A couple edifying facts the readers might also find interesting:

1) $10,000 inflation-adjusted for 2008 = ~$221,000; last I looked the current federal income tax rate for $221,000 was around 35 to 38%. I guess it's a matter of opinion of how much of a raise in taxes some people can 'easily afford'...

2) the Revenue Act of 1862 was a temporary measure to expire in 1866; it was actually abolished in 1872. Federal income taxes didn't become a permanent feature until ~1913 or so. I've heard no talk of income taxes being raised temporarily (heh... because nobody would believe it!)

Since I am about to disagree with most of this community I thought I would give myself the troll label right off the bat.

My family, like many others, lives on a tight budget. My wife and I are both very lucky to still have our jobs. However, any increase in the income tax will have to come out of that budget. The reduction may mean we don’t go to Applebee’s on Saturday night or we cut back on what we buy at the grocery store. I am sure I am not alone in this. As people all across the board cut back due to a tax increase, the server at Applebee’s or the checker and Winco may be let go. How will that help the economy, how will that help get us out of our economic crisis?

In the private sector we are all looking at cutbacks, why should state employees be any different? I don’t think it is fair to ask private sector workers to suffer larger cuts so government workers are kept whole. I am working longer hours now (for the same salary) and it should not be too much to ask for government workers to do the same.

Chuck, as we look for solutions everything must be on the table. That includes asking our teachers to work some hours without pay, as workers in the private sector are doing, or asking government workers to take a small pay cut in the face of this crisis.

Tax increases cannot always be the first answer to our economic troubles.

All good points. The answer is simple. The government writes its own check now, and most Americans don't care, not that it would matter if they did.

So, are times changing enough that my decade long call for a return to government as service, not a good paying career, is no longer "the dumbest idea ever posted on Blue Oregon"?

GOP, if you're a right wing troll, I guess I am too, which is pretty weird, since I'm arguably the furthest left poster to this blog. You've entered the real of pragmatism. Ever check out the Libertarian party?

Chuck, Just imagine if Democrats held on reins of power back then, like they do now.

No income tax and Slavery would be legal. You must be proud.

Happy 200th to Charles Darwin, too!

And note Obama's call to restore funding for science research and education.

The trouble with the tax cutting fetish practiced by many (but not all) conservatives is that it’s disingenuous. They hide behind the canard that they’re only trying to “put money in people’s pockets” when their real motivation is to, paraphrasing Grover Norquist famous comment, drag government (by the hair) into the bathroom and drown it in the tub.

It’s called “Starving the Beast,” and the best way to do that is to assume the mantle of the courageous anti-tax crusader attempting to “get government off our backs” or some such foolishness by slaying the evil taxes burdening our good villages and hamlets.

An effective government that looks out for the well-being of citizens and offers some protection to them against the vagaries of the “free” market (which is never “free”) is an anathema to conservatives, who on the whole, would rather risk a handful of people dying from salmonella poisoning than interfere in a corporation's profit with government regulations.

My 2¢ (plus tax)

So, what you're saying is, that except for an extraordinary period when 10% of the country was actually shooting at each other, that 1/2 the time this country has been in existence, the Federal Government got by without any taxpayer subsidy? They must have been soooo backward!

RE: 'starving the beast'... Murphy says: An effective government that looks out for the well-being of citizens and offers some protection to them against the vagaries of the “free” market (which is never “free”) is an anathema to conservatives, who on the whole, would rather risk a handful of people dying from salmonella poisoning than interfere in a corporation's profit with government regulations.

The trouble with the above definition of 'effective government' is there then is no end to the amount of money a government can/will spend - all in the name of 'looking out for the well-being of the citizens'... Where does the government's responsibility end and the citizens themselves begin?

Is it a lack of government money and/or regulations that allowed this salmonella episode? Or just plain government bureaucratic incompetence? Judging by some of the finger-pointing reports I've been hearing, it seems to point more to the latter.

We have the most expensive public education system in the world (with costs continuing to rise faster than inflation) Yet the academic achievement scores have been trending downward for years (even despite some dumbing down of the tests) and now lag behind many other developed countries. Just throwing more $ isn't and thus can't always be the answer... just ask the Steinbrenners about the NY Yankees.

Given the insanity of the 'stimulus bill' going on right now, I suspect there are a number of people outside the Beltway who'd support temporary state income tax increases if those $ went to support the states revolting to rein in the ever encroaching powers of the federal government.

[“The trouble with the above definition of 'effective government' is there then is no end to the amount of money a government can/will spend - all in the name of 'looking out for the well-being of the citizens'...”]

Well, of course there’s a limit -- and we set that limit whenever we vote for representation that reflects our values and desires, and when, in turn, those elected representatives steer the government toward a certain approach to governing. You speak as though government, however defined, is some sort of amorphous entity wholly outside of our control. It is not, as Obama’s election combined with greater Democratic majorities in both houses of congress shows. Conservatives may not like the direction government is going, but it’s not as if they couldn’t vote; it’s more like they couldn’t win.

[“Where does the government's responsibility end and the citizens themselves begin?”]

I’ll tell you where. When I buy a jar of peanut butter I expect it to be safe to eat, and to assure that is the case, I want government to monitoring processing plants with aggressive regulations. And if those regulations costs that company some profit -- so be it. Or ought we emasculate government (through starving it for funds) to the degree that many conservatives would relish?

And if this the salmonella poisoning was truly a product of “just plain government bureaucratic incompetence” then why did the CEO of the company take the fifth yesterday in front of congress, eh?

From Reuters yesterday:

“The owner of the U.S. peanut company blamed for a salmonella outbreak refused to answer questions before Congress on Wednesday, while internal company messages showed him complaining about lost profits while the scare was investigated.”

GOP Troll Makes some very good points. As does Alcatross in his most recent comment.

This stimulus bill is not about stimulus. It is about Washington continuing to do business in the old way. The "stuff" hidden in this huge "permission to spend" bill is all about politics and is not worthy of Mr. Obama's signature.

See my posts "Obama Becomes a Leader - Dumps Stimulus Bill" and “Not a Single Earmark” in this Bill?"

Yep good old "Honest Abe" also was the first to suspend Habeus Corpus a real jewel.

As an example of government's unwitting capacity to spend money on uselss things, The Oregon Employment department has just embarked n a "Green Jobs Survey". Yikes! You mean Gov K and the democrat controlled legislature has hocked the state to the eyeballs to create "Green Jobs" and the state doesn't even know how many exist? How many are needed? What constitutes one? Who has already created one or more?

The citizens must feel so good knowing that another survey and study group is taking place.

I seriously hope the implication here is not that the current recession is in any way comparable to the American Civil War.

Posted by: Vincent | Feb 12, 2009 1:32:51 PM

I seriously hope the implication here is not that the current recession is in any way comparable to the American Civil War.

It might be comparable if taxes keep paying bonuses! Actually, I would compare the environmental debate to the American Civil War. Will the democrats dither to the point that it becomes a matter of life and death?

Murphy says: Well, of course there’s a limit -- and we set that limit whenever we vote for representation that reflects our values and desires, and when, in turn, those elected representatives steer the government toward a certain approach to governing.

Even if it means spending money we don't have and that our children's grandchildren will be paying back generations from now? Now that's responsible...

Or ought we emasculate government (through starving it for funds) to the degree that many conservatives would relish?

US federal government spending has been steadily growing $100B to $200B every year for going on 30 years now - bouncing between 30 to 35% of US GDP. We're hardly 'emasculating' or 'starving' anybody. At some point maybe we should ask if all our dollars are being spent where they should be?

RE: the salmonella issue

From an AP story today: 'Shortly after Parnell's appearance, a lab tester told the panel that the company discovered salmonella at its Blakely, Ga., plant as far back as 2006. Food and Drug Administration officials told lawmakers more federal inspections could have helped prevent the outbreak.

"We appear to have a total systemic breakdown," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the committee's investigations subcommittee.'

Of course the FDA is going to imply 'if we just had more money for inspections' - I heard it from every person/department I worked with in government for over a dozen years... it's how the game is played (especially when something goes wrong...) But why didn't someone act on the problem back in 2006? It sounds as if there may be a seriously bad dude here with this company - but all the money in the world isn't going to help if people don't act on the inspection results until after the horse is out of the barn.

alcatross,

Re: The salmonella episode. All of those, lack of money/regulation, and (no lack of) incompetence. When the people in charge of the government believe government is the problem (a Republican mantra at least since Ronald Reagan, but it doesn't stop them from growing government) and that private business can nearly always do better what motivation do they have to competently manage it and prove themselves wrong? When they appoint people to key positions who are more interested in protecting private business interests than the welfare of the citizens they are serving you can expect lax enforcement and more episodes like this. When you allow private enterprise to self-regulate they're bound to skimp on anything they think they can get away with. Peanut Corp. of America is being severely punished by government and the market but that doesn't help the 9 people who died, or their families (or that poor dog down in Roseburg). (And I'm not saying the Democrats are all that great either, but they're usually better than the R's for things like this.)

Dave

Do you realize how much salmonella has to be in a dried cookie to kill a dog? Dogs eat decaying flesh off the ground and have an incredible amount of stomach acid. This is obviously way beyond the pale.

Yes, all the above, but give karma some credit too. You had a peanut farmer that was a good person and all the country could do was fall all over themselves looking for every opportunity to ridicule him. Still do. Is that likely to win the minds and hearts of other peanut farmers? They got the message loud and clear, how "real Americans" act, i.e. based on greedy fraud, and every infected batch should carry a label reading, "at least Carter isn't President".