The Need for Progressive Taxation

Last week, I overheard a conversation amongst 5 co-workers, who all happen to be Republicans, talking about an interview with Warren Buffett.

An interview with Tom Brokaw broadcast this morning on NBC's Today Show gave Buffett an opportunity to direct attention to the unfairness of a system that taxes income earned through labor at a higher rate than income earned through investments.

"The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last ten years. It's dramatic and I don't think it's appreciated. And I think it should be addressed."

Buffett asked the employees in his office to calculate the percentage of their income that they pay in income and payroll taxes. Buffett, who said that he does his taxes without an accountant and does not use tax shelters, revealed that he paid 17.7 percent of his income in taxes, while the average for his office staff was 32.9%. None of Buffett's employees paid as low a rate as he did.

All of these Republicans agreed that this wasn't fair and that income earned through investments should be taxed at a higher rate than income earned through work. It was good to hear this idea of progressive taxation being discussed.

George Lakoff explains why we need a system with progressive taxation.

Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody's tax money.

The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

November Common Iowan Presidential Straw Poll

It's time for another Common Iowan Presidential Straw Poll. This poll will run for 2 weeks.

Chris Dodd supporters flocked to the last straw poll and propelled Dodd to the victory. Here is a look at the results from September...

1. Chris Dodd 43%
2. John Edwards 30%
3. Bill Richardson 11%
4. Barack Obama 7%
5. Hillary Clinton 2%
6. Joe Biden 2%
7. Dennis Kucinich 1%
8. Mike Gravel 0%

You can see results from past polls in March, August 2006 and from April 2006.

Feingold to Vote Against Mukasey

This is noteworthy because Feingold usually votes for the President's nominees because he says they should have the right to choose they work witht. In the past Feingold has voted in favor of John Aschcroft, John Roberts, and Condileeza Rice among others.

Here is Feingold's statement on why he is not supporting Mukasey...

I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many impressive qualities. He is intelligent and experienced and appears to understand the need to depoliticize the Department of Justice and restore its credibility and reputation.

At this point in our history, however, the country also needs an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. Unfortunately, Judge Mukasey was unwilling to reject the extreme and dangerous theories of executive power that this administration has put forward.

The nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Democratic Halloween Party at the Clinton's

From Saturday Night Live with a guest appearance from Barack Obama...

2008 Hotlist

I posted my first hotlist almost a year ago and thought I'd chime in again with how the candidates rank in my opinion. I am only including the 6 candidates that are actively campaigning in Iowa.

Hot
John Edwards
Chris Dodd

Warm
Bill Richardson
Barack Obama
Joe Biden

Cold
Hillary Clinton

Throughout the week, I will post my explanation of each candidates rankings.

Draft Gore TV Ad On the Air

The Draft Gore group is running this TV ad on CNN and in New Hampshire. The ad is called Imagine and uses clips from previous Gore speeches.

"Al Gore still has time to jump into this race," said Draft Gore chair Monica Friedlander. "He maintains a massive base of support, as evidenced by recent polls and the unprecedented strength of this truly grassroots movement that's sweeping the country unlike anything we have seen in recent political history."

A CBS News poll released last week shows the undeclared Gore running a strong second at 32 percent among Democratic voters nationwide, only five points behind presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Moreover, Gore polls much better than Clinton against Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, 52 percent to 46 percent, compared to Clinton's 49 to 47 percent, according to a poll released by CNN on Oct. 21.

National Experts Testify in Opposition to Marshalltown Coal Plant

I received an email yesterday from Plains Justice, who is opposing the proposed coal plant in Marshalltown. The email included testimony from national experts, including climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, an Iowa native.

Here is part of the email...

The 660 MW coal plant proposed by Wisconsin-based Alliant Energy would emit approximately 6,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Alliant projects a 40% increase in emissions in the next 7 years, making them one of the worst global warming offenders in the Midwest. The Iowa Utility Association, of which Alliant is a member, recently commissioned a study that demonstrated that capacity for nearly 1,000 MW of cost-effective energy efficiency potential is available in their service territory in the next ten years at half the cost of Alliant's proposed coal plant. Kansas and Florida regulators rejected similar large coal plant proposals in 2007 because of global warming impacts.

Sally Wilson, a biology professor at Marshalltown Community College and member of Community Energy Solutions, opposes the plant as a private citizen. "We deserve clean air and water as much as any other town in Iowa," says Wilson. "There's no reason for Iowa to be building more coal plants. It is critical that we protect our environment for the health of our community and its members. We are dependent on clean air and water," says Wilson. "It makes no sense to build a coal plant when much better alternatives are now available."

The Iowa Utilities Board will hold public hearings starting January 14th in Marshalltown.

"The single most important action needed to decrease the present large planetary imbalance driving climate change is curtailment of CO2 emissions from coal burning," said Dr. Hansen. "Because of the danger of passing the ice sheet tipping point, even the emissions from one Iowa coal plant, with emissions of 6,000,000 tons of CO2 per year, could be important as 'the straw on the camel's back'."

The full text of the Plains Justice petition and the direct testimony of the joint intervenors' four expert witnesses are available at their website.

Key Democrat Gives In Because Bush Stands Tough on Attorney General Nomination

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has decided to support Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey.

Schumer's announcement followed a private meeting Friday with Mukasey to discuss waterboarding.

"I deeply oppose it," Schumer said of waterboarding. "Unfortunately, this nominee, indeed any proposed by President Bush, will not agree with this. I am, however, confident that this nominee would enforce a law that bans waterboarding."

So basically since Bush won't nominate someone Schumer agrees with, so he is rolling over and playing dead on the issue.

Mukasey isn't sure if waterboarding is torture and if Democrats believe torture is wrong and that waterboard is torture then they need to be against this nomination. Unfortunately, Schumber's statement is just another example of establishment Democrats showing no spine and not standing up for what they believe in.

**Update [11-2 at 9:45] **
Conservative Andrew Sullivan chimes in...

Every time the Democrats fold on these matters, Cheney tucks a precedent under his belt. Every time they cave into their cowardice and fear, another critical part of our liberty disappears. These precedents are designed to destroy the rule of law and replace it with the rule of a Decider. And they will last for ever, as will the right to torture, because this war is for ever. This is how democracies perish. The rule of law no longer has any party to defend it. The Republicans want no check on the powers of our de facto protectorate. And the Democrats have no spine. We live under the lawless protectorate we deserve. And such lawlessness is always the result when cowards refuse to confront bullies.

How Healthy are Food Subsidies?

How healthy are food subsidies? Not very.

If the amount of federal food subsidies paid by the government actually lined up with the nutrition recommendations made by the government, it looks like healthier food would be more affordable and unhealthy options would be more costly.

We the People

Here's a good article from Huffington Post about our government being we the people and Republicans being against this entire concept.

The other day I brought up the example of Ronald Reagan's famous saying, "Government is the problem." When you look at that saying in this new way, he is saying "We, The People are the problem." Doesn't that sound like he is expressing a profoundly anti-democratic sentiment? Is that really what we want our leaders to be promoting?

How many other places do we discover similar anti-democratic sentiments? How about when we hear about "limited government?" Are conservatives saying that they want to limit the power of the people? What about when they talk about getting rid of government regulations? Do conservatives want to stop the people from regulating what corporations do? When you think about what their words really mean, it sure starts to sound that way.

The author concludes by saying...

So when conservatives say more decisions should be made by the private sector than by the government, aren't they saying that instead of We, The People making decisions we should hand the decision-making power over to the corporations? Is this really what we want?

Sure, the words about "smaller government" and "deregulation" sound good, but when you really think about what they are saying, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. At least, if we think democracy is a good idea, that is.

Importance of Union Endorsements and Key Endorsements Left to Be Won

Marc Ambinder has a couple posts up about union endorsements.

First, he writes about the key endorsements that are left to be given out.

1. Former vice president Al Gore. He's said he'll endorse. Last cycle, he picked Howard Dean during the second week of December.

2. Former presidential candidate John Kerry. Here's betting that John Edwards will NOT get this one.

3. Sen. Ted Kennedy -- an endorsement that matters in Iowa and New Hampshire for Dems.

4. The Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada. They're in the middle of contract negotiations with Strip hotels right now, but almost every weekend, their elaborate endorsement process continues. Obama and Clinton are said to have an edge, but many rank-and-file members of this UniteHere local like Edwards. There are 60,000 active 226ers.

5. The Iowa Auto Workers. They're endorsing by region. And region 4 includes Iowa.. and Illinois and other Midwestern states. So it's a union that leans in Obama's direction...or maybe there'll be enough Obama support to ward off an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. John Edwards doesn't have much of a shot at this one. The Iowa UAW nod can be particularly helpful in cities like Waterloo, where they have 4,000 active and retired members. Statewide, the Iowa UAW has more than 85,000 members.

Ditto re: contract negotiations that are more important to their members than a presidential endorsement. The UAW

6. The National Education Association -- state affiliates will each endorse a slate of acceptable candidates.

7. Who's missing?

In Iowa, I think the UAW endorsement is very big. Some think Culver's UAW endorsement is what on him the Democratic primary for Governor last year and propelled him to beating Nussle. Obama has an advantage for the UAW endorsement because Illinois is included with Iowa when they make their regional endorsements.

I'd think union endorsements are more important than politician endorsements because a union endorsement comes with volunteers and money attached. Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy have name recognition, but they bring the political machine that unions have.

Ambinder also takes a look at if union endorsements matter anymore and he concludes that union endorsements didn't mean much in 2004 because they were made from the top down and didn't excite the membership base. However, this cycle the endorsements are being made at a state or regional level and is more grassroots.

Most of Gephardt's union endorsements were presented to the rank and file from their executive boards. Few of the unions back then had a true grassroots process to determine who the endorsee would be.

Grassroots legitimacy was never developed, and union members in Iowa wound up voting for their favorite candidates... just not the candidate who happened to be the favorite of union leaders in Washington.

This year, the candidates are fighting union-by-union, even local-by-local in some cases for endorsements.

When John Edwards failed to secure enough support on the SEIU's board for an international endorsement, the union threw the process back to its state councils. And that forced Edwards to work the process -- to do direct member to member engagement, to earn it on the ground.

Where are all the Islamofascists?

Paul Krugman says no where, because Islamofascists don't exist.

[T]here isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s. […]

Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

Sen. Russ Feingold said this over a year ago and I have to agree with him and Krugman. The only thing the term does is alienate an entire region. Instead we need to call the people what they are: Islamic radicals or Islamic fundamentalists.