Famille Du Pentium

One week until mid-term elections, 2006.  I predict that this will be a midterm of upheaval, similar to 1994 (except one obvious difference :)  I'm fine with that, I think we need some new blood.  It's time to put the Republicans back to work on strategy and getting in touch with their constituents; something that they can't do when they're busy passing evesdropping and torture legislation. In my congressional district, it doesn't matter anyway - the democrat will win.  And it won't be new blood.  And it probably should be.  Sigh.  Chicago.

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 09:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So what I didn't cover in my last post was, what a Democratic majority Congress would do with taxes.  Ah, taxes.  My favorite topic. 

Here's the rub.  I won't go into personal details here, but between property, income, and major purchase sales taxes I pay better than 1/3 of my gross annual income in taxes.  That does not include fuel, food, and other sales taxes, which are significant.  I hate them.  I hate the idea of them, but I can live with it under the premise that my taxes do someone some good, somewhere.  But they don't always, do they?  I remember the entitlement era.  I used to deliver pizza to the housing projects in Seattle.  They had better cars and T.V.'s than me, and they paid for their home delivered pizzas with food vouchers (not stamps, but vouchers funded by the Federal government and distributed by the state).  I busted my hump for $8 an hour plus tips and couldn't qualify for medicare the one time I was hospitalized because I worked 2 hours of overtime in one quarter.  There are thousands, probably millions of stories like this.  Entitlements without boundaries or an exit strategy have to go.

After the cutbacks and entitlement eliminations of the '80's, things got a little better but a couple of economic downturns later taxe rates were going up annually and even though the Federal Deficit was going down, the President kept raising taxes.  He had his legacy to ensure, you know.  

So finally George Bush gets elected, and he says "Enough."  The middle class does not have to pay the lions share of taxes as in previous years.  Married couples should not have to pay more taxes as a reward for making a lifelong committment.  Investments should not be taxed at a higher rate than ordinary income simply because in 1968 only rich people invested in the stock market.  Changes were made.  Some good, some bad.  The problem now is twofold:

• The child tax credits will expire soon
• The marraige penalty offset will expire soon
• The AMT dyke won't hold water past 2006

That last one is very interesting.  So in 1967 they had this great idea, prevent the top 5% of taxpayers from loopholing out by requiring a minimum tax payment that eliminates most deductions and counts more income.  Great.  Except that the thresholds established for the "rich" in 1967 are still used today.  How many of us are rich by 1967 standards?  Well guess what folks, you'll be taxed like the rich soon.

The democrats plan is simple; do nothing.  Taxes will go up by themselves.  Hold back any attempt by a (soon to be minority) Republican effort to reinstate the protections against these tax increases.  We'll balance the budget, then get re-elected after everyone has forgotten what an awful 2007 tax bill they had.  And, most importantly, AFTER the 2006 mid-terms. 

Married couples, get ready to be penalized again.  The Democrats will be back!

What??? You make more than $50K a year?  You bourgois tax cheat!  You must pay More!

And the beauty is, all the Democrats need to do to pass this massive tax increase is....

Nothing.

Which they most certainly will. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 07:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In my last blog entry, I proposed that the Republican Revolution was over, and that all that was left was a power play for it's own sake.  But I didn't talk about what would come next, after the power play.  I'm not going to address what happens if the Republicans do manage to keep power, I think it's pretty clear what the status quo is.  Instead, I'm going to talk about a future Democrat-controlled Congress.

Civil Liberties:  Democrats are still afraid of appearing anti-law-enforcement, a stigma that they gained in the '70's and '80's that contributed to their downfall in the mid-90's.   I haven't read anything from any candidate who is currently challenging a Republican or from Democratic leadership that the tide here will be reversed, at least before 2008.  This is one rare area where Bush is strong, and that would embolden him to veto any change.  The Democrats would be unlikely to muster enough support to override any veto, and would likely fear looking anti-law going into the 2008 elections. 

Iraq: Expect most of the Democrat's effort to spent here.  Promises of investigations into the handling of the war and mandating a timetable for withdrawal will be carried through.  Bush has lost a lot of support here and Republicans interested in rebuilding beyond this year's mid-terms, and especially into 2008, will side with Democrats (and a majority of Americans).  At the same time, don't expect a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq either.  Realistically a dramatic pullout would indeed increase risk to the US as emboldend militias take advantage of the pull-out to increase violence.  But this increase in violence would likely be short-term as other forces (UN, Europe, Iran, etc) exert their influence in the region and work  toward stability.

Impeachment of Bush:  It won't happen.  Forget about it.  Democrats have a rare opportunity to differentiate themselves from Republicans.  If they impeach Bush, they will have failed.

Immigration Overhaul:  This is a rare opportunity for a center-leaning Bush agenda to move forward.  Democrats don't want to block off the borders as much as Republicans do, but Bush's compromise that would provide current illegal immigrants a path to legality is popular amongst Democrats.

Social Security Overhaul:  While Bush's original plan may not have been the best way forward and was totally rejected by Democrats, both sides understand that Social Security will need some help to move forward.  And both sides will see opportunities to work together here.  

On the other hand, a George Bush who does not modify his far-right leaning, not-going-to-work-with-anyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me MO will likely cause gridlock on the capital, with most Democrat proposed bills being vetoed and Republican proposed bills killed in Congress for being too extreme.  

I suggest that President Bush should start looking for opportunities to modify his MO and work with a Democrat controlled congress now, or suffer the worst lame duck presidency ever. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The political revelution that began roughly 12 years ago is officially over.

Dennis Hastert, speaker of the house, tenaciously holds on to his office despite calls to resign over the Foley sex scandal.  

Mind you, I agree with this decision - but not the reason he gave.

Says Hastert: "If I fold up my tent and leave, then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."

So Hastert will hold on to power for the sake of having power.  

That may cause some to respond, "Well, Duh... of course the Republicans want to hold on to power.   They're Republicans!"  But that's not the way it always was.  12 years ago it was the Democrats who were the entrenched leaders of the legislature, and the Republicans (although they'd had equal success as the Democrats in the Executive Branch) were looking to change their message - and their goals.  It wasn't supposed to be about power, it was supposed to be about the message.  And the message was simple: it was not about power, it was about shrinking government, lowering taxes, promoting entrepreneurial businesses, tort reform, and welfare reform.  

On those counts, since 1994, the US legislature has scored about a C; although taxes for working class families have gone down, so have taxes for the ultra-rich; tort reform has been accomplished (although not quite enough), welfare reform is underway, entitlements funded by the working class are down, but government is growing larger and larger every day.

As an ambtious government project goes, A "C" isn't a bad grade.  But the contract is dead.  Government is growing, and the areas that needed improvement and acts that weren't passed in 1994 haven't been addressed in years.

And now, it's not about the contract anymore.  It's about keepng power, so they can get the message out.  Twelve years ago, it was about getting the message out, and gaining power was secondary to that.  It's officially over.  The revolution is dead. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So here's my take on the latest scandal up in the beltway.

For those of you living in a cave, it is alleged that Florida Rep. Mark Foley attempted to initiate sexual contact with a page via "email" (really instant messager, but we know that the media is just as technically clueless as congress.)   So here's my take point by point.  For those of you expecting a defense of Foley, don't look for it here.

1.  This sex scandal will hurt the GOP going into mid-terms.

Judging from the fallout of the Clinton sex scandal, it can only help.

2.  Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert should resign.

Why, did he have sex with Foley too?

3.  The Democrats leaked this to hit back at the GOP

Well if you had this information, what would you do?

My take: in six months time, it won't matter anymore. 

Posted by Michael Humphries-Dolnick at 05:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)