By Amity Shlaes, Washington Post.
July 9, 2010
With unemployment high and the Dow Jones industrial average bumping about, the big debate this summer is how to prevent a double-dip recession resembling that of the late 1930s. Some say Washington should spend more, arguing that government austerity triggered the collapse in 1937 that erased previous gains. Others say that cutting spending now will strengthen the economy generally and preclude dramatic downturns.
President Obama may be about to repeat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s mistakes — but not the ones captured in this narrow discussion.
By fixating on the debt and stimulus plans, Obama and Congress are overlooking challenges to the economy from taxes, employment and the entrepreneurial environment. President Roosevelt’s great error was to ignore such factors — and the result was that sickening double dip.
Taxation is an obvious area the Obama administration ought to reconsider. Income taxes, the dividend tax and capital gains taxes are all set to rise as the Bush tax cuts expire. The Obama administration portrays these increases as necessary for budgetary and social reasons. A society in which the wealthy pay their share, the message goes, has a stronger economy. The administration and congressional Democrats are also striving to ensure that businesses pony up. The carried-interest provision in the tax extender bill seeks to raise rates on gains by private equity and hedge funds. If that were not enough, a so-called enterprise value tax would be levied on partnerships that sought to elude the new high taxes by selling their companies.
Roosevelt, too, pursued the dual purposes of revenue and social good. In 1935 he signed legislation known as the “soak the rich” law. FDR, more radical than Obama in his class hostility, spoke explicitly of the need for “very high taxes.” Roosevelt’s tax trap was the undistributed-profits tax, which hit businesses that chose not to disgorge their cash as dividends or wages. The idea was to goad companies into action.
The outcome was not what the New Dealers envisioned. Horrified by what they perceived as an existential threat, businesses stopped buying equipment and postponed expansion. They hired lawyers to find ways around the undistributed-profits tax. In May 1938, after months of unemployment rates in the high teens, the Democratic Congress cut back the detested tax. That bill became law without the president’s signature.
Then there is labor policy. Obama announced this year that the federal government would award contracts to firms with more generous pay and benefit packages. ……read more:
http://washingtonpost.com
Possibly related articles:
- Categories: Arizona, Financial, History, Legislation, National Media, News Item, Opinion, Politics, Searching for Information
- Tags: $500K donated to AZ, Across the nation helps AZ fight feds, AZ must win Feds lawsuit
APNewsBreak: $500K donated to Ariz. to defend law
Hispanic community members, some from Phoenix, hold hands in prayer to protest against SB1070, Arizona’s immigration law, during a vigil in front of the White House in Washington Wednesday, July 7, 2010.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
By PAUL DAVENPORT
The Associated Press
Friday, July 9, 2010; 3:01 AM
PHOENIX — Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
The donations, 88 percent of which came through the Arizona defense fund’s website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer’s office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government’s filing.
Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.
The AP examined about a quarter of the fund’s total contributions, and found only two that came from businesses.
The willingness of thousands of individual Americans to contribute to the Arizona fund illustrates broad concern and frustration over border security and illegal immigration. The state’s legislation has since renewed calls for broader immigration changes.
The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law generally must investigate the immigration status of people if there is “reasonable suspicion” to believe the people are in the United States illegally.
Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.
ad_icon
Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.
Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.
“Arizona needs our help,” said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. “It’s a disgrace what our government is doing.”
Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona’s approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.
“It’s just a mess that has to be straightened out,” said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund…..
read more………….
http://washingtonpost.com
Possibly related articles:
SANDRA FISH
“I ain’t going anywhere.”
With that — and a round of applause — Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele returned to the spotlight Thursday almost a week after his latest misstep, suggesting that the war in Afghanistan might not be winnable, brought calls for him to step down.
At the grand opening of the Colorado’s Victory office in suburban Denver, Steele was contrite at times, but displayed a determination to stick with his job. And he had plenty of support among the 100-plus activists gathered at the state party phone bank in Greenwood Village.
Steele answered only one question from reporters following a brief speech aimed at firing up volunteers and party activists.
On July 2, Steele said Afghanistan “was a war of Obama’s choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” Later that day, after prominent conservatives called for his resignation, Steele issued a statement clarifying his remarks and supporting the war. An RNC official distributed those remarks at Thursday’s event, along with past statements from Steele supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Steele reiterated his support for the war Thursday………Read more…….
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/08/rnc-chair-michael-steele-aint-going-anywhere/
Possibly related articles:
Loading ...
