Tag Archives: taxes on the wealthy

What DO Republicans Want???

Posted on by under Bits 'n Pieces, Economic issues, education, Environmental Issues, History, Political commentary, Social commentary

Don’t you sometimes wonder just what the Sam Hell it is the Republicans want?  They seem to stand against everything that would help people, and yet they stand for … virtually nothing other than bigotry in its every form.  In a recent newsletter, Heather Cox Richardson gives some insight into their goals … to return this nation to its pre-1933 state where, as Heather says, “Children worked in the fields and factories, elderly and disabled people ate from garbage cans, unregulated banks gambled away people’s money, business owners treated their workers as they wished.”

I found her piece interesting, and I think you will too …

Letters From An American

Heather Cox Richardson

15 June 2023

Yesterday, the Republican Study Committee, a 175-member group of far-right House members, released their 2024 “Blueprint to Save America” budget plan. It calls for slashing the federal budget by raising the age at which retirees can start claiming Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, privatizing Medicare, and enacting dramatic tax cuts that will starve the federal government. 

I’m actually not going to rehash the 122-page plan. Let’s take a look at the larger picture.

This budget dismisses the plans of “President Joe Biden and the left” as a “march toward socialism.” It says that “the left’s calls to increase taxes to close the deficit would be…catastrophic for our nation.” Asserting that “the path to prosperity does not come from the Democrats’ approach of expanding government,” it claims that “over the past year and a half, the American people have seen that experiment fail firsthand.”

Instead, it says, “the key to growth, innovation, and flourishing communities” is “individuals, free from the burdens of a burdensome government.”

It is?

Our history actually tells us how these two contrasting visions of the government play out.

Grover Norquist, one of the key architects of the Republican argument that the solution to societal ills is tax cuts, in 2010 described to Rebecca Elliott of the Harvard Crimson how he sees the role of government. “Government should enforce [the] rule of law,” he said. “It should enforce contracts, it should protect people bodily from being attacked by criminals. And when the government does those things, it is facilitating liberty. When it goes beyond those things, it becomes destructive to both human happiness and human liberty.”

Norquist vehemently opposed taxation, saying that “it’s not any of the government’s business who earns what, as long as they earn it legitimately,” and proposed cutting government spending down to 8% of gross national product, or GDP, the value of the final goods and services produced in the United States.

The last time the level of government spending was at that 8% of GDP was 1933, before the New Deal. In that year, after years of extraordinary corporate profits, the banking system had collapsed, the unemployment rate was nearly 25%, prices and productivity were plummeting, wages were cratering, factories had shut down, farmers were losing their land to foreclosure. Children worked in the fields and factories, elderly and disabled people ate from garbage cans, unregulated banks gambled away people’s money, business owners treated their workers as they wished. Within a year the Great Plains would be blowing away as extensive deep plowing had damaged the land, making it vulnerable to drought. Republican leaders insisted the primary solution to the crisis was individual enterprise and private charity.

When he accepted the Democratic nomination for president in July 1932, New York governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt vowed to steer between the radical extremes of fascism and communism to deliver a “New Deal” to the American people.

The so-called alphabet soup of the New Deal gave us the regulation of banks and businesses, protections for workers, an end to child labor in factories, repair of the damage to the Great Plains, new municipal buildings and roads and airports, rural electrification, investment in painters and writers, and Social Security for workers who were injured or unemployed. Government outlays as a percentage of GDP began to rise. World War II shot them off the charts, to more than 40% of GDP, as the United States helped the world fight fascism.

That number dropped again after the war, and in 1975, federal expenditures settled in at about 20% of GDP. Except for short-term spikes after financial crises (spending shot up to 24% after the 2008 crash, for example, and to 31% during the 2020 pandemic, a high from which it is still coming down), the spending-to-GDP ratio has remained at about that set point.

So why is there a growing debt?

Because tax revenues have plummeted. Tax cuts under the George W. Bush and Trump administrations are responsible for 57% of the increase in the ratio of the debt to the economy, 90% if you exclude the emergency expenditures of the pandemic. The United States is nowhere close to the average tax burden of the 38 other nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), all of which are market-oriented democracies. And those cuts have gone primarily to the wealthy and corporations.

Republicans who backed those tax cuts now insist that the only way to deal with the growing debt is to get rid of the government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and eventually promoted civil rights, all elements that stabilized the nation after the older system gave us the Depression. Indeed, the Republican Study Committee calls for making the Trump tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2025, permanent.

“There are two ways of viewing the government’s duty in matters affecting economic and social life,” FDR said in his acceptance speech. “The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small businessman.” The other “is based upon the simple moral principle: the welfare and the soundness of a nation depend first upon what the great mass of the people wish and need; and second, whether or not they are getting it.”

When the Republican Study Committee calls Biden’s policies—which have led to record employment, a booming economy, and a narrowing gap between rich and poor— “leftist,” they have lost the thread of our history. The system that restored the nation after 1933 and held the nation stable until 1981 is not socialism or radicalism; it is one of the strongest parts of our American tradition.

No Pony In This Show

Posted on by under Economic issues, Election 2024, Environmental Issues, Free Press Issues, Political commentary

I don’t care what Donald Trump has to say about the tentative debt ceiling agreement reached between President Biden and Kevin McCarthy, nor do I give a rat’s arse what Ron DeSantis thinks of it.  Neither of them are the president, neither are sitting in Congress, nor are they likely to be either.  They are, therefore, irrelevant to the discussion!  The unfortunate truth is that at this point, the only people whose opinions are relevant are the 535 members of Congress whose majority approval is required to pass this bill and save the nation from an extremely consequential default on its debt.

Is this a good bill?  Hell no!  The debt ceiling should have been lifted without consequence, without conditions.  The debt ceiling is simply the device that allows us to pay the debts we have already incurred through the years. Period. Budget negotiations are intended to be separate from paying the debt, but in this day of political polarization and obstructionism on one side of the aisle, that was not to be.  I am frustrated over the concessions that President Biden had to make, especially in three areas:  the environment, food stamp work requirements, and taxes/IRS funding. But, I realize that given the time frame and the crucial importance of raising the debt ceiling, there was no other viable option.  I would, if I were a member of Congress, voice my disgust, my protest, but I would vote for this bill, because the alternative would be so much worse … for everyone.

People like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are what I think of as pseudo-politicos because their actual understanding of governance, of how government is intended to operate, is nil.  Furthermore, they don’t care … they are politicians, not governors nor leaders in any sense of the word.  Their only focus is on winning the next election, on pulling the wool over the eyes of enough people with their lies and loud voices to gain or maintain a high-level office with its built-in power, privileges, and potential for greater wealth.  They need to shut up, but since they won’t, then the media needs to refuse to give them a voice.

I’ve said it so many times that I think I say it in my sleep: ‘Rights’ like the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, are always accompanied by responsibilities.  The responsibility of the press is to tell the truth, not to tell people what they want to hear, or what the politicians want them to hear, but instead to tell them what they need to hear:  the truth.  Nobody … NOBODY needs to hear what a twice-impeached former president posts on his private social media outlet.  And if Trump or DeSantis wish to campaign for next year’s election, then fine, but they need to keep their message one of what they plan if they should win, not weigh in on what is happening now that really is none of their business beyond the extent to which it is the business of us all. They have no pony in this show.

‘People Need to Accept They’re Poorer’

Posted on by under Economic issues, Global Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Re-blogs, Social commentary

Our friend Ben Berwick writes from across the pond of a problem that we here in the U.S., perhaps in every country in the world, are well familiar with: wealth inequality. The Covid pandemic, while taking a heavy toll on the average household finances, greatly boosted the bottom lines of the largest corporations. Did they share that wealth with the people whose blood, sweat and tears go into making their products? Hell no! Here in the U.S., it has been 14 years since the federal minimum wage rate has been raised, allowing greedy corporations to see record profits while walking on the backs of their workers. And people wonder why I have a basic dislike for the wealthy. Read Ben’s take on it …

Coalition of the Brave

This is the position of one Huw Pill, the top economist of the Bank of England. The former Goldman Sachs banker, who has a £1.5 million home and an annual salary of £180,000, is arguing that the desire to combat increasing costs with increases to wages is not realistic. At a time when the likes of Nestlé, PepsiCo and McDonald’s are reporting boosted sales due to higher prices, and during a time where energy companies are making record-breaking profits, is it reasonable to declare the desire to be paid fairly is unacceptable, as Mr Pill is doing?

I wrote about this quite recently. Wages do not drive inflation. That’s an excuse by these companies raking in huge profits, whilst people go hungry. To suggest there’s no means to pay people a fair, living wage is a joke. The ignorant among us might make nonsensical arguments to the contrary…

View original post 76 more words

In The Words Of Dan Rather … A BFD!

Posted on by under Environmental Issues, Global Issues, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

On Tuesday, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).  It wasn’t everything we had hoped for, as compromises had to be made in order to get West Virginia’s Joe Manchin on board, but it was, as Dan Rather tells us, a BFD … I’ll let Dan ‘splain that one!

A BFD

But Republicans fail the future (and the present)

Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner

President Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that is, to quote former President Barack Obama, a “BFD.” In other words, a “big deal” with a colorful adjective sandwiched in between for emphasis. It was Obama’s way of paying homage to Biden’s whispered comment (caught on mic) from back in 2010 with the passage of the Affordable Care Act.  

With apologies to decorum, Obama’s summation is warranted.

The bill is called the Inflation Reduction Act, which most economists think is an accurate description. Inflation reduction is a worthy goal, but what is even more noteworthy — rising to the level of historic — is how the legislation intends to accomplish that feat. It is a compendium of long-desired action on the part of Democrats around health care costs, taxes, and climate change (representing the most ambitious climate measures ever enacted by Congress).

The details are varied and have been covered admirably in other publications. Were they everything that most Democrats sought? No. But they were significant. Once again, a BFD.

For the sake of this column, however, let us focus less on the policy than on the politics, and specifically the fact that this bill squeaked through on a purely party-line vote. All Democrats in the House and Senate voted “yea.” All Republicans who voted (four representatives did not) voted “nay.” All of them.

Perhaps we have become inured to this unblinking partisanship. Chalk it up to cynicism, to pure party politics, to the zero-sum game that seems to rule Washington, particularly from Republicans when Democrats are in the majority. Obstruct. Delay. Obfuscate. That is the playbook. But while extreme partisanship might explain the actions, it certainly does not excuse them.

This bill aimed to tackle tough challenges, particularly climate change. And on this issue in particular the politics of our time should not be measured in some temporal tally of wins and losses for congressional seats; this is about wins and losses for the habitability of our planet.

This isn’t about four-year election cycles. It is about epochs measured in millennia.

Those are the stakes. And on this score, most prominent Republican elected officials seem eager to deny reality. And the few who don’t fall into that camp are apparently satisfied with doing nothing.

There may not be a more serious yardstick by which to measure our political era than this failure. As we have often cautioned here, the future of American democracy is at risk these days. But, let us be clear, so is the future of planet Earth. Perhaps even more so.

When I tweeted the above, I expected to get a decent response; I never expected this level of engagement, but it makes sense. Unlike the politicians, according to polls, most Americans understand the peril and want action.

In this upside-down reality, questions emerge that demand answers and accountability:

  • How can a politician who doesn’t take climate change seriously be taken seriously?
  • How can someone who fails to protect our nation from the increasing threat of natural disasters be considered a voice to heed on national security?
  • How can someone who denies this reality be considered a credible judge of the truth?

This is not a debate about policy. “How should we tackle this existential threat?” is a legitimate question on which fair minds can disagree. Should it be tax cuts for business or government regulation? Or both? A carbon tax or subsidies for new technologies? Is nuclear energy a viable option? Should we invest more in electric cars or public transportation? Let’s have a vigorous debate. Go at it. There is no monopoly on wisdom. And the country needs a strong two-party system, with a Congress of conscience on both sides of the aisle, to have such debates.

But debate whether we should do ANYTHING??? Really????

(Perhaps from the all caps and the number of question marks you can sense my feelings.)

This bill was a major step forward on addressing climate change. It’s not nearly enough. But it is something. A lot. A BFD. So say the scientists. It’s a foundation upon which to build.

But it was also a test of the seriousness of the Republican Party on the most serious of issues. It is a test they failed. All of them in Congress.

That is not political spin. It’s the truth. Just ask Mother Earth. She’s screaming out for all to hear. Maybe at some point the politicians who refuse to listen to her pleas will be forced to answer why, and not be taken seriously until they can answer in accordance with reality.