NVR Logo
Happy New Year?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Save and Share Share
Happy New Year, now pass me the Xanax, two please. That’s how this year is starting out, but will it stay that way? Here’s how it looks to me.

Lets start with the one bright spot, Obama. It appears that his campaign theme of change is even truer than he may have expected. People are really looking for change in the most real way in memory. Obama is definitely a change, and he gives people hope. We are also in a time of great uncertainty and fear. Virtually everyone realizes we need to change in major ways, and now.
I believe that the realities we find ourselves in are the result of the underlying attitudes we hold as a culture. My way of analyzing politics is to look at the underlying psychology, and this year the financial reckoning is in fact a reckoning about greed and the lack of direction.

What I mean by lack of direction is in part lack of regulation, but in a broader sense of responsibility, of voters and government taking the responsibility to direct business and to direct the government where we want it to go. There has been a huge amount of apathy on the part of Americans and they have let the government get away with not being responsible in so many ways. Combine that with greed at all levels, not just Wall Street, and you have the crisis we are dealing with.
One non-Wall Street example of that is allowing the employee unions in California to set the rate for pensions that from the beginning were unsustainable. The public refused to look at it and the state legislature continues to deny it or even to approach a solution, and now it is really going to hurt not only the state but local governments even more so.

The real solution is not so much about the correct stimulus package or bail out as it is about people waking up and demanding change. After a period of tumult and blame and fear, I believe we will wake up and handle it. We are finally at the point where we really have to.
In Napa it appears that we are going to continue with the usual land use battles, and both the PUC plan for Angwin and Napa Pipe are going to come to a head and decisions are going to be made.

It appears to me County Supervisors are going to cave to the local neighborhood group, Save Rural Angwin, and allow them to write a new type of zoning into law in order to shut down the small development PUC wants to build. If that happens, PUC is probably gone. UC Davis has expressed interest in buying the land, in which case it will come under state control. All bets are off as to how much development that will mean. We will also then be sued by the affordable housing advocates that won a law suit against the County a couple of years ago. That’s another wild card.

The County will probably counter the affordable housing problem by using Napa Pipe for that on their new housing plan. If the attorneys and judge buy it, and the population goes along with it, it might work. My sense is that it was about 50/50 with the community on Napa Pipe as a place to put housing, but Keith Rogal’s recent statements that he is willing to put less than the original 3200 units may have turned the tide in his favor.

There is still plenty of disgruntlement about it, especially from the Napa City Council and city management, but at this point with no deal with the City it looks like the County Supervisors are going to go ahead and approve something there with housing included.

We are going to have major budget problems with both the city and county, more than people are now expecting. The county will fare better because they have big reserves, but those are going to get spent fast as the state is not going to come through with their usual monies for health and human services, along with a lot of other things like safety funds. Pension payments to Cal PERS are going to dramatically increase as tax collections are seriously dropping. This means the public will expect the local governments to pick up the slack and it is going to be very, very difficult, especially for the city of Napa.

If the economy doesn’t improve this year markedly, which it is not likely to do, then the county will deteriorate into the same position as the city in 2010. The public will have to face two things, that local government balance sheets are driven fatter by development for taxes/fees, and leaner by employee costs.

Right now most Napans are in denial about both, because we could. I predict that we are no longer going to be able to do that, and will have to start to face both those issues in a different manner. Namely, not only do we need the growth that comes from development, we need to contain employee costs.

If we don’t, we are going to see much bigger unemployment and much bigger unmet social needs in Napa this year. We may well anyway.

In the long run, I believe all of this will be for the better, far better. We need to restructure all our systems, both government and economic, and this crisis is forcing that upon us. It is going to be a long haul, but it will be worth it when we get there.

 
42 comment(s)

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:42 PM:

" Pretty Vichy-Vashie, NB...

'Greed at all levels', not just Wall Street???

Beyond being a vague platitude, what do you call demanding $10 million dollar bonuses funded with taxpayer money from a company bailed out by taxpayers because you ran it into the ground?

It sure as elephant-droppings is not patriotism, or competence... but... 'Go Cheney Yourself' greed sure fits.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Jan 5, 2009 6:31 PM:

" Ruff, that would be one level of greed, for sure. Another would be what I mentioned, the employee unions in California have gone from saying that they should have equity with the private sector to making way more than the private sector. They are now hamstringing negotiations at the State legislature because they don't want to give anything up.

The average consumer has 13 credit cards, because they don't want to not have the least little thing they want to buy.

The list goes on and on... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:27 PM:

" Fish rot from the head.

Please quit with the mumbo-jumbo about employee unions and such blarney when the rot is at the TOP.

Nobody wants a cut in pay or benefits... nobody. But asking working people to give up their pay and benefits while ripoff artists are collecting billions is... well... as politely as it can be said... more elephant dung.

One of the loudest NVR Luddites claims to be a government worker who babbles the same bullcorn...

HOWEVER...

When asked if he had volunteered for a pay cut or job elimination WELL THAT WAS DIFFERENT! HE DESERVED HIS MONEY!

Fire didn't, Police didn't, sherriffs didn't, but HE DID!

May I gently suggest that Republicans follow Jesus' advice? "Please remove the RAFTER from your own eyes before..."

You get the idea I'm sure.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:33 PM:

" Average salaries about 140K, many get more, almost all are in the top 5% of wage earners. Isn't that the top? With a pension that is 90% of the highest salary at age 50? And 90% of the duties are the same as workers in the private sector who get 45-55K for without the benies?

Government workers in California's salaries have been rising much faster than other workers in private industry and much faster than the rate of inflation since 2000.

Everyone wants to make their side all ok and the other side all wrong. Not so, there are problems of greed up and down the scale. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:10 AM:

" NB - Cutting working people's salary will shrink the economy further which worsens into an economic death spiral.

We are on the outer rim of such a death spiral right now!

And you along with the rest of the Hooverites are proposing something that will increase the suction!

If taxes are raised on the folks making LOTS of money and the money is directed to the folks who are not making lots of money the suction is decreased, and the vortex weakens.

The probem-makers continue to point in the wrong direction as the problem and espouse yet MORE Hooverism as the cure.

American consumers and California consumers need MORE MONEY not less. If they had more money, they could make their car, home and other payments along with buying food, medicine and clothes for their kids.

The way out of this slump is to put everybody back to work.

I've listened to you push this Hooverism clap-trap about cutting spending in this more than a year long Republican recession getting ready to become a Republican Depression for years now.

Good times or bad you push Hooverism.

I'm not about to stop calling you out over it.

When our bureaucrats are making a million a year, the Wall Street Weasels will be making a billion a year.

Please... common sense tells us to 'go where the REAL money is'.

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:43 PM:

" NB. when you start quoting statistics it would be helpful to you point of view if you would give a source.

I know it allows people to discredit the source but it is better to back up your argument that way rather than have us think that you pulled those numbers from where the sun don't shine.

lumping an average and statistical mirages of broad based accusations singling out one sector to personify your beliefs does more damage to your credibility and your opinion than it does to support it.

You don't like unions that is clear and you feel that the entire public sector organized or not are grossly over paid no matter what their job description. You need to organize your thoughts and make that presentation in a sound manner other wise you appear to be the same reactionary mouth piece we have been listening to for over a hundred years.

Jus' cuz you says its so don' mak' it so. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 6, 2009 4:48 PM:

" I expect the California budget impass to start getting settled.

The building trades, and some very powerful construction contractors are going to be very ticked off if that stimulous bill passes and Republicans have prevented California from having a budget passed and 'shovel-ready' projects ready to be funded.

When I drive long 80 towards Sacramento and see the construction equipment has been removed without the projects being completed... you know that somebody is going to get out a big ball bat and apply it to elephant braincases.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:29 PM:

" Ruff, call me out all you want.

I still find that you are proposing half a solution. We cannot borrow or tax our way out of this problem, as raising taxes now will not be enough. The whole reason we are in this mess is due to spending money we don't have for years.

Yes, the stimulus you mention will help some on a short term basis, but it also makes the long term problem worse.

For instance, California collects about $20 billion a year in income taxes from its citizens. Last year pension payments to state employees alone were $19 billion and they are due to explode over the next few years as the age of retirement has been lowered so much over the last eight years, along with a substantial increase in benefits. As those people retire the costs will be enormous. And on and on. There is a limit to what you can pay people--there is only so much money. Otherwise, why not just hand out a million dollars annually to everyone in the state and end poverty forever?

So even if you doubled the state income tax and got another $20 million out of the wealthy, it would not be enough money. Plus you would never get it, people would leave the state and it would hurt the economy as well, so that to get double the tax you need way higher than doubling the rates. It is just untenable to raise taxes that much, it won't work.

The whole reason that the state is in trouble is overspending, not over taxing. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:36 PM:

" Bill, first of all I do not dislike unions, but I do think that we are paying employees too much and that we have to fight with the unions to get things under control. Yes, it is a general statement and I am sure there is some government employee out there that is underpaid. In fact as I have mentioned before I think CDF salaries are about right. But speaking in generalities is necessary to comunicate some times.

That is not the same thing as not liking them. In fact I admire their success, they are very good at what they do, too good in fact. It is just not that personal with me.

I think your criticism about numbers is fair but this article was not the time to lay that out, for reasons of space if nothing else. Plus I think anyone should see that paying any 90% of their highest salary at age 50 is a non starter from a sustainable economy plan. It is just so out of whack that one fact alone is a big red flag that there is a problem.

Or so it seems to me.

I plan to get very specific about some numbers very soon. "

kevin wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:35 PM:

" LOL.

Gotta love them Liberals! No sense of humor what-so-ever.

Wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them in the rear end!

I can complain about overpaid, under worked government employees anytime I want, BECAUSE I AM ONE!

Keep up the fight NB. You are right on the money... "

napablogger wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:59 PM:

" thanks Kevin, and I will get back to you on that email you sent me, haven't had time to look at it yet. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 7, 2009 7:31 AM:

" Gotta love self-styled 'conservatives!

They want their taxpayer funded healthcare and benefits and pay raises for their bureaucratic jobs. "You betcha" they deserve every penney!

But the folks who pay the taxes that fund their jobs and benefits don't deserve government funded healthcare... that would be 'socialism'.

It's OK for their 'socialist' healthcare, just not for the taxpayers that pay their healthcare bills for them.

But it's always time to turn around and attack fire, police, and other direct service providers for their pay and overly generous benefits.

It's ever so entertaining to have 'conservative' hypocrisy so plainly on display.

If you think people who make $300,000 a year as 'overpaid' then why bash Barack Obama for wanting to raise taxes on people making $250,000 to recoup the money they don't deserve, NB?

If folks working for the government are getting too much pay at $300k then folks working in non-government jobs making $300k are over-paid too.

Just a tad in the shallow end of the pool on the 'reasoning', NB.

~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:55 AM:

" Folks, we have a failure to communicate here. A little ECON 101:

Seems some people don't understand that the wages for jobs in the private sector are determined by WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. (With the exception of CEO's who seem to get paid millions when they drive a company bankrupt...)

As opposed to public sector wages that are arbitrarily SET by elected representatives who receive huge amounts of campaign contributions from those very same employee unions, in order to win those elections in the first place.... "

Bill wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Basic econ would tell you that worth or value is determined by demand. Stop demanding service and the price will drop. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:32 PM:

" kevin - A little more ECON101...

If you cut aggregate demand (consumer wages) during a recession, it turns into a depresson.

Cutting consumer wages in a 'liquidity trap' makes the economy shrink. Even though there is money slopping around in banks, consumers don't have the wages to support more purchases.

I don't begrudge government workers their salary and benefits... so why begrudge other people their wages and benefits?

And now a little ECON 102 - When taxes are raised on huge salaries and profitable investments with LARGE tax deductions for investing in creating American jobs, the economy creates more good paying jobs! Those wages lift the economy. Example: Dwight "IKE" Eisenhower's 91.5% top tax rate on income with huge deductions for investments (not including Wall Street Weasel stock churning and outsourcing jobs overseas).

kevin, You're starting to THINK, BABY, THINK!

Keep going! Don't just puddle around in the shallow end of the pool! Come on! Put on those water-wings, read some real ECON stuff and SWIM, BABY, SWIM!

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:05 PM:

" If you feel you do not want quality education don't demand it.

Don't want fire or police service, don't demand it.

Don't want to pay for prisons, Don't demand them.

Don't want health or safety services, Don't demand them.

Don't want well built safe roads, highways or bridges, don't demand them.

Don't want fraud protection don't demand it.

After all the public sector mirrors the private sector in that if you want that big screen TV bad enough you will pay for it.

It all depends on how you curb your desires.

How you see your wants and needs and how they should be fulfilled, that's basic economics whether or not you learned it in econ 101.

If it is greed or desire that drives demand it becomes irrelevant unless self interest is understood as the underlying reason. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:04 PM:

" Bill, I think the point here is that even if the pay and benefits were cut the service would still be there. The cost is arbitrarily (after a fashion) set by union demands and a lack of public input to the process. Governments cave to the unions because no one seems to care or even want them to have those wages.

In other words, there are twenty fire fighter openings in Oakland and they get 6000 applicants. Piner paramedics do 90% the same job as local fire fighters and make about a third of the salary.

The taxpayers are overpaying for these jobs, and it is not like if they cut the rate of increase in pay they would suffer at all.

Another point Democrats do not seem to get is that all the wealth in the country is created in the private sector. If we just had government and no private sector there would be no money to pay for it.

If we had no government but only a private sector we would be flowing in cash.

The cost of government has to be kept lower than the private sector or you end up with...well, what we have in California right now.

I have said it over and over, it is not about me liking or not liking anyone, it is about the money, and how much do we have. We don't have the money. "

kevin wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:05 PM:

" Almost there Bill.

Now just take one more small step and make the connection.

All those things can be done in the PRIVATE sector!

With market forces the costs will be perfectly match the demand! "

Bill wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:14 AM:

" Certainly Kevin, The private sector can also determine what poisonous paint to put on toys, heavy metals in the soil and water or the building codes it wishes to follow.

You can complain about local safety service, police and fire by dialing the operator and listening to a list of options just like the telephone company.

Of course most of those options will be controlled by an inmate in your local privately corporately operated county jail.

All under the auspices of of the private corporate judicial system.

Isn't libertarianism fun?

We don't need the public sector the market will solve all our problems we just may not live to saee it. "

Bill wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:04 AM:

" Shucks Kevin,

Why go through the middleman all the time even for national defense just have Haliburton and Blackwater take over for the Pentagon.

Laws? All we really need is a tort system set up and administered by a private corporate market system.

Public sector who really needs it? Borders are no good so who needs them? Self-regulation is all that's necessary.

Come on Kevin make that leap of faith in to that existentialist world where meaning has no place and we can all be authentic beings exercising our will as the Ubermensch. Burn your Bible and pick up a copy of The Fountain head or Atlas Shrugged.

Public sector? Isn’t that really a useless appendage necessary only for victims and whiners? "

Bill wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:14 PM:

" NB,

It’s really difficult to turn back my facetious and sarcastic edge especially when you leave your self so open. It all depends on whose Goose is going to be cooked or Ox gored. If my posts make it through the maze look at my fun comments to Kevin and see if they do not apply to your last comments also.

If you already have your wealth assured, as both you and Kevin claim by different means, it is convenient to see those that have not achieved you stations as irresponsible. Next time you need a fireman call Piners. The point here being that private ambulance services do not have near the quality of personnel that is required by the fire dept. nor do they provide the same service or the same skill set. They are not even comparable to registered nurses who might also hold a drivers license making them over qualified for the position of ambulance driver or attendant.

Your Democrat-Republican characterizations will only lead to meaningless name-calling. Save that for the fool’s game of electioneering. Opps there I go again being a little too sarcastic, but trotting out a party label every time to make a point becomes boring. Ever notice how it becomes one guy describing the other guy and not an adequate representation of his view of any problem. We can all play that game but the party labels or commie, fascist, lib, con tags are pointless. Lets be more creative in the attempt to square the corners on the other guy or discount that person’s opinion with a useless label.

Wealth is created by a variety of means and the public sector contributes and supports its creation far beyond the simple characterizations presented. "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:47 AM:

" one little point regarding Piner paramedics vs fire department...last time I checked certification as a paramedic does not included training as a firefighter... and firefighters who also are paramedics are trained to do both, so maybe they are getting the extra money because they are doing more? "

kevin wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:59 AM:

" If people can't even agree on something as obvious and evident as the over paid and under utilized fire department, we will NEVER come to terms on the more complex issues.

The whole reason the fire crews (and their trucks) started showing up when little old ladies fell down crossing the street was because the number of real fires has decreased DRAMATICALLY due to the new building codes.

They needed something to justify their existence.

NB is right about their retirements being out of control. 3% per year times 30 years equals 90% wages at retirement. Even worse, they add in overtime to their retirement calculation and they have some "tricks" where they can defer more of their wages to their last year where it counts more in the retirement calculations.

Altogether some of them end up OVER 100% in retirement!

The bottom line is that the State can't afford gold plated benefits packages anymore. "

Bill wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:03 AM:

" You are not advocating arson are you? So that utility could be achieved. "

Bill wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:05 AM:

" Are local fire dept wages paid by the State? "

Bill wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:07 AM:

" Building codes? More government interference, how unreasonable. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:12 PM:

" I love it when some person self-identifies as a mid-level bureaucrat tells us one day that all they did all one day was to write one letter...

And then, this Mid-Level Bureaucrat comes around and complains that firemen get paid too much and don't work hard enough.

Of course, the bureaucrats' job, salary and benefits must be sacrosanct! Much more important than world-class fire protection, "you betcha"!

I think the proposed cuts are in the wrong places!

Let's put a computer in a couple of firehouses and let them write the occasional letter in the their spare time!

Then we can get rid of the real deadwood!

Let them get a job in the private sector when there are 1/2 million folks getting laid off per month.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:29 PM:

" Raven--The firefighting is the 10% of the job that is different, 90% the same.

So yes there is some difference that they should be paid for, but the descrepancy is too big.

There has to be a limit to how much people are paid. Firefighters make way more than the police, for instance, yet it is much harder find police and they have a much more difficult, dangerous job.

On the pensions, most firefighters retire with 90% of pay in their early 50's. They are the ones that told me that. They feel they deserve it.

Many safety personnel get more than 90%, there are a few that are getting more than 100%, they make more quitting than working. That is right here in Napa.

If employees were willling to take about the same raises as they take in the private sector, where the wealthy is created, and slightly lower pensions, we would not be discussing this budget problem right now.

And those pensions would still be spectaculary better than private sector ones.

The fact is that whichever parties side gains control of the politics, their interest groups take over and vote all the benefits to themselves. In CA, it is the employee unions and they run the legislature. In Utah it is the corporations and they pay a lot less in taxes than elsewhere because of it.

We need balance. "

Raven wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:39 PM:

" NB, I would disagree with you on that, unless Napa is an exception, the first and primary duty of all firefighters, even the paramedics is to fight fires, the paramedic duties are secondary. "

make napa better wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:52 AM:

" Did you hear the Pornography Industry is looking for a bail out? Why Not just bail out the American public at large and let the companies flounder. Without it's consumers there would be no company! "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:45 AM:

" Good old Ruff. The common man must pay, pay,pay , pay some more. Always critical and never solution oriented. Maybe if the UAW was not making $78 an hour, our car companies would be in a better place....

you can tell that the Libs do not care that City and County Bankruptcies will be rising in this state. Napa is not far behind Vallejo. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:48 AM:

" Actually, NB, I want the rich to pay, pay, pay, and pay some more. And I've been saying so for years.

What part of "Tax people making $250,000 a year and more' do you fail to understand?

If I had my way we'd put in the APT TAX and do away with ALL the other taxes.

That would be a tax cut for everybody including the rich!

But, NB, "my friend", you still have love the rich, tax working people 'issues'.

You have never found me advocating raising taxes on working people.

But I have no trouble at all finding you advocating cutting working people's salary and benefits out from under them.

How many times do you have to get it wrong?

~Ruff "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:14 PM:

" yeah freeport, take another look ...
Base wages average about $28 an hour at GM. New hires after the last contract start at $14 an hour. The average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay. Health-care, pension and other benefits average another $33.58 an hour. With the givebacks in the last contract that hourly wage is going down each year thru 2010 as the portion of health care and retirement paid by employees and retirees goes up.
The only reason non-union plants don't have the same wages is they haven't been around long enough to have a sizable legacy of retirees to deal with. Give them a few years. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Sorry, NB, I meant freeport56. by name.

However, you have certainly got a pretty shameful record of buttering up the rich and picking on working people anyway.

Birds of Feather and all that.

~Ruff "

napablogger wrote on Jan 12, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Raven, I got that from the local Fire Captain, he gave me the 90% figure. I didn't make that up.

Their primary duty is to fight fires, true, but there are so few and they are so less dangerous than ever that they hardly ever have to. There are about an average of 35 structure fires in the county a year, and almost all of them are out by the time the fire dept gets there.

The few you read about in the paper are the only ones that really get anywhere, maybe a handful a year.

One has to seperate out structure fires from wild land. The wild land fire fighters, CDF in other words, have reasonable salaries and I have no problem with them. Their pensions are out of control too, though.

When you have fire fighters living on ranches in Utah and flying their own private planes in for their two day a week jobs you have people who are making too much money on the taxpayers dime. Sorry. "

freeport56 wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:05 PM:

" Raven-

I guess you missed the article in the Chronicle about the husband and wife that are UAW members. they discussed their $78 dollar an hour jobs and how they had to cut back on dining out 7 days a week. It also discussed how the Japanese car maker employees only made about $48 an hour. If that is the case, maybe the next generation of cars will be cheaper!


As for Ruff, he still does not know who supplies the jobs in America......it is people with wealth. "

Bill wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Both Frrrppt56 and NB have bought into the urban myth passed about by Senator Kyl Flym-flam.

Both the $48 an hour figure and the $78 figures are blatantly false involving some very ingenious, or rather disingenuous, number fudging and creative statistical slight of hand.

Real hourly wages are closer to $28 plus per hour for the assembly line workers and skilled trades $33 plus.

The tactic uses the total of yearly straight time hours worked and adds all OT benefits, retirement, health and all the retired recipients pay and benefits to those now working and comes up with the highly distorted figure. Specious numbers purported to reflect the so-called real costs but unsubstantiated in reality. Just because the Heritage foundation picks up a few odd figures from its known slanted resources and runs it through their rumor mill does not make them accurate

NB even suggests in another thread that these are the jobs, at $78 per hour; we would like to see at Napa Pipe. Sure would if we could, but we would like to see the $25 to $35 hourly rates that existed there not long ago.

If you really believe that a top assembly trade mechanic in a factory has a wage exceeding 150K per year you are as gullible as any 14 year old child with a comic book. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 12, 2009 6:00 PM:

" freeport56 - I'm afraid that once again you are wrong about who creates the most jobs in America.

The vast majority of the jobs in the USA are provided by small business operators. Period. End of story.

Most of those folks are not even wealthy by the standards of John McCain, recent Republican candidate for president.

John McCain's "wealthy" was $5 to $7 million a year... like his wife makes!

The folks who are REALLY wealthy... the folks that Mr. Bush called his base? You know, 'the haves and have mores'.

Why those folks ALREADY own more than the bottom 150 million Americans who work for a living.

But in large measure, they don't use their money to provide jobs in America. In fact, most of them are tax evaders and job outsourcers.

Facts are that the Republican-enablers are shilling for people that are closing shop in the USA and laying off millions of Americans.

It's past time to stop listening to Republican-shills as if they were 'on your side'.

They're NOT!

If you don't make more than $250,000 a year, the Republicans, and their shills, are PART OF AMERICA'S PROBLEM.

When have you ever heard of vampires stop feeding? The only time I know of is when they have a large wooden stake centered over their ribcage and somebody vigorously uses a mallet.

~Ruff "

steph wrote on Jan 12, 2009 8:08 PM:

" Why the $250,000 cut-off, Ruff?

Where ever did you get the idea that people who make $250,000 don't work?

Maybe you'd like to give your doctor just one more reason to quit his or her job? Maybe one more reason for a small business operator to shut the doors?
One more reason for people to decide against braces for their kids or to buy a new car or put new windows in their house? The orthodontist and local car salesman and the window guy downtown might have a thing or two to say about that. Don't need that trip to Hawaii or NYC--can't afford it this year because our taxes just went up $40,000? So, we lay off another flight attendant or dental technician, who cares.
Who do you think pays their salaries, Ruff? The government? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:42 AM:

" steph - I hope that you realize that to ask your question is to answer it?

At the $250,000 a year mark is where the income earned is greater than some 80% to 90% of American earners.

Trust me - there are LOTS more people who are deciding not to get braces for their kids, etc among those who make LESS than $250,000 a year.

Income taxes are levied on business profits not gross revenue, so... let's call him... 'Joe the Plumber' has to make $250,000 in PROFITS before they pay a dime more in taxes than anybody else who makes less.

Very few people making $250,000 in PROFITS are going to be shutting down their businesses. They'd arrange for a family take-over or sell the business.

WE BOTH KNOW, that it's businesses that are NOT making a profit that close, "my friend".

And currently, most small businesses are in need of CUSTOMERS with money to spend. Since 80% to 90% of Americans make less than $250,000 a year a middle-class tax cut will put money in their pockets.

The designers of this Republican-enabling talking-point generally hope that people are too ignorant to understand how things are rigged against the 'little guy' and in favor of the greedheads.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out the fallacy in this argument for a system designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poorer.

~Ruff "

Rob C wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:16 AM:

" So in sum, the only answer is to confiscate, redistribute and dramatically enlarge government and unions.

And Keynes is uber superior to Smith and Friedman.

Isn't it great we have solved so much today? And if this really is the answer, why, pray tell, is CA in the mess it is in? Because this state has followed the prescriptions offered here in rebuttal to a great extent.

I find it ironic that the solutions proffered is really a peek into CA fiscal policy for the past fifteen years. It's worked out so well for us, hasn't it?

What generally isn't appreciated is that power concentrates to stay in power, and power in this state does that by bribing voters with their own money.

But the bill has come due, hasn't it?

Nonetheless taxes will go up. By 2020 or so , the national tax load as a percentage of GDP will likely go from 17% to nearly 25%. No way around it. And services will be also be cut or delayed. The key to the discussion will be how progressive the tax load is designed.

But what can be done? Eliminating absolutisim, polemic, fighting the last war, etc would be a good start.

Obama's plan offers good balance between tax increases and tax cuts. No one will be happy, which is often the sign of a good plan. We'll see how the hill plays it out. Sacramento would be well advised to fashion a similar plan as opposed to its current emulation of the hill.

Because as you can tell from above, no on wants progress - only victory is paramount to punish every perceived past transgression. "

napablogger wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:48 PM:

" Good points Rob, I am glad you see that Obama is not being the total socialist that the right tried to depict him as during the campaign, and today as well from some.

The fact is that even though the financial bail outs, the tax cuts, and the stimulus packages aren't going to do much, we don't have any other good options. We have spent money we didnt have for years and the bill has come due now in a way that it cannot be kicked down the road.

On the 250K thing, my point about it is that even if we increased the top rate it wouldn't be enough money to make that much of a difference.

About a trillion over the course of the Iraq war, which of course would have paid for that. But we are in so deep now that that increase will only handle a bit of the problem. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy