Who's Gonna Pay For All This?
If much of America goes on the dole for health care and other stuff, how is it all going to get funded? Bleed the rich? Sorry, there just aren't enough rich people to make that work -- and who's going to work hard and build things if their earnings will get Hoovered up to pay for all the lazies and the people who don't build things?
From the WSJ, here's a piece on "Max's Mad Mandate," the Baucus health bill that will break 50 state budgets via Medicaid by permanently expanding the program:
Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019--or about one-third of ObamaCare's total spending--to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.About 59 million people are on Medicaid today--which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode--by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office--because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother--and father and crazy uncle--of unfunded mandates.
This burden would arrive on the heels of an unprecedented state fiscal crisis. As of this month, some 48 states had shortfalls in their 2010 budgets totaling $168 billion--or 24% of total state budgets. The left-wing Center for Budget and Policy Priorities expects total state deficits in 2011 to rise to $180 billion. And this is counting the $87 billion Medicaid bailout in this year's stimulus bill.
While falling revenues are in part to blame, Medicaid is a main culprit, even before caseloads began to surge as joblessness rose. The National Association of State Budget Officers notes that Medicaid spending is on average the second largest component in state budgets at 20.7%--exceeded only slightly by K-12 education (20.9%) and blowing out state universities (10.3%), transportation (8.1%) and prisons (3.4%).
In some states it is far higher--39% in Ohio, 27% in Massachusetts, 25% in Michigan, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Forcing states to spend more will crowd out other priorities or result in a wave of tax increases, or both, even as Congress also makes major tax hikes inevitable at the national level.
Meanwhile, New York's having some fun now with "millionaire flight." (Last one out, blow out the candles!)
Source forgotten! Help me!
Does anyone remember something from earlier in 2009 –a blog post or a magazine article or who-knows-what– that said that the sustaining tax base of New York City was about 1,200 or 1,500 very rich people, and that if an significant percentage of them decided to move, there'd be Hell to pay?
Does this ring any bells? Anybody?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 28, 2009 12:19 AM
Sorry, Crid - I haven't seen that.
Obviously, the solution is a departure tax: you can't leave your tax district with your money.
Meanwhile, Bill Clinton is babbling about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" again - the same group that wouldn't let Hillarycare put people in jail for not belonging to her health care plan is apparently the one protesting being fined for not belonging to the new scheme.
Again, this would avoid all that.
Radwaste at September 28, 2009 1:58 AM
"Somebody else" - that's who will pay for it all.
Didn't you know? When you are "doing good" you don't have to consider dirty little things like cost.
Just like the idiots who are protesting the gigawatt solar power plant in the Mojave desert: they apparently think power comes magically out of the wall-plug.
Why let reality interfere with a really good idea?
bradley13 at September 28, 2009 2:46 AM
I'm not convinced this is unmanageable. Ask Bush who will pay for it, since he felt the need to squander a surplus with an unnecessary war and consecutive 1.6 trillion dollar tax cuts.
Patrick at September 28, 2009 4:18 AM
The "rich" will make it up somewhere. Raising prices of goods and/or services, lower wages, other benefit cuts.
The government needs to quit interfering with the free market system.
The fair tax would be a great start to turning this country around.
David M at September 28, 2009 4:31 AM
Patrick:
Well, other than the fact that there was no surplus, the tax rate cuts increased revenue, and the war in Iraq WAS necessary, you're batting 1,000.
And I haven't even had coffee yet.
You make it too easy.
If we don't get government consumption below 10% of GDP, we're doomed.
brian at September 28, 2009 4:56 AM
I'm sure it is easy, for someone who's been drinking the Republican Kool-Aid.
Yes, Virginia. There was a surplus.
No, the war in Iraq was unnecessary. Also illegal. And both the President and Bush (President Cheney's front man) knew this.
And tax cuts increasing revenue is a lie. A lie with anyone with half a modicum of common sense can see through. How can anyone believe that lowering taxes will actually result in increasing the government's revenue? Contrary to what you might have heard elsewhere, money is not conjured ex nihilo.
Interesting to note that even Bush the elder rejected this notion, referring to Reagan's "trickle-down economics" as "voodoo economics."
From the link:
To paraphrase you, you make this way too easy. And I don't even drink coffee. Yet your language seems to imply that you somehow require this nasty-tasting slop to function at your best. How sad is that?
Patrick at September 28, 2009 5:26 AM
It's like that here in Philly, we have so many people under the poverty line that the rest of us get to make up for it. They've just increased the sales tax to 8%...gonna be great for business.
Oh well. One more year.
NicoleK at September 28, 2009 5:39 AM
brian wether or not the war in Iraq was nessecary everyone can agree then Bush Cos political quarterbacking of the war was a major fuckup, had they listened to Gen Shenseki rather than fireing him for telling them they were going in without enough troops the war would have been over before Bush's second election
Ofcourse if that had happened all of those no bid contrators who contributed to his campaigns would have made any money.
Here is my tax solution. 10% income, no sales, no corperate, no luxury.
And income includes bonuses stock options, and retirement packages.
Of that 10% 3% goes to the fed, 4% goes to the state and the remaining 3% is to your county of residence.
Any programs which cannot be funded of that money is cut. No more subsadies or any industry, no paying farmers to not grow food so the price is artiically inflated. No more forgein aid which can only be spent buying goods and services from political finaciers.
The only thing the feds should be paying for is national defense, interstate roads, interstate crimes, customs, and immigration.
Other than that everything else should be handled at the state level.
Seriously whay are my tax dollars being spent to increase child support enforcment in maryland? To dictate to californians what to teacha and how to test their students?
You want to see how many federal goverment agencies there are?
lujlp at September 28, 2009 5:50 AM
Just compliled a list and deleted the obvious state agencies, gonna try to get the no so obvous state agencies. But did you knw there is a federal agency for Veterans Day?
Why the fuck are peoploe being paid tax dollars to sit around and plan Veterns Day activites?
luljp at September 28, 2009 6:25 AM
Wow, taxing the snot out of people encourages them to go somewhere else! Who'd a'thunk it? It's amazing to watch the current generation of politicians learning economics from the ground up.
Cousin Dave at September 28, 2009 6:39 AM
Luljip, I often have the same thought, though I was thinking maybe 15%. (Heck, it still would be almost half of what I pay now, thank you extra Philadelphia city tax)
Also, where I grew up we paid city taxes, not county taxes. I'm not quite sure what counties in MA do, other than have courthouses. But either way, city or county, I agree that a nice little chunk should be local.
NicoleK at September 28, 2009 6:54 AM
Radwaste, NY already tried a version of that departure tax. It was shot down by the Supreme Court.
Mario Cuomo, may he rest in peace and he's not dead yet, tried to tax the 401K plans of anyone who worked in NY, even if they became residents of another state.
I hope they keep it up, because I expect the 2010 elections to be hard on many incumbents. Dan Maffei is going to find it difficult to win reelection as a reliable stooge of Nancy Pelosi's.
MarkD at September 28, 2009 7:46 AM
good point about cities and counties NicoleK
I live in the Phoenix area, which is 30 cites grown into eachother and the metropolis takes up only one small corner of the county.
I kinda included my "the county should be incharge of city ifractructre so we dont have 12 different cites fighting in court about how much they should spend for a project that croosses every city in the valley" argument with out explaining it.
and the counties out here are huge, i think maricopa county is larger than New Jersy
lujlp at September 28, 2009 8:04 AM
"Why let reality interfere with a really good idea?" Quote of the day, bradley13...
so... you can soak the rich untill they aren't rich anymore. And then what? Parasitic death? If you eat the horse pulling your wagon, it can't pull anymore. I cannot figure out why this is a hard concept to get. So I have taken to making it uncomfortably personal, when I discuss these proposals with friends. I ask them exactly who they think pays the ACTUAL taxes that fund the mandates. Once you give the Q? a human face by pointing at yourself, suddenly you aren't taking money from the government, but from your neighbor... Sometimes that changes the way people think.
Other times, not so much.
SwissArmyD at September 28, 2009 8:23 AM
I can see Patrick is trolling again. Tsk tsk.
Crusader at September 28, 2009 9:10 AM
The left's usual argument for returning to the 90% marginal rate is that we had it back in the 1950s and everything was fine then? What they forget to mention is the loopholes that existed in the tax code. When the rates started coming down, so did the loopholes. Yet despite current Ronald Reaganesque tax rates, the top 2% pay a higher % of the overall tax revenues then ever before!
Crusader at September 28, 2009 9:12 AM
Here is the list of ofical Us Federal Govenment Agencies, Just imagine all the state agencies, and times tht by 50
LUJLP at September 28, 2009 9:22 AM
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging (AoA)
Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Agency for International Development
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Agriculture Department (USDA)
Air Force
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
American Battle Monuments Commission
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architect of the Capitol
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
Arctic Research Commission
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Arms Control and International Security
Army
Army Corps of Engineers
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Atlantic Fleet Forces Command
Bankruptcy Courts
Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
Botanic Garden
Broadcasting Board of Governors (Voice of America, Radio|TV Marti and more)
Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice)
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Bureau of Prisons
Bureau of Public Debt
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Capitol Visitor Center
Census Bureau
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration)
Central Command (CENTCOM)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Chief Acquisition Officers Council
Chief Financial Officers Council
Chief Human Capital Officers Council
Chief Information Officers Council
Cities, Counties, and Towns in the United States
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service)
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq)
Coast Guard
Commerce Department
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission on Civil Rights
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Community Planning and Development
Comptroller of the Currency Office
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US CERT)
Congress
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Congressional Research Service
Constitution Center
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Copyright Office
Corporation for National and Community Service
Corps of Engineers
Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
County and City Governments
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Court of Federal Claims
Court of International Trade
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
Customs and Border Protection
Defense Acquisition University
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Department (DOD)
Defense Field Activities
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Defense Legal Services Agency
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Defense Security Service (DSS)
Defense Technical Information Center
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
Denali Commission
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Defense Inspector General
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Director of National Intelligence
Disability Employment Policy Office
District of Columbia Home Page
Domestic Policy Council
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Economic Adjustment Office
Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Economic Development Administration
Economic Research Service
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department)
Economics & Statistics Administration
Education Department (ED)
Election Assistance Commission
Elementary and Secondary Education
Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration)
Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department)
Employment Standards Administration
Endangered Species Committee
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Information Administration
English Language Acquisition Office
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
European Command
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Export Administration (now the Bureau of Industry and Security)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Service Agency
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Consulting Group
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Executive Boards
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Federal Financing Bank
Federal Geographic Data Committee
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
Federal Interagency Committee on Education
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
Federal Judicial Center
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Student Aid
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Federal Transit Administration
Federated States of Micronesia Home Page
Financial Management Service (Treasury Department)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Forest Service
Fossil Energy
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
General Services Administration (GSA)
Geological Survey (USGS)
Global Affairs (State Department)
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government National Mortgage Association
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
Health and Human Services Department (HHS)
Health Resources and Services Administration
Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Holocaust Memorial Museum
Homeland Security Department (DHS)
House Leadership Offices
House of Representatives
House of Representatives Committees
House Office of Inspector General
House Office of the Clerk
House Organizations, Commissions, and Task Forces
House Representatives on the Web
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
Housing Office (HUD)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)
Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Indian Arts and Crafts Board
Indian Health Service
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
Industry and Security, Bureau of (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Information Resource Management College
Innovation and Improvement Office
Institute of Education Sciences
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Institute of Peace
Inter-American Foundation
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Interagency Council on Homelessness
Interior Department
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
International Labor Affairs, Bureau of
International Trade Administration (ITA)
International Trade Commission
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
Joint Fire Science Program
Joint Forces Command
Joint Forces Staff College
Joint Military Intelligence College
Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal, by Geographic Location and Circuit
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Justice Department
Justice Programs Office (Juvenile Justice, Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women and more)
Justice Statistics, Bureau of
Labor Department (DOL)
Labor Statistics, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of
Lead Hazard Control (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Legal Services Corporation
Library of Congress
Marine Corps
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
Marshals Service
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
Military Postal Service Agency
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Minerals Management Service
Minority Business Development Agency
Mint (Treasury Department)
Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
Morris K. Udall Foundation: Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Multifamily Housing Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National AIDS Policy Office
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
National Capital Planning Commission
National Cemetery Administration (Veterans Affairs Department)
National Constitution Center
National Council on Disability
National Counterintelligence Executive, Office of
National Credit Union Administration
National Defense University
National Drug Intelligence Center
National Economic Council
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Gallery of Art
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Guard
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Institute for Literacy
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Interagency Fire Center
National Labor Relations Board
National Laboratories (Energy Department)
National Marine Fisheries
National Mediation Board
National Nuclear Security Administration
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Park Foundation
National Park Service
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Reconnaissance Office
National Science Foundation
National Security Agency (NSA)
National Security Council
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
National War College
National Weather Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Navy
Northern Command
Northwest Power Planning Council
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Compliance
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Office of Special Counsel
Office of Thrift Supervision
Open World Leadership Center
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pacific Command
Pardon Attorney Office
Parole Commission (Justice Department)
Patent and Trademark Office
Peace Corps
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (now the Employee Benefits Security Administration)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Pentagon Force Protection Agency
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Policy Development and Research (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Political Affairs (State Department)
Postal Regulatory Commission
Postal Service (USPS)
Postsecondary Education
Power Administrations
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
Program Executive Office, Ships
Public and Indian Housing
Public Debt, Bureau of
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department)
Radio and TV Marti (Español)
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
Railroad Retirement Board
Reclamation, Bureau of
Refugee Resettlement
Regulatory Information Service Center
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Transportation Department)
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Science Office (Energy Department)
Secret Service
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Selective Service System
Senate
Senate Committees
Senate Leadership
Senators on the Web
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Social Security Advisory Board
Southern Command
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Special Forces Operations Command
State Department
State Home Pages
State Justice Institute
Stennis Center for Public Service
Strategic Command
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Superfund Basic Research Program
Supreme Court of the United States
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
Surface Transportation Board
Tax Court
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Territories of the United States
Transportation Command
Transportation Department (DOT)
Transportation Security Administration
Transportation Statistics, Bureau of
Treasury Department
TRICARE Management
Trustee Program (Justice Department)
U.S. Border Patrol (now Customs and Border Protection)
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. International Trade Commission
U.S. Military Academy, West Point
U.S. Mint
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol (Justice Department)
U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
U.S. Trade Representative
Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department)
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Veterans Affairs Department (VA)
Veterans Benefits Administration
Veterans Day National Committee
Veterans Health Administration
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Vietnam Educational Foundation
Vocational and Adult Education
Voice of America (VOA)
Washington Headquarters Services
Weather Service, National
West Point (Army)
White House
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
White House Office of Administration
Women's Bureau (Labor Department)
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
luljp at September 28, 2009 9:23 AM
Actually, there was a projected surplus over the next ten years...at then-current economic activity levels. Should the level of economic activity have changed due to, say, a housing bubble that helped drive the surplus, well....
In hindsight, unnecessary perhaps. But illegal under international law? International law is, at best, a general agreement between nations. Sometimes there are treaties involved. Sometimes there are organizations involved.
The article you cite is the opinion of international jurists. Not a court or any body charged with actual enforcement of nebulous "international law."
"International law" is also a convenient cudgel to wield against any state with which one does not agree.
Saddam Hussein was pressed several times by the UN as well as by the US, several countries, and several international organizations to allow inspection and investigation of its weapons production facilities and to account for missing weapons materials. Hussein refused, defying several UN resolutions (more than one of which spelled out military action as the possible consequences in the event of non-cooperation).
Please don't confuse wealth and income with money.
The underlying theory of the Laffer Curve is that lower taxes stimulate increased economic activity, increasing wealth and broadening the tax base. With more economic activity, the government collects more.
Kind of like a company lowering the price of a product to sell more of it. Marginal revenue drops, but overall revenue grows.
The price of economic activity is taxes. Lower the price and "sell more units."
If you can sit on your assets and make as much money as you would after taxes if you invested it into the economy, why would you invest it? But, it you can make a decent return and not lose the bulk of that return to taxes, you have an incentive to invest your money in new and existing businesses, financing expansion, entrepreneurial start-ups, etc.
Likewise a family that has a few extra dollars after taxes would either invest it in savings (which are then loaned out by the banking institutions) or purchase something they would otherwise have been unable to afford (increasing demand for products and production of the same). That's the theory behind tax cuts.
e.g., When I first started working after college, I worked a job that involved overtime pay. No one wanted to put in overtime because the bump to the next tax bracket erased over 50% of the additional income. It wasn't worth it. When the tax bracket was reduced and workers got to keep more of their additional income, we had more volunteers for overtime. More overtime workers = more income tax for the government.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2009 10:33 AM
Although Conan already took you apart, Patrick, I'll do so again.
The "surplus" was a projection, ten years out, that assumed that the dot-com boom was going to continue ad infinitum. It also included the entirety of the Social Security "trust fund" (that doesn't exist) as part of the budget.
Of course, intelligent people knew in 1999 that the dot com boom was mostly fraudulent. Clinton didn't. What's that tell you about him?
The Iraq war was not illegal. There was a state of war in existence between the US (via the UN) and Iraq. We have the right to enforce UN resolutions. We did so. Taking out the thugs in Iraq was a prerequisite to any other de-fanging of political Islam we hope to undertake. Therefore, I consider it necessary.
And if tax rate cuts don't increase revenue, can you explain why the did exactly that in 1962 for JFK and again in 1982 for Ronald Reagan? Oh, you can't? Because you're too blinded by your ideology and your belief in static analysis to see that taxes do influence behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. And taxes are punishment. Punish growth less, you get more growth.
You've no doubt heard of the principle in retail of selling a product at a lower margin to increase sales, yes? You think they do that just to move more product and make less money? Fuck no! If I sell a million widgets at 50 cents profit each, but I can move three million by cutting my per-widget profit to 25 cents, I end up with half-again as much gross profit on the increased sales at the lower price.
Don't they teach even rudimentary econ any more? No? That would explain why someone making 50 grand thinks they can afford a $400,000 house then.
brian at September 28, 2009 10:49 AM
If it's nasty tasting slop, you're doing it wrong.
And the fact that I was able to so thoroughly dismantle you within 15 minutes of rolling out of bed (I surf the net waiting for the dog to finish her "business" outside) without benefit of shower, coffee or breakfast ought to humble you somewhat and make you consider whether your opinions are based upon reality or fantasy.
brian at September 28, 2009 10:53 AM
Sen. Max Baucus and the Democrats know that paying for things is a technicality. Can't the Federal Reserve just print up the money, like they have been? Inflation is a nice, general tax that few people have figured out. Put this new medical system into place, and decide later who to tax and what to ration, in fairness to all.
If publicly controlled healthcare and the public option are such good ideas, why haven't we applied this philosophy to most other areas of the economy? The governmnet should set up a defense contractor to keep the private ones honest. The government has set up mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have had a big part in the economic crisis while losing one or two trillion dollars.
The government has a history of producing quality work, on time, and under budget. It should start competing in all areas of service and production to keep the private companies honest and to show them how to do a great job for less money. Higher taxes are a small price to pay for this continuing experiment in social cohesion.
The US Post Office competes well with Federal Express and UPS. Except, that the Post Office loses money, even with a legal monopoly on first class mail delivery. Maybe they could give that up and show what a real competitor can do?
(What makes people think that a government bureaucracy is going to run healthcare in a great way, in all of its complexity and adaptation to individual needs? Will it be like the post office or the Army?)
Government is the ideal director of medicine. Politicians are thoughtful, caring, and altruistic. They devote their lives to helping others. Contrast this to Physicians, who spend half their lives learning diagnosis and complex, delicate procedures, with the intent of charging sick people for these services.
(sarcasm warning)
Obamacare Bails Out Medicare
Andrew_M_Garland at September 28, 2009 12:01 PM
I remember it. It talked about how the decline in Wall Street was going to have big repercussions on the city and state budgets. I don't remember the exact source, but I believe it was linked from Instapundit.
Pseudonym at September 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Or like the public schools: great if you live in a rich area and lousy if you live in a poor area?
Pseudonym at September 28, 2009 12:39 PM
Actually, you dismantled nothing, but please continue to claim you've done so.
The link I posted, had you bothered to read it, which you didn't, explained that the surplus was a ten year projected surplus. And Clinton isn't the only one who predicted the surplus. Even Sheldon D. Pollack (tax expert and associate professor at UD's College of Business and Economics0, while claiming that Clinton's numbers were inflated, conceded that a surplus was to be expected. (Google it yourself, since I'm not interested in getting kicked to the spam folder again.) So, Yes, Virginia. There was a surplus. Ten year projected, but still a surplus.
Also Conan, the war was illegal according to international law, and had you bothered to read the link I posted, you'd see that President Cheney and First Frontman Bush knew this in advance.
Also, acting on UN's behalf is a poor argument when you realize that the UN neither asked for nor gave their support for our invasion of Iraq.
As for tax cuts increasing revenue in the Reagan years, since Reagan didn't cut taxes, we'll never know, will we? (You're just the most adoring little disciple of Rush Limbaugh, aren't you? I think it's too precious that you let Rush do your thinking for you...or I would, if you were about five years old...I expect better from presumed adults.)
Reagan supported tax increases. In 1982 alone, he signed two major tax increases into law. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
In 1984, Reagan signed another tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. To the tune of 18 billion per year!
How about another tax increase? In 1985, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act raised taxes again! (Can you believe it???) The Tax Reform Act of 1986 contained a net tax increase for the first two years. And in 1987, Reagan threw us under the bus...The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act...AGAIN! In fact the only year that taxes weren't increased legislatively during that administration was Reagan's first year...and his last, 1988.
And another thing I've never understood. If Reagan supposedly increased revenue, why did he manage to explode the national debt? And why, if Reagan is so fiscally conservative did he ask, over the course of his presidency, over 16 billion MORE than Congress had passed into law?
If you're parroting Rush Limbaugh for your stance on Reagan, I should let you know something. At the risk of being repetitive, Rush Limbaugh is a liar.
Rush Limbaugh cooks the books like you wouldn't believe when it comes to spreading the lie about Reaganomics. First, when he creates his chart about Reaganomics, you'll notice he includes all the years of the Bush presidency. Which is odd because he wrote in SITYS that Reaganomics ended in 1990, with George H. W. Bush's tax hike.
He uses 1992 for two reasons. One is because Bush's tax hike makes the tax break for the rich seem smaller, and in 1991, Bush increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, which makes the tax break for the poor seem larger. (Ironically, Oxycontin Fatass despised both of those measures, but they sure help him lie to make his point, don't they?)
Want more bad news? Limbaugh also leaves out payroll taxes. And wouldn't you know it? Payroll taxes were yet another tax that Reagan increased. By 1989, payroll taxes had gone from 5.2% (1980) to 7.6%. Since payroll taxes have a cap, they're a bigger burden on the poor than the rich. During those same years, the top income bracket only went from 1.5 to 1.6%.
So, game, set and match to me. Thanks for playing. (And I never liked coffee.)
Terribly long post. I apologize for that. But what can I do? When people spread lies so glibly, you have to make a concerted effort to debunk it all.
I think the top rate during the Clinton years was around 37%. Is that really so terrible?
Patrick at September 28, 2009 1:52 PM
Again, Patrick, you show your ignorance. Reagan decreased TAX RATES. Higher revenue was to be expected.
Clinton's projected surplus was based upon taxes collected from plainly fraudulent earnings and should not be considered to have been real. You cannot squander that which never could have existed.
And a top rate of 37% is not only terrible, it's immoral. What legitimate claim does the government have to 37 cents of every dollar a private citizen earns from his own labor? Oh, and before Reagan's cuts, the top rate was 70%, and he cut it to 27%.
Again, you need to check your reality before you accuse me of lying.
In a perfect world, of course, we'd have not only tax rate reductions, but revenue reductions and spending reductions as well. My ideal world would have the government spending below 10% of GDP. Of course, the bulk of government workers would have to go find real jobs for that to happen. But I'm OK with that.
brian at September 28, 2009 2:11 PM
I didn't call you a liar. I called Limbaugh a liar (which he is). Higher revenue was to be expected from the half a dozen or so tax INCREASES that Reagan gave, and already listed. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la-la-la-la..." won't make them go away. To point to Reagan and say that cutting taxes increases revenue is simply not true. He increased taxes in the ways I've already shown. You would have to prove that revenue increased discounting those tax increases I mentioned. (And let me save you the trouble. You can't do it, because it ain't so.)
And finally, Reagan did not bring the top rate down from 70%. Carter brought the top rate down from 70% to 50%, although it didn't take effect until Reagan assumed office.
Though I do agree that the government spends too much and, like you, I have no problem with the bulk of their employees going out to find real jobs.
Patrick at September 28, 2009 2:38 PM
While we are talking about "finding real jobs", let also recognize the considerable overlap in luljp's list - and remember: Congress, not the President, has the Constitutional duty to handle the currency.
That's the damndest thing about personality cults. They insist that their guy is {insert superlative ability here} when he is Constitutionally prevented from doing that - and then they enable Federal excess because "their guy" is doing it.
Radwaste at September 28, 2009 4:24 PM
Patrick, I did bother to read the document to which you linked - before I posted my last response.
And, again, my reply is that this document expresses the OPINION of jurists who, granted, have made a study of international agreements and "laws." But it nonetheless does not constitute any absolute and binding authority that the war was illegal. It is an opinion.
Kind of like the opinion of the Duke professors that the lacrosse players were guilty. These jurists are trying to burnish their credentials so they can be on the prosecution team. But they're not sitting in the command chair watching the towers fall...or worrying about what form the next attack will take.
Also, their opinion reflects an outdated view of international threats.
The jurists cited therein have deemed any and all preventative and pre-emptive wars illegal so, by default, they would judge this one illegal: "Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be ... outlawed wars of aggression."
Preventative and pre-emptive wars were "outlawed" in the days when a first strike could wipe out a few thousand people and was generally carried out by a nation-state and was accompanied by a declaration of war.
Today, however, a first strike can wipe out a few million or more and cause untold suffering for the "survivors." And that strike can be carried out by a shadow group operating clandestinely in several countries and supported by several nation-states.
It's no longer as simple as seeing the Rising Sun on the sides of the planes bombing your fleet or seeing missiles take off from silos you've been watching for years. It's time "international law" caught up with international reality.
Bush probably knew he was skating on the edge of existing legality. But he also believed the reports he got from various intelligence agencies (and other world leaders got from their own agencies) that Hussein had WMD and was willing to share that technology with terrorist organizations who had designs on following in al Qaeda's footsteps and killing lots of Americans.
And Bush presented that case several times to Congress and to the UN. Both of which voted for armed action if Saddam refused to cooperate. And both of which denied that vote in the face of Saddam's continued refusal to cooperate.
Bush also presented several opportunities for Saddam to comply with "international law" by opening his books and showing international inspectors what happened to the WMD he was known to have at one time possessed.
I didn't support many of Bush's economic policies and I was not in favor of sending troops into Iraq. But the left's calumnies about Bush and about the Iraq war have long since gone way beyond the pale.
And insult them though leftists may, there were many countries around the world who sent troops, supplies, and funding for that war.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Well, Conan, I guess we've come to an impasse. What it boils down to is what you're willing to believe about Bush/Cheney.
I don't believe Bush had the interests of the U.S. or the U.N. at heart. I believe Cheney pulled all the strings. It was all about no-bid contracts for Halliburton, et al. 9/11 and the supposed intelligence were merely convenient excuses.
Sorry, if you feel that's horrible. So do I. But I also believe it's the truth.
Patrick at September 28, 2009 5:35 PM
Here's a nice little story-o-the-day about airhead libs. A listserve I was on had a woman post that she'd seen someone on craigslist asking for work in exchange for groceries. This lib woman proceeded to say what a travesty it was that someone would have to ask for groceries, damn Bush for the economy, blah blah blah. She did nothing about it, of course, just Bush-bashed.
I emailed the woman who had made the CL post asking for groceries. Told her she could clean my house (basic stuff only, nothing horrendous) for $150 in food from HEB, she could send me the list and I'd buy it for her. She thought that was great, sent the list, showed up and cleaned for 3 hours, walked out with $150 worth of food. $50 an hour-not bad! I posted this result on the listserve so that if someone else needed a housecleaning, they could use her and know she's legit. I get a response back about how AWFUl it was that I used this poor woman's circumstances against her to blackmail work out of her. Seriously. An honest day's work for your necessities is now cruel. So why on EARTH would they need to pay for healthcare? Let other people! Asshats.
Of course, none of them helped her. Just clicked their tongue at someone who did. I'm starting to think these people just need to be put down like a lame horse.
momof4 at September 28, 2009 5:54 PM
Patrick, from the information you cited it would seem that Reagan increased taxes like payroll taxes and gasoline taxes during his time in office, while reducing income taxes.
Given that gas taxes and payroll taxes are relatively low in the US compared to other countries, and given that income tax has long been a higher percentage of revenues in the US than other countries, this all makes sense. What you have put is entirely consistent with the whole Laffer-curve proposition.
It could be that the gasoline tax and payroll taxes were to the left of the Laffer-curve while income tax was to the right of the Laffer-curve. That would explain why such measures would increase revenue, and would no doubt explain why the administration chose to enact such policies.
I suspect that you don't understand much about economics, but instead have probably just picked up a few fashionable talking points which you think put you 'in the know'. ('Rush Limbaugh, voodoo economics, snark snark, snigger snigger'. Now pass me another Chardonnay old chap. I feel very smug and intellectually superior').
I've said it before, but liberals seldom understand economics and so should steer clear of things they know nothing about. And BTW, I don't live in the US and never listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Nick S at September 28, 2009 6:00 PM
Patrick, I don't believe that Cheney was a geopolitical Svengali pulling Bush's strings and that the two of them went to war for Haliburton's enrichment (and their own).
I believe Bush came into office eschewing nation-building in favor of domestic reforms (including privatizing Social Security) and got caught up in the aftermath of 9/11 and truly believed if he installed a capitalist democracy in the heart of the Middle East, it would have a domino effect on the other brutal regimes in the area.
If that was a bit naive of him, then what does it say that we hired a guy with even less foreign policy experience to replace him?
I don't think Bush, or anyone else in his administration, truly realized how deeply ingrained is the death cult that is modern Islam.
But I do think they had the country's best interests at heart. I believe they did want to prevent another attack and that they thought forcibly inserting the modern world into the backwater that is the Middle East would help to do that.
I also think they figured if Islamists were going to attack Americans, we would be better off if that fight and all the collateral damage could take place in someone else's front yard. So, the administration decided to do it in Iraq where the Americans could shoot back with every heavy weapon we have.
Conan the Grammarian at September 28, 2009 6:02 PM
Nick S. writes:
Pot...kettle...
To point to Reagan and say, "Reagan cut income taxes and revenue increased, therefore cutting taxes increases revenue," while ignoring the fact that he raised taxes on HRA, TEFRA, COBRA (twice), TRA, increasing payroll taxes, etc. is tantamount to saying, "I had cancer, but I prayed about it, and it went away, therefore prayer cures cancer," ignoring the fact that the patient had chemotherapy, radiation treatments, etc.
Conan, don't ask me what it says about Obama. I didn't vote for the dipshit. I voted for McCain, not that I was wild about him, but given the choice between the two...
I wish the liberals had run Hillary. Dumbasses.
Regarding Bush's policy, I consider it worse than naive. He didn't kill terrorists, he made more of them. Those Iraqis that didn't have reason to hate us, until we killed over 100,000 of them and displaced 4 times as many, now do have a reason to hate us, even fanatically.
It is naive to think you can declare war on a concept, like declaring a war on terror.
Patrick at September 28, 2009 6:51 PM
Patrick, if you actually knew what you were talking about you would understand the concept of a specific tax being to the left of the laffer curve or to the right. You don't understand economics, but you are too full of yourself to admit it.
The laffer curve theory never suggested that tax cuts will ALWAYS produce more revenue or that tax increases will ALWAYS produce less revenue. It merely shows that in SOME circumstances tax cuts will produce more revenue and in SOME circumstances tax increases will reduce revenue.
If you increase taxes up to a certain point government revenues will increase. But if you increase taxes beyond a certain point government revenues will decline. For example: if you increased a tax from 3% to 5% revenues would most likely increase. But if you increased a tax from 40% to 70% government revenues would most likely decline.
Nick S at September 28, 2009 11:29 PM
"To point to Reagan and say, "Reagan cut income taxes and revenue increased, therefore cutting taxes increases revenue," while ignoring the fact that he raised taxes on HRA, TEFRA, COBRA (twice), TRA, increasing payroll taxes, etc. is tantamount to saying,"
Oh no, Patrick's trolling again. If anyone cares to look back at my post of 6:00pm, they will see that I didn't ignore the fact that Reagan increased some taxes. I specifically explained why those tax increases may have increased revenue.
If you lose an argument, don't worry. You can always just make shit up and attribute it to someone else.
Nick S at September 29, 2009 12:01 AM
Nick, in case you didn't notice, I never claimed you did say such a thing. My comments were to explain the rationale for the arguments I was making earlier, when Brian claimed that Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue. (Shocking, I know, but it's not about you.)
I wasn't directing those statements to anything you said, merely trying to explain to you why I made them. It takes two to argue; therefore I did not lose an argument. I did not engage you nor address any of your statements, nor do I have any intention of doing so. I find you repulsive, if you care to know the truth of it. You accuse people of trolling, which has to be among the more astounding displays of lack of self-awareness I can think of. You are smug, belligerent, patronizing, contemptuous, snobbish and boorish beyond words.
I don't care to discuss anything with you. Not even the weather.
Patrick at September 29, 2009 1:14 AM
"It was all about no-bid contracts for Halliburton, et al."
Ahem. They operated under the Clinton administration, too. Who was to blame, then?
There are key phrases to watch for to determine if someone has a superficial grasp of government action. That's one of them: the idea that an agency works at the sufferance of a particular person.
Radwaste at September 29, 2009 2:10 AM
Radwaste: There are key phrases to watch for to determine if someone has a superficial grasp of government action. That's one of them: the idea that an agency works at the sufferance of a particular person.
Actually, the idea that "there are key phrases to watch for" to determine anything, is extremely telling. You aren't willing to examine the possibility, but instead have some trite rule that you pull out that suggests that scenario is "utterly impossible," "fiddle-dee-dee," "madness, utter madness," and would effectively discredit your opponent.
Ironically, you have only served to discredit yourself. You don't consider the idea that there might be exceptions to this rule that you have proposed (and haven't proven), but instead rely upon the existence of "key phrases" to save you the trouble of having to look at things from a neutral perspective.
Your life must be very easy.
Patrick at September 29, 2009 2:46 AM
The concept of international law is B.S. There is no such thing. There is no entity in the world that has the legal or moral authority to make international law, and no agency with the capability to enforce it. There are only treaties, and treaties are only valid for as long as the signatories agree to respect them.
So arguments about whether the Iraq War was or wasn't illegal under international law are spurious. The war was legally authorized and funded per the U.S. Constitution, so as far as any American involved is concerned, that's that. Allies and other combatants have to answer to their own respective national authorities.
Cousin Dave at September 29, 2009 8:48 AM
The 100,000 civilians killed by the US military trope has been discredited several times.
That figure includes the deaths of non-uniformed Fedayeen Saddam fighters and Iran-backed insurgents (many from outside Iraq), terrorist-caused civilian deaths, deaths caused by Iraqi infighting, and accidental coalition-caused deaths over a 6+ year period.
Granted, under Saddam, these folks wouldn't have died in Iraqi infighting or at the hands of terrorists. They would have died in internal purges, in a war against Iran, or in industrial plastic shredders (with the lucky ones going head-first). Or they would have died in an Israeli pizza parlor trying to earn the $25,000 Saddam promised the families of suicide bombers.
Although still horrible, the death toll in this war and occupation due to actual coalition military action has been surprisingly light.
Compare it to hundreds of thousands intentionally killed in past strategic bombing campaigns, such as those against Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, Tokyo, and Hanoi. Compare it to the civilian deaths caused by Russian troops invading Chechnya and Georgia. Compare it to the civilian deaths caused by Serbian troops in Bosnia. Compare it to the death toll in fighting in Rwanda, the Sudan, the Congo, and other African violence. Compare it to the death toll in Lebanon when Hezbollah hid behind civilians and in hospitals and apartment buildings.
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2009 9:25 AM
Aw c'mon, Patrick. Both the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs are going so well.
I do agree with you that declaring war on a concept is a bit naive.
Still, there is a flip side. Sometimes fighting or working to eliminate a concept works. Chemical weapons were used extensively in World War I and banned by international agreement afterward when the world saw the effects of their use. Since then, except for Saddam Hussein, chemical weapons have been largely absent from the world's battlefields.
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2009 9:39 AM
Hi, Conan. Very interesting information you have. Do you have a source? I'm not necessarily doubting what you say. I'd just like to see where the part about the 100K Iraqis killed.
By the way, you call yourself a Grammarian and you mixed a metaphor! You wrote, "I don't believe that Cheney was a geopolitical Svengali pulling Bush's strings..."
Svengali was a hypnotist and yet you have him pulling strings like a puppeteer does with a marionette. Shame on you. Strictly speaking, mixing metaphors isn't a grammatical error, but you'd think someone who carefully observes the rules of grammar wouldn't be so careless with figures of speech. Shame! Shame! Forty lashes with Bartlett's Familiar Quotations.
Just kidding, Conan. I'm actually enjoying my exchanges with you. If you have a source for that information, I'd love to see it. (But please, not Fox News.)
Patrick at September 29, 2009 9:40 AM
Patrick, you don't get to specify which sources people use to rebut your argument. You can afterward impugn their sources. But please do it by more than just saying you don't like the source. By definition, people who disagree with you are going to have sources with which you might disagree.
Like it or not, Fox News is a legitimate news source.
I don't have my original sources. Still looking. But a quick Google search gave me a few items.
I won't put the http tags in front in an effort to avoid the spam filter.
Sources:
Iraq Body Count tallies civilian deaths in Iraq. It seems to blame them all on the US (see its logo), but clearly shows many of them to have been caused by car bombs and sectarian violence.
iraqbodycount.org
This site rebuts some of the IBC claims and an earlier Lancet article.
markhumphrys.com/iraq.dead.html
About.com Middle East Issues offers the argument that the invasion of Iraq saved Iraqi lives in the long run:
middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me090424b.htm
23 Years of Slaughter Under Saddam Hussein
"In the end," the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning John Burns wrote in The Times a few weeks before the invasion, "if an American-led invasion ousts Mr. Hussein, and especially if an attack is launched without convincing proof that Iraq is still harboring forbidden arms, history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors.
Burns proceeded to estimate the arithmetic of Saddam's brutality:
The largest number of deaths during his reign is attributable to the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). Iraq claims to have lost 500,000 people during that war.
The 1990 occupation of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War caused 100,000 deaths, by Iraq's reckoning--probably an exaggeration, but not by much: the 40-day bombardment of Iraq before the three-day ground war, and the massacre of escaping Iraqi troops on the "highway of death" make the estimate more credible than not.
"Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate," Burns wrote. "Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqis and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have 'disappeared' into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000."
Add it up, and in three decades, about 900,000 Iraqis have died from violence, or well over 3% of the Iraqi population--the equivalent of more than 9 million people in a nation with a population as large as that of the United States. That's what Iraq will have to recover from over the next decades--not just the death toll of the last six years, but that of the last 30.
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2009 10:59 AM
Actually, Faux News is not a legitimate news source. They themselves classify themselves as an entertainment network, not news. Moreover, their bias is obvious and blatant, unless you're naive enough to believe that all those Republicans labeled as Democrats were accidents.
When the scandal regarding Mark Sanford erupted, Fox listed him as a Democrat.
They've also done it to McCain. And to Mark Foley as well. It's quite remarkable how biased their "mistakes" are. In fact, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the next time a Republican is caught in a scandal, they'll label him as a Democrat.
Mark Foley, by the way, now has his own talk radio show. I was wondering what happened to him after the scandal broke regarding his salacious emails to underage pages. I had heard he took up reading to pass the time. He doesn't use bookmarks, though. He just bends over pages!
And let's not forget, Fox News sued for the right to lie about the news, and they won.
Google the names Jane Akre and Steve Wilson. I'd add a link for you, but one more link in this post will get me kicked to the spam folder.
Patrick at September 29, 2009 3:45 PM
Maybe they were just trying to make up for all the scandal-plagued Democrats whose political affiliations the NYT "forgets" to mention while trumpeting Larry Craig's, Mark Foley's, and Mark Sanford's (r) affiliation.
Opinion shows are opinion shows and not news. Unless you really want to try and argue the Keith Olberman's nightly MSNBC slander-fest is news.
Unfortunately, most news agencies tend to lean a little in presenting the news. It's human nature to impart your own biases and viewpoints into a store. Fox News leans a little to the right, but it's a nice counterweight to the left lean of most of the other outlets.
The reason people are switching to Fox News, Matt Drudge, and other alternative outlets in large numbers is because they no longer trust the mainstream outlets. And the mainstream outlets have done it to themselves. Don't forget the reluctance of those outlets to carry the ACORN story, the Dan Rather frame-up of Bush, the Newsweek burial of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, or the fact that the National Enquirer and Glen Beck have broken more major news stories in the past few months than the New York Times has.
Fox News at least reports on stories they may wish hadn't happened (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford, etc.). The mainstream press avoids stories that go against its left-lean...until forced to report on them by being scooped by Matt Drudge, Glen Beck or the National Enquirer.
I see more liberals (as regulars) on Fox News than I see conservatives on CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, and CBS combined. If George Will dies, the networks might be under the impression that the only conservative commentator in America is dead (since they seem to be unable to put any conservative on their "news" shows but Will). Even Jon Stewart has more conservatives in his Rolodex than all the network news executives combined.
And, yes, Hannity's a blowhard. O'Reilly's hard to take on a good day (even Rush Limbaugh said of him, "The man is Ted Baxter" in an NYT piece). And Greta van Sustren's "Missing White Girl" fixation needs to be checked by a professional.
But their competitors are hardly taking a back seat in the egomaniacal blowhard and skewed delivery competition: Olberman, Maher, King, Garafolo, Maddow, and Matthews all have a strongly-held place on the leaderboard.
Conan the Grammarian at September 29, 2009 4:29 PM
Leave a comment