The tax deductible debate: I am sold, how about you?

When the idea first surfaced by WH, like many I was skeptical at least, stunned almost. You know that news about how ultra rich folks can get tax deduction on their charitable contribution. Obama wants to cut short the amount you can deduct by limiting the effective percentage of the contribution you can deduct. I was skeptical thinking about possible negative impact that may have on the amount those people will be contributing. Not fully, but almost stun thinking about how outraged our friends in the wrong side (not the right side, lol) with a big wallet will be. You know, people like Carly Fiorina. Of course, I was equally stunned when, just before 2008 election, she demanded absolution of progressive taxing system that we have for so long. Forget rollback of bush tax cut for the rich, she wants her tax rate to be same as Joe the fake plumber. So any tax cut or roll back issue, her dumb friends in Foxy Noise would argue “well, rich get more tax cut because they gave more tax in the first place”. I say, well, what gave “in the first place” is what we call progressive tax. That is well settle reality, there is no point going there.

 

But today in presidential press conference, Obama was asked the very same question. I had to shift focus from playing with my two year old to TV screen. Obama’s answer was to the point and in plain English, almost custom made just for me. Basically his point is, if Warren Buffet and his secretary both donate $100 to Red Cross, why would Warren Buffet get 39 dollars of it back, while his secretary get only say 20 dollars back? That is not fare, is that? I am sold by his argument. How about you?

 

Here is Obama's little long answer on the question from Politico's Mike Allen. Okay, I know, it is kind of long. By now we are getting used to this type of extended press conference form our new president. I know, he is trying to sell his product, but never the less I am enjoying it. It is better to here from the man in charge than those pundits in the Pandora box.

 

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- (takes mic) -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest-rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, I think it’s -- I think it’s the right thing to do.

 

Where we’ve got to make some difficult choices -- here’s what we did with respect to tax policy. What we said was that over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even at times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter their incomes didn’t go up. And so (what/well ?) we said -- let’s give them a tax cut. Let’s give them some relief, some help -- 95 percent of American families.

 

Now, for the top 5 percent, they’re the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category. And what we’ve said is, for those folks, let’s not renew the Bush tax cuts. So let’s go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine. And let’s look at the level at which people can itemize their deductions.

 

And what we’ve said is let’s go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan.

 

People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means if you give $100 and you’re in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 (percent) or 39 percent, you’re writing off 28 percent. Now, if it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter down the street.

 

And so this provision would effect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It’s just that they wouldn’t be able to write off 39 percent. In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who’s making $50,000 a year or $40,000 a year gives that same hundred dollars. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent, I get to write off 39 percent. I don’t think that’s fair.

 

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who benefitted enormously over the last several years. It’s not going to cripple them.

 

They’ll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

 

Full transcript:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/obama.news.conference.transcript/index.html

 

Cheers

Babu

 

 

Excerpts from the Conversation on Kashmir with Arundhati Roy

Here are some excerpts from the "Conversation on Kashmir with Arundhati Roy", an interview aired on February 4, 2009.

"I don't know if I need to keep on saying this because everyone knows it now, but still, for the record-more than half a million soldiers in the valley of Kashmir, which somebody in America wrote saying it was the equivalent of the entire U.S. Army and the entire Marine Corps deployed in Minnesota, sort of like that; 165,000 American soldiers in Iraq. Between 500,000 and 700,000 Indian security personnel in the valley of Kashmir."

"A lot of even liberal Indians say that the polls were free and fair. First of all, the first question you have to ask yourself is, when you have that kind of a densely deployed army, can you have free and fair elections? Is it at all possible?"

"In fact, the day I left Kashmir all these defeated independent candidates were having a press conference in this restaurant called Ahdoo's talking about how they had all been paid by the Intelligence Bureau sums of money to stand for election, and then some of them weren't given that money, so now they are disgruntled."

"But, then again, I don't think that it will always be possible to manage it, because eventually I do think that the price of holding down the Kashmir valley, which was being paid mostly by Indian soldiers, who are mostly poor people from India who don't count, was suddenly being paid by the Indian elite in five-star hotels in Bombay. That puts a totally different spin on things."

"It makes us complicit in the holding down by military force of a people, it makes us complicit in the propaganda, it makes us complicit in the lies. And eventually it makes us people who are unable to look things in the eye."

"So if you were to question the average Indian, the only thing they know is that there are terrorists in Kashmir. They wouldn't be able to tell you that 60,000 or 70,000 people have died in this war. They wouldn't be able to tell you about the dubious morality of India holding on to this place. They say Kashmir is an atut ang, which means an inseparable limb of India."

"And I did sense that there wasn't any possibility of the Indian state-and it's wrong for me to just say the Indian state, because Indian society in places like Gujarat and Maharashtra or even in Bombay-to continue to marginalize such a vast majority-only in India can 150 million people be a minority, 150 million Muslims in India-and to continue to bulldoze this population in Kashmir. Eventually all that can come out of it is destruction. All that come out of it is people wanting to take you down with them. If you push them to a stage where there is no possibility of any access to justice, even if 99% of them decide to put their heads down and suffer, 1% is enough to destroy life as you knew it."

Conversation on Kashmir with Arundhati Roy and David Barsamian
http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2009/0509.html

Full transcript:
http://www.radioproject.org/transcript/2009/0509.html

Audio:
http://www.radioproject.org/sound/MakingCon_090204.mp3

The rush to `resist the effort to group us`

By now you probably came across some of the media lambo jumbo on Rush Limbaugh, the presumed `head of republicans party` or at least the `conservatives`. Not too bad, what you say? After Sharah the dumber and Joe the fake plumber, what else do you get?

However, one thing he said gave me a re-look on the whole idea about these `conservatives` or so called `religious right`.

On defining conservatives, Rush has said following.

"But we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us."

Later I found out, this is one of the core ideas behind conservatism. The conservative individualist philosophy is a conservative worldview that glorifies hyper-individualism.

As he said "when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups".

Some times we get confuse on how I can define me. Are we conservative or liberal? Are we conservative leaning or liberal leaning? Especially when you mix few sprinkle of religion on the mix, it become very confusing. Or that is what I thought!

So conservatives love the idea of individuals and want to `resist the effort to group us`. Wow! That is a polar opposite on where I stand.

That is not what my leader told us. Instead, in his last sermon, he told us that we are like brothers to each other. He told us that we from one brotherhood.

That is not what my God told us. Instead, He told us that we all are in a single entity, `a single brotherhood` (21:92) and (49:10). He told us that we `are protectors and supporters one of another` (9:71). He warn us by saying `be not like those who are divided amongst themselves` (3:105)

So, dare to be in `We resist the effort to group us`? That's your choice.

Thanks,
Babu

ClimateWire's Flooding, Food and Climate Change in Bangladesh

LISA FRIEDMAN is writing a series of stories on Bangladesh and climate migration for ClimateWire. Here are some excerpts from first two installments of that series.

Thanks,
Babu

Bangladesh endures ugly experiments in 'nature's laboratory'
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/09/09climatewire-ugly-experiments-in-natures-laboratory-10035.html

"Bangladesh, one of the poorest countries on earth, has almost no control over the cause. Here, the average person emits about 0.3 tons of carbon dioxide each year -- compared to about 20 tons annually for the average American."

"But when it comes to seeing the effects of climate change, Bangladesh has a ringside seat."

"Already, hydrologists in Bangladesh say, catastrophic floods that once were expected every 20 years are happening almost every four years."

The road from growing rice to raising shrimp to misery
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/03/09/09climatewire-the-road-from-growing-rice-to-raising-shrimp-10034.html

"Water risks are a part of life in this low-lying country dominated by the reaches of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers. But scientists and environmental activists said the September flood, which happened during a lunar high tide, was deeply unusual for the time of year."

"For many years, floods have been bringing saline water further inland, destroying the rice fields that once sustained the villages. Shrimp farms, many built with World Bank investment, have rapidly replaced the rice paddies."

"But residents say the shrimp farms employ a fraction of the people needed to harvest rice. At the same time, a cheap form of food, rice, is being replaced with a pricey one. The Bangladesh government earns more than $400 million annually in shrimp exports, but few Bengalis can afford to eat it themselves."

"Now villagers in Gabura and parts of flood-prone southwest Bangladesh say it might finally be time to leave for good. Dozens of families interviewed along the coast said they have lived the close-knit village life for generations, and they're familiar with the rhythm of temporarily moving along when things get bad. The difference now, they say, is that brothers, husbands and uncles are leaving for the cities in greater numbers than ever before -- and this time, they're not coming home."

Breaking news: 2 more army officer killed in helicopter crash in Tangail

I did not see the whole news yet. Bangladeshi cable TV channel is showing text news in the bottom of the screen.

Army helicopter crashed in Tangail. Three army officers killed. Two of them are Major General Rafiqul Islam (GOC of Jessore) and lieutenant colonel Shahid.

Okay, now it is showing: Two army officer killed and one taken to the hospital.

Is this the beginning of the end?

Thanks,
Babu

Sorry that we did not help you

When we were threatened and ask your help

You put your life in the line

You came to rescue us

But when you were threatened inside that building,

And ask for `our` help

We did n0t go;

No one went in to rescue you

We played politics

SORRY

Justice?

Hmm, how could we talk of justice with any confidence?

We are under the rules of Pharaohs

We seek justice from no one, but God Almighty

And be sure, He will provide

Please forgive us