The Verdict - HELP ME PLEASE

Is it Tuesday yet? No more politics after this... I promise.

I'm thrilled to say that I will actually not have to personally reply to the author of the e-mail in question (see last post) because many people beat me to it... and probably argued more eloquently and poignantly than I ever could have.

Below is a series of e-mails that were either forwarded to me or sent to me directly, including another e-mail from the gentleman who "authored" the experiment. "Authored" is in quotes because it turns out it actually wasn't his idea... the "study" was done by someone else and he plunked himself into it to make a point.

I should note: the said "plagiarism" makes no difference to me. I think he made an argument that many, many McCain supporters have made and whether it was his original idea or not, it doesn't matter. It's an idea that needs to addressed.

I haven't included the names of the authors because I don't know these people and I'm not sure how they'd feel about me posting their name (or their response, for that matter) on my blog. Should anyone request me to take their e-mail down, I certainly will.

One of my most favorite responses:

Let's keep something in perspective: Obama is proposing to raise taxes to what they were under Bill Clinton for people making over $250K/year. Did you think we lived in a socialist society, then?

I think you can make plenty of arguments about keeping marginal tax rates low, but calling a progressive taxation system "socialist" is simply lazy thinking -- oh, wait. Only liberals are lazy thinkers. I'm sorry...

Even Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations proposed that a progressive tax system is perfectly reasonable. To wit:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. (from this Wikipedia article)

In my opinion, calling Obama (and like-minded people) socialists is just as bad as lefties calling Bush and his administration "fascists". It's completely bogus in both cases and actually trivialization the evils of socialism and fascism while dealing in bad faith with your ideological opponents. Let's think and make arguments, rather than throwing around negative labels.

As for Joe's original point: you're thinking about it simply from the perspective of "taking my money and giving it to someone else without my permission". This is fine as far as it goes, but I have a few rejoinders to that:

You're represented in your national, state and local government, and you get to choose whether or not to be taxed; your choice may not be the same as the plurality of voters where you live, but if you don't like it, you're free to move (both of which are generally not the case in socialist societies). You may be unhappy with progressive taxation, but most Americans aren't, and you're going to have to win your argument the way everyone else has to win theirs -- at the ballot box. And don't blame it on the media -- we get what we want from them, just like any other customer-oriented product.

The example Joe gives in his email comes only from the perspective of a person who's doing well, and uses the straw man of the "lazy homeless person" as a foil. Think about what would happen if your brother lost his job, and his son had a disease like Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis. Having lost his job, and in a bad economy, unable to find a new one, he no longer has insurance, and he can't afford to pay for the expensive drugs to keep his kid walking (let alone playing with the other children). Now, do you want to live in a community that says to your nephew, "tough luck, kid, hope your church group can raise money for your drugs"? Or do you want to live in one that makes it possible for those in our community with the least can actually live minimally decent lives?

The "welfare" that everyone is so upset about in Obama's tax credits: it goes to people who work but can't make enough money to get by on what they earn. There may be some disincentives in the structure of these credits to earning more money (I don't know for sure), but it sure as hell isn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

To many of us who earn quite a bit of money and pay a lot of taxes and aren't opposed to progressive taxation, this "don't take my money and give it to someone else" attitude frankly seems like rank selfishness. I understand that many people are genuinely opposed to progressive income taxes on principle, but the burden is on them to make the argument in a way that sounds principled, rather than selfish. As long as it sounds selfish, you'll never win the argument, irrespective of its validity.

Thus endeth the sermon...

The counter argument from the original "experimenter":

As the original “plagiarized” author of this email, I want to first thank every one for their input. I received several emails directly, and I have now added each of them to this email chain. I am truly thankful for this country and our freedom of speech that allows us to all share our views (at least until the Fairness Doctrine is reimposed by Obama). Further, I respect each of your opinions even if some of them are flawed....

My intention in sending this email was to point out that every American at some level is affected by a redistribution of wealth. I thought the message would hit home because the “waitress”, a hard working American important in our consumer driven economy, doesn’t receive her tip and she is loses the earnings as they are to provided to the homeless guy. Something she is not likely to do under either Presidents economic plan. This seemed to be an extreme way to make a point. Enough said, let’s tackle the issues.

Under Obama, his economic proposals will create refundable tax credits for lower to middle income wage earners. Several of the credits are for a mortgage (10%), Social Security payroll ($500), college tuition ($4,000), half of their child care expenses (limited to $6,000 per year), etc. As each of you know a refundable tax credit allows a tax filer to receive money WHETHER THEY PAY TAXES OR NOT. I assume we can all agree that 47% of American pay no Federal taxes as we trust our own government’s data? Of these 47%, it is expected that 40% of them will receive a check from Obama’s plan. In my opinion, this type of economic plan (Robinhood?) will make these individuals more dependent on entitlements and less likely to work. Fred, while some people are truly in need many others lean on the system, and Obama’s redistribution of wealth caters to them. Obama and I simply disagree that it is OK to tax, tax, tax, without curtailing spending – THE REAL PROBLEM.

Obama’s desire to tax the “wealthy” is taxing the very people who fill the governments coffers already. Business owners, successful sales people, software designers, etc. We live in a country whose GDP is approximately 70% consumer / services. How on earth can you tax the spending class and expect the economy to improve with less of their hard earned paychecks in hand? Did the Bush stimulus plan work redistributing tax dollars to low / middle income earners? Did it change anyone’s life? $200k for a responsible individual / 250k for a couple is not wealthy. Do the math. With federal taxes, social security / payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and God forbid a little saving into a retirement plan, rainy day fund, or a college account and a family at $250,000 might take home 45% if they are lucky. The net is much less than $125k – I see real life examples daily. Obama simply misses it here on who is wealthy.

Further, to fund all of Obama’s “programs” government spending will increase compounding the real problem – GOVERNMENT SPENDING. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM – NOT TAXES. And if raising your federal tax rate isn’t enough, let’s tax corporations on “windfall profits” (this is pathetic – call it a hatred tax and I’ll live with it), raise the already high business tax rates (the second highest rate in the world) and raise capital gains, estate and dividend taxes. I have asked this question before – HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? Jack will you give an additional 10% at your income level? 15%? Businesses will be hurt, look at the layoffs, and corporations and jobs will leave for a more forgiving climate. The world is flat, and those jobs and dollars will end up in another countries kitty. Obama has proposed a 10% annual spending increase, even higher than our existing President who spent at twice the rate (6.7% vs. 3.3%) as Clinton. Perhaps the R’s under Clinton worked at reducing spending?

I don’t want to get sidetracked from my original issue of redistribution of wealth. Simply put, taxing to “spread the wealth” is a mistake, and it will stress an already shaky economy while directly affecting families and jobs. I didn’t even discuss the issues relating to “phase outs” of personal deductions, or the radical approach to change Social Security with a doughnut tax, again focused on the “wealthy”. There is a theme to every proposal Obama speaks about: “take from the haves and give to the have nots” and we will all be better for it. I don’t agree, and I don’t feel compelled, call me selfish to provide more money to wasteful government spending programs.

I simply do not have enough time to tackle the remaining issues today so I will rest. The only way to spur economic growth is to keep our marginal tax rates low for businesses and individuals while providing a free market system that allows capital creation and entrepreneurial opportunities for all to benefit.

Fred, perhaps tomorrow we can discuss health care as I assume you recognize that Cobra would allow your brother to stay insured?

And the rebuttal:

Thanks for this comprehensive reply. I'll address the other points, later, but let me hit on the last one, about health care:

The example is hypothetical (my brother has fortunately NOT lost his job), and
COBRA allows you to continue your coverage...if you can afford to pay for it. If you are out of a job long enough, it's not unreasonable to think that one might not be able to pay. I remember paying for COBRA when I was "laid off" at XYZ Company; it was quite tough paying for COBRA on only my wife's salary. Fortunately, I was healthy and only out of work for 2 months; and

I used that example because it seemed like it would hit closest to home to people on this thread (I made a lot of assumptions, not knowing anyone other than Joe); a better example would be someone who maybe works for a company like the one I joined when I came to Seattle: a small company that provided no benefits at all. A lot of people are employed by companies like this, whether in services or retail, or what-have-you. Insurance is incredibly expensive for companies to provide. But if the company should fold, or contract, and the employees lose their jobs (not to mention the loss of income for the business owner), there's no COBRA to be had. Getting real insurance for a family as an individual (that is, not simply catastrophic insurance, and not as a member of a group like a pool of employees) is virtually impossible in this state, and in many others; it's also incredibly expensive. It's one of the key reasons I have chosen not to strike out on my own and create my own company: the risks are just too great. My point being that the taxes vs. services debate cuts both ways.

The following day, "Fred" sent out a follow up e-mail address "Joe's" original issues on:

Tax credits - Joe, in my understanding, you can't get these tax credits unless you're working; you can't file a tax return and get tax credits if you don't have any income. So your statement that this makes people less likely to work is untrue: you can't get the benefits if you're not working. This was the point of the welfare reform passed under the Republican congress and Bill Clinton in the '90s.

Windfall profits - 100% agreed on "windfall profits" taxes -- they're just an attack by the resentful. This is a shameful populist stance by Obama and I truly hope he drops it if he is elected on Tuesday. If spending is the problem, what spending will you cut? I asked you this before, and you said "all of it", but let's think a bit more about the results of cutting "all of it".

If you cut Medicare and Medicaid, which make up 21% of the federal budget, what are these people going to do for health insurance? What happens to the baby boomers who are just now at retirement age? Something has to change, for sure, since at our current rate of taxation for Medicare, the system will be bankrupt in a very short time under the pressure of this large group of retirees. But just cutting the budget without comprehensive reform would be a disaster -- see my previous email regarding health insurance costs. These people are on a fixed income, many living off of social security. Do you say to your parents (let's assume that they're like most people, and are clustered down near the center of the income scale), "Tough shit, it must suck to be old and to have so many health problems. Too bad you can't get insurance and couldn't afford it if you could."

How about Medicaid? Enough people already get free health care by the rest of us paying for it in higher costs. How is this going to be fixed by just slashing spending on Medicaid? For both of these programs, by cutting them significantly, you'll very likely see health care costs skyrocket, as doctors and hospitals charge people with insurance a lot more in order to pay for these people who suddenly don't have insurance. This means that our insurance rates go up, and businesses are that much harder pressed to make the profits required to grow and prosper.

How about the military, which is 20% of the budget? What do we cut there, while we're in the middle of two wars, with a resurgent Russia and a growing China, and the always-present concern about terrorism?

We can't cut interest payments, and that's 9%.

Social Security could be cut, but that's not being paid for by income taxes anyway (which I assume is the discussion here). We could reduce benefits in that case, too. I am less clear what the consequences of this would be, but more or more severe poverty among the elderly is likely. This program, as well as Medicare, could be means-tested. This would completely alter the nature of the programs, and would turn them into welfare -- this is unlikely to make it through Congress, but it sure would save a lot of money, if that's your goal.

Other discretionary spending makes up 18% of the budget, and this covers things like the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. Do you want to cut benefits to veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD, brain injuries or lost limbs? There's also the Department of Energy, which safeguards our nuclear arsenal. Should we cut that, too? Let's be specific about what should be cut.

In my opinion, we could cut farm subsidies; we could probably reduce funding for the Department of Education and just trust that states and local communities will take up the slack as our education system continues to worsen (though I don't think increased spending will solve this issue -- education in our country needs to be fundamentally re-thought, preferably without the unions); I don't think we should cut transportation -- we already have too many problems, there.

My point in all this is not to say that we have to increase spending or not cut anything. My point is to say that cutting will have consequences, and we'd better have a plan for dealing with these consequences, because many of them may be worse than what we have now.

Spread of wealth - As above, I'd like to know which programs are "wasteful". The National Endowment for the Arts & Humanities? The National Science Foundation? The National Institutes of Health? Or is it just the programs that help the less well off?

Keep in mind that a tax structure that encourages the growth in inequality, as the one we have now does, has its own consequences, and not all of them are good. There are a lot of people in this country who will put up with a lot of inequality in exchange for freedom; but under the current Administration, we've been getting more of the former and less of the latter. This will end badly if it continues.

Gotta start work. I'm enjoying the debate and I'm glad folks take this seriously enough to really think about the alternatives.

HELP ME PLEASE

I received this e-mail today - not directly from its author, but rather from two close friends who were on the original distribution list:

This morning on my way to a 9:00 breakfast meeting with John Doe, we saw a homeless guy with a sign that read "Blame Bush - Vote Obama, I need the money". We laughed. At the restaurant we frequent regularly to hold our breakfast meetings (in Bellevue) our waitress was wearing an "Obama 08" pin on her shirt. We laughed again - just imagine the coincidence!

When the bill came, I picked up the tab, roughly $30 and decided not to tip the waitress. I told her that I was exploring Obama's "spread the wealth" concept. She literally stood there in disbelief while I told her I was "redistributing" her tip to someone whom I deemed more in need - the homeless guy standing at the exit of 520 on our way back to the office. She was genuinely peeved as she gave us very good service (she typically does).

On the way back to CP I gave the homeless guy $5 and he actually thanked me several times (it was John Doe's $5). I told him to thank the waitress at the restaurant (it will go unnamed) as she was the one who actually earned the money - I had simply decided he needed it more. He clearly "didn't understand" but he was grateful. At the end of my unscientific "spread the wealth" experiment, I accomplished / learned two things:
1. I genuinely embarrassed my business partner John Doe
2. I realized that the homeless guy was happy to receive my money (money he did not have to earn himself) while the waitress was pretty angry at being "stiffed" by my giving her money "to someone who needed it more"

My conclusion, "spread the wealth" is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practice no matter your level of income. How many Obama supporters would still vote for a "redistribution of wealth plan" if it touched their pocketbooks? How much tax is enough? The problem is spending!

I encourage you to try this experiment too and let me know if your outcome turns up differently. Or perhaps you should simply give a friend some hard earned money in this difficult economic time?

I will be responding to the author of this e-mail personally... and then of course, I'll post it. But please, any help you can offer would be GREATLY appreciated.

Comments are open.

Excuse me Miss, could you please hand me my ass?

I’m waving the white flag. It’s up. In the air. Waving.

If you read my last post then you’ll realize I used poor judgment in formulating an (extremely weak) argument. I made sweeping statements and didn’t provide any support for them. I riled the troops but failed to offer them a plan of attack. It was a poor decision that left me looking ignorant and liberal beyond reason.

The only defense I can offer is to say that I was in a hurry to post a link to the tax chart that I found useful. I thought it was the first raw representation of how each candidate’s tax plan would affect us – monetarily.

But, thank goodness for open commenting… because I received two intelligent comments from two intelligent women who literally handed me my ass. They displayed much more “fact” (although I’m not sure where the numbers are coming from…) than “emotion” and made a much better argument for their “party” than I did for my “party.”

And as a side note… the reason I put “party” in quotes is because I don’t walk around with a democrat sticker on my shirt. And Mary and AJ don’t walk around with republican stickers on their shirts (I don’t think… right ladies?). I would say on a scale of one to 10, democrat being one and republican being 10, I’m about a three.

But I feel strongly that Obama should be the next president for many, many reasons (health care, women’s rights, and the economy are my top three). So, thank you ladies, for handing me my ass and keeping me on my toes. I’m glad you weren’t one of probably 40 people who read that post, rolled their eyes, and closed their browser window.

Your comments prompted me to do two things:

1.) Sheepishly slump over in my chair and lightly click my mouse over “publish comment,” admitting defeat.

2.) Retreat to higher ground for some ammunition. It’s not bigger or better than yours… but you can’t expect (and I know you don’t) me to run away screaming with my hands in the air after a few shots are fired from the opposing side.

I’d like to address three main arguments (two of which were made by both Mary and AJ) made in the comments from my last post. First, I’ll address the idea of “rightfully earned” money. Second, I’ll dispute the claim that Obama’s “higher taxes” equals “fewer jobs,” and finally, we’ll revisit the meaning of the word “responsibility,” as Mary suggested.

1. Money Earned is Money Saved.

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, we would make all of our hard earned cash and stow it safely in a bank that isn’t facing a second depression or invest it in a house that isn’t facing foreclosure. Unfortunately, we live in a world, or a country rather, that is facing the largest market downturn since 1929 (The Economist, October 9, 2008) and will continue to face a mortgage crisis that prompted 2,203,295 foreclosure filings in 2007 – an increase of 75% from 2006 (RealtyTrac, January 29, 2008).

Was there irresponsible lending? Yes. Were people stupidly buying houses with 0% down? Yes. Were people who shouldn’t be buying houses buying four bedroom, three bath, two car garage new construction homes? Yes. But I don’t think any intelligent individual can argue that a 75% increase in foreclosure filings is entirely related to bad investing. No. We’re facing an awful economy that can no longer sustain our debt-based society.

So what does this have to do with "money earned is money saved"? How did we go from the wealthy paying more taxes to the market downturn and the mortgage crisis?

It all comes down to the “haves” and the “have nots,” as my dad says.

In our country, the gap between rich and poor has never been so fierce, and in my opinion, it’s a threat to our democracy. Taxes are the redistribution of wealth, but shouldn’t it be redistributed?

Who is going to pay to rebuild the roads that our Audi’s and Mercedes drive on? Who is going to pay the police officers and firemen? Judges? Who's going to pay to light our streets so they're safer for our children?

Are people really suggesting that it be a “get what you get” society? Mary, say you get your McCain tax cuts… say Bush’s tax cuts are extended past 2010… in fact, let’s eliminate taxes completely. Do you want to personally host a fundraiser to repair the 520 bridge? Do you want to home school your children due to the fact that the government no longer provides education? Do you want to drive your sister who can’t see straight because of abdomen pain to the emergency room because the government can’t afford an ambulance for her?

If we are all out to keep what me make – if we all fend for ourselves, then, excuse me, but we are royally fucked. Who is going to pay to sustain the infrastructure of our society? The poor? Do you want the poor to pay for it?

Do you want the woman making $15,000 a year to pay the same in taxes as the woman who is making $250,000 a year? Do you want the man that commutes on the bus for three hours everyday because he can’t afford a car to pay for the repaving of our roads? Are you really asking for equal representation when it comes to paying taxes? If you HAVE more, you PAY more. And if you don’t like paying more, quit your job, live at the poverty level or below, and pay fewer taxes.

And while we’re at it… if you’re going to quit your job and live at poverty level, be prepared to give up hefty write-offs come April. The wealthy have higher returns and larger write-offs – and yes, Mary, let me say it for you, because they are PAYING MORE IN TAXES. But, when all is said and done, the lower and middle classes actually pay a higher percentage of taxes than the upper class (after deductions).

When I got my first “big girl” pay check a few months after graduating college I was appalled at how much was taken out for taxes. I went home, flailing check in hand, demanding that my father explain to me how I can get around this HUGE CHUNK of change that is taken from me every two weeks.

He laughed at me. And so did my mom.

I understand the argument. I do. We work hard (most of us) for what we make. The 45/50 hour work weeks are long, the rent check is big, and if we just had that extra couple hundred a month life would SO MUCH BETTER.

But taxes are there. And they will always be there. And they will have to stay there if we are going to continue to live in American society. And the wealthy should pay more because they make more, and the poor (whether they're poor because of circumstantial situations or poor by choice) should pay less because they make less. It sounds pretty basic to me.

2. Higher Taxes for the Wealthy Means Fewer Jobs for All.

First, let’s talk, AJ. You said, “… those rich people own the businesses that employ countless peons. The more taxes they pay… the fewer jobs available.” Forgive my ignorance… but I’m not sure I follow your argument. The cost of employment (due to taxes) is too high to sustain American workers? Therefore, companies have to outsource, going overseas for cheaper labor, taking jobs away from rightful, entitled Americans?

I’ve also heard that phenomenon called “globalization.” The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, offers a fabulous explanation of how technology is flattening the world and driving American business owners to utilize the talent in other countries (and he ultimately concludes that this is a GOOD thing for everyone). And there’s no stopping globalization, anyway – higher taxes, lower taxes; it’s happening, happened, and it’s going to continue to happen.

And Mary, you say, “additionally, what about the mid-size companies that, when presented with the $93,000 tax increase under Obama’s plan, ship their low-level jobs overseas to cope with increased taxes?”

I’m so glad you asked – let me try to answer your question.

First, Obama’s Corporate Tax Policy ends tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas (your man McCain voted to retain these tax breaks). Obama would “reverse the backwards incentive that allows companies to defer or avoid taxes entirely if they invest overseas while requiring them to pay full and immediate taxes if they invest in America.” (barakobama.com)

Obama would also offer new tax breaks for companies that create jobs in America. This of course, compared to McCain who “offers nearly $200 billion in tax cuts to corporations, even if they do not invest in the US or create a single US job.” (barakobama.com).

Further, Obama’s Small Business Tax Policies eliminate capital gains for small businesses and offer a healthcare tax credit. McCain on the other hand, continues to tax capital gains for small businesses at 15% and ADS costs for small businesses that provide health insurance.

As to your question about the $93,000 Obama increase – I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers. Are you alluding to the fact that Obama voted AGAINST extending the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2010? And then by default, he’s raising taxes?

As quoted in Larry Rohter’s NY Times article, Misleading Claims by McCain on Obama’s Tax Plan, Bob Williams, senior research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington said, “It strikes me as a bizarre proposition and a false premise to argue that you are voting for a tax increase by not voting to cut taxes… Not voting in favor of extending something into the future does not seem to me to be voting for a tax increase.”

In the same article, Rohter says, “Mr. McCain himself originally opposed the Bush tax cuts, saying they were a fiscally irresponsible gift to the wealthy ‘at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.’ But he now favors extending them permanently.”

Hmm… so who wants middle-class tax relief? McCain? Oh yes… he did. But now he doesn’t. But Obama does… in fact… the Obama plan would cut taxes for middle class families three times more than McCain’s plan.

So who’s for Joe Plumber? Joe six-pack? Which was it? I can see Russia from my house?

3. Responsibility

Senator McCain gave me a nice transition here by using the phrase “fiscally irresponsible.”

Mary, I couldn’t agree with you about the meaning of the word responsibility. We’ve all lost touch, including (and maybe mostly) politicians.

Especially over the last eight years.

$4 trillion added to the deficit sounds pretty irresponsible to me.

Paul Krugman says in his op-ed piece titled The Real Plumbers of Ohio, “Mr. McCain claims that Mr. Obama’s policies would lead to economic disaster. But President Bush’s policies have already led to disaster – and whatever he may say, Mr. McCain proposes continuing Mr. Bush’s policies in all essential respects…”

But perhaps I should address one last issue of “responsibility.” I think it is irresponsible (and dangerous) to say that McCain “will provide Americans a chance to pursue their dreams to the fullest, and keep more of their hard earned paychecks.”

I think the use of the word “Americans” in the above sentence is a gross generalization and an uninformed one at that. If by "Americans" you mean those individuals who fall in the top two tax brackets or if by "Americans" you mean those who make over $182,400 a year, after deductions, then please, by all means, continue with your argument.

But if you’re like me, and if you like to think that the word “Americans” should represent the vast majority of our country’s population, then I think you should be seriously upset when someone suggests that McCain allows “us” to pursue our dreams to the fullest.

If I want to pursue my dreams to the fullest, I’ll go with the man who understands the social imbalance of our society and works towards closing the gab between the “haves” and the “have nots.”

“Under Mr. Obama’s tax proposal, those in the middle of the middle class – people earning $37,000 to $66,000 a year – would receive a tax cut of more than $1,000 a year, more than three times what Mr. McCain is proposing in his tax platform.” (Larry Rohter, New York Times)

I believe in the popular vote. And I believe in the majority vote.

I do not believe in the elitist vote and I do not believe that the amount of money you have should contribute to the weight of your vote.

All discrepancies aside… all differences acknowledged… I think it is so important to have these discussions and I consider myself lucky to have people in my life who will argue with me.

Mary, I’ll take you up on that drink… my treat – your taxes are higher than mine.

Tax Plans: Obama versus McCain

Taxes, taxes, taxes. That's all I hear from my republican friends and even some of my moderate friends. And all I keep hearing is that Obama will essentially rob of us our rightful wages and newborn babies and that McCain will supposedly keep the welfare riff raff from sneaking into our bank accounts at night and shitting all over the money they don't steal.

Buuuuut… here's the thing. The media, both the right and the left, have participated in the severe misrepresentation of both tax plans. McCain LIES, "my friends." And Obama is too busy fending off the stiff, I'm-qualified-to-be-the-leader-of-the-free-world-because-I-was-a-POW, Maverick McCain to focus on his own hard numbers.

So I couldn't help but drop my jaw when I found a completely straight forward analysis of each tax plan… down to the dollar. A kindergartner could read the chart that Parade's Intelligence Report published on October 12. Find your number, follow the chart over to the right, and see what Obama gives you versus what McCain gives you.

Thank you, Rebecca Davis O'Brien, for this timely chart.

And for the record, the Tax Policy Center, the resource for these numbers, "is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."

Read: The Tax Policy Center is made up of mostly white, mostly men, mostly wealthy people who will most definitely save money (and possibly even MAKE money) under the McCain Administration. These are their numbers... and they're still publishing it.

And if you're still confused about who represents change and who continues the Bush error… excuse me, I meant to say era… then read the chart again.

Seriously. Read it again.

And note that we're actually PAYING the wealthiest people in the world… in the world… more money.

And I have so much more to say on this but I'm out of time. I'll do my best to get a continued post up tomorrow…

Wedding Blog Part Two: The Day Of

So now, it's September 6, 2008. And my sister is getting married. Today.

I wake up early, help myself to the left over sticky buns, have two mugs of coffee by the fire, and then watch as my mom and sister meticulously arrange the brought-to-you-by-Pike-Place-Market bouquets.

My dad is sitting across from me as my sister and mom are arranging the flowers, grinning the way he grins when he really wants to say something but knows he shouldn't. And I can tell there is a battle going on his brain – "Should I make a smart-ass comment right now? Should I not?" And I look at him and say, "You better not."

That makes him chuckle the way he chuckles – with a broad, teeth-bearing grin and wide eyes. I guarantee you he was going to say something like, "What, is flowering arranging brain science, or something?"

So the flowers were arranged (beautifully… as you can see…)



And now we're T-minus four hours before we have to be in the make-up and hair chair.

Erin and I still have to drive about half an hour to the honeymoon suite to set the mood for some sexin' – and Erin is flustered because we're running short on time.

Now, there are many, many… many things that my sister does better than me. BUT… there are two things I do better than her.

1.) Run late

2.) Drive a stick shift.

Explanation of number one – I run late better than she does: I run about ten minutes behind… always. My sister runs about ten minutes ahead, always. So if you put the two together, we'll be right on time. The only problem is that my sister didn't realize this. We had a direction mix-up on our drive to the hotel (mainly because these directions were not in the original direction packet) and we ended up going about 15 miles in the wrong direction.

My sister's response to the wrong turn? "We are NOT going the right way. We are in LA CONNER. This is not right. This is not good. Turn around. Hurry. We're late!"

My response to the wrong turn? "Whoops."

Explanation of number two - I drive a stick shift better than she does: Seeing as how I don't like to pay for gas and seeing as how the bumper of my car is attached by two rubber bungees… I didn't want to drive my car an hour round trip to decorate my sister's hotel room. My mom needed Erin's SUV to take stuff to the wedding site, so that left my dad's 1994 BMW convertible as the only choice.

But you need a little background as to WHY this is a big deal. My dad sold my high school car when I went off to college and bought this BMW, telling me it was a replacement for my car and that we would "share" it when I came home on breaks.

But in this situation, I didn't realize that when he said we will "share" it, he really meant "you will never drive it."

It's his baby. I understand. The man had three daughters… he has lived the past 23 years with four women in his household… he can be particular about who drives his car.

BUT… back to the wedding. So when we realize that my dad's car is the only option other than my car, my mom, Erin and I all turn our heads towards him with skeptical eyes and closed mouths.

"You can take it," he said.

"But I want Meguire to drive it."

Yes. Correct. My father chose me, his daughter of 23, to drive his car over Erin, his daughter of 27, because I CAN DRIVE A STICK SHIFT BETTER.

It's a right of passage. It is a memory I will remember always. And you know how in biblical times the birth right of each eldest son was land? Well… this is like MY birthright... except it's not a "right" for me to drive his car and I'm not the eldest. Ha. Not the best analogy… but I think I'll leave it.

And the only reason I keep going on about who got to drive the car is because it is rare… rare… that I am offered "the more responsible" roll. Erin is, hands down, the most responsible child. She is a better planner and organizer. She makes better choices. She is everything the eldest sibling is supposed to be and more.

But… just this once… I was "chosen." And so I think I'll relish in that for a while.

But back to the wedding… because that's what it's all about, right?

So we get to The Bluff (wedding location), after decorating the hotel suite with flower petals and candles, just in time to see Morgan getting her hair and make-up done. And as soon as she's finished I start tearing up… and that was just the beginning of the water works.

I was crying during the ceremony.

After the ceremony.

And during the toasts.

In fact… the photographer caught this oh-so-flattering photo of me trying to stop crying after the ceremony and decided not to delete it. Thank you, photographer, for allowing all of my friends and family to see this photo. And thank you, Morgan, for not honoring my request to keep this photo "private." I might as well embrace the Ugly Cry and show you all too… brace yourself:



But even with the Ugly Cry, the evening could not have been more beautiful. The weather was perfect, Morgan and Ben are gorgeous and happy, and I had more family around me at one time than I have had around me in a long time.

Here are a few of my favorite photos (courtesy Bella Pictures):



The Sister Kiss



Four Tall Brothers and Three Mini Sisters



Mom, Erin, and Dad



Two of my most favorite women in the world (and if we had Catherine in this photo it would have been three of my most favorite women in the world).



The Boys and Me



And the photographer who is behind perhaps the worst documented sighting of the Ugly Cry.

My musing of this day could never do it justice. It was so much more than I ever expected and I am honored to have been a part of it.

Congratulations Ben and Morgan – love you both.