Rush's Brain Goes on Vacation Early

Today he's said the SPENDING in the $857 billion bill extending the Bush TAX rates for two years was minimal, and that the majority of it, $700 some billion, had to do only with the tax rates.

Pure rubbish.

A lazy, over-generalized point showing yet again lack of show prep, and an effort to co-opt the outrage and the influence of the Tea Party, which Rush is trying to steer toward establishment politics to prevent it from exploding into a genuine third party movement.

The tax rates, extended for two years, will cost just over $207 billion, not $700+ billion. The rest is all tax credits, fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax yet once again, and a host of other goodies handed out via the tax code in order to mask what's really going on: the rich and the poor getting special favors through the tax code at the expense of the chumps in the middle who must pay and pay and pay.

Wake up Rush, you dunderhead.

Here's a table breaking it all down.

Tax 'Em All: Let God Sort 'Em Out

People who claim, like Rush Limbaugh, that no one is undertaxed in this country don't know what they are talking about. Both the rich and the poor are undertaxed. Here is why.

For tax year 2008, IRS figures show that the top half of the country, over 69 million tax returns, contributed in excess of 97 percent of the tax revenue, $1.004 trillion. The bottom half, over 69 million returns, contributed less than 3 percent of the revenue, $27.9 billion, a staggeringly small sum by comparison.

The effective tax rate on the top half was 13.66 percent, on the bottom half just 2.6 percent.

It seems self-evident that the poorer half of the country escaped a lot of taxation, but how?

For one thing, George Bush's creation of the 10% tax bracket in 2001 reduced federal tax revenues from payers in the 10 percent bracket by $42 billion per year. For another, the Earned Income Tax Credit diverts away even more money, now approaching $50 billion per year. These credits wipe out any federal income taxes qualifying filers may owe, and actually reimburse many of them for the payroll taxes they pay, so that many actually have a negative tax rate. This is using the tax code to provide what amount to direct welfare payments, stimulus spending, whatever you want to call it. But it sure isn't "taxes."

But the poorest Americans are not the only beneficiaries.

These credits also percolate far up through the income quintiles. And none penetrate as high as the child tax credit does, relieving the middle classes of taxes to the point that many people in the middle quintile earning between $38,551 and $61,801 also pay little to no federal income tax at all. Created under Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton and expanded under George Bush, this credit now reduces federal revenues by $143.4 billion per year. People even in the top income quintile, making in excess of $100,000 a year, can qualify for this credit, which also directly reduces their tax bill, and government revenues.

Taken together, the 10% bracket, the EITC and the Child Tax Credit help taxpayers to be sure, but at a cost of nearly $2.4 trillion over ten years to the federal government.

Compare that with the big tax break the top earners in the country enjoy because the payroll tax cap is set at $106,800. Everything they earn after that escapes the 6.2 percent tax. The annual cost of that is now $130 billion, or $1.3 trillion over a decade. The denizens of the top 25 percent of taxpayers, who earn 68 percent of the total adjusted gross income in this country, will doubtless complain that they already contribute 86 percent of the tax revenue.

But the result is that a narrower and narrower band of taxpayers in the fourth quintile (those making between $61,802 and $100,000 per year) and in the top half of the middle quintile (about $52,000 to $61,800), gets squeezed with responsibility for income and payroll taxes without enjoying the relief provided to their poorer fellows who pay very little in taxes, or their richer ones who can afford them.

A ladder needs rungs on it to get from the bottom to the top and back down again, and ours in the upper half are getting worn out.

4 of 6 Current Tax Rates Already Do Not Apply to 80% of the Country

Per the US Census, all US households divide into five groups of equal size along these income lines for 2009:

1) $0 to $20,453

2) $20,454 to $38,550

3) $38,551 to $61, 801

4) $61,802 to $100,000

5) over $100,000 (the top 5% make in excess of $180,000).

Current tax brackets are concentrated on the fifth group, the over $100,000 set, so that the top four of the six brackets affect the top 20% of earners in the population the most:

10% for adjusted gross incomes $0 to $16,750

15% on AGIs to $68,000

25% on AGIs to $137,300

28% on AGIs to $209,250

33% on AGIs to $373,650

35% on AGIs above $373,650.

The result is that 60% of the country is responsible for very little tax revenue, and the expansion of various credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Credit have meant that an increasingly large percentage of the population is paying no tax at all.

For the 2008 tax year the Tax Foundation reported here that 36% of filers paid no tax at all:

Nonpaying status used to be a sure sign of poverty or near-poverty, but Congress and the President have changed the tax laws to pull much of the middle class into the growing pool of nonpayers. The income level at which a typical family of four will owe no income taxes has risen rapidly, now topping $51,000. 

As a result, recently released IRS data for the 2008 tax year show that a record 51.6 million filers had no income tax obligation. That means more than 36 percent of all Americans who filed a tax return for 2008 were nonpayers, raising serious doubts about the ability of the income tax system to continue funding the federal government's ballooning expenditures. 

The situation worsened dramatically in 2009, to 47%, according to the Tax Policy Center in this AP story: 

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. ...The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. ...The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery. 

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. 

In other words, the tax code under George Bush and the Republicans in 2001 and 2003 became an instrument of liberal social policy, providing massive social spending on America's middle and lower classes. Combined with George Bush's massive hand out to the elderly in the form of drugs for seniors you now understand why liberals hate George Bush so much: because he out-liberaled the liberals. 

And don't expect to hear about it from Rush Limbaugh. He thinks there isn't anyone in the country who is undertaxed. 

If there were really any conservatives left in the country, they'd be calling for a complete end to these subsidies because they represent government spending which we cannot afford, and for a broader tax base which embodied every American's patriotic duty to contribute to the general welfare. 

A real conservative would equate exempting low incomes from taxation with the practice of exempting high incomes from taxation. The "refund" checks which "the poor" receive from the government when they file their taxes are no different from the exemption the rich receive when payroll taxes are not collected on income above $106,500. The former are justified as offsets of the payroll taxes the poor pay, the latter as exemptions from contributions the rich would never live to recoup. Everyone in a narrower and narrower middle pays and pays those taxes, year in and year out, to benefit the poor and the elderly. It is unsustainable.

Why Rush Limbaugh Can't Tell The Truth About Income Taxes

Rush claims no one in America is undertaxed.

He doesn't want to mention, of course, that nearly half of America doesn't pay income taxes.

And why don't they pay taxes? Because that's been the goal of Republican tax policy since the 90s:

"The dramatic increase in the number of people who owed no income taxes since the mid-90s was driven almost entirely by the creation and expansion of the per-child tax credit, a policy driven by the Right."

-- Keith Hennessey, April 15, 2010, here

The Democrats hate Republicans as much as they do because Newt Gingrich and George Bush out-liberaled the liberals. How dare they!

If You Want Fewer Poor People in America, Tax Them Already!

Here's Rush Limbaugh, with his whole brain tied behind his back, today:

"Nobody in this society is undertaxed, so why applaud an extension of tax rates? Where are the cuts?" -Rush

When nearly half the population pays no income taxes at all, you cannot say no one is undertaxed. All of them are undertaxed, by definition.

The poor have a responsibility to contribute to the general welfare no less than the rich do, so for them to pay no taxes means they are not doing their fair share, and are in no way equal to everyone who does pay taxes. They are AINOs, Americans in Name Only, who pay no taxes. Just ask Joe "It's Time to be Patriotic, Time to be Part of the Deal" Biden.

If there were any conservatives left in this country, they would be calling for taxes on the poor, to reduce their surplus population.

Wake up Rush, before conservatives start calling you a big fat idiot.

In Victory, Representative Justin Amash Already Disappoints

In televised remarks last night thanking his supporters and outgoing Michigan 3rd Congressional District Representative Vern Ehlers, who stood out like a sore thumb in a sea of young faces assembled for the event, Justin Amash made two statements which sounded incredibly tone-deaf to his Republican political base.

He pledged himself to the cause of transforming America and transforming Michigan, and to the cause of bipartisanship. The former has been the clarion call of the Obama led Democrats, which the voters of America soundly rejected yesterday in an historic Tea Party inspired Republican takeover of the US House of Representatives: We don't need no trans-for-ma-tion, they might have been singing. The latter, bipartisanship, is hardly the message being trumpeted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, whose  radio program's commercial breaks have been saturated with Justin Amash for Congress political ads in recent days. Americans have had quite enough of the (demolition) work being accomplished by a Congress controlled by Democrats and don't want Republicans to join in the destruction, but reverse it.

One can chalk it up to rookie mistakes, but Kent County Michigan voters would do well to prepare themselves for many more such disappointments from Justin Amash, whose kinship to president Obama's ideological habit of mind was revealed by the faux paus. Libertarians and Marxists have more in common than American liberals and conservatives have at issue between them.

From tax policies favoring the nuclear family to support for the defense of the state of Israel, Republicans may all too soon learn that the libertarian and pro-Arab ideas which undergird Amash's thinking can and will lead to some surprising votes in the next Congress. And one can well imagine how Amash may use his pledge to vote NO on bills he has not read as an excuse to avoid difficult votes in the US House. Illinois voters got plenty of that political cowardice from one Barack Hussein Obama during his tenure in their state senate, where he often voted PRESENT to avoid taking politically inexpedient stands. Look what that has got us. Amash's assiduous courting of the support of the fiscally moderate and pro-TARP Vern Ehlers should have already warned voters to regard Amash's incessant appeals to principle and consistency as expressions of politically winning aspirations, not of the reality. But you can fool most of the people most of the time, especially with lots of money from outside the district.

Buyer beware!

The story was reported here:

In his victory speech at Kent County GOP election night headquarters, he said the party should work to bring more Democrats and independents into the party to "transform this state" and "transform this country."

The congressman-elect thanked his predecessor, U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, calling him a model of integrity. Ehlers did not seek re-election.

Obama's Brain is Baked

"Boring. Obama. Presser. Is. A. Flop. If Reagan had stammered like this, the media would be talking dementia."

-- Rush Limbaugh, today

The reason the guy can't spit it out is long term exposure to THC. His head is a bakery, man. That's why he needs those teleprompters.

"Moochelle": Michelle Obama's New Name

Given to her by none other than Rush Limbaugh:

We have a name for Michelle: "Moochelle." Mooch, mooch, Moochelle Obama. That will tick 'em off, won't it, Snerdley?  

Moochelle Obama.  You compare her with the hated Sarah Palin. Moochelle Obama keeps a personal staff of 24.  Now we know why: To administer to gynecologist friends whose fathers pass away.  Her personal staff includes a makeup artist and a hairstylist, a total annual government salary of more than $1.6 million for the personal staff of Moochelle Obama, plus their travel expenses.  Her Secret Service for security is extra on these trips.  Now, you compare and contrast that with the hate and the ridicule that is thrown at Sarah Palin who did what?  She sold the governor's jet, she dismissed the government's cook, she prepared her own meals, she returned the governor's automobile and drove her own car, she dismissed the governor's security staff, and knows how to use her own gun.  So Michelle's gynecologist, her father died.  So she needed to go to Spain to sort it all out.  All right, there you have it.  That's why.

The whole thing is here.

On "Regime"

"Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely."

--Rush Limbaugh, Friday, April 2, 2010

"I've never seen language like this in the American press referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election -- we will have another one in November, we'll have another one for president in a couple years -- fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, 'regime.' It was used by George Bush, 'regime change.' You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They're juntas. They're military coups. The use of the word 'regime' in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus to stop using it. I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you? I don't even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a 'regime.'"

-- Chris Matthews, Friday, April 2, 2010, MSNBC

"Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I'm a wreck."

-- Maureen Dowd, April 4, 2001, New York Times

Marshall Wittmann was "a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime."

-- Howard Kurtz, January 22, 2001, The Washington Post

"In George Bush's regime, only one million jobs had been created…"

--Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, January 8, 2010, MSNBC

In 2006 when "the Bush regime was still in power."

-- Ed Schultz, August 21, 2009, MSNBC

"The middle class has not fared quite as well under [the] Bush regime."

-- Steve McMahon, October 8, 2007, MSNBC

"The people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime."

-- Cindy Sheehan, August 10, 2007, MSNBC

I'll "take apart the Bush regime."

-- Ralph Nader to Chris Matthews, July 7, 2004, on his "Hardball" program, MSNBC

"Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?"

--Chris Matthews, June 14, 2002

h/t Byron York

That Was My Line, says Barry Ritholtz

"Two items are noteworthy (besides his lifting my 'If you want less of something, tax it.' line)."

-- Barry Ritholtz, January 20th, 2010, referring to former Reagan Administration Office of Management and Budget Director, David Stockman, in The New York Times

The famous maxim, "If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it," has been circulating since before the time when Barry Ritholtz was perplexed in college, trying to figure out whether he was preparing to graduate or matriculate. The meanings of things elude him still, for which he supplies the appropriate expletives in proportion to the want of knowledge. At any rate, he's no more the author of it than he is of "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

This is an annoying sort of narcissism which usually emanates from New York intellectuals at The Times, but that's obviously not the case here. David Stockman is from Michigan, of course, just as Rush Limbaugh is from Missouri, whom Michael Savage routinely accuses of stealing lines. Must be something in the water, there in New York, that creates visions of grandeur from an early age.

The maxim, for what it's worth, is variously attributed to either Milton Friedman, Jack Kemp, or Ronald Reagan, but without chapter and verse. A little tough to nail down. I suspect it may predate them all. Ronald Reagan expresses the ideas explicitly in his farewell speech of 1989, but not in the identical language. Stockman, of course, knows the lines from that era, not from The Big Picture blog.

It just goes to show that the free for all of the internet is no substitute for publications vetted by the knowledgeable.

On the Dangers Posed by Libertarians

Consider this popular and influential enthusiast for Ron Paul.

He appears to favor a single payer system of federalized healthcare, an enormous interference in the personal liberties of individual Americans, many of whom freely eschew health insurance, from students in their twenties to the rich and successful like Rush Limbaugh. This from the same guy who wants to end the Federal Reserve because of its role in debasing the currency. It should bother him that he would swap debased healthcare for debased currency, but it doesn't.

He realizes, quite rightly, that a single payer system implies rationing of health care. But he's all for that, which means government will most certainly deny services when you desperately need them:

The press seemed concerned with a fear of rationed health care. Some republicans have raised the issue as well.

Mr. President I am concerned there will be no rationing of health care. . . .

Mr. President, unless something is done to rein in costs taxpayers will be footing the bill for a lot of things they shouldn't. In every country that has a single payer system, there is some degree of rationing.

Somehow you have us believe benefits will not be reduced, everything will be covered for everyone, there will be no rationing and somehow health care will cost less because of reduced paperwork. Mr. President, no one believes that, not even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. President, to prevent costs from spiraling out of control rationing is mandatory. Unfortunately, you do not have the courage to admit it. Yet until you do, it can't happen.

(Mike Shedlock, 7/23/09)

Then fast forward a few months and he considers it a flaw in the Senate version of the bill that abortions will not be covered (which happens not to be true). Sounds like rationing to me. Yet he's clearly upset abortion will not be paid for:

The bill does allow states to opt out of paying for abortions. This is folly given the huge ongoing costs of unwanted births.

(Mike Shedlock, 12/26/09)

Suddenly the advocate for personal liberty is transformed into a statist potentially as dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the crew of clowns now infesting Washington, D.C.

My Stand? I am all in favor of the right to die.

(Mike Shedlock, 12/31/09)

Liberty is not all. When it is, it becomes license, not liberty, and exposes one and all to the whims of the powerful, who make it all up as they go. In our time its young victims already approach 50 million since 1973. Now ask yourself how many elderly and infirm are in the gun sights of the rationers of today?

No, law and order must exist before there can be any semblance of liberty, and the sources of our law are too deep, ancient, and complex to be sacrificed to the caprices of the simplifiers of our age.