Category Archives: Politics

In The Midst of the Drivel: Trump, Russia, and Our NATO Allies

I need to mark this date on the calendar.  I’m grateful to Max Boot, the same Max Boot whose foreign policy opinions generally drive me down the short road to distraction.  However, credit where it is due — he paid attention to a portion of Trump’s rambling campaign speech in Pensacola which offers more illumination on this administration’s dubious foreign policy.   The ‘almost missed point’ comes about 20 minutes into the ramblings:

“Donald Trump’s performance at NATO was unacceptable.”  Ya know why they said that? I told the people of NATO while they were standing right behind me, they’ve been delinquent. They haven’t been paying, I said ya gotta pay! And now they’ve taken in, because of that, and I guess I implied, if you don’t pay we’re outta there, and took more heat from the press.  They said Donald Trump was rude to our allies. Well they’re rude to us when they don’t pay! Right? They’re rude to us.  So, we’ll have a nation that doesn’t pay then their nation gets frisky with whoever. Russia?  So we have a nation doesn’t pay, the nation gets aggressive, we end up in World War III for someone who doesn’t even pay. “

The context is generally, and rather loosely, a rant about “global bureaucrats,” the US foreign policy establishment, and how members of the audience should perceive Trump’s performance as a triumph of ordinary people against the Great Machine,  as the Ordinary Man is exemplified by one Donald J. Trump.

There is another context, one highlighted by Natasha Bertrand who caught the topic as it fits into the Steele Memos.  The core of the matter is here:

“The reason for using Wikileaks was ‘plausible deniability” and the operation had been conducted  with full support from TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team. In return the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterize the subject.”

So, we have the President in Pensacola,  offering up a stump style recitation of his presidential accomplishments, bragging that he has directly criticized NATO leadership and questioned their contributions to mutual defense, while rationalizing American  reluctance to assist Baltic and Eastern European nations (read: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) if they “get frisky.”  With whom? The President answered his own question: Russia.

Now, why would the Baltic countries be getting “frisky” with the Russian Bear?  Step back to May 2015 and the earlier Latgale Proclamation.  Latgale is the easternmost region of Latvia, with a large Russian minority.  Officials in that nation took acute notice when in late January 2015 a website appeared boasting of the creation of the People’s Republic of Latgale.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

“Until the furtive creators of the website declared independence on behalf of the country’s Russian-speaking eastern enclave, authorities here had dismissed the threat of aggression by Moscow as all but unthinkable, thanks to the collective security shield wielded by a member of NATO.  But that first online hint of pro-Russia insurrection spurred an investigation that has identified the perpetrators, Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis said. He declined to name the suspects or say whether anyone has been arrested, disclosing only that “a criminal process has been started.”

And the connection between Ukraine and Latvia was readily apparent to Latvian officials:

“The Latgale proclamation, which journalists and others with intelligence connections say has been traced to provocateurs in Russia, continues to unsettle Latvians and their neighbors in Lithuania and Estonia for its similarity to acts of rebellion in Ukraine a year ago that have escalated into vicious warfare and more than 6,000 deaths.”

It was NOT the Latvians who were getting “frisky,” it was Russia promoting dissident elements in the Baltic nations, perhaps seeking to replicate their actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.   Further, the Estonians and Lithuanians were alarmed when Russia sent 2,500 troops to the Estonian and Lithuanian borders in July 2017.

“Concern about a possible war in the Baltics is high, with majorities in Lithuania and Latvia naming armed conflict as a prime concern and all three fearing the likelihood of war more than that of extremist attacks, according to various polls. Russia has formally denied it would ever attack a member of NATO, which all three nations of the Baltics are.

But the promises of Moscow diplomats have done little to assuage worries in the former Soviet Union states, largely because of Russia’s interpretation of events in Ukraine. Russia initially insisted its troops were not participants in the Crimean annexation and continues to deny that it has a military presence in eastern Ukraine.” [Newsweek]

Again, the example of Russia action in Ukraine, is cited as a reason for Baltic insecurity NOT as an element of Baltic aggression against the Russians.  Or, “friski-ness” as the President might characterize it.   Nor is there anything subtle about Russian intentions in Europe:

“Putin has made clear his national security goals. He wants a sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space; a new security architecture in Europe and Eurasia; and a weakened and divided NATO and EU, so that he can expand Russian influence into Europe.”  [Newsweek 7/16]

It appears that in addition to assisting Putin “cauterize” the open wounds in Ukraine, and continuing to deflect discussions regarding NATO operations into debates about who owes what to whom, the President continues to hold up his end of his bargain with the devil in the Kremlin.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

Shopping Season: Ghosts of Christmas Past and Yet To Come

Retailers were pleased with 2016’s holiday shoppers and their willingness to open their wallets.  However, interspersed with the congratulatory messages about sales numbers there were some words of warning:

These are also the worst of times for retail. National chains including Macy’sSearsJ.C. Penney’sKohl’s and Barnes & Noble all suffered absolutely brutal holiday seasons, calling into question what — if anything — they can do to right the ship and compete more effectively in an increasingly digital world.  [RD Jan 2017]

By April 10, 2017 the sounds were still ominous:

There have been nine retail bankruptcies in 2017—as many as all of 2016. J.C. Penney, RadioShack, Macy’s, and Sears have each announced more than 100 store closures. Sports Authority has liquidated, and Payless has filed for bankruptcy. Last week, several apparel companies’ stocks hit new multi-year lows, including Lululemon, Urban Outfitters, and American Eagle, and Ralph Lauren announced that it is closing its flagship Polo store on Fifth Avenue, one of several brands to abandon that iconic thoroughfare.  [Atlantic]

Part of the explanation is obvious — for example mobile shopping increased from 2% of spending to 20% from 2010 to 2016.  The increases in e-commerce is also readily apparent.  The enthusiasm of developers for shopping malls caused massive “over-building” and this fad has collapsed in a heap.  It isn’t more explicitly stated than this:

The number of malls in the U.S. grew more than twice as fast as the population between 1970 and 2015, according to Cowen and Company’s research analysts. By one measure of consumerist plentitude—shopping center “gross leasable area”—the U.S. has 40 percent more shopping space per capita than Canada, five times more the the U.K., and 10 times more than Germany. So it’s no surprise that the Great Recession provided such a devastating blow: Mall visits declined 50 percent between 2010 and 2013, according to the real-estate research firm Cushman and Wakefield, and they’ve kept falling every year since.   [Atlantic]

It’s no mystery why mall visits would decline in the wake of the Housing Bubble/Wall Street Casino collapse, what we should be asking is why the mall visits have kept falling every year since.   And we’re back to the convenience of e-commerce, mobile shopping, and overbuilding argument.  There’s another element involved, and it may be hidden in plain sight, i.e. in the comments from Cowen’s retail recommendations. (pdf)

At the end of the first quarter of 2017 Cowen’s was embellishing its five year store analysis report segment with a rain shower graphic, warning that retailers like JC Penney, and Macy’s might need to close some 20-30% of their stores,  and Kohl’s might look to decrease its operations by about 10%.  There was another rain cloud for malls, associated with the prediction saying 20% of malls would need to be transformed from current operations or closed outright.   So, what received the sunshine graphics?  “Speed, service, and branding,” along with “deep value.”   What’s “deep value?”  Read Cheap.

Outside one questionable thesis stating that the middle class is shrinking because its membership is moving up into upper income brackets, most analysis describes the declines in sectors of the retail market as it relates to the middle income squeeze.

“It’s hard not to see the invisible hand of income inequality reflected in the fortunes of the retail sector. As the gulf between the rich and poor grows, and the middle class shrinks, retailers serving the former are seeing big growth, while those aiming with a middle-class clientele are struggling to bounce back.

The numbers don’t lie: wealth distribution is more uneven than ever. And the middle class is getting smaller with each passing year: According to a study by Pew Research, “From 2000 to 2014 the share of adults living in middle-income households fell in 203 of the 229 U.S. metropolitan areas” examined in the study.  And that bodes poorly for the economy as a whole, as the report suggests that “a struggling middle class could be holding back the potential for future economic growth.” [Balance]

About whom are we speaking?

While discounters and high-end luxury have thrived, department stores serving a more middle-class customer base have struggled. Macy’s (M), Kohl’s (KSS) and Nordstrom (JWN) and single-brand retailers like The Gap (GPS) had terrible quarters and struggled with declining foot traffic and inventory issues.  [Balance] (Aug 2016)

Nordstrum’s as of last February? “Nordstrom continued to see greater difficulties in its premium namesake brand. The Nordstrom brand saw comparable sales fall 2.7%, leading to a 1.1% drop in segment revenue. Strength in women’s apparel and beauty weren’t enough to pull the overall company’s number higher, and the East was the best region geographically. However, the discount Nordstrom Rack concept kept doing well. Revenue was up double-digit percentages for the quarter, and comparable-store sales were up 4.3%.”  [Fool]

The latest news from Macy’s: “Macy’s is looking to use the crucial holiday shopping season as a springboard to reverse 11 straight quarters of same-store sales contraction. A decline in foot traffic at malls and the rise of e-commerce has shaken investor confidence in department stores and led Gennette to slash costs, close stores and reduce inventory. Macy’s is also seeking monetize some of its real estate holdings.”

What do these retail giants have in common?  They both catered to middle and upper middle income shoppers.   Thus no one should be surprised to find job numbers moving up in general while retailers weren’t sharing the optimism. [Dive]  Even Macy’s recent announcement of seasonal hiring was tempered by saying the jobs were temporary.

The Republican offerings on this subject?  Enact a tax scheme which overwhelmingly benefits corporations and upper income individuals.   This is a perfect way to exacerbate the current retail situation wherein the elite stores are doing well, and Dollar General is expanding for everyone else.

Enact a tax scheme which is “territorial” the antithesis of keeping jobs in the United States:  “ It could give a permanent preference to foreign income and lead companies to shift more profits to tax havens knowing that they could permanently avoid virtually all taxation on such profits.”  Again, a permanent tax cut for corporations while raising taxation revenue from everyone else who isn’t a millionaire or billionaire.

So, retail employees, who earn an average of $22,900 per year or about $11.00 per hour, and a third of whom work part time, will see the Great Squeeze continue.   It remains to be seen if those retailers who target middle income earners (Sears, Nordstrum, JCP) will be able to stave off the onslaught of online, e-commerce, deep discount shopping.  And, the GOP will continue to believe in the Growth Fairy coming to the rescue of their highly specious arguments for Trickle Down Hoax economics.   A prediction for the 4th quarter of 2017:  Elves who spent the holiday season cutting prices may see short term gains with yet more indications we’re looking at some more long term losses for middle income America.  In the competition between the Growth Fairy and the Discount Elf — bet on the Elf.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Politics

Meanwhile! Back At The Ballot Boxes

Not that I’m unconcerned about sexual harassment (etc) BUT there’s another story which is getting lost behind the steady drip of the Mueller Investigation and the deluge of harassment stories — not to put too fine a point to it, but the Russians played havoc with our election in 2016 and the Congress of the United States hasn’t done squat about it.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence seems perfectly happy to make charges and counter-charges about “collusion” without apparently looking all that deeply into what espionage techniques and strategies were applied by the Russians, and what was the outcome. Nor have I heard one peep out of them about how to better secure our election institutions and systems against incursions.  Given White House water boy Devin Nunes is in charge of the committee, I don’t suppose we’ll get that much out of this outfit, and that’s both a tragedy and a missed opportunity.

While the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence manages to sound more organized and focused,  there’s not much emerging from that quarter either.   Again, the committee seems to have Republicans intent on proving there’s “nothing to see here,” and Democrats hoping to find the smoking arsenal.  Again, the conspiracy/collusion segment is only part of the story, and while it’s important so too is the notion that we need to find out what the Russians did, how they did it, and how we can prevent this from happening in future elections.

Then there’s the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.   Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) seems rather more interested in absolving Republicans and the President from responsibility for or knowledge of Russian activities than in finding out exactly what happened in 2016.   I wouldn’t want to hang by my hair for as long as it will take to get this outfit to determine what laws were broken, or eluded, by Russians — nor how we might want to modify our statutes to prevent future problems.  The House Judiciary Committee is essentially AWOL on all manner of topics, case in point the “calendar” for the subcommittees is almost blank for the month of December with one FBI “oversight” hearing, and one session with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.  The Chairman appears to be more concerned with disparaging the Mueller Investigation than with determining how to identify and prevent foreign incursions into our elections.

Remember back on September 22, 2017 the Department of Homeland Security finally informed 21 states that their elections systems had been hacked in some way, shape, or form:

“The federal government on Friday told election officials in 21 states that hackers targeted their systems before last year’s presidential election.

The notification came roughly a year after officials with the United States Department of Homeland Security first said states were targeted by hacking efforts possibly connected to Russia. The states that told The Associated Press they had been targeted included some key political battlegrounds, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The A.P. contacted every state election office to determine which ones had been informed that their election systems had been targeted. The others that confirmed they were targeted were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington.” (emphasis added)

21 states, notified a year after the fact was bad enough — but not only was the information belated, but some of it wasn’t even accurate.

“Now election officials in Wisconsin and California say DHS has provided them with additional information showing that Russian hackers actually scanned networks at other state agencies unconnected to voter data. In Wisconsin, DHS told officials on Tuesday that hackers had scanned an IP address belonging to the Department of Workforce Development, not the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) said in a statement Wednesday that DHS gave his office additional information saying hackers had attempted to target the network of the California Department of Technology’s statewide network and not the secretary of state’s office.”

So, we might expect the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee to be looking into this?  No, the Chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson is more interested in finding out if members of the Mueller team are biased against the current President.  The “logic” appears to be that because Special Counsel Mueller REMOVED those who made prejudicial statements in text messages therefore the investigation is prejudiced.  It doesn’t get more bass-ackwards than this.   Can we expect oversight regarding the slowness and inaccuracy of the DHS response to election hacking?  Under the current Senate leadership probably not.

The national broadcast media (as usual) is currently chasing the newest shiny object — which members of the Congress can or cannot keep their hands to themselves and their “little soldiers” zipped inside the “barracks.”  This is an important topic — but to continue to focus on the salacious and to continue to ignore the insidious is not in the best interest of this country and its institutions.

There are questions introduced last August which remain unresolved, and for which we should demand answers:

  1. What was the extent and nature of Russian hacking (and meddling) in the US election of 2016?
  2. Will the United States deploy safeguards and countermeasures to address thee Russian activities?
  3. Will the frustrations of state governments with the quality of information shared by DHS be alleviated? Will states receive up to date and accurate information so they can prevent hacking and meddling?
  4. What measures should be taken to prevent future hacking and meddling, and to give the states the support they need to deal with forms of assault as yet undeployed by the Russians?

The Mueller Investigation can explore and illuminate the extent to which criminal statutes may have been broken in regard to the 2016 election, but it cannot determine how the US analyzes, evaluates, and prepares for the next round of elections.  That should be the function of Congress, but then we seem to have one so focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy and so determined to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid they can barely pay attention to the transgressions of their own members (speaking of Farenholdt here) while chasing conspiracy theories about the “Deep State” opposition to the administration.

Perhaps in the midst of asking our Senators and Representatives about the “questions of the day,” we should squeeze in a couple of questions (see above) that have been sitting on the shelves since last Summer?

1 Comment

Filed under Congress, Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Politics, Senate, Voting

FYI: State Department Vacancies with no nominations

No, the State Department is not “moving right along.”  The Foreign Service tracking system shows the following vacancies for which there are no current nominees as of December 4, 2017:

Argentina
ASEAN
Australis
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
DR Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
European Union
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Jamaica
Jordan
Mongolia
OECD
OSCE
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Sudan
Sweden
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
UN Deputy Representative
UN Human Rights Council
UN Management & Reform
UN Rome
UN Vienna
UNESCO
Venezuela

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

Memory, Convenient and Otherwise

Some of the rationalizations for supporting accused child molester and Mall Troll Roy Moore are truly interesting.  The lamest fall into the “I wasn’t there, so I don’t know” category.  Give. Me. A. Break.

I wasn’t there, but I’m reasonably sure Qin Shi Huang was the first emperor of a unified China in 220 B.C.

I wasn’t there but I’m certain that on January 27, 1880 Thomas Edison received a patent for an incandescent light bulb.

I wasn’t there but I do know that on July 21, 2016 Roger Ailes left Fox  News under a billowing cloud of sexual harassment allegations.

So, give me a break — personal knowledge is not necessary to establish the truth of a situation.  Credibility is required, and if the women’s’ reports are credible then we can reasonably conclude that impropriety took place.  Those who have decided to discount the credibility of the women’s accusations do so at their own risk.  The first risk is that they are denying evidence which conflicts with their ideological bent. This isn’t what the world calls rational.  The second is that they are discounting evidence which in other circumstances they would admit (as if the accused was a member of another political party) thus rendering themselves hypocritical. Third, there’s a risk of discounting all allegations of sexual misconduct, as if men were never responsible for sexual harassment — this is painfully close to the “she made me do it” excuse.

We’ve had some problems with this third excuse over time, usually falling into the She Was Asking For It — category of justification.  She was dressing too provocatively.  She was moving on me.  She was where she wasn’t supposed to be if she were a nice girl.  No. This isn’t how it works.  Even though several courts in times past have allowed this defense.  That it was once a mainstay of male rationalization doesn’t make it so in the 21st century.  That bus left the station years ago.

However,  worst consequences are for the once proud Republican Party.  The Party of Everett Dirksen, Robert Dole, and Ronald Reagan is now the party of Donald Trump, Roy Moore, and Steve Bannon.  The Party that ran on family values and personal responsibility now supports those whose values are highly questionable and whose sense of responsibility comes to a screeching halt when they are called to account.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics

Contempt for the Great Generality: Hatch, Grassley, and the Great Unwashed

Every once in a while a Republican is caught being honest.  Consider the commentary from Iowa Senator Charles Grassley on the value of eliminating most of the inheritance tax because “they” invest, but the rest of the country…not so much. So, what to do when the comments create a social media fire storm?  Backtrack:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Monday said his comments that the estate tax rewards those who don’t spend “every darn penny” on “booze or women or movies” were taken out of context, saying he meant that the government shouldn’t punish investment.

“My point regarding the estate tax, which has been taken out of context, is that the government shouldn’t seize the fruits of someone’s lifetime of labor after they die,” Grassley said in a statement.”

Nice try, but the “out of context” excuse has gotten thinner than the roast beef at the deli counter.  Senator Hatch (R-UT) was a bit more subtle when discussing the children’s health insurance funding, but not by much:

“In his speech, Hatch also said he thinks CHIP has done a “terrific job for people who really need the help” and noted that he had advocated for helping those who can’t help themselves throughout his Senate career. But, he continued, “I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do everything.” He blamed a “liberal philosophy” for creating millions of people “who believe everything they are or ever hope to be depend upon the federal government rather than the opportunities that this great country grants them.”

There they go again.  Oh, those Undeserving Poors who just Want Stuff, and won’t work for it.   The median household income in Nevada is $52,421, meaning half the families in Nevada have annual income below that figure.   So, what does it cost to get the kid’s tonsils removed?  ($4,153 to $6,381, with an average cost of $5,442)  How about that common childhood injury — the broken arm?  Expect this to carve out some $2,500 from the family budget.   It the youngster has a chronic condition — asthma, heart problems,  diabetes,etc. the price, of course goes up, and up and up.   We’re not talking here about “people who won’t lift a finger.”  we’re discussing families — working families who are hard pressed to find the resources to pay for medical treatment for their children.  And now we come to the place where Hatch and Grassley’s perspectives merge in a miserable view of humanity.

What these members of the US Senate are doing is using the old Reagan Era “Welfare Queen” mythology to camouflage their contempt for their fellow Americans.

“They” just want everything done for them.   “They” won’t lift a finger.  “They” are cheating me out of my money.  It’s never something like the single mother of a six year old who has asthma having to maintain a family budget while keeping up with the costs of inhaler medication.  Nor, do we hear much about the family in which both parents are working two jobs to keep close to that $52,421 number, and who are coping with a youngster with diabetes.  Well, well, sputter the solons, we weren’t speaking of Them.  Of course not.  And, I’m assured they weren’t talking about children suffering with cerebral palsy or other chronic conditions with serious financial implications for the family.  So, who are they talking about?  The hard truth is that they aren’t talking about anyone!

They aren’t talking about real people.  They are talking about that imaginary Great Unwashed, who are Welfare Queens, who are urban — and probably African American.  The subject of the Hatch-Grassley fears are highly generalized, mostly mythological, nearly always racist, ideas about the Undeserving Poor, who don’t “lift a finger.”  People, whose stories would touch our hearts and stir our empathy, are ignored in favor of painting with the broadest spray can nozzle possible a picture of urban, black, moral decay from which white America may safely distance itself.

They can (almost) manage some sympathy for the poor white families in remote areas of  America.  However, mention cities, and the racism kicks in.  It’s a hard and tragic thing to see the loss of employment in mining regions but no such sympathy is extended to the members of minority communities who languish in the Rust Belt.   However, even that small instance of empathy is victim to Republican ideas of virtue.  Those afflicted with opioid addition in those former mining regions may be unemployable because of their addictions, but by Republican lights must be employed in order to qualify for treatment.  In short, they can’t win for losing.

The Republican Party, once the party of progressive legislation, and even later of fiscal conservatism, has devolved into the party of racists, radicals, and unreasonable shills for corporate interests.  It’s a sad state of affairs. And, a sadder commentary on the political discourse of contempt.

Comments Off on Contempt for the Great Generality: Hatch, Grassley, and the Great Unwashed

Filed under Health Care, Politics, racism, Republicans

Gobs of Goodies Tax Bill: The Potable Portion

Excuse me while I continue to rush about trying to take advantage of the benefits tucked into the Republican Tax Plan, now subject to a conference to settle differences between the Senate and House versions.  I need to start making beer.

“The tax cut legislation includes a provision that cuts taxes on beer, wine, and liquor produced or imported into the country, saving companies involved around $4.2 billion over 10 years. The provision mirrors language from the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act, or S. 236, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri and a member of the Senate GOP leadership team. (While the legislation does benefit craft, or small breweries, it extends the cuts to larger companies and the industry as a whole.)”

There’s a bit more:

“…the Senate has a thing for craft brewing. The updated bill includes what is effectively a major new piece of alcohol legislation, cutting taxes on beer produced in the U.S.—and especially on small breweries. Taxes on the first 60,000 barrels of beer produced domestically by small brewers would be cut in half, from $7 to $3.50. The tax rate on the first 6 million barrels produced would fall from $18 to $16 per barrel. Anheuser-Busch produces tens of millions of barrels of beer a year; a small brewer like D.C. Brau produces around 15,000. The reforms also cut taxes on certain wines and make other technical changes to federal alcohol rules.”

And more become where there’s beer there’s wine:

“The first thing the new bill does is take the tax credit, currently only available to wineries making up to 250,000 gallons, and expand it to all wineries regardless of how much wine they make overall. The two tiers in current law would become three tiers: Wineries will receive a $1 credit per gallon for the first 30,000 gallons made, $0.90 for the next 100,000, and $0.535 for the next 620,000. Wineries making more than 750,000 gallons pay the full tax rate on everything over 750,000 gallons.”

There’s also a tip of the hat to the current penchant for making wine with a higher alcohol content.  We’ll need that — higher alcohol content  — to get through the Great Tax Shift from Corporate America to the Middle Class.  (There’s more info on the underlying bill for those who are interested.

Republicans seem to have a different perspective on spirits, depending on who is consuming them. Senator Grassley (R-IA) appears to approve of Upper Class Guzzling, for the other 99.8% of us, not so much.

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley told the Register. “As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

Enough said.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Taxation