Some rich people accuse Obama of class warfare while they praise the bipartisan deficit commission. Do they realize that the latter raises taxes more on the top 0.1%?
Pop quiz, hotshot. Which fiscal cliff plan raises taxes on the rich more, President Obama's or Bowles-Simpson?
The answer is ... both. Obama's plan increases taxes more on the top 1 percent, but Bowles-Simpson increases taxes more on the top 0.1 percent. The chart below breaks down the top-end tax increases in the Obama
and Bowles-Simpson plans over the next ten years. There's $1.36 trillion
in new revenue for Obama and $1.253 trillion for Bowles-Simpson from
the top 1 percent, versus $753.6 billion in new revenue for Obama and
$834.6 billion for Bowles-Simpson from the top 0.1 percent. That's the
difference between class warfare and super-class warfare.*
Here's a quick refresher on what the Obama and Bowles-Simpson plans would do for high earners. The president's plan would bring back the Clinton-era level rates of 36 and 39.6 percent for the top two brackets -- kicking in at incomes of $250,000 and $398,350, respectively -- and limit the value of their tax deductions to 28 percent. (Remember, deductions are currently worth more to higher earners because of their higher tax brackets). Then it would raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 20 percent -- which is really a 23.8 percent rate when you include the Obamacare surtax -- and tax dividends as ordinary income. Add it all up, and it's roughly $1.6 trillion in new revenue over the next decade, all from the top 2 percent of households.
Bowles-Simpson raises far more in overall taxes, but it raises about as much from the wealthy. Nearly half of the $2.6 trillion it would bring in over a decade would come from the top 1 percent, and it does that while cutting the top marginal rate to 28 percent. It's not magic. It's fundamental tax reform. (This is the part where you mutter something about lowering rates and broadening the base). Bowles-Simpson would pare or eliminate nearly every tax expenditure. They would turn the mortgage interest and charitable deductions into 12 percent credits so they wouldn't be worth more to richer households, phase out the employer healthcare exemption entirely by 2038, end the tax-free status of municipal bonds, limit tax-preferred retirement contributions and, oh, get rid of everything else. That's a lot of base-broadening, but the big change, at least when it comes to progressivity, is their plan to tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income -- in other words, at 28 percent. That's quite a tax hike for the top 0.1 percent, who earned half of all capital gains in 2011. But there's a caveat. This assumes that Bowles-Simpson actually could end the exclusion of capital gains at death, which would do a lot for progressivity and revenues, but is towards the "not" end of the politically possible spectrum. This is how you get a plan that's more HENRY (high-earner-not-rich-yet) friendly, and less plutocrat friendly.
Now, there are plenty of reasons for CEOs to like Bowles-Simpson despite its higher taxes. It cuts entitlements how they like to cut entitlements. In other words, it raises the retirement age and uses less generous measures of inflation when it calculates benefits -- never mind that Social Security isn't a driver of long-term deficits. It also raises taxes significantly on the middle class, which the rich might like because it doesn't make them feel like they're being singled out.
But it shows how little anybody knows what's actually in Bowles-Simpson that Obama's plan to tax the rich is seen as soaking them and Bowles-Simpson is not, despite raising almost as much money from the top 1 percent -- and doing it more progressively! What's the matter with the Upper East Side? Maybe Fix the Debt needs to fix its false consciousness? Or at least realize that Obama doesn't want to punish success any more than a pair of swashbuckling centrists do.
By replacing Mike Flynn with H.R. McMaster, President Donald Trump added one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced to his team.
Let me be as clear as I can be: The president’s selection of H.R. McMaster to be his new national security advisor is unambiguously good news. The United States, and the world, are safer for his decision.
McMaster is one of the most talented officers the U.S. Army has ever produced. That sounds like hyperbole but isn’t. In the Gulf War, he led an armored cavalry troop. At the Battle of 73 Easting—a battle much studied since—his 12 tanks destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 armored personnel carriers, and 30 trucks. In 23 minutes.
In the next Iraq war, he led a brigade in 2005 and was among the first U.S. commanders to think differently about the conflict and employ counterinsurgency tactics to pacify Tal Afar—one of the most wickedly complex cities in Iraq. He excelled at two different echelons of command in two very different wars.
“I’ve never seen anything quite like” Trump’s approach to national security, says a former counterterrorism adviser to three presidents.
Updated on February 20 at 4:40 p.m. ET
President Donald Trump has made national security a centerpiece of his agenda, justifying policies ranging from a travel ban to close relations with Russia. But the United States is now more vulnerable to attack than it was before Trump took office, according to the man who served as George W. Bush’s crisis manager on 9/11.
“In terms of a major terrorist attack in the United States or on U.S. facilities, I think we’re significantly less ready than we were on January 19,” said Richard Clarke, who served on the National Security Council in the George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations. “I think our readiness is extremely low and dangerously low. Certainly [government] agencies at a professional level will respond [to an attack], but having a coordinated interagency response is unlikely given the current cast of characters [in the administration] and their experience.”
Joe Moran’s book Shrinking Violets is a sweeping history that doubles as a (quiet) defense of timidity.
The Heimlich maneuver, in the nearly 50 years since Dr. Henry Heimlich established its protocol, has been credited with saving many lives. But not, perhaps, as many as it might have. The maneuver, otherwise so wonderfully simple to execute, has a marked flaw: It requires that choking victims, before anything can be done to help them, first alert other people to the fact that they are choking. And some people, it turns out, are extremely reluctant to do so. “Sometimes,” Dr. Heimlich noted, bemoaning how easily human nature can become a threat to human life, “a victim of choking becomes embarrassed by his predicament and succeeds in getting up and leaving the area unnoticed.” If no one happens upon him, “he will die or suffer permanent brain damage within seconds.”
The preconditions are present in the U.S. today. Here’s the playbook Donald Trump could use to set the country down a path toward illiberalism.
It’s 2021, and President Donald Trump will shortly be sworn in for his second term. The 45th president has visibly aged over the past four years. He rests heavily on his daughter Ivanka’s arm during his infrequent public appearances.
Fortunately for him, he did not need to campaign hard for reelection. His has been a popular presidency: Big tax cuts, big spending, and big deficits have worked their familiar expansive magic. Wages have grown strongly in the Trump years, especially for men without a college degree, even if rising inflation is beginning to bite into the gains. The president’s supporters credit his restrictive immigration policies and his TrumpWorks infrastructure program.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.
When my wife was struck by mysterious, debilitating symptoms, our trip to the ER revealed the sexism inherent in emergency treatment.
Early on a Wednesday morning, I heard an anguished cry—then silence.
I rushed into the bedroom and watched my wife, Rachel, stumble from the bathroom, doubled over, hugging herself in pain.
“Something’s wrong,” she gasped.
This scared me. Rachel’s not the type to sound the alarm over every pinch or twinge. She cut her finger badly once, when we lived in Iowa City, and joked all the way to Mercy Hospital as the rag wrapped around the wound reddened with her blood. Once, hobbled by a training injury in the days before a marathon, she limped across the finish line anyway.
So when I saw Rachel collapse on our bed, her hands grasping and ungrasping like an infant’s, I called the ambulance. I gave the dispatcher our address, then helped my wife to the bathroom to vomit.
Experts on Turkish politics say the use of that term misunderstands what it means in Turkey—and the ways that such allegations can be used to enable political repression.
Over the last week, the idea of a “deep state” in the United States has become a hot concept in American politics. The idea is not new, but a combination of leaks about President Trump and speculation that bureaucrats might try to slow-walk or undermine his agenda have given it fresh currency. A story in Friday’s New York Times, for example, reports, “As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a ‘Deep State’ in America.”
It’s an idea that I touched on in discussing the leaks. While there are various examples of activity that has been labeled as originating from a “deep state,” from Latin America to Egypt, the most prominent example is Turkey, where state institutions contain a core of diehard adherents to the secular nationalism of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which is increasingly being eroded by the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has seen a series of coups, stretching back to 1960, as well as other activity attributed to a deep state.
Humans have been living and working with horses for more than 5,000 years, since the first domesticated equines had their teeth worn down by primitive bridles in northern Kazakhstan. Hands could not have built modern civilization without the help of hooves—to haul ploughs, pull carriages, march soldiers into battle, and carry messages of love and war across hundreds of otherwise-insurmountable miles.
An unlikely pairing of wily predator and one-ton prey, humans and horses have managed to successfully communicate across the species barrier because we share a language: emotion. Experienced riders and trainers can learn to read the subtle moods of individual horses according to wisdom passed down from one horseman to the next, but also from years of trial-and-error. I suffered many bruised toes and nipped fingers before I could detect a curious swivel of the ears, irritated flick of the tail, or concerned crinkle above a long-lashed eye.
Who is its reported author, Andrii Artemenko, and what does he want?
On Sunday, The New York Timesreported that two associates of President Donald Trump, including Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, presented a sealed envelope to then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn containing a secret peace plan to resolve the three-year conflict in Ukraine. The plan, according to the report, would have Russian forces pull out of eastern Ukraine, and have Ukraineconduct a referendum on whether Crimea would be leased to Russia for 50 or 100 years. It also outlined a way to lift sanctions on Russia.
The reported plan raised hackles in Kiev, and not just because it would, in one form or another, recognize Crimea as part of Russia. “It’s nonsense,” Ukrainian parliament (Rada) member and former investigative journalist Mustafa Nayyem told me on Monday. “I don’t think anyone here in Ukraine would accept such a plan. It’s the banal bargaining over territory, and the time for that has passed.”
Lip service to the crucial function of the Fourth Estate is not enough to sustain it.
It’s not that Mark Zuckerberg set out to dismantle the news business when he founded Facebook 13 years ago. Yet news organizations are perhaps the biggest casualty of the world Zuckerberg built.
There’s reason to believe things are going to get worse.
A sprawling new manifesto by Zuckerberg, published to Facebook on Thursday, should set off new alarm bells for journalists, and heighten news organizations’ sense of urgency about how they—and their industry—can survive in a Facebook-dominated world.
Facebook’s existing threat to journalism is well established. It is, at its core, about the flow of the advertising dollars that news organizations once counted on. In this way, Facebook’s role is a continuation of what began in 1995, when Craigslist was founded. Its founder, Craig Newmark, didn’t actively aim to decimate newspapers, but Craigslist still eviscerated a crucial revenue stream for print when people stopped buying newspaper classifieds ads.