"Mack Daddy" -- This is a blog post in our Local Voices section, which is a platform we provide for anyone in the community who has something to say. It's part of our virtual town square. We've had posts from the opposite end of the political spectrum in Local Voices, too, including the Lincolnway Tea Party and Republican candidates for office. It's an open forum for anyone.

The president of the union I belong to is a Republican.

Hi Jim, I want to clarify that your comment is false. Every town that has a Patch site in it is also staffed by a local editor who determines the editorial content of that individual site. Arianna Huffington doesn't control the editorial content for Patch.

Additionally, see my above comment about this particular post. This is a blog post in our Local Voices section, which is a platform and a forum we provide for anyone in the community to share their news and opinions. MoveOn has a Local Voices blog, as does the Lincolnway Tea Party (http://newlenox.patch.com/users/lincolnway-tea-party/blog_posts) and the Illinois State Republican Staff (http://newlenox.patch.com/users/illinois-senate-republican-staff/blog_posts)

Patch does not assign any content in the Local Voices, nor do we edit it or own it. It's a platform we provide to anyone in the community.

Thanks for reading,
-Michael Sewall, associate regional editor

Jim,
Interestingly, Michael has actually been with Patch since before AOL bought the Huffington Post. Ariana Huffington was managing editor (for a bit over a year) of many AOL sites but hasn't had any oversight of Patch since, I believe, May of 2012. So Michael's, and most SW suburban local editors', relationships with Patch began before Huffington was involved and continues after her involvement ended.

Therefore, the notion that Michael's day-to-day decisions are at all influenced by Ariana Huffington is not accurate.

Although Huffington had nothing to do with hiring Michael, one way that Ariana Huffington has influenced Patch is the Local Voices feature, which has given voice to opinions like this, to those involved with the Tea Party, Illinois Republicans, the local school districts, and even to people who write about gardening (like me).

All articles are clearly identified--think of Patch as an online newspaper and you can tell which "section" you're in by checking the heading. "Local Voices" is like the opinion section of a paper; there are also Arts, News, Government, Police & Fire, Obituaries, and more designations. Also, the author is always listed.

There are partisan opinions on Patch, sure, but I'd be willing to bet my favorite Chuck Taylors that you can't find an instance where Michael slanted the news.
-Denise Du Vernay
Local Voices blogger

OK, Denise. You claim that there is not a liberal bias in the reporting staff of the Patch. There's a simple way to test this theory.

Please name all the staff contributors on the Patch in our area who've consistently posted conservative (or Republican) positions on issues.

Tap tap...Denise, are you there? Denise?

Bob,
I just love when you put words on my fingers. I typed, and I paste, "There are partisan opinions on Patch, sure, but I'd be willing to bet my favorite Chuck Taylors that you can't find an instance where Michael slanted the news."

I don't read every article, but I can't name a single SW 'burbs Patch local editor who has slanted their stories or made their politics obvious. I know many of them personally and I don't even know their politics. (Disagreeing with or correcting you does not count as a political bias, by the way).

But even if they did show their politics, Bob, that would be okay in the comments section or, say, in a Reporter's Notebook piece, because it is clear on Patch which articles are news, which are opinion, and which are infotainment, like pizza polls and photo galleries.

Prove me wrong, Bob! I hope you wear a size 5 Chuck Taylor.

P.S. Frankfort Patch has offered a platform for the Republican mayor to speak and for citizens to ask him questions, such as the live chat shown here:
http://frankfort.patch.com/articles/live-chat-ask-mayor-your-questions-on-electricity-aggregation

Denise, I asked you if you could name a single paid contributor to Patch who was either a Republican or consistently conservative when they provided opinions. I take your more than little evasive answer to that question as "no".

On the other hand, it's pretty easy find patch staff who arae just a little to the left oc Chairman Mao...You and Dennis Robough for starters! unlike some other posters here, Ithink that by and large the people in charge have less left wing bias than the Southtown, Regional Newsapers, and certainly the "Orland Parker" which despite having the editor feeding at the GOP pol trough (Cicero) has a distinct left wing bent. I got "unfriended" by him when I he was insulting Palin and I questioned the ethics of Michele Obama being paid over $300K per year as "diversity director" after her hubby was elected Senator, then the position was abolished when she went to the White House.

Bob,
ummm,2004 1.0 trillion in taxes from 293 million people
2008 1.45 trillion in taxes from 303.4 million people
2010 1.9 trillion in taxes from 308.7 million people
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/year_revenue_2010USbn_13bs1n#usgs302
Do you still want to stick to your great economics lesson of less =more,really?
I see more people contributing, could be why more revenue came in, just saying.

Russ,

Bob is correct. Decreasing the tax burden actually increases revenue.

No Russ, I follow the "more is more" reality. We need to generate about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. The people in the increased population didn't come with jobs strapped on their backs, they either had to create a job or work for someone else who did.

When a president's policies fail to address this need for economic growth to have jobs for a growing population by creating massive increases in the burden of government on the private sector, as Obama has, the historically poor job growth and labor participation factors denote the pain he's inflicted on the American people.

The REAL measure of unemployment, U6, put's us at an intolerable 14.8% unemployed. The 21 Obamacare taxes, the largest in history, have frozen full time hiring. Our Labor participation rate, the "scorecard" for economic opportunity in our country, is at a miserable 63%, the lowest in 30 years. Considering our increase in double salary homes today, that level is unconscionable.

BTW, you make a case that the Bush tax cuts have been INCREDIBLY successful in raising tax revenues! thanks!

Also, if you do a little more research, you'll find the top 10% of income tax payers is paying 70% of total income taxes, so they get richer, they're paying far MORE than their fair share, unlike the 50% of deadbeats who pay none, and you're complaining about this system?

Seems you're just as wrong about the economy and the destructive effects of tax increases as Obama!

It seems to me that Bob is cherry-picking his data-points. The Bush tax cuts were enacted in two stages, in 2001 and 2003. As such, there's no justification for using 2004 as a pre-cut comparison year, the latest reasonable year to chose is 2001. Moreover, choosing 2008 as the baseline for the other end-point is also questionable, as it is artificially expanded by the effect of the housing/credit bubble. A more reasonable choice is to chose the last year for which data is available, i.e., 2010.

Let me note that the figure we're discussing here is personal income tax revenue. The 2001 collected personal income tax was $994.3B, vs. $898.5B in 2010, a 9.6% drop in nominal (not constant) dollars, per the usgovernmentrevenue.com link that Russ pointed too. If we correct for nominal v. constant, the 2001 collected personal income tax was $1,224.3B in constant 2010 dollars, so the constant dollar collected federal personal income tax fell by 26.6% from 2001 to 2010.

Stuart, why are you using the 2010 year as a basis of comparison? A more appropriate year would be 2008 when the effects of the "changing of the guard" took place. I think the choice of 2010 two years after Bush left office and three years after the Dems took over Congress speaks nmore to the effects of their policies than the tax cuts from 7-10 years earlier.

It may be nitpicking, but the tax cuts were enacted in 2001, but didn't really take effect until the 2002 tax year.

I'm kind of missing your point here. Are you saying that the bi-partisan tax RATE cuts reduced government revenues as of 2008? I don't see anything in your numbers supporting that conclusion.

Is it your opinion that raisng the tax rates on the people who pay close to 90% of all personal income taxes will somehow increase our GDP and decrease real unemployment?

Marie, your right in this respect.It does allow people to spend more money, especially middle class people that buy things that actually support more manufacturing, which creates more jobs.At that point yes tax revenue would increase due to more people working.

Bob,

You ask if the Bush-era tax cuts had reduced government revenues as of 2008. Leaving aside the question of whether 2008 (a year in which incomes and therefore income tax revenue were inflated by the unsustainable housing/credit bubble) is an appropriate comparison, the answer is still "yes," the tax cuts reduced revenue. Let's go over the numbers

In 2001, federal collected personal income tax was $994.3B; whereas in 2008, it was $1,145.8B. This looks like a revenue increase, but these are nominal (i.e., not inflation corrected) amounts. If we do a standard CPI correction (e.g., using the BLS CPI Inflation Calculator), you'll see that the 2001 federal collected personal income tax was $1,208.8B in 2008 dollars.

Thus, even with a gamed 2008 end-point, constant dollar collected federal personal income tax fell by 5.2% from 2001 to 2008.

Stuart, I dispute your numbers. According to Russ link above, ALL Federal income taxes were 1.145 trillion in 2001, and they were 1.45 trillion in 2008, a 26.6% increase. The CPI calculator shows an increase of 21.5% in that period, showing that Federal income tax revenues increased at a rate of 25% above inflation. The numbers are even stronger when measure against 2002 figures. That's good tax policy.

Perhaps the greatest value of the Bush tax cuts was the increase in GDP. In 2001 the GDP was $10.3 trillion, and in 2008 it skyrocketed to $14.4 trillion, an increase of about 40%. When tax policy increases income tax revenues by 25% above inflation over 7 years, and increases GDP growth by 86% above inflation, there's little you can say about the policy other than it was a spectacular success.

Gee, how much did Obama's "stimulus" and Obamacare increase GDP and tax revenues?LOL

There's also little you can say about an idiotic plan to raise taxes and provide disincentives to investment in this economy besides it being counterproductive, wrong headed, and hateful of those who area successful and drive this economy.

In otherwords, it's pure Democrat and Obama hateful and envious class warfare, not sound economic policy.

Bob, there's not a thing wrong with my numbers, they're just not the numbers you'd chose.

Having lost one game, you're not proposing another, going from collected personal income taxes to all income taxes, and also insisting using the bubble year of 2008 as an end point. Let's suppose we play your new game your way, looking CPI corrected federal income taxes over a six year period from 2002 to 2008. In 2002 total collected federal income tax was $1.0064T, and in 2008 it was $1.4501T. Correcting for the CPI, the 2001 federal collected income tax was $1.2044T in 2008 dollars, a growth of 20.4%, or 3.14%/year over inflation compounded.

But now, for a fair comparison, let's do the same calculation for the corresponding years of Mr. Clinton's administration, 1994 ($683.4B) vs 2000 ($1211.7B). Correcting the 1994 to 2000 dollars gives $794.1B in collected federal income taxes, for a 6-year growth rate of 52.6%, or 7.3%/year over inflation compounded.

So, an apples-to-apples calculation show that the Bush-era tax cuts reduced the rate of growth of federal income by 57%, so the result of the cuts was not only an immediate reduction in revenue, but slower revenue growth subsequently.

Once again, Stuart, a better comparison would be 2008 which was the last "Bush" year. I'm intersted in why you would think that the uncertainty with the cost and implementation of PPACA wouldn't restrict hiring. Without a clear idea of the cost and the impact on the business costs, no one who can delay hiring is hiring.

Actually, 2009 was the last year run under the Bush budget. And the numbers aren't that different -- a 24% decrease in constant dollar collected tax income from 2001 to 2009 (the last of the Clinton budget years to the last of the Bush budget years).

As for the PPACA, I don't think it's had much of an effect. The fundamental problem is a lack of aggregate demand in the economy, which is basically a function of the economic stresses on the middle class. The notion that businesses have delayed hiring because of the PPACA seems pretty silly to me. People can be fired, and will be if the total cost of their compensation exceeds the income they generate. Uncertainty about the future isn't the issue in hiring, it's cost vs. benefit in the here and now.

Stuart, obviously you're not a small businessman. You don't base your hiring plans on what the demand and profitbility for growth is TODAY, you base hiring form what you expect the demand to be six months, a year, five years from now.

If there is tremendous uncertainty about costs due to an overly complicated and risky Obamacare program, you don't hire until you can assess the costs and determine if hiring will make economic sense.

On the profitability side, when a bellicose POTUS keeps telling you how he's going to tax profits to unconscionable levels if he gets a chance, and appointed regulators keep coming up with ridiculous reulings that add substantially to cost, that creates downside risk that works against a decision to hire.

This is what drives markets and hiring, and Obama's policies of increasing tax burdens on small businesses and sucessful entrepreneurs inhibits making the decision to hire.

Perhaps the strongest incentive to hiring would be for Obama to be dethroned and the Senate to change hands.

Having someone who understands economic growth models and policies, and is supportive of them, is perhaps the best thing we could do to get money sitting on the sidelines invested and hiring to take off.

Bob,

> Stuart, obviously you're not a small businessman.

Are you doing so badly that you have to go ad hominem already? Whether or not I'm a small business man depends on the definition. Are you? I've managed a couple of business units for my employer, with bottom line accountability. I have a small side business consulting, and file Schedule C as needed. I suspect the latter means that I'm included in the number of small businessmen as cited by the Republican party.

Time is the most valuable of all perishable commodities. Good money that you leave on the table today will be picked up by your competition, to your disadvantage. So if there's business today, and by hiring today you can take on that business at a profit, that's what you do. The question of expected future demand is relevant only if a hire involves substantial up-front costs (moving, training, "signing bonuses," etc.) that have to be amortized, but these are rarely relevant when hiring hourly employees.

You hurt your case by making hyperbolic claims, e.g., that the current President is "bellicose," or that he's going to "tax profits to unconscionable levels." I'll note, e.g., that the proposed increases on the marginal personal income taxes for high-income filers (39.6% income + 3.8% PPACA = 43.4% overall) is significantly less than it was during most of the Reagan administration (50.0%) let alone the Eisenhower administration (91%).

Stuart, you obvioulsy have no sens of history ifyou really think that people were paying 91% rates back in the 50s. While that was the MARGINAL rate, there were so many deductions and exclusions back then that the ACTUAL rates they were paying were far lower, and the "Rich" who could afford tax shelters paid far lower rates than those with rising incomes but not million dollar assets.

This is why JFK took a leadership role in reforming the tax code by reducing the MARGINAL rates and adjusting deductions and exclusions to increase investment in growing industries and encouraging capital gains which grow the economy.

This was probably the greatest legacy of his Presidency.

This worked so well that in fact the vast majority of Presidents since his tenure has followed that trend, and the result was growing the GDP, increasing jobs, and increasing tax revenues.

Whenever a President deviated in this path, GB I, the results have been negative.

Clinton was something of a unique, and very lucky, case.

During his tenure the productivity of the American worker exploded, allowing for an increase in real wages and creating world leadership of the world in this high value commerce.

By 1999, this productivity growth was maxing out, so we needed to go back to growth fundamentals. GDP growth, even after the disaster in 9/11, was testament to the correctness of the tax cuts and economic policy.

Obama is trying to reverse this decades long trend for growth. He needs to go!

Bob,

Note that I referred to various tax rates as "marginal personal income taxes for high-income," so your "corrections" speak to your lack of reading comprehension and generosity rather than to any historical misunderstandings on my part. Of course there were deductions then, just as there are deductions now. There are also differences in capital gains taxes, which are extremely low today by historical standards.

It's a bit harder to document effective income tax rates. There's a 2007 graphic from the NYT, which claims effective tax rates for the upper 0.01% of about 70% in the early 60's, vs. about 35% in 2004. For the upper 1%, it was about 45% in the early 60's, vs. about 32% in 2004. Obama's proposals would be expected to raise these effective rates to roughly 40% and 37% respectively, which is less than the average of the comparable rates during the Reagan administration.

Your claim of a significant linkage between GDP growth and effective tax rates is not supported by the evidence. If anything, average GDP growth in the 60s was higher than average GDP growth subsequently, and yet tax rates were higher then than subsequently.

Good point, Sgt. USMC. Individuals shouldn't have the right to opt out of health insurance, just like the ER can't opt out of helping someone who needs immediate care. I've seen statistics that state hospitals charge anywhere from twice as much to three times as much for tests and treatments to make up for the losses they face covering the uninsured. If everyone has insurance, we all pay less.

Denise, that's a typical response for someone who can't think more than one step at a time. What do you think will happen when more people are insured, will demand for medical care increase or decrease? When demand increases, what do think will happen to prices? When prices increase because of the increased demand for medical services (many unnecessary or trivial), who do you think will be forced to pay the higher fees? That's right, the other insured and the taxpayers.

You really ought to learn to play chess. Sound policy evaluation requires thinking about more than one move at a time!

BTW, sgt, thank you for your service if you were in the military.

" The government is NOT a charity organization" You were JOKING about this, right?

Much, if not most, of the benefits paid out from government are indeed "charity" and entitlements, not benefits earned by long years of paying into a system to cover the cost.

Much of the Food Stamp program that has skyrocketed under Obama is no more than a giveaway, often to people here illegally or who have never paid a nickel to taxes that pay for the system. Medicaid is another massive entitlement that is no more than "charity" since many on it have never paid income taxes to support the program, and in some cases are making TWICE the poverty level of income.

Our biggest problems in the country, IMHO, is an increasingly burdensome and parasitic government (state AND Federal) who will suck this nation dry unless we swat them down and change the priority from people serving the government to government serving THE PEOPLE.

Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?

So tell us Russ, what business that does hiring do you own?

And your point is?

COB, are you questioning my humility? Only a dumb, uneducated, and wrong person could possibly do such thing!LOL

Seriously, I REALLY hate it when people spout out positions that they have no factual basis to make. What I try to do is inject some logic, reason, and unbiased research into the argument, and actually get those who have opposing opinions to check the facts on which those positions are based.

Too often many use "lawyer logic" in developing reasoned policy decisions; they start with a conclusion and then try to "cherry pick" data to support that conclusion. When I see bloggers using this approach, I try to bring up data they chose to ignore becasue it didn't suit their conclusion. I try to balance this out. MOVEON.ORG types from the Goebbels school of public information (with a concentration on "The Big Lie") puts out some of the most misleading info out there in support of policy destructive to the value of the dollar and the American economy because that's what George Soros funds them to do.

I try to provide counterpoint, and appreciate the clearly left wing Patch staff for givng me that opportunity.

Of course, encouraging conservative blogging is just good business. People are rejecting liberal outlets like MSNBC and "Progressive radio" in droves, while conservative media like Fox and conservative radio are doing very well.

I look forward to our next jousting match!

I am not agreeing if the health care act is wrong or right. I just find it funny that for an act that really hasn't had time to develop or even be in existence your facts are so accurate while others are so wrong. All these "facts" about the act are projections/predictions. Yet, you as well find the numbers that make the act potentially look bad and go with it. You do the same thing that you claim others do.
I have no problem if someone poses an opposite view. However, that's what it is, a view.
What about taking $$ from the miltary budget (as an example) to subsidize health care on a sliding scale for people below the poverty line? Don't make anyone buy it, and anyone over a certain earning level and their on their own. Keep pre-exisiting/can't cut people and some other good parts for everyone. I also feel Ins comp should have some regulation as well.
You know as well as I do that their are certain companies/businesses that get some really nice advantages and perks that have nothing to do with supply and demand...
However, a conservitive will still say no... They'll say so you want us to get attacked... Garbage like that. When we all know our def budget is bigger than virtually every other country combined.

Another way to look at this is: should government bureaucrats have control over your health care decisions? If you believe this, it is a political issue.

They dont have control over your health care decisions.

First, we were told we had to wait for the ACA/tax to be passed before we could see what's in it, COB. Now, we have to wait for its implementation before we see the results of whatever it is they passed. I cast a big NO vote of confidence in anything our government does lately, because they apparently don't even know what they're doing.

COB, the process to pass the ACA was deliberately hidden, partisan, presented dishonestly to the public, and used taxpayer money in the form of bribes to garner votes.

The approval process of the ACA was so bad that it had to be crafted out of sight of the very people it will affect - the nation's citizens. I do not have confidence in it or in the individuals who took part of passing it or the government agents who will execute it. As I stated earlier, had this been done by Republican ideologues rather than Democrat Ideologues, I would be just as disgusted.

Health care reform is definitely needed in our country. A health care reform act debated with full transparency and a knowledge of what is in it before voting on it, without lying to the citizens about the funding, and with bipartisan support, would be a good start. Unfortunately, career politicians from both sides have created a political cesspool, and nothing good can come from it at this point.

I wouldn't think God looks too kindly upon "trusted" elected officials who lie to their constituents and the country for political gain, either.

Much of what you just said i would support and agree with. Especially the career polititian on both sides. We have public servants that are paid a moderate salary for their sacrifice to the people who leave as retired fireman, teachers, and soliders. Then you have public servants who are paid a moderate salary that leave as millionaire's with agendas and favors that they filled for the few, not the many.