I’m sorry if I offended a congressman but the fact of the matter is I’m representing the American people out here
“Romney is absolutely right. And this means that taxes on corporations are taxes on people. I’m not getting at the subtle point—and I don’t think Romney was either—that if capital is highly mobile internationally, a national government can’t make capital bear much of the burden of taxes and so the incidence is on laborers and consumers. No, I’m making the simple point that a tax on corporations is a tax on people. I remember that in addressing the issue in the 1980s, the late Herb Stein said that it’s as if people think that if the government imposed a tax on cows, the tax would be paid by the cows. Romney’s passion and clarity on this are admirable. And until now, I’ve found little to admire in Romney. Now, the next step for him—which a patient in a wheel chair tried to help him see but he couldn’t see—is to see that just as taxes on corporations are taxes on people, the war on drugs is not really a war on drugs: it’s a war on people.”
Wonderful and so very thoughtful. But, by all means, let’s make corporations full citizens. It’s high time they were subject to the full tax burden of an individual; they should therefore be subject and required to pay an individual’s tax rates, which, let’s face it, will almost always be the top marginal rates: 35%. Good news there! They should have no problem with this change, as they are now American citizens and because it’s just exactly what they claim they are paying right now. Win/win for Our New Corporate Citizens.
Likewise, any time a person dies or is injured at the hands of a corporation, it can be tried for murder or assault and, if found guilty, this personification of the corporation can be executed or incarcerated (barred from doing business in these United States) for a period of years. Or, if they prefer, the corporate board can stand for the sentence. It all makes perfect sense. After all, corporations are people too! I’m sure they’ll welcome these changes.
The Republicans are serious budget reformers; the lady from Washington, doesn’t do budgets.
It is very amusing to watch people who typically spend a considerable portion of their day shrieking about inflation post a graph that has a discretionary spending rising at less than 2% per year in non-adjusted terms and then claim this doesn’t represent a cut in spending.
Inflation has a well known Liberal bias.
It’s Congress that does the spending. The president is prohibited to do that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a dictator. There would be no reason for Congress to even come to Washington, D.C. He would be making the spending decisions … Clearly that’s unconstitutional.
Steve Benen reports that the Gang of Six, er, Five, er, Six, er five plus Coburn who left but is back again is claiming to have come to terms on a broad budget agreement:
Coburn … noted the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.
Ah. So we’re going to eliminate the AMT, apparently without paying for it (because when has any gang ever actually paid for something), further cut other tax rates, and then, magically, revenues will just rise and rise. Just like they’ve never done in the past. At least we’re finally getting the serious people together over the kitchen table, as it were. Now if we can just placate the unicorn caucus and raise the ceiling to eleventy trillion billion dollars, we’ll have a deal.
Stephanopoulos: In your announcement you said ‘my voice is part of a movement to take back our country.’ From whom?
Bachmann: Well, from the people all across the nation. […]
Stephanopoulos: […] the Pulitzer Prize winning website, Politifact, has found that you have the worst record of making false statements of any of the leading contenders. And I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements. For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true. Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.
Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.
Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…
Bachmann: That’s what people want…they realize our government is taking away our freedom.
Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.
Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….
Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?
Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.
Stephanopoulos: Well let me move on […]
Lemkin: You cannot “move on.” Media Pro Tip: when faced with statements like these, just consider the rest of your planned interview over. Relentlessly dig on this point. JQA was nine years old at the outbreak of the American Revolution. Actively involved? Founding Father? You’ve got to hammer these points, George. Same goes for Bob Schieffer; if she’s actively not answering your questions, don’t just note it in passing at the end of the show, stop asking new questions until the one on the table is addressed. You have all the time in the world for video online. Start using it.
After enacting House Bill 87, a law designed to drive illegal immigrants out of Georgia, state officials appear shocked to discover that HB 87 is, well, driving a lot of illegal immigrants out of Georgia.
[…]
Thanks to the resulting labor shortage, Georgia farmers have been forced to leave millions of dollars’ worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops unharvested and rotting in the fields. It has also put state officials into something of a panic at the damage they’ve done to Georgia’s largest industry.
Barely a month ago, you might recall, Gov. Nathan Deal welcomed the TV cameras into his office as he proudly signed HB 87 into law. Two weeks later, with farmers howling, a scrambling Deal ordered a hasty investigation into the impact of the law he had just signed, as if all this had come as quite a surprise to him.
The results of that investigation have now been released. According to survey of 230 Georgia farmers conducted by Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black, farmers expect to need more than 11,000 workers at some point over the rest of the season, a number that probably underestimates the real need, since not every farmer in the state responded to the survey.
Apparently the market-based solution involves pressing 2,000 unemployed criminal probationers into service. That ought to do it.
Next solution: Children ought to be allowed to “help out” and we can just let the market will decide if such labors are safe enough.
Paul Krugman: David Altig points out that given the recent decline in gasoline prices, we’re likely to see a negative headline inflation number by June. What will the inflationistas say?
Lemkin: They will say that this is definitive proof that further austerity measures must be implemented immediately, the deeper and harsher the better, and preferably coming through brutal cuts to Medicare and the social safety net. Likewise, deep cuts to the tax rates of the top 1% are indicated. What other response is even possible?
[The Republicans are being advised to spend] 2012 accusing the Democrats of sponsoring death panels. The Democrats will spend 2012 accusing Republicans of ending Medicare. Whichever party demagogues best wins.
Lemkin 