OlsonOnline

The truth about taxes in Oregon

From Sunday's Oregonian:

"Oregon businesses will continue to enjoy one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation even after the Legislature voted last week to raise their taxes."

That doesn't matter to Republicans who call any business tax increase a "job killer."  Or to Democrats like Mark Hass who howled that the tax increases should be temporary.

Temporary?  That simply means that in short time, the regressive Oregon tax code would revert to this:

"...individuals now carry nearly two-thirds of the state and local tax burden."

It wasn't that long ago that the income tax, Oregon's primary revenue source, was split about evenly between businesses and individuals.

And remember this:  poor Oregonians pay a higher share of their income in total taxes than the richest Oregonians.  That's the very definition of a regressive tax code.

When the anti-taxers fume about an overhaul of Oregon's system of taxation, what they're really talking about is making the system even more regressive than it already is.  Tax reform to them means a sales tax --the most regressive of taxes-- and a cut in the income tax --the most progressive of taxes, especially if it's done right. 

The legislature's move to raise the marginal tax rate on couples making more than $250,000 was a step in the right direction, a step toward tax fairness. 

*************************************

The mantra of the anti-taxers, like Russ Walker's FreedomWorks Oregon, is this:

"Only by reducing taxes and regulations, and making Oregon a more business-friendly state can we achieve the goal of real economic growth, and real prosperity for Oregonians."

"Only by reducing taxes... ."  That worked well under Reagan and Dubya, right?  Well, maybe not so much.  Here's a comment from a recent Blue Oregon post on taxes in Oregon:

"Yes, cutting taxes always results in drops in unemployment. I mean, look at 1982, after the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. The national unemployment fell from 7.6% to 9.7%.

"And look at 2002 after the Bush tax cuts of 2001, then the unemployment rate fell from 4.7% to 5.8%.

"All I can say is, God save us from any similar drops in unemployment."

It's nice to have those stats at your finger tips.  But then again, all you have to do is read the newspaper to realize how disastrous Republican tax and economic policies have been.

***********************************

And then there's the O's Susan Nielsen throwing fuel on the anti-tax fire that still burns hot in Oregon.  Here are some comments from her latest column:

"Democrats also are pushing their luck on taxes."

"They open Democrats to criticism that they're too eager to confiscate people's earnings. They also make the Democratic party (not to mention the state itself) less attractive to doctors, lawyers, potential business recruits and other professionals who are already worried about higher federal taxes -- and who get wet whenever anyone decides to 'soak the rich.' "

I probably don't need to remind you that Nielsen is on the editorial board of Oregon's largest daily newspaper.  Her Sunday column certainly found favor with the rabid right.

Just read the comments.

Scott Bailey for school board

Although I once called Community and Parents for Public Schools (CPPS), the organization Scott Bailey formerly headed,  "lapdogs for school choice*," Bailey is clearly the better of the two candidates running for the Zone 5 school board position. And never mind the useless endorsements given his opponent by the Oregonian and Willamette Week.

Here's why.

I still don't know exactly where Bailey stands on choice and the district transfer policy.  Nevertheless he has certainly abandoned the Vicki Phillips-can-do-no-wrong stance he seemed to espouse when I first encountered him at one of Phillips' infamous "community conversations" at Sellwood Middle School a few years back. 

A case in point is Bailey's criticism of Phillips' much-ballyhooed K-8 reconfigurations.  He calls the K-8 reconfiguration "poorly planned, done too quickly, and ... poorly executed."  He's right.  He's also correct in pointing out the enrollment imbalances K-8's create, as well as the obvious inequities they promote in poorer sections of the district. 

Bailey is also upfront about the underfunding of schools in Oregon and what we can do about it.  He writes,

"Part of the problem is we’re a low tax state, particularly for businesses."

He then calls for "...raising the corporate minimum tax, or ... increasing the corporate tax rate."  He also proposes an increase in the "general level of personal taxes" and  getting rid of the "kicker".  

Bailey's opponent is Portland Business Alliance chief operating officer, Pam Knowles.  The contrast between the two on school funding is glaring.

Knowles says she is for "adequate and stable school funding"  but proposes little of substance to achieve that goal.  Her one concrete proposal is to adjust "the corporate minimum tax, while protecting and promoting the success of our small businesses."

"Adjust," not raise.  Spoken like a true business lobbyist.

More troubling though is Knowles' inclination to define a successful education as the ability to get a job:

"We all have the common goal of wanting a high quality education for our children so they can be productive workers and citizens. ...

"At the Portland Business Alliance I am working with PPS and Worksystems, Inc. to connect high school students with job exploration opportunities through a new program called BizConnect. I can leverage these and other relationships to increase opportunities for PPS students."

Innocent language, perhaps, but to me, Knowles emphasis on bringing businesses into the schools as partners for "job preparation" betrays a narrow vision of what a quality education is all about.

Scott Bailey is the clear choice in this election for the Zone 5 school board position.  

*(Here's a pertinent newsletter from CPPS regarding school choice.)

Why we need Steve Novick as our next governor

We need Steve Novick as our next governor for one compelling reason:

Unlike current Governor Ted Kulongoski, Novick is not averse to increasing taxes.  Oregon hasn't raised sufficient revenue to run its programs for decades --not for schools, for health care, or for public safety.  Steve Novick is just the man to fix that.

Two recent pieces he's written illustrate that point.

The first is a sort of tongue-in-cheek Oregonian op-ed entitled "Taxes and televsion --more bang for your buck!"  In the piece, Novick lists the top ten television shows "paid for by your tax dollars."  Here's an example:

"ER":  A grim, determined group of medical professionals in a County hospital fight to save the lives of their patients, many of whom are poor and/or old and whose bills are paid by Medicare and Medicaid. Paid for by County property taxes and your Federal income and FICA tax dollars, with Medicaid matching funds provided by the State.

The second is a post on Blue Oregon criticizing comments made by Allen Alley, a potential Republican gubernatorial candidate.  What does Novick find suspect?

"Mr. Alley should be aware that it is thoroughly misleading to imply that a significant portion of Oregon tax dollars are ‘redistributed’ to ‘failing businesses and individuals.’  The largest portion of Oregon tax dollars is spent on public schools. Does Mr. Alley regard Oregon’s students and teachers as ‘failing’?  Another large portion is spent on health care for poor children and families and long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities.  Does Mr. Alley consider poor children and families without health insurance, and seniors and people with disabilities who cannot afford long-term care, to be ‘failures’?"

That's the kind of campaign we can expect Novick to run against Alley or any other tax-bashing Republican candidate for governor of Oregon.  (Or weak-kneed Democrat, for that matter.)

Novick is "da man" to lead Oregon as its next governor.

Base denial

Over at PPS Equity, in an excellent discussion about eradicating poverty as a primary tool for real school reform, teacher-in-training Ken suggests

"Instead of adding 100,000 more troops (like Obama has proposed), why don’t we put more people into classrooms? A single American troop costs $201,000 a year these days (up from $78,000 in 2001) - so 100,000 more troops ends up being $200,000,000*."

Ken correctly identifies the tension between the Pentagon and public education over the allocation of public resources.  The defense budget for fiscal year 2008, with supplemental spending for Iraq and Afghanistan plus additional funding necessary to sustain the global war on terrorism, totals $716.5 billion.   Add in the budget for Veterans Affairs, and the total expenditures for the military alone consume nearly a quarter of the budget. 

Federal spending on education amounts to a mere 2% of the total budget. 

How is the money for "defense" being spent?  Well, for starters, the Pentagon has built  and maintains 761 military bases in at least 39 countries around the world --more actually. As Chalmers Johnson writes,

"The official figures omit espionage bases, those located in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and miscellaneous facilities in places considered too sensitive to discuss or which the Pentagon for its own reasons chooses to exclude—e.g. in Israel, Kosovo, or Jordan."

The precise extent of the worldwide American military presence, then, is not public knowledge.  Suffice it to say that our military footprint is larger than the government is willing to admit.  Johnson calls the 761 acknowledged sites "a remarkable example of imperial overstretch."

You read that right --"imperial", as in empire. 

"To garrison its empire, [Johnson says] as of last December, the United States had 510,927 service personnel (including sailors afloat) deployed in 151 foreign countries. This includes some 196,600 fighting in Iraq and 25,700 in Afghanistan."

It costs a lot of money to maintain such a worldwide military presence, money that some argue could be more effectively spent to combat terror in other ways. 

David Oliver Relin, writing in today's Oregonian, suggests a better use  for taxpayer money:

"The cheapest and most effective way to fight extremism is not by military means alone, but by improving people's lives, by building schools, roads, medical facilities, clean water supplies and seeding the ground with economic opportunity."

Relin is the Portland author of Three Cups of Tea, the remarkable chronicle of an American ex-mountain climber, who does just that --builds schools for poor Pakistani children, both boys and girls, in the remote Karakoram region near the disputed border (Kashmir) with India.  It costs Greg Mortenson roughly $12,000, with volunteer help of Pakistani villagers,  to build a four room school house with desks, books and school uniforms.

I predict that one day Greg Mortenson, the ex-climber, will win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to "improve the lives" of impoverished Muslims who might otherwise succumb to the siren call of Islamic extremism. 

I also recommend --urge, in fact-- Barack Obama read Three Cups of Tea in the weeks before his inauguration.

*(One hundred thousand additional troops, according to Ken's figures, would actually cost $20 billion, not $200 million.)

 

Brits to raise income tax on wealthy

From the Financial Times:

"National insurance* contributions for both employees and employers will rise by 0.5 per cent. Those earning more than £100,000 will pay more income tax – with those on £150,000 facing a new higher tax rate of 45 per cent... ."

In American dollars, £150,000 is about $230,000, less than Barack Obama's $250,000 threshold for raising taxes on rich Americans (assuming he follows through on it.)

According to the British Institute for Public Policy Research, the package of new tax policies will result in "the most redistributive budget ... of the last thirty years", primarily benefiting the poor:

"By introducing a higher rate of tax, raising national insurance contributions, rebalancing and increasing personal tax allowances and enhancing child and pensioner benefits, the tax burden will be shifted away from those who can least afford to shoulder it."

A European social democracy at work. 

*(National insurance, or NIC, refers to national health, which the Brits, along with most of the rest of the civilized world, have.  And we don't.)

And then there's music

As a follow-up to yesterday's post, Mike Bell reminds us that music also suffers when funding for public education declines.  For poor kids, anyway.

"The money gap goes much deeper in our high schools than the wages of a physical trainer in football programs. You can see very clearly how large the gap is by watching our neighborhood parades in the spring and summer. Some high school bands proudly march by with $50,000 in uniforms and instruments while some schools have a $100 second-hand boom box and $50 worth of T-shirts."

Reminds me of what I wrote two years ago about instrumental music all but disappearing from Portland's high schools as a consequence of Measure 5 and the failure of the state legislature to "muster the will" to replace money lost to schools with the property tax limitation.  In that post the main villain was school choice and the resulting depopulation of Portland's poorest schools. 

School choice might be of less consequence were more money available for schools generally.  But we'd ultimately still witness the same glaring inequities in parent involvement and school demographics that are so apparent today in Portland.

When all the "good" kids and their parents are allowed to congregate in a handful of desirable schools, bad things happen.  Even with adequate funding. 

Private wealth, public squalor

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith famously claimed an inverse relationship between the public good and the growth of private wealth.  Without government intervention, meaning  "massive public investment... to improve social goods in spheres where the private sector [is] unwilling to invest", the amalgamation of great private wealth inevitably results in what Galbraith called "public squalor"*. 

I can think of no better test of that thesis than the effect on public schools of Oregon's 1990 property tax limitation, Measure 5.   In its remarkable series on the disparity between the ability of rich and poor schools to field successful football teams, the Oregonian fingers Measure 5 as the culprit:

"Measure 5, the statewide property-tax cap that voters passed in 1990, slashed extracurricular spending by an inflation-adjusted average of 30 percent in 10 school districts with prominent football teams. Wealthier communities are better equipped to fill the gap, especially in the flagship sport of football... ."

Measure 5 did more than cut funds for sports.  Academic programs have been affected as well.  According to an analysis done by Oregon State University's Bruce Weber, overall funding for public education declined as Measure 5 was phased in:

"Indeed, in 1993-1994, total school operating revenues declined 5
percent because increases in state aid were not large enough to offset
declines in school property taxes. ...

"...Oregon's tax burden will shrink as Measure 5 completes its five-year phase-in, from its current level of 11.5 percent of income (placing Oregon around the middle
in a ranking of the fifty states) to its projected 10.3 percent in1996 (placing Oregon around 40th in this ranking)."

Wealthier school districts --Lake Oswego, for example, with a student poverty rate of about 4% and a median household income of over $100,000-- can afford, through foundations and other fund raising efforts, to provide first rate facilities and other amenities to help its sports programs succeed.  Portland's Benson Tech --with a poverty rate of 57%-- cannot. 

Football is simply a metaphor for the inability of schools in poor communities to provide adequate educational programs to its students.  That's what happens when people decide they can no longer afford to pay the taxes that support public education. Who suffers?

Poor kids. 

There are those who dispute the notion that public education promotes the public, or common, good.  They object to the government "monopoly" on education.  They promote school choice and charter schools.  They advocate a greater market influence in deciding how schools are run.  They argue that parents should decide which schools are fit for their children to attend.  In the end, through the magic of the marketplace, we'll be left with only strong schools. 

I'm not one of those.  I believe as a society we're obligated to nurture the least capable among us.  That's especially true in public education.  Either we provide all our children with equitable educational opportunities, or we end up with two drastically different systems --a Lake Oswego for the fortunate, a Benson for the less fortunate.

I call that a stark example of private wealth living side by side with public squalor.

* (In an interview with The Progressive, Galbraith explained his juxtaposition of "public squalor" and "private affluence" this way:

"There's no question that in my lifetime, the contrast between what I called private affluence and public squalor has become very much greater. What do we worry about? We worry about our schools. We worry about our public recreational facilities. We worry about our law enforcement and our public housing. All of the things that bear upon our standard of living are in the public sector. We don't worry about the supply of automobiles. We don't even worry about the supply of foods. Things that come from the private sector are in abundant supply; things that depend on the public sector are widely a problem. We're a world, as I said in The Affluent Society, of filthy streets and clean houses, poor schools and expensive television. I consider that contrast to be one of my most successful arguments."

Progressive versus liberal, redux

Blue Oregon's Kari Chisholm has written a provocative post on the vital connection between  progressives and labor.  The title of his piece says it all: 

"You can't be a progressive unless you're pro-labor."

Down the comment thread, it's suggested that perhaps progressive should be clearly defined  --and differentiated from the "catch all" term, liberal. 

Two years ago I did just that.  Here's what I wrote:

Progressive versus liberal

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

*******************************

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

I've been asked on more than one occasion why I refer to myself as a progressive rather than simply a liberal, the implication being that the two terms are pretty much synonymous.  So let me set the record straight:

They're not.  Synonymous, that is. 

What's the difference?  In a word, taxes! 

Progressives like me believe in fully funding  vital government services   --education, health care, environmental protection, public safety, the regulation of private industry-- through a fair system of taxation.  And by "fair" I mean based on the ability to pay.  The more money you have, the more you should pay in taxes.  That's the foundation of the graduated --or progressive-- income tax.   Even Adam Smith, as I've written, accepted that notion of tax fairness.  As taxes become flatter --the top marginal income tax rate, once 91% under Eisenhower, is now 36%-- fairness suffers.

Most prominent "liberals" have a different view.  Let me give you an example.  Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden, a staunch liberal, is pushing what he calls a "fair flat tax", the operative word being "flat", not progressive.  On the other hand, candidate for Multnomah County Commission Xander Patterson, a true progressive whom I endorsed, proposed a graduated county income tax to fund programs the county doesn't have the money for.  None of his "liberal" primary opponents did. 

Liberals tend to coddle corporations.  Why?  Politics is one reason.  Even the most liberal members of Congress, like John Kerry, rely on corporate money to fund their campaigns.  But ideology also plays a role.  All liberals believe in the magic of the free market, and many, especially "neoliberals", believe in the deregulation of private industry.  Very few, therefore,  are outspoken on the need to raise the corporate share of the overall tax burden. 

Nor are there many liberals sincerely beating the drums for national health care, perhaps the single most pressing issue of our time, let alone anyone calling for an adequate national retirement system.  As David Sirota points out, liberals like Senator Barack Obama often propose half measures to ease health care burdens on industry.  Obama's "health care to hybrids" proposal is little more than a bribe to the auto industry.

National health care is a "big" idea requiring a "big" investment of taxpayer money, and liberals aren't inclined to think big.  Progressives are.  Or at least this progressive is.  I've written on more than one occasion that relieving the private  sector of its health and pension obligations for employees would be a boon for business.  And a boon for public education, where health care costs are spiraling out of control. 

The trade-off, of course, is a higher tax burden.  And "tax" is a dirty word in American politics.  That's true for conservatives and for liberals.

*******************************

Since I wrote that, we've seen "progressive" Oregon candidate for the Senate, Jeff Merkley, attack his primary opponent, Steve Novick, as "pro-tax."   Merkley's latest proposal, to counter Republican Gordon Smith's accusation that Merkley himself is "pro-tax", is for an additional tax cut for the upper middle class.

Blue Oregon recently posted this by Chuck Sheketoff of the Oregon Center for Public Policy debunking the Republican claim that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The effective corporate tax rate, he points out, is a far different matter. 

Progressives in Oregon have long clamored for corporations to pay their fair share of  income taxes.  Corporate income taxes have shrunk from about 17% of the total collected in Oregon to about 6%.  Individual taxpayers have made up the difference. 

Back to Merkley.  Instead of proposing a slight increase in the top marginal rate for taxpayers who benefited from Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, or an increase in corporate taxes, to fund children's health care in Oregon, he and the Oregon legislature referred a cigarette tax to the voters.  

It was soundly defeated.  Not just by Big Tobacco, but by those who were offended that a small nicotine-addicted segment of Oregon's citizenry should bear the total cost of an otherwise worthy health care plan.

For me anyway, the bottom line is that "liberals" when running for office shy away from not only the "L" word, but also the "T" word.  Even IN office, most liberals are loath to propose either higher broad-based taxes or tax reform. 

True progressives aren't so squeamish.

Willamette Week outs Barbara Roberts as closet video poker player

The irony is that the introduction of video poker to the Oregon Lottery occurred while Barbara Roberts was Oregon's governor.   The WWeek article says that Roberts was "ambivalent" about the video poker bill, which she allowed to become law without her signature.

Big mistake.  With the subsequent addition of video slot machines, Lottery revenues now account for 7% of the state's budget.  Some blame the ever-increasing revenue from state-sponsored gambling for the reluctance of Oregon's voters to approve tax increases, or to consider any significant reform of Oregon's tax code.

But that may all change come January 1, when Oregon's ban on indoor smoking takes effect.  It seems that video gambling addicts are also usually hooked on nicotine.  They typically chain smoke while they play.  The smoking ban, therefore, does not bode well for Lottery revenues in the coming year.

I heard Willy Week editor Mark Zusman interviewed on KPOJ's early show this morning.  The ever informative Thom Hartmann pointed out that addictive behavior has been linked to a dopamine receptor gene, so it came as no surprise to him that compulsive gamblers are often also heavy smokers. 

Like me, Hartmann bemoans the rise of state-sponsored gambling in Oregon.  It's a tax on the most vulnerable of our citzens, he says, those with chemically induced compulsions.  They're exploited by the state in the scramble for easy money.

Barbara Roberts, of course, was a mere coda to Willamette Week's examination of the future of the Oregon Lottery.  She was one of three women portrayed in the piece, and, aside from the irony, by no means the most important.  The other two were described as  the "winner" and the "loser" (the latter has sworn off video gambling.)

The "winner", as Willamette Week described her, is more likely a loser as well.  She claims to have won $494,000 since early 2000 on Keno alone while gambling $500 a week.  According to my calculations, the "winner" has spent well over $200,000 on the lottery.  That means either she won a few big Keno prizes as well as some video poker jackpots, or she's pouring a lot more into the machines than she's willing to admit.

Lottery games, you see, guarantee that the player, over time, loses.  I once calculated that the Oregon Lottery returned no more than 40 cents on the dollar.  That means that if you put $10,000 into the machines, you'll lose $6,000.  Guaranteed.  These are games of chance.  Not skill.  

Barbara Roberts claims that the games she plays at Kay's Bar and Grill are fun.  I say they're anything but.  If you want to gamble, play low stakes poker once a week as I used to do.  That's fun.  And you can actually win in a poker game with some skill.  And a little bit of luck.

Wall Street socialism doesn't go far enough

Socialism?  Take it from Alex Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that celebrates free market capitalism :

"We're deep into socialism at the moment.  But when you're in the soup, you've got to take these actions even if it isn't something you'd normally want to do. The trick is, once you're out of the crisis, how do you get yourself out of these non-market measures?"

Excuse me while I giggle. 

But here's the problem from a progressive point of view.  The bailout of Wall Street's financial sector --the buying up of bad loans-- simply doesn't go far enough.  It's socialism alright, but socialism for the rich.  It does nothing for working class taxpayers and people who are being thrown out of their homes. 

Over the weekend Paul Krugman gave it some deep thought, and he says "no deal" to the Treasury bailout:

"... historically, financial system rescues have involved seizing the troubled institutions and guaranteeing their debts... . The feds took over S&Ls first, protecting their depositors, then transferred their bad assets to the RTC. The Swedes took over troubled banks, again protecting their depositors, before transferring their assets to their equivalent institutions."

That's closer to real socialism --the state seizing the (financial) means of production in order to benefit the little guys, the common people.  The Treasury plan seems to benefit only the fat cats.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo says pretty much the same thing.  So does William Greider in The Nation.  Only he goes a little further: 

"If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims."

The way I see it, the swindle is thoroughly bi-partisan.  The Democrats take as much money from Wall Street as Republicans, or nearly as much anyway.  And don't forget --every Democratic legislator is rich and probably heavily invested in the "market".  So of course they're  eager to back the bailout. 

The Democrats are supposedly the party of the common man.  But when it comes to Wall Street, there is no common man. 

Glenn Greenwald describes the bailout in even harsher terms:

"We've retroactively created a win-only system where the wealthiest corporations and their shareholders are free to gamble for as long as they win and then force others who have no upside to pay for their losses. Watching Wall St. erupt with an orgy of celebration on Friday after it became clear the Government (i.e., you) would pay for their disaster was literally nauseating, as the very people who wreaked this havoc are now being rewarded."

As I said, it's socialism for the rich.