“A Heart Two Sizes Too Small”: Pretending I Am A Republican
Ok, I thought it would be fun to pretend that I am a Republican. Cut me some slack here. I know what some of you are thinking…this is some mean trick.
No, really, I am trying to figure out what I would do if I were running for president as a Republican. And I understand the problem with going “mainstream” now, as everyone is fighting for the most conservative, extreme wing of the party.
But here are 5 things I would suggest:
Middle Class: First and foremost, I would try and figure out how to fight for the middle class. I would not be talking about stopping a $1,500 tax break for working families, while suggesting another drop in the upper income tax bracket from 35 percent to 28 percent, even after the Bush temporary tax cut from 39 percent to 35 percent. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to pay for the tax break for the middle class in some fashion but do not seem to care much about paying for the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. This is hurting them badly politically and they need to support tax breaks for those who are suffering. So, I would be talking about the middle class by suggesting help for college and trade school, help with job training, incentives for hiring and expanding, and providing tax breaks for start-ups.
Tolerance: I would try and take on others (including the opponents) for gratuitous slams at gays, Hispanics, blacks, women, and Arab Americans. I would openly criticize an audience that boos a gay soldier fighting for his country, a candidate who talks about “Obama’s war on religion” while blasting gays in the military, and others who believe a state initiative on Shariah law is smart politics. Americans are moving fast towards tolerance and acceptance of those who are different from them—embrace it, don’t fan the flames of intolerance.
Role of Government: Republicans will, for the time being, blast government but they should say what they are for. How about acknowledging that the Securities and Exchange Commission should have had more teeth and been more vigilant in going after the Madoffs and Stanfords of the world? Now is not the time to let the financial system run amok; rather we should be tougher in protecting the “little guy”, the consumer, the investor, the depositor. Why not combine a concern for over-regulation of small businesses with a tighter grip on those who have abused the system?
Foreign Policy: This is one area where Republicans should zip it. If I were running I would give Obama his due on the war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, praise Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pivot to domestic issues. Talk expanding trade, cutting good deals, competing with the Chinese and leave it at that—but don’t accuse Obama of being “weak.” Doesn’t work. Creating more jobs in the international economy is a much better message.
National Service: Sounds like a side issue, but I would call for all Americans to give back to their country. Everyone between 18-25 should serve in some capacity for two years, in the military, in the Peace Corps, Teach for America, in their local communities. The reward: help with their education, paying off student loans, assistance with grad school—a new GI Bill if you will—but ultimately, good deeds are their own reward. We would change the ethic in this country that you can have your cake and eat it too, that your government owes you, that there is no need to contribute your talents, hard work, resources, to others.
So, I guess if I turned into a Republican, I wouldn’t be very popular in the current crowd, would I? But my strong belief is that a Republican who adopted these five ideas might just stand a better chance of being elected next November. Yes, this is Christmas and a time of miracles but maybe, just maybe there are some Republicans out there who agree.
By: Peter Fenn, U. S. News and World Report, December 16, 2011
Blame Budget Shortfall On Tax Cuts For The Rich
Let’s leave aside the question of fairness, for now. The paramount question is whether the United States is generating the revenue it needs to fund the public structures that are essential for business and individual prosperity—things like transportation networks, schools, healthcare, college, and many other important functions of government in a capitalistic society. By any indicator the answer is that the United States is falling short in providing both the revenue to fund these services as well as providing for their ongoing maintenance and modernization.
Federal tax revenue is lower than it has been in half a century. The federal government’s revenues from income taxes on households make up 6.4 percent of GDP; which is 1.1 percentage points lower than half a century ago, and 3.8 percentage points lower than the peak in the boom year of 2000. Our current tax revenues are not only low relative to historical levels, but they rank low internationally as well. Our total tax revenues, including federal, state, and local taxes, comprise 27 percent of GDP, a level far lower than most of our peers in the developed world. In fact, among the 33 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only three (Korea, Turkey, and Mexico) take in proportionately less tax revenue than we do.
And so we come to the question of whether the richest in America are paying their fair share. The reality is that the steep fall in federal tax revenue was caused largely by cuts in the tax rates for the very wealthiest households. The current marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket—in other words, the tax rate on income above a threshold for the wealthiest taxpayers—of 35 percent is among the lowest since WWII, far lower than the 80 percent rate during the high-growth 1960s and the 39.6 percent rate of much of the 1990s. Of course, most rich households do not pay the published rate—after taking into account deductions and other big tax benefits, the actual percentage of a rich household’s entire income paid in taxes has also fallen precipitously, dropping from 31.3 percent for millionaires in 1993 to 22 percent today.
So, no, the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes—neither as defined by historical American norms or by international standards. And, the result of that shirking of responsibility is sluggish growth, diminished social mobility, declining educational attainment, and lost business efficiencies due to our insufficient and often outdated transportation and information networks.
By: Tamara Draut, U. S. News and World Report, December 16, 2011
Why GOP Voters Love Irresponsible Newt
Newt Gingrich has done it again. With his new tax plan he has raised the bar from irresponsibility to recklessness.
Every dollar estimate I’m about to share with you comes from the independent, non-partisan Tax Policy Center – a group whose estimates are used by almost everyone in Washington regardless of political persuasion.
First off, Newt’s plan increases the federal budget deficit by about $850 billion – in a single year!
To put this in perspective, most forecasts of the budget deficit cover ten years. The elusive goal of the White House and many on both sides of the aisle in Congress is to reduce that ten-year deficit by 3 to 4 trillion dollars.
Newt goes in the other direction, with gusto. Increasing the deficit by $850 billion in a single year is beyond the wildest imaginings of the least responsible budget mavens within a radius of three thousand miles from Washington.
Imagine what Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s or Fitch would do if it became law. We’d go directly from a triple-A credit rating to triple X – the veritable porn star of fiscal mayhem. Interest on our debt would become larger than most of the rest of the budget.
Most of this explosion of debt in Newt’s plan occurs because he slashes taxes. But not just anyone’s taxes. The lion’s share of Newt’s tax cuts benefit the very, very rich.
That’s because he lowers their marginal income tax rate to 15 percent – down from the current 35 percent, which was Bush’s temporary tax cut; down from 39 percent under Bill Clinton; down from at least 70 percent in the first three decades after World War II. Newt also gets rid of taxes on unearned income – the kind of income that the super-rich thrive on – capital gains, dividends and interest.
Under Newt’s plan, each of the roughly 130,000 taxpayers in the top .1 percent – the richest one-tenth of one percent – reaps an average tax cut of $1.9 million per year. Add what they’d otherwise have to pay if the Bush tax cut expired on schedule, and each of them saves $2.3 million a year.
To put it another way, under Newt’s plan, the total tax bill of the top one-tenth of one percent drops from around 38 percent of their income to around 10 percent.
What about low-income households? They get an average tax cut of $63 per year.
Oh, I almost forgot: Newt also slashes corporate taxes.
I’m not making this up.
This might be amusing if Newt were just being old Newt – if this were another infamous hot-air bubble emerging from an always provocative, sometimes clever, often bizarre mind.
But it’s the tax plan of the leading candidate for president of one of the two major political parties of the United States.
And it comes at a time when America’s super rich are raking in a larger portion of total income and wealth than at any time over the last 80 years, and when their marginal taxes are lower than they’ve been in three decades; a time when the nation’s long-term budget deficit is causing cuts in education and infrastructure which will impair our future and that of our children, and when safety nets and social services are being slashed.
Can Newt get away with this?
Probably — because his plan also comes at a time when Americans are so cynical about the major institutions of our society that someone who offers huge, outrageous plans holds a special fascination: The whole system is so awful, people tell themselves, why not just jettison everything and start from scratch? Let’s throw caution to the winds and do something really big – even if it’s colossally stupid.
This is why the more outrageous Newt can be, the better his polls. The more irresponsible his bomb-throwing, the more attractive he becomes to a sizable portion of Americans so fed up they feel like throwing bombs.
History is full of strong men with dangerous ideas who gain power when large masses of people are so desperate and disillusioned they’ll follow anyone who offers big, seemingly easy solutions.
At times like this a nation must depend on its wise elders – people who have gained a reputation for good judgment and integrity, and who are broadly respected by all sides regardless of political affiliation or ideology – to call out the demagogues, speak the truth, and restore common sense.
The great tragedy of America today is the paucity of such individuals when we need them the most.
By: Robert Reich, Published in Salon, December 14, 2011. (This originally appeared on Robert Reich’s blog, December 13, 2011)
No Amount Of Obama ‘Leadership’ Could’ve Saved The Super Committee
Despite what you might have heard, Barack Obama is not to blame for the failure of the so-called “super committee” to reach a debt deal. That the president should have exercised greater “leadership” has become a standard talking point both on the right and among the “everyone’s to blame for a broken system” commentariat. But that line of criticism simply isn’t connected to political reality.
Part of the problem is a belief that has developed in recent decades in the omnipotence of the president and the bully pulpit.
As my colleague Ken Walsh notes,
Americans expect their president to push the system into action and, through persuasion, cajolery, threats, intimidation or personal diplomacy, get things done on Capitol Hill.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg got it right when he told reporters, in reaction to the committee’s collapse, “It’s the chief executive’s job to bring people together and to provide leadership. I don’t see that happening.”
But that presupposes that all policy gaps are bridgeable. Some simply aren’t. In this specific instance, the chasm was too wide. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent has neatly summarized it, the super sticking point was: “Democrats wanted the rich to pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction, and Republicans wanted the rich to pay less in taxes towards deficit reduction.”
When Republicans finally allowed for some increased tax revenues, they were conditioned on making permanent the Bush tax cuts. In other words the GOP was willing to close around $300 billion in loopholes in exchange for adding $4 trillion to the deficit in the form of enshrining the Bush tax rates.
Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum has a helpful set of four questions any critics of Obama’s leadership here should answer. The second one is the key: Critics should “explain whether they think Republicans would ever, under any circumstances, have accepted a deal with a net tax increase.”
No one who is both sentient and has watched politics in recent years thinks that they would. So the leadership that Bloomberg and others would have Obama exercise would involve him either talking the GOP into becoming Democrats or himself capitulating to their demands. (This latter option would, of course, have set many of the same commentators off on a round of exposition about what a weak leader Obama is for having surrendered to the GOP, again.)
The utter hollowness of the GOP position is underscored by the fact that Republicans who criticize Obama for not taking a more direct role in the super committee’s deliberations attacked him for undermining the committee when he released his deficit reduction proposal (h/t Sargent).
The belief that presidential “leadership” would have somehow bridged this divide is especially pernicious because it plays into the hands of GOP hardliners. So long as pundits insist that any policy chasm can be bridged with just an application of presidential leadership, it removes all incentive for the side opposing the president to do anything but hold a hard line. What else should they do when he gets the blame for their intransigence?
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, November 22, 2011
How The Rich Created The Social Security “Crisis”
Now and then, George W. Bush told the unvarnished truth—most often in jest. Consider the GOP presidential nominee’s Oct. 20, 2000, speech at a high-society $800-a-plate fundraiser at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria. Resplendent in a black tailcoat, waistcoat and white bow tie, Bush greeted the swells with evident satisfaction.
“This is an impressive crowd,” he said. “The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”
Any questions?
Eight months later, President Bush delivered sweeping tax cuts to that patrician base. Given current hysteria over what a recent Washington Post article called “the runaway national debt,” it requires an act of historical memory to recall that the Bush administration rationalized reducing taxes on inherited wealth because paying down the debt too soon might roil financial markets.
Eleven years later, the Post warns in a ballyhooed article, reading like something out of Joseph Heller’s “Catch-22,” that Social Security—the 75-year-old bedrock of millions of Americans’ retirement hopes—has “passed a treacherous milestone,” gone “cash negative,” and “is sucking money out of the Treasury.”
Anybody who discerns a relationship between these events, that is, between a decade of keeping the “have-mores’” yachts and Lear jets running smoothly and a manufactured crisis supposedly threatening grandma’s monthly Social Security check must be some kind of radical leftist.
That, or somebody skeptical of the decades-long propaganda war against America’s most efficient, successful and popular social insurance program. It’s an effort that’s falsely persuaded millions of younger Americans that Social Security is in its last days and made crying wolf a test of “seriousness” among Beltway courtier-pundits like the Post’s Lori Montgomery, who concocted an imaginary front page emergency out of a relatively meaningless actuarial event.
All in service, alas, of a single unstated premise: The “have-mores” have made off with grandma’s money fair and square. They have no intention of paying it back. That’s the only possible interpretation of the Post’s admonition that “the $2.6 trillion Social Security trust fund will provide little relief. The government has borrowed every cent and now must raise taxes, cut spending or borrow more heavily from outside investors to keep benefit checks flowing.”
Little relief? In fact, the law’s working precisely as intended. After 28 years of generating huge payroll tax surpluses to cover the baby boomers’ retirement benefits, the system must now begin to draw upon those funds to help pay current benefits—the vast majority still covered by current payroll tax receipts.
“Rather than posing any sort of crisis,” explains Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “this is exactly what had been planned when Congress last made major changes to the program in 1983 based on the recommendations of the Greenspan commission.”
Again, this is the beneficiaries’ money, invested by the Social Security trustees in U.S. Treasury bonds drawn upon “the full faith and credit of the United States.” Far from being “meaningless IOUs” as right-wing cant has it, they represent the same legally binding promise between the U.S. government and its people that it makes with Wall Street banks and the Chinese government, which also hold Treasury Bonds.
A promise not very different, the Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby points out, from the one implicit in your bank statement or 401K (if you’re lucky enough to have one). Did you think the money was buried in earthen jars filled with gold bullion and precious stones?
Raise taxes, cut spending or borrow? What other options does the U.S. government, or any government, have?
On his New York Times blog, Paul Krugman dissects the Catch-22 logic behind the Post’s bogus crisis. You can’t simultaneously argue “that the trust fund is meaningless, because SS is just part of the budget, then claim that some crisis arises when receipts fall short of payments, because SS is a standalone program.” For practical purposes, it’s got to be one or the other.
So is Social Security a “Ponzi scheme”? No, it’s group insurance, not an investment. You die young, somebody else benefits. Its finances have been open public record since 1936. Do fewer workers support each beneficiary? Sure, but who cares? It’s denominated in dollars, not a head count. The boomers were nearing 40 when the Reagan administration fixed the actuarial tables. No surprises there.
Are longer life expectancies screwing up the numbers? Not really. Most of the rise is explained by lower infant and child mortality, not by old-timers overstaying their welcome. Kevin Drum points out that gradually raising the payroll tax 1 percent and doubling the earnings cap over 20 years would make Social Security solvent forever.
But that’s not good enough for the more hidebound members of the $800-a-plate set. See, over 75 years Social Security has provided a measure of dignity, security and freedom to working Americans that just annoys the hell out of their betters.
By: Gene Lyons, Salon, November 2, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 