Oh, Prosperity! Where is thy sting?

From 1954 through 1963 the top marginal income tax rate was 91%, the effective rate was about 87%. If the Republicans were right about all the horrible things that happen when you tax the “job creators,” the jobless rate should have gone through the roof and the economy should have spent the entire decade spinning in the toilet. But that did not happen. As the unemployment figures below seem to indicate, the ten years when those tax rates were in effect were prosperous years
1954 5.5%, 1956 4.1%, 1958 6.8%, 1960 5.5%, 1962 5.5%.

Notice the increase in the unemployment rate in 1958. What the Democrats called the Eisenhower recession took place during the years of 1958 and 1959. It should be noted that President Eisenhower did not respond to the recession by lowering the taxes of the wealthiest one percent of the population and the unemployment rate still dropped back down to 5.5.%. Today the wealthiest individuals pay a top marginal tax rate of 35% on earned income and 15% on capital gains. If taxes on the so called job creators are determinative we should have full employment right now. It is difficult to believe that anyone still thinks the rich cannot afford to pay the same tax rate they paid when Bill Clinton was President or that raising the top marginal rate to the level it was under Clinton will somehow stifle the growth of our economy.

Good news is bad news if you are a Republican. They are crying over the report showing the jobless rate dropping below 8%. They are acting as if a friend who has been saying wonderful things about them has suddenly turned on them, and they are responding in kind. Those public servants who objectively reported the unemployment figures the Republicans enjoyed citing are now being castigated as a bunch of dishonest partisans because the Republicans do not like what the last report shows. Well, the GOP cannot have it both ways, the reports are either accurate or they are not. Allowing either party to cherry pick the reports they like and disparage the ones they do not like would be absurd.

Sources:Top Marginal Rates and Unemployment .

Fighting Smoke

Mitt Romney is a bloviating bag of bullshit who lies about everything because he stands for nothing. There is no there there. He has no substance, no intellectual integrity anyone can grasp or depend on. If you are running against him, you cannot draw a clear distinction between your policies and his policies because he will tell each audience what he thinks that particular audience wants to hear, and he is very good at creating false choices. This makes it all too likely that you will spend most of your time fighting the smoke rather than the fire. I am afraid that is what President Obama did during the last debate.

President Obama must bear in mind that the polls indicate a close race. Since Mr. Romney's mendacity should be obvious to anyone paying attention, we can only conclude that a large percentage of the population does not want to believe the Nit-Mitt is really such a fraud. It is also obvious that any thoughtful person running against this liar must find a way to negate the lies. President Obama must become the prosecutor. He must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Romney is a liar and thereby force Mr. Romney into an honest discussion of the issues.

There was a brief moment during the debate when President Obama challenged a Romney lie. The moment occurred when Romney denied that he was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. “I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut,” Romney said. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit.” Mr. Obama pointed out that during the past few weeks Mr. Romney was proposing a tax cut of $5 trillion. “I guess you didn't meant it,” President Obama added.

President Obama's reply was good as far as it went but more was needed to fully expose the deception. At that point Mr. Obama should have addressed the audience: “When Mr. Romney says he won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit it can only mean one of two things. He either means he will not give the tax cuts he has been promising or he is making a promise to us that he cannot keep in order to prevent us from demanding that he specifically name the programs he is going to slash.” It is at that point that he should have gone into the arithmetic argument.

Another thing that struck me about the debate is how often Romney said he cared about the middle class. That is when Mr. Obama should have brought up Mr. Romney's statement about 47% of the people thinking they are victims and refusing to take responsibility for their lives. He could also say that Romney would support job act if he really cared about creating jobs, and that he would tell Congress to pass an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class if he cared about the middle class!