One of the most fundamental truisms of politics and policy is that old saying about democracy requiring eternal vigilance. In a political system like ours dominated by big money and the lobbyists that money hires, that is especially true, even in years when Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House.
Beyond the raw power and connections of big business lobbyists, two of the biggest reasons we s till have to worry about this even with Democrats in control are that (a) a lot of these things are done behind the scenes, out of the public spotlight, while other big issues are being intensely debated; and (b) the free market ideology that has come to dominate even in a lot of Democratic circles.
Three huge examples of major backsliding on economic issues have come to light over the last couple of weeks brought on by this combination of lobbyist influence, free market economic theory, and the ability to quietly push for things in the dead of night while health care is taking most of the media's- and the progressive movement- attention. Any of these issues would be easy to win on if the media covered them and/or the progressive movement focused their fire on them, but with health care taking up so much bandwidth, it's harder to fight these things.
If the public option campaign succeeds, it will be a proof of concept for the Progressive Block strategy--House Progressives threatening to join with Republicans to block must-pass Democratic legislation unless they receive a major concession. After all, the public option campaign would not even exist had House Progressives not voted to draw a line in the sand on the public option. If a public option passes into law those Progressives, through their new strategy, will have been the prime movers.
So, thinking ahead for a moment, what should House Progressives target next if they achieve this proof of concept? Climate change might not be feasible, since almost every House Progressive already voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Afghanistan probably won't work, since their won't be anymore supplemental appropriation bills (it will be merged into the budget now), and because Republicans will vote in favor of Afghanistan funding as long as it isn't tied to any other legislation. Financial regulation is difficult because it requires drawing a bright line on such a murky subject. Immigration is a possibility, but given all of the delays in even introducing an immigration bill, it isn't clear at all that the Democratic leadership considers immigration reform to be must-pass legislation.
The best bet is for Progressives to target the budget next year. Specifically, they should demand a substantial, probably 10% (a nice round number), increase in taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Here is why:
Increasing taxes on the rich is pretty popular. In fact, it is one of the most popular things the federal government could do:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 1-5, 2009. N=998 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Do you think the tax code should be changed so that middle and lower income people pay less in taxes than they do now and upper income people pay more in taxes than they do now, or don't you think the tax code should be changed?"
They took our stuff from us, and we are taking it back. How can the top 1% argue that they are the only people who add wealth to America? This is the sort of fight that can help Democrats regain the populist mantle heading into 2010.
People are worried about deficits, but this would be a lot more popular than cutting spending.
This is a clear bright line, the budget is an undeniably must-pass piece of legislation, and this proposal is guaranteed to have 100% Republican opposition.
No question about Senate reconciliation for a budgetary measure like this. So, we wouldn't have to deal with the 60-vote Senate.
This seems like a winnable campaign and could shift the balance of economic and political power in this country. After health care, I hope the Progressive Block pivots toward addressing income inequality through a big, progressive change in the tax code.
Before I write anything else about the Clinton Global Initiative, there's something I've wanted to say about charitable corporate giving of all kinds ever since I went last year.
Companies like WalMart and Goldman Sachs who headline such well-intentioned, high-powered gatherings where so much good is done should be told every day, that if they want to really help their fellow humans, they should just pay their sodding taxes as a small demonstration of good faith.
They should be asked, perhaps, for their charity commitment next year to be that they will faithfully pay their full dues to the governments that provide the roads, educated workers, municipal utilities, free community policing and regulatory services that let customers feel comfortable buying sealed containers from complete strangers - all the things that allow them to make those profits in the first place. You couldn't have most modern businesses without these things, except maybe Blackwater Xe. Seriously. Pay. Your. Taxes.
Only "Discretionary Income" Should Be Taxed Under A System Of Progressive Taxation.
There is an economic concept known as "discretionary" income. This refers to money that people earn which is above and beyond what they need to pay for their basic living expenses.
For example, let's say someone earns $3000/month, $36,000/year. Let's say further that the minimum it would cost this person for housing where they live is $1200/month; health insurance $200/month; food $400/month; car insurance, gas, amortized portion of purchase and repairs $250/month; other utilities such as gas, electric, trash, phone, $150/month, dental $50/month, clothing $50/month, personal products and cleaning supplies $100/month (shampoo, toothpaste, toilet paper, paper towels), and $100/month for an emergency fund. That means $2500/month is the minimum amount this person needs to pay their basic living expenses, without any extras. That means this person has $500/month, $6000/year in "discretionary" income.
Let's take another person earning $120,000/year, $10,000/month. Using the same figures, this person would have $7500/month in "discretionary" income. They could live reasonably on $2500/month, and therefore can do what they want with the $7500/month additional income. It is within their "discretion" to decide whether to save it or spend it and, if they spend it, whether to buy something of long-term value or buy expensive clothes that will have no value within two years. It is entirely within their discretion.
One approach to a progressive system of taxation is to set up a basic amount which is required for somebody to live reasonably every month. In this scenario, I have assumed $2500 is the minimum cost to live reasonably in a month. In a progressive tax system, the first $2500 of somebody's monthly income should not be taxed because, by definition, $2500 is the minimum each person needs to spend in order to have a reasonable life, to pay for the reasonable necessities of shelter, food, medical and dental, modest clothing, and transportation.
Assuming each person needs $2500/month for basic living expenses, that amount should be deducted from their gross income before any taxes are owed. The "standard" deduction from gross income, for purposes of calculating taxes, should therefore be $30,000 per year for a single person. Obviously for married couples, and people with children, each additional person in the family would "cost" less than the $30,000 for the first person. The second person's "costs," in other words, might only be $20,000, since they share the cost of the housing, utilities, and certain other expenses.
If the standard deduction was $30,000 for a single person, then anyone earning $30,000 or less would pay no taxes. Which is how it should be if it requires $30,000 for somebody to live with minimal standards. It's not the fault of the citizens that the cost of living has gone up so dramatically. The standard deduction, unfortunately, is frozen at some unreasonable figure which doesn't even come close to representing what it really costs for somebody to have a minimal lifestyle in this country.
Taxes should only be applied to discretionary income. The percentage of taxes should be progressive, or progressive upwards to reflect the higher income. For example, the first $10,000 of discretionary income might have a 10% tax rate. Everything between $10,001 and $30,000 of discretionary income might have a 20% tax rate. Everything between $30,001 and $70,000 would have a 30% tax rate, and so on. All income (regular and capital gains combined) above the amount of $250,000 should be taxed at 90%. Somebody earning $550,000 for example, would be taxed a progressive rate for everything above the minimum living standards, but would also be taxed at 90% of the $300,000 above $250,000.
So somebody earning $60,000 would pay $1,000 (10% of the first $10,000 of discretionary income, the amount between $30,000 and $40,000) plus $4,000 (20% of the amount between $40,001 and $60,000), for a total tax of $5,000.
Sounds low? Only because we're used to having so much of the tax burden transferred from the rich and the businesses to working Americans because of the tax changes under Reagan and Bush. They changed the tax structure so that the rich pay less, businesses pay almost nothing, and working people have to pay more and more taxes because of tricks like not raising the standard deduction to reflect the actual cost of living.
A progressive tax system, which we theoretically have, "progresses," starting at a low tax rate for low incomes, and going up to a high tax rate for higher incomes. What we have in our country is a system in which rich people and businesses have paid so much money in bribes to the politicians that our tax laws have been re-written so that everything is now regressive, not progressive. Sales taxes, for example, are regressive.
Let's take a state sales tax of 10%, for example. The person earning $24,000/year could easily spend 1/3 of that income buying items which are subject to the sales tax, so they end up paying 10% of $8,000, or an additional $800/year on sales taxes, let's say an additional 3% of their gross income is paid out in taxes. But for the person earning $120,000/year, most of what they do with their money is not subject to sales taxes, since much of the money is "invested" in real estate, or other investments to which sales taxes do not apply. So that person could end up spending under 1% of their income on sales taxes. Sales taxes are regressive, since they force lower-income people to pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes, while the rich pay less.
The reason that more Americans are broke is not because we are stupid, or even uneducated. There is a big push on now by the politicians and the business community to claim that the reason we have high unemployment is because we need to have more education for "our" workers so "we" can compete. This is such garbage. A pack of lies. Microsoft, for example, goes to India and Pakistan and recruits computer engineers to come to the U.S. and work on H1b visas, because they can pay them $11,000/year less than they would pay an American. In the meantime, well-educated American engineers in the computer as well as other fields have all been thrown out of work by U.S. corporations simply because the CEO wants cheaper labor.
The same is true in the building trades, with many highly qualified and well-trained Americans thrown out of work and replaced by truckloads of illegal immigrant workers brought into the country by coyotes, with the cooperation of the Bush administration and the Fox government in Mexico.
There is a systematic program in place in this country to throw more people out of work, eliminate taxes and all regulations which otherwise apply to businesses, cut the taxes for rich people, and steal everything that working people have, from the medical care, pensions, savings, homes. All of it has been looted and taken by the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country.
And the tax system has been changed to allow the rich to pay less, and force most Americans to pay more. Then the tax money is taken and given to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, to pay for wars, while our schools and bridges and freeways are allowed to deteriorate.
Changing the tax system would be a good place to start in trying to save our economy. The last administration as well as the current one have given billions of dollars of taxpayer money to the criminals on Wall Street, as well as running up debt which it will require generations to repay. If we started taxing the rich and businesses, we could begin the process of paying down the debt and investing in our own country again.
We Need To Redistribute Wealth Through A Progressive Taxation System.
Interesting article in the London Review of Books entitled "What Matters." Link below. The author argues that efforts to eliminate or minimize racism and sexism and homophobia have had no positive effect in changing society for the better, except for the benefits received by the small, elite group of women and minorities and gays who are now members of higher-paid professions. The lack of focus on inequality in income and asset ownership, or class differences, and the focus instead of racism and sexism, has allowed the situation for most people to deteriorate over recent decades.
I think his position can be summarized as follows: assuming that the top 20% of our society owns 80% of the country's assets, and takes home 80% of the country's income every year, then the bottom 80% of society is economically unequal -- they are denied their fair share of wealth. If we succeed in eliminating sexism and racism so that the top 20% has a representative number of whites and minorities, but the distribution does not change, then society as a whole has not benefitted. Society is just as unequal, and unfair, for 80% of its members, as it was during the height of racism and sexism.
It's an interesting analysis. It may be that it's easier for people to demand "equality" based on natural-born characteristics, and harder for people to demand economic equality based on a government-sponsored redistribution of wealth. In other words, most people might agree that it is wrong to refuse to allow any woman to go to law school. But they might not be able to articulate an argument about it being wrong to allow some of our citizens to have no home, no food, no money, no safety net. It's almost as if the powers that be might be willing to give up racism and sexism, but would never consider income redistribution.
Income redistribution is the legitimate purpose of a progressive tax system. When people earn ten million dollars, for example, a progressive tax system should take most of that money for public purposes. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that we should try to prevent any group of people from accumulating so much wealth that they can, essentially, put every single politician on their payroll, and control the country without ever having run for office. Which is what's happened in our country today.
For example, we used to have laws that prohibited one person or company from owning multiple TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, believing that democracy is best served when many voices can be heard. But some scum-bucket like Rupert Murdoch comes into this country and starts bribing politicians, and suddenly the laws are changed to allow him to buy up much of the media in the country and use it to promote fascist propaganda. Rich people destroy democracy, and that is why they should not be allowed to get too rich.
For another example, if Bill Gates had been taxed at 90% on his "earnings," maybe he wouldn't have charged the public so much for his crappy operating system, maybe he wouldn't have been so eager to keep competitors from entering the marketplace, maybe he wouldn't have devoted so much time to getting H1b visas to bring in 6-year immigrant labor and pay them less than Americans, all being the types of predatory conduct of people who know they're not going to pay much in taxes, so they are motivated to get as much as they can.
Of course a percentage of our taxes, and those from every country with any wealth, should be turned over to an NGO supervised fund for development, and used to end poverty in the third world. Why should a few ultra-rich people in this country have gold-plated toilets and multiple homes, while millions throughout the world starve? Why is it considered radical to say that this type of inequality must be ended?
We have gone through a period in which we theoretically have a national commitment to being more "fair" to our own people, but the end result is more unfair. Fewer people run everything, the politicians are openly selling their votes, a few rich people own and control all the media, we have more people out of work, more people homeless, fewer people can afford to own a home, states and cities are bankrupt, schools are underfunded, the rich pay less in taxes, more people have been forced into poverty. This isn't progress towards a more fair society. It's just a bit more mixed in terms of gender and race.
"What Matters"
Walter Benn Michaels
"Who Cares about the White Working Class"
edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson
"... [I]t would be a mistake to think that because the US is a less racist, sexist and homophobic society, it is a more equal society. In fact, in certain crucial ways it is more unequal than it was 40 years ago. No group dedicated to ending economic inequality would be thinking today about declaring victory and going home."
"In 1969, the top quintile of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of all the money earned in the US; the bottom quintile made 4.1 per cent. In 2007, the top quintile made 49.7 per cent; the bottom quintile 3.4. And while this inequality is both raced and gendered, it's less so than you might think. White people, for example, make up about 70 per cent of the US population, and 62 per cent of those are in the bottom quintile. Progress in fighting racism hasn't done them any good; it hasn't even been designed to do them any good. More generally, even if we succeeded completely in eliminating the effects of racism and sexism, we would not thereby have made any progress towards economic equality. A society in which white people were proportionately represented in the bottom quintile (and black people proportionately represented in the top quintile) would not be more equal; it would be exactly as unequal. It would not be more just; it would be proportionately unjust. "... ...
"Thus the primacy of anti-discrimination ... performed the intellectual function of focusing social analysis on what she calls 'questions of racial or sexual identity' and on 'cultural differences' instead of on 'the way in which capitalist economies create large numbers of low-wage, low-skill jobs with poor job security'. The message of Who Cares about the White Working Class?, however, is that class has re-emerged: 'What we learn here', according to the collection's editor, Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, is that 'life chances for today's children are overwhelmingly linked to parental income, occupations and educational qualifications - in other words, class.' "
Walter Benn Michaels teaches English at the University of Illinois, Chicago. His most recent book is The Trouble with Diversity; his next will be The Death of a Beautiful Woman: Form Now.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n16/m...
After Ben Bernanke allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to ravage the global economy and nearly destroy the U.S. financial system, President Barack Obama has decided he deserves another term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. (The UpTake has video of Obama's announcement here.) As the Fed Chair, Bernanke has more economic power than any other person on the planet. By heading the committee that sets interest rates, he can control the economy's rate of growth or contraction; as head regulator of the largest banks, Bernanke has more influence over the rules of the economic game than anyone else.
Why is the Bernanke reappointment a mistake? Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive turns to Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent democratic socialist from Vermont. Put simply, Bernanke is completely culpable for allowing an economic crisis to foment.
"Like the rest of the Bush administration, he was asleep at the wheel during this period and did nothing to move our financial system onto safer grounds," Sanders said.
Corporate media generally neglects to mention Bernanke's role at the Fed prior to 2008, and instead credits him with stopping a second Great Depression. It's true that the Fed has done everything possible to keep Wall Street from imploding, but Bernanke also repeatedly insisted that the subprime mortgage crisis would be "contained" as late as 2007 and made no plans for a situation that might prove worse than his rosy forecasts.
As William Greider explains for The Nation, it's a bit too soon to celebrate our economic salvation at Bernanke's hands. Small banks are failing at an alarming rate, job losses remain heavy and households are being squeezed by plummeting property values and growing credit card debt.
Greider emphasizes that Bernanke repeatedly bailed out financial giants without demanding anything in return, which bodes poorly for any future economic crisis. Kenneth Lewis remains Bank of America's CEO, even though the company has needed $45 billion in taxpayer funds to date, and high-level Fed officials think Lewis may be guilty of securities fraud. On the one bailout where the Fed did assume ownership of the company and discharge it's top-level management, AIG, the deal was structured to funnel no-strings-attached money to other Wall Street companies. Goldman Sachs raked in $12.9 billion from the arrangement. It's one thing to funnel money to financial firms in the name of economic necessity. It's quite another to allow executives at those companies to be paid like princes and subsidize their shareholders.
As economist James K. Galbraith discusses in a piece for The Washington Monthly, it's not clear if Bernanke and Co. actually saved the economy. Even if the financial system gets back to normal functioning, that stability has been purchased with massive taxpayer support. In order to do just about anything involving finance in the United States, a company now needs a very explicit government seal of approval to convince investors that they're safe to do business with. Just ask Colonial Bank, which failed earlier this summer after being denied bailout funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
But there has been secret support as well. Bernanke's Fed committed over $2 trillion in emergency loans to keep the financial system from collapsing during the crisis, and has refused to tell the public who got the money, and on what terms. We don't know who we saved, or at what the consequences of this massive bank support operation will be. Bernanke always believed that rescuing Wall Street would prevent major damage to the broader economy, but Galbraith questions whether the economy would be stronger if policymakers had focused more on direct aid to workers and homeowners, including an earlier, more robust economic stimulus package.
"Perhaps the right thing would have been less focus on saving banks, and much more on saving jobs, families, and homes."
Writing for In These Times, Roger Bybee profiles a new group called Americans for Financial Reform, which is pushing for changes on Wall Street and fighting against business-as-usual at the Fed. The bank lobby is probably the most powerful interest group on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a strong and consistent voice urging lawmakers to protect the entire economy, rather than the banks. The very structure of the Fed makes it more responsive to Wall Street interests than those of the general public. Private-sector banks like Citigroup and Bank of America are shareholders in each of the Fed's regional branches, while private-sector bank executives sit on the board of directors at each branch. Since the boards get to name the regional presidents, private-sector bank CEOs are given major power to name their own regulators. Regional presidents also rotate through positions on the Fed's monetary policy board, making decisions to set interest rates.
The Fed's institutional structure, and its reliance on mainstream economists overly acquiescent to the financial sector has helped fuel the boom-and-bust bubble economy, as the Real News explains in this video piece:
In addition to the turmoil surrounding the Bernanke appointment, the recent budget deficit projections have been receiving a lot of attention lately. By throwing around a lot of big numbers that end in "trillion," deficit hawks have created the impression of crisis where none exists. The government will have a $1.6 trillion shortfall this year, equal to about 11% of the U.S. economy. That's the highest such number since the U.S. economy started to soar in the years after World War II, high enough to mobilize CNBC pundits to warn of financial apocalypse and a bankrupt U.S. government.
But as Robert Reich notes for Salon, it's not really worth getting too worked up over the current deficit projections. In a recession, countries want to run a deficit: the government needs to fill hole created by the drop-off in private-sector economic activity. If the U.S. doesn't run a big deficit, it will shed millions of additional jobs. And the country is nowhere near losing control of its currency. The federal debt stands at about 54% of our economic output right now, and is projected to reach 68% by 2019. But Reich notes that in 1945, the number was far higher: 120%. This number shrank dramatically over the next few years, not because of draconian cuts to government programs, but because the economy grew so much that the debt burden became less severe. We are nowhere near a crisis with the budget that compares to the current unemployment crisis, so pulling back spending right now doesn't make much sense.
Bernanke has always argued that the Fed chair's only duty is to control inflation. But managing the economy means not only attending to inflation, but making sure the true engine of economic growth-financially secure households-isn't sacrificed to the short-term interests of a few Wall Street elites. Bernanke failed to block that economic predation early in his tenure as Fed Chairman. If Bernanke is going to be with us for another four years, President Obama needs to find other ways to restore our economic balance.
How many stories have we heard in recent years of CEO's and other executives looting, stealing, polluting and wreaking general havoc? The incentive to loot a company's pension funds is money. The incentive to outsource our jobs is money. The incentive to deny needed treatments to an insured patient is money. The incentive to pollute our rivers and air is money.
Generally the incentive to lie, cheat and steal is money. This is especially true in the corporate world where the reason for ... well, everything ... is money. This is normal, and can be kept in check. But the temptation that pushes many over the line is not just money, it is the possibility of the big, humungous jackpot. And that is what we have today.
It used to be that you could make, why, millions of dollars if you worked hard, built a company, invented something important, or had amazing talent. But today mere millions is for chumps. Today you can loot a fund, rig an energy market, forward-run stocks or threaten to bring down an economy and end up with a quick payoff of billions.
When excessive, massive paydays are possible, it opens the door to overwhelming greed and a resulting compromising of principles.
There is a way to prevent the destructive behavior we have been seeing from the top. People won't have an incentive to cheat and steal if they can't get the huge jackpot from the proceeds. Let's limit the possibility of collecting a vast and fast return. The vast and fast return is the motivator, so take it out of the equation.
Instead, Rangel said Democrats will seek to enact one large tax increase targeting wealthier workers to generate the revenue they need to finance their $1 trillion-plus healthcare reform bill.(...)
There would be different surtax rates, ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent, for workers with annual earnings of $350,000, $500,000 and $1 million, Rangel said. Surtaxes are calculated by adding the relevant percentage to workers' regular yearly tax bill.
Despite the overwhelming, galactic, historic and never before equaled popularity of the "tea party" protests this year, this Democratic plan to pay for health care reform through taxes on the wealthy is an extremely popular public policy route. This is because there really is no constituency for cuts to government spending. A recent poll conducted by Pew showed that spending cuts are a truly fringe position in American politics:
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey. June 18-21, 2009. Adults nationwide. "If you were making up the budget for the federal government this year, would you increase spending for [see below], decrease spending for [see below], or keep spending the same for this?"
Area
Increase
Keep Same
Decrease
Unsure
Education
67%
23%
6%
4%
Veterans
63%
29%
2%
6%
Health Care
61%
24%
10%
6%
Medicare
53%
37%
6%
4%
Crime
45%
39%
10%
6%
Unemployment
44%
36%
15%
6%
Environment
43%
34%
16%
6%
Energy
41%
35%
15%
6%
Military
40%
37%
18%
5%
Science
39%
40%
14%
7%
Agriculture
35%
41%
12%
13%
Anti-terrorism
35%
41%
17%
7%
Intl Aid
26%
33%
34%
7%
Cutting spending is a fringe position, with less than 20% of the country supporting cuts in all major spending areas. While there are not many policy areas where there is a clear majority for raising spending (health care, education, and veteran's being the exceptions), in virtually every spending area there is at least twice as much support for raising government spending as there is for cutting it. This finding is supported by a somewhat less recent Harris poll from 2007 (more in the extended entry):
Give the media and blog play the new Pew Survey on political values and core attitudes seems to be getting, I find it necessary to offer a further rebuttal to the usefulness of the insights provided by the poll.
These are just some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,223 adults surveyed online between March 6 and 14, 2007 by Harris Interactive®. Other findings include:
A 71 percent to 15 percent majority of adults do not think "it is necessary to increase taxes to reduce the budget deficit". Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel this way;
Even if taxes "had to be raised", very large majorities oppose raising the estate tax (64%) gas taxes (82%), income taxes (81%), the social security tax (83%), and the Medicare tax (87%);
The only two taxes on the list shown to those interviewed which would be acceptable to majorities of adults ("if taxes had to be raised") are taxes on cigarettes and beer and alcohol, with 73 percent and 72 percent of adults respectively saying these so called "taxes" should be increased;
When it comes to cutting government spending, there is little support for cutting any substantial programs. Given a list of twelve federal government programs and asked to pick two which should be cut ("if spending had to be cut") space programs top the list by a wide margin (51%). Significant minorities, all under 30 percent, pick welfare programs (28%), defense spending (28%), farm subsidies (24%), environmental programs (16%), homeland security (12%) and transportation (11%). Hardly anyone would cut Medicaid (4%), education (3%), Social Security (2%) or Medicare (1%).
By throwing around terms like "socialism" and asking vague questions about political values, we can pretend that there are major policy differences in America. However, when people are actually asked about government programs, the bi-partisan, status quo nature of America is truly revealed.
Miniscule percentages--less than 5%--of the country want to make cuts to Medicaid, education, Social Security and Medicare when given a choice between those and other programs. The percentage of people who want to cut defense spending is down, too. In addition to unemployment, these programs account for roughly 80% of government spending, and very few people want to cut them.
On the other side of the coin, it seems that the only tax increases people favor are taxes on the wealthy, and also cigarette and alcohol taxes. Everything else is pretty unpopular.
The simple fact is that the overwhelming political advice from the American is to maintain the status quo. And so, our politicians do just that. I've said it before and I'll say it again: right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats are only arguing over 3% of the economy. We could bother to point that out to the country, but it seems a lot easier to call each other names and pretend that our abstract self-identifications actually constitute large policy differences.
I am a discontent and distressed taxpayer! "Disgruntled" is a word that might describe my deep dissatisfaction with how my tax dollars are spent. Yet, on April 15, 2009, typically thought of as "Tax Day," I felt no need to join my fellow citizens in protest. I did not attend a "Tea Party". I too believe, in this country, "taxation without representation" is a problem. One only need ponder the profits of lobbyists to understand the premise. Corporate supplicants amass a 22,000 percent rate of return on their investments. The average American is happy to realize a two-digit increase. Nonetheless, as much as I too may argue the point, assessments are paid without accountability, what concerns me more is my duty dollars did not support what I think ethical projects.
Tax time is reason enough to reflect on our budgets, personal and national. How realistic are our expenditures? Do we spend more than we earn? Does our income allow for a few irrational indulgences? Do discretionary dollars exist? Might we consider our ample debt. Does this represent a temporary deficit, easily resolved, or an obligation that cannot be paid promptly. We may wish to rethink our reality. At home, families have taken scissors to credit cards. More than the minimum payment is made. The intention is to lessen liabilities and increase savings. In the month of April, after we pay Uncle Sam, most of us concluded, it is time to clean our own fiscal house. Next, we move to the nation's ledger.
Expenses The largest share of our moneys go to military operations. The terror tax has become a tremendous burden of American household and communities. Yet, few wish to rethink this "duty."
For those of you who had to cut checks and wait in long lines at the Post Office yesterday, here's a stat to darken your already gloomy week. According to the National Priorities Project (NPP), 37.3 cents of every tax dollar went toward military spending last year. NPP has a site set up where you can actually see the breakdown of where your tax dollars went in 2008, based on your city and county info. For instance, in Philly where I live, the median income family paid $1,958 in federal income taxes last year. Of that, $576 went to military spending and another $155 went to military interest on debt, while education received a paltry $59 and environment, energy and science combined got just $55. Why are these numbers so skewed?
Thankfully, the Obama administration has called for substantial investment in woefully underfunded areas like education, healthcare reform, and renewable energy. And investing in renewable energy will translate into more jobs, even though the NPP notes that 30 percent of military spending currently goes toward securing fossil fuels. Here's the thing though, if our country is simultaneously escalating the war in Afghanistan, calling for a long-term military commitment, how can they possibly deliver on their economic agenda?
The tax protests which sprouted yesterday in places like Sacramento, DC, and, of all places, The Alamo, were proclaimed to be "spontaneous" by the talking heads at Fox News (who "spontaneously" set up their crews and equipment around the country to broadcast the protests... and whose presence was repeatedly announced on the Fox News programs ahead of time, I guess, as a "spontaneous" piece of PR.)
To get to these protests, which took place in public squares, parks and historical sites (all supported and maintained by taxes), people took highways and subways and railroads (all subsidized by taxes)... and after the protests ended they probably went out to eat somewhere, having meats and vegetables which our Agriculture and other Departments keep a safety view on by means of taxes. Most of these protests were guarded and protected by police (paid by taxes), to make sure their right to protest was upheld and no one was hurt.
"Why not send my tax check directly to Wall Street execs?" asks Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies. "Normally," Anderson insists, she and her husband don't object to paying taxes because "we believe that strategic government investment is the way out of this crisis, and we're happy to contribute our fair share. But this year I cringed as I dropped that check in the mail, thinking about how I might as well have just handed it directly to a Wall Street executive."
Anderson's fears may not be far off base. Economist Jeffrey Sachs succinctly describes the latest iteration of the nation's mammoth financial bailout as a plan to "potentially and unnecessarily transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from taxpayers to banks." Other prominent economists have reached the same conclusion.
If economists and progressive think tankers were the only ones cringing, I'd be worried about the policy. But in the current national climate, I'm concerned about the politics as well. After all, Anderson may recognize that "strategic government investment is the way out of this crisis." But such clear thinking is not universal. The risk is that the irresponsible financial bailout will jeopardize support for the Obama Administration's more progressive economic agenda. We're seeing it today as a series of highly-orchestrated anti-tax tea parties are held across the country, the fruits of an effort by conservative ideologues to conflate the irresponsible bank bailout with the stimulus bill and other public investment the economy desperately needs.
Media spectacles notwithstanding, there's little evidence that they're gaining broad traction. The latest Gallup poll finds "Americans' views of their federal income taxes about as positive as any point in the last 60 years." No widespread anti-tax revolt is brewing. Still, I'd rather Grover Norquist were not smiling quite so broadly.
I'm on record as optimistic that the President will be able to channel justified populist rage to pursue policies that genuinely strengthen and expand the nation's middle class. Today, I'm feeling a bit less confident. When I pay my taxes, I'd rather be thinking about public libraries, air traffic controllers, municipal parks, Social Security, high-quality schools and public colleges, food inspections, safe streets, kids with health coverage, efficient transit, cutting-edge scientific research and unemployment benefits that are there if I need them. But those costly bank bailouts (and, yes, the mounting burden of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) are on my mind as well.
A Thinking Liberally Left-Minded Meditation
by Justin Krebs, Living Liberally
"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."
- US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
"Stop Whining and Pay Your Taxes"
- Bumper sticker my Dad wanted to print up about 18 years ago.
Congratulations, America. It's April 15th, a day we mark honorably; an annual tradition we've together reached once again. Let's trade some high-fives and puff our chests out in patriotic pride because today is Invest-in-America Day!
You don't hear many people applauding April 15th. Instead you see news stories about long lines at the post office, and businesses try to capitalize on your tax frustration (Dunkin' Donuts offered free donuts as "tax relief" last year). Because it's Tax Day in America...and thanks to an enduring Benjamin Franklin aphorism, many of our fellow citizens are more likely to associate taxes with "death" than with good schools, clean air, a strong military, innovations in health and science and all the other benefits are taxes bring us.
Just try to say "Happy Tax Day" to anyone and see what reactions you get. If you end up in the wrong place, you might even get a teabag thrown at you.
Politically speaking, six years ago was very much the photonegative of the current environment. Then, as now, a single political party was just settling into control over the White House and both branches of Congress (2003 was the first year Republicans controlled all three levers since 1954). Then, as now, there was a palpable sense of international crisis. Then, as now, a protest movement was created in opposition to the policies the new Washington trifecta was enacting in response to the crisis. The major event for both movements even took place on the 15th day of a month.
The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million. (...)
100,000 protesters (BBC estimate) took part in a rally near the UN building.... As people tried to reach the rally area they ended up constituting an unplanned march, stretching twenty blocks down First Avenue and overflowing onto Second and Third Avenue. In total estimates range from been 300,000 to 400,000 protesters (WSWS estimate) to over a million protesters (Berlin Heise estimate)
At a demonstration in Los Angeles, California 50,000 (WSWS estimate to 60,000 (GLW estimate) protesters...
a protest in San Francisco... 150,000 people, while protest organisers and police agreed that the crowd count was 200,000 people...
In Colorado Springs, 4,000 protesters were dispersed with pepper spray, tear gas, stun guns and batons...
In Seattle organisers aimed to have 20 to 30 thousand people join a march from Seattle Center following a giant blue planet, the emblem adopted by the march organisers. On the day 50,000 people (GLW estimate) turned out to protest...
Demonstrations also took place in Philadelphia, where thousands (CNN estimate) joined a march to the Liberty Bell, and in Chicago where 10,000 people demonstrated (GLW estimate)
If we are going to achieve the 40% social investment economy, the public sector will require more revenue. More public sector revenue basically means more taxes. Clearly, the only new taxes that will be politically feasible will those targeted toward higher income groups. The best options are to repeal all Bush-era tax cuts, put a tax on all carbon (if this means 100% auctions on cap and trade, that's fine, too), and to eliminate the income cap on Social Security income taxes.
While these are both moderate (relative to other wealthy countries) and achievable (both President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership have endorsed all, or part, of each of these three pillars of new revenue) goals, there are still major barriers. In fact, there are still major barriers in our own party. A prime example is Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, who two weeks ago authored and, with the support of nine other Democrats, passed an amendment to reduce the amount of rollback the House had proposed on the estate tax. A reader explains over email (more in the extended entry):
Putting a price on all carbon, plus completely eliminating the income cap on Social Security taxes, are the two main keys to long-term progressive victory on the economy. Politically speaking, they are the easiest means to achieve the necessary level of government revenue for a balanced, new social investment economy that will allow us to escape the cycle of bubble and bust in which or country has been stuck for the past thirty years.
That is a big proclamation which needs unpacking. So, let me backup for a moment, and explain it in three parts. First, what is the new social investment economy? Second, how much revenue is needed to support it? Third, why is completely eliminating the income cap on Social Security taxes and putting a price on all carbon usage the best means of acquiring that revenue?
Explanation in the extended entry. Please check it out, because I think this is really a big deal.
Like many progressives, I've been laughing a lot about the GOP's tea-bagging antitaxation demonstrations planned for tomorrow. But childish jokes aside, here's why these protests are so insidious. They will provide a staged, corporate lobbyist-sponsored moment for Republicans and Fox News personalities to amplify their specious objections to President Obama's tax increase for the rich, while furthering their own right-wing conspiratorial claims about liberal values. By usurping and bastardizing an iconic event from the American Revolution, they offer an ersatz grassroots movement from the right--complete and utter AstroTurf--in an attempt to reclaim the national spotlight.
As Think Progress's Faiz Shakir exclaimed last night on Fox Business as he ripped the network a new one:
These tea parties are a sham. The reason they're a sham is because they're directed by lobbyists here in D.C. ... And on top of that, you've got this network, Fox News, which is advocacy - pushing this, promoting this with all of its heart. And it is not a grassroots movement when you have Jonathan Hoenig, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren promoting this up the wazoo. That is not a grassroots movement.
When I was a kid in Philly, Veterans Stadium was known as a "career-killer" because the cement-like AstroTurf wrecked the knees and ankles of so many promising baseball and football players. Let's hope tomorrow's AstroTurf movement turns out to be a career-killer for all the lunatic Republicans and hedge fund directors and Fox shock jocks who make the wild accusations that Obama isn't from our country, or that evolution is a lie.
As students of American history know, in 1932 and 1933, after the election and around the inauguration of FDR, there was a significant portion of the public that wanted a dictator. FDR even toyed with the idea but chose not to do so. At that time Fascism wasn't necessarily frowned upon here. Mussolini was actually well respected, and the Reichstag fire just happened in March 1933 when Hitler took complete control. So they can argue that we need a dictator. But, let's be consistent. Shred the constitution, if necessary. But they never take me up on it: instead, they pretend to love democracy. You can't have it both ways. My biggest problem, I tell them, with Bush and his thugs is not that he was moving close to dictatorial power; but that the slobs tried to hide that they were doing so. Just he and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other scumbags took it upon themselves to do what they did. That's why I say they belong in public cages where they can be on display, like a zoo. But, we should be able as a country to have a rational discussion as to the future form of our government.
Maybe we'd be a lot better off if we agreed on a dictatorship. Freeze the borders, bomb anywhere in the world if they don't give us their raw materials, lock up the colored peoples in camps, and eat big meals. We can then wash it down with alcohol and really not give a shit. Oh, and only wasps can be on TV commercials and the women can argue over how clean they keep their linoleum floors. Yes, those were the days! And if I stop in a store, English is always spoken exclusively. An all white world! No more of that 3rd world riff-raff. Bring it on!!
The problem, as I see it, is that we can't even debate rationally whether we'd be better off with a dictator because they are total liars and won't admit the obvious. They have a vested interest in pretending that they love democracy...that they're patriotic. No, it has gotten to the point where, if almost any subject is even brought up to them, the right wing quickly reveals itself as being little more than a poorly concealed reservoir of bigotry. For example, let's face it, they favor vouchers rather than pay to improve public education, because they want to "legally" send their children to all white schools. And, even more to the point than that, at all costs don't share the wealth. No problem that for the last 30 years we've witnessed unprecedented growth in income disparity, the rich can never get enough. I could go on and on with examples of their blatant class bigotry but, what's the point? I trust you understand. "Vouchers" is a mere slogan, used by the real elite, like "patriotism", to solicit the prejudice that is just below the surface of every human being.....and they know it.
You want to experience receiving a blank look? Try explaining to any one of these slobs that Obama just wants to let expire the Bush tax cut for the rich, his proposal doesn't even come remotely close to what the rich were paying under Eisenhower, Nixon, or Bush Sr. Naturally, they are left speechless because their position is indefensible. They apparently think they have an absolute right to any wealth they have acquired. They will not give up anything without screaming as loudly as they can........Unfortunately, be ready for more and even louder noise.
And yet, for example, according to the right wing, when welfare was "reformed" over a decade ago, that was reduction of a mere privilege, not a "right". The poor don't have a right to much more than the air, according to the elites,.....they should just be thankful that they live in this country, and be appreciative and obedient, and wave the flag. After all, everything's fine the way it is, no need for this call for "change". Who needs change when you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want it, and wherever you wish? To them (the real elite), the only possible "change" is that they should acquire even more wealth because they "deserve" it. (How has the overwhelming majority agreed to this crap for so long?).
We have to finally fully admit the truth that it is human nature to always want more. It will never end, so stop waiting for it. The elites understand human nature and use bigotry to their advantage. We (the human race) have to be in a constant struggle to battle our own tendencies, to fight to promote equality. It's true that there will be no such thing as "equality" unless we are engaged in constant struggle to achieve and then maintain it.
Presumably we know that people are not born equal, we can only hope and aspire to equality of opportunity. But, it must be kept in mind that at any given time there is only so much "pie" to go around. Therefore, it's also human nature for these Sarah Palin fans, to do what they can to prevent the underclasses from "succeeding". For every little bit of monetary "success" by those without, the elite must surrender something of value. They'll never do it voluntarily, and never without loud screaming. Vouchers, low taxes, wars, patriotism, abortion, etc., are all bigotry-based slogans used to keep those without in line, all to the benefit of the real elite. Certainly, it's time to ignore those distractions and treat them as just that: "distractions", thrown in the way by the elite to try to prevent the masses from focusing on what must truly matter to them: distinctions of wealth.
And, it would seem to necessarily follow, that although we would achieve much in the way of needed efficiency, if we were to move to a dictatorship, there would be the likely prospect that Mr./Ms. dictator would protect the wealth of the real elite. and bigotry would be even more expanded and out in the open than it now is. And, almost by definition, the masses would lose whatever access they now have to appeal (question) the decisions that are made, so the overwhelming majority of humans in this country would be worse off. That being the case, dictatorship must be prevented.
It is no surprising announcement to say that we (the USA) now face an enormously large problem. There is a good chance that in attempting to resolve this problem, we will end up in an ultra-rightist, dictatorship, with even more inequality than is now present. In looking into the foggy future, I can't help but see a USA that is very good for the dwindling few and ever worse for the growing majority. Until what? (because things always do change). It continues to "grow" until it just bursts and I don't want to be around for the explosion. But is it even fair of me to leave such an existence to my children? Probably not.
Accordingly, we cannot morph into a dictatorship. Instead, we must continue with some sort of lame attempt at democracy until we get it right or, at least, acceptable. And due to a great many reasons, including how well the right is organized and how loud will be the screaming, we have no choice but to mobilize now, and urgently. This should be the existing short-term plan, anyhow. As to the long-term, and disputes of capitalism v. socialism, etc., we at least have several months within which to argue and decide.
I see this as akin to a life and death struggle: run, work harder, and harder, and "beat" the outnumbered into submission. There is no choice.
Obama, whatever you may think of him, represents our best hope. If he fails we get at least 4 or 8 more years of idiots and scoundrels, at a time when not only is it highly undesirable but, humanity can simply not afford it. So, we have no choice but to support him in mass. I think he has requested such support. Push him! We have no choice but to help and now! It may actually surprise us as to how much we can achieve. After all, there really must be some hope.
