Mark Maynard | 2010 | November

Standing up for the rich

By Mark | November 16, 2010

Republicans want to extend the Bush tax breaks for the super-rich. They say that this is absolutely necessary, as it’s the rich who create jobs. It sounds logical enough, right? But, recent history tells us a different story.

In 2001, when Bush first pushed these tax breaks through Congress, we were told that doing so would supercharge the economy. Here, in the words of the Christian Science Monitor, is what actually happened.

…When Congress passed the tax relief act in 2001, the US Treasury had a surplus, which economists predicted would grow to $5.6 trillion 10 years down the road. Instead, the United States has an estimated deficit this year of $1.34 trillion. If the federal government extends all those tax cuts this fall and takes no other actions, America could be looking at $9 trillion or $10 trillion in accumulated red ink over the next decade…

I know it doesn’t tell the whole story, as Bush also led us into an extremely expensive war, among other things, but here are the tax rates for America’s top earners in 2000 and 2010 respectively, along with our national unemployment rate at the outset of said year.

2000: Income tax rate of 39.6% for the most wealthy Americans.
Unemployment at 4.0%

2010: Income tax rate of 35.0% for the most wealthy Americans.
Unemployment at 9.7%

But, in spite of this, we have reason to believe that making these tax cuts permanent will somehow spark a flood of job creation not realized over the past decade, in the wake of the Bush tax cuts.

What we have seen during that time, however, is a growing gap between the rich and poor in this country. Here, on that subject, is a clip from the Associated Press.

…The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.

The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968…

Fortunately, though, a majority of Americans realize this, and want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. You wouldn’t know it to listen to our President, though. He, it would seem, would love to extend the cuts, if only there were a way to pay for them… And, what’s worse, he may agree to extend them even though we clearly can’t.

I want to say more, and do my part to stir up the revolution, but the heat from the laptop is beginning to burn through my gut, upon which it’s precariously balancing. So, that’ll have to be it for tonight.

[Tonight’s post was brought to you by earmark accepting anti-earmark Republicans, and those Teapartying members of Congress who, although having campaigned against Obamacare, now really want their government-run healthcare.]

update: The burning, as it turns out, wasn’t coming from outside my gut. It was coming from inside. I think my body is producing excess bile.

Posted in Economics, Politics | Tagged Bush tax cuts, deficit, earmarks, hypocrisy watch, income disparity, Obamacare, poverty, tax relief act, tea party, the growing gap between rich and poor, the plight of the overtaxed rich, unemployment | 14 Comments

How much to charge the festivals that call Ypsilanti home

By Mark | November 16, 2010

I wanted to make it out to tonight’s City Council meeting, as they’ll be considering a resolution (no. 2010-257) that could greatly impact the future of the Summer Beerfest, and the rest of the festivals that call Ypsi home, but it looks like I’m going to be stuck in the house tonight, parenting… Essentially, the resolution, if passed, would amend the contract for park usage so that entities hosting events with paid admission would have to hand over 10% of their gross receipts to the City. This change, as I understand it, would go into affect in 2011. Here’s what Erik Dotzauer, the head of the Depot Town CDC, had to say about it:

…This fee will greatly impact every event that charges a gate fee. I understand the need to increase revenue, but this resolution is targeted at a small number of events and does not fairly spread the burden among all organizations that host events in the parks. Most notably, the largest festival in the city would be exempt from this tax, although they present the largest burden on city staff and residents.

If this resolution passes, it will serve to drive festivals and events away from our city. My organization started the Michigan Roots Jamboree two years ago and we hope to grow the festival in Ypsilanti for years to come. In this tough economic climate, we may need to look for another venue outside the city if this fee is imposed on our event.

Earlier today I spoke with Scott Graham, the Director of the Michigan Brewer’s Guild. When I first informed him of this resolution, he said it was a “deal breaker”, meaning that the Michigan Summer Beer Festival would no longer be held in Ypsilanti if this resolution is adopted. I spoke with him again later today and he softened his initial statement saying it was “not necessarily a deal breaker”, but cautioned that if this fee passes the organization will look at all of their options before making a decision. He said that the resolution would cost his organization roughly $30,000, while the largest festival in the city would pay nothing!…

Before we go on to talk about whether or not this is a good idea for the City, I’d like to congratulate the organizers of Beerfest. While I knew that they did well, having had to navigate through their drunken crowds for several years now, I had no idea that they were, over that one weekend, raking in on the order of $300,000. That’s incredibly impressive.

Oh, and the large festival that Erik referred to, for those of you who don’t know, is Heritage Festival, which would, as I understand it, be exempted due to the fact theirs is not a ticketed event.

Rene Greff, the owner of the Corner Brewery, and an influential member of the Michigan Brewer’s Guild, the organization behind the Summer Beer Festival, had the following to say, when I asked her for her thoughs.

…I think a tiered pricing scheme based on the size or revenues associated with a festival makes sense but a flat percentage does not. This is a classic example of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Even if the city’s general fund does not benefit directly from festivals, the city benefits in many ways including quality of life, exposure, positive press, revenue for local businesses, etc. Council needs to take it’s time and think through all of the possible ramifications before making modifications to the fee schedule…

Between Scott Graham’s stepping back from the “deal breaker” comment and Rene’s acknowledgement that a “tiered pricing scheme” might be appropriate, it sounds as though there might be some room for negotiation. I just hope that City Council is willing to deal. I’d hate to see them kill the festival market here, which is one of the few areas where we seem to have some immediate potential, before it really has a chance to get going. Having an attractive downtown park with a river, and ample parking, is something that other communities in our area don’t have, and we should be marketing the hell out of it. I don’t doubt, however, that we could do a better job of monetizing it. We just need to be smart as to how we go about it.

And, on a practical level, how would a 10% cut on ticket sales even work? Would the City require that the contracting organization open its books? Or would we just take them for their word when they told us that they sold a certain number of tickets? It seems like an incredibly difficult thing to keep on top of, especially for a City with scant resources.

Anyway, if I were on Council, I’d want more data before making a decision. I’d want to know how other cities handle their events. And I’d want to have a better sense of what these festivals mean for our local economy… Do our local restaurants see much of an increase in sales during Beerfest? Are people who attend Beerfest more likely to visit Ypsi at a later date based up their experience here? Might we perhaps negotiate for more money from hosting organizations if they knew that the money would be used to make park improvements which would, in turn, make their future events better? Are there things other than money that we could include in our negotiations, like advertising in festival materials, the use of local vendors, etc? And, how much does it really cost the City to host an event like Beerfest? (As I understand it, festivals are already charged for the increased police presence, as well as clean-up.) Until I knew the answers to some of these questions, I don’t see how I could vote in support of a 10% tax.

Anyway, if you were at the City Council meeting tonight, leave a comment and let me know what was decided. I suspect that the resolution was tabled for the time being, while alternatives are considered, but you never know with City Council.

Posted in Ypsilanti | Tagged Beerfest, City COuncil resolutions, Corner brewery, deal breakers, Depot Town CDC, Erik Dotzauer, Heritage Fest, Heritage Festival, Michigan Brewer's Guild, Michigan Roots Jamboree, Rene Greff, Resolution 2010-257, Scott Graham, things that break deals, Ypsi festivals, Ypsilanti City Council | 71 Comments

Criterion reissues Charles Laughton’s masterpiece, Night of the Hunter

By Mark | November 15, 2010

I was all set to post something stupid tonight about Chex Mix product placement in daytime television, but then discovered, quite by accident, that one of my very favorite movies of all time, Night of the Hunter, is being reissued on DVD by the Criterion Collection tomorrow. The DVD, which you can order here, contains over two-and-a-half hours of outtakes, audio commentary by assistant director Terry Sanders, an interview with cinematographer Stanley Cortez, and tons more. If you’ve never seen the film, I’d highly recommend it. And, if you know someone who loves American cinema, I can’t imagine a better Christmas gift… Here, if you’ve never seen it, is a scene I don’t think I’ve ever shared with you before. Pour yourself a big bowl of Chex Mix and check it out.

Posted in Art and Culture, Mark's Life | Tagged 1955, Charles Laughton, Chex Mix, Criterion Collection, Days of our Lives, gift ideas, gift ideas for Mark, great films, Night of the Hunter, product placement, Robert Mitchum, Shelley Winters, soap operas, Stanley Cortez, Terry Sanders | 3 Comments

Hump!

By Mark | November 15, 2010

A former housemate of mine in Ann Arbor now lives in Portland. I try to get him to move back to Michigan on occasion, but it’s hard to compete with a city like Portland. Case in point… when I went out to there to visit him a few years ago, he took me to a taco place that you had to enter through a seedy strip club. Actually, you didn’t have to enter though the strip joint, but Dave wanted to show me that there was a secret door connecting the two. He knew I liked stuff like that. Anyway, he’s been there for about seven years now, and, every once in a while, when something really cool is going on in Portland, he’ll mention it to me in hopes that it’ll make me jealous and expose me as the slack-jawed, straw-chewing Ypsilanti hick that I am. A few days ago, he mentioned that he was going to a DIY porn festival called Hump, and, when I asked for details, he responded with the following article. Enjoy.

Hello intrepid readers. I’m a friend of Mark’s currently living in Portland, Oregon. Mark asked me to guest post in the hopes of eventually seeing the better-looking of you naked.

On Saturday night my wife and I attended “HUMP!” – an adult film festival that runs in Portland and Seattle. What makes HUMP! interesting is that the jury-selected short films must contain specific props and/or local landmarks that change yearly, all submissions are kept under lock and key and destroyed after the showings, and the audience votes for winners in the following categories: humor, sex, kink, and best all-around. It’s basically a chance for people who are dying to make porn, but don’t because they might want to run for office some day, to realize both dreams. For the rest of us, it’s an opportunity to see your neighbors get it on on the big screen. If you think that means seeing people that you decidedly do not want to see naked, don’t worry. Although the spirit of the event is all-inclusive and sex-positive, at this point, in it’s second or third year, the submissions still pretty much contain the young and beautiful.

Before the show, the MC reminded us to keep criticisms to ourselves lest we be sitting next to the actor whose genitals are currently filling up the screen, and that any recording devices even suspected of being used, would be smashed into tiny bits on the spot. He also noted that as opposed to last year, this year’s films contained no “ass hooks.”

The stand-out for me was a series of 18 paintings shown in sequence with music and a little Ken Burns effect applied. It depicted an R. Crumb-like giantess neutering and crucifying a tiny scared man hanging him chained between her nipples. Normally, watching a guy get his dick snapped off wouldn’t do much for me, but this was art.

Next on my ballot was film starring a nun. I know the naughty nun angle might seem tired, but the bible verses she spouted were hilarious. The high point was the close-up of the insertion of a crucifix into her lover’s penis which had the entire theater squirming and squealing with sacrilegious delight.

My third favorite was a gay film ostensibly created for the It Gets Better project. The joke here was that after sharing his personal stories of discrimination, the protagonist declares “It gets better. A LOT better!” as the camera pans down to his boyfriend giving him a blow job. The two guys romp around on the couch having playful, fun sex with intermittent dialog like “yeah, yeah, YEAH, BETTER, BETTER, MUCH MUCH BETTER!” This one had the audience cheering on the actors as if every thrust and grunt were a victory over homophobia.

There were many more great entries, but those were the ones that I voted for. None of the films was particularly titillating to me. I guess dom/sub lesbians, masturbating clowns, and various pizza boy scenarios just aren’t my thing. The most turned on I got was when my wife declared that “we could totally make one sexier than all of those” on our way out the exit. Oh really now!? I had a great time at the event, though. I’m all for gays and straights and kinksters of all stripes getting together and experiencing art celebrating sex. It deserves it.

So that’s what we’re up to in the Northwest. Your move Ypsilanti. If you copied the idea but made it bicycle-powered (with naked bicyclists), you could out-Portland Portland! And don’t worry, I’ve seen Mark naked. I think. On second thought, maybe I haven’t. I lived with the guy for several years in college and never saw him naked? OK. I guess every film needs a camera man.

Posted in Art and Culture | Tagged ass hook, bike powered movies, blowjobs, crucifixion, cycle powered cinema, Dave Miller, DIY, film festival, gay, giantess, Hump, It Gets Better, Ken Burns, masturbating clowns, naked people, nudity, nuns, porn, pornification, Portland, R Crumb, Seattle, sex, sex tape, the snapping off of dicks | 23 Comments

The mortgage tax deduction and why it should go

By Mark | November 14, 2010

Yesterday, in a post about the President’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, I mentioned that co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles suggested, amid a long laundry list of federal programs to be cut, the elimination of the mortgage tax deduction. While I deduct my mortgage interest when calculating my taxes each year, just like everyone else who can do so, I’d never really given much thought to the longterm ramifications of the policy. Fortunately, though, a few folks in the MM.com audience have. Following are some of their comments:

Brandon
For what its worth, the mortgage tax deduction has been a key driver of urban sprawl and McMansionization for decades… doing away with it (in combination with an increased gas tax) could have some real positive long-term effects.

Murph
As Brandon points out, the mortgage interest deduction is a massive social engineering scheme, in the favored parlance of the right: it encourages people to buy (rather than rent) larger houses on larger lots further from the cities than they might otherwise choose if left to themselves. (For all you homeowners – remember when you were making the choice to rent or buy? I’m sure you remember the propaganda about how buying was the right choice due to the tax breaks, and how you should stretch yourself to buy a house for that reason even if you might otherwise not consider it.)

The deduction both encourages consumption of larger homes, by promising a larger tax break for larger mortgages, as well as masking the true cost of these mortgages to the borrower. And, as we’ve seen demonstrated over the past few years, encouraging people to stretch themselves into homeownership – and stretch into the biggest houses they can afford – is hardly the path to wealth-creation that we’ve made it out to be.

But there’s also the issue that the mortgage interest deduction is a somewhat regressive tax – it primarily benefits those on the upper income end of the scale. Wealthier taxpayers are in higher marginal tax brackets, so benefit more from deductions (especially if it bumps them down into a lower tax bracket), as well as typically owning larger and more expensive homes, and so having a larger chunk of interest they can claim. Look at the piece where they’re offering an option of “Maybe we don’t eliminate the deduction – but we just cap it to the first $500,000.” Is this really a blow to the middle class?

Take away the name, and just look at a description of what we’re talking about: an expensive and regressive tax break that creates massive market distortion in the name of social engineering purposes with questionable benefits.
In any other case, we’d be howling to end this sucker, with Speaker Pelosi leading the charge – but since we all benefit to some small degree (or want to save it so that, someday, we’ll make enough money that we can benefit), it’s a hot-button topic. As is, we’ll probably have to phase it out – since there are still plenty of folks out there who couldn’t really afford to buy the houses they bought, even losing the relatively small benefit of the mortgage interest deduction could put them over the edge if removed suddenly.

I haven’t had a ton of time to think about the rest of the pieces of the chairmen’s proposal, but ending the mortgage interest deduction is a clear win.

I know it’s probably unpopular to say so, but, now that I’ve thought about it for a little while, I’m inclined to agree. I don’t know that it would be wise to pull the rug out from under people all at once, but it seems to me that we could do something where the deduction was phased out over a period of time, like five years. As Murph points out, though, it’s unlikely that voters will go for it, as it’s a popular deduction, especially when there are other fish to fry, like the reestablishment of the estate tax and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich, but I think it’s worth adding to the list of things that, in a perfect world, we’d eliminate in favor of deductions designed to encourage conservation, education and investment in our communities. I know the repeal of the deduction would likely mean less money in your pocket, but I’m curious as to what you think.