tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342100421756914597.post5405479057425256109..comments2024-01-12T18:45:52.043-05:00Comments on The Weekly Sift: Safe GroundDoug Muderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342100421756914597.post-92022192671696122422010-12-14T12:10:24.815-05:002010-12-14T12:10:24.815-05:00The White House web site says:
"The agreemen...The White House web site says:<br /><br />"The agreement reached by the administration and embodied in the Tax Relief, Unemployment <br />Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act includes an about 2%, employee-side payroll tax cut <br />for over 155 million workers – providing tax relief of $112 billion next year."<br /><br />That's at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/101210-tax-relief.pdfDoug Muderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342100421756914597.post-61854395233497062872010-12-14T10:32:51.726-05:002010-12-14T10:32:51.726-05:00Re the payroll tax cut, I understand it to cut the...Re the payroll tax cut, I understand it to cut the employer side rather than the employee side, so takehome pay won't change unless employers raise nominal salary to compensate. (Fat chance.) I think this puts it squarely on the Republican side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342100421756914597.post-54771038435002430442010-12-13T15:34:22.398-05:002010-12-13T15:34:22.398-05:00In the next to last sentence "nearly" sh...In the next to last sentence "nearly" should read "barely". (Damn you, Autocorrect!)DavidW in SFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342100421756914597.post-51851943596082168632010-12-13T15:27:54.151-05:002010-12-13T15:27:54.151-05:00Another great Sift with lots to ponder.
I think ...Another great Sift with lots to ponder. <br /><br />I think Kevin Drum is out to lunch on the question of the "temporary payroll tax holiday" for at least two reasons. <br /><br />The first is evident in his first sentence. He categorizes the tax cut as "small". It is in fact a tax cut of 32% (from 6.2% to 4.2% of salary under the cap), which is HUGE. Even worse, to restore it, you are talking about nearly "a 50% tax increase (4.2% to 6.2%). Drum was clearly asleep when he wrote this, and clearly asleep during the recall of California's Governor Gray Davis over restoral of a "temporary" reduction in the auto registration fee that was only a couple hundred dollars. I guess he didn't notice Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. <br /><br />The second is that he thinks since it isn't tax cuts for the wealthy that their hearts wouldn't really be there in demagoguing it. This issue involves the potential permanent eradication of Social Security, or at least the possibility of raiding its funds. Of COURSE they will demagogue this, and they will likely win. (See Governor Schwartzenegger and the devastated California budget.) The other reason they will be further engaged in demagoguing it is it involves destroying a Democratic President, and painting Democrats as "tax and spend liberals". A fifty-percent tax increase is just too juicy to pass up. <br /><br />After this article I will be forever skeptical of anything Drum writes and will double-check sources. <br /><br />Speaking of standing up to scrutiny, there are likely very few Republican scientists because none of their dogma stands up to scrutiny. You just can't be both a scientist and a modern Republican. Some of the comments in response to the Salon piece were well-articulated and dead-on in mapping this out. Particularly, one responds that scientific research regardless of political structure, leading ideology, etc. throughout the industrialized world agrees on a number of issues contrary to to Republican dogma -- for example, evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Much of the rest of Republican dogma similarly does not hold up to scrutiny. The author's basic premise holds no water when viewed from a wider perspective than parochial US partisan politics, and nearly holds water even under those constrained conditions. My conclusion: The author is a very silly person.DavidW in SFnoreply@blogger.com