Six Degrees of Separation

Thanks to Dina for pointing out this hilarious little item. Oh the things that come out in campaigns... So, about Joe the Plumber, who's not really a plumber apparently, and not actually named Joe, but that's all beside the point. Point is, Wurzelbacher. Funny name. Some bloggers--and no doubt intrepid Googlers--have been asking if indeed he is related to Milford, Ohio's Robert Wurzelbacher, son-in law of Charles Keating, of the infamous Keating Five?

Barack Obama==>Joe Wurzelbacher==> Robert Wurzelbacher==>
Charles Keating==>John McCain

Really, I'm not suggesting any conspiracies by any means, I'm just marvelling at how elegant a place is the Universe.

Paul Krugman points out in today's column that your average plumber certainly has nothing to fear from Obama's tax hike on those who earn over $250,000. "You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of "plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters" in Ohio was $47,930."

And a blast from the past: back in August in Slate, Daniel Gross pointed out: "the business pundit class has been griping that people who make $250,000 a year aren't really wealthy, especially if they live in and around New York; San Francisco; or Washington, D.C. (Check out this CNBC debate, for example.) On Wednesday afternoon, CNBC's unscientific online poll found that (surprise!) only 35 percent of respondents believed an income of $250,000 qualified a household for elite rich status. I have two pieces of bad news for the over-$250,000 crowd. First, the reversal of some of the temporary Bush tax cuts is probably inevitable, given the Republican fiscal clown show of the past eight years. Second, I regret to inform you that you are indeed rich."

And digging deeper back into the past for economic perspective, thanks to Eric for forwarding this item from Common Dreams, which contrasts Supply Side economics with Demand Side: "According to Supply Side 'theory,' tax cuts should go to the wealthy for only they can afford to use the extra income to invest in the economy — to increase its capacity to 'supply' goods. But there is nothing to make sure they actually invest, especially in the U.S. economy. The new money might simply sit in the bank, or be spent on expensive foreign imports. It might be wasted in misdirected speculation, or invested in fast growing markets like southeast Asia. Without the ability to ensure that tax cuts are, in fact, invested in new productive assets, Supply Side Economics cannot ensure any real linkage between tax cuts and the hoped-for economic boom. Contrast this wishful thinking with Demand Side economics. Demand Side Economics, says that if taxes are to be cut, they should go to those who earn the least amount of money. The reason is that low-income workers spend virtually all of their incomes. Money given to them goes right back into circulation, fueling a boom in consumer spending...Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. What happened? The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations."