Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5X as Much as the Democrats' Health Care Plan

From Citizens for Tax Justice:

Newly revised estimates show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010). Preliminary estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats' health care reform legislation is projected to cost $1 trillion over a decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019).

And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is "too costly" are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts. Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.

Read the new report from Citizens for Tax Justice. (PDF)

These figures make clear that costs cannot be the real concern of lawmakers who oppose the House health care legislation and yet supported the Bush tax cuts. Their position seems to be that showering benefits on the wealthiest five percent of taxpayers and leaving the bill for future generations is preferable to making health care available for all at a much lower cost and paying that cost up front. That demonstrates a different set of priorities than most Americans have, but it doesn't demonstrate much concern about costs.

Beware of Socialism! For the rich, that is...

All this talk of Barack Obama wanting to "redistribute the wealth" is hilarious. That's what taxes do -- redistribute the wealth -- always have. The question is, do we redistribute it to the poor and middle class, or to the rich? Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain's hero, instituted the progressive income tax, where the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. It only makes sense -- our culture and society created the infrastructure for some people to make it rich, and they should pay back into that society.

We've always had elements of "socialism" in our society, as do all societies. You don't have to pay the fireman to put out the fire in your house before he acts, do you? That's because we've all agreed to put something in the kitty so that the fireman is paid, can buy the equipment he needs, and is ready to put out fires, wherever they occur (on the rich OR poor man's property). Same with police, school, roads and infrastructure. Same with health care -- in every industrialized country but our own, that is.

Meanwhile, since Reagan, those with the biggest incomes have been benefiting from a kind of "socialism" for the rich. The wealth has been getting redistributed UPWARDS! Tax cut after tax cut for the rich over the last eight years have been put in place by Bush and the Republican congress, up until two years ago, when the Dems took over congress. Obama merely wants to rescind those cuts, and make the tax code more fair again. He also wants to stop rewarding corporations for outsourcing jobs, by eliminating their tax loopholes, which makes sense to nearly everyone who isn't stinking rich -- except for a few nearsighted middle class Republicans, who seem to like voting against their own economic self-interests.

90% of gains in recent years went to the top 10%, 40% of the top gains went to the top 1%. Talk about redistribution of wealth! That's our middle class wealth that's been getting redistributed to the top 1% of the wealthiest people!

I say, it's time to stop subsidizing the rich, time to stop the downward slide of the rest of the population. No more welfare for the rich! Vote Obama!

Palin no working class mom

Palin does her best to sell her appeal as a working hockey mom to hard-working people everywhere. Only problem with that scenario: she and her husband are millionaires. The governor of Alaska gets paid $125,000 a year, and the couple's combined estimated property, investment values and income for 2007 are worth at least $1.2 million, according to the AP:

The Palins' assets seem enviable: a half-million-dollar home on a lake with a floatplane at the dock, two vacation retreats, commercial fishing rights worth an estimated $50,000 or more and an income last year of at least $230,000. That compares to a median income of $64,333 for Alaskans and $50,740 for Americans in 2007, according to the Census Bureau.

She also employs lawyers to find creative ways to avoid paying taxes. According to the New York Times:

One big issue that tax attorneys are pointing to is the fact that the Palins did not report as income the $43,490 that the state gave the family to cover travel expenses for Mr. Palin and the Palin children. Had the Palins reported these payments as income, the couple would have had to pay taxes on it.

And they even deducted snowmobiling expenses for ol' Todd, claiming it as a business:

The Palins deducted $9,000 in business losses from snowmobiling. This tax loss would not be allowed if the activity is a hobby. The IRS rule is that if an activity produces a profit in three of the past five years, is a businesses and not a hobby. But the Palins released tax returns for only two years, so it is impossible to tell. One year showed a $9,000 loss, the other year a slight profit.

There's a lot more good stuff in this article from Alternet: 12 New Stomach-Turning Revelations About Sarah Palin.