Popcorn time has passed

4 free views left!

By Tracy Warner
Editorial Page Editor

Thursday, November 29, 2012

See “Lincoln.” See it, if only to learn how compelling a history lesson can be. See it, to learn how dedication to art and craft can produce a film that not only is reasonably true to history, but turns the muck and grime of politics into genuine, entertaining drama. See it, to see how our people now in Washington see themselves.

This is a lot to pack into a movie, but as they say, this one is “timely.” I sat in the half-empty Liberty Theater upper room the other night with great expectations. I had read that Steven Spielberg had gone to extraordinary lengths to recreate 1860s Washington City, down to exact copies of White House wallpaper and the ticking of Abraham Lincoln’s watch. The great actor Daniel Day-Lewis had so painstakingly mimicked Lincoln, the reviewers and historians said, that you could imagine yourself peeking back time and hearing the great man himself. For history buffs like me, this is exciting stuff. Most historical films end up compromised for modern sensibilities and thus turn into inaccurate rubbish. This was very different, and very good.

What I should have realized was that everyone in today’s Washington would be in the theater last weekend, seeing a semi-fictionalized depiction of a great national crisis, and imagine they are looking in a mirror. Politicians are the heroes and the villains of 1865. So it is today, they say. We are the heroes, they are the villains. The papers and airwaves Monday were filled with lessons learned, parallels observed, conclusions drawn. The temptation is hard to resist. In the film, President Lincoln is pushing historic legislation — the 13th amendment to the Constitution, banning slavery — through a reluctant lame duck Congress. President Obama is deep in negotiations to avoid falling off the “fiscal cliff,” requiring cooperation and give-and-take with a reluctant lame duck Congress. “Lincoln” the film is not a Civil War epic filled with desperate battles and mass carnage and the clash of great armies. It is mostly politicians, sitting and plotting strategy. There is much wheeling and much dealing and many principles compromised for the greater good. Success requires luring defectors from the obstinate, irrational and mean-spirited opposition. It was inevitable that people would see Obama as Lincoln and the House Republicans as the doomed old Democrats, clinging to slavery, to the past and their indefensible standards.

This soon gets to be too much. As an issue, tax policy is not the modern equivalent of the slavery. Raising income tax rates on the rich by 4 percentage points is not nearly close in weight. Raising enough revenue to cut a trillion-dollar annual deficit by a small fraction does not have the same implications as freeing a race from bondage. To look at Lincoln and see yourself is narcissistic and delusional. Elevating our petty issues to great heights will be useful mostly for masking contemporary incompetence.

Then again, watch “Lincoln” and learn what little our representatives accomplish when they make use of the very same tools of influence and persuasion at hand in 1865. Lincoln put politics to work and ended slavery. We put politics to work and get, well, not much. Not yet.

I left the theater and wanted to face east and shout, get on with it. It cannot be so difficult. Raising taxes on the wealthy and near-wealthy is not so principled a stand that we should risk plunging a suffering nation into economic chaos. Resisting increases in tax rates that probably should not have been lowered to begin with, is not so noble that we should flirt with disaster. People in Washington should put down the popcorn and get to work.

Tracy Warner’s column appears Thursdays and Fridays. He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.com or 665-1163.

» Recommend this story.

» 50 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

Taxguru 5 months, 2 weeks ago

" Raising taxes on the wealthy and near-wealthy is not so principled a stand that we should risk plunging a suffering nation into economic chaos. "

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about...!!!

Some Facts on who those Wealthy and near-wealthy are:

America has some 34.8 million small businesses, according to a recent Treasury Department study. Sounds like a lot, until you consider that 30 million of them employ no one other than the owner.

Of the remaining 4.8 million that do employ workers, 1.2 million have incomes above $200,000 — where Obama's tax hikes kick in.

Here's the rub: Those 1.2 million small businesses that will be hit by Obama's small-business tax are the nation's most prolific job creators, accounting for 54% of all private-sector positions — or 77.6 million in all.

And while they make up just 3% of all small businesses, they earn 91% — or $341 billion — of all profits reported by the small businesses with workers. "They are the most successful and therefore the biggest job creators," as the Heritage Foundation recently pointed out.

They also pay 44% of all federal business taxes.

Maybe the media aren't aware of the Small Business Administration's estimate that, since the 1970s, small businesses have accounted for 66% of all net new jobs in the U.S.

This is confirmed by a study released in July by the consulting giant Ernst & Young.

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The tax hikes "kick in" at $250,000 not $200,000. This is not gross income but adjusted income. I am all for small business (shop lots of them and wish them well), but if a small business man earns an AGI of $250,000 or a doctor, lawyer, merchant chief earns $250,000, he or she is a wealthy person. The legal source of someone's income should not give them special status.

Part time Job Creators are not going to save our economy. Folks earning a living wage work full time at a good salary and those folks will shop/spend at businesses large and small. When businesses stop squeezing labor to create obscene profits and actually start creating full time jobs paying over $17.00 an hour with decent benefits (like Costco does) the 98% might regain faith in American capitalism. Until then the wealthy who earn the big profits should carry a fair share of the burden for providing welfare to those part time minimum wages slaves who cannot afford housing, medical care, or decent food.

JimboBear 5 months, 2 weeks ago

". . . start creating full time jobs paying over $17.00 an hour with decent benefits (like Costco does) the 98% might regain faith in American capitalism."

Here's another example of just how out of touch you are with the real world when it comes to business, Sue. If an employer pays $17 per hour to the employee plus a benefit package of health insurance, paid vacations, sick / maternity leave and so on as you suggest, his cost for that wage would be much closer to $30 per hour. Do you really think that a small businessman running a retail operation such as a toy store or office supply outlet can afford to pay unskilled or at best semi-skilled employees that kind of money? If you do, where do you think the money to pay those people is going to come from? If you guess anyplace other than from the consumer in the form of greatly increased prices, you better join up with Alice and Toto and take a walk along the yellow brick road. You are obviously dreaming.

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

If an small business employer had to pay his employees $17 an hour plus benefits, imagine what he would have to charge for his products/services in order to show a profit.

Or don't you think he should be entitled to make an evil, evil profit?

robbins 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Personal attack.

robbins 5 months, 2 weeks ago

It's been nice having you here.

davebugg 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh fer cryin' out loud.

JimboBear 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I'll second that "Crying out loud"!

You can't be serious, Mr. Robbins. Are you telling us that now we must all agree with the opinions of the WW Staff or be given the boot? Surely you jest! I can think of no profession other than journalism where one's opinions may be disputed or criticized to great extent by so many. I simply can't imagine that Mr. Tracy was damaged or offended in any way by this "Personal Attack" you say Flamebike is guilty of. If he or any of the other Wenatchee World Staff are that thin skinned, perhaps they should either change professions or avoid any Op-Ed pieces in the future. Or is this simply a matter of one co-worker defending another's statements?

Stever 5 months, 2 weeks ago

For whom the bell tolls: Faedrus, Tim, R Wools, Justanobserver, Mavelous, et. al. The roster of those leaving this site, voluntarily or otherwise, grows weekly. Jimbo, I solemnly nominate you to carry the torch for our fallen brethren. Let us don sackcloths and ashes as we beat the drums slowly, and march forward with profound respect for those who have disappeared from the WW comments section. Keep those ubiquitous bell ringers in the back of the line.

JimboBear 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm not at all sure what to make of your comment Steve. "Ubiquitous Bell Ringers" ??? <br?

You have I'm sure, heard the expression "water off a duck's back" though, right?

Stever 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Jimbo, no offense intended, express or implied. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the bell-ringing solicitors briefly discussed in another thread. I believe it was Mr. Bugg who humorously mentioned ….”rogue bell ringers prowling residential streets”. Heck, disregard my previous post. It seemed funny at the time; guess you had to be there.

JimboBear 5 months, 2 weeks ago

And no offense taken Steve. Now that I know where you were going with it, I do see the humor. I wondered if that was perhaps the reference, but I couldn't really link the two threads together. Enjoy your weekend!

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

For my own personal benefit,

Definition of "clueless":

1: having or providing no clue

2: completely or hopelessly bewildered, unaware, ignorant, or foolish

AverageJoe 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I find it extraordinary that Tracy would suspect that “people would see Obama as Lincoln and the House Republicans as the doomed old Democrats, clinging to slavery, to the past and their indefensible standards.” If this movie was release before the election, it clearly would have reminded people that it was the Democrats who were on the wrong side of history, and it was the Republicans who were the champions of human rights. And the Democrats didn’t find salvation after the Civil War, either. In 1866 the Ku Klux Kan was formed and became the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. The first black representatives and senators elected to Congress were Republicans. In fact, it wasn’t until 2005 when the Democrats finally elected Barak Obama as their first black male Democrat to serve in the Senate. From 1863 to 1972, Republicans passed more Civil Rights Legislation than Democrats and were directly responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After examining the tally of elected and appointed senior government positions, the Republicans more often than the Democrats provide the breakthrough opportunities for blacks, women and minorities. With a $16 trillion debt and 47% of the population paying no income tax, it remains to be seen if the Democrats are on the wrong side of history again.

Dudleydoright 5 months, 2 weeks ago

The top ten percent of wage earners pay 59% of the federal income tax, the bottom 90% pay 41%. If Atlas shrugs, how are the 90% going to get their benifits? I for one am sick to death of tax increases with promised spending cuts happening years down the road, and then never happen. The Republicans need to say the day taxes are raised is the day spending is to be cut or NO DEAL. Jump off the cliff, it is the only way the folks on the left will learn simple economics.

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

No such thing as "simple economics" unless you mean the trickle down theories of the GOP. Simple indeed.

FootballNut 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh, and President Obama's trickle up poverty is better? Good grief!

Dudleydoright 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Football how can i "like" that comment, it's a classic..trickle up poverty, and so true.

Taxguru 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Close Dudley, the Top 10% pay 70% of the total income taxes.....

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010 The Top 10% paid $721 Billion of the total $1.031 Trillion collected.

Top 10% share of Adjusted Gross Income......Only 46%

Taxguru 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Interesting Stat I just compiled.......

Inflation adjusted in 2011 dollars:

Total U.S. (all federal, state and local taxes in their entirety) taxes per person:

1981 - 10,992 2011 - $15,558

lonedog3 5 months, 2 weeks ago

liberal mate fails in everyday life. what will they understand the simple basics flamebike discusses? you cannot spend more than you make. this is why the current clueless administration (which has never owned or operated a business)has increased the national debt to insane levels. this entire editorial, in MY humble opinion, was completely idiotic to say the least.

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Government is not a business and MAKES no income what so ever!!!! Get over it. Government collects taxes to pay for services. No taxes, no services so government must at times borrow money (today at practically zero interest) in order to provide those services. Service like WAR! Did you guys get that? WAR???? Bring the troops home if you want to save money. WAR started by Bush (GOP! GOP! GOP!). Bush bankrupted his business and our government, Trump has been bankrupt seven times, and Romney had lots of experience bankrupting other people's businesses and you want businessmen in the white house? Ridiculous. You have absolutely no idea that private businesses and public government are not operated in the same manner and shouldn't be so you continue to repeat the idiotic mantra of running government like a business or a household. Apple and oranges fellows, apples and oranges.

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

"Government is not a business and MAKES no income what so ever!!!!"

And yet government spends other peoples money as if it were their own.

"No taxes, no services so government must at times borrow money (today at practically zero interest) in order to provide those services."

Run properly, like a business interested in staying in the black, the government should not HAVE TO borrow money from anybody, especially foreign countries.

"WAR started by Bush"

And continued by Obama. He could have pulled the plug at any time but hasn't. He now owns it.

"You have absolutely no idea that private businesses and public government are not operated in the same manner and shouldn't be so you continue to repeat the idiotic mantra of running government like a business or a household."

Yeah, I guess expecting the government to live within its means is a pretty far fetched idea especially when they have a guaranteed income (taxes) at their fingertips. Unlike a business or a household you'd think they have a pretty easy time of it with a perk like that but the government is incapable of operating effectively. I, for one, think that we, as taxpayers, should be demanding better performance from our government.

See other ways the government wastes money at Citizens Against Government Waste http://www.cagw.org/

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

You just don't get it Kyook. We should be demanding better of ourselves. WE are the government. It is OUR money. There is no "guaranteed income" as taxes fluctuate as our personal income and spending habits fluctuate. Talk to your friends and neighbors and together send Dave Reichert the word that unless he shapes things up in Congress you plan to fire him next time around. Don't blame the nameless entity of government. Blame the folks who aren't doing their jobs. On Reichert's facebook page he just announced he got a bill passed naming a post office in his district, but he says nothing specific about cutting waste. Blame the non voters, blame me because I voted for Obama, blame the members of Congress who aren't doing their job, but government is no better than the people you and I elect. So call Reichert don't just rant and rave on here. I have written the White House about Afghanistan, have you? The American people like to complain, but obviously not enough of them complain directly to the people they have elected to do the job.

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Ahhh...that is just so cute, naive and misguided but cute nonetheless.

"WE are the government." How did YOU vote in the last congressional session? I know I wasn't allowed to.

"It is OUR money." Of course it is, that's why people get so upset when the government (not us) spends it so recklessly.

"There is no "guaranteed income" as taxes fluctuate as our personal income and spending habits fluctuate."

Sure, there is. Taxes never go away. The amounts vary from time to time but that can be remedied with the stroke of a pen.

"Talk to your friends and neighbors and together send Dave Reichert the word that unless he shapes things up in Congress you plan to fire him next time around."

I'm sure Reichert would be trembling in fear.

"Don't blame the nameless entity of government. Blame the folks who aren't doing their jobs."

One in the same.

"On Reichert's facebook page he just announced he got a bill passed naming a post office in his district, but he says nothing specific about cutting waste."

What would you expect on Facebook, the full congressional record?

"Blame the non voters, blame me because I voted for Obama, blame the members of Congress who aren't doing their job, but government is no better than the people you and I elect."

OK...it's your fault. Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Obama. Even the people I didn't vote for aren't doing their jobs & haven't been for decades.

"So call Reichert don't just rant and rave on here."

And you actually think that's an effective approach? Hehehe. News Flash! Politicians don't listen & haven't been for decades.

"I have written the White House about Afghanistan, have you?" No, because I know an execise in futility when I see one but I think it's sweet that you don't.

"The American people like to complain, but obviously not enough of them complain directly to the people they have elected to do the job."

Duh...

lonedog3 5 months, 2 weeks ago

government pays for services?? ummm who pray tell pays the insanely high salaries of those elected to serve the people? Also why do they get to vote to raise their salaries? they do not serve us but rather the big lobbyists. More liberal jibber jabber at best. this fails to justify someone now bankrupting this nation.

lonedog3 5 months, 2 weeks ago

the takers are growing through censorship of the masses. It is hard for the people to speak out when the press turns socialist with it's control over what those that would speak out for liberty and freedom are censored and silenced. Yet the socialist press constantly pushes it's own agenda by failing and refusing to allow anything but their own views and opinions (see the stories on the WEA) tis a sad day in American history!

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Could you give me a list of that socialist media? That would be media owned by public not private interests. MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, the Wenatchee World etc are all private companies. Perhaps you meant PBS and NPR, the two publicly owned media sources that come to mind. I think you don't really mean anything. You are ranting despite the fact that you have a forum here to say what ever you want about liberty and freedom any day of the week.

How about a list of all those denied their freedom of speech by so called socialist media. I am honestly curious and doubt you can offer a single name . Heck, Fox News will give any anti-government lunatic center stage so I can't see that tea partiers are being silenced.

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Want to talk about takers? At least get your facts straight. "A (New York) Times investigation has examined and tallied thousands of local incentives granted nationwide and has found that states, counties and cities are giving up more than $80 billion each year to companies. (notice that is NOT federal money Lonedog, Flame, Taxgu, Dudely etc, that is LOCAL money) The beneficiaries come from virtually every corner of the corporate world, encompassing oil and coal conglomerates, technology and entertainment companies, banks and big-box retail chains.

I challenge you to read the entire article. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corporations.html?emc=na

Dudleydoright 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Suz, why would they give incentives to business? I'll answer for you, because they hope to receive a winfall in taxes through increases in property taxes, sales taxes etc... the same reason your IRA invests in business not government.

davebugg 5 months, 2 weeks ago

One need only look to Quincy as an example of how this works.

barleywine 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I've not seen the film, but the truth is that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union even more than he wanted to end slavery, and actually said so. The "Great Emancipator" was indeed a master politician, but he was willing to tolerate some degree of slavery to keep the country together, and even picked the racist Andrew Johnson as a running mate. Today's politics may not be fraught with such a divisive issue, but the Republican party's absurd stance in protecting the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes, which is the lowest in more than in 30 years, is equally immoral. They lie about protecting "small businesses" this way; instead, they are only continuing to augment the fortunes of their real constituents, the very people whose monetary recklessness helped bring about our economic collapse. Many of these millionaires and billionaires and their wealthy corporations — some of whom pay no taxes at all — are now sitting on record profits and have done NOTHING to create jobs. Clearly, they hoped that a Romney administration would give them an even better deal. I have news for them: it ain't gonna happen. Our government needs revenue as much as it needs to cut wasteful spending (starting with our bloated military budget), and the majority of Americans thinks it's way past time for the rich to pay up.

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

"Many of these millionaires and billionaires and their wealthy corporations — some of whom pay no taxes at all — are now sitting on record profits and have done NOTHING to create jobs."

Question: How can one simultaneously be a "wealthy corporation" and NOT create jobs? Simply by virtue of being wealthy (making lots of sales) there has to be a plethora of people involved (jobs).

"... the Republican party's absurd stance in protecting the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes"

If you are going to compare tax RATES between the wealthy and the middle class then there is a modicum of truth to your statement but if you want to compare taxes paid in actual dollars then all you are doing is spewing liberal mantra.

Suz 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Wealthy corporations like Walmart create part time jobs at minimum wage and minimum to zero benefits. Then instead of investing in labor Walmart gives billions to political causes and candidates. People cannot live well working in these part time positions. If Costco can pay an average of $17.00 an hour PLUS health insurance and paid vacation and still make profits which keep its stock price high than what Walmart is doing is not only greedy, but unnecessary.

JimboBear 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Suz, your comparison of Walmart and Costco is a comparison of dissimilar entities. Costco is a wholesale club warehouse where Walmart is a retail outlet store. I would only be speculating if I attempted to tell you of the differences in the inner workings, but Costco requires membership dues and only sells to those who have paid for the right to shop there while Walmart is open to anyone who can walk through their doors or find them on the internet. I'd venture a guess that there is a marked difference in their costs of doing business such as tax structures and licensing fees and I know for a fact that there is a distinct difference in the cost of their buildings since I've been involved in building both. It's far more complicated than what meets the eye. I can also tell you that Costco uses some of those same part time employees who do not make the wage or receive the benefits you speak of, as do Lowes, Home Depot, Best Buy and all the other big box stores. I really fail to understand why you keep making the same comparison when all you are actually saying is that you don't like Walmart. Why can't you just say so and let it go at that?

kyook 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Suz, Walmart does not engage in indentured servitude. Every employee is free to go elsewhere if they are not satisfied with their employment status but you'd be in favor of the government being able to regulate that, yes?