It is difficult to overstate the steaming shit pile that was handed to Barack Obama on his first day of office. Those who choose to ridicule the President for pointing this out have forgotten the "yeah, that's right," chorus line that Republicans sang so heartily when Reagan took office and how he would fix all the terrible things Carter had done. They, and Reagan, knew what they were doing; every positive snippet of news was to accrue to Ronnie; any bad news was obviously the legacy of his Democratic predecessor.
Don't let your brain take the lazy way out on this. Don't say both parties do it and leave it at that. Both parties throw blame at their opponents, to be sure. but it is an insipid and unhelpful observation. Let's not forget that the federal budget deficit, the national debt, and the trade imbalance were all relatively modest when Reagan took office. Our infrastructure at that time was viewed around the world as excellent, and manufacturing played a proportionately far larger role. We had the world's largest current account surplus when Carter left office. When Reagan left, we had the world's largest deficit.
The point here is not to claim that Carter did such a wonderful job. But we must remind ourselves how much this country, and this economy, have changed in recent decades. When President Obama took the oath of office in a ceremony that Chief Justice Roberts screwed up, he faced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. He also inherited two long and costly wars that served little purpose except to get men killed and enrich defense contractors, as war always does.
But even if you support(ed) the war(s), and choose to not blame Bush (or Cheney), the point remains that the US fought those wars without paying for them. That much is indisputable. Instead, the horrendous costs, separate and addition to the Defense Department's already mammoth budget, were added to our federal debt. That was George Bush's decision, not Obama's.
And need I remind anyone that those wars came after Bush passed his huge tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby giving back the budget surplus carefully built up during the Clinton era when tax rates and economic growth were both higher.
The real point here is the severe constraints Barack Obama faced when he took office, many of which John McCain would have also faced had he won. Taxes, primarily for the rich, had been reduced so much early in Bush's tenure that it has become arithmetically impossible to meet our relatively modest social spending needs, our huge military appetite, our substantial and neglected national infrastructure, and also balance the budget. And this is on top of a massive trade deficit, a declining manufacturing base, and most jarringly, the fallout from Wall Street's casino capitalism.
I have posted before on the overwhelming challenges Obama faced on inauguration day, challenges that would be huge even if Congress decided to, you know, work together and solve some problems. Unfortunately, President Obama has had to face an additional challenge that a President McCain would surely not have--unprecedented obstructionism. Along the way, Americans have come to learn, to their disgust or delight, the surprising flaws of our federal government and how determined ideologues can lay bare the constitutional limitations of the executive branch.
Republicans control only the House; Democrats control the Senate, despite all appearances, and, of course, the White House. And yet Dems in the House are helpless to stop the unending stream of bills that Tea Party reactionaries promote. Well, you might say, Republicans control the House, so it figures they would dominate legislation. In the Senate, however, Democrats are in a clear majority, but it usually makes little difference because of the Senate's self-imposed 60 vote supermajority "requirement."
Thus, even flaccid and feeble legislation, mere tweaking, has little chance of being enacted. Anything that does pass is so watered down as to be useless. And that is not because most members of Congress, or even all Republicans always want to oppose the President; it is sufficient that only a determined minority, the Tea Partiers of the House and Senate, choose to obstruct, as they so often have. Let me put it this way: the seemingly intractable John Boehner would not be making those asinine, vapid, and breathtakingly stupid comments on economic policy if teabaggers in his party did not have such a tight grip on his nuts.
Historians are at pains to find a period when the flaws of the federal government were so transparent. Parliamentary governments around the world are taken back by the inability of America's two-party presidential system of government to tackle the most basic tasks, such as properly regulated banks, appropriate tax revenues, a modern infrastructure, and demographic well-being, such as on health care, child mortality, and housing. All of these are becoming a national embarrassment, instead of world-leading, as they once were.
We are now seeing with increasing frequency that even legislation large majorities of Americans want, such as background checks on gun purchases, cannot get passed. There are just enough Republican reactionaries in the House, sometimes helped out by pandering Democrats in the Senate (I'm looking at you, Max Baucus), to derail even the most popular legislation. This can happen, mind you, even when a majority of both houses of Congress and the president favor such legislation. This is not majority rule, it is not even checks and balances as the founding fathers envisioned. It is the tyranny of an ideologically-driven minority.
This is new territory for America.
Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficit. Show all posts
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Class Warriors Explain Those Horrible Taxes
The picture below recently ran in the Wall Street Journal. It is a clumsy attempt to show us how horrible President Obama's taxes policies will be for us in 2013 what with those massive, job-killing tax hikes set to kick in.
I should not have to explain this, right? It is laughable, yes?
What? You're not laughing? OK, perhaps you cannot read the fine print, so here is my point. I will assume the Journal's calculations are correct. After all, taxes usually do go up when taxes are raised. However, the only way one can come up with attention-getting tax increases of up to $21,608 is to use outlandish income examples, as the Journal has done.
A single parent, with two children--and a $260,000 income. Uh, yeah, that is pretty typical. And that sad face she has; her kids look like they are out of a Dickens novel. The rest of them look as bad. The young single women in the bottom left will also be financially ruined; she only makes $230,000 per year, while the family of six squeezes by on $650,000. Great time to be retired, I guess; no tax increase and hey!, $180 grand a year.
Does anyone think any of the four examples represents anyone other than the 1%? With massive deficits, rising poverty, and a right wing that howls incessantly about balancing the budget, how many Americans think that tax increases running from 0% to 3.3% on people earning in the range of a quarter million and more are where we should direct our tears of outrage?
The Journal could have used income figures of say, $40,000-$60,000, a range far more representative of most Americans. The problem is that the thousand dollar tax hikes it portrays would no longer hold true, and that, of course, is why the Journal didn't use them. It had to willfully and crudely mislead, and hope that we wouldn't notice.
Does the Wall Street Journal think it is being clever? Or is it even more tone-deaf to America's reality than I thought?
Hat tip to Avedon Carol. Another read, with maybe a clearer picture is here.
I should not have to explain this, right? It is laughable, yes?
What? You're not laughing? OK, perhaps you cannot read the fine print, so here is my point. I will assume the Journal's calculations are correct. After all, taxes usually do go up when taxes are raised. However, the only way one can come up with attention-getting tax increases of up to $21,608 is to use outlandish income examples, as the Journal has done.
A single parent, with two children--and a $260,000 income. Uh, yeah, that is pretty typical. And that sad face she has; her kids look like they are out of a Dickens novel. The rest of them look as bad. The young single women in the bottom left will also be financially ruined; she only makes $230,000 per year, while the family of six squeezes by on $650,000. Great time to be retired, I guess; no tax increase and hey!, $180 grand a year.
Does anyone think any of the four examples represents anyone other than the 1%? With massive deficits, rising poverty, and a right wing that howls incessantly about balancing the budget, how many Americans think that tax increases running from 0% to 3.3% on people earning in the range of a quarter million and more are where we should direct our tears of outrage?
The Journal could have used income figures of say, $40,000-$60,000, a range far more representative of most Americans. The problem is that the thousand dollar tax hikes it portrays would no longer hold true, and that, of course, is why the Journal didn't use them. It had to willfully and crudely mislead, and hope that we wouldn't notice.
Does the Wall Street Journal think it is being clever? Or is it even more tone-deaf to America's reality than I thought?
Hat tip to Avedon Carol. Another read, with maybe a clearer picture is here.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Impressive
You've got to hand it to Republican Party operatives. After more than 30 years of constant effort, conservatives within the party, media, the judiciary, and in the corporate world, have managed to turn upside down much of what the public thought it knew about government, unions, taxes, and even teachers.
I make a distinction between Republicans and conservatives that some may see as unnecessary; are not Republicans and conservatives synonymous? Pretty much, at least in 2012, but it would be difficult to overstate just how far to the right the Republican Party has lurched; a process that began, to the dismay of millions of moderate and liberal Republicans, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. The cleansing process picked up rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, with numerous watershed moments, such as the arrival of Newt Gingrich and the politics of destruction. As testimony to Republicans' new approach to governing, many will recall that the Party was able to keep Whitewater in public view, with the help of a stupidly compliant press, for literally years on end, only to have the process finally wind down having demonstrated no presidential malfeasance.
From the judicial standpoint, it was a waste of time and taxpayers' money. But upholding the law had nothing to do with it. The objective was to vilify a Democratic President, obstruct his agenda and ability to govern, and convince the public that conservatives stood on principles. The never-ending rush to spin the story helped feed the narrative that liberals are not to be trusted. Even today people will refer to Whitewater as a scandal, forgetting that there was no wrongdoing, despite years of investigation. It was only a scandal because the Republican hierarchy kept claiming it was. And many will be surprised when reminded that the 12 years of Reagan and Bush saw a dramatically greater number of actual convictions, not accusations, than in the eight years of Clinton. If the reality goes against what you had heard and "just assumed," it is because Republicans worked hard to make it so, for they have shown a superior ability to get their ideas into the media and into people's heads. They dominate most narratives because they understand how to make their messages simple and emotional. What sounds implausible or even ridiculous at first becomes accepted as truth if repeated enough. All propagandists understand this. This why Republicans have said for decades they, against all evidence, are the party of personal responsibility, fiscal prudence, and limited government. Voters who don't study the facts have come to accept this narrative.
And now we see Republican spin taken to new heights, creating a parallel world of logic and reason. They have managed what should have been impossible in a sane world of evidence, facts, and reason; divert enough of the electorate's, and the media's, attention away from the Wall Street banks and turn the middle class against itself. Significant numbers of Americans now think that public workers earn too much, are lazy and irresponsible, and are a drain on our fragile economy.Too many show an infantile understanding of economics by buying into Republican rhetoric that teachers' salaries are too high, so we must rein in those destructive teachers' unions. "Never mind that stuff you hear about Wall Street. Those guys deserve every penny they got, and besides, look at all the jobs they create."
The truly reprehensible thing about Mitt Romney is that he personally promotes these ideas and never once has acknowledged that the Bush tax cuts, which he wants to deepen, have been a prime contributor to the federal deficit. Everything the man says indicates he will be for the one percent and will penalize the working class, and yet he is running as a viable candidate.
And as we just saw in Wisconsin, there are plenty of voters who are fine with Scott Walker's effort to strip away the hard-fought gains by teachers and other public workers. Many now instinctively believe that there is such a thing in America as "big labor," and that cutting back salaries and benefits of teachers, librarians, firefighters, cops, and others, will somehow drive the economy forward, that and more tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans have apparently convinced more than a few that teachers are now fat cats. The Wall Street bankers that drove the economy into recession have almost entirely avoided legal scrutiny. Forgotten is their unforgivable act of paying mammoth executive compensation with the very tax dollars meant to stabilize the catastrophic mess they created. No accountability, no significant judicial proceedings, and the few penalties levied have been easily paid and treated as nothing more than the cost of doing business.
The banks got away with it while attention has been diverted to where Republicans want it. They, including Mitt Romney himself, have convinced many that pushing back against the oligarchy is class warfare, but endless bitching about teachers and other members of the middle class, with an eye to stripping their rights and reducing their pay, is productive policy. And they have roughly half of that middle class believing it.
That is quite an accomplishment.
I make a distinction between Republicans and conservatives that some may see as unnecessary; are not Republicans and conservatives synonymous? Pretty much, at least in 2012, but it would be difficult to overstate just how far to the right the Republican Party has lurched; a process that began, to the dismay of millions of moderate and liberal Republicans, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. The cleansing process picked up rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s, with numerous watershed moments, such as the arrival of Newt Gingrich and the politics of destruction. As testimony to Republicans' new approach to governing, many will recall that the Party was able to keep Whitewater in public view, with the help of a stupidly compliant press, for literally years on end, only to have the process finally wind down having demonstrated no presidential malfeasance.
From the judicial standpoint, it was a waste of time and taxpayers' money. But upholding the law had nothing to do with it. The objective was to vilify a Democratic President, obstruct his agenda and ability to govern, and convince the public that conservatives stood on principles. The never-ending rush to spin the story helped feed the narrative that liberals are not to be trusted. Even today people will refer to Whitewater as a scandal, forgetting that there was no wrongdoing, despite years of investigation. It was only a scandal because the Republican hierarchy kept claiming it was. And many will be surprised when reminded that the 12 years of Reagan and Bush saw a dramatically greater number of actual convictions, not accusations, than in the eight years of Clinton. If the reality goes against what you had heard and "just assumed," it is because Republicans worked hard to make it so, for they have shown a superior ability to get their ideas into the media and into people's heads. They dominate most narratives because they understand how to make their messages simple and emotional. What sounds implausible or even ridiculous at first becomes accepted as truth if repeated enough. All propagandists understand this. This why Republicans have said for decades they, against all evidence, are the party of personal responsibility, fiscal prudence, and limited government. Voters who don't study the facts have come to accept this narrative.
And now we see Republican spin taken to new heights, creating a parallel world of logic and reason. They have managed what should have been impossible in a sane world of evidence, facts, and reason; divert enough of the electorate's, and the media's, attention away from the Wall Street banks and turn the middle class against itself. Significant numbers of Americans now think that public workers earn too much, are lazy and irresponsible, and are a drain on our fragile economy.Too many show an infantile understanding of economics by buying into Republican rhetoric that teachers' salaries are too high, so we must rein in those destructive teachers' unions. "Never mind that stuff you hear about Wall Street. Those guys deserve every penny they got, and besides, look at all the jobs they create."
The truly reprehensible thing about Mitt Romney is that he personally promotes these ideas and never once has acknowledged that the Bush tax cuts, which he wants to deepen, have been a prime contributor to the federal deficit. Everything the man says indicates he will be for the one percent and will penalize the working class, and yet he is running as a viable candidate.
And as we just saw in Wisconsin, there are plenty of voters who are fine with Scott Walker's effort to strip away the hard-fought gains by teachers and other public workers. Many now instinctively believe that there is such a thing in America as "big labor," and that cutting back salaries and benefits of teachers, librarians, firefighters, cops, and others, will somehow drive the economy forward, that and more tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans have apparently convinced more than a few that teachers are now fat cats. The Wall Street bankers that drove the economy into recession have almost entirely avoided legal scrutiny. Forgotten is their unforgivable act of paying mammoth executive compensation with the very tax dollars meant to stabilize the catastrophic mess they created. No accountability, no significant judicial proceedings, and the few penalties levied have been easily paid and treated as nothing more than the cost of doing business.
The banks got away with it while attention has been diverted to where Republicans want it. They, including Mitt Romney himself, have convinced many that pushing back against the oligarchy is class warfare, but endless bitching about teachers and other members of the middle class, with an eye to stripping their rights and reducing their pay, is productive policy. And they have roughly half of that middle class believing it.
That is quite an accomplishment.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Our Low-Wage Recovery
There has been lots of talk in the air about what this country needs. Republican presidential candidates have been almost unanimous about the value of cutting taxes, by which they mean the top tax rate, the one that affects the wealthy. And we must get the corporate tax rate down as well; it tops out at 35% and that must surely be why American corporations are having trouble competing, except that they aren't. The premise for lowering the top corporate tax rate is that corporations actually pay the current rate. They don't. What they do pay are the most obscene compensation packages in the world.
And let's not forget to cut spending, lots of it. Please tell me you find it odd --in a simple math that doesn't add up kind of odd-- that proponents of spending cuts, meaning nearly every conservative member of congress, simultaneously insist on budget-destroying tax cuts for the wealthy, those who have already enjoyed a generation of such largess, even as they yelp about the deficits those tax cuts created. The national debt is so horrible that we must gut spending on society's most vulnerable to save the republic, but apparently not so horrible that we can't give more tax breaks for our most privileged.
So why has our recession lasted so long? It isn't because taxes are too high, or because we have a large budget deficit.
The reason is that we are turning into a low-wage country. Look at chart below. It shows the share of employees in low-wage work. Hey, we are number one. Yes, I know, having a crappy job is better than no job at all. But this is a long ways from the can-do spirit that this country once had, back when it was an unambiguous economic superpower, back when its tax rates were much higher and wages grew along with productivity. I've discussed the wage-productivity divergence here and here.
![Low+wage+2[1]](http://inliner.cluster02eu.s.memonic.ch/86/86d23de9-07b8-4dd8-aa24-1b758094db4f/6a00d83451b33869e20168e9f3787c970c-450wi "Low+wage+2[1]")
As Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have shown, many of the newly created jobs are "...in the restaurant, retail, temporary service, social assistance and hospitality sectors. In other words, low-wage jobs, most without health benefits or paid sick leave." Additional analysis of the significance of the chart above, including America's growing wage polarization, is at "Economist's View."
In other words, low wages means marginalized families with low consumption. Not only can they not save, provide for their children's education, and pay for health care simultaneously, they simply cannot buy much of the products that both corporations and merchants need them to buy. The inability to consume more, regardless of how one feels about materialism, prolongs the weak recovery because everything is predicated on sales, not low taxes. Businesses, especially the smaller ones on Main Street America that do not have foreign sales, do not want lower taxes or cheaper workers. They want more customers.
“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.” FDR
And let's not forget to cut spending, lots of it. Please tell me you find it odd --in a simple math that doesn't add up kind of odd-- that proponents of spending cuts, meaning nearly every conservative member of congress, simultaneously insist on budget-destroying tax cuts for the wealthy, those who have already enjoyed a generation of such largess, even as they yelp about the deficits those tax cuts created. The national debt is so horrible that we must gut spending on society's most vulnerable to save the republic, but apparently not so horrible that we can't give more tax breaks for our most privileged.
So why has our recession lasted so long? It isn't because taxes are too high, or because we have a large budget deficit.
The reason is that we are turning into a low-wage country. Look at chart below. It shows the share of employees in low-wage work. Hey, we are number one. Yes, I know, having a crappy job is better than no job at all. But this is a long ways from the can-do spirit that this country once had, back when it was an unambiguous economic superpower, back when its tax rates were much higher and wages grew along with productivity. I've discussed the wage-productivity divergence here and here.
As Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have shown, many of the newly created jobs are "...in the restaurant, retail, temporary service, social assistance and hospitality sectors. In other words, low-wage jobs, most without health benefits or paid sick leave." Additional analysis of the significance of the chart above, including America's growing wage polarization, is at "Economist's View."
In other words, low wages means marginalized families with low consumption. Not only can they not save, provide for their children's education, and pay for health care simultaneously, they simply cannot buy much of the products that both corporations and merchants need them to buy. The inability to consume more, regardless of how one feels about materialism, prolongs the weak recovery because everything is predicated on sales, not low taxes. Businesses, especially the smaller ones on Main Street America that do not have foreign sales, do not want lower taxes or cheaper workers. They want more customers.
“It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.” FDR
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Teabaggers Want Chaos
As I write this, politicians and ideologues alike are working, with various degrees of sincerity, to come to an agreement on a budget and a possible balanced budget amendment, all the while under threat from a small minority of Representatives, voted into office by a small minority of voters, to not raise the federal debt ceiling and bring a level of chaos and pain upon the country that even most Republicans agree would be disastrous.
There are several scenarios in all of this; One is that Republicans exact a huge price in the way of spending cuts, no new taxes, and the debt ceiling is raised. Republican threats to sabotage the economy work. Said economy likely sputters just in time for election season. Republicans, knowing that Americans have short memories, will blame Dems and Obama in particular.
The second scenario is that Republicans exact a huge price in the way of spending cuts, no new taxes, but the debt ceiling is raised only temporarily. Economy sputters because of reduced government spending, which even worries the Chamber of Commerce (but not the Club for Growth), and Republicans not only blame the Dems and Obama in the upcoming elections, they get to sabotage the economy again by threatening to oppose further debt ceiling hikes, unless, you guessed it, further spending cuts. They may insist on repeal of last year's health care reform.
A third scenario is just as repulsive but a bit trickier for Republicans. Not all of them want to just threaten the economy; it's not just a negotiating style with some of them. Republican members of Congress are on record as saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling even with spending cuts. And that is because they want to induce chaos. Forcing the federal government to default will, they say, create enough dispair that they can then force through a balanced budget amendment. (Not sure how that could work? Read Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine).
The intransigence of the Teabagger wing of the Republican Party, where most of the hard-line "let the government default" members are, has created governing challenges for the more establishment members of the Party. It is they, not the Dems, who are giving John Boehner gray hair.
It has become obvious that the Teabaggers are no longer playing by the script Republican operatives set for them. Wall Street financed the Teabagger movement specifically as a way to keep Democrats in check. Fact is, Wall Street loves government, as long as it gets what it wants from it; lax regulatory enforcement, if not outright deregulation, lucrative government contracts, preferential tax rates, and no meaningful reforms or investigations. Republicans are especially willing to let the Wall Street Casino continue.
But Wall Street has seriously underestimated the anti-government lunacy of Teabaggers. Most Republicans, the ones promoting Wall Street's interests, have never been especially interested in the deficit.They certainly did not care during the Bush era. Recall Dick Cheney's claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter." If Republicans had been interested in the budget deficit, they would not have pushed for a continuation of Bush's tax giveaway to the wealthy. They went back to harping about the deficit just as soon as the two-year tax extension was in place. Even now, virtually no Congressional Republican will agree to any tax increases on the wealthy whatsoever. Their priorities are low taxes and other privileges for the wealthy and for corporate America, reduced social spending on the poor, and high spending on defense. Reducing the deficit is further down their priority pole.
But not, of course, for the true believing Teabaggers. My own take on this is that enough Teabaggers will very reluctantly agree to a deal that gets them most of what they want; they will have to give up on the chaos-through-default option for now. Boehner et. al. will have to remind them to the very end that destroying the country is not a vote-getting strategy. Nor will they get a balanced budget amendment. That will piss off the Teabaggers big time, and you can bet they will be back with it next year.
Democrats, on the other hand, should not agree to any of this madness. They have yet to appreciate that most Americans support them on this.
President Obama should invoke the 14th amendment. But he won't.
There are several scenarios in all of this; One is that Republicans exact a huge price in the way of spending cuts, no new taxes, and the debt ceiling is raised. Republican threats to sabotage the economy work. Said economy likely sputters just in time for election season. Republicans, knowing that Americans have short memories, will blame Dems and Obama in particular.
The second scenario is that Republicans exact a huge price in the way of spending cuts, no new taxes, but the debt ceiling is raised only temporarily. Economy sputters because of reduced government spending, which even worries the Chamber of Commerce (but not the Club for Growth), and Republicans not only blame the Dems and Obama in the upcoming elections, they get to sabotage the economy again by threatening to oppose further debt ceiling hikes, unless, you guessed it, further spending cuts. They may insist on repeal of last year's health care reform.
A third scenario is just as repulsive but a bit trickier for Republicans. Not all of them want to just threaten the economy; it's not just a negotiating style with some of them. Republican members of Congress are on record as saying they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling even with spending cuts. And that is because they want to induce chaos. Forcing the federal government to default will, they say, create enough dispair that they can then force through a balanced budget amendment. (Not sure how that could work? Read Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine).
The intransigence of the Teabagger wing of the Republican Party, where most of the hard-line "let the government default" members are, has created governing challenges for the more establishment members of the Party. It is they, not the Dems, who are giving John Boehner gray hair.
It has become obvious that the Teabaggers are no longer playing by the script Republican operatives set for them. Wall Street financed the Teabagger movement specifically as a way to keep Democrats in check. Fact is, Wall Street loves government, as long as it gets what it wants from it; lax regulatory enforcement, if not outright deregulation, lucrative government contracts, preferential tax rates, and no meaningful reforms or investigations. Republicans are especially willing to let the Wall Street Casino continue.
But Wall Street has seriously underestimated the anti-government lunacy of Teabaggers. Most Republicans, the ones promoting Wall Street's interests, have never been especially interested in the deficit.They certainly did not care during the Bush era. Recall Dick Cheney's claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter." If Republicans had been interested in the budget deficit, they would not have pushed for a continuation of Bush's tax giveaway to the wealthy. They went back to harping about the deficit just as soon as the two-year tax extension was in place. Even now, virtually no Congressional Republican will agree to any tax increases on the wealthy whatsoever. Their priorities are low taxes and other privileges for the wealthy and for corporate America, reduced social spending on the poor, and high spending on defense. Reducing the deficit is further down their priority pole.
But not, of course, for the true believing Teabaggers. My own take on this is that enough Teabaggers will very reluctantly agree to a deal that gets them most of what they want; they will have to give up on the chaos-through-default option for now. Boehner et. al. will have to remind them to the very end that destroying the country is not a vote-getting strategy. Nor will they get a balanced budget amendment. That will piss off the Teabaggers big time, and you can bet they will be back with it next year.
Democrats, on the other hand, should not agree to any of this madness. They have yet to appreciate that most Americans support them on this.
President Obama should invoke the 14th amendment. But he won't.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Social Security Records Surplus
No wonder Republicans want to end social security; they hate federal programs that work and get in the way of their ideology. I have to admit that, as a kid growing up, and even much later, I did not really appreciate the right wing animosity towards social security. Perhaps that is because they kept their sociopathy to themselves, or because they didn't have nearly enough votes. And to think, they want to turn SS over to Wall Street, the same folks who put the economy in the ditch in the 1980s, first with the S&L scandal, and then the crash of '87, and again in the 1990s with the dot.com bubble, and again in 2000's with the still festering housing/mortgage bust. Along the way they have eviscerated 401-k's, pensions, and many IRAs.
So once again, as designed, social security records a surplus.
Note that social security does NOT contribute to the deficit and the funds are NOT borrowed.
Put Some Sugar in His Gas Tank While You are at it
Ok, this is not breaking news. But it is an indication of how are leaders are spending their time. As reported by Yahoo News back in February:
No wonder this government cannot get anything done.
I'm with this guy
Scott McLarty has a post up at OpEd News where he says to "stop calling them conservative." The behavior and policies of today's Republicans would be unrecognizable to most conservatives of the past, including Goldwater.
So once again, as designed, social security records a surplus.
Today the Social Security Trustees released their Annual Trustees Report for 2011. The following provides comment and analysis from the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of more than 300 organizations representing more than 50 million Americans: (Click here for a complete pdf of the press release)
“The trustees’ report found that Social Security's surplus will be $69.3 billion in 2011. Those who say that Social Security is in deficit this year are flat wrong,” said Nancy Altman, Co-Chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. “By law, Social Security cannot deficit-spend and cannot borrow, so it is obvious that Social Security cannot add a penny to the federal deficit.”“The trustees’ report states that Social Security will be able to pay all benefits for the next quarter century, even without congressional action. Bottom line, Social Security works,” said Eric Kingson, Co-Chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. “Even in a bad economy, Americans continue to receive the full benefits they have earned for themselves and their families. The trustees report makes clear there is no reason to cut benefits—not for today's seniors; not for any generation.
Note that social security does NOT contribute to the deficit and the funds are NOT borrowed.
Put Some Sugar in His Gas Tank While You are at it
Ok, this is not breaking news. But it is an indication of how are leaders are spending their time. As reported by Yahoo News back in February:
Republicans weren't joking when they said they would go after funding for President Obama's pet programs.And what is the point you believe you made, Womack? That you are a petty asshole?
Per Wonkette, GOP Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas filed an amendment to a House spending bill this week that would have cut funding for the president's Teleprompter. Womack later pulled the amendment because he couldn't find out how much the measure would actually save, but told Fox News he believes he made his point."We're asking people to do more with less, and I think the president ought to lead by example," the GOP lawmaker said. "He is already a very gifted speaker. And I think that's one platform he could do without."
No wonder this government cannot get anything done.
I'm with this guy
Scott McLarty has a post up at OpEd News where he says to "stop calling them conservative." The behavior and policies of today's Republicans would be unrecognizable to most conservatives of the past, including Goldwater.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Price of Tax Cuts
Just so we're clear on who and what are the prime contributors to our federal budget deficit. It sure as hell is not the welfare queens,unemployment benefits, or social security (which is paid in advance anyway). We had balanced budgets when marginal tax rates were substantially higher. We could have them again if we raised the marginal tax rate, not to uncharted territory, but only back to previous levels.
It would also help if we could reel in defense spending and the 2.5 wars we are waging. But higher taxes on those manifestly able to pay, and a scaled back military-industrial gravy train are anathema to the overclass.
They blame you for the problems they created, and now they want to punish you. It's called class warfare.
It would also help if we could reel in defense spending and the 2.5 wars we are waging. But higher taxes on those manifestly able to pay, and a scaled back military-industrial gravy train are anathema to the overclass.
They blame you for the problems they created, and now they want to punish you. It's called class warfare.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Deficits, Health Care, and Willful Ignorance
Paul Krugman recently published an article in the New York Times in which he bemoans the inane level of discourse on the budget deficit as well as our out of control health care system.
Krugman writes,
Damn; Republicans are no longer even trying. They say nothing, offer nothing, that even pretends to be serious.
Note the reference to comparative effectiveness research. That means we spend a little to look closer at what other countries are doing, the ones that offer care that is better, universal, and less expensive. But this is what Mike Huckabee ridicules.
Really, Mike? Do your really want Americans to remain uninformed and not know just how dysfunctional our health care really is? Most analyses of health care that make it to our mainstream media are incredibly vapid. In particular, they almost never explore in any depth why universal health care in other countries works well, contains costs, and is so popular. Ask yourself why the public in Europe, Canada, or Japan does not demand their governments adopt the US system.
I have embedded a PDF below that offers a comparative analysis of the US health care system and those of several other industrialized nations. This is just one of several. The others I will post in due time.
1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010
I hope this link and embedded PDF stuff works OK. I am using docstoc.com for this. Seems to be working, hope it stays working. Readers can let me know if the above PDF does not work. Note the text is a bit small, but you can click to open to full screen.
Alternatively, you can click here to view via Google docs.
Krugman writes,
According to a column in Kaiser Health News, Republican staffers jeered at any and all proposals to use Medicare and Medicaid funds better. Spending money on prevention was no more than a 'slush fund.' Research on innovation was 'an oxymoron.' And there was no reason to pay for "so-called effectiveness research."
Damn; Republicans are no longer even trying. They say nothing, offer nothing, that even pretends to be serious.
But today’s Republicans just aren’t into rationality. They claim to care deeply about deficits — but they’ve spent the past two years putting cynical, demagogic attacks on any attempt to actually deal with long-run deficits at the heart of their campaign strategy.
Here’s a recent example. In his new book, Mike Huckabee — the current leader in polls asking Republicans whom they want to nominate in 2012 — attacks the Obama stimulus because it included funds for, yes, comparative effectiveness research: “The stimulus didn’t just waste your money; it planted the seeds from which the poisonous tree of death panels will grow.” Will others in the G.O.P. stand up and say that Mr. Huckabee is wrong, that Medicare needs to know which medical procedures actually work? Don’t hold your breath.
Note the reference to comparative effectiveness research. That means we spend a little to look closer at what other countries are doing, the ones that offer care that is better, universal, and less expensive. But this is what Mike Huckabee ridicules.
Really, Mike? Do your really want Americans to remain uninformed and not know just how dysfunctional our health care really is? Most analyses of health care that make it to our mainstream media are incredibly vapid. In particular, they almost never explore in any depth why universal health care in other countries works well, contains costs, and is so popular. Ask yourself why the public in Europe, Canada, or Japan does not demand their governments adopt the US system.
I have embedded a PDF below that offers a comparative analysis of the US health care system and those of several other industrialized nations. This is just one of several. The others I will post in due time.
1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010
I hope this link and embedded PDF stuff works OK. I am using docstoc.com for this. Seems to be working, hope it stays working. Readers can let me know if the above PDF does not work. Note the text is a bit small, but you can click to open to full screen.
Alternatively, you can click here to view via Google docs.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
They Will Never Be Satisfied
President Obama continues to get very little credit for what his administration has accomplished. He has lost some support with progressives because he has yet to make good on issues that matter to them, including DADT, overturning heavy-handed Bush-era policies such as indefinite detentions, Guantanomo, domestic wire-tapping, and that little thing called the (two) wars. Jobs continue to concern us all. And Wall Street reform, so proudly hailed by the White House, will do little to curtail the dysfunctional personalities that flock to finance, where greed, aggressiveness, and a sociopathic disregard for the welfare of others are so obscenely rewarded.
And yes, Obama, and numerous other Dems crapped out on health care reform. Although Fox News won't mention it, public support for a public option was very high during the negotiations. Support dropped only when it became clear that we were geting the shitty version, the one that allowed the insurance companies to continue to rip us off. More than a few progressives now believe the White House never was committed to a public option. So there are reasons why many progressives, myself included, are ambivalent about his tenure so far.
Conservatives have no excuses for their animosity, other than to admit their addiction to partisan politics leaves them no choice but to continually confirm they are intellectual prostitutes. And confirm they do: They look especially ridiculous as they howl that Obama has shackeled business, that the mini-reforms on Wall Street will destroy wealth, or that our deficits keep spiraling out of control.
The President deserves some perspective in light of the steaming pile that Bush handed him in January of 2009, coupled with the abject refusal of Republicans to offer anything other than exactly the policies that got us here. Deregulate Wall Street? Tax cuts for millionaires? Attack the deficit by hobbling social security? That's why they are intellectual prostitutes.
Have a look at the chart below. It shows some data you will never hear from Mitch McConnell.
Right, five straight quarters of growth. The White House had the economy expanding after only six months. Don't think Obama was the reason? You can sure as hell bet the Bush or McCain White House would have stepped up to take credit. As it is, many in the media act as if the recession began when Obama took office and that eight years of Bush mismanagement never happened.
Now watch the video of Chris Hays sitting in for Rachel Maddow. Record profits for corporate America, rising stock prices, out-sized bonuses. They even got their auto industry back. It's all there.
This is a big fat Happy Thanksgiving for corporate America. Instead they whine.
And yes, Obama, and numerous other Dems crapped out on health care reform. Although Fox News won't mention it, public support for a public option was very high during the negotiations. Support dropped only when it became clear that we were geting the shitty version, the one that allowed the insurance companies to continue to rip us off. More than a few progressives now believe the White House never was committed to a public option. So there are reasons why many progressives, myself included, are ambivalent about his tenure so far.
Conservatives have no excuses for their animosity, other than to admit their addiction to partisan politics leaves them no choice but to continually confirm they are intellectual prostitutes. And confirm they do: They look especially ridiculous as they howl that Obama has shackeled business, that the mini-reforms on Wall Street will destroy wealth, or that our deficits keep spiraling out of control.
The President deserves some perspective in light of the steaming pile that Bush handed him in January of 2009, coupled with the abject refusal of Republicans to offer anything other than exactly the policies that got us here. Deregulate Wall Street? Tax cuts for millionaires? Attack the deficit by hobbling social security? That's why they are intellectual prostitutes.
Have a look at the chart below. It shows some data you will never hear from Mitch McConnell.
Right, five straight quarters of growth. The White House had the economy expanding after only six months. Don't think Obama was the reason? You can sure as hell bet the Bush or McCain White House would have stepped up to take credit. As it is, many in the media act as if the recession began when Obama took office and that eight years of Bush mismanagement never happened.
Now watch the video of Chris Hays sitting in for Rachel Maddow. Record profits for corporate America, rising stock prices, out-sized bonuses. They even got their auto industry back. It's all there.
This is a big fat Happy Thanksgiving for corporate America. Instead they whine.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Federal Deficit is Down
You know the script; Obama's reckless spending will doom us all. Rein in the deficit, slash spending while we can, stop the federal government takeover. The perception of an ever-increasing deficit, abetted endlessly by Republican operatives, is what fuels teabaggers' visceral fear, of which they have many.
So it is interesting to see that the federal deficit is actually declining. OK, color me surprised, too. According to Bloomberg, the deficit was down 13% because of rising tax receipts. Does it need explaining that tax receipts go up when there is economic growth? And no, don't start that shit about how Obama raised taxes, because he didn't.
Bloomberg goes on to say that the still-large gap is "...down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time."
At issue here is not just the decline, as welcome as that may be. I am not a deficit hawk, so I understand that the federal stimulus was always intended to be temporary and that Obama had no viable alternatives. Some want us to forget the magnitude of the steaming pile Bush handed Obama in January, 2009.
The primary take away on this story is that the right wing harangue against federal spending has been upended by the facts. Will this even register with teabaggers? It will be interesting to see how they respond, assuming they even hear it, as we head into the November elections.
And that is what makes this story doubly interesting. The mainstream news does not seem interested in covering it. Bloomberg, yes. But at other major sites, it is still crickets chirping. We'll see if that picks up in the next few days. Perhaps Republicans need more time to spin this one.
So it is interesting to see that the federal deficit is actually declining. OK, color me surprised, too. According to Bloomberg, the deficit was down 13% because of rising tax receipts. Does it need explaining that tax receipts go up when there is economic growth? And no, don't start that shit about how Obama raised taxes, because he didn't.
Bloomberg goes on to say that the still-large gap is "...down 13 percent from $103.6 billion in August 2009, according to a Treasury Department report issued today in Washington. The gap for the fiscal year that started in October was $1.26 trillion compared with $1.37 trillion last year at the same time."
At issue here is not just the decline, as welcome as that may be. I am not a deficit hawk, so I understand that the federal stimulus was always intended to be temporary and that Obama had no viable alternatives. Some want us to forget the magnitude of the steaming pile Bush handed Obama in January, 2009.
The primary take away on this story is that the right wing harangue against federal spending has been upended by the facts. Will this even register with teabaggers? It will be interesting to see how they respond, assuming they even hear it, as we head into the November elections.
And that is what makes this story doubly interesting. The mainstream news does not seem interested in covering it. Bloomberg, yes. But at other major sites, it is still crickets chirping. We'll see if that picks up in the next few days. Perhaps Republicans need more time to spin this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)