Mark Green Can Keep My Tax Cut

Yes, I Need The Tax Cut

Like many in my generation, I need more income in retirement, especially with the rising cost of health care. With three daughters in college over an eight year period, it is not easy.

The tax cut Mark Green wants to give Sara and me over the next thirty years is significant. We really need it. But when we look at the needs of the state of Wisconsin and all of its citizens, it is not the right thing to do.

How Mark Green Made Life Miserable and How To Fix It.

The reason seniors in Wisconsin pay such high taxes is because when Green was in the legislature he was part of the cabal that shifted commercial property taxes to residential taxpayers.  And he repeatedly shifted corporate taxes to middle income families.

Mark Green needs to come clean and commit to realigning the tax burden.

Making Retirement Better

With one vote in Congress Mark Green could make retirement better than any of his phony campaign tax break gimmicks. Green and the Bush Administration will not allow the federal government to use its massive buying power to negotiate drug company discounts for reduced  pharmaceutical bills for retirees.  How stupid is that?  I remember a time when honest Republicans said ""Government should be run like a business."

There is no business that would not take advantage of its buying power.  Mark Green, can you say, "Wal-Mart?" No business would pass up the opportunity to save millions billions, unless there was kickbacks and bribery.

The Cost of a UW Education More Than Doubled in Real Dollars

Mark, rather than tax cuts, look at our university students and their families who are priced out of a good education, and how that is ruining the Wisconsin economy.

In 1979, the first full year of college for Mark Green, The University of Wisconsin- Madison annual tuition was $877, or 12% of the per capita Wisconsin Income. The cost of a UW education, about $2,800 per year, was 15% of the median household income.

Now, tuition is $5,866 per year, or 27% of per capita income, and the full cost of an education is $15,256 per year, or 31% of the median household income.

No matter how you look at it; tuition alone, or total costs, a UW student has to pay twice as much over the last twenty-five years since Mark Green entered college.

Mark Green:

• Reduce taxes on families; reverse the shift from corporations to families you engineered in the legislature.
• Have the state of Wisconsin pay a fairer share of education.
• In Congress, work to reduce drug prices for seniors.
• And tell just what you mean about 'big government.'  Spell out this hollow phrase.

And call me a senior one more time and I'll punch your lights out.

Comments

[Russ Burkel]

Every time I hear a person say a Republican can keep my tax cut I translate the comment.

What you meant:

Since I (Paul Soglin) make my living directly or indirectly from taxpayer funds I am strongly opposed to, and will vigorously discredit, any politician that seeks to invoke limits on the growth of government. Tying the growth of government to the growth of total compensation of private sector workers would mean I have to share in the pain during recessions and I'm certainly not willing to do that.

Well Paul let me enlighten you. In recent years many private sector workers have taken pay cuts and most private sector workers have taken benefit cuts since they have had to compete with Mexican and Asian workers. Even worse, many have lost their jobs as a result of globalization. Public workers in Wisconsin on the other hand continue to demand and receive Rolls Royce health care and fully funded retirement benefits.

In plain English public workers are not sharing the economic pain of globalization. That is wrong and I doubt private sector workers (you know who they are, they're the ones paying for the Rolls Royce benefits) are going to take it much longer.

Before you respond with a protectionism pitch and Bush bashing read the lessons of history. Protectionism sparks recessions at best, or worse depressions, or at worst total collapse.

[Paul]

Maybe for once in your life you will learn that some people mean what they say. By any standard of reasonable values, providing me this tax cut is not the best use of the money.

Thanks for your force-fed right wing talking points.

You start with a premise about government growth. Is that the military, school teachers, the highways we drive on, or the quality of the water you get out of the tap. You don't know you are talking about.

Don't waste our time here. Slogans do not cut it.

In fact if the private sector grows, it usually requires public sector growth to provide the services. Or maybe you wuld like to sit home all winter and not drive on plowed state roads. And keep this in mind: most public employees can make more money in the same job if they were in the private sector.

If Wisconsin employees were smart enough to take their compensation in retirement benefits rather than salary, more power to them. Do you know that WI teachers are the lowest paid in salary than any other of the fifty states except Oregon?

What's the problem...you forget to save for retirement? Some Republicans probably stole your pension.

When you speak of private sector pay cuts, you lie by omission. There are plenty of private sector jobs which provide handsome salaries and significant bonuses. Or are you talking about the Enron employees who got mugged by George Bush cronies?

Get your head out of the sand or wherever it is and realize that the corporate driven screwing of employees was created by Bush Republicans, and the solution is not to lower the standard but to raise it.

[Dan Sebald]

A comment on Russ' comment:

"Well Paul let me enlighten you. In recent years many private sector workers have taken pay cuts and most private sector workers have taken benefit cuts since they have had to compete with Mexican and Asian workers. Even worse, many have lost their jobs as a result of globalization."

This is hardly enlightening many of us; many in the progressive faction have been clamoring for years about the effects of NAFTA. This idea of pitting our workforce against other nations having bad environmental records and such, and bringing down are own standards is bad. And who can figure out why people keep voting for politicians that do this?

(I'll take a guess, it's because politicians keeping placing the blame on professors, the UW, "tax and spend liberals" and voters believe that.)

Now, there is a big difference between a local politician (e.g., mayor) and a federal politician (e.g., congressperson). The argument you are making (and I'm with you on this one) should be directed toward federal officials who control trade policy.

And I'll say that I think taxes should be raised for another reason. To put an expensive war like Iraq on credit and pass that on to the next generations is just irresponsible.

Oh wait. I missed this bit at the end:

"Before you respond with a protectionism pitch and Bush bashing read the lessons of history. Protectionism sparks recessions at best, or worse depressions, or at worst total collapse."

This sounds like Tom Friedman in this debate with Sen. Dorgan:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec06/globalization_09-28.html

(I think Friedman meant to say "Depression" rather than World War I because Smoot-Hawley didn't happen until a decade after.) Friedman tends to make the wide-sweeping conceptual connections. Some times he offers a profound way to look at things; other times he flat out makes no sense.

Is there hard and fast evidence that "protectionism" causes depression or is that something that people want to believe? I'd like a reference on that if anyone has one.

First, recession never hurt anyone. Why should the economy being going full throttle all the time? Personally, I think it would be good for the fed to put on the brake a money supply a little bit. Americans don't spend money conscientiously.

Second, I'm not sure it is exactly "protectionism" that anyone is advocating here. Circumstances seem quite different from before the Great Depression. The current issue is the trade deficit at record numbers. Wouldn't that mean that protectionism would stem that flow of debt going out into the rest of the world?

Russ, I think your argument here, when it boils down to it, is that what keeps the economy humming along is inexpensive labor in foreign markets along with discounting the cost to the environment. I see some contradiction with your original point about people losing there jobs, unless you are arguing that we should all be sacrificing our wages and benefits for the good of the country--which would be a very ironic statement in and of itself.

[Russ]

Dan
I'm going to read the Friedman Dorgan debate.
I have read "The World is Flat".
I'll post my comments latter today.
By the way thanks for sincere comments.
Russ

[Dohnal]

Could you send it to the Wisconsin Conservative Digest so that we can spread the message.

[Bruce Barry]

I have been listening to talk radio in Milw the past few days with a critical view of who is calling in to the show. When Sykes and Belling start raising the anti Doyle, Tax issue, the air is dead. The are making comments, but are not gathering steam or calls - or the calls they are getting are from the usual callers- I think you are right, the Republican agenda is on the ropes and the majority are silent or growing pensive.

[Russ]

Dan

A while back someone noted:

"The Chinese sell Americans quality products at low prices and then they loan us the money to pay for them".

In a round about way, the Dollars we pay to Chinese companies for goods end up back in the United States in exchange for US Government paper (debt). Why do the Chinese continue to buy our debt? It's simple they do it to keep their economy growing. The American consummer must keep buying their "stuff" or their hurting.

What would happen if the US would impose stiff tariffs or other trade restriction? You can be sure the Chinese would not be happy about it and it's almost certain they would retaliate. A trade war is the last thing this world needs.

When you cut through all the smoke and mirrors competition is now global. Americans and Europeans must face the fact they are going to have to compete with Asians. It's time we all face 21st century economic reality.

The only thing the US can and should do is make certain free trade is also fair trade. For example duties for cars, or any products for that matter, should be equal.

Hi Russ,

So, you agree with the thought that it is a good thing that workers around the world, as I understand from much of what I hear, work long hours for low wages. That that is competition and is good. That's fine.

Here is my perspective on this. Anything that depletes the planet of its resources isn't necessarily good and should be factored into the cost of doing business. David Barboza had an article in the New York Times, "The Not So Good Earth" (10/23/06), about China pulling so much coal out of the ground that villages are starting to collapse. An excerpt:

"There was no earthquake, however. Instead, here in this small village in the central province of Shanxi, three large coal mining operations had been burrowing underground for coal — day and night, sometimes with dynamite. And from far below, they had cracked the earth.

The village of Shangma Huangtou is just the latest victim of a coal mining boom that is devastating large swaths of north China, where some of the nation's richest coal deposits lie. China is the world's largest producer of coal, and much of it is mined here."

I don't think any of us here would like this happening in America. (There have been things close to this however. In West Virginia a slurry pool washed down a river and cause great damage. Company's held responsible? From what I remember, hardly.)

It's incredulous that Friedman could argue this is a good thing. Water quality, zebra muscles, other invasive species, global warming? It's all cost. None of it currently reflected in the price of goods.

Why doesn't the world need "trade war"? Notice your use of the pejorative. I'll use the more euphamistic "trade policy". Taxes, tarriffs, these are meant for controlling the flow of goods. Many Americans jump behind this "free trade" and "free market" argument but don't realize there sometimes isn't free trade and often the deck is stacked against themselves. China has favored nation trade status. How is that "free trade"?

Some countries don't pay appropriate fees to use various technologies and liscensing. Etc.

What is the more likely scenario? With a huge trade deficit and amazing debt, the fear is that the value of the dollar could plumet and we'd see markets go in a tail spin... until some other currency becomes the basis for world trade. The U.S. could repudiate its debt. We'd have a currency as worthless as the Soviet Union once had. (Was that the rubel? I forget.)

By adhering to some philosophy of free trade and free markets, I doubt that insulates you from global crises that might loom around the bend. In fact, if these sorts of things are anything like a stock market, people go "irrationally exuberant" along making the fall worse when it comes along.

My fear is that world population grows and grows because technology and commerce has a temporary buffer of wealth and then coal runs out, drought strikes a growing season or two, or something else, and bam. Where is the planning for this sort of thing? "Free trade" will only get you so far when there is not enough grain in the fields to feed 8 billion people.

The scenario you described about paper debt and people hurting hurting if that doesn't continue is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Billions of people dependent on a process of ever inflating debt. Does the financial equation in one's home seem like such a house of cards? Sounds like lottery winners who end up broke just years after their windfall.

Competition is global. I'm aware of that because I'm in a technology business. But, thirty years ago competition was regional. A hundred years ago they'd say today the work week would be twenty hours by now, etc. Why should the concept of good working conditions and so on go out the window just because the scope enlarges a bit? I doubt I feel any different than people anywhere else. I don't want crummy working conditions for anyone.

To use your analogy. The smoke and mirrors here is the trade deficit and China's willingness to take on debt. But how long can that last?

I'm willing to have free trade within the bounds of sustainability on this planet, and I think there should be trade policies that control and keep our lifestyles within that realm. But to have open trade so American corporations can see profits is just ridiculous. Corporations get lazy and build anachronous stuff and then become obsolete like Ford and G.M. Then we bail them out. Or bail out the airline industry. So on.

[Dan Sebald]

Another Barboza article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13sweat.html