Thursday, June 30, 2011

Let's get the facts straight.

Disclaimer: This blog was written while my blood sugar had plummeted to historic lows as a result of lacking any significant income as an Americorps VISTA. Bear in mind the following argument pisses me off like there's no tomorrow and I won't drop it until I've offended as many people as possible. That being said, here we go.

Tuesday night I attended the lackluster premiere of the documentary "Undefeated", an unnecessarily 2-hour-long documentary detailing Sarah Palin's political career. The film itself deserves criticism enough, but I'll touch on that a different day.

After the showing, I stopped at Smokey Row to see my fellow co-workers and started making some coffee drinks. I happened to run into a couple that formerly belonged to the congregation of the church I attended growing up. I had been made aware that this particular family had become rather conservative, but I wouldn't have envisioned them falling into the Rush-Beck-Fox News category. In my absolute most diplomatic tone, I told them that I disagree with the Bush Tax Cuts and I don't foresee lower taxes creating jobs. A shitstorm ensued and the following terms were thrown around: "Socialism", "Punishing success", "liberal elitists".

I attempted to reason with them over the payroll tax, which is inherently regressive. I even used the Huckabee/Forbes "flat tax" argument to see how far to the right they had become. By the end of the conversation, they were both arguing in favor of the top tier of society paying "way less than everyone else". I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So today, I suppose I'll outline the basis for my anger against such rhetoric and explain the reasoning behind my disdain for the Bush tax cuts.

The payroll tax

In the current federal tax code, the ceiling on federal payroll taxes is $106,800. To dumb it down, that means a person making $100,000 is paying taxes on every cent they earn. A person that makes $500,000 dollars is only being taxed on the first $106,800 dollars, meaning the other $393,200 is left untaxed in payroll deductions. How does this make sense? Wouldn't it make better sense to have a tax floor? For example, a system that only taxes payroll after the first $30,000 or $40,000?

Furthermore, removing the ceiling on the payroll tax would create an authentic flat tax. As it stands, the payroll tax is the most glaring example of a regressive tax that we have in this country. Of course, in the formerly mentioned discussion, I was thrown under the bus for raising taxes on the wealthy.

"Punishing success"

Nothing pushes my buttons quite like the "punishing success" argument. The irony of the argument is that it is constantly made by those who would be unaffected by the "punishing". Granted, I don't know too many millionaires, but the fact that a blue-collar, middle-class person is arguing for lower taxes for the rich is too much irony. The income inequality in the United States is at an incredible level, with the top 1% of the income earners possessing nearly 40% of the wealth in our country. From my perspective, I believe they deserve to be "punished".

All in all, I don't think I'll ever understand why blue-collar Americans are concerned with keeping low tax rates for the rich. I suppose all I can hope for is for such people to turn off the Fox News and pick up a book.

Monday, June 6, 2011

I bet Herman Cain makes BVP's blood boil

About an hour ago, during an event held by the Bob Vanderplaats-led Family Leader, Herman Cain stated that he had no problem hiring an openly gay staffer. I would venture to guess that old Vanderplaats nearly pissed himself. Mr. Vanderplaats, who led the movement to oust the three supreme court justices, financed Cain's visit to three stops in Iowa today.

Honestly, nothing humors me more than Bob Vanderplaats experiencing some kind of consternation. I would like to thank Herman Cain for making those remarks, and would like to encourage him to make further ridiculous remarks about Muslims and their "creeping Shariah law". This guy is just full of gems.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

America's Palin Problem

As Sarah Palin's infamous "One Nation" rolls through the Northeast this week, one can't help but wonder why the media is covering this. Other than the over-the-top Constitution-themed paint job, there is truly nothing noteworthy about this bus tour. All of this begs the question: Why is anyone covering this? To me, the answer comes in two successive parts.

First, the national media has no marketable material from the actual GOP candidates. The national news doesn't report on Herman Cain or Rick Santorum's daily events. Why? There's nothing of interest for the viewer in covering these candidates and it doesn't produce ratings. Sarah Palin cavorting across the country in an RV, pretending to despise the media, will always pull ratings.

The second piece of the puzzle also lies on the business end for the national media. By making Sarah Palin out to be less than a buffoon, it seems as if she's becoming more than a self-appointed kingmaker. If this bus tour becomes the stepping stone to her candidacy, the public can count on a far more contentious election cycle. Sarah Palin is an absolute media darling, contrary to what comes out of her yap. All equal time laws aside, the media will over-report her every move to preserve their ratings, potentially tightening the race.

Sad sad sad.