Sidebar: Tax 'Em All...but Rich

Some time ago I posted about what our new Republican Michigan governor and predominately Republican Michigan legislature were doing with pensions, by ending their exemption from Michigan income tax. In calculating whether it was economically feasible for me to retire, that was one of my considerations. Having my pension exempt from the Michigan income tax increased the incentive to retire as it freed up more of my fixed pension income. The Michigan tax is a flat rate on Federal AGI (after a few exemptions) of a little over 4 percent. So it’s not a small sum.

On the surface it looked like the revised Michigan income tax would apply to all pension income, and I had to laugh at my conservative co-pensioners who were just thrilled to have so many Republicans in power in Michigan. The Republicans were basically rewarding their vote by slapping this new tax on them (and giving it to corporations in tax cuts), that would probably have not been enacted under Democrats. Unfortunately (or fortunately for them) most of them came up smelling like a rose on this one. Because the tax is on early retirees for the most part. One in particular, crazy-letter-to-the-editor writing Richard Peasel, staunch Republican, escaped it, because he was born in 1945 (as I recall). 

Residents born before 1946 will continue to get the same tax breaks they have now. Public pensions will not be taxed. Income from private pensions, 401(k)s and IRAs will not be taxed on amounts up to $45,120 for single filers and $90,240 for joint filers.

The tax for me would actually affect roughly half my pension income. So I decided, well, I don’t have to live in Michigan anymore. I put my Michigan home up for sale, and right now, I have an offer and am waiting for bank approval. Starting in 2012, when the income tax goes into effect, I (should) be a permanent Florida resident, where there is NO state income tax.  So there, Rick Snyder.  You lost two Michigan consumers and their multiplier effect, and I hope a lot of other early retirees do the same thing.

When Paul Ryan put out his “Medicare Discount voucher” Budget Plan earlier this year, he had people like Peasel in mind….he let the many boomers who generally vote Republican off the hook so they could get the best of both worlds—not having to pay, yet getting full benefits, then phasing those benefits out some time in the future so future generations are really made to pay for them (that's the implicit or imputed "tax"), starting with me. In other words, he taxed ‘em all (TEA) except those who would most likely vote Republican.

Tchotchkes: The Growth that's "Teatastasized"

Tchotchkes: The Teapublican World

Return of the Dummies

It's been almost two months without you dummies! You were missed!  The part about Sarah Palin is eerily omniscent given what happened in Arizona. But it clearly shows the symbolism used by Palin (guns, hunting, shooting) as a celebrity/ political candidate.  

Sidebar: Second Amendment Remedies?



Even Republican Elizabeth Hasselbeck described Palin's *crosshairs* as "despicable."


This morning I viewed Jared Lee Loughner's youtube videos, and I can conclude from them:

• He's anti-government
• He's looks to be a gold nut because of his strange "currency" revelations (and who has almost all "gold" sponsors of his TV show???)
• He's into logic fallacies (ha ha)

Jared, at 22, seems to have not really developed a cogent political view; but that "person of interest" who may have been with him, described as a 40-ish white male, may have had solidified political views if he was indeed involved.  We have yet to find out.   One of my favorite websites points out, however:

Rethugs & FOX say: "More guns, more guns,more guns for everybody! Obama is a traitor! Democrats want to give America to bin Laden, Democrats are a threat that must be stopped! More guns, more guns, bigger clips, fewer laws, Obama is a Kenyan Muslin, out to destroy us!

Then some Teabagger answers their call and they say, "Who me?" after he fires into a woman's head.

As always, a bit over the top, maybe, but well said, Bart!  Although I disagree on the "Teabagger" part.  It doesn't have to be a teabagger who answers their calls; it can be a deranged person (who could be apolitical) who hears the teabaggers' messages and answers their call.

Postscript:  News updates since the publishing of this post have revealed that the "person of interest" was but a cabbie who unknowingly drove Loughner to his fateful destination of John-Hinckley-dom, and was videotaped obtaining change...which leads me to wonder, since this kid lived with his parents: who's financing him?  He had just bought ammo, and he bought the gun in November for $500.  He did drugs, and obviously with his wierdo videos on youtube, had a computer.  Yet it's been said he was unemployed, dropped out of high school and college, and was rejected by the armed forces (because he tested positive for drug use). 

Postscript to Postscript:  I just wonder if Palin will somehow manage to come out smelling like a rose on this one.  At this point, I'd say all bets are off.

Sidebar: Janine Turner's been drinking too much Texas Tea

Besides her comments on Congress' reading of the constitution ("thunder" dismissed), she started talking about how the deficit needed to be cut by the Congress, which means she must not have read the news:

Critics say the GOP has come up with no specific ways to meet its goal of cutting $100 billion this fiscal year, a goal many Republicans concede privately is probably unattainable, and would do little to dent the deficit. The first vote on spending cuts, due Thursday, would slice $35 million from the House's own budget.

In addition, if Republicans ultimately succeed in repealing the sweeping health care law passed last year — which no one expects, given the Democrats' control of the Senate and President Barack Obama's veto pen — that would add to the deficit, since the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure would save $143 billion during the coming decade.

There's also remarks by Paul Ryan on the Today Show.  I thought the "leaders" of the Tea Party would certainly have prepared answers, since spending cuts were their platform.    Janine has lost a lot of credibility and was a real disappointment.  She had nothing of substance to say.

Tchotchkes: I voted Republican and all I got was this lousy TEA shirt

Sidebar: Small Talk at the Tea Party, too!

Click on picture to enlarge for closer viewing.

Tea Party Nationalism is a website which has an extremely interesting, downloadable 94-page study on the origins, history, membership and sources of funds of the Tea Party.  On page 79 it has a breakdown (shown above) by gender of each of the best known tea party factions:  most of these are two thirds for the males too!  What could be going on here?  I thought we were over half the population!

Sidebar: One American Voice speaks the Truth

Recently on the Facebook PolitiFact page, a commenter by the name of Paul Hugenberg posted a link to his own Blogspot blog which has the same formatting as mine....Paul is a newbie like me, he will learn as he goes along, I am sure (first piece of advice: learn how to use the "Insert Jump Break").  But he had something to say about the "promises" of the Republicans/Tea Partiers who will most likely score a big victory this November.  This paragraph pretty much says it all:

"Second, it is impossible to fill its promises of bringing our debt under control. The debt is about $14T today. Let us say the GOP is going to be more fiscally conservative and run “smaller deficits” than we see today. Although that is a promise made by the Democrats, we will assume that the Republicans will really do it because they stump it so often. Boehner wishes to return to Bush-era budgets. That era ran $900B deficits. I hate to be an antagonist, but a $900 deficit still adds to the debt. But I’ll run with it. Under GOP control, 2011 will see a budget with a $900B deficit, and the debt rises to almost $15T. In this case, less is more. Less of a deficit still leaves more of a debt. In order to reduce the national debt, mathematically you need to spend .01 less than you bring in. The government pulls in receipts of approximately $2.4T. We spend about $3.7T. That means we need to eliminate 1.3T from the budget to even begin considering a reduction. Here’s the hard part: 2/3 of our spending is entitlement spending (also called mandatory) – the money that is nondiscretionary and based on our stated rights and constitutional duties. One third is discretionary. 1/3 of $3.7T is $1.25T. Therefore, in order for one red penny to be paid against our debt, the entire amount of discretionary spending must be eliminated. That, my dear friends, is NOT going to happen."

Tchotchkes: Tea Party Barbie

Something's not quite right..oh I know, the sign needs to have a spelling error.