Effective January 1, 2008, taxes are set to go up for a very select group of people – those who are self-employed or earning wages and making between $97,500 and more than $102,000. The tax increase for those on the higher end will be $558 per year in perpetuity.

It’s a beautiful way to do tax increases – it’s hard wired into the code, so that no one in congress has to vote on it. And it happens every year. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, taxes have gone up $2,678 per year for anyone making more than the annual benefit base for Social Security, which was $80,400 when he took office. He’s not taken any notice, and frankly, since it is never publicized, the people who pay this tax largely let it pass unnoticed. (Try Googling this increase – use whatever terminology pleases you. You won’t find it anywhere in the news.)

A few of things to note in passing:

First, George W. Bush, and the Democrats and Republicans in congress are not against tax increases. They only care about tax increases for those who can put pressure on them on election day – the people who finance their campaigns, the wealthy. That’s why this tax increase passes each year without notice – it hits people who are not politically connected.

Second, when payroll tax is added to their regular income tax, these self-employed and wage earners are being taxed at 39.2% of their last dollar earned. Add Montana’s tax to that – 6.75%, and they are paying taxes at a 46% marginal rate. That’s far more than Bush’s wealthy constituents who have benefited so much from his past tax increases pay. It’s a rate that in current temper of the times would be considered confiscatory – if it affected politically connected people.

Finally, there was a great outcry in years past when inflation would push people into higher tax brackets. Most of the code is now adjusted annually for inflation, to keep taxes from going up. The payroll tax is adjusted annually for inflation too. The tax goes up.

Our tax system is diabolically clever, designed to hit the middle class hardest. It’s essentially flat for most of us, but regressive for those who live on dividends and capital gains. The guy who flips your burgers pays a marginal rate of 24-29%, yet gets scoffed at as being a freeloader by those who pay less than him. Our tax system is the ultimate joke on working people, designed by people who apparently hold them in contempt.

###chirp###

According to Bruce Fein at Slate, Nancy Pelosi threatened to remove John Conyers from chairmanship of the House judiciary committee if he opens an impeachment inquiry.

Nothing rattles her more than Democrats who go after Republicans. She is indeed a strong leader. She’s just working for the wrong party.

I keep reflecting back on the events of the weekend, wherein Senators Schumer and Feinstein announced that they would support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general. A couple of things bug me.

One, the announcement of their support was done at the close of the news cycle, and in such a way as to do as much damage as possible to those who wanted to stop the Mukasey nomination. It was as if they were actively working for Bush. They took Senator Pat Leahy off the front page (he had announced his opposition and hour earlier). These two senators were not having any pangs of conscience, were not doing deep meditation. This was timed. They were actively supporting Bush.

Secondly, Bush needed two votes. Not one, not three, but two. They gave him exactly what he needed. Do you suppose that if he needed three, he would have gotten three? Or that if he only needed only one, the other pro-Mukasey vote would have gone into hiding? This is politics, things are seldom what they appear. Senators are vote counters, and once a measure or nomination is assured of passage or failure, they are free to vote as they please, free to dress up the voting record. I suspect there are more pro-Bush votes in hiding in the Democratic Party – more than just blue dogs.

Finally, Bush is a lame duck, and his approval rating is in Nixon country. But he has enormous power. It doesn’t make sense. What is it that impels senators like Schumer and Feinstein (who are not up for election this cycle) to alienate their base and support him? It’s not ethics, for sure. An anti-Mukasesy vote would have sent a strong message about torture.

What is it? Why does Bush win? My suspicious self, the one that sees politics as a Machiavellian game, sees Bush with the goods on them. (Maybe he got it by means of wiretap.) A phone call, a threat – some event from way back, or in Feinstein’s case, some investment that looks shady. Pow! A vote in favor of the president.

That is how the game is played. Say, for instance, that I was to run and win a seat in the House of Representatives, that I was to beat out Denny Rehberg. A smart executive branch would want leverage over me. They would do some research, and it wouldn’t take long before that unsavory incident involving the golden lab and the clown would surface. (I’m not proud of that.) Or the thing about toe-tapping in a mens’ room. (Larry Craig’s happy encounter was on public record long before it was public.)

Anyway, when things look too perfect, when Bush gets exactly what he needs when he needs it, be suspicious. In politics, things are never what they appear. That’s why I love it so.

I frankly don’t think either Clinton or Obama will get us out of Iraq. It’s just not in the cards – teh stakes are too high. We invaded to take control of their oil and install permanent military bases. A change of course based on election year politics is about as likely as, well, backing out of NAFTA. Ain’t gonna happen, no matter the talk.

Nonetheless, I liked this ad. Emotionally, I’m pulling for Obama. No good reason. None.

test test test test

Test test test test test test

Test

Test

Test