First of all I think that President Obama should, after an appropriate period of time, go up there and present Presidential Medals of Freedom to the teachers who were killed that day. The teachers killed at Sandy Hook, all of whom were women, displayed, individually and in the aggregate, as much quick thinking, bravery, and courage as any military unit has ever dreamed of, and I think the country should recognize that.
Secondly, that school district could do worse than renaming the Sandy Hook elementary school to the Dawn Hochsprung elementary school. In addition, it would be a good thing if other school districts, especially in the towns that they were originally from, would name a school after each of the other six teachers who were killed.
Finally, I sincerely hope that this breaks the back of thee trend in the U.S. to demonize teachers as lazy, incompetent people who are only interested in their next paycheck. That never has been true and anyone who suggests that in the future should have a dunce cap put on their head and be sent off to sit in a corner until they come to their senses.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
A Question for Gun Owners
If you are a gun owner I want you to ask yourself a question. Look at your guns. Would you be willing to give up all of your guns if doing so would wipe the pain off of this woman's face and bring back her dead child?
If the answer is yes, then fine, keep your guns. You are not the problem. If, however, the answer is no, you would rather keep your guns, then I feel sorry for you. Because you have no heart, no soul; you are dead inside and, barring some 'A Christmas Carol' type epiphany, you will remain so the rest of your miserable life. And I do mean miserable. Because I would rather live in abject poverty and be alive inside than have billions of dollars, and lots of guns, and be like you.
(Photo: Scene outside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. By Howard Simmons/NY Daily News via Getty Images)
If the answer is yes, then fine, keep your guns. You are not the problem. If, however, the answer is no, you would rather keep your guns, then I feel sorry for you. Because you have no heart, no soul; you are dead inside and, barring some 'A Christmas Carol' type epiphany, you will remain so the rest of your miserable life. And I do mean miserable. Because I would rather live in abject poverty and be alive inside than have billions of dollars, and lots of guns, and be like you.
(Photo: Scene outside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. By Howard Simmons/NY Daily News via Getty Images)
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Bring On the Fiscal Cliff
In the first place, it is not so much a fiscal cliff as it is a fiscal speed bump. The CBO estimates that it would slow the economy sufficiently that it would shrink at an annualized rate of .4% in the first half of 2013 and then recover to grow at an annualized rate of 2.3% in the second half of the year. While not particularly desirable, it would hardly be the economic catastrophe that the pundits are claiming.
Now, I think I know why the pundits and Paul Krugman's Very Serious People (VSP) consider going over the fiscal cliff to be so catastrophic. Those folks are either part of the one percent, or are one percent 'wanabees' and as such they consider any increase in their tax rate to be the end of civilization as we know it. Well, any civilization which has someone like Grover Norquist* holding the tax system hostage should end and be rebuilt, from the ground up if necessary, without Mr. Norquist.
Besides, that CBO estimate is based on the assumption that we hit the fiscal cliff and the new Congress, after being sworn in mid January, will do ... nothing. The reality is that the new Congress will almost certainly introduce a bill to restore the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the top bracket. If the Republicans try to hold that tax cut bill hostage until the top bracket gets a tax cut they will simply be handing the Democrats a hammer to hit them over the head with until they relent, or until the 2104 midterm elections in which they would get creamed.
An important factor here is that, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the framing changes. Right now, if you try to raise taxes for the one percent, the Republicans will scream 'tax increase' at the top of their lungs. And they would be right, not in screaming at the top of their lungs, but that it would be a tax increase. A tax increase that we definitely need, but a tax increase nevertheless. Once we go over the fiscal cliff, and the Bush tax cuts are all rolled back, the bill mentioned above would be for a tax cut. Even Grover Norquist should support a tax cut even if it does not include the top bracket, right?
Finally, if we go over the fiscal cliff and Congress does do nothing, so what. The economy will recover and when it does the deficit will be substantially reduced. I know that many people, such as Mr Krugman, think that we should wait to impose austerity until the economy is healthier. I would tend to agree, but with a totally recalcitrant Republican party, which would think nothing of damaging the economy as long as they think they can lay the blame on President Obama, I am not sure how long it would take the economy to be as healthy as Mr Krugman would like. In the mean time, we would be racking up ever more debt. So bring on the fiscalcliff speed bump.
* My spell checker didn't recognize 'Norquist' as a valid word. When I right clicked on it, the only substitution offered was 'inquisitor'. Not quite, but close.
Now, I think I know why the pundits and Paul Krugman's Very Serious People (VSP) consider going over the fiscal cliff to be so catastrophic. Those folks are either part of the one percent, or are one percent 'wanabees' and as such they consider any increase in their tax rate to be the end of civilization as we know it. Well, any civilization which has someone like Grover Norquist* holding the tax system hostage should end and be rebuilt, from the ground up if necessary, without Mr. Norquist.
Besides, that CBO estimate is based on the assumption that we hit the fiscal cliff and the new Congress, after being sworn in mid January, will do ... nothing. The reality is that the new Congress will almost certainly introduce a bill to restore the Bush tax cuts for everyone but the top bracket. If the Republicans try to hold that tax cut bill hostage until the top bracket gets a tax cut they will simply be handing the Democrats a hammer to hit them over the head with until they relent, or until the 2104 midterm elections in which they would get creamed.
An important factor here is that, if we go over the fiscal cliff, the framing changes. Right now, if you try to raise taxes for the one percent, the Republicans will scream 'tax increase' at the top of their lungs. And they would be right, not in screaming at the top of their lungs, but that it would be a tax increase. A tax increase that we definitely need, but a tax increase nevertheless. Once we go over the fiscal cliff, and the Bush tax cuts are all rolled back, the bill mentioned above would be for a tax cut. Even Grover Norquist should support a tax cut even if it does not include the top bracket, right?
Finally, if we go over the fiscal cliff and Congress does do nothing, so what. The economy will recover and when it does the deficit will be substantially reduced. I know that many people, such as Mr Krugman, think that we should wait to impose austerity until the economy is healthier. I would tend to agree, but with a totally recalcitrant Republican party, which would think nothing of damaging the economy as long as they think they can lay the blame on President Obama, I am not sure how long it would take the economy to be as healthy as Mr Krugman would like. In the mean time, we would be racking up ever more debt. So bring on the fiscal
* My spell checker didn't recognize 'Norquist' as a valid word. When I right clicked on it, the only substitution offered was 'inquisitor'. Not quite, but close.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Shorter Carl Rove
...Dammit, this election was bought and paid for, Obama can't possibly be winning Ohio.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Mitt Romney's Tax Returns, Part 2
There is a strange number in Mitt Romney's 2011 Federal tax return.
In 2010, On Schedule A (Form 1040), line 5, which is state income taxes paid, the entry is $672,444 and line 38 on the 1040 shows an adjusted gross income of $21,646,507. This would give an effective state income tax paid rate of.3.1%. In 2011 these numbers were $1,327,031 and $13,696,951 respectively. It is the $1,327,031 that I find strange because that would give an effective state income tax paid rate of 9.7%.* This in a state, Massachusetts, which has a flat income tax of 5.3%. If he had paid the same effective rate in 2011 as in 2010, then he would have paid just $425,493. So what is with the extra $901,538?
Line 5 of Schedule A does not allow for a whole lot of variation. It is for state and local income taxes paid. As far as I know, there is no local tax issue involved, so line 5 reduces down to state income taxes paid. I can only think of four variations in this situation:
Variation 1 - Mitt Romney paid $901,538 more than he had to. I find this to be simply unbelievable. If nothing else that 9.7% effective rate is more than the maximum tax rate of 5.3% and I don't even know how you could do that even if you wanted to, and I guarantee Mitt Romney would not want to.
Variation 2 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in more than one state. The problem here is that he claimed to be a resident of Massachusetts for the entire year and I see no reason to doubt that.
Variation 3 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in Massachusetts and back taxes in Massachusetts. This is a possibility, but I know of no evidence to indicate that he severely underpaid his Massachusetts taxes in the past.
Variation 4 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in Massachusetts and back taxes in some other state, specifically the state of California. I think this is the correct variation. I pointed out in a previous post that Mitt Romney's 2010 return showed a modest amount of money paid to a maid in La Jolla, California when he claimed to be living in Massachusetts, I think the 2009 return, which he has refused to release, would show a more substantial amount of money paid to that maid which would, in turn, indicate that he was living in La Jolla, California, not in Belmont, Massachusetts. I think the state of California figured this out also** and hit Mister Romney for back taxes. The excess amount of state taxes paid in 2011 is roughly what I would expect to be the amount of back taxes owed to the state of California***.
In summary, the idea is that when Mitt Romney sold his house in Belmont, Massachusetts. in April 2009, he moved to a house he already owned in La Jolla, California. Someplace along the line he created a phony address in Massachusetts so he could continue to pay state income taxes in the state with a lower rate. However, the authorities caught him evading taxes in California and made him pay back taxes there, presumably plus a penalty and interest.
I think this idea not only explains two pieces of anomalous data in the tax returns that Mitt Romney has released, but also explains why he will not release either his federal tax returns for 2008 and 2009 or his state tax return for 2011.
Regarding the anomalous data, this idea explains the unusually large amount of state income taxes paid in 2011 and why he paid a maid in La Jolla, Ca. for a brief period in 2010.
As for the federal returns, he won't release his 2009 tax return because that wwould show a more substantial amount of wages paid to the maid in La Jolla, California, which would in turn pretty well establish that he was living in La Jolla and not in Belmont, Massachusetts. Finally he won't release the 2008 federal return because that probably was filed sometime in mid to late 2009 and would show La Jolla, California as his address.
If anyone thinks I am still just speculating, I would point out that there would be no need for speculation if Mitt Romney would simply release his 2008 and 2009 Federal and state tax returns and his 2010 and 2011 state tax returns. Besides, if I am wrong, how else do you explain that extra $900,000 in state taxes paid in 2011?
* Calculating an effective rate paid for Mitt Romney's state taxes is tricky since he has not released any state tax returns. So all I have to work with are the numbers on his Federal tax return. Obama has released his state returns along with his Federal returns.
** There are numerous ways of establishing where a person was living. Credit card and cell phone data are just two of the possible ways.
*** I say roughly because I have no numbers at all for 2009. Given the variation in income between 2010 and 2011 it is a very rough guess indeed to estimate anything about Mitt Romney's 2009 state taxes.
In 2010, On Schedule A (Form 1040), line 5, which is state income taxes paid, the entry is $672,444 and line 38 on the 1040 shows an adjusted gross income of $21,646,507. This would give an effective state income tax paid rate of.3.1%. In 2011 these numbers were $1,327,031 and $13,696,951 respectively. It is the $1,327,031 that I find strange because that would give an effective state income tax paid rate of 9.7%.* This in a state, Massachusetts, which has a flat income tax of 5.3%. If he had paid the same effective rate in 2011 as in 2010, then he would have paid just $425,493. So what is with the extra $901,538?
Line 5 of Schedule A does not allow for a whole lot of variation. It is for state and local income taxes paid. As far as I know, there is no local tax issue involved, so line 5 reduces down to state income taxes paid. I can only think of four variations in this situation:
Variation 1 - Mitt Romney paid $901,538 more than he had to. I find this to be simply unbelievable. If nothing else that 9.7% effective rate is more than the maximum tax rate of 5.3% and I don't even know how you could do that even if you wanted to, and I guarantee Mitt Romney would not want to.
Variation 2 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in more than one state. The problem here is that he claimed to be a resident of Massachusetts for the entire year and I see no reason to doubt that.
Variation 3 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in Massachusetts and back taxes in Massachusetts. This is a possibility, but I know of no evidence to indicate that he severely underpaid his Massachusetts taxes in the past.
Variation 4 - Mitt Romney paid income taxes in Massachusetts and back taxes in some other state, specifically the state of California. I think this is the correct variation. I pointed out in a previous post that Mitt Romney's 2010 return showed a modest amount of money paid to a maid in La Jolla, California when he claimed to be living in Massachusetts, I think the 2009 return, which he has refused to release, would show a more substantial amount of money paid to that maid which would, in turn, indicate that he was living in La Jolla, California, not in Belmont, Massachusetts. I think the state of California figured this out also** and hit Mister Romney for back taxes. The excess amount of state taxes paid in 2011 is roughly what I would expect to be the amount of back taxes owed to the state of California***.
In summary, the idea is that when Mitt Romney sold his house in Belmont, Massachusetts. in April 2009, he moved to a house he already owned in La Jolla, California. Someplace along the line he created a phony address in Massachusetts so he could continue to pay state income taxes in the state with a lower rate. However, the authorities caught him evading taxes in California and made him pay back taxes there, presumably plus a penalty and interest.
I think this idea not only explains two pieces of anomalous data in the tax returns that Mitt Romney has released, but also explains why he will not release either his federal tax returns for 2008 and 2009 or his state tax return for 2011.
Regarding the anomalous data, this idea explains the unusually large amount of state income taxes paid in 2011 and why he paid a maid in La Jolla, Ca. for a brief period in 2010.
As for the federal returns, he won't release his 2009 tax return because that wwould show a more substantial amount of wages paid to the maid in La Jolla, California, which would in turn pretty well establish that he was living in La Jolla and not in Belmont, Massachusetts. Finally he won't release the 2008 federal return because that probably was filed sometime in mid to late 2009 and would show La Jolla, California as his address.
If anyone thinks I am still just speculating, I would point out that there would be no need for speculation if Mitt Romney would simply release his 2008 and 2009 Federal and state tax returns and his 2010 and 2011 state tax returns. Besides, if I am wrong, how else do you explain that extra $900,000 in state taxes paid in 2011?
* Calculating an effective rate paid for Mitt Romney's state taxes is tricky since he has not released any state tax returns. So all I have to work with are the numbers on his Federal tax return. Obama has released his state returns along with his Federal returns.
** There are numerous ways of establishing where a person was living. Credit card and cell phone data are just two of the possible ways.
*** I say roughly because I have no numbers at all for 2009. Given the variation in income between 2010 and 2011 it is a very rough guess indeed to estimate anything about Mitt Romney's 2009 state taxes.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Quote of the Weeek - The Eagles
This is from their song 'One of These Nights':
I've been searching for the daughter of the Devil himself.
I've been searching for an angel in white.
I've been waiting for a woman who's a little of both
and I can feel her, but she's nowhere in sight.
I suspect that that this is what more than a few men are looking for, a woman who's a little of both. I also suspect that this is the way that more than a few women think of themselves. After all, there's probably a little bit of the Devil himself, and a little bit of an angel in white in all of us, it's just that the proportions can vary quite a bit. Which leads to this comic from 9 Chickweed Lane (click thru to see the final panel):
I've been searching for the daughter of the Devil himself.
I've been searching for an angel in white.
I've been waiting for a woman who's a little of both
and I can feel her, but she's nowhere in sight.
I suspect that that this is what more than a few men are looking for, a woman who's a little of both. I also suspect that this is the way that more than a few women think of themselves. After all, there's probably a little bit of the Devil himself, and a little bit of an angel in white in all of us, it's just that the proportions can vary quite a bit. Which leads to this comic from 9 Chickweed Lane (click thru to see the final panel):
 |
The Polls Have a Liberal Bias
There has been a recent onslaught of claims by Republicans that the presidential polls have a liberal bias, that is, that even though the polls are showing Obama with a 4-5 point lead, Romney actually has a 2-3 point lead.
The dominant reaction to this on the internet is to say that this is just another example of Republican denialism, similar to global warming denialism. While I think that that may be a contributing factor to the claims I don 't think that is the real reason for them. For one thing, denying global warming is of immediate financial benefit to a lot of people making big money off of fossil fuels, but I see no immediate benefit, financial or otherwise, in denying the accuracy of the polls.
What I do think is happening is that the Republicans are setting the stage for a claim after the election that Obama won only because of vote fraud. After all, if they accept the accuracy of the polls that show Obama with a 4-5 point lead and he wins by a 4-5 point margin, it is going to be hard for them to claim that he only won because he stole so many votes. If, however, they claim that the polls are biased and Romney really has a 2-3 point lead then, when Obama wins handily, they think that they will have a more credible basis for claiming massive vote fraud. Also, I think they are trying to provide an excuse for future Republican controlled state legislatures to disenfranchise even more voters in the name of preventing voter fraud.
One interesting thing about this idea is that it allows me to make a prediction. If the polls are accurate,as I think they are, and Obama wins by a substantial margin, as I think he will, then some time late on election night or early the next morning Mitt Romney will make a concession speech. About three microseconds after Mitt Romney concludes his speech Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Carl Rove, and others like them around the country, will start screaming 'vote fraud' at the top of their lungs. They won't convince anybody except for the members of the Tea Party that already think Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined, but it won't stop them from yelling 'vote fraud' anyway.
The dominant reaction to this on the internet is to say that this is just another example of Republican denialism, similar to global warming denialism. While I think that that may be a contributing factor to the claims I don 't think that is the real reason for them. For one thing, denying global warming is of immediate financial benefit to a lot of people making big money off of fossil fuels, but I see no immediate benefit, financial or otherwise, in denying the accuracy of the polls.
What I do think is happening is that the Republicans are setting the stage for a claim after the election that Obama won only because of vote fraud. After all, if they accept the accuracy of the polls that show Obama with a 4-5 point lead and he wins by a 4-5 point margin, it is going to be hard for them to claim that he only won because he stole so many votes. If, however, they claim that the polls are biased and Romney really has a 2-3 point lead then, when Obama wins handily, they think that they will have a more credible basis for claiming massive vote fraud. Also, I think they are trying to provide an excuse for future Republican controlled state legislatures to disenfranchise even more voters in the name of preventing voter fraud.
One interesting thing about this idea is that it allows me to make a prediction. If the polls are accurate,as I think they are, and Obama wins by a substantial margin, as I think he will, then some time late on election night or early the next morning Mitt Romney will make a concession speech. About three microseconds after Mitt Romney concludes his speech Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Carl Rove, and others like them around the country, will start screaming 'vote fraud' at the top of their lungs. They won't convince anybody except for the members of the Tea Party that already think Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined, but it won't stop them from yelling 'vote fraud' anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)