It appears likely the woman would have died if Booker hadn't intervened so I don't think you can criticize him too much even if he wasn't a trained firefighter.
I think this piece doesn't quite hit its mark. I generally agree with a lot of the things said in it, to wit, that American politics is too personality focused and that it is better to rely on robust, tax-supported public services than on heroic individuals. But those things don't quite match up with the story at hand. Sure, we need good, well supported fire fighters. But that doesn't mean than an individual can never jump in to help someone.
I haven't read much coverage surrounding the Booker story. Are people saying that it's good he was there because the fire department sucks so much / is so slow / can't be relied upon ?
The link is a joke, right, not actual criticism of Booker for rescuing a neighbor? I mean, the general thrust of it is right -- we don't want politicians to be expected to be Superman. But that doesn't make what Booker did a bad thing in any sense, just irrelevant to his performance as mayor. (Not entirely irrelevant -- I do think generally well of him for it -- but mostly irrelevant.)
H-g's 'history's greatest monster' intro is a joke, but I didn't read the linked piece as joking.
not actual criticism of Booker for rescuing a neighbor
This is actually one of the ways the piece rings weird for me. It isn't exactly criticism of him, though it sort of wants to be. But then linking his rescue of a neighbor to his tax policies and outsourcing doesn't work.
I read the bit about "and he is not a trained firefighter and it was very dangerous and the firemen said people shouldn't do that" in the Comic Book Guy voice. Or maybe Stapler Guy.
Personality-driven politics are annoying and Booker far too into charter school nonsense, but what he did would have garnered at least local coverage if he were just some civilian walking down the street.
4
H-g's 'history's greatest monster' intro is a joke, but I didn't read the linked piece as joking.
It comes across as from someone who hates Booker so much he can't give him credit for anything.
What I don't get about the Booker story is why his security detail guy didn't run in instead. That in combination with the story about Booker monitoring the police scanner and sort of looking for trouble make for somewhat wack aspects. But, you know, he saved that woman.
That woman might grow up to be Hitler 2.02.
He was at home at night -- does the mayor of Newark have security staying with him? Maybe he does, but it seems kind of like overkill.
I just looked at a story, and yes, there was a security detail. The story sounded as if the security guys weren't going to run into a burning building (sensibly) so Booker did instead.
Mostly, it sounds as if Booker's a physically brave and impulsive guy. This really isn't a qualification for being a good mayor, but I can't call it a drawback.
The story sounded as if the security guys weren't going to run into a burning building (sensibly) so Booker did instead.
It's called "force preservation," I think.
11: the one security dude did run into the building, just not through the burning kitchen.
And I sort of wouldn't be surprised if Booker wanted to do it himself, as opposed to the security dudes not wanting to do it and him being forced to go in their stead.
14: That'd make sense, if he's both physically brave and a showboating egotist. Given that he's a politician, you know he's a showboating egotist (or, at least 9 out of 10). Directing that kind of flaw into random acts of heroism seems at least harmless.
(I'd be really sympathetic to judging Booker negatively if there were an argument that on the night, the neighbor he pulled out of the building would have been just fine if he'd waited for the professionals. Given that that doesn't seem to be the case, though, I'm happy with cutting him some slack for being a showoff.)
Cory Booker is awesome and this is one of the dumbest blog posts I've read in a while.
Saying that Booker's efforts as Mayor of Newark (colossally underfunded, no tax base, facing public service crises everywhere) somehow imply that he would be against providing decent public services at a higher level of government is inane.
If I were Booker I would have the author shot, or at least imprisoned in a Newark forced labor camp. We'll see how much he really wants to help the proletariat then.
He was at home at night -- does the mayor of Newark have security staying with him?
In the stories I've read, he was returning home from a TV interview and saw the house on fire. I was not aware that Booker is 6'4", 250 pounds (and played tight end at Stanford). That's a big guy.
Sadly, I really don't have time to participate in this today.
For the record, I actually think Robin is being a tool here. My arguments*:
A. This was his neighbor's house; my understanding is that he personally knew the woman he saved. That puts his actions squarely in the realm of brave, but human and normal. I doubt I'd have the guts to run into a fire that I randomly passed, but I'd be much more likely to go into the house of the drug dealer next door if I thought his 8-y.o. daughter was in there. Point being, I think it's suspect, if not dishonest, to accuse Booker of showboating here.
B. Robin is essentially blaming Booker for the actions of the press in valorizing Booker. Should Booker have tried to cover up his actions? Should Booker have let his neighbor die lest the press valorize him? WTF does Robin think Booker should have done? Are only private citizens allowed to be personally heroic? Or is Robin foursquare against all personal heroism? Does he have a series of posts excoriating the Carnegie Hero Awards? Or is this a made-up standard invented to slag someone that Robin dislikes?
C. The point about Booker's policies (supposedly) reducing the effectiveness of Newark's emergency responders due to neoliberal dogma is interesting and potentially valuable, but not as just a blanket attack. If Robin wants to do some legwork and show that, pre-Booker, the firefighters would have arrived in time, but post-Booker, they didn't, then that would be awesome and interesting and lead to an important discussion about how we spend money in our cities. But if that's not the case - if the NFD's response times haven't been harmed by Booker's policies - then it's mostly irrelevant, and chiefly serves as one of these tiresome "Senator X voted for Y, yet in his own personal life is not-Y" claims that, 90% of the time, is a gesture towards hypocrisy in lieu of an actual argument.
D. I totally agree with Robin on a basic, "Hey, physical bravery doesn't say anything about Booker's qualifications for higher office" argument. But pulling in this Zizek crap just overwhelms that argument, trying to make it much grander than it really is. Which is very toolish.
* all of which are predicated on the original reportage being basically correct. Obviously, if it turns out that Booker set the fire, I retract everything.
The linked article isn't necessarily wrong, but the germ of a good idea in it is overwhelmed by the bad writing.
It's true that we shouldn't rely on Batman or lucky, selfless altruists to make up for the lack of a welfare state, social safety net and sane government. Too bad that Cory Booker is irrelevant to that. Even in Sweden or some hypothetical place with perfect public services, it would still be needed now and then for people to take extraordinary risks for each other, even government employees acting as private citizens. The fact that the person who did so was already moderately famous guaranteed that it would be newsworthy for at least a day or two, and the fact that it's an elected politician - not a breed known for selflessness* - makes it all the more impressive.
And comparing Booker to Stalin is just the blogger trolling his own blog.
* Sure, he profited from it in the end with all the good press, and it wouldn't have taken a genius to predict that. No one will ever know what was in his heart at the time. It probably wasn't 100.00 percent altruistic. But even so, giving someone credit for risking their life to save someone else should be a no-brainer.
A true leader, upon seeing a fire, proceeds to calmly take out his lyre and plays.
Now that Cory Robin has become history's greatest monster, I may have take another look at him and his work.
No one has mentioned the race of the woman he saved -- isn't that the determining factor regarding the ethics of the rescue?
The answer to the OP, by the way, is that first you shoot Booker, and then you shoot yourself for your unforgivable failure in not having brought any grenades.
Honestly, not a bad trolling attempt but Robin is no match for the trolls here. McManus and Shearer would both totally dominate him in Battle: Trolls.
24: Right. Also elaborating on the hypothetical in 15, she may have been a planted "wag the dog" next-door grandma in distress. What were his approval ratings doing leading up to the event.
27: Right. One of the worst cases of premature Godwinism* I've ever seen.
*To all but the most ideological fuckwits (or worse, actual working historians) Hitler, Stalin and Mao have rhetorically merged.
Lots of crooked mayors keep an extra grandma in their sock in case they need to plant one.
30: "Wag the dog" was "throwdown" until just before it went to press. I blame my editor.
15: Why hasn't anyone in the press asked if Booker started the fire while he was cooking meth in the basement? Obviously a case of librul media bias.
Overreaching.
Social organization that works well is a fantasy. Humans only cooperate with each other successfully in the service of clear goals which they have very strong incentives to achieve. Otherwise, dysfunction, whether shambolic or through overregulation, is the norm.
One hero who happens to be the leader is a ridiculous fantasy, but comparing the mayor of a struggling city, whose social standing is equivalent to that of a regionally popular athlete, with Stalin is dumb. Not least because of who praises-- Stalin praised himself, while Cory Booker's fans are volunteers who he cannot punish. Also, Žižek is lazy and inconsistent, not especially amusing, I don't like him much.
Isn't this basically the same level of argumentation seen in Liberal Fascism? "They're not the same, but by using very vague descriptions, I can make one look reminiscent of the other."
To all but the most ideological fuckwits (or worse, actual working historians) Hitler, Stalin and Mao have rhetorically merged.
Hitmaolin!
19: I'd be much more likely to go into the house of the drug dealer next door if I thought his 8-y.o. daughter was in there.
That's a... curiously specific example.
OT, but I did run across it via a link in Robin's blog post: could The Killer Swan be the next great horror movie franchise?
Let's try that again: could The Killer Swan be the next great horror movie franchise?
It was his own swan, which I guess shows that swans are like guns in that respect.
Hitmaolin!
I have eaten it -- as have most of you, I presume, because it is a common inert ingredient in pharmaceuticals.
I've never eaten swan, but I suppose it tastes like chicken if chicken could murder you.
Probably Mayor Booker has been watching The Contender.
It's no Jurassic Park, I'll tell you what.
Funny, I would have thought I'd already told this story here, but I can't find it in the archives. The local paper in the town where my mother has a beach house reported one week on a man who had been arrested for killing a swan. The next week, half the paper was devoted to letters in support of the man: the swan had apparently been terrorizing a waterfront neighborhood for years. Drowning small dogs, overturning boats with children in them, biting people -- the swan was worse than Cory Booker.
That's a... curiously specific example.
Oh, just because I've talked about that situation here before (and I saw her yesterday for the first time in awhile; there was a really big bust at the house a few months ago, and we've seen the mom and adult cousin, but neither the dad/dealer - presumably in jail - nor the daughter).
Actually, we live literally within a half mile of the nearest fire station, so their response time is amazing. I called once for a fire in a garage in our alley, and they arrived within 1 or 2 minutes.
45: But why did you need a fire in a garage in your alley?
One of my neighbors needed a fire truck and there were so many people parking like shit that the last 100 yards took a while. People responded by refraining from parking like assholes for 48 hours.
14: That'd make sense, if he's both physically brave and a showboating egotist. Given that he's a politician, you know he's a showboating egotist (or, at least 9 out of 10). Directing that kind of flaw into random acts of heroism seems at least harmless.
One can only hope more politicians follow his lead.
44: In England, I'm told, all the swans belong to the crown. I suppose that it would be a crime to harm one.
In England, I'm told, all the swans belong to the crown.
Pro tem., at least. Apart from those that belong to the Dyers or the Vintners.
But I have known a couple of people who've eaten the things nevertheless. Neither of them was in a hurry to try it again.
44: Timely story. Too bad Cory Booker wasn't driving by* when this happened, "Killer Swan Blamed for Man's Drowning".
*In a Chicago suburb, the same one which murdered my aunt's shrubbery it turns out.
if chicken could murder you
If? Herman Cain would like a word with you.
I suppose that it would be a crime to harm one.
52: It's a crime to kill or injure any wild bird (with 20 or so exceptions, not including swams) without a licence.
Where can you apply for a license to injury wild birds? That would be handy to have, just in case.
I liked the first couple Injury Swams record before they signed with Jagjaguwar.
58: Even pigeons? If it's illegal to feed them, because there are too many in London, it should totally be legal to kill them. Tom Lehrer would approve.
Where can you apply for a license to injury wild birds?
Serious answer? In Britain you apply to your local government authority, city or county as it might be. The license is costly. You also need a gun license, unless you're proposing to use a bow.
58: Even pigeons? If it's illegal to feed them, because there are too many in London, it should totally be legal to kill them. Tom Lehrer would approve.
Well it's not, unless you get a licence. A random punter can't just, say, poison pigeon feed.
Using a gun would probably kill the birds. I just want to injure them.
63. No, you can shoot as many pigeons as you like, when you like, provided you're a licensed gun owner. If you try to do it in Trafalgar Square they'll bang you up for disturbing the peace, or endangerment or something.
What if you propose to use a sling? Do you still need a gun license?
Using a gun would probably kill the birds. I just want to injure them.
Oh right. No restriction on catapults, that I know of.
Oh right. No restriction on catapults, that I know of.
But there is a restriction on using them to injure wild birds.
64: Bow hunting sounds kind of nifty. The guy I visit in prison is an avid outdoorsman. For obvious reasons he won't be able to get a gun post-release, so he plans to take up bow hunting.
What if you just want to throw the gun at them in hopes of injury.
I have a hunting bow, but no arrows.
72: Plus it's handy in a zombie apocalypse, or so TV tells me.
I don't watch zombie TV, but since arrows are designed to kill by exsanguination, I don't see what use archery would be against zombies.
Aim for the brain, of course. Quieter than a gun, so it doesn't attract roamers.
At least as far as zombie TV goes, pretty much any penetration of the skull is sufficient to kill a zombie. They don't seem to rely on destruction of the entire brain or even a specific part of it.
65 et seq: So the situation is that if I want to injure pigeons by non-shotgun means, I need a special pigeon-injuring licence, but if I want to injure them with a shotgun, all I need is a shotgun licence? That seems wrong somehow. Presumably I'm not allowed to injure pigeons by running them over even if I have a valid driving licence. Nor would my TV licence allow me to beat pigeons to death with my TV. I would need the pigeon-injuring licence too. Right?
Or am I suffering the effects of spending 16 hours last night flying home from Narnia in that my brain is giving way?
Yes, this is possible.
Often, the skull doesn't even need to be penetrated, just cracked. I regret even the small amount of time I've spent thinking about zombie physiology.
The latter. To harm pigeons in any way, you need a licence. To do it with a gun, you need another licence as well.
By the way, I checked, and bow-hunting of wild birds is expressly forbidden.
Or am I suffering the effects of spending 16 hours last night flying home from Narnia in that my brain is giving way?
How was Narnia? Did you encounter any of its famous denizens?
By the way, I checked, and bow-hunting of wild birds is expressly forbidden.
In enlighted topless America, at least in some states, you can use a bow for turkey hunting.
What I saw of Narnia was nice, but I only spent less than a day there - I was really only transiting through en route for the actual holiday in Archenland, Calormene, and, er, whatever is to the north of Archenland. The Lantern Waste? I'm back there later this year, though, and will have the best part of a week holed up in the Cair Paravel Four Seasons to meet up with famous Narnians.
To the OP, oh good grief. I see that this has been well covered, but for heaven's sake, Robin apparently can't stand Booker and chooses to toss a bunch of non-sequiturs his way.
From the link:
Indeed: what kind of country is this?
Huh?
By the way, I checked, and bow-hunting of wild birds is expressly forbidden.
I would like someone to provide me with just a single, hypothetical example by which firing an arrow into the sky could have malign unintended circumstances.
You can't do it, my friends.
You can hunt deer (within city limits), using a bow and arrow, in our town.
The wikipedia page on turkey hunting mentions that there are "guillotine" arrowheads designed to remove the whole head. I'd hate to fall out of a tree stand while holding one of those.
56: Swans have been known to kill not even with their beaks, but simply by the clever use of pwnage. Take that, zombies.
It's a terrible tragedy for the victim and his family, of course. And I know that I'm probably a bad person for thinking immediately of the hilariously awful horror-movie scenes one could make with The Killer Swan capsizing and terrorizing, and very slowly drowning, kayakers all up and down a river.
If I'm successful with my half marathon, I'm going to hunt the true paleo way. I'll probably look for the slowest deer in Frick Park.
||
Hired a tax preparer this year, and just got the numbers in. I'll spare you the details, but here's the key number: taking into account food stamps, our marginal tax rate from 2009, when we were well below the poverty line, to 2011, when we reached (roughly) median income, is 83%, give or take.
Fuck me.
|>
85: Obviously I meant results, not circumstances. I blame the IRS.
I'll probably look for the slowest deer in Frick Park.
My first dog once went into the woods there after a deer. She didn't come out for about 20 minutes.
A husky, mind you; not the most skilled of hunters.
I assume your dog doesn't have a phone with GPS. Not that GPS will work in 85% of Frick.
What does "taking into account food stamps" mean there? You're counting decreases in food stamps as an increase in tax? Or as a decrease in income?
It's a terrible tragedy for the victim and his family
His father-in-law seemed pretty thoughtful in going through hypotheticals that cast the victim in an unfavorable light.
94: My gross income has gone up by X. The difference between what I sent the feds in 2009 (negative dollars, due to EITC and SNAP) and what I'm sending this year is 0.87X.
95: Does it matter? It's safety-net income that went down as a direct result of getting more employment income. (EITC slowly phases out as income increases, to keep this very thing from happening, but food stamps and a lot of other programs don't, I believe.)
Fundamentally, it answers the question, oft asked in this household, "if we're earning so much more money, why don't we feel any less cash-strapped?" In terms of "money available to be spent on things," we've been able to keep about $0.13 out of every extra dollar we've earned.
America, fuck yeah.
I believe JRoth found this on my FB, where I posted it approvingly. However, StayFocusd is blocking me out now, so I'll be back to demolish 19 on my lunch break. Get excited.
I am especially looking forward to your attempt to defend the author's use of that Žižek quote.
Self-employed persons do get hit harder by the prevailing tax code than non-self-employed persons, JRoth. So yeah.
88: Swans have been known to kill not even with their beaks, but simply by the clever use of pwnage.
We're supposed to click links? And I now have no idea why I thought LB and others were talking about swans. Not only was it his swan, but one he "employed" for its aggressive qualities. So it might be best characterized as an instance of class awakening among guard labor.
The difference between what I sent the feds in 2009 (negative dollars, due to EITC and SNAP) and what I'm sending this year is 0.87X.
Numbers are a mystery to me, but I don't understand this, either. (What is .87 of a negative dollar?) But, more generally, how can you have a federal marginal tax rate of 87%?
(What is .87 of a negative dollar?)
On the whole, this comment thread is doing really well! Keep up the good work, everyone!
Oh, wait, I see what the X is. How is that remotely possible? Do you have to pay back the full amount of the EITC or something? Do you have no business expenses at all? The top marginal rate isn't anywhere near 87%.
Not understanding math goes on the other thread.
Let's imagine the Roth household making $20K plus $12K in EITC and SNAP in 2007, i.e. negative income tax plus food stamps. Let's say their 2011 income is $40K, no SNAP and a positive $X of taxes such that X+12K =(0.87)$20K. What is X? Your answer will be graded by prof. Geebie.
Usually I'd say that talking about percentages in situations where the answer could go above 100% is likely to be misleading, but in this case I think it actually makes sense.
As people have said, it's self-employment that's killing you here. In particular, you're actually well below median in total compensation because most people's compensation includes payroll tax and health care.
EITC is supposed to help with these things (for example, you can use the EITC to offset self-employment tax), but EITC is complicated and so somehow is messing up here.
109: My business expenses were very low this year - no new equipment except a phone, I bike to half my meetings (I suppose I could claim the bike...), home office (which ends up being a tiny number, since my house was cheap). AB's expenses are even less.
Actually, the vast majority of it is from the self-employment tax. I suppose I'll be thankful for that once I turn 65 (or 70 or whenever).
Basically, gross household income then was $18k, SNAP was worth $7500, and thanks to EITC we got back $5700. Now, income is about $50k, and we owe $13k (that includes state & local, but those totaled about $1000 back then, so...).
I'm sure that tax wonks would calculate this more rigorously, but the bottom line is that we've earned $32k more, but have only 2 or 3 grand more to show for it.
109: If I understand what JRoth is saying, he's counting both the EITC and food stamps as paying negative tax. So in 2010 he made $X, and received ($EITC+$Foodstamps) from the government. In 2011 he made $Y, received nothing from the government, and paid $Z in taxes. His change in taxes from 2010 to 2011 (Δ Tax) is $EITC+$Foodstamps+$Z. His change in income (Δ Income) is $Y-$X. Δ Tax = 87%(Δ Income).
Or to put it another way, for every extra dollar he made in 2011, he either lost 87 cents in benefits, or once he exceeded the total amount of benefits he had received in the past, paid 87 cents in taxes.
SNAP is clearly a disincentive. Abolish it, so that JRoth can know the dignity of work!
Multiply pwned, but I'm the only one who used greek letters.
114.2 is a very good way to put it.
116: You only used one greek letter, you just used it many times.
113: Actually, the vast majority of it is from the self-employment tax.
Right. Yes.
118: I blame you for hiring me to design your super-fabulous addition.
121: Hiring you was good; the problem was that they paid you.
113: JRoth, you should claim the bike. Also claim the coffee you have during the work day, and, frankly, the toilet paper you use (obviously you can't really map this out clearly; it's a silly example), because if you were non-self-employed, those things would be provided by your employer. I realize it sounds ridiculous; but as it stands, the self-employed pay out of pocket for any number of things that the non-self-employed don't.
your super-fabulous addition
It totals numbers and butters her toast and wipes her kids' behinds.
119: YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME GREEK LETTER TWICE.
Yeah, it does seem to be the self-employment tax that does most of the work here. I was trying to construct an example of a household going from $7.5K to $90K employment income, but I only got a marginal rate of 19%.
the toilet paper you use (obviously you can't really map this out clearly)
"From up here, it looks like Hawaii!"
Oh hey, I'm pretty sure that we paid over a 100% marginal tax rate from 2010 to 2011. Income rose by about $10k, taxes went up by over $10k, plus we were still getting SNAP in 2010.
Holy fuck.
PS - It's also possible that our tax preparer isn't very good, but I'm discounting that possibility for now.
PPS - Also possible that I was (inadvertently!) cheating on my taxes in previous years. But I always tried to be scrupulous, so I doubt there were huge mistakes.
Income rose by about $10k, taxes went up by over $10k
OK, I'm not afraid to demonstrate that I'm an idiot, but how is this possible. Do you mean federal income tax or is self-employment tax doing all the work here? I admit I know next to nothing about the self-employment tax but surely it can't be designed to take out more than the marginal increase in your income.
And I think he's counting loss of SNAP as an increase in taxes.
130: At $18k, exemptions and standard deductions zero out all taxable income. Tax credits take up all SE tax, and there's some left to be given as a check.
At $40k, exemptions and deductions greatly reduce taxable income, and credits chew up most of the remaining tax and SE tax.
At $50k, exemptions and deductions reduce, but don't nearly eliminate, taxable income. Credits are close to zero, and so you top a hefty SE tax with a modest income tax.
Even if you leave out SNAP, I paid about $2500 in taxes on $40k of income in 2010. In 2011, I'll pay $13k in taxes on $50k of income, roughly half of it SE tax.
And note that this is all centered around the median US household income - the middle quintile is precisely getting fucked around in the current system.
130: Self-employment tax is 13.3% (previously 15.3%) off the top; the only way to bring the top down is to have increased business expenses.
Ah, I see. So income went up by $10k, imposed tax + (loss of foodstamps) totalled more than 10k. There still seems to be something screwy going on, I guess with the hard cut-off points for foodstamps, or maybe something wonky in the calculation of the self-employment tax?
And I'm pretty sure that $13k in tax, including self-employment tax, on $50k of income is super high. My ex was self employed and made about that much and I don't recall the numbers being anything like that. And that was without dependents and before we were married.
131: As 132 says, it's over 100% tax rate even before SNAP. Although, to be clear, SNAP is a huge part of household finances. As I've said, it covered 95+% of our groceries (the only exceptions were incidentals purchased at places that didn't take the card).
Do you get hit by SE tax if you incorporate and hire yourself? One of Buck's jobs is working for a corporation he owns, and I'm pretty sure that just gets taxed like having a job (of course, the corporation pays the employer-side payroll tax and so on).
Even if you leave out SNAP, I paid about $2500 in taxes on $40k of income in 2010. In 2011, I'll pay $13k in taxes on $50k of income, roughly half of it SE tax.
OK, this seems unfathomable to me (not saying it's not very much true, just that the system is bizarre). Why and how on earth would things be set up this way? Is there a set of hard caps that don't fade out with increased income?
If it makes you feel better, you're at least increasing your SS retirement benefits more now.
136: Self-employment tax is just the sum of the payroll tax's employer and employee portions, so I don't think there's a substantive difference.
This April I'm paying several times what I paid this time last year, because of the end of the Making Work Pay tax credit. An example of things that actually matter to people are never discussed in the national political discourse.
Ok, here goes. For one thing, Robin nowhere says that Booker is a bad person for rescuing a human being, although he does note that the fire chief recommends against individual heroics. Nor is he accusing him of setting the fire, nor even of directing the response to it. He is analyzing the discourse of adulation for Booker-as-superhero.
His main point is that there is an ideological dimension to casting elected officials as superheroes. And the Zizek quote is entirely justified -- he's not comparing Booker to Stalin for murdering millions of people, but for playing the role of a stand-in for the health of the state--a compensatory stand-in for a non-functioning state. "Booker's antics [...] are actually more reminiscent of a very different kind of politician from a very different kind of time," he writes -- this is an intriguing riff, not a reductio ad Hitler. Or are all gestures by tyrants off limits for comparison?
One could argue that this is not the only ideological role that superheros play. A bit on Superman as a New Deal stand-in shows up in either the thread on Robin's blog on on his FB.
Robin is not doing the work of proving that Booker is a representative of neoliberalism here; he's taking that as given. If you think that this is a fatuous accusation to make of Booker--I don't think that that's the case--then Robin's argument falls apart with narrow reference to Booker, although it's still an interesting riff on the ideological uses of making Batmans out of elected officials.
I would put it this way: under neoliberalism, it becomes absurd to speak with pride of the state. Is this to say that no one valorizes police or firefighters? It is not. But we love them as John McClanes, which makes it easier to ignore them when we eliminate gun controls over their objections. (Or to brush off the fire chief who says that civilians shouldn't rush into burning buildings.) Our "quintessentially American love of amateurism and cowboy theatrics" finds replacements, which we papier-mache over the yawning abyss. Robin admitted on FB that this image was what drove him over the edge.
That $13K does seem a bit high. TurboTax's calculator gives $9,400 as the basic income and payroll tax liability given $50K in business income and a spouse with no income, and goes down from there when you add dependents.
Its not that self employed people actually pay more taxes, but rather that employed people's "salary" doesn't include all compensation. So tricks like incorporating and paying yourself shouldn't typically make a big difference.
134: And I'm pretty sure that $13k in tax, including self-employment tax, on $50k of income is super high.
I'm not sure what to make of that either; it might be a piddling difference, but I'm paying about $10k on a $50k income this year, which is making me grimace.
My largest deductions are for health insurance and car mileage (as well as general expenses). If JRoth isn't deducting car mileage -- he should claim his bike! -- and is omitting health insurance, that'd be a hit.
SE tax is large (and regressive!), but I'd have guessed your income tax would be lower, between half the SE tax coming out of income plus having dependents, I'd think you were in a very low income tax bracket.
Oh and I think the ACA changed things so that you don't pay SE tax on the money you spend on health care premiums. Comes right out before you calculate anything.
141: I do think it's generally fatuous to blame the mayor of Newark for the tax environment that's starving cities of revenue. Not impossible -- if there was some tax cutting idiocy to specifically blame Booker for I'd be with you. But in the absence of a way to pin Newark's budget problems on him, taking this story as negative about Booker seems out of place. (I can still agree that looking for superheroes instead of properly provided public services is unhealthy, but that's not Booker's fault at all.)
He is analyzing the discourse of adulation for Booker-as-superhero.
But the piece reads more as a critique of Booker than of the discourse. It's not pointedly enough about discourse, or even media.
LB's 3 is mostly on the mark. Remember when nobody in the media understood that The Daily Show was making fun of the media? The piece isn't attacking Booker -- he's taking as given that Booker should be attack for his policies (which is, of course, subject to debate). He's attacking the cult of personality around elected officials, and saying that covers up for bad politics.
And there goes my internet time. Bye!
I suppose Robin's thinking of it as critiquing Booker-the-superhero rather than actual-Booker-the-mayor.
I'm personally boycotting Newark over this.
Also Trenton and Camden, just in case.
141.2 Stain punished those people who did not praise him. Different classes of people speak for the "hero" in the two cases, different enough that the comparison is idiotic.
141.last Maybe; I guess that I see distrust of large organizations, whether those are businesses or governments, rather than idolization of individuals acting alone. Like it or not, the military is an arm of the state, and it's not right to dismiss approval of the military. Also, the entity being dismissed could be say FedEx rather than the USPS without materially changing either the type of objection or the individualistic alternative.
Where is the line between temporarily adulating someone for heroism and building a cult of personality?
This still seems an exercise of concern-trolling enabled by blurring the lines between two justifiably different things.
Mostly I'm just irked about the gas pumps, I suppose.
146: Oh and I think the ACA changed things so that you don't pay SE tax on the money you spend on health care premiums. Comes right out before you calculate anything.
That was true for last year. For some reason it's not the case this year.
Oh weird. So not in the ACA. I wonder where it did come from. (Our household had no self-employed people this year, so I didn't notice the change back.) It seemed to make sense since employed people don't pay payroll tax on the money their employers pay towards healthcare.
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that k-sky started the fire in the first place.
Ah, important update: 2011 gross income was $60k, not $50k. That takes the marginal rate between $18k to $60k a mere 63%, and the marginal rate (SNAP inclusive) between $40k and $60k from 100+% to a mere 75%.
"Also, the frontage on the building was 60 feet, not 50. Have you considered getting a wider lot?"
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that k-sky started the fire in the first place.
And then blamed Billy Joel.
||?
Hey, it's politics.
Romney's VP Options ...you don't need to read that, or this.
Just interesting to this old fart that a "balancing" important for most of my life isn't even considered this year...someone with military of foreign policy experience. It was there for Clinton and there for GWB, and have we had like a decade of peace and int'l prosperity so the world can be ignored? Europe is crashing crashing... so Pauk K tells me at least. Weird.
(Reading a book about Polyani written in 2007 that is fuck-all depressing.)
Here's my scenario so I can keep up my reputation. Romney does need military and FP on the ticket, and some excitement, so he picks a woman general or colonel (no, I don't know any either) with Iraq/Iran/Intelligence creds. Actually, maybe the Illuminati/Trilaterals/Kochs pick her for him. Then a black swan (The PtB can arrange such things) puts Mitt into the WH with a Republican House and 65 Rep Senators. Now Mitt doesn't really care much about the job, just a puppet like Obama, so after 100 days "taking care of business" and creating one fucking brutal oligarchic slave state with extra added theocratic misogyny, he retires to let his COIN-experienced VP do the necessary pacification.
The fun part of this for feminism is that the 1st woman President will be a domestic repression surveillance state monster in snappy dress and controlled smile, probably with sweet kids and supportive spouse.
"You want women politicians after what Pres X did in the torture camps in the Mojave?"
And thus we see the true purpose of Obama.
|>
159: Yeah, I don't know. I was pretty bummed to discover the change back.
The alarming thing is that 164 does actually keep up your reputation.
(Or to brush off the fire chief who says that civilians shouldn't rush into burning buildings.)
I'd be more impressed by this if plumbers didn't tell people not to install their own toilets, if architects didn't tell people not to design their own additions, if cops didn't tell people not to grab purse snatchers. It's an argument that has fuck-all to do with Cory Booker's neoliberalism, and everything to do with Robin's evident desire to throw enough shit against the wall that something might stick.
Ah, important update: 2011 gross income was $60k, not $50k. That takes the marginal rate between $18k to $60k a mere 63%, and the marginal rate (SNAP inclusive) between $40k and $60k from 100+% to a mere 75%.
Do you have copies of your 2010 taxes easily available? If you look at them next to your 2011 return it should be too difficult to see where the big changes are, and I'd be curious (for example, what's the difference in Adjusted Gross Income from 2010 to 2011?).
I do appreciate that you've been willing to share details about your financial situation -- it is interesting.
The 2011 is just an estimate by the preparer so far (we're doing an extension). I'll let you all know when the final comes in.
I must say, having just finalized -- committed -- to my tax payments this year, I hear you, JRoth. I'm at $11k (federal and state) on $44k of income. Something doesn't seem right.
I don't normally kvetch about tax burdens, but my alarm bells are going off, and all I can think is: shelter as much as you can!
This chart is pretty interesting. Looks like Warren Buffet had a slightly higher effective tax rate than Parsimon, but not by much.
Oh wait I misread Parsimon's income. Warren Buffet almost certainly had a lower tax rate than Parsimon.
Yeah, it sort of sucks. A couple of things changed this year: I paid off a student loan, so have next to nothing in student loan interest to deduct, and the disappearance of deducting health insurance from self-employment tax (described in 158 upthread).
Sucks, anyway, because now that the student loan is paid off, I'd finally been putting something away.
Honestly, this does have an effect on my spending habits: if we think in terms of stimulating the economy, well, I'd been intending to buy a new computer of some sort this year. Maybe now not so much. Anyway, clearly I need to manage my tax sheltering better.
My tax preparer asked if I'd considered an IRA or a Roth IRA. I just wanted to write back, Dude, I have $15 between my 2 primary accounts, and you just told me I owe $13k. What on earth would make you think that I have extra cash sitting around, waiting to be retired upon in 30 years?
Needless to say, my retirement planning has always consisted of working until I die.
Heh. I know. It's hard to keep one's temper sometimes. Not a lot of people seem to get it.
The image linked at the end of 141 made me think a bit of Свой среди чужих, чужой среди своих, which, I would argue is not a stranger association than the one between Booker and Stalin (or rather, between the public image surrounding each). It's basically** a western in which the hero, though acting mostly in the solo heroic mode, is also an agent of the state.
*Yeah, that's right. You haven't even heard of the Soviet references I'm into. Actually, some people here probably have.
**To the extent that I remember it. At the time I saw it, it made me think a bit about how 24 was like that. I'd probably put McClane above Bauer in the hierarchy of pseudo-nonstate state actors. Less torture, local enforcement agency = better.
(And I realize that the association I'm making runs against the one Robin is making. But that's because Robin is history's greatest monster-mongerer.)
He's attacking the cult of personality around elected officials, and saying that covers up for bad politics.
He's doing more than that, I think. He's suggesting that Booker has a habit and/or a history ("this isn't the first time that Booker has rushed to a scene of hazard and saved the day") of amateur theatrics and "antics" in the service of a neoliberal agenda, as "a compensation...for a public sector that doesn't work."
How much does Robin know about the city of Newark, I wonder? While JRoth's 19 clearly wins the thread, I think PGD's 17 also deserves some love:
Saying that Booker's efforts as Mayor of Newark (colossally underfunded, no tax base, facing public service crises everywhere) somehow imply that he would be against providing decent public services at a higher level of government is inane.
Newark is a seriously impoverished, de-industrialized city, which suffers from a range of social and economic ills: almost no tax base (as noted by PGD); high rates of unemployment; shocking levels of poverty; high crime rates; and so on and so forth.
And of course Booker is not Superman: he cannot and will not right those wrongs in one fell swoop, or in many swoops over the length of his term as Newark's mayor. And no, I don't agree with every decision that Booker has made; but he is looking for pragmatic solutions to (or at least ameliorations of) complex socioeconomic problems that do not lend themselves to quick fixes and easy answers (if it were easy, it would have been solved by now). And also, he has very little tax base with which to fund these solutions/ameliorations, as noted above. No way does he support a de-funding of the public sector, for example; the defunding has already happened, is the pre-given reality of what he has to worth with.
Also, it takes real courage to enter a burning building to save someone's life. Yes, the "starstruck response" (Corey Robin's phrase) is a bit ridiculous, but there's a reason why people will want to recognize such a deed, or "antic": it is a form of heroism that deserves to be acknowledged.
174: My husband and I were both self-employed for years (in my case, more like "self-employed"), and taxes always hurt. Deducting every single thing we could plausibly get away with helped a bit, though. Bike? Yes. Phone line/cell phone? Some percentage of it. Internet, trade magazine subscriptions...
Also, according to a few seconds I overheard of the local news, contributing even a little to an IRA or Roth IRA can have real tax advantages for the self-employed.
FWIW, Robin's bio suggests he has some knowledge of central New Jersey, but maybe not Newark.
The title of that post really does suggest that Robin's beef is with Booker, not the media discourse surrounding him.
As many people pointed out, the beef with the media discourse relies on establishing a beef with Booker, which many were reluctant to grant any credibility. "Unless Booker set the fire himself." Well, no, but.
183: That's a beef with Booker. But it doesn't really fit into the neoconservative story Robin was telling -- more "Look, here's a bad thing Booker did." (And owning property that becomes a hazard is a bad thing to do, certainly. But the story doesn't really seem to involve a lot of wrongdoing on Booker's part.)
Yeah, at this point I think he's just lashing out because people's reactions to the piece were all, "how dare you impugn my beloved Cory." It's not really furthering the neoliberal argument.
Maybe his next book will be called The Reaction-to-Cory-Booker-Mind.
181: And Colbert's piece is very funny, makes the point Robin claims to have been making, and yet doesn't, in any way, slag Booker.
IOW, what Colbert is showing is that everyone would have agreed with Robin if Robin had actually been making the point he claims. But his post was so loaded with obvious animus towards Booker that few read it in the Colbert way.
It seems that what Robin thinks Booker should have done is to have called a press conference in front of the neighbor's house in order to say, "A woman died in this house due to a fire that could have been controlled if not for neoliberal approaches to municipal governance."
Or maybe he should have funded the fire department at higher levels out of his own pocket. So many he ways he could have more effectively helped out.
