Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for December 1st, 2009

Krugman says Bush was first president to lead country into war and cut taxes

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

krugman_paul.jpg

“If you want to talk firsts for Bush, this was the first time in American history that a president took us into a war and cut taxes.”

Paul Krugman on Sunday, November 29th, 2009 in ABC’s ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’

tom-mostlytrue.gif

With President Barack Obama scheduled to make a speech on Dec. 1 on how the United States will proceed with the war in Afghanistan, war spending was the topic du jour on the Sunday political talk shows. Some Democratic officials have even talked of a war surtax to pay for the expense of additional troops.

Depending on how many more troops Obama decides to send, the cost could top $30 billion.

“This is a lot of money,” liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Nov. 29, 2009. “And the point is, we should have been paying for these wars to begin with, right from the beginning. I mean, this was, if you want to talk firsts for Bush, this was the first time in American history that a president took us into a war and cut taxes.”

As the talk about the price tag for the war in Afghanistan heats up, we thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at Krugman’s claim about Bush being the first to cut taxes after leading the country into war, and to add some context.

Generally, we found, taxes and wars have followed a fairly predictable pattern: Taxes rise during wartime and then come back down in the years afterward.

We’ll start with the Civil War. Congress enacted various income and excise taxes to meet the rising cost of the war, most of which were repealed in the years after the war.

During World War I, the 1916 Revenue Act and the War Revenue Act of 1917 increased tax revenue from $761 million in 1916 to $3.6 billion in 1918. After the war, in the 1920s, Congress cut taxes five times.

The same was true during World War II. Tax increases over several years raised revenues from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Again, tax cuts followed the war.

It’s worth noting, however, that during all of those wars, the war expenses were much larger than today, relative to the size of the economy.

Congress hasn’t formally declared war since then, but we think it’s fair to consider the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and Iraq. However, we have decided not to include the armed conflicts in Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 due to their much smaller cost, length and scope.

So those are the wars. But what about major tax cuts? That’s a smaller and somewhat more subjective list.

Some of the most notable tax cuts have come during peacetime, such as the Reagan tax cut that took effect over the years 1982-84, and the smaller capital gains tax cuts under Carter and Clinton.

The one notable exception is the Kennedy tax cuts, which took effect in 1964. The conflict in Vietnam stretched from 1959 to 1975, but when the Kennedy tax cuts were implemented, the Vietnam War did not have much of an impact on the U.S. budget. Within 18 months, when the tax cuts were in full bloom, the United States was spending plenty in Vietnam.

The tax rates were phasing down just as our commitment in Vietnam was ramping up, said William Ahern of the Tax Foundation. “That would maybe be a counter example (to Krugman),” he said.

But many argue the Kennedy tax cuts shouldn’t count in Krugman’s example because they came at a time when the United States did not anticipate the escalation of the war that followed. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Afghanistan, Policy, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fine Print

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009

ph2009113004068.jpg
Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin is proposing a “temporary Afghanistan war surtax.” (Lawrence Jackson/associated Press

 

Who is going to pay for the $30 billion or more to be added to the cost of the Afghan war based on what President Obama discusses tonight?
Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) of the House Appropriations Committee has an answer: “If we have to pay for the health-care bill, we should pay for the war, as well,” he told ABC News last week.
Obey did more than talk. On Nov. 19, with little fanfare and 10 Democratic co-sponsors, he introduced a bill, the Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010, which adds a chapter to the Internal Revenue Code titled “Temporary Afghanistan War Surtax.” On the day he introduced the measure, Obey stated, “Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for.”
The measure would not affect those earning $30,000 or less. For those earning up to $150,000, there would be a surtax of 1 percent, which would be applied not on income but on the amount of taxes owed for a year. For those earning above $150,000, President Obama would set the surcharge tax percentage. It would not come into effect until 2011. For example, the automatic 1 percent surcharge on people earning $150,000 in 2011 whose federal income tax works out to about $22,600 would add $226. The percentage would be graduated for higher incomes so that overall it fully pays for the previous year’s war cost. For the average family, which earns about $50,000, the added cost would be $50.
The bill allows for a one-year delay, to 2012, in the implementation of the tax if Obama determines that the economy remains too weak, and it relieves from payment service members who fought in combat after Sept. 11, 2001, as well as those who received death payments for people killed in combat after the attack.
“The problem in this country,” Obey told ABC News, “is that the only people who have been asked to sacrifice are military families, and they have had to go to the well again and again and again, and everybody else is blithely unaffected by the war.
Obey does not see the Karzai government as a reliable partner and so “on the merits” said it’s a mistake to add more troops and civilian assistance to Afghanistan. But, he added, “if we are going to do that, at least we ought to pay for it, because if we don’t pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy.
“That’s what happened with the Vietnam War, which wiped out the [Lyndon Johnson’s] Great Society. That’s what happened with the Korean War, which wiped out Harry Truman’s Square Deal. . . . In each case, the costs of those wars shut off our ability to afford anything else.”
A patriot and a realist, Obey said that despite his personal views, if the administration comes to him as chairman of the House panel that has to come up with the money for the added Afghanistan costs, “I’m going to be there to get whatever they paid for.”
The realist in him does not believe his bill will pass, though he has as co-sponsors Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, John Larson (D-Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus; and John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee.
One irony of the debate that Obey hopes to encourage is that many opponents to increasing the Afghan commitment support the surcharge to pay for it, while many backers of the Afghan strategy — if they mention costs — propose domestic spending cuts rather than new taxes.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) wants some figures on what the cost will be to build up the Afghan troops and how long that country will require U.S. financial support.
“We’re going to have to have a serious talk about budget and about the $1 trillion deficit we are in now and will continue to be in,” Lugar said Sunday on CNN. “And if we were talking about several years of time, how many more years beyond that?”

Asked about a separate accounting and a war surtax, Lugar split the difference, calling for a separate accounting but ducking the tax issue, saying, “We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for it.”

He then made what he called “an audacious suggestion . . . we put aside the health care debate . . . and talk now about the essentials, the war and money.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a firm supporter of increased U.S. troops for Afghanistan, also avoided discussing taxes and said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week”: “I think it would be a good exercise for the Congress to look at ways to trim up the spending, which has been out of control since the administration came into power, and prioritize this war the way it should be.”
A legislator concerned about expanding the Afghan war gave Obey some support. Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), also on ABC, said of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on Iraq, “We sent that bill to our kids and our grandchildren.” Now, he said, the calls for domestic cuts on education and rebuilding infrastructure to spend more on Afghanistan represent “a very poor set of national priorities.”
Obey summed up his own feelings on priorities last week, saying, “I think $900 billion over 10 years is going to put a huge dent in anyone’s agenda, whether it’s the president’s, whether it’s the Democrats in Congress, whether it’s the Republicans. Ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan.”

Posted in Afghanistan, Federal Budget, Policy | Leave a Comment »

An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

November 30th, 2009 3:44 AM

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There’s a reason they don’t call Afghanistan the “Garden State” (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev’s number though. It’s + 41 22 789 1662. I’m sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you’re about to commit.
With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the “war president.” Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line — and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn’t have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush’s Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can’t take it anymore. We can’t take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of “landslide victory” don’t you understand?

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.
President Obama, it’s time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, “No, we don’t need health care, we don’t need jobs, we don’t need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, ‘cause we don’t need them, either.”

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that’s what they’d do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam “might” be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish — the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn’t expect miracles. We didn’t even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn’t even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God’s sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON’T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother’s son.

We’re counting on you.

Yours,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com

MichaelMoore.com

P.S. There’s still time to have your voice heard. Call the White House at 202-456-1111 or

email the President.

Posted in Opinions | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

CBO: 600,000 to 1.6 Million Employed by Stimulus

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

By Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com

The Congressional Budget Office late Monday said it estimates that the federal stimulus package sustained between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter, and raised gross domestic product by 1.2 to 3.2 percentage points higher than it would have been without the program.

The CBO said the figures were estimates made “using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy.”

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a blog post, said stimulus recipients have reported that about 640,000 jobs “were created or retained” with stimulus funding through Sept. 30. “However, such reports do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports),” Mr. Elmendorf wrote. The CBO is required to comment on the figures released by stimulus recipients.

The White House has recently touted the figure of 640,000 jobs tied to stimulus spending, based on the reports from grant recipients, as evidence that the package is effective. But questions about the accuracy of the reports underpinning that figure have prompted criticism by members of Congress from both parties. Republicans have said the $787 billion package of tax cuts and spending hasn’t stopped unemployment from rising to 10.2%. Some Democrats have expressed frustration with the apparent inaccuracies in the job count.

The CBO in March projected that the stimulus would result in 600,000 to 1.5 million more jobs than would have existed without the spending. In his blog post, Mr. Elmendorf says the CBO’s latest estimates reflect a finding that the impact of the package’s tax cuts have been about $10 billion larger than originally projected, while the impact on federal spending because of the legislation “has turned out to be slightly smaller than CBO initially estimated.”

“Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects” of the stimulus, according to Mr. Elmendorf’s blog post.

Write to Joseph B. White at joseph.white@wsj.com

Posted in *Economy, *Obama Administration, Policy | Leave a Comment »

Senate health bill gets a boost

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

Measure wouldn’t increase insurance costs for most, CBO says

CBO: Senate health plan will increase some premiums — Premiums would increase in the individual market, but purchasers would get better coverage than under current law.

By Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

As the Senate opened debate Monday on a landmark plan to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, congressional budget analysts said the measure would leave premiums unchanged or slightly lower for the vast majority of Americans, contradicting assertions by the insurance industry that the average family’s coverage would rise by thousands of dollars if the proposal became law.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was released hours before the Senate began debate on the package, which would spend $848 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to more than 30 million additional people. The CBO said the legislation would lead to higher average premiums in the relatively small and troubled individual market, where the self-employed and others buy coverage directly from insurers. But that extra cost would buy better coverage, the CBO said, and hefty federal subsidies would drive down payments by nearly 60 percent on average for low- and middle-income families.

Democrats, who had been nervously awaiting the CBO’s pronouncement on premiums, hailed the report as a political vindication that should help reassure wavering moderates in both parties.

“Today’s analysis confirms that millions of Americans who lack the necessary coverage to avoid potential financial ruin would have access to more coverage at an affordable price because of our proposal,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who crafted the measure from bills approved in committee.

Republicans argued that millions of people could face higher premiums with no promise of federal aid. And despite dozens of pages of new insurance industry regulations, they said, the Senate bill would do little to lower premiums for the 160 million people who already have coverage through their jobs.

“For large and small employers that have been struggling for years with skyrocketing health insurance premiums, CBO concludes this bill will do little, if anything, to provide relief,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). “CBO’s analysis makes clear that the Reid bill is not fixing the problem.”

The Senate floor fight is expected to last several weeks, as dozens of amendments will be debated, possibly endangering Democrats’ goal of holding a final vote before the chamber adjourns for the holidays. The first amendment Republicans offered Monday would strike more than $400 billion in planned reductions to Medicare spending, a move that would wipe out a major source of financing and cause larger budget deficits, thus falling short of one of President Obama’s chief litmus tests for the reform effort.

As Republicans and Democrats sniped across the aisle, Reid was unable to come to terms with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on a schedule for debating additional amendments. If a deal is struck, the first votes could occur Tuesday, Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

In his office just off the Senate floor, Reid met Monday night with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, senior health adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, along with former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). The team laid plans to fan out among Democratic caucus members in the coming days as they seek to build a firm 60-vote coalition for final passage.

Changes to the bill could come in the form of individual amendments, or Reid could fold multiple fixes and sweeteners into a final “manager’s amendment.” Once he thinks he has locked down the votes, he is expected to file a procedural motion to end debate — a move that could come before Christmas, he has told colleagues and White House officials.

Democrats said the latest CBO report should boost efforts aimed at a final vote this year. The report came in response to a request from Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), the leader of a group of Democratic centrists concerned about the legislation’s impact on costs for the government and for average citizens, who would be required for the first time to obtain coverage starting in 2014.

Monday’s CBO report offers the first objective analysis of the effect on premiums. An earlier study commissioned by America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, warned that the Senate bill would dramatically increase insurance premiums, but the study’s authors at PricewaterhouseCoopers later acknowledged that they had ignored major pieces of the legislation in their calculations.

“This report alleviates a major concern that has been raised — that insurance costs will go up across the board as a result of this legislation,” Bayh said in a statement. “This study indicates that for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs. For the remainder, more will see their costs go down than up.”

The CBO found that the measure would have its most dramatic impact on the individual market. Because they are not part of a workforce or other group that can pool its risk, consumers tend to pay more for policies with fewer benefits. The Senate bill would address that by establishing insurance exchanges, effectively creating risk pools. It would limit premiums based on age and medical condition, and cut costs for insurers by adding younger, healthier people to the customer base. All those provisions would lower premiums by as much as 20 percent, on average, by 2016, the CBO said.

For many people, those savings would be offset, however, by new standards for minimum coverage that would require newly offered policies to be significantly more generous than many are now. While people who currently have coverage would be permitted to keep it, the CBO predicts that few would choose to do so. As a result, for the 32 million people in the individual market, premiums would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher, on average, than under current law, climbing to $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 for family coverage.

However, six in 10 purchasers in that market would receive federal subsidies that would cover about two-thirds of the cost, the CBO said, so they would pay 60 percent less for insurance than if the legislation had not been enacted.

The benefits would be much less dramatic for the approximately 160 million people who receive coverage in the small and large group markets, the CBO said, leaving the average premium essentially unchanged or as much as 3 percent lower.

“This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured” in the short term, agreed Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, an advocate of reform. “But the flip side is that here’s a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run.”

Staff writer Shailagh Murray contributed to this report.

Posted in Issues | Leave a Comment »

34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

Posted by James O'Rourke on December 1, 2009

OBAMA DETAILS PLAN FOR ALLIES

Other nations to be asked for more forces

By Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

President Obama will outline Tuesday his intention to send an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials and diplomatic sources briefed Monday as Obama began informing allies of his plan.

The new deployments, along with 22,000 troops he authorized early this year, would bring the total U.S. force in Afghanistan to more than 100,000, more than half of which will have been sent to the war zone by Obama.

The president also plans to ask NATO and other partners in an international coalition to contribute 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, officials said. The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy.

The new troops are to be sent in stages beginning in January, with options to delay or cancel deployments, depending on the performance of the Afghan government and other factors. Defense officials said that, beyond Marine units deploying next month, no final decisions have been made about specific units or the order in which they would be sent.

Details of Obama’s plan emerged on the eve of his prime-time address from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. He will use the Tuesday speech to explain his Afghan strategy to an American public that is increasingly pessimistic about the war after eight years and rising casualties.

Even as he escalates U.S. involvement, Obama will lay out in his speech what amounts to an exit strategy, centered on measures to strengthen the Afghan government so that its security forces can begin taking control of their own country. He is expected to specify benchmarks for Afghan progress on both the military and political fronts, according to U.S. and allied officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the strategy.

White House officials remained tight-lipped, but British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — with whom Obama spoke Monday — offered a preview of aspects of the strategy when he addressed Parliament.

The military objective, Brown said, is “to create the space for an effective political strategy to work, weakening the Taliban by strengthening Afghanistan itself.” Over the next year, he said, the Afghan army will be expanded from 90,000 to 134,000 troops, with 10,000 of them going to Helmand province, where U.S. Marines and British forces have focused their fight against the Taliban. Further increases are envisioned for later.

The number of Afghan policemen in Helmand will increase immediately to 4,100, Brown said, and the size of the police training academy in Helmand is to be doubled. Within six months, the coalition is to finalize a plan for overall police reform with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Brown said that the strategy calls for “transfer of lead security responsibility to the Afghans — district by district, province by province — with the first districts and provinces potentially being handed over during the next year,” depending on “the Afghans being ready.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that transferring security responsibility for specific Afghan areas will be “a big part of what you’ll hear the president talk about tomorrow.”

Allied governments have pressed Karzai to remove warlords and cronies from senior government positions. Over the next nine months, Brown said, the Afghan president “will be expected to implement . . . far-reaching reforms to ensure that, from now on, all 400 provinces and districts have a governor appointed on merit, free from corruption, with clearly defined roles, skills and resources.”

Posted in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »