civilized ku # 368 ~ let them eat gateau
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 12:54PM 
Chocolate gateau ~ 7th Lake House, Inlet in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenTo be more specific, one should hope that the gateau that we let them eat is as delightful and delicious as the Queen of Sheba Flourless Chocolate Gateau with Raspberry Sauce that I indulged in this past Saturday evening.
But, whatever the case, a question has been asked on my entry, what the world needs now is NOT love, sweet love, wherein I suggested that I was making a list (and checking it twice) to give to my Congressman at dinner on Friday last. A list of "things-to-do" that he might deliver to El Presidente. The question was:
Just what's on the list you've in mind?
In response, let me present here, in its entirety, a response by AnnS to a NY Times opinion piece, Obama's Credibility Gap:
Here is what Obama REALLY said
(1) need Food Stamps because you lost your job? So sorry - we have used up the money for that this year so you are SOL. Yeah we know that more and more people need them but tough noggie. We have to spend the money on bombs and Wall St.
(2) Need unemployment because there are 6.5 people for every job opening and you have worn out your shoes applying for everything you can find and your 26 weeks are ending ? GO starve. We don't have any money to do extended benefits.
(3) State governors: Please note that there will be no money to fill the gaps in your budgets which you have already cut to the bone. Please end your Medicaid programs. Please end your welfare programs. Please end all assistance to those who are disabled (and 70% of whom are below the Federal Poverty Level. Please begin to layoff off your police, fire departments, road repair crews and teachers. Try a bake sale if you really need think you should have police or not let allow someone in a wheelchair to be forced onto the streets.
Here is what he should have said:
(1) The US is 6% of the world's population. We spend 50% of all world spending on the military. I have told the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to get on planes and come home. (Iraq never was any of our business and NO foreign government has ever won a war in Afghanistan in all of recorded history and all have gotten their backsides kicked there - it's money down a rathole.) I will immediately slash the defense spending 88% to a level commensurate with what the rest of the world spend on their military. That is a savings of 44% in the Federal budget.
(2) I want to re-implement the 1952 tax code for the upper incomes (those individuals with more than $500,000 a year and couples with more than $1,000,000.) From $500,000/1,000,000 to $1,500,00/3,000,000 they will be taxed at 50%. Amounts above $1,500,000/3,000,000 - 3,000,000/6,000,000 will be taxed at 75%. Amounts above $3,000,000/6,000,000 will be taxed at 90%.
The only tax deductions in those tax brackets will be if they put the money into a real bricks and mortar business located only in the US that creates at least 7 jobs for every $1,000,000 spent on the business.
1/2 the money from these tax increases will first go to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund all the money borrowed to pay the deficit interest starting with Reagan so it won't be a problem in the future. The other 1/4 will go to creating a WPA type program to put Americans back to work now. 1/4 of the money will go to free or reduced price college education for the unemployed.
(3) Any compnay that moves jobs abroad from the US will be taxed and amount equal to 80% of the wages of the US employees it is firing. Further the products of any company which moved the facility that made such product out of the US will be hit with a tariff of 100% of the retail price at the time they moved out of the US when they try to reimport such good.
Now THAT would be change that would be believable. What we got was channelling Hoover (deficits hoorors! Better they starve) and Marie Antoinette (let them eat cake if they can't afford bread.)
Now, I don't agree with every single point that AnnS makes but, IMO, it is, as they say, close enough for government work.
More gateau, please.
Reader Comments (4)
Not that I'd disagree if this were a perfect world, but if Obama can't even get this relatively modest health care reform passed in both Senate and the House, how on earth would he even begin to execute on the promises above?
Most of her points are hopelessly out of touch with where we actually are in the world. Afghanistan was probably his big opportunity to affect change, but the tax code and 88% decrease in military spending? Let's say for a minute it's objectively a good idea for society as a whole (or at least the US). There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that he would get more than one or two votes--and those likely coming from the Ron Pauls and Kucinichs of the world--on anything resembling what she suggested. What she's really saying is, "let's be more like Europe," but neglected to mention how different our societies a governing structures are.
First of all, I live in Norway, a country most people look at as one of the more perfect welfare states, and we are _far_ from 90% tax. 90% tax would in effect drive capital out of the country I'm afraid, no matter how high you put the tax bracket, and it would induce tax evasion schemes of legal and illegal art.
In Norway we do it like this:
we have several taxes, one flat at about 30-ish %, a pension fee, that is progressive (4, 6 and 8%) depending on income bracket and a "top tax" that starts at about 60.000 USD that adds 8%, and another at about 90.000 USD adding yet another 2%, so the max direct tax pressure is about 50%. Adding VAT and a few other "hidden" taxes, you end up at maximum 60%, which is a pretty high level, but it seems to work. I suspect that increasing this to 90% would ruin the balance.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's famous phrase will still be heard in the boardrooms of corporate America!
Last week, on January 22nd, the US Supreme Court ruled that "government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections."
This will have far reaching consequences on the US political system. Corporations will now have the possibility of deciding who runs for office and having their choices validated by the voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
As government expands liberty contracts.