I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Anonymous

River_Rat wrote:

Yeah, well to tell the other side Snyder says he's not trying to break the unions or take over the cities and schools, but the bills say otherwise.  Also he axed the tax breaks to movie studios, which was a new industry here and lots of movies were being shot here.  Well, there won't be many being made after the credit is gone, which also is going to cause a big hit to the public employees' pension plan which guaranteed $18 million in bonds to develop a studio.  

So you object to the tax breaks to all businesses across the board, but want to keep the specialized break that only applies to the movie studio? 

Was that pension plan required to invest in the studio, or did they see it as a good investment?  Is the taxpayer supposed to guarantee the returns on that investment?

Small businesses are the creators of most new jobs.  Movie crews tend to bring in many of their own people, with only  a minor effect on the local economy.  Spreading those tax breaks over a wider variety of businesses might just help jump start the state's economy, and isn't that the real way out of the hole that most states are in? 

Enjoyful

NO, PatMom.  You put the money in the hands of consumers, the ever-shrinking middle class.  Demand goes up, businesses hire.  What good is a tax cut to businesses if they won't hire more people due to lack of demand?

crazy4carrots

Starting a movie industry in Michigan was a darn good idea -- even though it's going to diminish the Toronto industry <sigh>  You see PatMom, studios do not bring in their own crews from Hollywood because it costs too much.  They hire local talent, and the industry feeds into other industries -- like catering, car leasing, etc. etc.  All in all, it boosts the local economy enormously, and puts people to work -- so they can actually buy stuff that all those small businesses produce.  But it seems the Governor can't see the forest for the trees.......

River_Rat

Actually, I was reading that the movie business was bringing into the state $6 - $7 dollars for every dollar of the credit going out.  Now if I can only find a link.  And they hire local and bring some in.  I have a friend whose son has been busily employed here in a really good off-camera, union job - and working with all the big actors.

I'm against taking away the Earned Income Credit to give an across the board tax break to businesses that have been hoarding their money rather than spending it when those that get the EIC spend their money.  Also much of our tax structure is already tilted to hurt the poor.  Much of our tax is a sales tax.  Rich people don't spend all of their money so they have a lot of money that isn't taxed that way.  Poor people don't have the option of stashing a lot of money aside, they spend it and so a sales tax is more burdensome to them. 

River_Rat

Didn't find the link for what the movie industry is bringing in yet, will continue looking, but I did find some links for those interested in what is going on in Michigan and elsewhere.

A look at how the tax changes impinge on different income levels:

http://www.milhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/FactSheetAllPainNoGain.pdf 

The power that the governor and the financial managers will have: 

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/charlie_leduff/the-power-of-an-emergency-financial-manager 

A tiny bit on one of the big players behind all of this (hint, not one person, it's a group and they're active all over the place.  It's a group worth looking into beyond, try Google): 

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/10/the-big-political-player-youve-never-heard-of/ 

River_Rat

Aha, the elusive link:

"A study released today that was conducted by the accounting firm Ernst & Young says the incentives generate nearly $6 in economic activity for every dollar spent on the tax breaks....

... • Eighty percent of the 4,656 indirect jobs that the movie business has created in Michigan have occurred in five industries: food services, business services, rentals and repairs, personal services and retail."

More at the link: 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110221/BUSINESS06/102210377 

Anonymous

According to the article, that works out to a direct cost to taxpayers of more than $9,000 per job created. 

Wabbit

Not really.  You are forgetting the ripple effect.  People with jobs spend money ... which means sales taxes are collected for one thing ... and that money spent also creates other jobs or keeps other businesses going.  

Doesn't matter how much of a tax break a business gets if they have no customers with money to spend. 

People without jobs draw unemployment and don't buy much of anything. 

Enjoyful

Just wanted to post a link to this CBC article and give kudos to our Canadian friends:

"Japan's ambassador to Canada, Kaoro Ishikawa, said Ottawa was one of the first governments to offer support in the immediate aftermath of the disaster."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/14/pol-japan-aid.html?ref=rss 

1Athena1

Did any of you see the videos of the water overtaking everything in Japan. Beyond Armageddon. How awful. If we are going to hug places,

(((((((Japan)))))))

Beesie

I'm jumping in late here but I wanted to say that I found the earlier discussion on straight ticket voting to be really interesting.  I haven't had much time to dig around, but I found these two articles that suggest that the % of straight ticket voting seems to be quite high - at least in Texas:

"But a survey of the votes cast in the state of Texas shows that more people opted to vote a straight party this November than in any election in more than a decade. According to the survey, 57.7% of those that voted in the November 2nd election did so by selecting the straight Republican or straight Democratic bubble found at the top of the ballot. This is a significant jump from recent elections (45% in 2006; 49.6% in 2002; 47.6% in 1998)."  Get Straight Ticket Voting Off the Ballot

More info on Texas:  http://www.austincc.edu/cppps/pdfs/straightticket.pdf 

I agree with the others who've commented that in Canada it would be better if we didn't have the "first past the post" system.  I would prefer a system that incorporates at least some degree of proportional representation.  That would probably lead to minority governments almost all the time but I prefer minority governments to majority governments - I think they are more representative.  I think that because the government is forced to fight for it's political life on an on-going basis, it leads to more compromise and a greater willingness to implement policies that might not be completely consistent with the views of just the governing party.  I agree that our current Conservative minority government sometimes appears to be operating as if they had the majority but I do see some compromises (occasionally!) and shifts to the left in their approach, versus what I think it would be if they had the majority.  

When I have more time I'll see if I can find anything about straight ticket voting in other states. 

Enjoyful

Another explosion in Japan reported...

iodine

Oh, no.  Not only horrible for them, but it sets back our nuclear programs by 100 years.  Those poor people.  Lost families, homes, any structure.  I just cannot even imagine.  Prayers for them all.  And especially for the first responders who have to go thru it all.

Anonymous

WhiteRabbit wrote:

Not really.  You are forgetting the ripple effect.  People with jobs spend money ... which means sales taxes are collected for one thing ... and that money spent also creates other jobs or keeps other businesses going.  

Doesn't matter how much of a tax break a business gets if they have no customers with money to spend. 

People without jobs draw unemployment and don't buy much of anything. 

I'm guessing that's why the state wants to spread those tax breaks around to a variety of businesses, especially those that are willing to put down roots in Michigan for the long term.  Film crews come into an area for a few months at a time, and they create jobs during that time, but then the production is over, and so are the jobs.  If another film crew comes in, they also hire, but not necessarily the same people, so there is still that instability in the local economy. 

crazy4carrots

Thanks for your posting Enjoyful.  Yes, Canada was among the first nations to offer assistance, with our expertise in earthquake research and nuclear reactors.  

Iodine, what's happening in Japan is beyond our imaginations.  The saving grace (if there is such a thing in the midst of the growing disaster) is that Japan has the infrastructure, the knowledge and the industry that it takes to overcome it.  But just as Japan was beginning the long recovery from a two-decades long economic downturn, this is just the worst that could happen.  (((((((((Japan))))))))

Anonymous

lindasa wrote:

But just as Japan was beginning the long recovery from a two-decades long economic downturn, this is just the worst that could happen.  (((((((((Japan))))))))

This isn't the worst that could happen, and hopefully the scientists will be able to get things back under control and we won't see the infinitely worse scenarios of  nuclear meltdown from one or more reactors.   

I do agree with your sentiment ((((((((((Japan))))))))))).

annettek

you said it right blue...and here in texas they our coming after the disabled...like my kid...there is a definite theme here and it is wrong. They can't fight back....argh...there is a march scheduled the end of the month and although I have not participated in a march since I was passionate teenager believing in change...this old lady is gonna walk...with estimated thousands of the disabled and their families...my son does not use his medicaid because I am lucky enough to have an awesome insurance policy through my job that allows disabled children to be kept on your policy forever past the legal age of adulthood. I cry to think of what will happen to those without such an umbrella if they get the already crappy services cut to them...or to my son if my insurance or job changed...the only reason we have that rider is the owner of my company has a son with down's syndrome so he *gets* it.  It all smacks of Solyent Green (ok, I am being a bit dramatic) and other thought processes that believe in  anything along the lines of natural selection, social darwinism or eugenics..not a good thing for us as human beings.

IronJawedBCAngel

Unfortunately, we seem to be sending more and more representatives to state and national offices who wish to target the poor and the unhealthy.  You are fortunate to have that policy to shelter your son from those who would deprive him of what he needs.  Did you see this story?

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/245163/lawmaker-advocates-eugenics 

BarbaraA

IJBCA, disgusting!

Bren-2007

And how does this fool keep getting elected.

Bren

bluedahlia

Bren, lots of heartless people out there.  Parkinson's on them, I say!

AnneW

Now, Blue, (gently chiding) you wouldn't really wish PD on your worst enemy, would you?

I've been reading about torture methods in Tudor England. Those sound more deserving!! (Just kidding. Someone keeps electing these buffoons...)

Gotta scrounge my FB page for an interesting article I read...back in a flash.

AnneW

What if we're not broke?

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, March 14, 2011;

"We're broke."

You can practically break a search engine if you start looking around the Internet for those words. They're used repeatedly with reference to our local, state and federal governments, almost always to make a case for slashing programs - and, lately, to go after public-employee unions. The phrase is designed to create a sense of crisis that justifies rapid and radical actions before citizens have a chance to debate the consequences.

Just one problem: We're not broke. Yes, nearly all levels of government face fiscal problems because of the economic downturn. But there is no crisis. There are many different paths open to fixing public budgets. And we will come up with wiser and more sustainable solutions if we approach fiscal problems calmly, realizing that we're still a very rich country and that the wealthiest among us are doing exceptionally well.

Consider two of the most prominent we're-brokers, House Speaker John Boehner and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

"We're broke, broke going on bankrupt," Boehner said in a Feb. 28 Nashville speech. For Boehner, this "fact" justifies the $61 billion in domestic spending cuts House Republicans passed (cuts that would have a negligible impact on the long-term deficit). Boehner's GOP colleagues want reductions in Head Start, student loans and scores of other programs voters like, and the only way to sell them is to cry catastrophe.

Walker, of course, used the "we're broke" rationale to justify his attack on public-worker collective bargaining rights. Yet the state's supposedly "broke" status did not stop him from approving tax cuts before he began his war on unions and proposed all manner of budget cuts, including deep reductions in aid to public schools.

In both cases, the fiscal issues are just an excuse for ideologically driven policies to lower taxes on well-off people and business while reducing government programs. Yet only occasionally do journalists step back to ask: Are these guys telling the truth?

The admirable Web site PolitiFact.com examined Walker's claim in detail and concluded flatly it was "false."

"Experts agree the state faces financial challenges in the form of deficits," PolitiFact wrote. "But they also agree the state isn't broke. Employees and bills are being paid. Services are continuing to be performed. Revenue continues to roll in. A variety of tools - taxes, layoffs, spending cuts, debt shifting - is available to make ends meet. Walker has promised not to increase taxes. That takes one tool off the table."

And that's the whole point.

Bloomberg News looked at Boehner's statement and declared simply: "It's wrong." As Bloomberg's David J. Lynch wrote: "The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007. Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren't attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so."

Precisely. A phony metaphor is being used to hijack the nation's political conversation and skew public policies to benefit better-off Americans and hurt most others.

We have an 8.9 percent unemployment rate, yet further measures to spur job creation are off the table. We're broke, you see. We have a $15 trillion economy, yet we pretend to be an impoverished nation with no room for public investments in our future or efforts to ease the pain of a deep recession on those Americans who didn't profit from it or cause it in the first place.

As Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pointed out in a little-noticed but powerful speech on the economy in December, "during the past 20 years, 56 percent of all income growth went to the top 1 percent of households. Even more unbelievably, a third of all income growth went to just the top one-tenth of 1 percent." Some people are definitely not broke, yet we can't even think about raising their taxes.

By contrast, Franken noted that "when you adjust for inflation, the median household income actually declined over the last decade." Many of those folks are going broke, yet because "we're broke," we're told we can't possibly help them.

Give Boehner, Walker and their allies full credit for diverting our attention with an arresting metaphor. The rest of us are dupes if we fall for it.

bluedahlia

I know, I know............I'm bad.  But the only way some can understand is to live it.

annettek

Nope, missed that one, but it does not surprise me, sickens me, but does not surprise me. At the Bio conference this year I will be sure to hunt down one of the bioethic sessions...always illuminating to hear how some believe we need to "cull the herd" so to speak... I need to hear that kind of thing though- it keeps me on my toes realizing this is not some 19th century notion to modeled upon like whackadoodle Hitler, but right now...A popular tag line that comes up in a veiled manner is the ROI quotient...RETURN ON INVESTMENT...think about that. Might even seem like the thing to do when someone is so far gone as to not even seem to exhibit what we call quality of life...but that is not for us to decide for our fellow human beings-unless we can voice that we have had enough (an entirely different topic)...we cannot do it, because you know what folllows...first it targets the most obvious and weak- the severely handicapped from whatever-unable to communicate, then it is on down the slippery slope to other *imperfections* decided by others...what is really peculiar about it all is the ones who believe in this crap often miss that with all of their own imperfections they would surely be caught in that big old snowball rolling down the hill....

crazy4carrots

Anne - I guess we could call it mass suicide -- the death of the middle class by the  very same duped and deludedmiddle class.

Just read an article about a Kansas Republican who suggested that illegal immigrants should be hunted down like pigs and shot (Talking Points Memo).  He must share the "heartless" gene with the (Republican) guy from New Hampshire who wants ship all the defective people over to Siberia and let them die.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

ananda8

The pattern is greed for ever shrinking resources. 

IronJawedBCAngel

The rumor that Wisconsin, Michigan, and the rest of the country is broke probably is the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction" for the Republican/Tea Party to mask the true intent of their actions.  Do we face challenges?  Absolutely.  However, as long as they protect the upper 2% from tax increases, I will not take their claims of being fiscally responsible seriously.  With the Republican policies, the middle class is disappearing, while the ultra wealthy become wealthier.  Apparently, they only consider themselves wealthy if they have over 7.5 million dollars, so they have to take as much from the middle class and poor as they can to maintain that level. 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke 

1Athena1

Corporate welfare and the Reagan Revolution that created it are alive and kicking.

BarbaraA

Great article by Debra Saunders of the SF Chronicle.

"America is not broke," filmmaker Michael Moore told a group protesting against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's attempts to curb public employee union collective bargaining in Madison over the weekend. "Neither is Wisconsin."

Forget Wisconsin's projected two-year $3.6 billion budget shortfall. Forget this year's $1.65 trillion in federal deficit spending. Any claim that Wisconsin - or Washington -s broke, Moore claimed, is "a Big Lie." "We reject anyone who tells us America is broke and broken," he explained. When President George W. Bush was in the White House, Democrats railed against deficit spending. Now they don't even seem to notice red ink.

The new message: A government can't really be broke because politicians have the power to raise taxes. In Moore's America, as long as lawmakers preside over spending increases, taxpayers have an obligation to keep ponying up - whether they like it or not.

It doesn't matter if voters send signals to stop the spending spree by electing more Republicans to the House, as well as governors like Walker. Public employee unions have a "right" to engage in collective bargaining for benefits - even if federal workers don't have that power - but there is no right for voters to push for an end to the growth in spending.

Once a state spends, it must keep spending. It's like the SEIU lawsuit against then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough policy for California public employees. The 2010 complaint lamented "the governor's unreasonable insistence to avoid tax increases to pay the judgment and to keep the state services intact." Quoth Moore: "If those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, the state can't function." The filmmaker argues, the economy only suffers if the wealthy "get to keep most of their money.

I share much of Moore's rage at the Wall Street swells who sideswiped the American economy. They bundled bad paper, sold it as good paper, and their only excuse is that, their bloated salaries notwithstanding, they really didn't know what they were doing. But I am not so angry at the Wall Street meltdown that I want an America in which people who create wealth don't have title to most of their earnings and savings.

The top 1 percent of earners pays 38 percent of federal income taxes. Whether you consider that fair or not, noted Richard Morrison of the Tax Foundation, "at the very least we know that 'the rich' aren't dodging taxes in the way that populist critics frequently suggest."  This is where left-wing economists frequently invoke the historically highest marginal tax rate - 91 percent - under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Not that they ever would advocate such a thing, mind you. They're just pointing it out. They don't argue that higher taxes will create more wealth so much as that higher taxes will create more equality. (If top earners leave the state, they're right.)

And apparently, the ticket to economic equality is for Americans to ignore the heavy load of debt that taxpayers must shoulder because politicians have handed out benefits and pensions to public workers regardless of the cost.

The answer to Wisconsin's woes - like the answer to America's red ink - is to keep feeding the beast.

"The country," Moore assures, "is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands." Then again, your hands are not really your hands, unless they're extracting more money from your wallet.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com..