No One says that every regulation is unnecessary..You know full well that there are some that go a little over board and are not necessary, which does hinder businesses.
Did Democratic Charles Rangel get a fine for his tax evasion.You and I would have been penalized to the max .He's rich..He can afford it..Where's the fairness there..
Clinton pardoned his Billionaire buddy 2 hours before leaving office from the Millions he owed the US in back taxes..Did this bother you??
Bush should have never put the first Stimulus through. All of those companies should have filed for bankruptcy or be allowed to go under..
It was Obama who added 4 Trillion to the problem,pushed through his healthcare monstrosity to further financially ruin our country and ignored the budget that should have been passed when the Liberals were in control of the house and the senate..But blame it all on Republicans..Give me a break..There's plenty of blame to go around and until you one sided liberals are big enough to admit that ..Nothing will change..

When you have a lot of money it usually doubles faster than less..It's basic math...
And if you didn't take advantage of your freedoms this country has to offer and all the risks to grow a business, then don't be jealous because someone else s family did..

AWD,
I also hate it when I go to a restaurant and tip the waitress and she uses that to pay her rent. Where does she get off using my money to pay her bills? She should be buying something nice for me to look at her in the next time I go in. I also don't tip people of color, because I don't want them to take away the american dream from a white person... You know, that dream where you make less than minimum wage and rely on tips to make up the rest of your pay so that you can eat, live, and be happy...that you aren't homeless. Damn them, always stealing from those that have. Why can't they just go away?

"MINE MINE MINE" "Stealing our money?" Equal taxation is stealing money? WHO is whiney? I hope that guarding your treasure brings you ultimate peace, joy and fulfillment in life.

Wow. Never has one person got so much so wrong in so few words. It's like a concentrated dose of stupid.

Your money? If you're angry, you probably have no money.

I don't know, AWD -- maybe those 'moochers' wouldn't be on welfare if the jobs hadn't all gone overseas, or the ones that are left provided adequate access to health insurance.

Actually, through defense spending, government creates plenty of wealth. That's an absurd non-sensical right-wing talking point. Government money is just like private money. It's all green.

@AWD...What world are you living in? The progressive states contribute much more than the non-progressives. We are one nation with many special interests. There's even a place for you in the panhandle of Idaho.

I'm OK with that. We get New York, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois. You get Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Louisiana. Sounds like a fair deal to me. Good luck to you in your reborn Confederacy!

Facts, the kind of thing that bothers you so.

ROTFLMAO!!!

OK, so the Angry WHITE DUDE thinks the "progressive" Communist, Nazi, Socialist should become their own country, and he wouldnt be part of it. This is the guy that keeps hating every race except for the whites, and he hates at least half of them too. "No, I am not a Nazi, I just hate minorities."

Demand Aggregate Demand!!! Krugman's Army insists!

Hey F. Jim, WE are the job creators. If WE not walking through the door of a business to spend money, no one gets hired.

BTW -- check out the latest issue of some socialist publication called BusinessWeek. They are running an info graphic showing that countries with a lot of regulations are having higher growth.

Case in point. We ripped down our financial regulations, leading to this recent crash, leading to the recent drought in lending capital, ergo our slow economy.

Of course a bigoted moron will never get that.

Simon Johnson, an MIT economist and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund has an OpEd on Bloomberg this morning where he outlines some of the failures of conservative economic thought (reducing regulations, "expansionary austerity," the "confidence fairy") which dominate our current discourse (http://bloom.bg/tGevR5):

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S.’s medium-term debt-to-GDP increased about 50 percent, or roughly $7 trillion, due to the crisis. (Disclosure: I’m on a panel of economic advisers to the CBO but I’m not involved in producing those estimates, which are based on comparing the January 2008 forecast for debt in 2018 and the revision published in January 2010.)

"The true economic damages are, of course, much larger when lower economic growth, loss of jobs and disruption to people’s lives are counted. And part of the higher debt will be shoved onto future generations, hoping that they will be richer, or perhaps just luckier, than we are.

"But debt-to-GDP levels in many industrialized countries were already high and the debt surge -- mostly caused by lost tax revenues due to the recession -- has pushed us into the red zone. We need to bring down our deficits and put debt onto a more sustainable path.

"The unfortunate truth is that those “responsible” for the crisis never have enough money to make the rest of us whole."

But the GOP continue to blame the poor and the teachers and the regulations.

Was that a Daily Kos copy and paste post from yesterday? Where are the jobs? Libs are in charge where are the jobs they promisted? Dems promised they could create jobs where are they? They promised to reduce the debt they only went nuts and increased it.

And you were promised that the Bush era tax cuts would do just that - keep and provide jobs? Bush also said he would get Osama dead or alive. By the way, under Obama, more jobs were created in one year than were created in all of the eight years under Bush. Also, Obama said that he would get Osama. And has delivered. So, you're clearly choosing to believe the lie within your own head - none too smart. Perhaps the Dems. need to do your thinking for you - somethings not functioning properly.

STEVE: Perhaps I wasn't clear. IT WAS FROM BLOOMBERG. Written by an MIT economist. I'm sorry if reality doesn't align with your ideology, that must be disconcerting. It's called "cognitive dissonance." (http://bit.ly/6GkrO) Most right-wing people experience this from time to time.

"In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior."

You can resolve CD by letting the facts and data guide your ideology rather than the other way around. That's how we on the left do it. Facts and data are the basis for policy. We don't try to get the facts and data to fit our ideology. Hence, we don't experience "cognitive dissonance." You might try it sometime.

Bass- The only jobs Obama knows how to create are government jobs, which are the ones you site. He only knows how to put us farther into a debt hole we can not recover from all the while increasing the government and destroying the private sector.

So where are the private sector jobs? Bush had such a low unemployment through most his presidency that adding jobs was not an issue. You guys campaigned on knowing how to create jobs. So where are they? You keep skirting the question and blaming Bush, which is pretty typical of your side. Where is this amazing Democrat economy? Or should we all get used to socialism and living off food stamps?

Yes the one and only positive thing that Obama has done is get Osama. He used the already in place Bush plan, waited for the phone call from the CIA that they found him and gave an order. Is that what you are hoping works to get him reelected? Man can't run on his job creating record now can he?

Phil- Where are the jobs the Democrats promised? Your bias article points out failures of conservative economics but the dems are in charge. So where are all of these Obama jobs that were were promised in 2008?

The Democrats are certainly NOT in charge. Nice try, though.

STEVE: As for the jobs, you might want to look at this chart: http://bit.ly/vf12Rg

Let me explain it to you (in very small words, I promise). The BLUE line is federal employees. The RED line is private-sector employees. Aside from the large blue spike in 2010 which represents temporary hiring for the census (Constitutionally required, BTW), you'll see the blue line is trending DOWN. The red line (private sector) is trending UP. The aggregate unemployment figure includes BOTH public AND private sector employment. So Obama IS growing private sector employment while REDUCING public sector employment. Odd behavior for a supposed "socialist" don't you think?

Here's another view indexed to 12/2008. I've included Wisconsin government employees as well, just for fun. http://bit.ly/tEsQrE

@Phil Scarr... The graph(blue line) shows that total federal government jobs INCREASED, not decreased, during the time shown.

JAY: You're right, I picked the wrong line. That line excludes postal workers. Here is the correct line for federal employees: http://bit.ly/vQaEuc

JAY: Here's a redraw with private sector employment as well. http://bit.ly/uPoXNQ

@Phil Scarr... Can you explain why the postal workers should be included in the data?

Why are Postal Employees considered federal employees? Because the postal service is a Constitutionally mandated service. It's the only one. So the postal employees are more federal than any other federal worker in that sense.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

@Phil Scar... I understand the Constitution specificity names the Post Office and further understand the USPS is a financially autonomous government agency that was was reorganized, as such, in 1971. So, Obama should get credit for the decline in the total Federal payroll number,even though without counting the USPS, the federal payroll increased significantly. And he should get the credit, because the Obama managed Post Office is operating their failing Obama Postal business model and significantly slashed the USPS payroll at the direction of Obama; Yeesh,OK, done.

Wait. The poison pill congress put into the Postal Service in 2006 is someone OBAMA'S fault??? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! http://bit.ly/ueJnIp Given that Sensenbrenner voted FOR the bill it's much more his fault's than Obama's.

@Phil Scarr... Your words: "So Obama IS growing private sector employment while REDUCING public sector employment."
Only including the decline in the USPS payroll makes this a true statement. Now, should we give him credit for the decline in post office payroll or not? And what factual cause & effect do we have for giving him any credit for the happenings at the post office? We know the federal payroll, sans USPS, grew significantly under Obama. The original graph you posted confirms it.
Do you really want to stand by the reasoning that he gets the credit for the overall decline in the total US payroll,because the Constitution, with specificity, names the Post Office as a governmental agency?

So let's stick with the original chart (even though I don't agree that it's the correct chart). If we control for population growth, you can see from the chart http://bit.ly/vkaUdQ there is virtually no growth in government jobs, contrary to Steve's assertion "The only jobs Obama knows how to create are government jobs, which are the ones you site (sic). He only knows how to put us farther into a debt hole we can not recover from all the while increasing the government and destroying the private sector." That statement is patently false on its face.

@Phil Scarr... Why does the graph start two years into the Obama term? Shouldn't it start closer to,or on, inauguration day? To counter Steve's postulate, on Obama job creation, the non-farm payroll number should appear on the graph too.

JAY: Sorry, I was doing charts on Wisconsin at the same time and was using Walker's start date as the basis for the chart. Here is the updated indexed chart with the start date of 1/1/09: http://bit.ly/vPKAmB. The Blue line is population, the red line is total federal without postal workers, the green is total federal with postal workers and the orange is private sector. Now if we assume that the new administration's policies take 6 months to kick in, we can redraw the graph to look like this: http://bit.ly/t7f7t1. So it depends on where you want to cut off the date. But in any case, Steve's original assertion, in my view, is false based on the data.

By the way, if anyone is interested in playing with the FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data, from the St. Louis FED) data, the whole thing is free and available here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/ . There are lots and lots and lots of datasets to tinker with and graph. Plus you can download the datasets and mess with them in Excel.

More specifically, CONGRESS is the playground of the 1%.

Perhaps because we LACK DEMAND IN THE ECONOMY RIGHT NOW? You don't hire if you can't sell. We need to drive aggregate demand and the way to do that is to get the government, the spender of last resort, to step in and drive GDP up, get consumption moving and get the economy going.

But then if your ultimate goal is to ensure that the economy remains tanked until after the elections of 2012 (we're talking about YOU Mr. Sensenbrenner), that's not really in the cards, is it?

@Jerry -- in this district, a ham sandwich could get re-elected, as long as it ran GOP. A ham sandwich might be more use, actually.

If by "George Soros/One Wisconsin Now" you mean factually correct and data driven, then yes. But of course if you don't understand the painting, then criticize the frame. It's the Tea Party way...

@Phil Scarr -

"If by "George Soros/One Wisconsin Now" you mean factually correct and data driven, then yes."

And yet, it looks to me like @Jay Sykes completely debunked your whole 'Obama job growth' argument above.

Data driven you may be, but when you intentionally misinterpret the data to fit your own personal preference, then I'd hardly call that 'factually correct!'

James R Hoffa: Not hardly. See this chart: http://bit.ly/vkaUdQ.

Tells us what is wrong with George Soros? Just because he is rich doesn't mean he is evil, unlike the Kochs.

That was an excellent article. The 'job-creators' could reduce their tax burden by expanding their businesses here in the US, hiring (and paying) workers, and letting those workers pay a portion of the tax burden. All it would take is accepting slightly lower profits, which would be offset by greater sales. But nooo .. .

While I agree that taxing profits does provide an incentive to re-invest money to avoid taxes, it also works to provide an incentive for corporations to move operations overseas so they can declare their profits in low tax countries (pretty much every country except for the US and Japan) and avoid any tax liabilities to the US.

Cowdung,
That is why you tax any item built or assembled outside of the united states. Make production here in the states the only choice. You can lower taxes on items built and sold here as the inverse incentive. More jobs, more tax base, lower tax rate. That is how you get to a lower tax rate.

I think that the lack of competition would be problematic. Personally, I don't want to have to live through another decade of crappy American made cars like we had 30 or so years ago. Not to mention the crappy DVD players, TVs, etc. that we would likely end up with after shutting out foreign brands that have long been innovators in the field of electronics.

Another issue is that we would never be able to export anything--slapping taxes on products coming in to the US tend to be met by other countries slapping taxes on US products coming in to their countries.

I don't think that economic isolationism is the best way to go in this age of the global economy...

Toyota, Honda, Fuji heavy Industries, BMW, etc are all building cars here. What is that worth, and how do we force those companies with offshore holdings to finance the building of products here in the states. Let them innovate there, build here.

Say What?: I'm kind of surprised you're OK with being a low-cost outsource country. The idea of going from an innovator of new technology to a source for cheap labor for the innovations of other nations (who reap the social benefit of being innovative and attracting the capital needed to drive further innovation) doesn't speak well for America. That certainly isn't MY hope for America.

Drover's blog post is ignorantly simplistic. Let me get this straight: we should raise taxes so high on companies so that any profit would be drained by taxes, therefore companies will be motivated to hire more employees to keep profit down? Are you kidding me? How do you think shareholders will feel about this? The US already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. If we keep corporate tax rates high it will just drive businesses overseas.

We are going through a rather traumatic change in the employment landscape right now. There are types of jobs that are just disappearing. I feel for those that have been unemployed for awhile now because it's very likely that the position they once held is likely gone and never to come back. Companies are investing tremendously right now in automation technologies. If you have a job now that can be automated through computers or machines then you better be looking at a different career. The pace of change has accelerated tremendously in the last few years. There was an article recently that hypothesized that 9% unemployment is actually full employment. We now have nearly 10% of the population that is nearly unemployable and we better be figuring out ways to support them.

Oh, and BTW, the US is the largest manufacturer in the world if you haven't noticed. By a factor of 2.5X over China. We've actually widened our lead over Japan in the last decade.

235301: Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1. Taxes are on profits, not revenues. Higher tax rates incent companies to move profits back into the revenue side of the ledger through investment (i.e. hiring people). Higher tax rates drive higher growth.

2. On that question of tax rates and GDP growth, the highest growth periods in the US have been at times of the highest top-marginal tax rates. Coincidence? Not really. See this summary: http://bit.ly/s0ltUj

3. The US has the highest STATUTORY rate but far from the highest EFFECTIVE rate. See here: http://bit.ly/uV8OLr That's a popular RW talking point but it's just not true. The US has a low effective rate compared to other OECD nations.

Now I DO agree with you that we are undergoing a transformation in our employment opportunities. The opportunities for mid-tier skilled employees is shrinking while the opportunities for high-skill and low-skill are growing. This coincides with the collapsing of the middle-class in America. We, as a nation, need to figure out how to move more people into the top-tier (like Germany does) rather than allowing them to fall into the low-tier. This is done through education and incentives to industry. We'll all be better off.

1. Taxes are on profits, not revenues. Higher tax rates incent companies to move profits back into the revenue side of the ledger through investment (i.e. hiring people). Higher tax rates drive higher growth.

********************

So when cutting taxes is proposed, it's argued that tax policy doesn't effect hiring and that only demand does, but when tax increases are proposed, it's argued that hiring will be increased because companies will use that as a tax dodge? Explain.

@Phil Scarr: Fully understand taxes are on profits, believe me. I never said anything about revenue. Higher taxes can do many things but they definitely won't spur hiring. They might spur companies to invest in technology and/or automation. Or, worst case(and likely case), it will just spur moving more work outside the US. It's easy to move work around these days. We have medical work being done in India. Manufacturing in China. This trend won't end. And raising taxes will accelerate the trend. Look, based on our complicated tax codes, all it takes is a smart acct/finance guy to figure out where to move the money. All companies do this, some more than others. They play games with losses, capitalizing equipment, etc. But they don't hire to reduce profits to reduce their tax burden. They hire to improve output or productivity or for innovation.

Bob McBride: The concept is simple.

1. Companies generate revenue.
2. They can do two things with this revenue (in this simplistic model), they can re-invest it (tax free) or they can take it out as profit (taxable).
3. The tax code should encourage companies to turn revenue into investment in the company and not extract it as profit.

Cutting taxes (i.e. leaving money from profit in the hands of the business) doesn't generate growth. It's an illusion. It has no impact. If the business wanted to re-invest, they would do that through the model above and never extract the money as profit in the first place.

235301: You assert "Higher taxes can do many things but they definitely won't spur hiring. They might spur companies to invest in technology and/or automation" but that doesn't make any sense. Business expansion always involves expansion of the labor force. The question is one of degree. Sure, automation can reduce the total number of new workers (the ratio of labor to capital), but that doesn't mean the number is zero. If that were the case, then we'd never see growth in labor force participation rates ever!

However, you raise a good point that companies sometimes need to be encouraged to invest their money domestically. With NAFTA and GATT, we disincented them from doing this. We need to change those laws so that money invested inside the country is not taxed, but somehow money exported for job growth overseas is taxed or tariffed.

You also say "But they don't hire to reduce profits to reduce their tax burden. They hire to improve output or productivity or for innovation." Actually, the historical data seem to indicate that they do exactly that.

Phil,

You still haven't explained how that investment equals hiring. If demand for products/services remain constant, why would they hire more employees? Why not, for instance, invest in more sophisticated automation that actually replaces employees? Why not use that money to buy up struggling competitors or move into other markets?

That's the trouble Phil. It's not that simple. Unless you're going to take further steps that ensure that the only thing they can do with that money is hire employees in lieu of there actually being enough demand to do so as a part of prudent business operations.

Bob McBride: I guess I'm thinking of it more in a macro sense. Let's say a company wants to expand. They may build a new building (construction workers needed), they may buy new equipment (manufacturing workers) and need new employees to operate the equipment (new hires for them). Government can certainly incent them through the tax code to 1. Build a new building; 2. Buy American-made capital equipment and 3. Hire new workers.

They certainly can provide tax incentives to do that Phil, but then you end up with the anti-capitalists complaining about how corporations aren't paying their 'fair share' of taxes, and complaints about politicians are giving tax breaks to the 'rich' while the middle class is having to pay more...

Sounds pretty similar to what we have right now, Phil. Just with more taxes and some qualifiers that can be relatively easily sidestepped, or avoided if there are more profitable expenditures to be made. It won't encourage more employment. It will encourage more of what we see right now - consolidation and downsizing - which will probably result in less overall employment. Again, unless you somehow regulate that away.

Not so simple, Phil. Is it?

CowDung: I think you're right during times of economic stress (like today), but at times of higher (or near full) employment, people are too busy to notice and too happy to complain. Nobody of any worth was complaining during the Clinton years when the economy was at full employment and GDP was growing nicely and inflation was low. It's just at times like this that stresses bring out the worst. Also, not all tax incentives are equal. Today, the problem isn't really that businesses have a shortage of cash (most have a surplus) but there is a lack of demand, especially consumer demand. So tax incentives should be directed at groups that are most likely to spend it (higher MPC is inversely correlated to income, lower income means higher MPC: http://bit.ly/uUvhos). Tax cuts that target the poor and middle class will have more impact on demand than tax cuts to the so-called "job creators."

Did I answer your question???

Bob McBride: Companies can be expected to optimize to their interests and reduce the tax burdon as much as legally possible, but that doesn't mean that what we have today is anything close to optimal. Take a look at this: http://bit.ly/uV8OLr

"While 71 companies paid over 30% of their profits in federal income tax, 30 enjoyed negative tax rates over the whole three year period. Pepco, an electricity company, had the lowest effective tax rate of -57.6%. Wells Fargo, a bank, received the biggest tax subsidy over the three years of almost $18 billion, and was one of 25 companies which took more than half of the total $223 billion subsidy claimed. In at least one of the three years, 78 firms paid no or negative tax rates, and legally-by writing off capital investments before they actually wear out (known as “accelerated depreciation”), making use of tax deductible stock options and industry-specific tax breaks, and offshore tax havens."

Quite sub-optimal, IMVHO.

So basically, Phil, you just want to extract more money from businesses via taxes. That's why so little real thought went into the whole "putting profits back into the business" scenario you put together. Why not just come out and say it, rather than expose yourself to being called out on a poorly thought-out attempt to sell it as something other than what it is?

@Phil: Where's the picture of the hero of the people, Hugo Chavez on your blog? When I first saw your blog the blaring red, the term "fascists", it started me hunting around for a picture of Hugo or Sean Penn. :)

235301: When you get your own blog, you can put whomever you like on it.

Bob McBride: I said precisely what I intended to say.

Okay, well then based on what you've said, Phil, the only conclusion I can reach is that your experience in the world of business is minimal at best and that your understanding of how businesses work and how they respond to tax policy is consistent with that level of experience.

Bob McBride: That is certainly your prerogative. "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways — I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows."

I really agree here. Employers should face large penalties of they hire undocumented workers. If you do that, a large part of the illegal immigration issue will take care of itself.

The danger in imposing those large penalties is that it often isn't easy for an employer to know. If the worker has a stolen identity or forged documents, will the company still be subject to the penalties?

Some companies might not want to take the risk and avoid hiring minorities that could possibly be undocumented immigrants. I would hope that fear of being penalized for hiring illegal immigrants would not end up resulting in employment problems for large segments of our population.

@Liberalism is a mental disease: I remind myself each and every morning, "I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill." I rarely meet one that meets all these criteria in one posting.

Obama Depression? Where did you have your head during the late summer and autumn of 2008?

Liberals are stupid: As I have learned from long experience, "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."

Randy, dont you remember how the threat of a black man in the white house crashed the economy. And LAS, what is this "$100k with benefits and pension" coming from? Your average salary for a starting teacher after a 4 year degree in WI is $25k and average for all is $45k.
http://www.teacherportal.com/salary/Wisconsin-teacher-salary

@Say What -- I think the threat of McCain -- an honorable and intelligent man otherwise -- just doing four more years of the same old nonsense that had the economy in free-fall was enough to put a black man into office.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." Indeed, Mr. Mencken, indeed.

Sam: I hope you hold those same sentiments when the recall landslide crushes Scott Walker. :-)

I don't think that anyone is disputing what the law allows. What we are saying is that the law probably should be changed to not allow recalls for policy differences, but allow them only in cases of criminal activities and stuff like that.

If they're fighting so that politicians can be recalled for no specific reason, then there's a good number of states in this union they're not fighting for.

Let's not exaggerate the ability to request a mulligan because you're a sore loser with free speech and the free exercise of "rights". It's a law, not a right, and it should be changed.

Wrong, CowDung. For criminal activities and misconduct in office we have impeachment. Recalls are for politicians who misrepresent their intentions in order to get elected.If the misrepresentation was egregious enough for a sufficient percentage of the voters to want a do-over, then we have a do-over now that the politician's true nature is known.

Randy, according to your standards there isn't one politician in this country who shouldn't be subject to a recall action. Recalls shouldn't be based on a subjective analysis of the possible effects of a particular piece of legislation or whether or not a particular portion of that legislation wasn't spelled out in detail in the run up to an election. I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Randy:

Did all the Republican senators that had/have recalls launched against them misrepresent themselves when they ran for election?

We aren't seeking to repeal amendments or the Bill of Rights here Victor. Less than half of the states even allow recalls. Making changes to the law to require that recalls be based on something more than policy differences isn't a slippery slope or a denial of anyone's rights...

Hundred's of thousands of sore losers are still sore losers. There's absolutely nothing Scott Walker has done that's going to do irreparable damage to this state or that couldn't be reversed after the next election cycle. The collective bargaining issue is a red herring and when it's successfully argued against (which it is, repeatedly), the issue changes. This is partisan political nonsense, nothing more, nothing less and it has been from the start.

Hundreds of thousands? I don't think so, maybe tens of hundreds... maybe.