Leftists Celebrate Tax Day by Protesting for Higher Minimum Wage

From Ben Shapiro, at Big Government.

Also at USA Today, "Fast-food strikes widen into social-justice movement."

Still more at CBS Los Angeles:

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax

Well, my wife and I paid our fair share. Thankfully we got a nice tax return this year. We're in the top 20 percent as well, although that's not as impressive as it sounds.

At WSJ, "And the bottom 20%? They get paid by Uncle Sam. We compare tax burdens as Tax Day approaches."

The Earned Income Tax Credit is the main reason folks at the bottom quintile get paid by Uncle Sam.

California Considers Establishing State-Level Earned Income Tax Credit

Interesting.

At WSJ, "Working Poor Bank On Tax Break in Costly California":

LOS ANGELES—For 30 years, Modesto Alejandro Vasquez has supported his family of four by working as a janitor in a downtown office building here. In 2014, he made about $30,000.

Earning 25% above the federal poverty level in costly Southern California, Mr. Vasquez looks forward to this time of year, when a tax refund puts extra cash in his pocket. He said he used the money—$6,000 this year—to pay off debts and repair a computer for his daughter.

A large portion of the refund came via the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is intended to aid the working poor by reducing the amount of taxes owed, or in many cases, like Mr. Vasquez’s, by providing a refund, based on a taxpayer’s income and number of dependents.

California lawmakers, responding to the state’s nation-leading poverty level, are considering the creation of a state EITC program. Already, half of the states and the District of Columbia offer such refunds and credits. Montana legislators are also considering a state EITC this year, and a several states are evaluating expansions of their state credits. Some of the state credits currently add as much as 50% to the federal benefit.

EITC programs aren’t popular in all quarters. Critics, including many fiscal conservatives, say the federal program is expensive, amounts to a handout to the poor and is subject to errors. They cite a report published last year by the Internal Revenue Service that found 24% of federal EITC payments made in fiscal 2013 were incorrect, including both overpayments and underpayments.

While California has a relatively high minimum wage, with the state’s level set to rise to $10 next year from $9 now, many families struggle. The state is among the five most expensive to live in, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which takes government-assistance programs into account in calculating poverty rates, places California at the top of the list among the 50 states and D.C., with a poverty rate of 23.4%.

In 2013, an estimated 9.8 million Californians—more than a quarter of the population—qualified for the federal EITC. California residents accounted for $7.3 billion of the more than $66 billion federal EITC claims in 2013.

Eight previous EITC proposals have been unsuccessful in California, but some legislative leaders say the state’s economic recovery and budget surplus could make the program more affordable this time around. “Politically, it seems more viable than it has in the last decade,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget Project, a think tank focused on the state’s low- and middle-income residents...

More.

Santa Barbara Fresh Market Closes: Will Shutter All Its Remaining Stores in California

Hmm...

And the state's economy is supposed to be picking up. Must be the disastrous regulatory environment, and in particular California's confiscatory tax regime.

There's a store in Laguna Hills as well. The company wanted to emphasize its growth strategy, and obviuosly the anti-business once-golden state wasn't going to fit with the plan.

At KEYT News Santa Barbara:

Obama's Budget-Busting Spending Plan Expected to Balloon Federal Debt to More Than $25 Trillion by 2025

Man, talk about drunken sailors.

The Obama-Dems have no inkling of restraint. None.

See Town Hall, "Obama's record budget: Tax the rich, screw the middle class":

The deficit would remain under $500 billion a year through 2018, but would rise to $687 billion by 2025, according to administration projections — though levels of red ink could still be considered manageable when measured against the size of the economy.

But the cost of financing the government's debt would spiral as the debt grows to more than $25 trillion by 2025 and interest rates rise. According to the projections. Interest costs would jump from $229 billion this year to $785 billion in 2025...

And see the Hill, "President to unveil $4 trillion budget that busts spending limits."

More astronomical budget projections at the Wall Street Journal, "Obama’s 2016 Budget: Behind the Numbers."

And see, "Obama Budget Sets Off Push for Deals: Republicans Dismiss Calls for New Taxes, but Openings for Compromise Are Seen."

Economic Growth Slows to 2.6 Percent in Fourth Quarter

Click through especially for the graph on quarterly GDP since 2000. The fourth quarter of 2008 was almost negative 9 percent. Man, talk about a crash.

Here, "U.S. Economic Growth Slows to 2.6% in Fourth Quarter: GDP Underscores Obstacles Facing Recovery as Troubles Mount Abroad."

Obama Administration Pushes to Tax '529' College Saving Accounts

Tax, tax, tax your life away.

The American left's insatiable demands for more revenue are bankrupting America and eviscerating the middle class.

From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Uncle Sam Is Coming After Your Savings":

Earlier in the week, I discussed the Obama administration's proposal to tax earnings on so-called 529 college savings plans, part of a package of tax hikes that will pay for new programs such as his proposal to make the first two years of community college free. This has been touted as a plan to hike taxes on the rich to help the middle class, but in fact it's more of a plan to redistribute money from the upper middle class to the lower middle class.

As I noted then, this proposal is not going anywhere, not just because Republican congressmen will block it, but because it would be very unpopular with affluent blue-state voters who currently vote for Democrats. About the only people I saw defending this particular idea were blue-state singles who haven't yet confronted the monstrous expense of shepherding their progeny into the new mandarin class to which they belong.

Everyone else seems to be somewhere between confused and aghast. One comment in particular struck me, as I saw it several times on social media and in writings: "How would you feel if they did this to Roth IRAs?"

Why did I find that particular question a compelling topic for a column? Because it's a question we may have to ask ourselves. As I observed when I first wrote about the plan, the very fact that we are discussing taxation of educational savings -- redistributing educational subsidies downward -- indicates that the administration has started scraping the bottom of the barrel when seeking out money to fund new programs. Why target a tax benefit that goes to a lot of your supporters (and donors), that tickles one of the sweetest spots in American politics (subsidizing higher education), and that will hit a lot of people who make less than the $250,000 a year that has become the administration's de facto definition of "rich"?

Presumably, because you're running out of other places to get the money...

Yeah, that's the problem with socialism. Eventually you run out of "other people's money."

Obama's Legacy Will Be His Failed Policies

From Michael Barone, at the Washington Examiner, "Obama's Attempt to Turn the Page Undermined by Policy Failures":

It’s not in the printed text, but the most revealing words in President Obama’s seventh State of the Union address came near the end. After the scripted line, “I have no more campaigns to run,” elicited Republican applause, Obama ad libbed, “I know, because I won both of them.”

Thus the last quarter of Obama’s presidency resembles the first quarter, when he shut off discussion with House Republicans by saying, “I won.” But his second winning percentage was lower than his first — the only American president of which that can be said — and the House now has a record and the Senate a near-record Republican majority.

The first half of Obama’s speech was a deft attempt to, as he said, “turn the page.” The year 2014, he said, was “a breakthrough year for America,” the economy was finally growing at a respectable rate and U.S. troop deployments in war zones are nearly down to zero.

He was playing on the uptick — a “small” but real uptick, as FiveThirtyEight put it — in his polling numbers and in positive assessments of the economy. To give it voice, he quoted, twice, a woman (a former Democratic staffer, it seems) in the gallery.

In contrast to previous Obama speeches, he took some care to cite accurate statistics. No mention of the discredited claim that one in five college women will be raped or the misleading claim that women’s earnings are only 77 percent of men’s.

He cheered America for being number one in oil and gas production — something his administration has tried to prevent. He boasted that wages are rising — though not by much. His brief allusions to Obamacare sparked applause from Democrats — but the law remains highly unpopular.

Obama’s policy proposals were small stuff. More tax cuts for child care — but discrimination against stay-at-home moms and taxes on 529 college savings accounts. Paid sick leave. Equal pay for women — on the books already for 52 years. A minimum wage increase. He’s all for infrastructure but, in deference to rich donors, will veto the Keystone XL pipeline.

Free community college — even though it’s already free to those in lower-income households, and despite the evidence from student loan programs that colleges and universities sop up all the federal dollars with little gain to students.

Democrats, after applauding loudly in the first half of the speech, stayed mostly mum during much of the rest. There was silence when he called for trade promotion authority and free trade agreements. There was little noise when he called for tax reform — not surprisingly, given that he has ignored plans Republicans have put forward.

There was silence as well when he turned to foreign policy. Obama received better ratings on foreign than domestic policy in his first term; it’s the other way around now...

More.

Obama's SOTU in Denial

From Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, "Obama's disconnected, out of touch, in denial State of the Union":

Perhaps the most striking thing about the 2015 State of the Union address was not the president at the podium but the audience in the seats. The joint session of Congress listening to President Obama Tuesday night included 83 fewer Democrats than the group that heard Obama's first address in 2009 — 69 fewer Democrats in the House and 14 fewer in the Senate. The scene in the House Chamber was a graphic reminder of the terrible toll the Obama years have taken on Capitol Hill Democrats.

Not that the president would ever acknowledge that. Indeed, in more than an hour of speaking, Obama never once acknowledged that there was a big election in November and that the leadership of the Senate has changed. Obama's silence on that political reality stood in stark contrast to George W. Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, in which he graciously and at some length acknowledged the Democrats' victory in the 2006 midterms. Bush said it was an honor to address Nancy Pelosi as "Madam Speaker." He spoke of the pride Pelosi's late father would have felt to see his daughter lead the House. "I congratulate the new Democrat majority," Bush said. "Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities."

If one cannot imagine Obama saying such a thing — well, he didn't.

Just as remarkable, against the backdrop of the Democratic electoral carnage of his years in office, was that the president's most memorable line of the night was a bit of ad-lib bragging about his own election victories. When Obama said, "I have no more campaigns to run," some Republicans snarkily began to applaud, whereupon the president shot back, "I know, because I won both of them." Some Democrats dutifully cheered Obama's comeback line, even though his victories ended up costing them a lot.

Beyond failing to acknowledge the new reality on Capitol Hill, Obama at times seemed equally out of touch with reality both in the nation and the world.

"In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL's advance," Obama said, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The claim left some foreign policy observers aghast, since there is a general consensus that the Islamic State is making progress in the face of limited American air attacks. "That just isn't the case, according to military officials I've been speaking to," NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel said of Obama's statement. "[The Islamic State] are taking new territory." Of Obama's description of a world in which the Islamic State is retreating, Afghanistan is on the road to peace, and terrorists are on the run from South Asia to North Africa, Engel concluded, "It sounded like the president was outlining a world that he wishes we were all living in."

Obama sounded equally disconnected from reality on some domestic issues. For example, when discussing the nation's veterans, he said, "Already, we've made strides towards ensuring that every veteran has access to the highest quality care." A listener wouldn't know it from Obama's speech, but there has been a huge VA scandal since Obama's last State of the Union; his secretary of Veterans Affairs had to resign because of it. Veterans died waiting for treatment. All Obama said Wednesday night was, "We're slashing the backlog that had too many veterans waiting years to get the benefits they need." By "benefits," the president apparently meant "life-saving medical care."

At another point, Obama claimed credit for a "re-energized space program." The remark surely led to some jaws dropping among laid-off National Aeronautics and Space Administration engineers who believe Obama has nearly killed the place.

The president's final disconnect was perhaps the biggest. After a "vicious recession … tonight, we turn the page," Obama said. "With a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, booming energy production, we have risen from recession." For some Americans, that is the case, although even for them, "bustling" might be a bit much. For other Americans, the news is still pretty bad. When a recent Fox News poll asked, "For you and your family, does it feel like the recession is over, or does it feel like the country is still in a recession?" 64 percent of respondents said it feels like there is still a recession. Indeed, it's widely conceded that part of the reason the unemployment rate has fallen is because a core of discouraged workers dropped out of the job search altogether. So for many listeners, Obama's "turn the page" declaration will seem as out of touch as his claim that Islamic State's advance has been stopped...

Two more years of nihilist partisanship and narcissistic mendacity. It's a countdown mode for American politics, two more years to go. Then we can start fresh.

More.

Obama Declares End to Economic Crisis — #SOTU

O phoned it in. Yawn.

At WSJ, "In State of the Union, Obama Makes Middle-Class Pitch: President Lays Out Steps to Aid Moderate-Income Americans to a Skeptical Congress":

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Tuesday night declared an end to the U.S. economic crisis as he made the case to Americans, and a skeptical Congress, that now is time to shift focus to resolving the most stubborn impediment to a full-fledged recovery: lagging progress among the middle class.

In his annual State of the Union address, Mr. Obama outlined a broad vision for his remaining two years in office, emphasizing what he described as “middle-class economics” and making a personal plea for lawmakers of both parties to “commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort.”

“The shadow of crisis has passed,” Mr. Obama said. “At this moment—with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production—we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth.”

The president’s vision, however, faced a deeply uncertain path in a Congress that for the first time in his presidency is fully controlled by Republicans, as it hinges on raising taxes on high-income Americans to fund initiatives to benefit those at lower income levels.

Mr. Obama also declared that U.S. leadership and military intervention “is stopping” the advance of Islamic State militants and call on Congress to pass a resolution authorizing force against the group. And Mr. Obama called on Congress to pass legislation to toughen cybersecurity.

Republicans and Democrats alike cite a stagnant middle class as the most vexing economic problem facing the country, but GOP lawmakers have long opposed Mr. Obama’s call for tax increases on wealthier Americans to fund programs that benefit those further down the income scale. Still, the two parties’ shared interest in speaking more directly to economic anxiety and wage stagnation has the potential to push them to find common ground. Mr. Obama’s plan also extends the discussion beyond corporate taxation to include individual taxes, as Republicans want.

New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said Mr. Obama’s expected proposal to raise taxes on high-income Americans—$320 billion over 10 years—damped hopes for making progress on an overhaul of the tax code. But underscoring the prospects for deal-making, remote as they may be, Mr. McConnell didn’t rule out an eventual compromise on taxes. He also cited trade pacts and cybersecurity legislation as potential areas of agreement with the president.

“The American people aren’t demanding talking-point proposals designed to excite the base but not designed to pass” in Congress, Mr. McConnell said. “What they said they’re hungry for is substance and accomplishment. They want Washington to get back to work and focus on a serious jobs and reform agenda.”

The coming months will tell how far Mr. Obama and GOP leaders might go in pushing their parties’ core supporters to compromise for the sake of agreement on taxes and other matters. Mr. Obama has primarily shown interest in pushing his party only on one issue recently—to allow easier passage of trade deals that he and most Republicans support.

Only a handful of Democrats have come forward to support the renewal of legislation for trade-promotion authority, known as fast track, which would ease the passage of a trade pact with Japan and 10 other Pacific nations, as well as a trade deal with the European Union...

More.

And at USA Today, "Analysis: A better economy, a more hostile Congress."

'This is a man who wants to punish the rich regardless of its effect on the economy...'

From the inimitable Charles Krauthammer:



Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection.

Obama to Propose Tax Increases on Investments, Inherited Property

Hey, now that's a surprise.

Wealth taxes. For leftists, an idea whose time has come.

At the Wall Street Journal, "President Expected to Outline Tax Measures in State of the Union Address":

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will call on the new Republican-led Congress to raise taxes on investments and inherited property and to create or expand a range of tax breaks for middle-income families, laying out an opening position in a debate over taxation that both parties see as a potential area of compromise.

Mr. Obama will outline the measures in his State of the Union address Tuesday night. He will propose using revenue generated from the tax increases—which would fall mainly on high-income households—to pay for a raft of new breaks aimed at boosting stagnant incomes for low- and middle-income households.

Those initiatives include tripling the child-care tax credit and creating a new credit for families in which both spouses work, senior administration officials said on Saturday.

The administration plans to consolidate and expand education tax breaks. It would also make retirement savings programs available to many more people, for example by requiring many employers that don’t currently offer workers a retirement plan to enroll them automatically in an individual retirement account. The administration says its proposals would make retirement saving programs available to 30 million additional people at the workplace.

Mr. Obama’s address Tuesday will start the process of determining where he might find common ground with the new Republican Congress. Both the president and GOP leaders have said that a tax overhaul, along with trade, might yield compromises.

The president’s proposals go well beyond overhauling business taxes, which the White House has previously expressed a willingness to undertake, to include changes to the individual tax code. Republican lawmakers have argued that a tax overhaul should be aimed at both businesses and individuals.

At the same time, the new White House position could complicate the debate, by underscoring deep philosophical differences between the parties. In particular, Mr. Obama’s tax increases are likely to draw opposition from Republicans.

The White House plan would make broad changes to the tax bills of wealthier taxpayers, mainly by raising the taxes they pay on investments. The top capital gains rate would rise to 28% from 23.8%. The plan also would impose capital-gains tax on more inherited assets.

It also would create or expand several significant tax breaks for low- and middle-income households, for instance by establishing a new $500 credit for families in which both spouses work, and by tripling the value of the child care credit to $3,000 per child. The changes also would significantly expand the availability of the child-care credit to more middle-income households.

Republican lawmakers generally have opposed raising taxes on higher-income earners, as Mr. Obama proposes. They also have bridled at some recent Democratic legislative proposals for new tax breaks to expand incomes for moderate-income families. Democrats “are just out buying [people’s] votes” with such plans, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said in a recent interview. Mr. Obama’s capital gains rate increase is likely to come in for particular criticism, although administration officials argue the 28% rate is still lower than the ordinary income rate for high earners.

The administration said the tax increases would raise revenue by about $320 billion over the next decade, while the new tax breaks and other initiatives would cost about $235 billion. The administration didn’t detail its plans for the additional revenue.

The tax proposals represent a part of the administration’s broader strategy to raise stagnant middle-class incomes, a prominent topic in Washington lately.

More at that top link.

California Bullet Train Groundbreaking in Fresno

At the Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown lauds bullet train project at groundbreaking ceremony."

It's a boondoggle.

From the Letters to the Editor, "Why high-speed rail in California will fail":

To the editor: As an old, long retired railroad executive in the U.S. and Canada, I can predict that Gov. Jerry Brown's high-speed rail line will fail and cost taxpayers plenty for years. ("After two-year delay, construction on California's bullet train is set to start," Jan. 4)

My company participated in planning several similar projects in different counties. We always concluded that rail was only ideal for passengers when there were plenty of freight trains to help pay for it.

Since there's very little freight between Los Angeles and San Francisco, you can bet your boots that taxpayers will have to cover the costs for years and years. Busses and planes are far more economical. The only self-supporting rail line in the U.S. is the busy commuter line between Boston, New York and Washington.

If Brown is looking for a legacy, the money for high-speed rail would be far more useful if spent on water for Southern California.

Dick Ettington
Palos Verdes Peninsula

And be sure to watch the video. KCBS Los Angeles sounds almost like Fox News, heh.

It's Never a Good Time for a Carbon Tax

Amen.

California just got hit with a new "carbon tax," which is supposed to cost consumer an additional $2 billion a year. And it's basically a stealth tax, part of a "cap and trade" scheme that no one knows about.

We're taxed enough already.

But see the analysis at the Daily Signal, in any case.

'Share the Wealth' Failing to Sell

From Michael Barone, at RCP, "Nobody Is Pushing Thomas Piketty's Policies to Combat Economic Inequality":

Last spring, you may remember, the French economist Thomas Piketty was all the rage in certain enlightened circles. His book "Capital" shot up to the No. 1 spot on bestseller lists, and many economists praised his statistics showing increased income and wealth inequality. Piketty argued that, absent a world war, returns to capital will exceed economic growth, inevitably producing growing inequality in the 21st century.

There are problems with Piketty's -- or anyone else's -- statistics. Reliance on U.S. income tax returns overlooks the fact that tax cuts encourage people to realize income and misses non-taxable income such as welfare and Social Security payments.

Still, there has clearly been a boom in the incomes and wealth of the top 1 percent here and worldwide. Piketty sees this as a threat to democracy. Liberal economists and pundits hoped that his revelations would finally get politicians to support policies like Piketty's 80 percent tax rate on high incomes and progressive tax on great wealth -- and get the masses to vote for them.

So far it hasn't happened here or just about anywhere.

You didn't see any campaign ads calling for Piketty taxes this fall. You didn't even see any ads hailing Democrats for having raised taxes on high earners in early 2013. Democratic candidates in seriously contested races didn't come close to advocating such policies.

You may have heard some Democrats bemoaning income inequality. The idea that the rich get richer while everyone else doesn't gets pretty wide agreement in the polls. So does the Democrats' one redistributionist policy -- raising the minimum wage.

As a policy to address inequality, though, it's rather pathetic. About half of minimum wage earners are not in the lowest fifth households in income. Even fewer are their own household's primary earner. Almost all economists agree that when the minimum wage is raised, some employees lose their jobs.

It is only slightly hyperbolic to say that an increased minimum wage is a transfer of income from fast-food customers to fast-food workers minus those who are replaced by kiosks. That's not a very effective way to sock it to the top 1 percent.

Even after the election, some Democrats argue that they didn't hit the issue hard enough. One Democrat's advice to President Obama, according to Politico, "is focus on income inequality, and talk about and propose things, and just be a fierce advocate of addressing the economic divide. That will leave people after two years saying the Democratic Party really stands for something."

"Propose things" -- but what? A recent Congressional Budget Office report shows that when you measure federal taxes paid minus federal transfers received (welfare, food stamps, Social Security, etc.), the top 20 percent of earners pay an average of $46,500. The next 20 percent pay an average of $700. The bottom three-fifths get back more than they pay. Plus, the U.S. already relies more heavily on the income tax for revenues than any other advanced economy nation.

In other words, America already has lots of economic redistribution. American voters evidently sense that more redistribution would sap economic growth. They're willing to throw a little to minimum wage earners, but they don't want to kill the geese laying the golden eggs.

Well, it's all crashing down for the idiot leftists, and it ain't over yet.

More.

Not Working for the Working Class

From Glenn Reynolds, at USA Today:

Working class white people don't like President Obama much. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 27% approve of him. That's 21 percentage points down since he took office in 2009.

A standard talking-point is that these voters don't like Obama because they're racist. But that assumes that the key word in "white working class" is "white." In fact, the key word is "working." After all, Obama isn't any blacker than he was in 2009.

A few Democratic pundits seem to get this. Writing in Mother Jones, Kevin Drum observes: "So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn't matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That's because they're closer to it. For them, the poor aren't merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They're the folks next door who don't do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars."

So if Democrats want to win back the white working class — and they kind of need to, if they want to win elections, because it's an enormous demographic — maybe they need to start thinking about honoring and encouraging work, rather than talking about race or class.

I doubt this is going to sink in much with the Democrat race-grievance establishment. But sooner or later someone will come along and say, "Hey, we can't win elections. We need to moderate our message." They did that back in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was elected as a "moderate." He could at least talk the talk. After the midterms the Democrats have doubled down on far left-wing extremism. So it could be awhile, heh.

More.

How Obama Marginalized the Democratic Party

I can't get enough of this meme!

From Ed Morrissey, at the Fiscal Times:

Chuck Schumer let the cat out of the bag on Monday, but only Democrats found his remarks surprising in the least. Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic caucus leadership that will have to transition to the minority in January, tried to acknowledge the verdict delivered by voters three weeks earlier.

In a defense of big-government solutions, Schumer allowed that Democrats let their enthusiasm for nanny-state policies get the best of them in 2009, after winning the presidential election, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

“Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them,” declared the senior Senator from New York. At the time, the middle class had just experienced the economic shock of their lives, and the election was a mandate to change direction from Bush-era economic policies, Schumer told the National Press Club. “We took their mandate,” Schumer explained, “and put all focus on the wrong problem – healthcare reform.”

That’s not to say that Obamacare itself was a mistake, Schumer took care to add, but that the rush to pass a big nanny-state program ahead of economic issues in the middle of a crisis made Democrats appear out of touch with voters. “We should have done it. We just shouldn't have done it first,” Schumer explained.

“We were in the middle of a recession. People were hurting and saying, 'What about me? I'm losing my job. It's not health care that bothers me. What about me?’" Even worse, Schumer argued, the program only provided benefits to “about 5 percent of the electorate,” while “only about a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote.”

Coming from a senior member of Democratic Party leadership, the admission that Democrats blew it with Obamacare contradicts everything the party has argued since the 2010 midterms...

More.

California Tax-Hike Orgy on the Ballot in 2016

More reasons to move to Texas, as if anyone needed them.

At LAT, "Big state tax decisions lie ahead for California voters":

Picking a new president might not be the only crucial issue before California voters at the polls in two years' time.

They could be faced with as many as four competing initiatives asking them to extend, increase or create taxes that would raise billions of dollars in new state revenues.

Loose coalitions of labor unions and community groups already are researching, polling and building support to extend a temporary boost in top income tax brackets and a sales tax increase passed in 2012. Other groups are working to create grass-roots support for raising commercial property taxes.

Additionally, a team led by Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager from San Francisco, probably will qualify a crude-oil-extraction tax initiative for 2016. And health and child-welfare advocates are pondering a possible $2-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes.

"We anticipate there will be a revenue measure," said Anthony Thigpenn, president of California Calls, a Los Angeles-based coalition of 37 community organizations around the state.

He said that passage of the income tax measure, Proposition 30, two years ago, wasn't enough to put the state on a stable financial footing.

"Proposition 30 stopped the bleeding but didn't restore all the cuts made, even given that the economy is better," Thigpenn said. "It was only the beginning of the discussion."

The state needs such a conversation about how to keep climbing out of the Great Recession, agreed Laphonza Butler, state council president of the 700,000-member Service Employees International Union.

"We have to make choices about investments, revenues and services," she said. "How do we stabilize the state for many years to come?"

Influential business lobbies at the Capitol don't see it that way. Butler's push for more money to pay for schools, roads and health and other programs, if it happens, would make an already expensive California even more costly and slow job creation, they contend.

The hardest fought battle could be over an attempt to change how the state's 36-year-old landmark property tax initiative, Proposition 13, treats commercial property, predicted Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Assn.

Currently, buildings and land get reassessed by tax appraisers only when there's a turnover of more than 50% in ownership.

"It will be Armageddon. It will be a huge, huge battle," Hime said.

The oil industry also is ready for a fight with Steyer, who said the state is missing out on $2 billion in new revenues because it's the only major oil-producing state that doesn't collect on every barrel of crude pumped from the ground.

"We haven't seen any indication he has changed his view and his plan to spend some of his wealth trying to persuade Californians to increase taxes on energy," said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn.

Tobacco companies — which spent more than $50 million to defeat a 2012 initiative that would have raised taxes by $1 a pack — are honing their message, arguing that new taxes would be costly to retailers and spur cigarette smuggling.

Health groups and other proponents said they need higher levies on each pack — or even e-cigarettes — to recoup more than $1 billion in revenues lost because fewer people smoke.

Liberal Democrats in the Legislature also are considering an extension of the top state income tax brackets. That boost helped erase a $26-billion budget deficit that Gov. Jerry Brown inherited from his predecessor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Since then, the state treasury has accumulated a small surplus that the Legislative Analyst forecasts to grow to $4.2 billion by July.

Brown has made numerous public statements emphasizing that Proposition 30 was a temporary fix. Nevertheless, tax-hike proponents suggest that some sort of deal still could be made with the governor and business groups to keep the tax temporary but extend it beyond its current 2018 expiration date.

More.

Highway 73 Toll Road to Be Refinanced

I hate the toll roads. I avoid them like the plague, and I'm not the only one. Screw the transportation agency. They can suck on that debt until 2200 for all I care.

At LAT, "O.C. toll road to be refinanced again; drivers may be paying until 2050."

Is Canada Now More American Than America?

From John Fund, at National Review:

The merger of U.S. hamburger giant Burger King with Tim Hortons, Canada’s favorite coffee shop, will create the world’s third largest fast-food company, with a total of 18,000 restaurants in over 100 countries. It is also a piercing wake-up call for the U.S., because the new company will make its global headquarters in Canada’s province of Ontario. That underscores what savvy businesses everywhere have learned — the U.S. is an increasingly less attractive place to do business. “Canada has quietly and politely become, well, more American than America,” says columnist Stephen Green.

Since 2003, more than 35 major U.S. companies have moved their headquarters and reincorporated overseas. Rather than rail against such “inversions,” as President Obama does, or call for an economic boycott, as Ohio’s Democratic senator Sherrod Brown does, we should figure out what is driving U.S. companies offshore. Here’s a clue: The U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized country, and the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration is “even now looking for ways it can unilaterally raise corporate taxes without going to Congress.”

Without going to Congress?

Same as it ever was...

More.