Tag Archives: political parties

“Pay Their Fair Share”

Posted on by
Reply

Once again, I challenge all those Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, including but not limited to (in no particular order), Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA); soon-to-be-ex-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY); former Senator (DE), Vice President, and soon-to-be-former President Joe Biden; former Senator (CA) and soon-to-be-former Vice President Kamala Harris (D); Senator Martin Heinrich (NM); and Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM) to identify, specifically, what is the fair share of income taxes that the rich should pay—hard dollar amount, or tax rate, or percent of income, or…. Cynically, all they’re willing to say is their feelz: pay up and pay more; it’s not “fair,” otherwise.

Here, though, in concrete terms, is the situation with that especially evil bunch of Americans, those in the top 1% of income-tax filers:

  • 22.4% of the country’s total reported earnings
  • share of income taxes paid 40.4%
  • average federal tax rate of 26.1%

Here is what the smaller people pay in the way of income taxes:

  • • bottom 10%: no taxes
  • second income decile: -4.8%–yes, negative, due to all the refundable tax credits they get
  • third income decile: 2.8%

Back to the top:

  • top decile—which includes those 1%-ers: 27%
  • especially evil top 0.1% earners: 33.5%

This graph shows the trend from 2001 to 2022:

Of course, those Party politicians know all of this; they being so much smarter than us poor, ignorant average Americans, and all. It’s a measure of their dishonesty and of their contempt for us that they foist their cynical class divisiveness on us. It’s also an indication of what their natural limit and purpose on taxing is: their limit is all of it from their definition of rich, who aren’t all that numerous; their purpose is to give it to enough of the rest of us to buy enough votes to stay in power.

It hasn’t worked yet, but the rest of us need to remain vigilant and active, lest the outcome of last month’s elections become just a one-off bump in Party’s march. A warning of that is given by the outcome in the House of Representatives elections, where not enough Progressive-Democrats were tossed.

DNC Vice Chair is Unhappy

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Ken Martin is upset that his Progressive-Democratic Party lost the just concluded (mostly—California is still trying to figure out the votes Party needs in two districts, and an Iowa district is in the same delaying boat) national elections. Martin in an interview with Jake Tapper:

For the first time, the majority of Americans believe that the Republican Party best represents the interests of the working class and the poor, and the Democratic Party represents the interests of the wealthy and the elite.

Tellingly, though, he added this, as summarized by Just the News at the above link:

He told Tapper that the current Democratic Party needs to prioritize “every race in every zip code.”

This is how deeply embedded racism is in Party. Perhaps they should prioritize every voter in every ZIP code instead. The rest of America—us average Americans, us working class and poor Americans—have moved on from this elitist Party’s tacitly racist identity politics of segregation.

Tariffs as Foreign Policy Tools

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Treasury, Scott Bessent, understands the nature of properly done tariffs. In a recent speech, he noted, as cited by The Wall Street Journal,

…Bessent argued for increasing tariffs on national-security grounds and for inducing other countries to lower trade barriers with the US. He criticized trade policy with China for enriching Wall Street, weakening domestic industrial might, and failing to lead to Chinese economic overhauls.
Bessent called for tariffs to resemble the Treasury Department’s sanctions program as a tool to promote US interests abroad. He was open to removing tariffs from countries that undertake structural overhauls and voiced support for a fair-trade block for allies with common security interests and reciprocal approaches to tariffs.
“President Trump is right that actual free trade is desirable,” Bessent said in prepared remarks at the time. “It might seem counterintuitive from a free market perspective, but he is also right that in order to actually create a freer and more extensive trading system over the long term, we need a more activist approach internationally.”

Yewbetcha, to coin a phrase. Bessent, and Trump, are among the few who understand that international trade is not only about economics—in fact it has little to do with economics—and is mostly about foreign policy.

Even protectionist tariffs—when not done solely for mercantilist reasons—have their foreign policy uses: that removing tariffs from countries that undertake structural overhauls and voiced support for a fair-trade block for allies bit, for instance.

Bessent has serious weaknesses, though, and I did not support his open, public campaigning for the position. That politicking, his penchant for speaking out of turn, is the sort of behavior that was so counterproductive in Trump’s first term. Hopefully, he’ll curb his tongue once installed (if he’s confirmed).

Still, I look forward to his reopening Trump’s proposal to the G-7, made during his first term, of a no-tariff-at-all free-trade agreement.

“No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, ‘no tariffs’,” the US president said, describing his meetings with fellow Group of Seven leaders as positive “on the need to have fair and reciprocal trade[.]”

That offer was wholly ignored at the time, except by the executives of the German car industry.

We’ll see.

Lawless Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that, in the vote-counting in Pennsylvania’s Dave McCormick (R)-Bob Casey (D) campaign for Senate, Progressive-Democrat Diane Ellis-Marseglia, Bucks County Commissioners Chairperson and member of the county’s Board of Elections had this on the matter of counting illegally cast ballots:

I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country[.]

She then proceeded to have her BoE count those improper ballots. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then ruled unanimously on merit and 4-3 on procedure that those ballots could not, in fact, be counted because of their lack of proper dating. This was, in its essence, a repeat of its earlier ruling, some weeks prior, that those ballots could not be counted, and it’s that prior ruling which Ellis-Marseglia so contemptuously—and contemptibly—dismissed.

Now we have this from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Casey campaign: they’re suing

10 county Boards of Elections, demanding they count provisional ballots that were already rejected.

Because they agree with the Ellis-Marseglia Principle that court rulings be damned, they’re going to do what they want to do, regardless of law.

This is the bullet that most of us dodged a couple weeks ago and, hopefully, the good citizens of Pennsylvania will dodge this one, too.

It’s also a strong indication that we average Americans need to remain vigilant and active throughout the next several election cycles, too, so we can dodge the hail of bullets that will be coming from Party.

Labor Unions, Labor Workers, and Employers

Posted on by
Reply

The lately formed Republican Party coalition, led by President-elect Donald Trump, consists of business-friendly and labor-friendly folks from opposite wings of the party.

Opposite, though, is not the same as opposing, a distinction the misconception of what’s involved masks. For instance:

People close to the transition said Trump’s potential appointments to key labor positions could include old-guard Republican functionaries, corporate executives, or individuals who are closer to the New Right and see themselves as more pro-worker.

Maybe and individuals who are pro-worker.

This makes plain the misconception:

[U]nion officials said Trump’s record is at odds with his pro-worker rhetoric. “It’s going to be a rude awakening for a lot of folks who wanted to take Trump at his word,” said Steve Smith, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO, which campaigned for President Biden and, subsequently, for Vice President Kamala Harris. “They talk a big game when it comes to workers, but…they’re going to attack the working class.”

Not at all. It’s entirely possible—useful, too—to be both pro-company and pro-working class while simultaneously opposing today’s unions. This is especially the case with today’s unions, where union management, far from concerning themselves with their membership—those working class folks—concern themselves more with what’s good for them personally.

That misplaced concern includes threatening employers with destruction of their businesses—striking and denying the businesses’ ability to function at all unless and until the union managers get their demands satisfied—and with ripping off workers with their efforts to force unionization in businesses where employees continually reject unions in labor votes. Union management in the past ripped off workers even more blatantly by exacting tribute union dues from workers whether they were union members or not. Court rulings have slowed that particular abuse, but they’ve not eliminated it.

What’s needed, and what becomes possible with the incoming administration, is bringing those pro-business and pro-labor folks into the same room to work out processes that benefit both, without the middle man union management in the room clouding things up and constantly trying to pit the one against the other, rather than helping them collaborate on business-labor policies.