I know, I know. I do it every time. I see a Dionne column and I think--here comes some ridiculous drivel that ultimately make me angry, so let it pass. Don't read it. And then I do--and I prove myself right.
Today's column speaks of "the other deficit", which in Dionne's world--you know, the one uninformed by reason, is different that the debt/deficit talks dominating the news. Dionne's deficit is the deficit of jobs, and the fact that Mitt Romney's on the stump talking about jobs, jobs, jobs while the President battles Congressional Republicans.
What Dionne doesn't get--nor does the President or his Party--is the extent to which the two "deficits" are simply parts of the same whole. Our economy is mired in mediocrity not because there isn't a lot of cash out there--there is--but because investing it in THIS economy is a bad risk. Because Washington seems unable to get it together and create a sustainable model of spending and taxing, businesses are on edge, they are not investing in growth--rather, they are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The unemployment rate will decline when businesses begin to believe our economy is on a sound footing, not simply a behemoth version of Greece waiting to happen.
Showing posts with label E.J. Dionne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E.J. Dionne. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
E.J. Dionne Starts 2011 as Wrong as He Was in 2010
From this morning's WaPost, reflexive liberal hack columnist E.J. Dionne engages in some revisionist history:
There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.
This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the 111th Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health-care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly and more coherently.
Please, please, PLEASE Democrats--listen to E.J., who is telling you that you lost in November 2010 because you weren't liberal enough! Keep telling the American people that they are wrong--that MORE government is what they really need.
There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.
This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the 111th Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health-care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly and more coherently.
Please, please, PLEASE Democrats--listen to E.J., who is telling you that you lost in November 2010 because you weren't liberal enough! Keep telling the American people that they are wrong--that MORE government is what they really need.
Monday, October 18, 2010
EJ Dionne's Latest Whine
Poor EJ; someone hand him a tissue, he's got himself all in a case of the vapors over the impending Democratic disaster.
Just can't seem to get his arms around the fact that folks are simply repudiating everything he stands for. No. That would make his head explode.
Just can't seem to get his arms around the fact that folks are simply repudiating everything he stands for. No. That would make his head explode.
Monday, August 9, 2010
EJ Dionne and Chris Dodd Have a Chat
EJ Dionne writes this morning of a chat he had with retiring Senator Chris Dodd. At some point after the obligatory "I love your work, EJ", followed by the "no, no, no Senator--I love YOUR work" conversation, they got down to brass tacks. And while I would rather poke knitting needles into my eardrums than be a fly on the wall during this conversation, Dodd did say something with which I agree:
"There's nothing wrong with partisanship," Dodd thunders. "A little more civility would be a good thing, but it was partisanship that created this place." In the early decades of the republic, Congress "was a brawl." Partisanship simply reflects the reality of disagreement in a free society."
The distinction between partisanship and incivility is an important one. Bi-partisanship sometimes means appropriate, compromise positions--and it sometimes means milquetoast solution-seeking for the sake of seeking solutions.
Three cheers for partisanship, I say.
"There's nothing wrong with partisanship," Dodd thunders. "A little more civility would be a good thing, but it was partisanship that created this place." In the early decades of the republic, Congress "was a brawl." Partisanship simply reflects the reality of disagreement in a free society."
The distinction between partisanship and incivility is an important one. Bi-partisanship sometimes means appropriate, compromise positions--and it sometimes means milquetoast solution-seeking for the sake of seeking solutions.
Three cheers for partisanship, I say.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
EJ Dionne: "Irrational Fiscal Policies" of the "Stupid Politicians"
Even though I cannot stomach EJ Dionne's shrill swill, his column today, "Stupid politics, irrational fiscal policy drag the nation down" actually caught my attention enough to want to read it. I mean, could EJ have finally come to his senses and realized that the fiscal policies of the Obama Administration and this unchecked Congress are killing the economic future of our nation?
What was I thinking?
Of course not. The irrational fiscal policies of the stupid politicians were, as I learned a few lines into the column, conservatives' desire NOT to raise taxes. I actually stopped reading when he pulled out the tired (and wrong) liberal argument that raising taxes on the wealthiest of our citizens is not only proper, but necessary. Here's a spoonful of his drivel:
"The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States — the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years — are undertaxed compared with everyone else."
Really? Since when is the highest tax bracket NOT for the wealthiest Americans? How do you come to such a conclusion? Read on...
"Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007," the period for which figures are available."
I am sick of hearing about gaps in this country. There are also gaps in work ethics, gaps in lawful behavior and gaps in how much one person seeks help from the rest of the citizenry through a strong-armed government and how much another seeks resolution of his own problems through his own hard work and sacrifices. Why don't liberals whine about the "gap" that exists between professional athletes, Hollywood coke addicts and the elite Democratic ruling class and your average Tea Party participant? Why doesn't that gap cause you to wring your hands and weep about the horror, the humanity, the injustice? But before I get too riled, there's more EJ to share:
"The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pretax incomes have grown five times larger."
So notwithstanding the statistical irrelevance of 400 taxpayers, let's do some math using your numbers EJ. Let's just round off your "nearly half" to exactly 1/2. Let "R" be the tax rate of "just over a decade" ago and PTI be the pre-tax income of that same year. That means that just over a decade ago, each of these 400 heartless bastards paid R% of their pretax incomes or, R X PTI. So, just over a decade later (today) those same, even more heartless bastards with 5 times the PTI of just over a decade ago, but with 1/2 the tax rate only paid, let's see, 1/2 R X 5PTI = 2.5 PTI. And don't forget, EJ, by your own admission, that PTI number is an obscenely large number. Undertaxed my ass.
So over the last decade, because they drove themselves as free men and women to become more wealthy, these 400 wealthiest Americans paid increasingly larger amounts of tax dollars to the government such that they now pay more than twice what they paid 10 years ago. And since I doubt these people got rich winning the lottery, they probably have some seriously large business(es) that, if they are making so much money, probably are providing seriously large numbers of jobs. They are also probably people who use virtually zero social services, do not occupy the local law enforcers' time to keep them from harming their neighbors and who probably spend most of their time working and thinking of new ways to increase their wealth and make more jobs and provide yet again more taxes of which they use little. How dare these people call themselves "Americans."
Well EJ, if we stop pursuing your so-called "irrational fiscal policies" through "stupid politics", my guess is those 400 might not call themselves Americans anymore. Just like Skipper John Kerry, who no longer considered himself of the People's Republic of Mass when it came to paying luxury tax, they'll sail their yachts to their own private island or maybe build a canal to Galt's Gulch.
Jealous zealots--"jealots"
What was I thinking?
Of course not. The irrational fiscal policies of the stupid politicians were, as I learned a few lines into the column, conservatives' desire NOT to raise taxes. I actually stopped reading when he pulled out the tired (and wrong) liberal argument that raising taxes on the wealthiest of our citizens is not only proper, but necessary. Here's a spoonful of his drivel:
"The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States — the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years — are undertaxed compared with everyone else."
Really? Since when is the highest tax bracket NOT for the wealthiest Americans? How do you come to such a conclusion? Read on...
"Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007," the period for which figures are available."
I am sick of hearing about gaps in this country. There are also gaps in work ethics, gaps in lawful behavior and gaps in how much one person seeks help from the rest of the citizenry through a strong-armed government and how much another seeks resolution of his own problems through his own hard work and sacrifices. Why don't liberals whine about the "gap" that exists between professional athletes, Hollywood coke addicts and the elite Democratic ruling class and your average Tea Party participant? Why doesn't that gap cause you to wring your hands and weep about the horror, the humanity, the injustice? But before I get too riled, there's more EJ to share:
"The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pretax incomes have grown five times larger."
So notwithstanding the statistical irrelevance of 400 taxpayers, let's do some math using your numbers EJ. Let's just round off your "nearly half" to exactly 1/2. Let "R" be the tax rate of "just over a decade" ago and PTI be the pre-tax income of that same year. That means that just over a decade ago, each of these 400 heartless bastards paid R% of their pretax incomes or, R X PTI. So, just over a decade later (today) those same, even more heartless bastards with 5 times the PTI of just over a decade ago, but with 1/2 the tax rate only paid, let's see, 1/2 R X 5PTI = 2.5 PTI. And don't forget, EJ, by your own admission, that PTI number is an obscenely large number. Undertaxed my ass.
So over the last decade, because they drove themselves as free men and women to become more wealthy, these 400 wealthiest Americans paid increasingly larger amounts of tax dollars to the government such that they now pay more than twice what they paid 10 years ago. And since I doubt these people got rich winning the lottery, they probably have some seriously large business(es) that, if they are making so much money, probably are providing seriously large numbers of jobs. They are also probably people who use virtually zero social services, do not occupy the local law enforcers' time to keep them from harming their neighbors and who probably spend most of their time working and thinking of new ways to increase their wealth and make more jobs and provide yet again more taxes of which they use little. How dare these people call themselves "Americans."
Well EJ, if we stop pursuing your so-called "irrational fiscal policies" through "stupid politics", my guess is those 400 might not call themselves Americans anymore. Just like Skipper John Kerry, who no longer considered himself of the People's Republic of Mass when it came to paying luxury tax, they'll sail their yachts to their own private island or maybe build a canal to Galt's Gulch.
Jealous zealots--"jealots"
Monday, April 26, 2010
E.J. Dionne On The Supreme Court
See if you can get through the first paragraph of this editorial without shaking your head in disgust. I double dog dare you.
Monday, March 8, 2010
E.J. Dionne Remains A Hyperventilating Girly-man
Dionne applauds a "bi-partisan" push to "clean up" the Supreme Court's campaign finance mess. Interesting, given that 1) no Republicans have yet signed on to the legislation and 2) the "mess" was created by Congress knowingly passing legislation thought by many (look at the legislative history/floor debate) to be blatantly unconstitutional. Again E.J.--tell me exactly what all those millions in campaign support to President Obama bought Wall Street?
Monday, January 25, 2010
E.J. Dionne Hyperventilates
E.J. Dionne is calling for Americans to take to the ramparts after the Supreme Courts "reckless" decision on campaign finance last week. Typical over the top, emotional, factless bloviation (and I oughta know!) from the WaPosts chief mouthpiece for the Administration.
But there is something here--Dionne advocates for having corporate Chief Executives appear in ads that they sponsor to take responsibility for what is in the ad--like politicians do. I'm open to that--in fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it. Then, we'll have the opportunity to let the market punish corporations for their views.
But there is something here--Dionne advocates for having corporate Chief Executives appear in ads that they sponsor to take responsibility for what is in the ad--like politicians do. I'm open to that--in fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it. Then, we'll have the opportunity to let the market punish corporations for their views.
Monday, January 18, 2010
E.J. Dionne Offers More Ridiculous Analysis
EJ's latest here in the Washington Post is a classic of inanity. Here's a line I loved:
"But the success of the conservative narrative ought to trouble liberals and the Obama administration. The president has had to "own" the economic catastrophe much earlier than he should have. Most Americans understand that the mess we are in started before Obama got to the White House. Yet many, especially political independents, are upset that the government has had to spend so much and that things have not turned around as fast as they had hoped. "
Earlier than he should have? Just when should that have been, EJ? Someone PLEASE let me know when Barack Obama begins to be in charge. When does he own the economy? As for things not turning around as fast--could it be that the $800B stimulus bill was simply a bad bill that stimulated very little? Could there be ANY connection between disillusion with Obama and bad policy?
Is there even a possibility, E.J., that disillusion with Obama might have something to do with his decision to mess with 1/6 of the economy in a way that has left the middle class, the elderly, the young and small business owners wondering how badly they are going to fare?
No, of course not. This is all just ideology at work.
"But the success of the conservative narrative ought to trouble liberals and the Obama administration. The president has had to "own" the economic catastrophe much earlier than he should have. Most Americans understand that the mess we are in started before Obama got to the White House. Yet many, especially political independents, are upset that the government has had to spend so much and that things have not turned around as fast as they had hoped. "
Earlier than he should have? Just when should that have been, EJ? Someone PLEASE let me know when Barack Obama begins to be in charge. When does he own the economy? As for things not turning around as fast--could it be that the $800B stimulus bill was simply a bad bill that stimulated very little? Could there be ANY connection between disillusion with Obama and bad policy?
Is there even a possibility, E.J., that disillusion with Obama might have something to do with his decision to mess with 1/6 of the economy in a way that has left the middle class, the elderly, the young and small business owners wondering how badly they are going to fare?
No, of course not. This is all just ideology at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
