Obama, Bush and the cost of hiring someone
Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by the president of Bogen Communications, a small business in New Jersey, titled simply “Why I’m Not Hiring.” In it, he describes his company’s median worker in terms of income — and why it costs so much to employ her relative to the pay she takes home (subscription required):
She makes $59,000 a year — on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.
Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That’s the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She’s lucky she doesn’t live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.
Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest — $9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.
Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers’ comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally’s Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.
When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.
Economists have a name for this difference between the cost of employment and the employee’s take-home pay and benefits: the tax wedge. The $74,000 it costs Bogen to employ “Sally” is not the prevailing market wage for her job; that would be closer to the $56,000 she takes home in pay and benefits. The remaining $18,000 is the tax wedge that government drives into the labor market and, generally speaking, the higher the tax wedge, the lower employment will be.
There are obvious implications for employment in all the Obama-Pelosi-Reid policies that point to higher taxes — as the Bogen president put it in his op-ed:
As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.
A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.
But the op-ed also got me thinking in a different direction: How did the tax wedge change during the last decade?
A steady chorus tells us that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were primarily for the benefit of “the rich.” That ignores the fact that rates fell across all income-tax brackets and that the share of all federal income taxes paid by “the rich” rose. But it also ignores what happened to the tax wedge.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a kind of club for industrialized countries based in Paris, compiles tax-wedge information annually. You can see a graph for its data from 2000 to 2009 here which shows comparisons not only across time and countries, but for different types of taxpayers: single mothers, two-earner families with no kids, etc.
The OECD notes that tax wedges shrunk in 2009 for countries like the U.S. in large part because wages fell due to the financial and economic crisis. So, to make sure I’ve not included any effects from the recession, I’ve compared the U.S. tax wedge from 2000 to 2007.
The biggest change, by far, was for a single parent of two kids earning two-thirds of the average wage. The tax wedge for that person fell by nearly 40 percent to just 5.8 percent. The next biggest change was for a one-income married couple with two kids earning the average wage; their tax wedge fell by about one-sixth to 17.4 percent.
On down the line it went, with the degree of change generally decreasing as a household’s size fell and its income rose.
And, uniformly, the biggest tax-wedge changes came in the 2003 tax year — that is, when the Bush tax cuts finally took full effect. That’s no doubt part of the reason why, from June 2003 (the first full month after the tax cuts were signed into law) through the end of 2007, the U.S. created 8.1 million net new jobs.
Just something to remember the next time you hear people talking about those darned “tax cuts for the rich.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
151 comments Add your comment
Would Kyle compromise?
August 13th, 2010
12:48 pm
If the main rationale being put forth for continuing the tax cuts is that the business owners will hire more people, why not compromise and offer a tax cut specifically for people who are willing to add workers to their payroll?
It might not be everything the Republicans want, but how could the Democrats oppose a tax cut that directly leads to job creation?
HDB`
August 13th, 2010
12:50 pm
If such occurred….(and I do have my doubts)…..then why was the income differential greater during the Bush years?? The incomes of blacks fell and their poverty rates rose 7.9 per cent, compared with 5.1 per cent for whites. The Bush years were a stark contrast to the presidency of Bill Clinton, when a matrix of policies caused real median incomes to rise 23 per cent for blacks and 13 per cent for whites.
If the tax wedge declined, shouldn’t median income have INCREASED??
booger
August 13th, 2010
12:58 pm
Last week the NYT ran three seperate articles on why businesses were not hiring. The writers quoted many sources, mostly economists, who put forth many theories including one who felt it was a coordinated effort by all businesses to discredit our President. With all their efforts, you would think one of the writers would talk to a business owner or manager. It didn’t happen. Not one was interviewed. We have an administration who has totally shunned business as a partner at his table, and a press who only talks to academics, and we wonder what’s wrong.
Kyle Wingfield
August 13th, 2010
1:06 pm
Compromise: I favor tax policy that’s as broad as possible, so I tend not to like carve-outs that add noise to the system. And it would be far more efficient to stop adding (or taking actions that threaten to add) taxes on employers. We need to get away from paint-by-numbers tax policy.
HDB: You’re free to have your doubts, I guess, but OECD numbers are widely respected. As for the effect on the median income, obviously there are more factors to that besides the tax wedge…but the tax wedge is one area where government tax policy has a direct impact on employment levels.
Kyle Wingfield
August 13th, 2010
1:07 pm
And on wages, I should have added at the end of that last comment.
Would Kyle compromise?
August 13th, 2010
1:15 pm
Compromise: I favor tax policy that’s as broad as possible, so I tend not to like carve-outs that add noise to the system. And it would be far more efficient to stop adding (or taking actions that threaten to add) taxes on employers.
It would be far more efficient Kyle, if you could get such policies passed. Not likely in this environment.
I say the idea is worth floating if for no other reason that if the Democrats knee-jerk opposed it, it shines a light on how anti-business some in the Democratic Party are. At the very least it moves the needle on the debate and forces the Democrats to defend opposing a tax cut that is guaranteed to create jobs, does it not?
Sick of Dems
August 13th, 2010
1:16 pm
FAIR TAX !!!!!!!!!!!!
Would Kyle compromise?
August 13th, 2010
1:21 pm
Fair Tax people might want to stop trying to pass off a $1 loaf of bread costing $1.30 under the Fair Tax as a 23% tax, who Joe Six-Pack sees it as 30%. Yes I understand the inclusive/exclusive reasons why, but unfortunately it just gives fodder to people who say Fair Tax advocates are fudging numbers.
Kyle Wingfield
August 13th, 2010
1:22 pm
Compromise: But I don’t think it would be very effective. Not every tax cut is created equal. Supporting bad or ineffective ones only makes it harder to get good, effective ones passed.
Would Kyle compromise?
August 13th, 2010
1:26 pm
I can see your point of view Kyle, but if for no other reason than it would force Democrats to oppose a tax cut that is absolutely guaranteed to create jobs, I’d like to see it out there, just so joe average could have a clear cut example of the difference in philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to taxes.
God knows joe average needs all the help he can get; look who he votes for.
jconservative
August 13th, 2010
1:33 pm
Kyle see your Bureau Labor Stat charts for the years 1980 – 2010.
Thanks
HDB`
August 13th, 2010
1:36 pm
Would Kyle compromise? August 13th, 2010
1:26 pm
“I can see your point of view Kyle, but if for no other reason than it would force Democrats to oppose a tax cut that is absolutely guaranteed to create jobs, I’d like to see it out there, just so joe average could have a clear cut example of the difference in philosophies of the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to taxes.”
Compromise — Question: The Obama Administration presented a tax cut plan for small businesses so that they COULD create more jobs….but the Republicans ALL voted against it; what is a clearer example of policy differential that you wish to be evident??
Would Kyle compromise?
August 13th, 2010
1:40 pm
HDB if Obama really did present a tax cut plan that did as you say, I would hope they would bang that drum beat over and over again when they are being raked over the coals for their anti-business stance.
I see a lot of merit to some of the arguments put forth about how Obama policies will lead to economic adverse consequences, so I would say that if they won’t they need to do a better job articulating why they won’t.
Richard
August 13th, 2010
1:56 pm
Kyle,
Just curious, but why do the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. There’s a bunch of republicans saying they should be made permenant, but the cuts were passed by republicans. Why didn’t they just make them permenant when they originally passed them so this would essentially be a non-issue?
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
2:02 pm
Richard
They’re required to sunset in 10 years because Republicans used reconciliation to pass them.
booger
August 13th, 2010
2:24 pm
HDB,
You are fully aware that the bill you are referring to was basically a list of pork and earmarks with a tax bill hidden within. This was just as the extention of unemployment.
Port O'John
August 13th, 2010
2:45 pm
And the Bush tax cuts for the rich were also a primary cause of our whopping federal deficit. I think the GOP would have more creditibility if they would couple tax cuts with spending cuts — in other words: pay for them!
But that didn’t happen. Under Bush we cut taxes for the wealthy and raised government spending. Result: huge increase in debt. But, hey, that was OK with the GOP. But now that dems are in power, debt is a huge problem because, well because dems are in power and the GOP isn’t.
If you really think the GOP (or dems) really give a hoot about average Americans then you live in fantasy-land. All either party cares about is getting power and keeping it. About the only person in D.C. who interests me is the SecDef — yes, I know he is a Republican, but to conservatives he is a RINO who couldn’t get elected dogcatcher in a Red State.
wallbanger
August 13th, 2010
2:46 pm
It is a sorry state, but I always figured my income and taxes were going to support about 4 welfare families, or those on the dole. It is a sorry state of things really, when people believe they have a right to live on the backs of other people. It is what we have come to today. People, in the old days, would rather have cleaned toilets than taken charity. Lots of things have changed and not for the better in this country. I am beginning to wonder if this country is worth saving.
pat
August 13th, 2010
2:50 pm
Good article, it’s way over the head of the average democrat.
TaxPayer
August 13th, 2010
2:51 pm
I suppose Kyle would also have us believe that if we would only extend those tax cuts that the Republicans designed to end this year, in order to pay for their borrowing to fund two wars, an ag bill, prescription drug company benefits, etc., we would magically create an unemployment rate of 4.5%. I believe the appropriate name for such thinking could be something prefaced with “faith based”. What a laffer.
The Aristocrat
August 13th, 2010
2:53 pm
Sorry wallbanger, not only would people rather take charity than clean toilets, they’ll riot to be the first in line.
Frank
August 13th, 2010
2:59 pm
Richard – the Democrats would not allow the Republicans to make the “Bush Tax Cuts” permanent and thus – in order to get any cut passed – they were done so with a limit imposed upon them.
Cuts should be across the board – everyone in this country – rich or poor – should be treated equally.
After all – most of the rich were once poor and they became wealthy by working their way out of poverty.
Frank
August 13th, 2010
3:03 pm
The Obama administration will go down in history as the most anti-business, anti-job, un-American, darkest administration in history. If the founding fathers were alive they would have killed him in a duel
Jefferson
August 13th, 2010
3:05 pm
The Bush tax cuts are going to expire at the end of the year. Congress will cut taxes for those families making less than 250k back to where they are now. Call it deficit reduction.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
3:08 pm
“The incomes of blacks fell and their poverty rates rose 7.9 per cent, compared with 5.1 per cent for whites.”
That’s because white people work for a living.
Don't forget
August 13th, 2010
3:08 pm
So, why did the economy boom after Clinton raised taxes?
Arrogant B@st@rd
August 13th, 2010
3:11 pm
Grand Kleagle Forks, your sheets are ready.
HDB`
August 13th, 2010
3:12 pm
Frank August 13th, 2010
2:59 pm
Check SoCo’s post….he’s more on the point!! Remember….the GOP controlled Congress for the preponderance of the Bush years…….and they had the majority to make the tax cuts permanent…but they chose to use reconciliation to pass the budget…which mandated a 10-yr window! The GOP know that they would leave it to whatever Administration succeeded them….and to use it as an issue to say “tax increase”…..when we all know that this was the design all along!!
Linda
August 13th, 2010
3:13 pm
I compare the debate over the Bush tax cuts to the minimum wage.
In 2007, under a Dem. congress, the minimum wage was increased in 3 stages. According to a Wall St. Journal article, “The Lost Wages of Youth, 3/5/10, “rarely has a law hurt more vulnerable people more quickly.” Teen unemployment went from 14.9% to a peak of 27.6%, for black teens to a peak of 49.8% & for black male teens to 52.2%.
It would only make sense (to some) that if employers were required to pay the least experienced workers with the fewest skills a higher wage, that the workers would all be making more money.
It doesn’t & didn’t work that way. It caused them the loss of their jobs.
Raising the Bush tax cuts will also result in job losses.
Jefferson
August 13th, 2010
3:22 pm
Use the logic business uses, “I don’t pay taxes, I just charge them back to my employer”.
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
3:26 pm
So, why did the economy boom after Clinton raised taxes?
—————-
Primarily for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Despite the fairly narrow view held by some on the left regarding economic growth and taxes, marginal tax rates are only one component impacting economic activity, not the whole enchilada. Second, there were massive amounts of production in Asia that came online and could feed surging US demand without causing significant inflation. Third, new technological developments resulted in a plethora of new products becoming available, and rampant competition in the tech sector combined with low cost manufacturing assured that these products would be available for the US consumer at attractive prices. Fourth, an increase in the sophistication of the capital markets (i.e. the rise of hedge funds, expanded syndicated loan products, increased private equity flows, etc.) allowed more (and smaller) companies to gain greater access to capital in order to invest and grow.
Clinton should be credited for having stayed out of the way, which, from an economic standpoint, is pretty much what he did.
stranger in a strange land
August 13th, 2010
3:31 pm
The people that write the tax laws (Rangel, et al) are so disconnected to the real world that they simply do not, cannot, or will not understand any of this.
Sick of Dems @ 1:16 – flat tax – definitely. However, one thing the power elite in DC do understand is that this would be a massive power loss for them. Therefore, short of complete and total collapse of the system, or an armed insurrection – it just won’t happen.
What will likely happen is more band aids on fingers and toes all whilst the jugular vein has been severed.
The Aristocrat
August 13th, 2010
3:32 pm
Clinton staying out of the way was a major contributing factor. His interference would have only hampered the economic boom, much to the way that Obama is hampering its recovery.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
3:39 pm
A few comments:
1. In this anecdote, approximately $10,000 of employee benefits (e.g., various forms of insurance), likely provided to compete for employees in the free market, are incorrectly attributed to the “tax wedge.” Fudging the numbers by blaming the government for market related expenses is a bit dishonest.
2. As far as this employer being concerned about his obligations to the government going up, what uncertainties are he concerned about again? He blames government for potential health care increases when multiple independent reviews indicate that the Affordable Care Act will reduce deficits, reduce the growth of health insurance premiums, and extend Medicaid for twelve years? In fact, to the extent that medical premiums are currently high, we can blame free market tendencies (i.e., gouging). Again, it’s a bit dishonest to blame government for costs arising out of free market policies that you condone.
3. Obama and Democratic leadership in Congress have been clear about which Bush tax cuts they would allow to expire (none of which would effect his costs related to the employee he described). Again, no uncertainties there. To the extent that the top two rates would go up, it would only affect this employer if he figures out a way to scrape by on $250,000 of personal income per year. And assuming that’s the case, his income tax would still be lower than they were during the Clinton years (as I recall, hiring was pretty good back then).
If this employer chooses to believe that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck know more than independent economists, then we all suffer. But we can’t ask our representatives to govern based on the views of employers who stubbornly cling their ignorance. That said, the truth is that if this employer had enough demand (customers) for his business, he’d hire—no matter what Sean Hannity tells him.
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
3:45 pm
Clinton staying out of the way was a major contributing factor.
______________
I wouldn’t quite put it that way, but I think I understand what you’re saying. He deserves credit for not having mucked it up. But the reality is that his economic policies did almost nothing to create the economic growth we enjoyed in the mid-late 90’s. Most of the factors that led to the growth were wholly outside of his control. To your point, he certainly could have screwed it up, but he let the cycle play out without interefering.
The Aristocrat
August 13th, 2010
3:50 pm
Clearly, Wahoo. The groundwork was laid in the 80’s for the boom we enjoyed in the 90’s. Clinton, in not interfering, allowed the market to proceed along its natural course- prosperity. No President has seen the effects of their economic policy while in office because it typically takes 10 years for policy-making to impact the economy at the Joe Sixpack level.
Kyle Wingfield
August 13th, 2010
3:50 pm
CJ: The $18,000 doesn’t include the health insurance costs that he mentions. It includes only the taxes set by the state and federal governments…that’s why he referred to $44,000 in pay and $12,000 in benefits separately from the $18,000 tax wedge. And I suppose you think he should just listen to the “multiple independent reviews” and not investigate on hiw own what the costs will be to his specific business? Or maybe you think Sean Hannity called him up and gave him that information?
As for what Obama and the Democratic leadership have been clear about: What is clear is that they haven’t taken a single action to enact the kind of plan you mention. Obama has been in office for almost 19 months; there’s nothing that says you have to wait until Dec. 30 to extend something that expires after Dec. 31. Yes, Obama put those rates in his budget plan — but the Democrats have already made clear that they’re not going to pass a budget, as such, this year.
If extending some of the cuts is the plan, where’s the bill? Why have they had time to pass or debate tens of thousands of pages of other legislation — legislation that points to the higher taxes employers fear — but not to address this?
Don't forget
August 13th, 2010
3:51 pm
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
3:26 pm
See above
——————-
Thanks for making my point Wahoo. You’re argument shows that economic conditions have way more to do with the health of the economy than tax policy. We had top marginal tax rates at around 70% from the early to mid thirties to the late seventies and we had good times and bad times during that period.
Jefferson
August 13th, 2010
3:52 pm
Don’t worry the bill will come.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
3:54 pm
Well I see Paul got Jay B’s blog shut down. Good job, Paul
/sarc
They’re required to sunset in 10 years because Republicans used reconciliation to pass them.
SoCo,
That’s only partially right. Under the Byrd rule during reconciliation anything that is deemed to significantly add to the federal deficit 10 years out needs 60 votes. Since in the eternal idiocy of the way tax cuts are considered costs to the government they are always said to add to the deficit so the only way to get the tax cuts through was to stop at ten years.
EJ
August 13th, 2010
3:56 pm
Before we identify bad or ineffective tax cuts, shouldn’t we first eliminate the bad or ineffective taxes?
Taxes should be applied equally to all. They should not be buried or hidden. To continue doing so allows government to pull the wool over our eyes as to what we are actually paying.
And if taxes were applied equally across the board, lobbyists would have no role in changing our laws.
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
3:58 pm
RW
I knew it was something to that effect. I wasn’t sure the exact reason. And yeah, thanks Paul… lol!!!
Robert
August 13th, 2010
4:03 pm
I can’t wait for another Republican to lead us, sunshine and roses. Just like Georgia for the last eight years.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:03 pm
Well, well, well…y’all can run but you cannot hide! What did Paul do?
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
4:04 pm
CJ,
I think you make a couple of good points. I do, however, think that articles like this highlight the difference between the cost of an employee to the employer, and the amount of money that the employee puts in their pocket. We should all be reminded of that from time to time.
Irrespective of the amount of that wedge, for a prudent employer to hire, they will want to ensure that the marginal employee adds value. The more it costs an employer to hire, the less that employer will hire because the threshold of the marginal employee to add value will increase.
And you may be right that independent reviews of the health care reform will lead to reduced health care premiums. Unfortunately I don’t think most employers buy this. Caterpillar certainly doesn’t – they booked a $100m charge in 1Q directly related to the health reform, and they weren’t the only one.
Lastly, it is somewhat problematic that we are in late August and we don’t know what tax rates will be for next year for the various buckets of income. Companies and people do like to plan ahead as it relates to taxes, and for some of us out there, an increase in marginal rates from 35 to 39.6 is a big number.
Jefferson
August 13th, 2010
4:08 pm
If I was at 35%, I would plan on 39.6% — better safe than sorry,eh?
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:09 pm
Kyle,
Nice place you got here and thanks for clearly pointing out the true cost of employing someone. If I might add this is why I quit using employees and went strictly to using contractors.
josef,
Paul complained to the AJC about a truly offensive poster and rather than get rid of the poster or his posts they just locked down the blog and left all the filth up for all to see.
Baffled
August 13th, 2010
4:11 pm
Would Kyle Compromise, your idea has been in a couple of jobs bills pushed by Mr. Obama, but as usual Republicans in the Senate keep blocking them.
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
4:11 pm
Don’t forget,
I don’t think anyone will argue that overall economic conditions drive economic activity more than tax policy AS LONG AS a change in tax policy isn’t too significant.
That being said, I don’t think any serious economist would take the position that an increase in marginal rates doesn’t negatively impact economic activity, and vice versa.
So tax rates matter, and changes in tax rates matter, but they’re only one piece of the equation.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:13 pm
wallbanger
If your taxes can support FOUR welfare families, what the heck are you complaining about….that’s a hefty income/portfolio/business you’ve got…
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:14 pm
RW
Truly offensive at Jay’s? What did he do…?
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:16 pm
josef,
It wasn’t Paul. You can go to the last page that only has four comments on it and see who he’s talking about. I don’t want to give the name and have a search show up over here.
booger
August 13th, 2010
4:17 pm
I do not think the extention of the tax breaks will have a large effect on hiring or the economy. I think most businesses have written written this off already. I think it’s the other unknowns which are keeping both businesses and consumers from sticking their necks out. Potential new government regulations, cap-and trade sitting in the wings, and all the unknowns associated with it, the hugh issue of a potential VAT, the potential for a double dip recession, the potential for deflation. On top of all of that, we have a deficit commission, which is code for new tax commission, working away to come up with Lord knows what.
Employers hire and expand when they have some reasonable expectation that they can grow their business. When the government finally decides they have taxed and regulated enough, the consumers will return, followed by business growth and increased employment.
In the meantime, Obama could go a long way toward helping by lifting the ban on drilling in the Gulf. This would put nearly 100,000 people back to work, and prevent further rigs from moving to friendlier countries.
Kyle Wingfield
August 13th, 2010
4:17 pm
Jefferson: “Better safe than sorry” — pretty good summation of why employers aren’t hiring right now.
Btw, the WSJ surveyed 53 economists about potential policies. Two key takeaways:
“Despite the continued challenging conditions, 30 out of 48 economists who answered the question said the economy didn’t need any more fiscal or monetary stimulus. Six economists said more fiscal stimulus was necessary, while five want more monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve and seven said that the economy could use both.”
and
“The economists, though, generally didn’t support the idea of ending Bush-era tax cuts, which will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. Just three respondents said that the tax cuts on individual income should be allowed to expire for everyone. Thirty-two economists said they should all be extended, while 11 said they should be extended for people making less than $250,000 a year—the policy option backed by the Obama administration.”
Full article at: http://bit.ly/bKoDFK
Baffled
August 13th, 2010
4:22 pm
Politicians know we Americans don’t take the time to educate ourselves on the content of pending legislation. Instead, we rely on talking heads from cable channel chatter(MSNBC, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, CNN and an assortment of other air head host and their partisian guests on Sunday Morning politalk shows) to inform us. We praise politicians(game show host) as being brilliant because they espouse our views and positions, but acutually we’re buying fool’s gold.
Baffled
August 13th, 2010
4:29 pm
Kyle, are you saying David Stockton(Reagan’s Budget Director), GW’s first Treasury Secretary, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin et. al. are all wrong whent they say let the tax cuts expire.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:30 pm
“Grand Kleagle Forks, your sheets are ready.”
But I’m not a democrat. Only democrats can serve in the Klan.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
4:30 pm
“CJ: The $18,000 doesn’t include the health insurance costs that he mentions.”
I stand corrected. The blizzard of benefit costs—unrelated to the writer’s point about the costs of local, state, and federal government—threw me off.
And yes, I do think the employer should investigate costs specific to his business. That’s my point. If he’s truly not hiring because of “uncertainties” arising out of Democratic policies (I doubt it), then he hasn’t done his homework.
And yes, I know that you and the conservative media are desperately trying to convince voters that Dems are lying and really intend to raise taxes on everybody after the election is over, but it’s not gonna happen (unless Senate Republicans block an up or down vote on the extension of tax cuts for incomes below $250,000—thereby having been responsible for any resulting tax increases).
On the other hand, if conservatives (so-called) cared as much about the deficit as much as they claim, then they’d be shouting from the roof tops to let the Bush tax rate cuts expire for incomes above $250,000 (households in that category would still benefit from the cuts at the lower tax rates). Keeping these cuts in effect would have little or no stimulative effect on the economy, and would cost trillions over the course of another decade.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:30 pm
RW
Thanks…if it’s who I think it is, he’s “got deep psychological problems stemming back to early childhood!” Heard he took a swipe at me last night for asking after Hillibilly…oh, well, I guess he’s happy now…
This is my first time here, and seems like a rather civil lot with good manners,,,I’m afraid the topic is somewhat beyond me…I just flat don’t understand economics…
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:31 pm
What’s gonna be hilarious is when democrats beg Obozo to extend the Bush tax cuts. Just another vindication for Bush.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:32 pm
“This is my first time here, and seems like a rather civil”
Yeah, it’s because the psychos reside over on Kookman and Tucker’s blogs.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:34 pm
“are all wrong whent they say let the tax cuts expire.”
Yes.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:35 pm
josef,
That’s not the one. I guess I wasn’t clear, but if you go to that last page and read Paul’s comment you’ll see who it is he complained about. The one that took a swipe at you is just surly old guy. He takes shots at me nightly and he gets worse as the night goes on if you get my drift.
Larry
August 13th, 2010
4:35 pm
Much of the talk about tax rates is politically slanted, but Mr. Fleischer isn’t exactly the icon of objectivity.
The amount of an employee’s federal, state and local income tax withholding is an employee, not company, expense. The reasons an employee would file a specific W-4 are personal and this guy was way out of line for even mentioning it.
The largest expense he listed is for company benefits which are driven by the job market, not any government agency. The actual government expense Bogen Communications Inc. pays for Sally is $5527 per year, which is 9 per cent of her salary, not the 33 per cent Fleischer claims. Maybe he didn’t notice we are in an employers’ market.
Had he spent time running his company instead of writing politically oriented editorials, perhaps Bogen wouldn’t have been de-listed by NASDQ when their preferred stock fell to a fraction of one cent.
Take your advice from whomever you will, but it doesn’t take much talent to run a company into the ground. If it’s all the same to you, I’ll listen to Warren Buffet.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:36 pm
“Well I see Paul got Jay B’s blog shut down. Good job, Paul”
Hey Bookman blog retards, can you please take your garbage over to Tucker’s blog?
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:38 pm
RW-(the original) & josef nix
Bookman is a joke. No one over here gives a crap about what goes over there. 95% of the people who blog over there are out of work welfare baby mamas.
Bottom line: It’s pretty civil over here. GO AWAY.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
4:39 pm
TaxPayer
Awe, poor whittle bed wetter. Did daddy shut down his blog? You’re in foreign territory comrade and Bookman isn’t here to play nanny for you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
August 13th, 2010
4:39 pm
Kyle, you’re just annoying the libtards with all these facts; they have their carefully constucted worldview and it’s impervious to data.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:40 pm
Grand Forks
Aren’t you just the one..,
Mr Wingfield…
Are we welcome here or should we go away?
RW
Oh, the one I was zeroing in on is a left winger who’s announced he’s going home…
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:40 pm
GF,
I’m sure if Kyle feels I’m uncivil he’ll ask me to leave and I’m also fairly sure that’s his decision not yours.
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
4:41 pm
I just flat don’t understand economics…
__________________________
Josef – you’re not by chance a member of Congress, or the President, are you? Just kidding – it was too easy – couldn’t resist.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
4:41 pm
“Caterpillar certainly doesn’t – they booked a $100m charge in 1Q directly related to the health reform, and they weren’t the only one.”
First, this isn’t an uncertainty.
Second, this charge is related to the fact the Caterpillar will no longer be able to write off government subsidies for Medicare Part D as a tax deduction. Currently, first they get the subsidy…then they get to deduct the subsidy from their profits for tax purposes. Under the Affordable Care Act, they still get the government subsidies, but they can no longer deduct them.
Small government advocates should be rejoicing at the loss of the tax deduction, and perhaps, advocating on behalf of ending the corporate welfare subsidy altogether. The lack of consistency is perplexing.
Lil' Barry Bailout
August 13th, 2010
4:42 pm
HDB: why was the income differential greater during the Bush years?? The incomes of blacks fell and their poverty rates rose 7.9 per cent, compared with 5.1 per cent for whites.
———————
You’ll have to either ask the blacks or show us which law or policy of our President Bush mentions “black” and “white”.
Didn’t think so.
HDB: Racist.
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
4:43 pm
Wow, I like the way Kyle’s contributors roll out the welcome mat.
Don't forget
August 13th, 2010
4:44 pm
Well, it was civil before Grand Forks showed up.
TaxPayer
August 13th, 2010
4:46 pm
Grand Forks,
You missed me, didn’t you.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:47 pm
Well, it was civil before Grand Forks showed up.
Don’t forget,
That’s what I was thinking too.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:50 pm
SoCo,
DId you see that your Alma Mater can’t even spell Mississip(p)i?
(p) is the one they left out.
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
4:50 pm
On the other hand, if conservatives (so-called) cared as much about the deficit as much as they claim, then they’d be shouting from the roof tops to let the Bush tax rate cuts expire for incomes above $250,000 (households in that category would still benefit from the cuts at the lower tax rates).
________________________
CJ, you might have a legitimate point if Congress and the Administration had to date shown the slightest capability of using these tax dollars to reduce the deficit. But they haven’t, and you know it.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
4:53 pm
Wahoo….
Heh, heh! Not yet anyway!
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
4:53 pm
RW
Where’d you come across that story? I’ll have to check that out when I get back home. If it’s the Univ. of AL, then it wouldn’t be my Alma Mater. If it’s Alabama State Univ, then I’m guilty as charged.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
4:56 pm
SoCo,
You’re off the hook then
@@
August 13th, 2010
4:58 pm
Kyle, you do have a way of putting economics in terms that can be more easily understood.
Tax wedge, huh? Could call it a wedge tax since it comes between the employer and employee.
Everyone BUT the government gets a wedgie.
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
4:58 pm
But still just as ashamed anyway.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
5:00 pm
SoCo, RW
Notes from a Native Son…don’t nobody know how to spell it. It’s spelt just like it sounds…Msippi… (apologies to our great writer, Richard Wright!)
barking frog
August 13th, 2010
5:04 pm
When the tax cuts for high earners are discussed,
we should also remember tax cuts for low earners.
GW returned/rebated about $500 per earner for
two years. This money was spent immediately
creating instant stimulus. High earners still enjoy
their tax cut, the stimulus package was distributed,
all to no avail, maybe the little guy should be
included again.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
5:07 pm
barking frog
@ 5:04
I would agree with that…it puts a cash flow immediately into the consumer economy…and as Soco so often says, our economy is predicated on as many people “buying stuff” as you can get…
Jefferson
August 13th, 2010
5:25 pm
And the last few years with borrowed money…
Intown
August 13th, 2010
5:25 pm
Every time I hear this argument it just sounds like a bunch of whiney businessmen who don’t like something they can’t control. the bottom line is, if the guy needs to hire Sally, he’s going to hire Sally. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t. It’s not Obama’s freakin’ fault. If you want to balance the budget, then the tax cuts gotta go … on schedule as legislated by REPUBLICANS.
Del
August 13th, 2010
5:43 pm
I’ll bet that Obama and the Dem’s extend the Bush tax cuts. They’re already in enough trouble and letting the tax cuts expire in this economy would carry too much political risk.
booger
August 13th, 2010
5:43 pm
Intown,
The tax cut expiration will not make a dent in the budjet or the deficit. They are all out of control.
Le Bourgeois
August 13th, 2010
5:54 pm
I think this column may have blown Mr. Tucker’s mind, if she read it. Kyle used factual economics to prove his point about the need for extending the tax cuts. Ms. Tucker can only understand race, capitalist oppression, and wrongly applied elementary math to back up her flawed opinions on the subject. Nicely done Kyle. So far I have not not seen enough evidence to change my mind against extending the tax cuts, only more information that supports it.
barking frog
August 13th, 2010
5:55 pm
If Obama would drop Biden and put Oprah on the
ticket in 2012 and get elected I think they might
give us all cars. O/O 2012.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
5:58 pm
“Well, it was civil before Grand Forks showed up.”
Uh huh.
barking frog
August 13th, 2010
5:59 pm
If the tax cuts are extended, and the government owns
GM, will the government be cutting its own taxes?
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:00 pm
“You missed me, didn’t you.”
Yeah, just like I miss having kidney stones.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:01 pm
“Wow, I like the way Kyle’s contributors roll out the welcome mat.”
As opposed to Kookman’s cult followers?
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:02 pm
“’ll bet that Obama and the Dem’s extend the Bush tax cuts.”
I do too, and it’s gonna be funny to watch Rachel Madcow throw a hissy on PMSNBC. I also can’t wait for Kieth Olberqueer to start crying on tv. His 200 viewers will be shocked.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:03 pm
“I think this column may have blown Mr. Tucker’s mind, if she read it.”
She doesn’t read and she also can’t spell.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:03 pm
“budjet”
Is that Budweisers new airline?
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:06 pm
I bet Mr. Wingfield and Sister Cynthia wish the Bruin would go fishing more often!
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:08 pm
“I bet Mr. Wingfield and Sister Cynthia wish the Bruin would go fishing more often!”
Well, it would keep the Kookman cult followers away from this blog. Say hi to ScamVet for me.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:09 pm
“HDB: Racist.”
Yep, she is a racist. She talks about race more than Msssssssssssssss. Tucker does.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:10 pm
Grand Forks…
Have a little charity for us homeless refugees, would ya? Actually, though, several of us have missed you back home…
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:14 pm
Have a little charity for us homeless refugees
Hurricane Paul sure did take its toll on us and we’re still not certain everybody made it out of there safely.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:14 pm
josef nix
You know I’m just pulling your chain here. I know you and RW are not crazy people like some of the others on Bookmans blog. Sometimes I just write things to get a rise out of people just to see how they’ll react. Ole Bookman couldn’t handle all the whining and banned me. He never did say WHY he banned me. I still pop in there every now and then to read some of the comments. It’s funny to when @@ tells me about how some of them still talk about me.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:15 pm
“Hurricane Paul sure did take its toll on us and we’re still not certain everybody made it out of there safely.”
So what happened to make Jay shut down the blog? I mean, I did notice 22 pages yesterday.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:17 pm
Man up, man child Obama.
76 Percent Say Time for Obama to Take Responsibility
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush’s policies for the country’s economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/12/fox-news-poll-percent-say-time-obama-responsibility/
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:18 pm
RW
Yeah, the EOI seems to be scattered to the winds…
Grand Forks…
Oh, you left your mark, don’t doubt that!
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:18 pm
Obama is a Muslim.
Obama to host Ramadan dinner at the White House
President Obama will host an iftar — the special evening meal observed during Ramadan — on Friday night in the White House dining room.
http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/5549-obama-to-host-ramadan-dinner-at-the-white-house-
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:19 pm
“Oh, you left your mark, don’t doubt that!”
Well yeah, I mean it’s been over 4 months since I got banned and the left wing retards are still talking about me. Guess I’m as “irrelevant” as Rush.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:21 pm
GF,
Somebody was writing some pretty vile stuff and Paul complained about it to the AJC so they just shut it down. I’m sure Jay B had nothing to do with that.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:22 pm
“Somebody was writing some pretty vile stuff and Paul complained about it to the AJC so they just shut it down.”
And who was this vile person?
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:23 pm
Gotta love the Brits.
The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:23 pm
RW
I’m sure he didn’t either…there he was well on the way to topping 5000…I think it was a palace coup myself!
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:28 pm
So popeye wrote something that angered Paul. Yeah, I didn’t see anything too crazy other than something about @@ using the toilet.
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
6:29 pm
GF
I’ve noticed you say things just to rile people. I’m sure it serves a purpose somewhere. If I had a blog, you’d be welcome to post there.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:30 pm
And who was this vile person?
GF,
It was a new name, but it sounded like one of our resident wannabe comedians.
josef,
At least now we have a record that’ll be within reach next time he vanishes. If we got to 5K it might have been tough to top.
Left wing management
August 13th, 2010
6:33 pm
And why do we need a GOP spokesman writing columns for the paper?
Looks like a clear violation of the principle of non-partisanship to me.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
6:33 pm
“CJ, you might have a legitimate point if Congress and the Administration had to date shown the slightest capability of using these tax dollars to reduce the deficit. But they haven’t, and you know it.”
The CBO, the JCT, and the Medicare Trustees disagree with you.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:34 pm
“It was a new name, but it sounded like one of our resident wannabe comedians.”
Well Paul referred to popeye. Maybe I should go through 25 pages of comments from people who need to seriously get a life.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:34 pm
RW
Went back and looked it over…the offensive posts must have been deleted…I didn’t see any with the commedienne’s name…
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:35 pm
“I’ve noticed you say things just to rile people.”
I sometimes go over to the sports blogs and call UGA fans, UGAY fans just to anger them. Boy, does it work.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:36 pm
“I’m sure it serves a purpose somewhere.”
If I can anger a left winger I’ve done my job.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:38 pm
Southern Comfort
I once blogged as “Forrest Gump was the most famous Bama grad” and man alive, did the Bryant cult followers flip out. One hillbilly from Tuscaloser actually challenged me to meet him at a bar and I told him that I don’t do gay bars. He flipped out and threatened to find me. Guess he didn’t realize that hound dogs can’t sniff out others on a computer.
Southern Comfort
August 13th, 2010
6:40 pm
I’d have loved to see that. Do what you do and be proud!!
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:41 pm
Grand Forks
Get your slurrs straight…Tuscaloosa is lowland…not hillbilly! ISH
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:41 pm
josef,
It could be they were deleting them and then shut it down when they got finished because the total post count never changed after they closed it so I may have jumped the gun when I said they left them up.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:43 pm
GF,
Paul mentioned popeye but then he mentioned the perp further into his comment.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:45 pm
RW
I was looking for the crazy comments that shut down that blog. Must have been pretty insane.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
6:45 pm
“Get your slurrs straight…Tuscaloosa is lowland…not hillbilly! ISH”
Ok, well the trailer parks sure do look perty.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:46 pm
RW
Inquiring minds want to know…
Wahoo
August 13th, 2010
6:50 pm
Small government advocates should be rejoicing at the loss of the tax deduction, and perhaps, advocating on behalf of ending the corporate welfare subsidy altogether. The lack of consistency is perplexing.
___________________
No offense, CJ, but I’m not sure you understand what makes small government advocates tick well enough to know what we should or shouldn’t be rejoicing about. What we’re talking about is jobs, and clearly Cat doesn’t think this change is going to benefit their business and therefore it will negatively impact hiring decisions. Assuming a status quo environment, as a small government advocate, I’m not in favor of government doing something that is going to make it harder for a large employer and one of our few manufacturing exporters to operate or want to hire in a 9.5% unemployment environment.
As for eliminating corporate welfare – in general I am supportive of it, but that’s a completely different topic. This example of corporate welfare wouldn’t even exist if not for Medicare, which, as a small government advocate, I would delight in seeing phased out over time to shore up the nation’s balance sheet (since the program has trillions of unfunded, off-balance sheet liabilities associated with it). But phasing out Medicare is not going to happen anytime soon, so while seemingly inconsistent to you, I elect to support the side of the argument that will let Cat put more people to work. You don’t. Why is that?
97 degree yogurt
August 13th, 2010
6:52 pm
Grand Forks,
Are you a baser or do you work at the Red Pepper?
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
6:56 pm
Inquiring minds want to know…
Want to know what?
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
6:59 pm
RW
What was said that had us thrown out of our home…
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
7:02 pm
97 degree yogurt has the IQ of a carrot.
RW-(the original)
August 13th, 2010
7:04 pm
josef,
Paul got us thrown out by complaining. It’s not like anybody was going to decide they wanted to pour through a few thousand comments to see what was going on.
But it had to do with a Presidential love child between the current office holder and the namesake of the blogger along with graphic methodology in reference to the conception.
97 degree yogurt
August 13th, 2010
7:10 pm
I was guessing you would say sugar beet based on your location, but your response answers my question.
Instead of wasting your time copying, pasting and posting inane comments, maybe you should shower up and go look for a date at Menard’s–or cruise on down University Ave looking for UND girls.
TaxPayer
August 13th, 2010
7:14 pm
Yeah, just like I miss having kidney stones.
To each his own.
josef nix
August 13th, 2010
7:15 pm
SoCo
Got it!
RW
Well, no need to further guess who THAT was!
Le Bourgeois
August 13th, 2010
7:16 pm
I should have said Ms. Tucker, not Mr. Tucker. She is clearly a woman…a very angry woman.
@@
August 13th, 2010
7:19 pm
Perhaps I should pay closer attention to what goes on over at jay’s
I just figured the comment total had maxed out.
Somebody said something about me having to use the toilet?
It might’ve been me. Sometimes I inform everyone I have to go tinkle and will be right back. I don’t show back up for hours.
Just my way of having fun.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
7:19 pm
97 degree yogurt
Like I said, I like to get people riled up. Just messing with you, comrade.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
7:21 pm
“vSomebody said something about me having to use the toilet?”
popeye wrote something about you “having to tinkle” and how it turned him on. Gross if you ask me. Guess he’s into golden showers. Annnnnnnnyhoo, enough of that.
Grand Forks
August 13th, 2010
7:21 pm
“She is clearly a woman…a very angry woman.”
As are most racist left wingers.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
7:25 pm
“No offense, CJ, but I’m not sure you understand what makes small government advocates tick well enough to know what we should or shouldn’t be rejoicing about. What we’re talking about is jobs, and clearly Cat doesn’t think this change is going to benefit their business and therefore it will negatively impact hiring decisions.”
I can confirm that I don’t know what makes small government advocates tick, because despite the rhetoric, such advocacy appears inconsistent when details are discussed. I guess I’m trying to say that that many, if not most, small government advocates don’t care about small government at all. In addition, the overwhelming evidence indicates that most couldn’t care less about deficits either.
With regard to why CAT and other employers aren’t hiring, the notion that it’s caused by uncertainty created by the Obama administration and the Democratic congress is a nonsensical right-wing talking point with zero empirical evidence to support it—none. Business, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported TARP and supported the stimulus. In addition, the markets continued to grow in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the Affordable Care Act and in the immediate aftermath of passing Financial Regulation reform.
This “business won’t hire because of policy uncertainty” argument is 100 percent speculative (for political gain) and 0 percent supported.
CJ
August 13th, 2010
7:26 pm
I hate it when I forget to close the italics tag.
@@
August 13th, 2010
7:40 pm
eewwwww!!!!
I must’ve missed that too.
Wahoo
August 14th, 2010
5:15 pm
The CBO, the JCT, and the Medicare Trustees disagree with you.
__________________
How do you figure? The country is expected to run in excess of a trillion dollar deficit for years. Taking the increased tax revenue attributable to just those making over $250K isn’t going to materially reduce that, since there simply aren’t that many people that make that amount of money. And even if it were the case, there’s no evidence that the Administration and Congress won’t turn around and spend the next dollar of tax revenue that they receive on something unknown to the JCT or CBO, leaving the deficit unaffected. Have you detected some degree of spending restraint that I have overlooked? If so, please share.
Wahoo
August 14th, 2010
5:28 pm
With regard to why CAT and other employers aren’t hiring, the notion that it’s caused by uncertainty created by the Obama administration and the Democratic congress is a nonsensical right-wing talking point with zero empirical evidence to support it—none
_____________________
If you say so, CJ. I will prefer to take to heart the words of people who actually make hiring decisions. Some of the business community supported the stimulus. But given that unemployment is higher today than the Administration said it would be even if no stimulus were enacted, it reminds me of the old adage: if this is success, I would hate to see failure. The business community pays attention, CJ, and they react to the environment. They believe the health care reform will raise costs. They saw how those inside the beltway reacted to the AIG contractual bonuses last spring. They’ve seen some of the proposals that were thrown around last year about taxes on Wall Street bonuses. They’ve seen how many of the stimulus projects went to pork or to pad the wallets of unions. They are worried about how non-union shops getting turned into union shops more easily. They are worried about higher taxes, cap and trade, etc., etc. If you don’t see that, I’m sorry, there’s not much I can do for you. It’s pretty obvious to me that most of us are worried about the business climate that this Administration has established. I hope your business is booming and that you hire tons of people.