A Tax Primer

I am self-employed and I live in Montana. I make a modest income, enough to qualify me as “middle class”. My marginal tax rates are as follows: Federal income, 25%, Federal self-employment (FICA), 14.2%, Montana income tax, 6.9%. My marginal tax rate is 46.1%.

Contrast that with someone who lives on inherited wealth or on passive income, such as dividends and capital gains: Marginal tax rates: Federal rate, 15%, Montana rate either 5.9% or 6.9%. Marginal tax rate, either 22.9% or 23.9%.

Those special investor tax rates applies to all income, no matter how high – into the millions. The marginal tax rates that apply to me apply to me and all workers whose taxable income starts at $44,000 and extends to $113,000. The rates only go up from there. Working stiffs are getting taxed at more than twice the rate that investors and trust babies are.

When pundits now tell us that a third of American pay no tax at all, they are talking about the income tax, and not the payroll (FICA) tax. All working Americans pay the FICA or self-employment tax (two names for the same animal) at 14.2% of earnings with no deductions or exemptions allowed. Many poorer workers get an earned income credit that refunds some or all of this tax. Poorer workers with children get a true subsidy via the EIC. Those are the only one who pay no tax, and it is nowhere near a third of us.

Obviously I have oversimplified, not taking into consideration deductions or exemptions. I paint with a somewhat broad brush, but even with those things factored in, the bottom line is that working middle class Americans pay tax at very high rates, often double what investors pay.

Obama would raise the top federal marginal rate from 35% to 39%, where it was prior to Bush taking office. He would eliminate the special break that investors get on dividends and capital gains. That would take us back to where we were in 2000. He would ease the burden slightly on the middle class.

The right wing is screaming now ( in unison, of course), that Obama is a “socialist” for wanting to offer middle class Americans a tax break while restoring the top rates to the pre-Bush levels. It’s doesn’t take a lot of research here to see what their real agenda is, and who they really work for.

For those Americans who think that an Obama presidency is a threat to the middle class, pay attention! A vote for John McCain is a vote against your own economic interest.

An Angry Man

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy. … At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said ‘You’re getting a little thin up there.’ McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, ‘At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c—.’

This article, Head of State, comes from an unexpected source – the October 20 issue of The American Conservative. The thrust of the article is that John McCain could possibly be a victim of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The author, Jim Pittaway, is a licensed psychotherapist (practicing in Missoula) who has worked for a decade in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for victims of TBI.

I have a hard time in my mind casting John McCain as a victim. Indeed he acted in service to his country when he bombed the North Vietnamese, but said service was disreputable. We were a technologically superior society unleashing the totality of our killing machine on an agrarian country. John McCain was shot down while under cover of official duty, but his actions are rightly seen as crimes when stripped of the official cover of military necessity. He was captured, imprisoned, and, if he is telling us the truth, tortured. The torture was of a low-tech variety, where he was beaten and repeatedly went in to states of unconsciousness, only to be revived and beaten again. It was truly inhuman – what he did, and what was done to him.

Pittaway maintains that an individual cannot undergo such trauma without long-lasting effects, and that McCain has never been treated for these effects – is in fact in denial that such treatment could have affected him at all. As a result, he is a walking bomb, and man who Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson says is “in the area of being unstable.”

Pittaway says “He is always angry at someone, or he is looking for something to be angry about.” He should be consigned to blogging, and leave public office to the more stable types.

Interesting background on the effects of blunt head trauma on international affairs:

Under the Plantagenets, the long-suffering people of England were stuck with nearly 300 years of virtually continuous, ruinous, and fruitless wars of almost no conceivable purpose beyond demonstrating that they were boss in France. (It turned out they weren’t.) Similarly, McCain buys unconditionally into the idea that a diverse world—particularly the Islam-believing, oil-producing component—must recognize that the president of the United States is in charge.

It’s one thing to believe something like that. The question is how much violence you are willing to expend in pursuit of such a notion. The Plantagenet answer was simple: we will use all the blood and treasure we can extort from the people we control in pursuit of power over people who resist us. John McCain gives the same answer, without ambiguity or qualification.

From the time of Henry II until very recently, it was assumed that the peculiar Plantagenet temperament was inherited rather than acquired—they were called “Devil’s spawn,” and their rages and obsessions were Shakespearian in intensity. But insights derived from modern understanding of concussions, coma, strokes, sepsis, and the damage they do to brain tissue—and the effects these incidents have on human emotions and behavior—casts these particular rulers in a very different light.

Coming of age in Plantagenet times involved putting an iron bucket over your head and flailing about with broadswords, clubs, maces, and an assortment of heavy objects in the direction of other young men similarly accessorized, until you or your opponent broke major bones or lost consciousness. Then, with everybody revived—except those who were dead, fractured, or in a coma—the practice was to put the iron bucket back on your head, get on your horse, and charge at each other with maximum velocity until someone was unhorsed, generally landing on his head, which was still encased in that iron bucket.

We know enough about the damage blows can do to heads encased in high-tech football helmets or struck frequently with padded gloves. Imagine the brain damage a prince had to acquire before he was deemed fit to be king.

So, those games we used to play as a kid, where my brothers would put a bucket over my head and hit it with a baseball bat – those games were not so innocent after all. I should have known.

In the Tudor case of Henry VIII, we have an individual whose life has been chronicled in such tedious detail that we can identify with specificity what clinicians call “precipitating events.” We know that, in addition to any damage done in training, he was unhorsed in a tournament trying to impress Anne Boleyn. This left him unconscious, probably in a coma, for several days, as did another fall from a horse while riding in the country, shortly before he had Boleyn beheaded. Although this man was afflicted by numerous ailments, a recent publication by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons maintains that his remarkable cognitive and emotional degeneration was substantially due to progressively more severe organic brain damage incurred during the course of his violent life.

George W. Bush presents as a shallow man, incurious and seemingly indifferent to the suffering of others. He undertook impulsive actions with dire long-term consequences. He didn’t realize the fury of the force he was unleashing – he didn’t think it through. (But Cheney did – that is more worrisome.) He’s a lesson in why the guy you want to have a beer with is not necessarily the guy you want to be president.

McCain is something worse, if that is possible – a man who knows first-hand that war is hell, who suffers from “unregulated anger, impulsivity, inability to tolerate ambiguity”. Who is more dangerous? Hopefully, we won’t have to find out.

A Timely Attack

The McCain campaign has set its sights on Pennsylvania, even though they trail wildly in the polls there. To them, it’s a turnkey state.

I’ve heard Pennslyvania described as “Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in between. As John Murtha regrettably noted, parts of the in-between are “redneck” and “racist”.

So when Hillary campaigned in that state, she sacrificed Geraldine Ferraro up, having her make some racist comments about Obama, and then resign her post. The comments were most assuredly aimed at the in-between area.

So I’m a little bit curious about Ashley Todd’s venture into infamy this week – her claims that she was attacked by a six-foot-four black man who carved a ‘B’ on her face. It’s the kind of thing that would play well to racist sentiments. When it happened, the McCain people were all over it, beating the police to the media. And it turns out that Todd is a McCain volunteer.

Politics can be seamy. Obviously this is only speculation, but the Todd incident struck me as timely, and as something that would have dovetailed nicely with McCain’s efforts to pull Pennsylvania out of the Obama column.

Addendum: Well, I’m not the only curious one. According to this Raw Story item, the McCain people knew far too much about this attack far too soon.

Addendum: Read what Josh Marshall has to say.

Crazy Tracy – This is Why America is Broken – From “Now on PBS”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Most people are religious to some degree or another, but also have their heads planted in the real world. Religion is mostly something we inherit from our parents who inherited it from their parents … on and on. Religious icons are usually mother/father substitutes, and they offer great comfort to people in dealing with the inevitable pain and trouble and suffering that is part of life. So be it.

But there’s a portion of the population for whom religion is a club – a way of expressing their desire to control the behavior of other people, a way to self-justify while demonizing people who disagree with them. They are called fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other names. I’ve wondered for some time if there is some mental derangement that underlies such destructive belief systems.

Listen to Crazy Tracy – she’s only letting us in for a brief glimpse at her soul. She’s only telling us a little bit. But it’s enough. Barack Obama is not just a man with a world view – he’s some incarnation of evil, likely the devil, certainly Muslim. Tracy has a fire burning in her, a desire to see Obama punished, and likewise to all of us evil enough to support him. She’s not all there.

There are a lot like her. America is off-the-charts fundamentalist, a lot like Iran in that regard. Jimmy Carter was the first president in my lifetime who tapped the electoral potential of the Christian Right – he used them to some degree of success in his run in 1976. But the Republicans spotted the enormous potential for these people, who as a voting bloc tend to go all in or all out. From 1980 forward, the Republicans used the abortion issue enlist the Christian Right to their cause. Since that time, they have become an essential part of the party’s base.

The question is, of course, how much power they really have. The Republicans have skillfully managed them, taking their support and giving them little in return. But they are getting bolder, demanding more. Bush tossed them the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, and a couple of Supreme Court judges who may (or may not) overturn Roe v Wade. But the primary thrust of the Republicans has been far from religious – they are the party of top-down economics, and their art is to get people to vote against their own self-interest. The Christians have been an essential force in that effort, even as they fail to understand what it has done to them and all of us.

All things in moderation. A little religion is good, I suppose. A lot can be, and has been, very bad for us.

Footnote: If Roe v Wade is overturned, will the Christian Right recede again into the shadows? Will Republicans keep the issue alive?

Sarah and the Jewish Voting Bloc

This is an interesting letter written in response to a Glenn Greenwald piece called “Another Myth Fallen: Obama’s “Jewish Problem”. Seems Palin’s negatives are not just skin deep. She has cost him an entire constituency.

My Jewish Spouse…

…had been worried about the elderly Jews in Florida. A lot of them were looking to support McCain in this election due to the fact that Obama has a Muslim middle name, Obama is black and McCain is believed to be more pro-Israel.

But a few weeks after Palin, that worry was gone. “There’s no way they’ll vote for McCain now. They realize who Palin is. Their kids and grandkids won’t let them vote for McCain. Their kids will make them watch youtube” (This was said before Sarah Silverman’s “Great Schlepp”).

The youtube videos of Palin in her church were all over the net. Palin talking about “how great it was gettin’ saved,” Palin getting a blessing from one of her pastors who asked God to watch over Palin as she is the governor of Alaska, a “refuge state” for the “lower 48” in the End Days. There was no mistaking his message – End Days are near and Alaska will be a “refuge” state not just because of its geographic location, but because of all the evangelicals who live there and who have prepped for the Rapture. And let’s not forget Palin’s evangelical witch doctor.

Then there’s Palin saying that creationism should be taught along with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in science classes. Yeah, that’s what retired Jews in Miami want their grandchildren learning in public school, right? That creationism is valid scientific theory?

Palin constantly extols the unsullied virtues of smalltown America while insulting community activists and slick urban types. Smalltown America, says Palin, is the “real” America. Yeah, and how many older Jews come from small American towns? Very few. Most of those who retired to Florida are either urbanites who helped found the suburbs after WWII, or they are the first generation who grew up in postwar suburbs. They know what Palin means when she talks of “smalltown values” in the “real America.” She means white Christians. Not blacks. Not Latinos. Not recent immigrants. And not Jews. Especially those lib’rul Jews who run Hollywood and the banks and who were born and raised in Brooklyn and made sure their kids went to college – especially those “elite” colleges where the lib’rul Jews seem to make up the entire faculty!

So how does McCain look to them after the selection of Palin? Like a loser. An asinine, pandering loser whose ambition to be president overrides any sense of decency. Sure, there are diehard McCain fans among the retired Jewish folks in Florida who will vote for him. There has always been a high regard for McCain (especially among WWII and Korean War veterans, a surprising number of whom are still alive and voting) because of his POW history and because he seemed like someone who was not as partisan as his fellow partymates. But respecting McCain’s service to his country does not outweigh all of McCain’s negatives now. Especially his biggest negative — his smalltown, evangelical, xenophobic, intellectually lazy, uninformed, anti-science running mate who came out swinging at the GOP convention, snidely insulting anyone who doesn’t share her background and beliefs.

Good work, McCain. Nice way to alienate the older Jewish vote. I thank you for that.

AP Poll is Probably an Outlier

I awoke this morning to a front page article in our little right wing daily paper here highlighting an AP poll that found that John McCain had narrowed the gap, and that Obama’s lead was only one point, 44-43%. This, said the article, is a result of the third debate and the success of the “Joe the Plumber” talk.

Right away I went to RealClearPolitics, where I follow the polls, to see if the others had noticed the same closing. But no change – Obama by anywhere from 6-12 points. So I judged the AP poll to be an outlier. We’ll see.

However, here is some of the details behind the AP poll (thanks to Americablog.com): They weighted their respondents so that 45% of them were born again/evangelicals. However, in 2004, the evangelicals made up only 23% of the voters, scary enough in itself, but that’s another story. By adding an additional 22% of them to the sample for their poll, AP heavily skewed it in favor of McCain.

Incidentally, there are eight national polls at work, and seven of them show Obama with a large lead. Our Chronicle chooses to run a front page story on the one that doesn’t. Right wingy dingy anyone?

A Nagging Afterthought

This is bugging me – yesterday I wandered into that minefield called abortion rights, and while I’m not unhappy about what I wrote, a little exchange at the end is stuck in my craw. The person who goes by the name “Rightsaidfred” (wasn’t he the guy that sang “I’m Too Sexy?”) wanted to know, if Roe v Wade is overturned, how I would react.

If, by chance, the powers that be ruled differently, will you go along with that ruling?

Of course.

Why does that bug me? I’ll never have an abortion, my life will not be turned upside down by one night’s foolishness, I am safe from the moralizing of the Religious Right. Yes, we are a society of laws, and yes, we get thrown in jail if we don’t go along, but might does not make right. It merely empowers some people to lord over others.

So all of us men can get together and decide that abortion is wrong, thereby consigning it to back alleys. For me to say “of course” I’d go along with the Supreme’s ruling that half of us have fewer rights than the other half. I’m in the privileged half.

Abortion is a human rights issue. No, I don’t like the procedure, I’d like to see morning-after pills sold in vending machines and alongside aspirin at WalMart. But in the end, it is about domination of women. It should come as no surprise that yesterday’s debate was between two men. We’re entitled to our opinions, but our right to an opinion stops at the womb of the woman standing next to us.

Beating People With Their Own Stick

Yesterday in my lazy travels around the blogs I stepped into the abortion debate – check it out here, way down in the comments. Ah, don’t bother. Why would anyone care? But Gregg Smith Craig Moore (my bad) had thrown an authority figure at me – the Archbishop of Denver, who had made some disparaging comments about Barack Obama centered on, of course, abortion rights. Archbishop Chaput says Joe Biden should not present himself for communion because of his stance on abortion – that is, to be personally opposed but legally tolerant. That’s immoral, says Chaput – our private ideas about what is moral must be imposed on the population at large. Obama is dangerous, he says, speaking as a private person, because Obama is not a strict anti-abortionist.

I responded with the official teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion – that lacking any guidance in the Bible, the Church teaches that abortion is wrong because we as humans must err on the side of life. But the key is “lacking any guidance from the Bible”. The book is silent on the matter, and that, I said, makes it a matter for humans to decide. The Church stumbles, mistaking itself for God.

Well and good, but it left me with an icky feeling. For one thing, I don’t give a good golly damn what any archbishop thinks about anything. For another, I don’t much care about the Bible. I felt sullied by it all – I was using their own club to beat them. And like it or not, abortion is part of the human experience, legal or not, and so is coercion, and I feel more sympathy for a woman forced to yield eighteen years of her life for one night’s foolishness than I do guilt about the relatively simple and harmless procedures we use in early pregnancy to eliminate the problem.

I discussed this matter with a woman very close to me, my daughter, and I brought up the debate about when life begins. Her answer stunned me for its simplicity – “I don’t care.” Sounds callous, I know, but as Obama said, it’s above our pay grade. And there are more important issues at hand than to legalize or criminalize the behavior of a segment of our society, said behavior going on whether it is legal or not. The “pro-life” movement must know that abortion liberates women, as does birth control. Surely Holy Mother Church knows this, as that male-dominated institution outlaws both.

So I’m left here with a Bible in my hand and not knowing whether to use it for a door stop or paper weight. It’s got some interesting stuff in it, some pretty neat stuff – there are potent arguments for the validity of doubt in some Old Testament works. Sometimes biblical verse illuminates, most times not – it’s interpretation that matters most. People tend to use God as a sock puppet. They are really inflicting their own private preferences on us when they use biblical verse against us.

So did I err in using the bible against the anti-abortionists? Was I a hypocrite? Absolutely. And I’ll do it again.

Addendum: All of this reminds me of the words of Genesis, perhaps responsible for more damage and suffering than any words written anywhere: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Ah yes – the dominion clause – perhaps the only words in the Good Book that humans ever took seriously.