Monday, July 18, 2011

I’m so confused.

The Republicans tell me that we must not increase the tax burden on the job creators. Who are these job creators? Are they the ones who get the tax break for corporate jets? Because as far as I know, those folks ain’t hiring. They’ve discovered increased profitability through downsizing, and the jobs they downsized aren’t coming back regardless of what happens with tax rates.

We’ve been told the real job creators are the small businesses of America. A fellow just up the road from me owns a roofing company. After the big April hail storm a few years ago, he and his workers put a new roof on my house. Right now, he’s not creating any jobs because Dane County housing starts are the lowest in years, people are deferring maintenance on their homes when the new roof comes out of their pocket, and we haven’t had a good hailstorm in a while.

Another thing that confuses me is the report a few days ago that said only 18 thousand jobs had been created in America in the past month. These reports don’t go into much detail about who created these jobs, but sometimes they throw in a word or two about “seasonal labor force adjustments”. Everyone bemoaned the low number of new jobs created, so, are these “job creators” who must not be taxed just sort of waiting to see what happens with taxes before they create all these jobs?

Certainly, the jobs creators aren’t rich guys. My friend Bill Wineke pointed out in a recent column that Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, is certainly not a “job creator”. I believe it’s fair to say that Buffet has probably caused the elimination of far more jobs than his acquisitions have ever created.

Could it be that “job creators” is just another one of those cynical, poll-tested political catch-phrases?

Like the phrase “working families” the other party loves to use?


  1. Colonel,

    >>Could it be that “job creators” is just another one of those cynical, poll-tested political catch-phrases?

    >> Like the phrase “working families” the other party loves to use? <<

    For the most part. Also looks to me as if some companies are standing pat until somebody calculates the impact of the federal health insurance mandates. If Nancy Pelosi couldn't say what was in the bill before it passed, then what's a poor businessman supposed to do? Simply legislating lower prices doesn't make anything cheaper. There'll be long waits, fewer doctors, more people going to the doctor for minor stuff, very haphazard prioritization of care due to all those people stuffing the waiting rooms with sniffles and cuts...Armageddon, I'm tellin' ya!

    And, as Thomas Sowell points out, the wealthy are very good at sheltering income. Go ahead; raise the tax rates. See how much extra revenue is collected. I'll bet it's miniscule.

    And raising corporate tax rates? They're already quite high. I hear that companies that have big overseas presences are keeping their profits over there, too. Why bring it back for investment in the U.S. when up to 35% of it will be skimmed off the top by Uncle Sugar?

    So, yeah, "job creators", not wanting to be clotheslined by increased taxes and health insurance mandates, are holding their cards close to the vest to protect themselves.

    Do I sound like a heartless capitalist?

    The Town Crank

  2. Theoretically, freeing up the job creators to create jobs should work, theoretically. In Wisconsin, we should be able to find out whether it's true or not over the next year or so.

    I am guessing that if it turns out *not* to be true, the administration that ran for office on the idea of freeing up the job creators to create jobs will not accept the blame for being wrong, or be blamed for it by the people who support it. It'll be somebody else's fault--Democrats in the legislature, Obama, the Chinese, sunspots, etc.

    This is because right-wing revolutions never fail, they're only betrayed.

  3. Umnnhhhh....

    Actually responsible Republicans (Ryan) have come up with tax law revisions which increase revenues AND reduce rates. That's one reason that (R) flunkies run away from Ryan; he's a pretty honest broker. (And yes, his plan might be tweaked, and yes, it is a long-term, not short-term, fix.)

    It's noteworthy that Federal REVENUES are up 300% since 1965, while the population has only grown by about 200%.

    So how come izzit that 'the Gummint needs more revenue'? Only because Fed spending has FAR outpaced rev-growth, and the largest increase in Fed spending has occurred under the current regime. GWB was a foolish spender, but a piker in comparison.

    By the way, Gates, Buffett, Heinz, and the Kennedys could voluntarily send in several million as a gift; maybe even several HUNDRED million. Buffet's a social liberal; where's the check?

    Meantime the sphincter-control of Congress remains non-existent. Debt crisis? No problem! They just spent $6 million to get broadband out to East Noplace, ND.

    And the "conservatives" (Noem, Jordan, etc.) voted FOR it.

  4. And there are the VERY IMPORTANT EXPENSES incurred by the Gummint:

    The federal government helped fund a study that examined what effect a gay man’s penis size has on his sex life and general well-being.

    Broadband and ...umnnhhh....... broadness, or something.