Facts

It's time for a balanced approach to our state and federal budgets, and way past time for some shared sacrifice. 

From Michael Linden, the Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center American Progress: 

[I]f you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher. The top 10 years would share marginal tax rates at 50 percent or higher. The two worst years, on the other hand, were 2008 and 2009, when the top marginal tax rate was 35 percent. In the 13 years that the top marginal tax rate has been at its current level or lower, only one year even cracks the top 20 in overall job creation.

We showed last week that lower rates are not associated with faster overall economic growth—just the opposite, in fact. And now we know that lower rates don’t coincide with higher job growth, either. So where is the evidence that the lower marginal tax rates spur job creation? It’s certainly not present in the past 60 years of American history.

It’s worth keeping this in mind the next time a conservative lawmaker claims that raising the rates for the wealthy would “destroy jobs.”

If words don't have any meaning, policy debates are a lot easier:

"I am specifically in favor of a fair tax and of reforming our tax system," [Senator-elect Brian Nieves] said. "I think our current taxing system is regressive, not progressive - in all of the fair tax studies that I have seen, it would actually lower our tax burden on each individual Missourian."

A fair tax would replace income tax with a consumption tax on retail goods.

"Right now there are tons of people earning income who never pay taxes," Nieves said. "Like a drug dealer who might make $100,000 and never pays a penny of income tax." Those people making money illegally still spend and many actually spend more - this would create a more fair environment, and recoup the tax dollars of people making money illegally."

Opponents of the fair tax say those who make between $15,000 and $200,000 would be taxed much more than those who make more than $200,000, among other criticisms.

Nieves captures the argument of "Fair Tax" supporters perfectly here:  The state will still have enough money to pay its current obligations (they say), but somehow "it would actually lower our tax burden on each individual Missourian."  No way this isn't too good to be true! 

And the idea that folks might make the relatively short drive across state lines to avoid Missouri's new quite high sales tax?  This is where right-wingers suddenly forget all of their own talk about how tax policies can encourage or discourage people to make certain choices.  Sodontworryaboutit!

The apparent exceptions in this fantasy world in which everybody wins -- and this is brand new information to me -- are your local drug dealers, who would no longer be able to keep their black market money away from a much higher sales tax.  Brilliant!  Maybe we can even ask them to start collecting sales taxes on their illicit drug sales?  I can see the campaign commercials now....

Rep. Todd Akin has a column today on the conservative website New Ledger lamenting the existence of special advisors to the President, or "czars."

Setting aside the still-stunning hypocrisy of Republicans' concerns about Obama's czars, the Washington Independent's David Weigel caught another small problem in Akin's argument:

“Why does President Obama appear so eager to appoint ‘czars,’” [Akin] asks, “while leaving positions requiring Senate confirmation unfilled?” The Republican holds on and filibusters against many of the president’s nominees go unmentioned, but Akin argues that the administration isn’t trying hard enough to staff up. And that’s less of a mistake than one of Akin’s three examples of unexamined appointees:

John Holdren, the “science czar.”

Holdren is Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and was confirmed by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009.

The Atlantic's Ronald Brownstein:

Thursday's annual Census Bureau report on income, poverty and access to health care-the Bureau's principal report card on the well-being of average Americans-closes the books on the economic record of George W. Bush. 

 

It's not a record many Republicans are likely to point to with pride.

 

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

Check out the headline and lede from this front page story in the News Tribune:

Missouri House ready to debate budget without stimulus money

By Bob Watson bwatson@newstribune.com 
Published: Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:20 PM CDT

There's almost no federal stimulus money involved in the proposed state budget that the Missouri House may begin debating this week.

If by "no federal stimulus money" Watson means $329 million of stimulus money, then I guess he's correct.

It's probably worth noting, however, that the House GOP gave up on this talking point when it was proven false 10 days ago.