No man should advocate a course in private that he's ashamed to admit in public."
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain."
"For many years, I wanted to run for the presidency in the worst possible way - and last year, I sure did."
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."
George McGovern, July 19, 1922-October 21, 2012
Early this morning, former Senator George McGovern died in hospice in Sioux Falls, SD. He was 90 years old and surrounded by friends and family.

McGovern was a proud liberal till the very end. A man who had "learned to hate war by waging it" as a decorated World War II bomber pilot, he was the Democratic Party's nominee to challenge President Nixon's re-election in 1972.

While I had been somewhat aware of the players in the 1968 Presidential election, and as a kid in Massachusetts, certainly was caught up in the tragedy of of Bobby Kennedy's assassination, it was the election of 1972 - and its aftermath - that first truly sucked me into the life of a political junkie. At the age of eleven I walked our precinct with my mother getting word out about McGovern, and on election day we stood outside the polling place (in the snow) with our last-ditch effort electioneering.

Of course, the result was that Nixon was re-elected in a landslide, carrying 49 states, and ceding to McGovern only the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. I was both devastated and fascinated by the results and began collecting souvenirs of the trouncing: bumper stickers bearing the slogans "Massachusetts the One and Only" and "Nixon 49/America 1," a pin that simply read "OS4MY" (for, "Oh Shit, Four More Years!"), and other memorabilia that I only wish I could still find.

Of course, even before the election was over, there was some question of dirty tricks involving Nixon's team doing something over at the Democratic Headquarters located in the Watergate Hotel and office complex. I followed the Watergate hearings closely. As for many others of my generation, this was hugely formative in how I would see politics and government for the rest of my life.

By the middle of 1974 both Nixon, and his VP, Spiro Agnew, had resigned in disgrace, and I had moved to California. I would eventually earn a BA in Politics and a Master of Public Policy and Administration. My career would allow me to have meetings with legislators at all levels of government. I would volunteer on a few more Presidential campaigns. But the inspiration and dedication of that first candidate, George McGovern, and the lessons of 1972-1974 have never been far behind.

My thoughts go out to the McGovern family and all those who knew this great man and hero to the left. I only hope that before he passed, he sent in his absentee ballot.
 
The blogger in 1972; the t-shirt says, "Vote."
Read more at:
The McGovern Center
George McGovern @ Wikipedia

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Two Week Warning - Get Out and Vote!

It's hard to believe two weeks from now, as I write, we'll be starting to see the mid-term election results coming in. Even harder to believe that I've blogged so little about this election (see It Ain't Over Till it's Over). It's not that I don't care, or that there's nothing to say; perhaps there's so much that it's overwhelming.

To recap for newer readers, I call myself "left-of-center, Independent." I left the Democratic party in disgust around late '94 or early '95. I was registered as Green for several years, but have most recently registered as "Decline to State." Simply put, I have always rejected the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils" when there are multiple "3rd party" and independent options on the ballot.

But this year, much as I expected and hoped for more from President Obama and the great Democratic majorities in Congress, I am terrified of the possibility of the Republicans taking back either (or both) houses of Congress.

This year's Republican nominees are not the principled conservatives we debated with in the past. These are fringe candidates with dangerous ideas, not just to turn back the small progress the Democrats have made in the last 21 months, but to turn the clock back decades, if not centuries, on our fragile democracy.

These are candidates who want to repeal not only the new health care reforms, and the new student loan reforms, but who want to repeal Medicare and turn your Social Security over to the same Wall Street fat-cats who put us into our current economic mess. These are candidates who question whether the Voting Rights Act of 1964 went too far. They don't just question Roe v. Wade, they've vowed to ban all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

But I'm sure you've read all that, or seen it on TV or online. My only point here is if you're staring in disbelief at candidates like Christine O'Donnell or Carl Paladino, just imagine having to hear from them for the next two, or four, or six years, or more.

Maybe you're disappointed in the Democrats too. I know I'm sure as hell overdue for an economic recovery myself. The rebuilding of our future may still have a long way to go, but at least we've stopped digging the hole.

This year, this left-of-center independent is proudly voting a full Democratic ticket, and I'm encouraging everybody who's concerned for their future to do the same. The stakes are just too high to sit this one out.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Green No More - Independent for Obama

I am not a Democrat. I used to be one, but not anymore. If you've been reading my blogs and political writings for a long time, you may recall that I'm officially a Green. At least, I was until about 2:30 this afternoon.

But, let me go back a ways and tell you the whole story...

When I turned 18 in 1979 I registered as a Democrat, and was fairly loyal from that time until the mid 90s. I walked my Sacramento precinct for Clinton in '92 (as I had for other Democrats before), but some of the shine had already begun to come off my love of the party.

The way the Clinton's squandered their opportunity with a failed (and poorly led) bid at national health care and then quickly turned to the right was a major disappointment, as was their later implementation of a very Republican welfare "reform." But the final straw for me came from my Democratic State Senator up in Sacramento.

I had written him a letter during the '94 elections asking for clarification on his position on the death penalty, as he had made a statement implying he wanted it applied even to drug dealers, rapists, etc. He wrote back basically telling me that I was an idiot, and asking if I thought I'd get any more of a liberal position out of his Republican challenger, and basically told me that I had no choice but to support him. Needless to say, I didn't vote for him.

Following that election (early in '95) I changed my registration to Green, and I have been a Green ever since. But I don't always vote Green. I consider myself "left-of-center independent" and my votes can be for Greens, Democrats, or whomever else I feel best represents my views in any given election.

With Barack Obama, however, there is finally a Democrat who I can not only "hold my breath and vote for," but a Democrat who I can truly believe in, and want to help win this election.

No, I won't be changing my registration back to Democrat. The party itself still has a long way to go before I can proudly wear that label again. But, in California, true independents (registered as "decline to state" not in any third party) may select a Democratic ballot in the Primary election.

And so, this afternoon I stopped off at Barack Obama's new San Jose office and filled out a new voter registration form as "decline to state" (the CA registration deadline is 15 days prior to any election, so that would be next Monday). This will allow me to support him in the primary on February 5, as well as in the general election next November.

Twitter Feed