The Republican party is big on patriotism. But devotion to one's country requires personal sacrifice for the larger good, and for Romney to preach the Republican gospel while privately amassing a fortune by evading taxes is deeply hypocritical.
The Congressional Budget Office just released a very thorough update of their high quality household income series, adding data through 2009. There's so much in here it will be weeks before I can work my way through all of its nooks and crannies, but so far, something's jumped out at me. Man, I gotta say: when it comes to federal taxation, there is just no case in the data to be made in any way, shape or form that we Americans are overtaxed. Not middle income, not high income -- not the overall average. Not relative to other countries and not relative to our historical rates back to 1979. In fact, there's a strong, reality-based case in to be made for new revenues in any deal to stabilize the debt situation, starting at the top of the income scale.
President Obama's latest tax cut announcement is more bad messaging. When you throw out an arbitrary number as your cap for tax cuts, you immediately get off message and into the weeds. Why? Because your number rapidly becomes contested.
Today the President called on Congress to extend the middle class tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans making less than $250,000 for another year.
The problem is you have to raise taxes or create some type of revenue to pay for these services. But, too often, creating revenue is still referred to as some form of a tax. It's a hidden tax, to their way of thinking.
People of faith and of conscience must add their voices to tell Congress to act reasonably and responsibly. Rejecting the House leaders' efforts later this summer to extend the unfair tax breaks for the top 2 percent would be a good start.
Here we go again. For a president who has been dubbed "no drama Obama," it looks like the American public might be in for some "rope a dope" this sum...
There is an alternative to the Republicans' austerity agenda that will do much to save our safety net: a return to Clinton-era policies that created so much wealth in the 1990s.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the left's collective crying out for strong, effective leadership is going to have to come from the leaderfu...
Today marks 11 years since the Bush tax breaks for the rich were enacted, which have yielded the most unequal distribution of wealth in American history, more unequal even than that of 1929, just before the Great Depression.
Here's an important lesson for anyone watching state or federal tax policy debates: just because elected officials say they're doing something for "small businesses" and "job growth" doesn't mean that they really are.
Any move to extend special breaks for income over a quarter of a million dollars a year is another giveaway for the richest Americans, and small business owners will pay the price as the middle class -- the bedrock of our customer base -- continues to disappear.
If policy makers fail to distinguish between fiscal cliff and slope effects, they might be drawn into extensions of the expiring policies that do more long-term harm than we'd get from a short trip down the slope. And the most notable such expiration is the high-end Bush tax cuts.
We know G.W. Bush's tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to revive an economy flattened by the dot-com bubble bust have cost plenty. And we know what happened to all that money. Not much.
Instead of caving to Republican rhetoric, we would have expected Leader Pelosi to counter it. The message is a simple one, and it's been used by centrist Democrats from Clinton to Obama: From whom much is given, much is expected.