Today on Blogcritics
Home » State Sovereignty Update

State Sovereignty Update

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Now that most of the state legislatures are back in session, we’re starting to see some progress on the passage of state sovereignty bills. It looks like at least 22 states have bills in some stage of development. About half are in the process of being drafted, several are in committee or out for debate, and the pack is being led by Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, where the bills have strong support and will likely be voted on within a matter of weeks. As yet none have passed into law, but we may see that happen in some of the most active states fairly quickly.

The Arizona bill is interesting because it actually cites New York v. US in the text of the bill, pointing out one of the 10th Amendment cases which is often cited in arguments for state nullification of federal mandates. It seems to have a lot of support and a realistic chance of passage.

Oklahoma’s sovereignty bill, which passed their House last session but got stalled in the Senate, came out of the rules committee last week with unanimous support and should move forward quickly. It may run into problems in the state Senate again because that body is more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans than is their House of Representatives.

As demonstrated in the recently introduced Michigan resolution some of the bills target a much more specific threat. Michigan’s bill asserts 10th Amendment rights, but does it in the context of reiterating and guaranteeing protection of the right of the citizens to own firearms, taking a stand against possible gun seizures from the federal government. The Montana resolution was introduced at the same time and is largely the same with the same focus on gun rights.

State Representative Dan Itse, author of the New Hampshire sovereignty resolution, appeared on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News over the weekend to explain the bill. Although New Hampshire’s bill is one of the most radical, Itse stressed that it was not about secession from the union, but about reasserting state control, saying, “This isn’t about withdrawing from the union. The happiest resolution of this resolution would be a renewed union within the confines of the Constitution.”

But he went on to make the key distinction that the New Hampshire bill actually makes the claim, based on the writings of Jefferson and Madison, that if the government fails to obey the Constitution then it has effectively negated itself and dissolved the union formed by that document. Itse said, “If the general government nullifies the Constitution, how do you withdraw from something which does not exist?”

Oklahoma State Representative Jason Murphey wrote an editorial for the Edmond Sun explaining his state’s sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in the so-called stimulus bill, linking this issue to the efforts of some governors to block federal spending within their states. He notes that it is “is going to be important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill.” He also expresses the widespread concern that much of the money in the stimulus is intended to benefit the Democratic Party’s political allies, pointing out that “we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN — the possible recipient of $2 billion because of the stimulus bill.”

A lot of crazy claims about the sovereignty movement are still circulating, many of them seemingly generated by Ron Paul supporters involved in his Campaign for Liberty to advance their own interests. But the truth is that, contrary to their assertions, this is not a movement for secession from the union, and the sovereignty bills are generally not arising out of grassroots efforts from far-right groups like C4L.

Rather, these resolutions are originating from inside legislatures and from established state politicians, specifically in response to concerns about unfunded mandates and excessive burdens placed on the states by the federal government. The expense and partisan character of many of the elements of the stimulus bill is increasing concern and helping to motivate legislators to pass these state resolutions as are federal efforts to limit the constitutional rights of individuals on a nationwide basis. While the 10th Amendment is central to their argument, legislators are more concerned about retaining power they see being gradually eroded by the federal government than more abstract issues of Constitutional rights.

About Dave Nalle

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I stand by my assertion: your comments on this matter are about ideology, not people.

    The way you have demonized this bill [you lump it all together, as if it all the same]: ideological.

    The way you describe the economic crisis and the way forward [it's either your way, or doom]: utterly, rigidly ideological.

    The more ideological Republicans insist on becoming, the more elections they will continue to lose.

    Latest Gallup Poll approval numbers for:

    Dems in Congress: 43% [up 25 points since the first of the year]

    GOP in Congress: 19%

    The GOP is becoming the Party of No. It’s a sorry spectacle.

    And all your Alice-in-Wonderland logic [if we just cut taxes, everything will get better] in the face of a major economic crisis starts to look immoral as well as stupidly stubborn.

  • http://www.thecobraslair.com Cobra

    States Sovereignty sounds an awful lot like States Rights. I even catch Dave slipping up and saying it out loud in #10.

    When I hear Southern State governors talking about States Rights those Star Trek red-alert horns sound off in my head.

    This is really starting to get scary.

    –Cobra

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave – and all those who want a really good insight into the conservative frame of mind:

    Handy, the truth is that the poor are the LEAST harmed by recession and depression, because they are already poor and know how to deal with it.

    Don’t worry about the poor – they’re already poor so it’s no big deal. What a wonderful example of the conservative – and NOT the American – mindset. Dave, you said it better than I ever could.

    America – the Land of Opportunity – but if you’re poor, you’re screwed because the conservatives don’t give a tinker’s damn about you. (please forgive my language, but this royally ticks me off!)

    Dave – wanna be a true patriot? Do what is best for ALL Americans, and not just the ones who give the best donations to the GOP coffers! It’s the mindset that YOU just stated that shows the magnitude of the conservatives’ error! THIS MINDSET is precisely why thirty years of conservative economic policy has given us the greatest gap between highest and lowest incomes since the Great Depression!

    Conservatives are bound fast to the paradigm that if they help the rich, the rich will invest more and the benefits will ‘trickle down’ to help everyone else…but this has never…NEVER been the case in America’s economic history! It…does…not…work as the past 30 years has shown, so it’s time to change your paradigm! Even GREENSPAN admits that now!

    On the other hand, if you INCREASE the opportunities for the POOR, if you open the door a little wider and even give them a leg up, there are that many more who will succeed and bring themselves up out of poverty and become part of the middle class! Not only that, but their success means they will spend MORE money, there will be MORE income to state and federal coffers, and the CEO’s and business owners will receive MORE income because the ex-poor are now NOT so poor and have more to spend!

    Is this really so hard to understand? “A rising tide floats ALL boats”, Dave – meaning if you increase the opportunities for ALL Americans, the rich will benefit too!

    DO THE RIGHT THING, Dave! Support ALL Americans including the poor, and the rich will benefit too! But if you only support the moneyed, then the pool of those who benefit from their largess is far smaller indeed!

    Let me close with my most favorite lines of all poetry (which you can see referenced in the poem I sent you):

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Give the poor a sincere welcome, greater opportunity, and even a leg up…and what do you get? AMERICA!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle


    When I hear Southern State governors talking about States Rights those Star Trek red-alert horns sound off in my head.

    You mean Southern states like New Hampshire and Massachusetts and Maine and Indiana and Idaho? Those backwoods, racist southern rednecks?

    This is really starting to get scary.

    When your horizons have been constrained by bigotry the whole world looks scary.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Don’t worry about the poor – they’re already poor so it’s no big deal. What a wonderful example of the conservative – and NOT the American – mindset. Dave, you said it better than I ever could.

    You seem to have missed my point entirely. The poor aren’t made poorer by a general decline in the economy. They are also not made poorer by misguided attempts at relief.

    While you worry about raising up the poor – which our economy does naturally for almost 90% of them – I’m much more concerned about not driving hard working folks down into poverty with them. Why is that bad?

    America – the Land of Opportunity – but if you’re poor, you’re screwed because the conservatives don’t give a tinker’s damn about you. (please forgive my language, but this royally ticks me off!)

    Except that it’s all in your head and certainly not in anything I wrote. What conservatives want to give the poor is opportunity to go out and earn a living and get an education and advance themselves. Why is that bad? Plentiful jobs, upward mobility, minimal barriers in their way. That’s how you help the poor and help society at the same time.

    Dave – wanna be a true patriot? Do what is best for ALL Americans, and not just the ones who give the best donations to the GOP coffers! It’s the mindset that YOU just stated that shows the magnitude of the conservatives’ error! THIS MINDSET is precisely why thirty years of conservative economic policy has given us the greatest gap between highest and lowest incomes since the Great Depression!

    But Glenn, in my comment I never said anything about helping out the rich. I talked about helping out the working poor and the middle class. Why is the guy earning $25K a year who might lose his job less important to you than the person who is on public assistance and looking for a job. If the $25K a year guy can’t support his family on his wages because of runaway inflation, or loses his job because businesses shut down then you’ll be worrying about two poor guys instead of one. I can’t believe you’d rather see two people poor than one poor and one at least getting by.

    Conservatives are bound fast to the paradigm that if they help the rich, the rich will invest more and the benefits will ‘trickle down’ to help everyone else…but this has never…NEVER been the case in America’s economic history! It…does…not…work as the past 30 years has shown, so it’s time to change your paradigm! Even GREENSPAN admits that now!

    But this isn’t what I’ve said here, and it’s not necessarily what conservatives believe. On a purely economic basis the best place to insert wealth into the economy is in the middle. Put it in the hands of consumers. Put it in the hands of middle class entrepreneurs who create most of the new jobs in the country.

    On the other hand, if you INCREASE the opportunities for the POOR, if you open the door a little wider and even give them a leg up, there are that many more who will succeed and bring themselves up out of poverty and become part of the middle class! Not only that, but their success means they will spend MORE money, there will be MORE income to state and federal coffers, and the CEO’s and business owners will receive MORE income because the ex-poor are now NOT so poor and have more to spend!

    I agree 100%. And the best way to give them a hand-up is to get them a job, preferably one with some hope for advancement. But jobs don’t come out of nowhere, and if the government is going to be in the job making business the best way to do that is to help out the middle class and upper middle class who make most of the jobs and hire most of the people.

    Is this really so hard to understand? “A rising tide floats ALL boats”, Dave – meaning if you increase the opportunities for ALL Americans, the rich will benefit too!

    How can I disagree, unless you’re setting a very low bar for who is “rich?” As I’ve written before, the super-rich who most of the class-envy is directed at are essentially outside of the domestic economy. Taxing them more or taxing them less is meaningless. They proved that in England in the 1970s. And if you do the math, even if you took all their money away and distributed it to the poor it wouldn’t do more than buy them a couple of meals.

    Give the poor a sincere welcome, greater opportunity, and even a leg up…and what do you get? AMERICA!

    Works for me. So why are unions, their lobbies and the legislators they’ve bought so adamantly opposed to guest worker programs and expanded immigration?

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    I know this: I’ve worked my ass off to get to a point where I’m earning sixty-one thousand a year, which in 2009 is giving me a lifestyle equal to that I enjoyed when I was starting out at thirty-two thousand a year.

    Make the inflation go faster, and it’s going to be more like what I was living at at nineteen thousand a year, just out of the army.

    Where the hell is MY upward mobility in your model, Glenn?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    You seem to have missed my point entirely. The poor aren’t made poorer by a general decline in the economy. They are also not made poorer by misguided attempts at relief.

    “They aren’t made poorer” – um, Dave, when one can’t get a job because of a general decline in the economy and one’s unemployment benefits run out, one DOES become ‘poorer’. The RELIEF comes from jobs – which the private sector is presently having a very hard time doing. That’s the purpose of the infrastructure sections of the stimulus bill – giving people a chance to work…and even if you want to take Michael Steele’s view that it’s just ‘busy work’, it’s work rebuilding our long-neglected national infrastructure…which (like the CCC projects in the Great Depression) will render benefits for generations to come.

    While you worry about raising up the poor – which our economy does naturally for almost 90% of them – I’m much more concerned about not driving hard working folks down into poverty with them. Why is that bad?

    Um, I’d love to see where you came up with that “90%”. Until I see a reference, I’ll assume that’s a mere baseless assumption. And when it comes to driving hard-working folks down into poverty, I think you’ll find that since most large corporations ALREADY pay no federal taxes, you canNOT use ‘oppressive federal taxes’ as a scapegoat for millions of layoffs in the past year and millions more jobs shipped overseas in the previous three decades of deregulation and tax-cutting.

    Remember, one of America’s strongest economic times was during the 50′s, even though we had a 90+% top marginal tax rate. If one were to listen to the conservatives, that’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster. But there was no disaster – that didn’t happen until the Republicans went on a tax-cutting spree…just like back in the 1920′s….

    Except that it’s all in your head and certainly not in anything I wrote. What conservatives want to give the poor is opportunity to go out and earn a living and get an education and advance themselves. Why is that bad? Plentiful jobs, upward mobility, minimal barriers in their way. That’s how you help the poor and help society at the same time.

    ‘Conservatives want to help’. What a compassionate way to say ‘tough love’. Now ‘tough love’ isn’t always bad – I like deadbeats about as much as you do. However, IMO most conservatives use the ‘tough love’ approach as their excuse to not have to do anything at all for the poor! After all, how often do you see Republicans really go to any effort to organize poor minority communities to increase their access to education and health care? Instead, it’s “let them eat tax cuts!” When I see REAL compassion and REAL effort by the Republican elite to spend actual face time inside the ghetto to help better the lives of those trapped in poverty (90% get out of poverty, you say?), THEN I’ll believe there’s such a thing as compassionate conservatism…but not before.

    But Glenn, in my comment I never said anything about helping out the rich. I talked about helping out the working poor and the middle class. Why is the guy earning $25K a year who might lose his job less important to you than the person who is on public assistance and looking for a job. If the $25K a year guy can’t support his family on his wages because of runaway inflation, or loses his job because businesses shut down then you’ll be worrying about two poor guys instead of one. I can’t believe you’d rather see two people poor than one poor and one at least getting by.

    That’s good rhetoric – but you’re making a grand assumption that (1) I care about one less than the other and (2) that whatever the Obama administration is doing, it must be worse than what the conservatives have done for nearly thirty years. Are you really insisting that even more tax cuts are the way to go when the past three decades (and the years preceding the Great Depression) all indicate strongly to the contrary?

    Dave, I suggest that, just as you had the courage to change your mind about political matters in the past, find the courage to admit to yourself that what’s been ‘business as usual’ for the past three decades is what’s landed us in this mess…and doing more of the same will NOT get us out of it.

    But [trickle-down economics] isn’t what I’ve said here, and it’s not necessarily what conservatives believe. On a purely economic basis the best place to insert wealth into the economy is in the middle. Put it in the hands of consumers. Put it in the hands of middle class entrepreneurs who create most of the new jobs in the country.

    Incredible. TDE “isn’t necessarily what conservatives believe”? Actually, that’s RIGHT. Because there are some conservatives – like Ah-nold (and Bush 41) – who discovered that there IS such a thing as cutting taxes too deeply.

    But you insinuate that we’re not trying to help the middle class! Have you not read the infrastructure support projects? Are those not golden opportunities for the small businessman to work with the government and/or larger corporations and hopefully make a profit doing it? When a small contractor gets a bid to work on the high-speed rails or any of the other hundreds of projects in the plan, you don’t think life will get better for him and for everyone that he would hire?

    Dave, the SOCIAL initiatives are for the poor. The INFRASTRUCTURE initiatives are golden opportunities for the middle class and small businesses.

    I agree 100%. And the best way to give them a hand-up is to get them a job, preferably one with some hope for advancement. But jobs don’t come out of nowhere, and if the government is going to be in the job making business the best way to do that is to help out the middle class and upper middle class who make most of the jobs and hire most of the people.

    And THAT is why the Obama administration insisted on the INFRASTRUCTURE improvements in the bill. The SOCIAL initiatives are for the poor. Speaking of which, I believe you when you said how you’ve struggled in the past. However (assuming you’re white), I strongly doubt that you can compare your struggle to that faced by those minorities trapped in inner-city poverty. You canNOT compare your experience to theirs. On the other hand, those who DID rise up out of the ghettos are quite enthusiastic about social programs to help those still in the ghettos. Whose experience should be more applicable – yours? Or theirs?

    How can I disagree, unless you’re setting a very low bar for who is “rich?” As I’ve written before, the super-rich who most of the class-envy is directed at are essentially outside of the domestic economy. Taxing them more or taxing them less is meaningless. They proved that in England in the 1970s. And if you do the math, even if you took all their money away and distributed it to the poor it wouldn’t do more than buy them a couple of meals.

    Hm – if we took all the money away from the rich…let’s examine that statement! “In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.” That was from the Wikipeda, with the top marginal tax rate be 35%.

    But we DON’T want to take away their money! What we DO want is the realization that historically speaking, 35% is LOW, and that periods of low top marginal tax rates preceded fiscal crises, whereas periods of HIGH top marginal tax rates, our economy has performed just fine!

    Sorry, Dave, but those are the HISTORICAL FACTS. Whatever your rhetoric and principles may be, those are the HISTORICAL FACTS…and the conservatives are proving yet once more that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

    Works for me. So why are unions, their lobbies and the legislators they’ve bought so adamantly opposed to guest worker programs and expanded immigration?

    ‘Scuse me, but legislators on BOTH sides of the aisle are howling about immigrants! How about taking a more comprehensive look before making such blanket statements, hm?

    “Republicans and Democrats take different approaches on the subject of immigration. The Republican Party Platform supports border security and employment enforcement, but not amnesty or legalization, while McCain himself supports a pathway to citizenship, which he carefully terms as “addressing the undocumented.” The Democratic Party Platform supports comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship, but remained silent on the border fence, while Obama and Biden both initially supported the border fence and additional security, while remaining fairly quiet on the subject today. On these issues where the candidates adopt a stance different from their respective party’s stance, the candidates actually meet. They also meet on employment eligibility verification and enforcement against employers, but Obama thinks that enforcement against the undocumented workers themselves is expensive and ineffective when the employer has no sanctions and can just go out and hire a new batch of workers ready to take the places of the deported workers. The candidates all seem to agree on the need for comprehensive immigration reform, while McCain’s earlier ardent support of the comprehensive immigration reform bill waned when seeking the Republican Party nomination.”

    In other words, both sides support legal immigration…but they take wildly different positions on illegal aliens. Republicans – like you – base their opinion more on principle than on pragmatism by opposing any consideration of amnesty.

    Democrats, OTOH, are more pragmatic. We KNOW we’ll never get rid of eleven million illegal immigrants and destroy the Californian economy by doing so. So we are more open to amnesty.

    Frankly, in MY opinion, I’m all for amnesty for those with spotless records…but ONLY if a fence is built to stanch the daily flood of illegal aliens. It won’t stop all, but that would cut it down by half or even three quarters.

    In summary, in most fights between principle and pragmatism, pragmatism will prevail.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Glenn/Dave:

    In my opinion, you’re all over the map in your #55 and 57. Why don’t you narrow the subject down to one particular principle or issue and discuss it in depth. I know it’s all connect, but I’d try to find the core of the disagreement and go from there. As things stand, it’s not just that it is hard to follow but the entire discussion tends to be scattered – like trying to score on points.

    Roger

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger -

    I was thinking the same thing, but the exercise allowed me to identify something that I posted in the other thread: the main difference between Dave and myself is that he puts principle before pragmatism, whereas I feel pragmatism must be paramount in the determination of what should and should not be done. You can see that difference nearly every one of our discussions.

    And just while I was typing this, I was listening to the radio and Nancy Pelosi was speaking about the necessity to ‘marry’ principle with pragmatism! Hm…and perhaps the offspring would be…’Prankenstein’? Owww…..

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Glenn, I’m all about pragmatism. I just don’t agree with what you think is pragmatic in a lot of these cases. Your pragmatism seems formed largely by ideology and wishful thinking.

    Um, I’d love to see where you came up with that “90%”. Until I see a reference, I’ll assume that’s a mere baseless assumption.t

    That seems singularly ungracious. I based it off of the 1998 CBO study of income mobility, which has about 86.5 of people in the lowest income quintile moving up in income in the course of their working life. Your query caused me to go out and look and discover that the CBO has finally issued a new study which suggests that income mobility is considerably better now than it was in the 90s, with about 55% moving out of the bottom quintile in a decade and 91% moving up in 30 years.

    And when it comes to driving hard-working folks down into poverty, I think you’ll find that since most large corporations ALREADY pay no federal taxes, you canNOT use ‘oppressive federal taxes’ as a scapegoat for millions of layoffs in the past year and millions more jobs shipped overseas in the previous three decades of deregulation and tax-cutting.

    It’s actually quite a small number of corporations which pay little or no federal taxes, but the problem is that so long as our tax rates are the highest in the world more and more smaller companies will try to join them by offshoring.

    Remember, one of America’s strongest economic times was during the 50′s, even though we had a 90+% top marginal tax rate. If one were to listen to the conservatives, that’s a sure-fire recipe for disaster. But there was no disaster – that didn’t happen until the Republicans went on a tax-cutting spree…just like back in the 1920′s….

    Money given to the government never produces prosperity, so at worst a high tax rate is bad for the economy and at best it’s irrelevant because those it applies to find ways to hide their money. So why engage in the hypocrisy?

    ‘Want to help’. What a compassionate way to say ‘tough love’. Now ‘tough love’ isn’t always bad – I like deadbeats about as much as you do. However, IMO most conservatives use the ‘tough love’ approach as their excuse to not have to do anything at all for the poor! After all, how often do you see Republicans really go to any effort to organize poor minority communities to increase their access to education and health care?

    Again, you engage in stereotyping based on prejudices rather than engaging with reality. Republicans/Conservatives do a great deal on a local level to help out people in their communities through private charity. Why is charity better when it’s delivered by government?

    Instead, it’s “let’them eat tax cuts!” When I see REAL compassion and REAL effort by the Republican elite to spend actual face time inside the ghetto to help better the lives of those trapped in poverty (90% get out of poverty, you say?), THEN I’ll believe there’s such a thing as compassionate conservatism…but not before.

    I’ve cited the studies before. Conservatives are by far more involved in charitable giving and volunteering than those who consider themselves liberal.

    That’s good rhetoric – but you’re making a grand assumption that (1) I care about one less than the other and (2) that whatever the Obama administration is doing, it must be worse than what the conservatives have done for nearly thirty years.

    It’s pretty much the same policy as the last 20 years, and it’s not a conservative policy and never ha been.

    Are you really insisting that even more tax cuts are the way to go when the past three decades (and the years preceding the Great Depression) all indicate strongly to the contrary?

    Except that there’s no evidence of this at all. Between 1913 and 1929 the top marginal tax rate went up from 7% to 25%. Then if anything the depression was accelerated by the increase of the top marginal rate abruptly to 63% in 1932. And FDR kept raising it and the depression kept getting worse and worse until it was ultiamtely up to 94%.

    In the 1950s tax rates were lowered substantially for most taxpayers. While the top rate was only lowered from 94% to 91%, the rate for someone earning $20,000 a year went down from 56% to 38%. So your decade of prosperity was characterized by lower taxes, not higher taxes.

    Dave, I suggest that, just as you had the courage to change your mind about political matters in the past, find the courage to admit to yourself that what’s been ‘business as usual’ for the past three decades is what’s landed us in this mess…and doing more of the same will NOT get us out of it.

    Sure, if you’ll admit that what’s been done in the economy in that period has largely not been conservative and that what Obama wants to do is largely more of the same.

    But you insinuate that we’re not trying to help the middle class! Have you not read the infrastructure support projects? Are those not golden opportunities for the small businessman to work with the government and/or larger corporations and hopefully make a profit doing it? When a small contractor gets a bid to work on the high-speed rails or any of the other hundreds of projects in the plan, you don’t think life will get better for him and for everyone that he would hire?

    Short term jobs at relatively low wages. Jobs most Americans aren’t interested in or even looking for. Good for the Mexican immigrant population, though. Maybe we can persuade them to come back.

    On the other hand, those who DID rise up out of the ghettos are quite enthusiastic about social programs to help those still in the ghettos. Whose experience should be more applicable – yours? Or theirs

    You ought to get out and talk to some of those former ghetto residents before you make this sort of assumption. The left’s talking points on this sort of issue are based more on their wishful thinking than on reality.

    Hm – if we took all the money away from the rich…let’s examine that statement! “In 2007, the richest 5% of Americans paid over half of federal income taxes. The top 1% of income earners pay 25% of total income taxes.” That was from the Wikipeda, with the top marginal tax rate be 35%.

    Do you realize that the top 5% includes incomes down to as low as about $150K a year, which is hardly rich by any stretch of the imagination.

    But we DON’T want to take away their money! What we DO want is the realization that historically speaking, 35% is LOW, and that periods of low top marginal tax rates preceded fiscal crises, whereas periods of HIGH top marginal tax rates, our economy has performed just fine!

    Except that the top marginal tax rate is not what matters and if you look at more typical incomes, it is high rates at those levels which precede economic crises.

    Sorry, Dave, but those are the HISTORICAL FACTS.

    In some cases the wrong facts and in others ones where causality has not been proven.

    Whatever your rhetoric and principles may be, those are the HISTORICAL FACTS…and the conservatives are proving yet once more that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

    What is being repeated here is the massive, unwarranted spending of the Bush administration.

    ‘Scuse me, but legislators on BOTH sides of the aisle are howling about immigrants! How about taking a more comprehensive look before making such blanket statements, hm?

    And I disagree with both factions on this issue.

    A border fence is a ludicrous waste of money. The only ways to stop illegal immigration are to make jobs available here legally under a large-scale guest worker program and to work to improve wages and conditions in Mexico.

    Dave

  • JudiBug

    I hope by rightists, I do hope you don’t mean the lousy Republican Party and conservatives.

    I’m an independent, part Libertarian and whatever else I think makes common sense. I would like to see drugs legalized for adults to defund criminality and drug cartels instead of a durn invasion of Mexico, and I would like the federal government to stop overrunning our state, making us pay for a highway none of us want or need (corridor) while at the same time very giving little aid, much less representation.

    Sorry, but some of us are just a little tired of being fed a bunch of lies and led around by the nose by politicians (ALL BIG PARTIES)who are only out to help themselves, and you can’t put us in some pigeon hole according to the dogma of your political religion to make yourself feel cozy, because we don’t swallow that garbage.

    Thanks.

    Thanks.

  • BlueBonnie

    Someone please tell us everything that is in this bill that is going to help the economy. Don’t post a link….just say from your own personal knowledge of the content of this bill, what is in it that will save us from this mess?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Blue, this bill is NOT going to save the economy. It’s going to spend a lot of money, produce a very few jobs, pay off special interests and cause hyperinflation. Have fun.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    “America – the Land of Opportunity – but if you’re poor, you’re screwed because the conservatives don’t give a tinker’s damn about you. (please forgive my language, but this royally ticks me off!)”

    Yeah that would be a telling tale that spoke pretty ill of conservatives Glenn………..if it were true. But it’s not.

    Every major study of charitable giving that’s been done shows that red states where the majority of citizens tend to be more conservative, give far more in charitable donations than do blue states where progressives/liberals such as yourself and your mythology that you’re the only compassionate ones rule the day.

    But hey…….Glenn………..please don’t let anything as trivial as the truth get in the way of your little rants. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • BlueBonnie

    Bank of Omerica has a new policy. Any bank account with excess funds will be used to cover the funds in overdrawn accounts. Also, they will use any remaining funds to open accounts for those who don’t have an account. Anybody want to open an account with B.O.?

  • Arch Conservative

    I hope the editors of BC realize that by removing my alleged personal attack on Glenn they’re actually hurting him and not me.

    Because the comments were removed Glenn will not be able to document them as evidence when he files a 4 billion dollar lawsuit against me because I offended him.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But with it deleted we can all imagine what you said and come up with even better insults.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Well Dave it wasn’t even that creative and and it was so mild that it could barely be construed as a personal attack so you’re not missing much.

    But I’d rather people pay attention to the meat of that post which was basically me pointing out that assertions of Glenn and other liberals that conservatives are all heartless bastards just don’t jibe with reality.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    BlueBonnie @ #65: My credit union does that already, and has for years.

    Archie @ #66: Firstly, LOL. Secondly, whatever it was you said may have been pretty mild but your track record has earned you the ‘privilege’ of being edited more strictly than most other commenters.

  • Cindy

    Glenn,

    …conservatives don’t give a tinker’s damn about you. (please forgive my language…)

    Could you please watch that shit…what the fuck do you think this is–a locker room?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Besides, the actual phrase is “a tinker’s dam.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Which is a pretty ugly expression, when you think about it.

    Is it the Oakland Raiders’ locker room, perchance?

  • mikeylikesit

    handy: “This is an emergency bill, intended to be temporary. The states’ rights bullshit is irrelevant.”

    Ummm…yes, the spending only lasts a couple years, with some of the long-term infrastructure projects lasting longer. However, the debt is not temporary.

    Nor is the social agenda.

    Nor are the spending commitments that will linger after the stimulus bill expires, requiring more appropriations.

    If Obama had been honest, he would have simply labeled this his “budget” and been done with it. Instead, he marketed it as an emergency stimulus bill, and went ahead and pushed through a lot of spending under the radar than never would have sailed in a normal budget bill.

    Cash-strapped states, too, would be smart to reject this money…for economic reasons. The stimulus bill funds or partially funds a lot of programs, including outlays in welfare that roll back the ’90s welfare reform that even Bill Clinton takes credit for. For the couple years that the stimulus bill funds, states will be OK. After that, states will have committed themselves to spending programs, and the certainty of federal funding vanishes.

    And should states like California and elsewhere who are facing huge deficits plug their budgets with the stimulus money? Suppose a year or two from now that the economy is still in the doldrums, which is a real possibility. Instead of having made the painful cuts now, those states will be facing even more painful cuts in their next budget cycles.

    The better option might be to turn down the money now, make the necessary adjustments to the state budgets to keep the states solvent, and avoid entangling the states in a lot of spending commitments and social programs that could come back to cost the states billions in a few years.

    Of course, the argument against rejecting funds is also strong. Taxpayers in the state will have to pay that money to the federal government anyway, so wouldn’t it be better just to take the money so that those tax dollars don’t leave the state?

    But then with TARP, tax dollars from every other state seem to be flowing to the financial centers like New York, so it’s not like taxpayers in most states aren’t seeing their dollars fly elsewhere already.

  • Robert (WYOMING)

    The news media isn’t on the rights of americans citizens and they only encourage unjust laws against law abiding citizens. State soverieghty is the way to protect the citizens and states. The 1st and 2nd amend is under fire and needs protected. The 2nd amend is now incorprated to the 14th amend as of april 20, 2009, thanks to the 9th circuit court