Democrats Don't Want A "Fair" Election

How much coffee will be sprayed out of how many nostrils when NY Times readers open their Sunday Times magazine and see this:

QUESTIONS FOR RAY C. FAIR
Bush Landslide (in Theory)!
Interview by Deborah Solomon

Orrin Judd has been following this forever, and provides links to Professor Fair's website.

Comments

[Tom]

I want Bush to win, but I don't trust Fair's model. Any election model that has to be tweaked after almost every election (which is the case here) can't be any good. All Fair is doing is predicting the past with fair accuracy (pun intended).

[J_Crater]

As for the article, I would if he would have been asked if he was a Democrat if he had predicted a Kerry win ? My model says no.

[TM]

Well, he tweaks it with the idea of using newly available data to improve its accuracy. However, his website shows the predictions based on data available up to various cut-off points (IIRC) - for example, using data up to 1984 to predict the 2000 outcome. It still works OK in those scenarios.

[ParseThis]

My first thought was: Long-Term Capital Management

[Steve M.]

Last Sunday's Times had an article that cited Fair's work -- and it had a little caveat that might interest you:

Professor Fair says the model can misfire when the equation doesn't include significant economic factors that may influence the electorate. It lacks a variable for job creation, for example, which may be a sore spot among voters this year.

And the model turned in its worst performance when an incumbent named Bush was seeking re-election. In 1992, the model projected that President George H. W. Bush would win 51.7 percent of the two-party vote and retain the presidency. Instead, he received merely 46.5 percent of the two-party vote and lost.

Heh heh heh.

[Steve M.]

Link for the quote above.

[charles austin]

Ms. Solomon's questions are quite reveaing, don't you think?

"Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?" -- Speaking of unusually reductive... say, is that a new code word?

"But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society." -- Hello..., hello..., hello..., hello..., is there anybody in there..., in there..., in there..., in there...

"It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways." -- This is a stunning sentence on so many levels.

"Are you a Republican?" -- Well, that is the most important question now, isn't it?

(After Professor Fair has indicated he is a Kerry supporter), "I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush." -- Science must be subjugated to the will of the Party! And they wonder why some of us are skeptical when it comes to global warming.

"Perhaps you could create an equation that would calculate how important the forecasts of economists are." -- Obviously, Ms. Solomon wouldn't know an equation if it bit her on the ass. Maybe she could write a piece of journalism explaining how corrupt and unimportant most journalism is becoming today.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Fair's model predicts the shares of the two party vote with great accuracy. In 1992 there was an unusually strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot which must have thrown a monkey wrench into the equation.

And, his model makes a log of sense. As Carville put it, "It's the economy, stupid". Hillary Clinton, for one, must take it seriously, else she'd be the Dem nominee instead of Kerry.

[GT]

Anybody remember back in 2000 when all the 'models' showed Gore winning in a landslide?

Sadly these models are not very useful yet.

[Monique]

If it's the economy , stupid, why should the Democrats be worried? This economy is good? For who, exactly? I understand it's great for the already wealthy, and it's their investment decisions that drive this poll it seems, but they're a minority. For most Americans, times are harder right now than they've been in a long time, and there's a sense that the worst is yet to come. High oil prices, deficit, stagnant wages, all tax breaks going to the ultra rich. Not good.

A big factor in this election will be whether or not new voters actually turn out. I know a lot of college kids are moving heaven and earth to vote this year. It's a little publicized fact that they are legally allowed to vote in the town in which they go to school, if they reside there off campus, which most do. I know it's being publicized like never before, and a lot of kids who didn't want to mess with absentee ballots are registering and planning to vote.

Also, efforts to recruit and assist voting by the poor and disenfranchised, who have felt too hopeless to vote in years past, will hopefully bear a lot of fruit. For all the killing and dying being done in the name of democracy in Iraq, it will be great if some of that actually gets practiced here at home this election. This is a factor models of past years wouldn't be able to account for, and might explain why Kerry has been holding that slim, but consistent, lead over Bush for so long, and why he's cllimbing steadily in the battleground states.

[Monique]

If it's the economy , stupid, why should the Democrats be worried? This economy is good? For who, exactly? I understand it's great for the already wealthy, and it's their investment decisions that drive this poll it seems, but they're a minority. For most Americans, times are harder right now than they've been in a long time, and there's a sense that the worst is yet to come. High oil prices, deficit, stagnant wages, all tax breaks going to the ultra rich. Not good.

A big factor in this election will be whether or not new voters actually turn out. I know a lot of college kids are moving heaven and earth to vote this year. It's a little publicized fact that they are legally allowed to vote in the town in which they go to school, if they reside there off campus, which most do. I know it's being publicized like never before, and a lot of kids who didn't want to mess with absentee ballots are registering and planning to vote.

Also, efforts to recruit and assist voting by the poor and disenfranchised, who have felt too hopeless to vote in years past, will hopefully bear a lot of fruit. For all the killing and dying being done in the name of democracy in Iraq, it will be great if some of that actually gets practiced here at home this election. This is a factor models of past years wouldn't be able to account for, and might explain why Kerry has been holding that slim, but consistent, lead over Bush for so long, and why he's cllimbing steadily in the battleground states.

[Greg F]

Monique repeated:
"... all tax breaks going to the ultra rich."

Proof please.

[Monique]

OK.
Here's two very recent stories that I could find. Sorry for not linking them correctly, but you can figure it out, I'm sure.

Nonpartisan Report Says Tax Cuts Skewed to Rich:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9387968.htm?1c

Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says -Reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_taxes_cbo_dc_3

[Jeff]

Some of my best friends are economists (actually true), but the fact remains that they are practitioners of a voodoo art. The "science" in this social science is mathematical, but that and four bucks will buy you a cup of joe at Starbucks.

Who wants to bet a new book from Powells.com that Kerry wins this election? I won't even add the caveat about a terrorist event.

[Jeff]

Matter of fact, I think Fair will get his 57%--but the candidate will be Kerry. You read it here, folks.

[The Kid]

Nice try, Jeff. 57%?

How many varieties does Heinz have?

This reminds me very little of a senator making wild claims in a movie – was it The Frenchurian Candidate”?

[Greg F]

"Here's two very recent stories that I could find."
Ummmm ... news stories are not proof, they are spoon feeding from journalist who are not exactally math wizzes ... try going to the IRS web site, everything you need is right there.

[Greg F]

"Some of my best friends are economists (actually true), but the fact remains that they are practitioners of a voodoo art."

That is a rather silly appeal to authority.

[Monique]

Not being an economist, the IRS site is all but worthless to me. I'm not relying on the math skills of journalists. The articles state that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of taxpayers received the bulk of the tax cuts, and those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.

Where's the defense to that?

I've heard, layman that I am, that these exorbitant tax cuts, which helped turn a 100 billion dollar surplus to a 400 billion dollar deficit in three short years, were supposed to somehow spur the economy, create jobs, etc. I believe that's the justification for it. So why do we have this huge trade deficit, and poor job creation, stagnant wages, rising household debt, drops in consumer confidence and spending?

I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me. Those responsible for our national debt should be taking the time to explain why these tax cuts were actually so wonderful for the country, to those of us without the benefits of their wisdom.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Anybody remember back in 2000 when all the 'models' showed Gore winning in a landslide?"

Not Fair's model. He showed Gore getting 50.8%, while he actually got 50.3%.

If there is a problem with it, it's that he doesn't have enough data points. Though he using all there are.

[Frank IBC]

I'm still skeptical of this "tax cuts for the super-richest 1%" business, but given that this is simply a repeal of the Clinton administration's atrocious tax INCREASES on said group of taxpayers, would it really be such a bad thing if it was true?

[capt joe]

Well, condering that the top 5-10% of the population pays 65% of the total tax revenue and that the lower 50% pays about 4% of the total revenue, what do you think should happen.

There is this crazy meme saying that the top earners pay no tax. Huh, sorry, but no matter how much you say it, it won't become true.

The fact is that the poor carry little weight in overall tax payment and the "rich" carry most of the system.

next meme, please.

[ParseThis]

If you factor in sales tax, state tax and sundry other fees etc., everybody pretty much pays the same percentage; rich folks a little less now. Lucky duckies getting a 'free ride' is another crazy meme. Anyway, GWB says rich folks find ways not to pay. I think that was in the context of calling them unpatriotic in response to a question concerning our nation's obligations.

[Greg F]

“Not being an economist, the IRS site is all but worthless to me.”

All you need is high school math skills and a willingness to use that gray matter. There is a name that Stalin had for people who followed blindly, he called them “useful idiots”.

“I'm not relying on the math skills of journalists.”

Yes you are. Your relying on journalist that don’t understand what they are writing about nor do you seem to understand what they are writing about. A case of the blind leading the blind.

“…those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.”

The Yahoo link says “Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase…”

Key word here, share. Everybody, and I do mean everybody, had their taxes go down. A simple math example to demonstrate “share”, suppose we have 3 groups that pay the following taxes:

Group 1 – $100
Group 2 – $200
Group 3 – $300

A tax cut is implemented that results in the following:

Group 1 – $ 0
Group 2 – $200
Group 3 – $300

Before the tax cut Group 2 is paying 33.3% of “their share of federal tax payments”. After the tax cut Group 2 is now paying 40% of “their share of federal tax payments” even though their taxes didn’t go up! This is in fact exactly what has happened. The Bush tax cuts have removed about 4 million people from the tax rolls, people who pay no Federal income tax.

The second problem with these articles is the CBO uses a convoluted method by comparing “households” instead of “taxpayers” and fails to account for the change in the number of people in each quintile.

“A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of their relationships.
Quintiles—or fifths of the distribution—are created by dividing the entire population into five parts, each containing the same number of people. Because households vary in size, quintiles generally contain unequal numbers of households.”

In a recession, the people who’s incomes go down are those in the upper brackets. The result is that some people are pushed into a lower quintile. Now what happens? Well since there are fewer people in the highest bracket, even if rates were the same, they would pay a smaller “share” of the taxes. The number of people in the bracket below this highest bracket will increase, therefore so will their “share” of the tax burden. See, just simple math, but you have to decide to engage your brain.

Some of the so called tax reductions are due to changes in laws that govern depreciation for corporations. What does that have to do with people? Well, a popular type of corporation is the “S corporation” which is what a large number of small businesses use. A S corporation allows the owner to file his company taxes on his personal income tax filing. From the CBO report:

“Those provisions to encourage business investment have a significant impact on effective tax rates in each year during the 2002-2008 period, lowering rates in the first three years but raising them in later years (see Table B-1).”

The law only defers the taxes by allowing a business to write off an asset quicker thus giving larger deductions in fewer years. The total amount that can be deducted, and consequentially the tax savings, still remains the same in either case.

“I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me.”

Then I would suggest Thomas Sowells “Basic Economics”. The book is not math based, rather it is written to give a empirical feel for how economies work. Sowell uses historical examples to explain the economic mechanics. Basic economics is not hard to understand but it is not intuitive, and it is NOT voodoo. Unfortunately most journalist resort to the faulty intuitive method. Suffice to say, most of politicians economic promises, claims of credit, or blame, for the economy doing good or bad, is nonsense (both parties). It should be no surprise that the CBO consistently turns out such trash on a regular basis.

[Greg F]

ParseThis pontificated:
"If you factor in sales tax, state tax and sundry other fees etc., everybody pretty much pays the same percentage;"

Oh poppycock! Try supplying some proof of that.

[Monique]

Well, thanks for the explanation (partial), Greg F. I could have done without the insult and ridicule, but I've come to learn that is fundamental to the Conservative method of debate.

What you did NOT do was refute the basis of the articles. Have the rich benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts? Without insult, or intuition, can you explain that.

I can explain without intuition or voodoo that my life has gotten more expensive on every level in the past four years. And I now spend virtually nothing. Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up. School taxes very rapidly. As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut? I have postponed every purchase from home repair to new work clothes. I have modified my household budget to eat less expensive foods, as it now costs much more to fuel my car for the commute. My neighbor is teaching me car repair since I am driving a 1986 Buick, and don't see any way to buy a new one any year soon. I am in a very stagnant place financially, despite working most Saturdays for a boss who, knowing the stiff job market, considers that part of my salaried obligation. In the last year, 4 people have left our company - a real estate and land use legal firm (business booming)- and none have been hired, making the work load exorbitant for those who remain. One of the partners however took a 3 month trip to Asia with his girlfriend, the other two are in Nantucket with the grandkids for the summer. As they told us joyfully at the Christmas party, we have had a bountiful year. However, there were no raises. Reinvestment in the workforce does not seem to be the priority the trickle-downers had promised it was. Apparently they trust us to run their firm, as well they should - we are skilled and responsible employees - but that does not translate to respect or reward. Everyone who works here wants to leave, but the job market is ice cold, giving employers everywhere all the leverage.

Is it voodoo or intuition that tells me John Edwards' Two Americas is a reality?

[Pouncer]

"Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up. School taxes very rapidly. As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut? ...Is it voodoo or intuition that tells me John Edwards' Two Americas is a reality? "

My sympathies. I feel your pain. (I drive a '92 Buick, myself!)

I'm trying to figure out the causal links in which cuts in the Federal Income Tax forced state and city tax rates up. Likewise I'm still working out exactly how empowering a Kerry administration to RAISE federal tax rates (on the wealthy or on all) will somehow force -- or even encourage -- states and cities to LOWER their taxes. It's very confusing.

About the best approximation to a working hypothesis I've come up with is to generalize from my own experience. My tax PAYMENTS are up, (but not the RATES) because my home is being APPRAISED higher and higher. But though I've protested the appraisal at appropriate hearings, it does in fact turn out that homes -- like mine, in my neighborhood -- are selling briskly at higher and higher prices Plus new houses are being built all over. More and more families are qualifying for mortgages (this, confusingly, despite the bad economy) and are bidding up the properties, thereby bidding up the taxable value, thereby increasing my state and local property tax payments.

Now, if Kerry leaned on the Fed to boost interest rates way higher, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac start foreclosing and dumping houses back on the market, and if the new homeowners, (mostly blacks, Hispanics, and single mothers) were pushed down to Clinton-era fractions of the home owning pool, then appraisals and valuations might fall. (But then, states and cities would probably feel "forced" to raise RATES! You can't win...)

[Pouncer]

The second problem with these articles is the CBO uses a convoluted method

“A household consists of the people who share a housing unit, regardless of their relationships.
Quintiles—or fifths of the distribution—are created by dividing the entire population into five parts, each containing the same number of people. Because households vary in size, quintiles generally contain unequal numbers of households.”

Okay THAT's weird. So say the entire population was 100 people. Ten people are crammed into one ghetto apartment and form one househould in the lowest quintile? Three families of nearly 7 each form the second quintile? Four familes of five each form the third; seven families of two-point-something form the fourth, and ten families of two empty-nesters each form the fifth.

So the per-capita income in each quintile is wildly skewed, yeah.

It's not at all obvious to me how such a method of demographic profiling helps much...

[capt joe]

Thanks Greg, I was going to say a synonym of "poppycock" but you beat me to it. ;)

[Jeff]

The fact is that the poor carry little weight in overall tax payment and the "rich" carry most of the system.

I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources. Part of this statement is wrong in fact, part of it is wrong in emphasis.

The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%. The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked since the conservative backlash of the late 70s and 80s. The rich don't earn the bulk of their money through paychecks, so they dodge that bullet. (In 1950, corporate taxes were 27%, payroll taxes 7%; now it's a flip to 10% and 31%)

Incomes, similarly, are split. While the top 20% saw their incomes increase 38% since Reagan, the middle 20% saw theirs decline by 3%. And they're in more debt. In 1950, household debt as a percentage of annual personal income (after tax) stood at 38%. By 2000, it had climbed to 94%.

My source for all these data is the invaluable Wealth and Democracy by by conservative Kevin Phillips.

So to the notion that the poor carry little weight--factually incorrect propoganda spread by the ultrarich through their corporate media. The poor are keeping the economy afloat and the rich are reaping ALL the rewards.

You're also wrong to emphasize the "they earn more so they pay more" argument. Only a fool would disagree, but the argument misses the point. Even while the extremely rich have gotten richer, their taxes have been cut. Everyone else has to pick up the tab.

And let's not forget spending, the other half of the equation. Conservatives used to pay attention to both halves of the ledger, but now they only look at taxes. But Bush has been the most profligate big spender since Reagan. No potential donor goes unrewarded--from steel to farms to media empires. All of that costs, and the burden has simultaneously been shifted away from the ones who receive the benefit.

The poor and middle class are true heroes of the American economy. The rich have in the main behaved no better than carjackers.

[Monique]

I agree that the poor and middle class are the heroes in our culture at this point. The poor are fighting this dirty war, the middle class is carrying the sick economy on its extremely tired back. The rich seem to be suffering from what I've heard called "sore winner syndrome", i.e. even though they've never had it better, they still want to stick the last screw to whoever they can.

Just as the Swift Boaters were dismissed as bitter liars because they wouldn't admit their real agenda was anger at Kerry's postwar activities, the attacks by the rich to me are greatly diminished by their callous feelings of entitlement to so much more of our society's blessings than they would grant to other levels of the social strata.

The attacks against Kerry's vote against the 87 billion is a perfect case in point. He had proposed an amended version rescinding the foolish tax cuts on the ultra rich - a version Bush stated outright he would VETO. (That deserves some publicity, hopefully soon.) So he cast a vote against the irresponsible version Bush wanted,in protest, knowing it would pass anyway by a huge majority, knowing the troops would not be left wanting.

Bush keeps saying "What complexity? Supporting troops is a simple idea." But when he says that he counts on the stupidity of the masses, like I've found Conservatives almost always do in conversations I have with them. My guess is the common people will have no trouble understanding this at all, and when it is presented in the right forum (debates), will be a point very much in Kerry's favor.

The point basically is that I think Conservatives would be less confused about Kerry's strong, and consistently growing, support (especially on things like the economy) if they stopped looking down on all of us who pay the taxes they don't want to pay, and fight the war they would NEVER let their children fight. If Bush hadn't treated the poor and middle class like such redheaded stepchildren these past three years, maybe now he wouldn't be scrambling to play catch up, chasing after John Kerry coast to coast, and throwing one smear attempt after another out at a public that has become all but smear-immune. And it's too late now. People get it.

[Greg F]

“I could have done without the insult and ridicule…”

Kettle meet pot.

“…but I've come to learn that is fundamental to the Conservative method of debate.”

One of your favorite fallacies, the straw man. Monique, your posts are filled with condescending comments filled with “insult and ridicule”. Here are some examples all from one post.

“…they [the rich] still want to stick the last screw to whoever they can.”

Sure Monique, they want to poison your children too.

“…Swift Boaters were dismissed as bitter liars.”

When you can’t argue the merits just call them names.

“…the attacks by the rich…”

More socialist jargon, ad misericordiam. When you can’t argue the merits just call them names.

“…rescinding the foolish tax cuts on the ultra rich…”

Yes of course, they must be foolish, after all Monique says so. After all she is an expert at economics. After all Monique said “I may not be well versed in economics, but these seem like fairly simple questions to me.”

“…he counts on the stupidity of the masses , like I've found Conservatives almost always do in conversations I have with them. …”

More ad hominem attacks from Monique.

“ I think Conservatives would be less confused…”

Arrogant. If you don’t accept Monique’s view of the world you must be confused.

“they would NEVER let their children fight.”

Another straw man argument from Monique, and one that is so devoid of reality. Time to take a good look in the mirror Monique.

[capt joe]

Greg, I think I just heard some glass cracking. ;)

[Greg F]

“What you did NOT do was refute the basis of the articles.”

Your shifting the goal posts again Monique.
1) You made the claim that “all tax breaks going to the ultra rich."
2) I asked for proof.
3) You provided links and claimed “those in the $50-75K bracket actually saw their taxes rise.”
4) I quoted the Yahoo article that said “Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase …” I then provided a simple math example to show how the “share” could increase without "taxes" increasing.

IOW, the merits of your argument were found lacking.

“Both my state taxes, school taxes and town taxes have gone up.”

Non Sequitur, the subject was Federal taxes.

“As for federal taxes, there was a tax cut?”

Yes there was, unless of course you were in the growing group that doesn’t pay any.

“I am in a very stagnant place financially…”

And whose fault is that?

“In the last year, 4 people have left our company - a real estate and land use legal firm…”

If your not happy then perhaps you should do the same.

“As they told us joyfully at the Christmas party, we have had a bountiful year. However, there were no raises.”

And you have done what to raise your economic value to this firm? You deserve a raise because?

“Reinvestment in the workforce does not seem to be the priority the trickle-downers had promised it was.”

Ad misericordiam. Just elect Kerry and your bosses will see the light. Since you work for a law firm that deals with real estate, and your not a lawyer, what could they possible “reinvest in the workforce” that would be of any value?

“Everyone who works here wants to leave, but the job market is ice cold, giving employers everywhere all the leverage.”

But “4 people have left”! It is convenient to blame someone or something for your decisions but not very useful.

[Monique]

Thanks, Greg, for reinforcing every stereotype I've ever held about the arrogance of the Conservative Right.

You entirely missed the thrust of my post. The job market doesn't give us the fluidity to move along. One of the four who left was forced out for missing work due to a benign brain tumor. And my financial worth to the company must be something, since I'm the only one who can't take a vacation this summer. I've run the real estate department myself all summer while the partners and associates took in the sun. Reinvestment in the workforce might mean, oh I dunno, letting staff participate in profit sharing like associates do, paying them a fair wage out of the profits they create for the company, buying some kind of health care plan that actually PAYED for some of their health care costs. Y'know stupid things like that. Why don't you get your head out of your dogma and look at the real world around you, where 1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS. Where more credit collectors were hired than manufacturing jobs all together.

You willfully missed my point, Mr. Conservative, and you know it. Employers hold ALL the cards these days. I'm a widow with three teenagers. How the hell am I going to leave a job? And please consult your Conservative Bible to let me know which decision I'm blaming someone for - being a widow or having three kids. You people really do suck, just as basic human beings. There's no decency behind that facade of being "great Amurricans".

We need a President that gives a shit about
health care, about overtime, about rewarding labor rather than just rewarding unearned wealth, about health and safety in the workplace. We need some protections other than the asinine notion that if you give rich people more money, they will spend it on anything other than satisfying their bottomless greed.

You've basically followed the script of every arrogant, entitled Conservative white male in the book. And man, you MUST be confused. Why AREN'T your fellow citizens swallowing the slop the Swift Boaters are dishing out? Why ARE Kerry's poll numbers rising in the battle ground states? Why is there so much momentum to getting W. out of office?

You've answered all those questions very nicely. Enjoy your ONE vote, Greg. Just remember, we all get one too, and your blustering arrogance can never change that. The momentum for Kerry and Edwards right now is something I can overhear on every supermarket line, gas station, water cooler, doctors waiting room, etc. I visit. It's amazing.

The balancing of fundamental American Democracy with rampant Capitalist greed has never be

[Monique]

Thanks, Greg, for reinforcing every stereotype I've ever held about the arrogance of the Conservative Right.

You entirely missed the thrust of my post. The job market doesn't give us the fluidity to move along. One of the four who left was forced out for missing work due to a benign brain tumor. And my financial worth to the company must be something, since I'm the only one who can't take a vacation this summer. I've run the real estate department myself all summer while the partners and associates took in the sun. Reinvestment in the workforce might mean, oh I dunno, letting staff participate in profit sharing like associates do, paying them a fair wage out of the profits they create for the company, buying some kind of health care plan that actually PAYED for some of their health care costs. Y'know stupid things like that. Why don't you get your head out of your dogma and look at the real world around you, where 1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS. Where more credit collectors were hired than manufacturing jobs all together.

You willfully missed my point, Mr. Conservative, and you know it. Employers hold ALL the cards these days. I'm a widow with three teenagers. How the hell am I going to leave a job? And please consult your Conservative Bible to let me know which decision I'm blaming someone for - being a widow or having three kids. You people really do suck, just as basic human beings. There's no decency behind that facade of being "great Amurricans".

We need a President that gives a shit about
health care, about overtime, about rewarding labor rather than just rewarding unearned wealth, about health and safety in the workplace. We need some protections other than the asinine notion that if you give rich people more money, they will spend it on anything other than satisfying their bottomless greed.

You've basically followed the script of every arrogant, entitled Conservative white male in the book. And man, you MUST be confused. Why AREN'T your fellow citizens swallowing the slop the Swift Boaters are dishing out? Why ARE Kerry's poll numbers rising in the battle ground states? Why is there so much momentum to getting W. out of office?

You've answered all those questions very nicely. Enjoy your ONE vote, Greg. Just remember, we all get one too, and your blustering arrogance can never change that. The momentum for Kerry and Edwards right now is something I can overhear on every supermarket line, gas station, water cooler, doctors waiting room, etc. I visit. It's amazing.

The balancing of fundamental American Democracy with rampant Capitalist greed has never been more dangerous than it is right now. It will be sweet watching your big bloated asses get kicked on Election Day.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique, chill. Your problems aren't due to evil Republicans. You caught a bad break with your husband passing away and, now you find your options constrained. I'm very sorry about that but, you can't go projecting all your problems on malevolent outside forces. It is simply not possible to significantly change your situation by government fiat. If it were, Bill Clinton would have waved his sceptre and made it so in the 8 years he was in office.

The old "1/3rd of Bush's job creation was in TEMP JOBS" kind of line is standard Democrat boilerplate. They resurrect the McJobs allegation, along with the armies of the homeless, everytime a Republican is president. It's a bunch of hooey. The President does not create jobs, he can only help make job creation easier for the private sector. And, this President has done that. While you may be blinded by envy for the people whom you do not believe deserve a tax break, the fact of the matter is that Bush's economic policy has been a textbook example of what you do when you have a slowing economy, such as the one Bill Clinton handed off to him (financial professionals were aware that a recession was in the offing as early as Spring of 2000, when short and long term bond yields inverted their usual relationship, a strong leading indicator of a tightening economy).

There are tradeoffs in everything. Europe has universal health care and more stringent worker protections. They also have endemic high unemployment, a lower general standard of living, overburdened and substandard medical facilities, etcetera. It is a social order in which people do not move readily between classes but, generally end up in life in the same milieu in which they began. In this country, the majority of people prefer to trust themselves over the government, and to allow upward mobility to those who strive for it.

When I was a teenager, my mother was not widowed but, she was divorced and, I spent countless hours listening to harangues just like yours. Now, she remembers those as some of the best years of her life. Of course, I take care of her now. My advice: make sure at least one of your kids enters a profession where they can make enough money to take care of you when you're old. If you are uninsured or lose your insurance, health care is available to the uninsured but, it's best to be close to where it's offered. The federal and state government generally support university hospitals that cater to people with no medical insurance. Oddly enough, it's some of the best health care around.

Trust me, you do not want the kind of sclerotic economy that massive government control inevitably produces. You want your kids to have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and make the best of their lives. I personally know several people who started lives in modest circumstances who are now multi-millionaires (wish I was one of them). An undergraduate engineering degree is probably the best place to start in our increasingly technoligical society. Plus, at a lot of engineering schools, you can work summers with potential employers under a co-op program to significantly defray the cost of tuition.

One more bit of advice: if you know that you are a valuable employee whom they would have difficulty doing without, you may need to have a little more spine in angling for vacation time and bonuses or raises.

[Greg F]

“I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources. Part of this statement is wrong in fact, part of it is wrong in emphasis.”

I love it when people make statements like this then fail to use a credible source. This is especially true when they avoid the hard numbers and throw out percentages.

“The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked since the conservative backlash of the late 70s and 80s.”

An assertion without proof. First the “payroll” tax is the social security pyramid scheme that was brought to you by FDR. The reason it has “spiked” (started at 2% ) is because it is a pyramid scheme is designed to buy votes. The first recipients of the Social Security boondoggle paid exactly zero into the system. The reason the tax has been raised is first, expanding of benefits (it was suppose to be a supplement to retirement, not the soul source). Second reason, the baby boomers. IOW, disaster was built into the system from day one. The historical rates were as follows:

1937 – 1949 2%
1955 – 4%
1960 – 6%
1965 – 7.25%
1970 – 9.6%
1975 – 11.7%
1980 – 12.26%
1985 – 14.1%
1990 – 15.3%

The rate today is as it was in 1990, 15.3%. It is evident that the rates did not “spike” but rather slowly rose over the decades. As most of you should note the rates have stayed the same for the last 14 years. For those who would like to turn this into political fodder it should also be noted that the Democrats controlled congress (can we say purse strings?) over the period of rising rates. Blaming “conservative backlash” is plain ignorance.

The present rate, including the hidden employer funded half, is 15.3%. From the IRS tax statistics 01in02sr we find that the average tax rate for all taxpayers is 21.7%. Include the Social Security taxes and we arrive at 37%.

“The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%.”

The fact is your facts are in serious error. That is not surprising considering your source (hint: Kevin Phillips is not a conservative, he despised Regan and was a member of Nixon’s administration, the administration that brought you such conservative institutions such as the EPA).

I would love to dissect this further but it is getting late. Suffice to say, when you muck up something as simple as the historical rates for the payroll tax, your credibility suffers.

[Monique]

Compassionate Conservative, I still don't agree with your philosophy, but I appreciate your not being a total asshole like Greg.

I know you believe these Conservative priniciples make a better life. I do not. Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. It isn't just me. It is pretty much everyone I know. My neigborhood has Kerry lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up everywhere.

It's also interesting you bring up Europe, as I have relatives in Ireland. Maybe not much social mobility, but also less social mobility needed. My uncle is the town librarian, post officer and policeman. His wife works for the City of Limerick, recieved paid leaves for the births of all her children, and another extended one when one of the children became seriously ill. For contrast, my friend was forced out after 12 years of loyal employment because she needed time off to deal with a benign brain tumor. They have a hell of a life over there in Ireland, with real compassion for others part of their blood and bones. Not much social mobility, but a fine quality of life and a hell of a lot less pressure to beat the Jones as well. It's a pretty nice payoff. I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty.

Your compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron in my opinion. Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much.

I know I've irritated you all by being here, and I'll let it go. It seemed to me you all were very confused by why your Swift Boat smear attempt hadn't generated the kind of interest you had hoped. I hear the same confusion on conservative news stations wondering why the economy is not considered a plus for Bush. I say again, maybe if you stopped looking for ways to link your conservative dogma to the situation, and instead looked at the reality of the lives of your fellow Americans you would be able to get a clue as to why there is a such a good chance you will be waking up to President Kerry on Nov. 3. "It's the economy, stupid."

[Monique]

Compassionate Conservative, I still don't agree with your philosophy, but I appreciate your not being a total asshole like Greg.

I know you believe these Conservative priniciples make a better life. I do not. Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. It isn't just me. It is pretty much everyone I know. My neigborhood has Kerry lawn signs and bumper stickers popping up everywhere.

It's also interesting you bring up Europe, as I have relatives in Ireland. Maybe not much social mobility, but also less social mobility needed. My uncle is the town librarian, post officer and policeman. His wife works for the City of Limerick, recieved paid leaves for the births of all her children, and another extended one when one of the children became seriously ill. For contrast, my friend was forced out after 12 years of loyal employment because she needed time off to deal with a benign brain tumor. They have a hell of a life over there in Ireland, with real compassion for others part of their blood and bones. Not much social mobility, but a fine quality of life and a hell of a lot less pressure to beat the Jones as well. It's a pretty nice payoff. I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty.

Your compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron in my opinion. Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much.

I know I've irritated you all by being here, and I'll let it go. It seemed to me you all were very confused by why your Swift Boat smear attempt hadn't generated the kind of interest you had hoped. I hear the same confusion on conservative news stations wondering why the economy is not considered a plus for Bush. I say again, maybe if you stopped looking for ways to link your conservative dogma to the situation, and instead looked at the reality of the lives of your fellow Americans you would be able to get a clue as to why there is a such a good chance you will be waking up to President Kerry on Nov. 3. "It's the economy, stupid."

[Paul Zrimsek]

For Jeff's future reference, here is the CBO's estimate of total effective tax rates by income class for 2001 (which should be more or less contemporaneous with the most recent data used by Phillips):

Lowest quintile - 5.4%
Second quintile - 11.6%
Middle quintile - 15.2%
Fourth quintile - 19.3%
Highest quintile - 26.8%
Top 10% - 28.6%
Top 5% - 30.1%
Top 1% - 33.0%

More details, including figures from prior years and breakdown by type of tax, available here.

[capt joe]

Sophistry, thy name is Monique.

Shorter Monique, "Weeee hatesss conservativessss foreeever!" Loved your movie role. great character.

[Jeff]

Greg, thanks for returning to the numbers. I thought we were going down the rhetorical rabbit hole there. On the issue of "spiking"--this is a matter of interpretation. During the "great compression" (the progressive era from '32-'68) the middle class saw their income increase at something a little closer to what the rich saw. In previous periods, during the Guilded Age and the Roaring 20s, the middle class and poor got squat while the upper quintile (and particularly upper 5%) made out like bandits. So, looking at your data (I don't have any handy, and that looks roughly like I remember), we see that during the latter years of the progressive era, payroll taxes were about half what they are now. "Spike" may have been the wrong word. Steady hike, how about?

(Meanwhile, income taxe rates on the wealthy have plummeted. And I'm sticking with that word. You have to pay the bills, and we've made a conscious effort to shift that burdent from owners to workers.)

After that, you sort of petered out, not addressing my points on debt and stagnating incomes. Presumably this is because the facts speak for themselves.

One last note on Phillips. You're dead wrong in saying he's not conservative. He is a classic old-school conservative (pre-Reagan), one of the conservatives who believed in fiscal sanity, smaller government, and competition in the marketplace. The redefinition of conservative to square it with Reagan and Bush's social conservatism ignores their radical departure from fiscal conservatism of the last century.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

Monique,

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. The grass is very green in Ireland but, you will have to discover for yourself how tasty it is.

While it is true that your uncle's wife may have gotten time off for her child's illness, your friend with the brain tumor should have been eligible for unemployment benefits and workman's comp. And, she should have a much easier time finding a new job when she is better than your aunt in Ireland.

"Conservatism is based on the idea that those in need are of a lesser quality than those who have much."

Actually, American conservatism is more along the lines of, those who produce are to be given incentives to do so.

"Under Clinton, without understanding all the whys and wherefores, we at least had some disposable income. "

Monique, if you do not understand all the whys and wherefores, you should not be so quick to make judgements. The 1990's were a unique time when the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and the birth and maturation of a fantastic new technological innovation called the internet came together to foster an era of special prosperity. It had very little to do with Clinton and, as I have stated, the shine was beginning to come off prior to his ever leaving office. Clinton was not a magician, just a very lucky guy.

"I am all but decided that that's where I'll spend my retirement, not mooching off my kids or living in grungy American style poverty."

I'd almost take offense at that. I do not consider my mother a "mooch". She is the woman who brought me into this world and nourished my body and soul into adulthood. And, I daresay poverty is grungy just about anywhere.

[Compassionate Conservative]

er... not workman's comp but Disability, rather. Sorry about the double post. This interface is a little balky...

[Compassionate Conservative]

er..., not workman's comp but Disability payments, rather. Sorry about the double post everyone. This interface is a little balky.

[Monique]

Disability pays $170 a week. Meanwhile, COBRA insurance payments cost her over $550 a month.

The system is stacked against the little guy. Probably it always has been. Capitalism thrives, IMO, because it is a natural science, based on the most reliable of human motives: greed and self interest. But capitalism unfettered is the law of the jungle. And American Capitalism, where every little baby can grow up to be a millionaire, theoretically, sounds like a Las Vegas crap shoot more than anything else.

What we have now is an administration that has sought to curtail overtime pay for lower paid workers, done nothing to help workers manage health care costs and that has overseen deregulation in every case for the benefit of the corporation and against the safety and health of both consumers and employees. If the system was always bad for the little guys, now it is becoming terrifyingly so. There is a sense among my friends and neighbors that we NEED to get this administration out of office, for our own survival. It is that visceral for us.

The economy is not the only reason we need Bush out. We are parents. I myself have three healthy, athletic sons, none of whom I wish to see dressed in body armor. We believe in science, in Kerry's optimism about investing in non fossil fuels and technologies, which could become another economy booster like the computer industry was. We hate this administration's secrecy, its loyalty oaths, the willful misrepresentations that put our soldiers in such a hopeless situation, their trampling of the Constitution, their manipulation of religious bigotry...among a host of other things.

It's not just the economy. It's everything. But the common thread is the economy. That's where we feel most hopeless and most unprotected.

Glad it's not just me with the double posting blip. And thanks again for your civility. I find it refreshing...Also, Ireland tastes lovely - guess you've never tried it. As a pretty patriotic American, Coast Guard veteran myself actually, I'd never considered expatriating myself until recently. One of their biggest beefs, throughout Europe, is US arrogance that there is something golden and untouchable about our democracy. They have a very thriving democracy over there, thank you very much, and don't appreciate the arrogance. As Bush's recent visit proved. First American President they don't respect and admire.

[Jim Glass]

"The facts: as a percentage of taxable income, the top 1% are now paying roughly the same as the median family--about 25%. The reason is because payroll taxes have spiked"

Mr. Zrimsek has provided the data and link to more on that. Suffice it to say that 33% <> 15%.

"Incomes, similarly, are split. While the top 20% saw their incomes increase 38% since Reagan, the middle 20% saw theirs decline by 3%."

Family income, average for the middle quintile, the mid 20%...

1981: $42,087 (2001 dollars)
2001: $51,538
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f03.html

That looks a lot more like up 22% than down 3% to me.

It's also worth remembering that the typical household steps up through the quintiles with age -- income rises with age -- so that the median household ends up in the top half of the second-highest quintile (after starting out in the second lowest), according to the Census. Sort of an economic Lake Woebegon effect. The great majority become well above median in time.

When this typical rise through the quintiles is factored in, "lifetime income inequality" turns out to be a lot smaller than a simple look at all those quintiles appears to indicate.

Two NYC public school teachers married to each other join the New Plutocracy of Top 5% by income households when seniority gets them to the top of the union pay scale.

"I love when people speak authoritatively and fail to cite their sources... My source for all these data is the invaluable Wealth and Democracy by by conservative Kevin Phillips."

I love when people get righteous about data sources, then go cite third-hand ones with axes to grind such as the likes of Kevin Phillips, when all the primary sources such as the Census, BLS, BEA, CBO and IRS SOI are right on the web just like this blog, a mere click away.