Republican snake oil was voted back into office. It is vexing that they can keep selling this: we can live an as-we-wish, no-limits lifestyle; taxation is bad and unnecessary; government provides and does nothing; business is a altruistic, loving savior; and we really can have it all, pay nothing, and live happily ever after. They keep coming back to the table, selling this empirically discredited fantasy, and voters keep buying this illusion.
As Roger Bybee wrote, "[Scott] Walker would rather attack the benefits of government employees than argue that all working people deserve good benefits." Which is really the crux, the difference between the two parties. The majority of Democrats still want a high-road strategy enabling us to have a middle class. They support Social Security, Medicare, living wages, sick pay, unemployment insurance, health care, and a secure retirement. The Republicans want winners and losers. They want rich and poor. They want individualism. Screw your neighbor! Republicans prefer a sink-or-swim, you're-on-your-own society.
Walker won the governorship due to the over-65-crowd (56%), voters without a college degree (55%), the suburban (56%) and rural (55%) vote, and families earning over $50,000 (56%) and $100,000 (61%). It appears the only Democratic strongholds (over 57%) left in the state are Milwaukee, Dane, Menominee, Ashland, Bayfield, and Douglass counties.
It's amazing that someone who recommends dissolving the government he is overseeing, and giving those duties to cities and municipalities, while also wanting to reject Federal stimulus funds for Milwaukee County, can be taken seriously as a public servant. Which is like wanting to be a mechanic but hating cars. Plus, where would the county be right now without the stimulus? Walker does not represent leadership nor sensible management. He is the epitome of self-interest and parochialism.
One of Walker's goals is to balance the budget. Very original, I know. But also a disastrous aim during a recession. This is one of those great politcal themes, much easier said than done. But, if it will attract votes for Republicans from the detached and easily-manipulated, so be it. Two-thirds of home owners have a mortgage. Meaning: two-thirds of the population lives with debt - their mortgage. So, is home ownership a bad investment? I thought the message of the last half-century was that home ownership was the pinnacle of American life. There seems to be a disconnect between the balanced budget mantra and the way in which most people in the world finance their lives. We live with debt. Student debt, car debt, medical debt, etc. We see this as investment in our lives. It allows us a better standard of life for a monthly fee. If a balanced budget is such an important goal, most Americans are failing. Republicans can't claim everyone should be a consumer and a home owner, while also being against the policies that help workers earn enough to do such, and then complain about taking on the debt - as a government and as individuals - to keep up with the Joneses.
Emblematically, Mr. Walker supports repealing the corporate income tax. (Nevermind the U.S is one of the least taxed countries.) Which, as the Journal cites, is the state's third largest revenue source. Only four states have no corporate income tax. Walker believes taxes are too high, and by lowering the burden, our economy will be ignited and jobs will be created. But as I, and others, have shown repeatedly, this never actually happens during Republican administrations. They lower taxes, but nothing trickles down. In fact, in this low-tax, low-regulation era, income has been massively redistributed upward. There is a class war, and the rich are winning big. Scott Walker wants to make sure they keep winning.
The Journal-Sentinel informs us that our new governor would like to require voters to show ID at the polls and allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. To any coherent observer, there are more crucial issues to tackle when Wisconsin has a 7.8 percent unemployment rate (which, it should be noted, has decreased 1 percentage point over the last twelve-months - September 2009 to 2010 - down from 8.8). And, just for some comparison between Jim Doyle and Scott Walker, over the past year, as Gregory Stanford reports, "Under Walker, the county's unemployment rate soared from 4.6% in April of 2009 to 10.5% in March 2010 - a period when the county lost 34,000 jobs." Mr. Stanford also notes, "Of every six people in the county, one is poor - the tenth worst rate among the 50 biggest counties in the nation."
The new Gov has also declared that he will never raise taxes. Republicans have really become the party of the free lunch. They expect all the modern efficiencies of society (which we all take for granted) without having to find the revenue sources to pay for such infrastructure. Conservatives declare government the problem; they cut taxes and therefore government revenue; programs and services suffer due to lack of funding, people complain; Republicans then claim this shows government is inept and must be shrunk. But, as I hope readers can deduce, this is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy executed robotically by the right-wing, than a true depiction of reality.
Walker has left Milwaukee County in shambles. He and his ilk now control Wisconsin. Hopefully the state doesn't face the same fate as the county. We'll see if Walker puts up or shuts up.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Spending Sham
"Government expenditures have grown about as fast for the past two years as they did during the Bush administration's final term," notes Kevin Drum.
Government Spending
Hey, Small Spender
The Non-Surge In Government Spending
Obama's Stimulus Did NOT Raise Government Spending
Special Bulletin: Fractions Have Denominators
What's Really Behind That $1.3 Trillion Deficit
Government Spending
Hey, Small Spender
The Non-Surge In Government Spending
Obama's Stimulus Did NOT Raise Government Spending
Special Bulletin: Fractions Have Denominators
What's Really Behind That $1.3 Trillion Deficit
Sick Politics
The Journal Sentinel was at it again, spewing their dislike for pro-worker legislation. Once more they were opining against the sick pay ordinance (passed in 2008 with a 69% majority!). Democracy be damned! The Journal feels this measure is "fatally flawed".
Their reasoning is that, since we're in a recession and struggling to create jobs, such a measure is "nonsensical". "It is reckless to raise one more regulatory hurdle," they whine. Never do they mention that deregulation and bending-over-for-business got us into the recession. Typical of Republicans, they believe - and it appears the Journal agrees - the answer to our problems is going back to the policies that created the problem.
The intellectual dishonesty and mental jiu jitsu, displayed in such editorials, are necessary to craft such a false reality. Are they also calling for an end to tax breaks, loopholes, and other giveaways to corporations during these tough fiscal times? Likewise, in good times, do they support increasing taxes on the well-off? In good times, do they support increasing Social Security payments, decreasing payroll tax deductions, or some measure benefiting the working class? Or does the sacrifice mantra only apply to laborers? Somehow, in this worldview, everyone must always be looking out for the owners of capital. These owners can't go without their third vacation home or that new Mercedes. Not a chance! The sacrifices must always be made by the workers.
The Journal feels the ordinance would make Milwaukee a "regulatory island, saddled with what would be the toughest such ordinance in the country." Couldn't it also be argued that this ordinance could attract a high-skilled workforce? Those who value their skills and health and want to see that reflected in a respectful sick-pay policy. Isn't this one of the fringe benefits, of a location, that workers and companies consider? And, couldn't this measure also make Milwaukee a shining example to other municipalities of worker rights and healthy social policies?
There is a low-road strategy of allowing business to: dictate policy, pay nothing in taxes, offer no health care nor retirement, and pass on their costs (negative externalities) to taxpayers. But there is also a high-road strategy of: living-wages, health care, attainable retirement, pro-labor policy, shared prosperity, progressive taxation, and an actively engaged - on behalf of the citizenry - government. Let's take the high-road.
Their reasoning is that, since we're in a recession and struggling to create jobs, such a measure is "nonsensical". "It is reckless to raise one more regulatory hurdle," they whine. Never do they mention that deregulation and bending-over-for-business got us into the recession. Typical of Republicans, they believe - and it appears the Journal agrees - the answer to our problems is going back to the policies that created the problem.
The intellectual dishonesty and mental jiu jitsu, displayed in such editorials, are necessary to craft such a false reality. Are they also calling for an end to tax breaks, loopholes, and other giveaways to corporations during these tough fiscal times? Likewise, in good times, do they support increasing taxes on the well-off? In good times, do they support increasing Social Security payments, decreasing payroll tax deductions, or some measure benefiting the working class? Or does the sacrifice mantra only apply to laborers? Somehow, in this worldview, everyone must always be looking out for the owners of capital. These owners can't go without their third vacation home or that new Mercedes. Not a chance! The sacrifices must always be made by the workers.
The Journal feels the ordinance would make Milwaukee a "regulatory island, saddled with what would be the toughest such ordinance in the country." Couldn't it also be argued that this ordinance could attract a high-skilled workforce? Those who value their skills and health and want to see that reflected in a respectful sick-pay policy. Isn't this one of the fringe benefits, of a location, that workers and companies consider? And, couldn't this measure also make Milwaukee a shining example to other municipalities of worker rights and healthy social policies?
There is a low-road strategy of allowing business to: dictate policy, pay nothing in taxes, offer no health care nor retirement, and pass on their costs (negative externalities) to taxpayers. But there is also a high-road strategy of: living-wages, health care, attainable retirement, pro-labor policy, shared prosperity, progressive taxation, and an actively engaged - on behalf of the citizenry - government. Let's take the high-road.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Seeing Red
Speaking of communism...
It appears the real Red Menace - and true threat to our civilization, institutions, and any trace of an equitable society - took back a few levers of power Tuesday.
More soon.
It appears the real Red Menace - and true threat to our civilization, institutions, and any trace of an equitable society - took back a few levers of power Tuesday.
More soon.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Lean Efficiency (And Persistence) Of Private Sector Lies
More of the government is the problem meme from the Journal Sentinel in Saying 'yes' to change. As usual, more government bashing and the often parroted call for more efficiency in the public sector.
I've written before on this false idea that the private sector functions perfectly while the public sector is inept. It's an endless loop among the business-worshiping press about private efficiency and government waste. Somehow the S&L scandal, the stock bubble, the real estate bubble, AIG, Enron, WorldCom, Lehman, etc. seem to slip the media's memory. The corruption and inefficiency of the private sector is evident to anyone with their eyes open. All except the media and business leaders whom want to perpetuate the myth of private sector efficiency and know-how.
The Journal article starts off with Medicare and Social Security as two examples of ticking fiscal time bombs. First, put the Medicare issue into context. It's solvency, or lack thereof, is the result of runaway health care costs in America: twice as much per person than the next closest developed country (and those countries have universal care). Social Security is fiscally fine for decades. And, after that, if nothing in the program was changed, it would still be able to fund 80 percent of benefits. Simply removing the cap (on taxed earnings) from Social Security would resolve any possible issue from the program for the next century.
The Journal then flippantly states, "It's not difficult to understand why taxpayers are unhappy. Many believe they aren't getting their money's worth." But, yes, it is hard to understand. Taxes have not increased. They've actually gone down for 98 percent. The size of government has not grown. And, spending, even during our second worst economic catastrophe, has not exploded. If a good media were reporting the actual facts and providing truthful insight and information to the readers and viewers, citizens would understand and they wouldn't be unhappy. Well, they may still be unhappy, but they would see the Obama administration was doing good things, they would know their taxes were lower, and they would feel slightly more hopeful about the future. Rather than thinking the constitution was being shredded, taxes and spending are increasing, and the country was being run by a Muslim communist.
It takes time to turn around a near second Great Depression. The Obama administration has had success turning this around. We're not back at full employment, but getting there from over 10 percent unemployment in eighteen months is a pipe dream. More time, more stimulus, and the path we're on now will get us back on the road to prosperity.
The Journal ponders, "Tax increases may be necessary as well. But, let's reimagine government." We've been reimaging government for the last four decades. All we've accomplished is crumbling infrastructure, volatility for workers, increasing inequality, and a lower quality of life.
Listen, people, this isn't hard. Taxes must go up on the wealthiest among us. Enough of all the disincentive bullshit talk from the greedy hucksters! When taxes in this country were at their highest on the wealthiest, our middle class was created, one breadwinner could maintain a family, our economy grew at its highest rate, and inequality was shrinking.
The knee-slapper of the article claims, "...applying 'lean' principles to government. They've worked in business." Ha, Ha! Um...no they haven't. Again, the evidence of financial chicanery, cooked books, corruption, incompetency, and profligacy of the past few decades by some of America's largest private sector companies is well documented. The efficiency of the private sector has been completely discredited. If we could just remove this paradigm from our thought- and decision-making processes, we could achieve more and better outcomes for everyone rather than a select few.
Down The Drain
Our water infrastructure desperately needs updating and maintenance. Yet, we have trillions for war and tax-cuts for the rich, but we simply can't spend on our infrastrucure. Or so the Republicans think and repeatedly tell us.
Can We Save America's Crumbling Water System?
The Corrosion of America
And, surely, when disaster does strike - when a community must go without potable water, due to a major breakdown, and the products which need such (food, drinks, etc.) - Republicans will blame Democrats for not investing in the infrastructure.
Infrastructure investments create jobs now and in the future. They lay the grid, so to speak, for everything we as a society do. Roads, water, sewage, transportation, and on and on.
So, remember this, years from now, when Republicans are complaining about debt and stimulus: deficit-financed spending on infrastructure is a wise and necessary investment. It also produces a huge bang-for-the-buck, especially during a recession. We need to be spending more on such investment now. Republicans can't keep having it both ways - complaing about stimulus spending and then taking credit for the positive outcomes of such.
Can We Save America's Crumbling Water System?
The Corrosion of America
And, surely, when disaster does strike - when a community must go without potable water, due to a major breakdown, and the products which need such (food, drinks, etc.) - Republicans will blame Democrats for not investing in the infrastructure.
Infrastructure investments create jobs now and in the future. They lay the grid, so to speak, for everything we as a society do. Roads, water, sewage, transportation, and on and on.
So, remember this, years from now, when Republicans are complaining about debt and stimulus: deficit-financed spending on infrastructure is a wise and necessary investment. It also produces a huge bang-for-the-buck, especially during a recession. We need to be spending more on such investment now. Republicans can't keep having it both ways - complaing about stimulus spending and then taking credit for the positive outcomes of such.
The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud
With the election a day away, the following information debunking the voter fraud myth will, no doubt, be useful.
If Republicans don't get their way in an election, there was voter fraud, or the candidate isn't American, or...well, you get the idea. They always have some excuse.
Conversely, when they are victorious, the system works and the people have spoken.
The Cost Of A GOP Myth
Fraud Alert
The Great Voter Fraud Myth
The Myth Of Voter Fraud
The Myth Of Voter Fraud
The Republican War On Voting
Scant Evidence Of Voter Fraud
Voter Fraud Myth Persists
The War On Voting Rights
If Republicans don't get their way in an election, there was voter fraud, or the candidate isn't American, or...well, you get the idea. They always have some excuse.
Conversely, when they are victorious, the system works and the people have spoken.
The Cost Of A GOP Myth
Fraud Alert
The Great Voter Fraud Myth
The Myth Of Voter Fraud
The Myth Of Voter Fraud
The Republican War On Voting
Scant Evidence Of Voter Fraud
Voter Fraud Myth Persists
The War On Voting Rights
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Our Ugly Culture
Rachel Maddow is probably our most analytical and insightful television news person. Her recent segment, Decision 1964, was a stellar presentation of elections, Republicans, politics, media, and culture.
Politics is pure power and cronyism.
The implicit (and sometime, even, overt) bigotry being paraded around this country as electioneering is shameful. Anyone with friends, relatives, or even acquaintances, in places where such neanderthals are running for office, be sure to remind those voters of the moral and ethical duties for voting against such uninformed thinking, and the disgrace stigmatized upon anyone whom would allow such monsters to represent our country in any type of public office.
Although, I'm with Rand Paul, let's allow racists to keep blacks out of their place of business. Let's allow private property owners to discriminate against certain customers. Let's bring these racists out of the woodwork. Let them declare they believe certain humans are less than others. Let them discriminate and turn away many potential customers. Let them expose themselves for the hate-filled barbarians they are, and, simultaneously, be shunned by society for such actions and run out of business.
While we're fixing things, let's institute some stricter requirements for holding public office. Christine O'Donnell if you claim to be a constitutional scholar, you should have at least read the constitution. The Tea Baggers and Republicans claim expert legal and constitutional knowledge, yet they seem to have never read the constitution, nor can they ever name a recent Supreme Court decision that would repeal.
And, sorry, Scott Walker, but my candidate for governor should at least be a college graduate. [Not a dropout. Quitters remind me so much of Sarah Palin.] I'm of the opinion that public officials do important public work and I want qualified and educated people analyzing and deciding such work. Not just some folksy wing-nut one might want to have a beer with.
Vote Democrat November 2nd.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Retirement Revisionists
It's amazing how much a newspaper can forget over a one-year period. The Journal Sentinel reported in January 2010 "City's pension fund investments gain." Then in October 2010 they claim Milwaukee's pension fund has the "10th-largest unfunded liability among major U.S. municipal pension funds."
The article itself points to other reports which call into question the methodology supporting the latest pension smears. Yet, again, it appears the Journal is implying something much more dire with the title and lead-in.
The article states, "R.V Kuhns & Associates found that Milwaukee had the second strongest public pension fund of 53 studied nationwide." Yet the title of the Journal article makes one think our pension system is burdensome and bordering on insolvency.
Teresa Ghilarducci, in her own research, clarifies this phony debate, "Private-sector salaries exceed state employee salaries in 20 of the 24 job classifications in which comparisons were made." And this gets to the deal that is the pension system. Public employees take lower pay with the expectation of being able to have a dignified retirement. This also allows pensioned employees to exit the labor market and open positions up for a recent college graduates.
Plus, as AFSCME details, "By providing sufficient and sustainable retirement income, public pension plans help support the U.S. economy over the long term." AFSCME also educates that "taxpayers paid 24% of the total amount paid into public plans during this period [1982-2005], with the remaining 76% coming from investment earnings and employee contributions."
The Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF) informs us that the pension investment board invests in Wisconsin companies and companies with ties to Wisconsin. The ETF also explain that the "Pew Center on the States recently gave Wisconsin high marks for the financial solvency of the Wisconsin Retirement System, one of only 4 states to be recognized."
This is just more of the continual attack on all things public. Even though all evidence indicates the government and its employees do many things efficiently and many people are happy with the programs, somehow, conservatives turn people against their own best interest and convince them otherwise. Many government initiatives - Social Security, health care reform, pension funds, to name a few - are efficiently run, have low administrative costs, and/or have shown significant cost savings. Not to mention the quality of life improvements for a majority of citizens from such programs.
Let's think about this rationally for a second. Do we want a living wage, the ability to get cost-effective health care when necessary, and have the ability to retire gracefully? Or, do we want to continue with the low-road strategy of poverty-wages, unattainable health care, and having to work until we drop?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
An Obtuse & Deceptive Accounting
If a lie is repeated often enough, Republicans hope it becomes the truth.
Th Journal recently gave ink to Johnson's (and the Republican's) already debunked hypothesis. The Journal at least included some voices with a counterpoint to this unfounded CRA-caused-recession fantasy of Johnson's. But, with a title like "Johnson said the seeds of recession began with 1977 law," I think we know the message the Journal really wants readers to take away.
Yet Ned Gramlich, of the Federal Reserve, found, "Banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found fault rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgage rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business." Russel Kroszner, also of the Federal Reserve, states, "Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market."
A responsible news organization would have had the studies and the numbers available to educate Johnson and squash out his ridiculous charge. Instead it's their usual he-said with a passing, milquetoast counterfactual and no real discussion or data in between. Eric Alterman and George Zornick reveal, "In the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of the subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by CRA."
The Journal Sentinel even notes, in the article, "The federal law [CRA] applied only to depository institutions, not private, unregulated mortgage lenders." So, you'd think they'd then give you the number of loans issued by private lenders versus those subject to CRA. You know, some actual evidence one way or the other, proving or disproving the claim.
As Paul Krugman explained, "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was irrelevant to the subprime boom, which was overwhelmingly driven by loan originators not subject to the Act."
"The CRA applies only to banks and savings institutions. It does not apply to credit unions, independent mortgage companies, or investment banks," details Ellen Seidman.
Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner discovered, "The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis."
It's a scary thing when someone is so ideological as to just run with the misinformation of their party and not do the heavy lifting (the actual research). Ron Johnson is just throwing out well-worn Republican talking points and seeing what sticks, hoping to scare people into voting for him. I don't know about you, but I want a senator that actually reads the bills and makes an informed decision. I don't want someone who just goes with their gut or with the polling. And, when Johnson won't even take questions from his local newspaper, you know something is amiss.
Wisconsin deserves better. Vote Russ Feingold.
For Further Reading:
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Operating Instructions
A few falsely-framed and dubious issues in this election cycle (and something I've noticed as more prevalent over the last decade or so of elections) seem to have taken hold.
Ronald Reagan told us government is the problem. Bill Clinton said the era of big government was over. George W. Bush drove government into the ditch. An increasingly popular theme running through all these administrations: the public sector is The Problem, it should operate more like a private sector business [the perfection of the market and its omnipotence is implied], and the primary goal is job creation [although they're more concerned with price stability than full employment].
We have slowly morphed from the idea of government as a floor. A basic, humane foundation upon which we all try to make our own and others lives better. The public sector would give us clean water, make our workplaces safe, build roads, make the trains run on time, police our streets, put out our fires, etc. All these rudimentary and basic tasks, which our society needs to exist, have been diminished. Suddenly, these tasks were secondary, unimportant. Government needed to start subsidizing development, provide low-interest loans to the private sector, and build the infrastructure for private business. Government became the junior partner of the private sector.
Now we have the Ron Johnsons of the world running as "manufacturers" and "accountants." He bemoans lawyers in the Senate and mocks them as know-nothings. Does he realize that the Senate is a legislative body? They make laws. This actually sounds like the appropriate position for someone educated in the law. And...What the hell does an accountant know about airports, road building, water and sewage systems, etc.? How, by merely smearing someone else, does one become more qualified?
These purveyors of all things private proclaim the often-repeated mantra about running a lean government, just like a business. But, the thing is, government is not a business! Plus, in case people haven't noticed, over the past few decades, we have been continually subsidizing and bailing-out the private sector every few years. Including finance, banking, manufacturing, farming, information technology, medicine, construction, real estate, yeah, pretty much everything!
The right-wing has been snarling about cutting spending, shrinking government size, lowering taxes, etc. These are all red herrings. Every metric, measure, or indicator examined regarding the Republican platform has been an utter failure. Yet, for some reason, each election cycle they declare they're going to cut taxes, shrink government, and make our lives lovely. And, they're going to do it by operating the government like business.
They have failed every time. Yet, voters are still fooled by their snake oil.
Stop telling me what a great businessman you are! Stop telling me about all these jobs you're going to grow!! Stop telling me how you're going to manage the government like a business!!!
Run government like government.
Ronald Reagan told us government is the problem. Bill Clinton said the era of big government was over. George W. Bush drove government into the ditch. An increasingly popular theme running through all these administrations: the public sector is The Problem, it should operate more like a private sector business [the perfection of the market and its omnipotence is implied], and the primary goal is job creation [although they're more concerned with price stability than full employment].
We have slowly morphed from the idea of government as a floor. A basic, humane foundation upon which we all try to make our own and others lives better. The public sector would give us clean water, make our workplaces safe, build roads, make the trains run on time, police our streets, put out our fires, etc. All these rudimentary and basic tasks, which our society needs to exist, have been diminished. Suddenly, these tasks were secondary, unimportant. Government needed to start subsidizing development, provide low-interest loans to the private sector, and build the infrastructure for private business. Government became the junior partner of the private sector.
Now we have the Ron Johnsons of the world running as "manufacturers" and "accountants." He bemoans lawyers in the Senate and mocks them as know-nothings. Does he realize that the Senate is a legislative body? They make laws. This actually sounds like the appropriate position for someone educated in the law. And...What the hell does an accountant know about airports, road building, water and sewage systems, etc.? How, by merely smearing someone else, does one become more qualified?
These purveyors of all things private proclaim the often-repeated mantra about running a lean government, just like a business. But, the thing is, government is not a business! Plus, in case people haven't noticed, over the past few decades, we have been continually subsidizing and bailing-out the private sector every few years. Including finance, banking, manufacturing, farming, information technology, medicine, construction, real estate, yeah, pretty much everything!
The right-wing has been snarling about cutting spending, shrinking government size, lowering taxes, etc. These are all red herrings. Every metric, measure, or indicator examined regarding the Republican platform has been an utter failure. Yet, for some reason, each election cycle they declare they're going to cut taxes, shrink government, and make our lives lovely. And, they're going to do it by operating the government like business.
They have failed every time. Yet, voters are still fooled by their snake oil.
Stop telling me what a great businessman you are! Stop telling me about all these jobs you're going to grow!! Stop telling me how you're going to manage the government like a business!!!
Run government like government.
People, this emperor has no clothes. Can we please drop this and start having a rational, adult discussion about the proper and necessary role of Government?
Running On Empty
A few Republican memes need to be squashed. Most specifically, the idea that government is growing, taxes are increasing, and spending is out of control.
As Andrew O' Willike found, government employment at all levels combined, as a percentage of the nation's population, has remained essentially constant, at just under 10 percent, since the 1970s.
Total federal, state, and local taxes in the U.S. rank among the lowest in the world. Dennis Cauchon discovered, "Federal, state, and local income taxes consumed 9.2 percent of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950."
As the Wisconsin Budget Project (WBP) calculated, Wisconsin is below the national average in total direct spending and Wisconsin spending has been decreasing compared to other states. WBP also revealed that the number of Wisconsin public employees is 8 percent lower than the national average.
So, basically, everything the Tea Party and conservatives are campaigning on - government size and spending, high taxes, and spoiled and numerous public workers - is mythological.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Film Flam
Here we go again...
I guess Tom Barrett feels he can't allow Scott Walker to have all the stupid to himself. As the Journal Sentinel notes, "Both gubernatorial candidates support film tax credits."
Yes, a big economic development - jobs - strategy for both candidates is luring the film industry.
These two think "creating jobs in new media and film [is] a priority" and are "central to our prospects for a brighter economic future."
I've previously posted, "The Wisconsin Department of Commerce issued a report showing that film tax credits as an economic development strategy are not cost-effective." The Journal Sentinel found the state reimbursed Public Enemies every dollar spent here.
Economists have shown deficit spending during economic downturns works, food stamps are stimulative, as are infrastructure investments and aid to state and local governments. Social scientists have also shown that film credits as some sort of economic development policy do not work. Yet, for some reason, we condemn the former as wasteful and unnecessary, while bellowing about the need to increase the latter.
Film credits as an economic development strategy shouldn't even be part of the discussion deciding our next governor.
For Further Reading:
Economic Incentives
Economics Incentives Package Heavy On Film Subsidies
Film Credits Won't Transform Illinois Economy
Film Tax Credits Are Bad Economics
Food Stamps And Unemployment Insurance
More States Yell "Cut" On Film Tax Credits
On The Chopping Block
Voodoo Economics Of The Silver Screen
I guess Tom Barrett feels he can't allow Scott Walker to have all the stupid to himself. As the Journal Sentinel notes, "Both gubernatorial candidates support film tax credits."
Yes, a big economic development - jobs - strategy for both candidates is luring the film industry.
These two think "creating jobs in new media and film [is] a priority" and are "central to our prospects for a brighter economic future."
I've previously posted, "The Wisconsin Department of Commerce issued a report showing that film tax credits as an economic development strategy are not cost-effective." The Journal Sentinel found the state reimbursed Public Enemies every dollar spent here.
Economists have shown deficit spending during economic downturns works, food stamps are stimulative, as are infrastructure investments and aid to state and local governments. Social scientists have also shown that film credits as some sort of economic development policy do not work. Yet, for some reason, we condemn the former as wasteful and unnecessary, while bellowing about the need to increase the latter.
Film credits as an economic development strategy shouldn't even be part of the discussion deciding our next governor.
For Further Reading:
Economic Incentives
Economics Incentives Package Heavy On Film Subsidies
Film Credits Won't Transform Illinois Economy
Film Tax Credits Are Bad Economics
Food Stamps And Unemployment Insurance
More States Yell "Cut" On Film Tax Credits
On The Chopping Block
Voodoo Economics Of The Silver Screen
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Suffer Little Workers
Scott Walker is out to destroy middle class jobs...again. He wants county workers to take more wage freezes, to eliminate seniority raises, and for them to pay more for health care. Two things, he creates the false corollary that county workers must make sacrifices because their counterparts in the private sector have, and, he implies that county jobs are unnecessary and low-skill work and therefore should be done at WalMart wages. Not to mention the fact that workers take public jobs with the knowledge that they will receive less pay than their private sector counterparts, yet they will be assured health benefits, job security, and a retirement plan.
One obvious reason this is not only shortsighted politics but also bad policy is the demand issue. Public employment is a form of Keynesian pump priming. These living wage jobs allow people to spend and buy during economic downturns, helping to keep the economy out of the ditch.
And, yes, unemployment has increased, but that doesn't mean public workers have been isolated and not made sacrifices. In fact, teachers have been fired, libraries have been closed, public workers have felt the pain nationwide. Public workers are making sacrifices. Do Republicans believe there should be no floor on wages? Should there be no floor for basic services we provide in our communities? Why must workers, making a decent living, always be the ones whom are vilified, yet we can't tax millionaires more? Why are everyday workers always the problem? Are there no other options for revenue or spending cuts? Why is it that working class people, most making under $50,000 a year, are always the ones who must go without?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics on the part of Republicans. Their blind faith in a magical market, led by an invisible hand, causes them to believe that doing nothing will somehow fix the economy. If we just wait, in a few decades everyone will have been allowed to save a few bucks and start spending again. So, lets not think about the lost generation that will result from such policy. Just keep a smile on your face, keep taxes low so the rich still benefit and stay fat and giggly, and wait for that great new day on the horizon.
We bailed out Wall Street and bankers. And, we supported the auto industry and state and local governments.
One obvious reason this is not only shortsighted politics but also bad policy is the demand issue. Public employment is a form of Keynesian pump priming. These living wage jobs allow people to spend and buy during economic downturns, helping to keep the economy out of the ditch.
And, yes, unemployment has increased, but that doesn't mean public workers have been isolated and not made sacrifices. In fact, teachers have been fired, libraries have been closed, public workers have felt the pain nationwide. Public workers are making sacrifices. Do Republicans believe there should be no floor on wages? Should there be no floor for basic services we provide in our communities? Why must workers, making a decent living, always be the ones whom are vilified, yet we can't tax millionaires more? Why are everyday workers always the problem? Are there no other options for revenue or spending cuts? Why is it that working class people, most making under $50,000 a year, are always the ones who must go without?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics on the part of Republicans. Their blind faith in a magical market, led by an invisible hand, causes them to believe that doing nothing will somehow fix the economy. If we just wait, in a few decades everyone will have been allowed to save a few bucks and start spending again. So, lets not think about the lost generation that will result from such policy. Just keep a smile on your face, keep taxes low so the rich still benefit and stay fat and giggly, and wait for that great new day on the horizon.
We bailed out Wall Street and bankers. And, we supported the auto industry and state and local governments.
The government, at all times, supports public and private industry. In fact, the private sector and private individuals have benefited to a much larger extent. Public workers do the public good. They bring you clean water, roads to drive on, etc.
Private individuals amass wealth and use such to buy politicians and legislation to avoid taxes and accumulate more wealth.
We are in a new Gilded Age where inequality is at record levels. Workers are losing in the class war. To keep piling on and asking people to go without and to do with less is criminal when corporate profits are rising and the rich are paying their lowest level of taxes in history.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fratboy Follies
Regarding the County's undeveloped Park East land, Pat McIlheran blames Mayor Barrett and union wages for lack of construction on the property. He, as always, cites the Tax Foundation to regurgitate the "business climate" argument. And, for fun, he also opines that Wisconsin's regulatory and legal framework are onerous. The true aim of this McIlheran piece seems to be to just repeat the usual right-wing talking points and to slam Tom Barrett.
He belittles Barrett's economic plan, while championing Walker's as somehow being bold and refreshing. Others have already eviscerated Walker's 68 - yet is really only 3 - page plan and revealed that it is the same old calls for lower taxes and doing stuff - the stuff is never specified. You see, the only aim conservatives have is to cut their own taxes. They don't really want to govern, sustain the middle-class, secure retirement, nor enable all access to health care.
There is really nothing of substance to McIlheran's rant. All that can be discerned is that Scott Walker our savior while Barrett and well-paying jobs connected to thoughtful development are garbage. Nowhere does he cite any business that Walker has attracted or retained, nor does he mention any significant development initiated under Walker's leadership.
Someone, please, tell me something positive Scott Walker has ever done. He is a political opportunist, flip-flopping his way from one elected position to the next. He has never been on the side of working people and policies that amount to anything for them. He talks the typical right-wing talk, but when leadership is needed, he kicks the can down the road or blames someone else. The difference between Barrett and Walker is the difference between a thoughtful adult and a fratboy.
For Further Reading:
Are Wisconsin Taxes Too High?
Business Climate
State Business Tax Burden Rankings
Tax Foundation Proposals Are Lose/Lose For Wisconsin
What Do Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us?
Wisconsin Business Climate Statistics
He belittles Barrett's economic plan, while championing Walker's as somehow being bold and refreshing. Others have already eviscerated Walker's 68 - yet is really only 3 - page plan and revealed that it is the same old calls for lower taxes and doing stuff - the stuff is never specified. You see, the only aim conservatives have is to cut their own taxes. They don't really want to govern, sustain the middle-class, secure retirement, nor enable all access to health care.
There is really nothing of substance to McIlheran's rant. All that can be discerned is that Scott Walker our savior while Barrett and well-paying jobs connected to thoughtful development are garbage. Nowhere does he cite any business that Walker has attracted or retained, nor does he mention any significant development initiated under Walker's leadership.
Someone, please, tell me something positive Scott Walker has ever done. He is a political opportunist, flip-flopping his way from one elected position to the next. He has never been on the side of working people and policies that amount to anything for them. He talks the typical right-wing talk, but when leadership is needed, he kicks the can down the road or blames someone else. The difference between Barrett and Walker is the difference between a thoughtful adult and a fratboy.
For Further Reading:
Are Wisconsin Taxes Too High?
Business Climate
State Business Tax Burden Rankings
Tax Foundation Proposals Are Lose/Lose For Wisconsin
What Do Business Climate Rankings Really Tell Us?
Wisconsin Business Climate Statistics
Blackmailed Into Oblivion
The Journal Sentinel thinks Harley-Davidson was justified and correct in blackmailing the State for $25 million and decimating many well-paying middle-class jobs by unnecessarily demanding contract concessions.
The Journal wonders, "Is it a win if these actions mean fewer jobs? Are state incentives worth it?"
And, of course, to both questions, they answer, "Yes."
Maybe this repeated bribery by corporations of state taxpayers would make for good front-page stories in the newspaper. Maybe governors and local media could make this a federal issue, draw attention to this corporate welfare, and help bring an end to this economic war among the states.
The Journal also opines, "State government should do all it can to retain its base of existing companies and help them to grow." Isn't this the same paper that often writes about an overpaid, inept, inefficient government? When did it become the government's job to insure private sectors businesses remain successful? Doesn't the provision of clean water, roadways and other transportation, educational institutions, and legal entities already assist private corporations in their day-to-day operations?
Does the Journal really feel we, as a nation, should allow companies to blackmail any community of millions of dollars whenever the mood strikes them?
The State nor the Department of Commerce is here to kiss the ass of big business. The Journal's suggestion of such shows how far we, as a country, have drifted. This is class warfare, disguised and homogenized by the local media, sold as a prescription for what ails us and, somehow, deemed the only logical choice we have available.
As discussed earlier, the State (and its departments) provides the ground-rules which aid all business and allow them to, supposedly, compete on a level playing field. The more we give-in to private business blackmail, the more we allow state incentives to alter the market and distort free enterprise and fair competition. And isn't that what the conservatives always claim they want? To let the market decide?
It's one thing to improve parking for downtown businesses. It's another to build a parking garage for one specific business. The larger point being, I understand the government doing something to enhance the environment, the quality of life, the school system, and such to buttress the attractiveness of a city and to allow a city to be better positioned to provide what private businesses desire.
To simply be paying off bribes to companies threatening to leave is criminal. This is not cost-effective economic development. Rather than the newspaper just acting as a PR shill, they could make this corporate blackmail a major issue for discussion and possibly assist in ending such inefficient and wasteful policies.
For Further Reading:
Accountability For Development Subsidies
The Failures Of Economic Development Incentives
The Journal wonders, "Is it a win if these actions mean fewer jobs? Are state incentives worth it?"
And, of course, to both questions, they answer, "Yes."
Maybe this repeated bribery by corporations of state taxpayers would make for good front-page stories in the newspaper. Maybe governors and local media could make this a federal issue, draw attention to this corporate welfare, and help bring an end to this economic war among the states.
The Journal also opines, "State government should do all it can to retain its base of existing companies and help them to grow." Isn't this the same paper that often writes about an overpaid, inept, inefficient government? When did it become the government's job to insure private sectors businesses remain successful? Doesn't the provision of clean water, roadways and other transportation, educational institutions, and legal entities already assist private corporations in their day-to-day operations?
Does the Journal really feel we, as a nation, should allow companies to blackmail any community of millions of dollars whenever the mood strikes them?
The State nor the Department of Commerce is here to kiss the ass of big business. The Journal's suggestion of such shows how far we, as a country, have drifted. This is class warfare, disguised and homogenized by the local media, sold as a prescription for what ails us and, somehow, deemed the only logical choice we have available.
As discussed earlier, the State (and its departments) provides the ground-rules which aid all business and allow them to, supposedly, compete on a level playing field. The more we give-in to private business blackmail, the more we allow state incentives to alter the market and distort free enterprise and fair competition. And isn't that what the conservatives always claim they want? To let the market decide?
It's one thing to improve parking for downtown businesses. It's another to build a parking garage for one specific business. The larger point being, I understand the government doing something to enhance the environment, the quality of life, the school system, and such to buttress the attractiveness of a city and to allow a city to be better positioned to provide what private businesses desire.
To simply be paying off bribes to companies threatening to leave is criminal. This is not cost-effective economic development. Rather than the newspaper just acting as a PR shill, they could make this corporate blackmail a major issue for discussion and possibly assist in ending such inefficient and wasteful policies.
For Further Reading:
Accountability For Development Subsidies
The Failures Of Economic Development Incentives
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Bad Tax Ideas
From Citizens For Tax Justice:
Wisconsin — Scott Walker was the winner of Wisconsin's Republican primary on Tuesday. Walker is also running on an anti-tax platform, including a property tax "freeze" that would only allow revenue growth to the extent that new construction occurs. Democrat Tom Barrett is also running on a campaign that heavily emphasizes cutting government spending, and enacting so-called "targeted" business tax cuts to create jobs.
Wisconsin — Scott Walker was the winner of Wisconsin's Republican primary on Tuesday. Walker is also running on an anti-tax platform, including a property tax "freeze" that would only allow revenue growth to the extent that new construction occurs. Democrat Tom Barrett is also running on a campaign that heavily emphasizes cutting government spending, and enacting so-called "targeted" business tax cuts to create jobs.
Insincere Revenue Barons
It seems Ron Johnson has enlisted the help of former state commerce secretaries, Dick Leinenkugel and Bill McCoshen, to help confuse voters into thinking that industrial revenue bonds (IRB) are not a government subsidy. Russ Feingold ran a campaign ad revealing Johnson's company's use of IRBs, emphasizing Johnson's hypocrisy of belittling government one minute and then taking lower-than-market rate loans from the government.
First, if it's outside the market - made possible because the government is involved - and at lower interest rates than would otherwise be available, it's a subsidy. Johnson can't claim; as he, Leinenkugel and McCoshen seem to be trying; that this is no different than a private loan. IRBs are tax exempt, this lowers the cost of repayment. Even the ultraconservative Cato Institute thinks IRBs are corporate welfare. These exemptions - which have been intertwined into corporate strategies - have been termed "cash cows" by others.
As Good Jobs First reports, "In short, the federal government forgoes income tax revenue in order to lower the cost of capital for certain economic development activities. The federal rules governing IRBs are a floor, not a ceiling; some states add additional safeguards. State and local development authorities issue IRBs (also known as private activity bonds) on behalf of private borrowers, and the bonds are purchased by private investors. Conducting this transaction through government entities makes the interest exempt from federal taxation (and usually state taxation as well). Because wealthy individuals and companies that buy the bonds will accept lower interest when such income is tax-free, IRBs offer interest rates that are typically about three-fourths those of taxable commercial bonds."
The episode is also a great example of how much of what we consider the private sector is very dependent upon the largess of the public sector. The many institutions and programs - ensuring contracts, providing transportation, funding low-interest loans, etc. - are crucial to a majority of private sector activity. Those "businessmen," whom claim they operate in a vacuum and the government merely burdens them, are ignorant at best and pathological liars at worst.
For Further Reading:
Company Towns: The Cost of Tax Breaks
Corporate Subsidies Driving Sprawl
Eight Ways To Curtail The Economic War Among The States
Fortunate Son-In-Law Ron Johnson
Naming Tax Credit Names
No More Secret Candy Store
The Political Economy of Corporate Welfare: Industrial Revenue Bonds
Shopping For Subsidies
States At War
Uncle Sam's Rusty Toolkit
WalMart The High Cost of Low Price
First, if it's outside the market - made possible because the government is involved - and at lower interest rates than would otherwise be available, it's a subsidy. Johnson can't claim; as he, Leinenkugel and McCoshen seem to be trying; that this is no different than a private loan. IRBs are tax exempt, this lowers the cost of repayment. Even the ultraconservative Cato Institute thinks IRBs are corporate welfare. These exemptions - which have been intertwined into corporate strategies - have been termed "cash cows" by others.
As Good Jobs First reports, "In short, the federal government forgoes income tax revenue in order to lower the cost of capital for certain economic development activities. The federal rules governing IRBs are a floor, not a ceiling; some states add additional safeguards. State and local development authorities issue IRBs (also known as private activity bonds) on behalf of private borrowers, and the bonds are purchased by private investors. Conducting this transaction through government entities makes the interest exempt from federal taxation (and usually state taxation as well). Because wealthy individuals and companies that buy the bonds will accept lower interest when such income is tax-free, IRBs offer interest rates that are typically about three-fourths those of taxable commercial bonds."
The episode is also a great example of how much of what we consider the private sector is very dependent upon the largess of the public sector. The many institutions and programs - ensuring contracts, providing transportation, funding low-interest loans, etc. - are crucial to a majority of private sector activity. Those "businessmen," whom claim they operate in a vacuum and the government merely burdens them, are ignorant at best and pathological liars at worst.
For Further Reading:
Company Towns: The Cost of Tax Breaks
Corporate Subsidies Driving Sprawl
Eight Ways To Curtail The Economic War Among The States
Fortunate Son-In-Law Ron Johnson
Naming Tax Credit Names
No More Secret Candy Store
The Political Economy of Corporate Welfare: Industrial Revenue Bonds
Shopping For Subsidies
States At War
Uncle Sam's Rusty Toolkit
WalMart The High Cost of Low Price
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Labor Shortage Sham
The idea of a labor shortage is getting media buzz again. Companies claim they can't find workers with the skills willing to do the job. The Journal Sentinel pushes this mythology at least once a year. Another excuse why we need to cut corporate taxes and subsidize business operations.
In reality, this is simple supply-and-demand economics. People don't want to work at grueling jobs for low pay, minuscule benefits, and without a retirement plan. If these jobs were paying living wages and had some sense of security people would be lined up around the block for the positions.
So, if they want to end the labor shortage...increase the wages.
For Further Reading:
The Great Labor Shortage Lie
Is A Great Labor Shortage Coming?
It's About Job Shortage, Not Skills Mismatch
The Labor Shortage Myth
Labor Shortages: Myth & Reality
The Myth of Structural Unemployment
The Myth of The Coming Labor Shortage
The Skills Crisis & Job Training
The Skills Myth
What Labor Shortage?
In reality, this is simple supply-and-demand economics. People don't want to work at grueling jobs for low pay, minuscule benefits, and without a retirement plan. If these jobs were paying living wages and had some sense of security people would be lined up around the block for the positions.
So, if they want to end the labor shortage...increase the wages.
For Further Reading:
The Great Labor Shortage Lie
Is A Great Labor Shortage Coming?
It's About Job Shortage, Not Skills Mismatch
The Labor Shortage Myth
Labor Shortages: Myth & Reality
The Myth of Structural Unemployment
The Myth of The Coming Labor Shortage
The Skills Crisis & Job Training
The Skills Myth
What Labor Shortage?
Taken For A Ride
Another example of the Journal Sentinel's loathing of everyday workers, in the case of Harley-Davidson holding the state hostage for subsidies by threatening job loss, the Journal feels the workers just have to take it. And, they add, "We don't doubt Harley's struggles."
As usual, their analysis is lacking. Maybe they should doubt Harley. Maybe they should question whether these contractual concessions are necessary. Maybe rather than just listening to whatever a CEO tells them, the Journal could do some research and put the issue in the correct socioeconomic context. As Milwaukee Magazine's Eric Gunn writes, the favorably-business-biased, screw-the-worker attitude is typical of the media over the past few decades.
Luckily Jack Norman has actually looked at the facts of the situation. He found, "Harley made $104 million in profits in the first six months of 2010. It did have a $55 million loss in 2009, a strategic choice resulting from a $126 million write-down for discontinued operations. Before that, the company had made at least $100 million in profits for 15 straight years."
In previous work, Norman discovered, "Harley's Wisconsin taxes have dropped dramatically, according to data from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Its state income tax bill plummeted from nearly $23 million in 2005 to under $1 million in 2008 (the most recent year with data). Its pre-tax profits fell much, much less, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion...Harley's effective tax rate - Wisconsin income tax as a percent of global profits - went nearly to zero. In 2005, the company paid 1.5% of pre-tax profits in Wisconsin income tax. By 2008, that had dropped below 0.1%."
If workers making $30 an hour are dragging the company down, can't the same be said for executive salaries in the millions? Norman discovered, "Last year, Harley's CEO (a job split during the year between James Ziemer and Keith Wandell) took home $8,864,919 in extras over and above base salary of $1,105,169. In 2008, the bonuses totaled $6,201,323. That's over $15 million in bonuses the past two years to the CEO of a company that cries "crisis" to justify lower wages and benefits for production workers...Members of Harley's board of directors (if they aren't already employees) each collected an $80,000 fee in 2009, plus $50,000 worth of stock. During this "crisis," board members never lost their $1,500 annual allowance for clothes and accessories, nor their free use of a motorcycle."
Pennsylvania was hung over a cliff by Harley last year. After threatening job loss and possibly moving production out of state, Pennsylvania gave Harley $15 million in subsidies. Wisconsin, in similar fashion, is offering Harley $25 million.
This is typical economic development. It's a subtle class warfare. Taxpayers funding their own salary reduction and/or job loss, alongside increasing corporate profits. We need federal action to stop this economic war among the states.
For Further Reading:
American Socialism
Equitable Development
Industries Find Surging Profits In Deeper Cuts
Legalized Bribery
Spuriously Invoking The Tax Boogeyman
As usual, their analysis is lacking. Maybe they should doubt Harley. Maybe they should question whether these contractual concessions are necessary. Maybe rather than just listening to whatever a CEO tells them, the Journal could do some research and put the issue in the correct socioeconomic context. As Milwaukee Magazine's Eric Gunn writes, the favorably-business-biased, screw-the-worker attitude is typical of the media over the past few decades.
Luckily Jack Norman has actually looked at the facts of the situation. He found, "Harley made $104 million in profits in the first six months of 2010. It did have a $55 million loss in 2009, a strategic choice resulting from a $126 million write-down for discontinued operations. Before that, the company had made at least $100 million in profits for 15 straight years."
In previous work, Norman discovered, "Harley's Wisconsin taxes have dropped dramatically, according to data from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Its state income tax bill plummeted from nearly $23 million in 2005 to under $1 million in 2008 (the most recent year with data). Its pre-tax profits fell much, much less, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion...Harley's effective tax rate - Wisconsin income tax as a percent of global profits - went nearly to zero. In 2005, the company paid 1.5% of pre-tax profits in Wisconsin income tax. By 2008, that had dropped below 0.1%."
If workers making $30 an hour are dragging the company down, can't the same be said for executive salaries in the millions? Norman discovered, "Last year, Harley's CEO (a job split during the year between James Ziemer and Keith Wandell) took home $8,864,919 in extras over and above base salary of $1,105,169. In 2008, the bonuses totaled $6,201,323. That's over $15 million in bonuses the past two years to the CEO of a company that cries "crisis" to justify lower wages and benefits for production workers...Members of Harley's board of directors (if they aren't already employees) each collected an $80,000 fee in 2009, plus $50,000 worth of stock. During this "crisis," board members never lost their $1,500 annual allowance for clothes and accessories, nor their free use of a motorcycle."
Pennsylvania was hung over a cliff by Harley last year. After threatening job loss and possibly moving production out of state, Pennsylvania gave Harley $15 million in subsidies. Wisconsin, in similar fashion, is offering Harley $25 million.
This is typical economic development. It's a subtle class warfare. Taxpayers funding their own salary reduction and/or job loss, alongside increasing corporate profits. We need federal action to stop this economic war among the states.
For Further Reading:
American Socialism
Equitable Development
Industries Find Surging Profits In Deeper Cuts
Legalized Bribery
Spuriously Invoking The Tax Boogeyman
Where The Bread Is Buttered
It seems blind faith and self-interest has paid off well for Michael R. Lovell, dean of the UWM College of Engineering and Applied Science. He was behind Carlos Santiago's growth plan and a supporter of "a massive infusion of investment dollars into his department." Now that Santiago is leaving, Lovell has been appointed interim chancellor. I guess the movers-and-shakers behind the growth plan feel Lovell knows the talking-points well enough to see this boondoggle through.
Professor Marc Levine, UWM history and urban studies professor, has shown that the entrepreneurial growth strategy centered on a university is largely an illusion. Yet, the Journal Sentinel is again pushing the idea that this initiative will be a huge spin-off and job creator. All based on purely anecdotal evidence.
The media and the well-connected always gripe about public spending, public employees, and any project that actually tries to do good and help workers and those in need. We can't do it. It's too much. We can't afford the debt. But when it's a playground for the rich, a research park, or some other speculative white elephant, we can't afford not to do it.
I'm all for the expansion and development of UWM as a university and research hub. But much of this growth plan should be tweaked, moved, or discontinued. Some of this funding could obviously be better spent, especially now, during these tough fiscal times.
For Further Reading:
College: Cash Cows?
Don't Stop Believing
Water Down Corporate Accountability
Professor Marc Levine, UWM history and urban studies professor, has shown that the entrepreneurial growth strategy centered on a university is largely an illusion. Yet, the Journal Sentinel is again pushing the idea that this initiative will be a huge spin-off and job creator. All based on purely anecdotal evidence.
The media and the well-connected always gripe about public spending, public employees, and any project that actually tries to do good and help workers and those in need. We can't do it. It's too much. We can't afford the debt. But when it's a playground for the rich, a research park, or some other speculative white elephant, we can't afford not to do it.
I'm all for the expansion and development of UWM as a university and research hub. But much of this growth plan should be tweaked, moved, or discontinued. Some of this funding could obviously be better spent, especially now, during these tough fiscal times.
For Further Reading:
College: Cash Cows?
Don't Stop Believing
Water Down Corporate Accountability
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Republicans & The Resistance
Hat-tip to Bloggling Blue
If Obama is a Muslim agent, Ronald Reagan was an admitted "terrorist" organizer/sympathizer. Neither of these are true, just politicians and monied operatives choosing sliming and appealing to low, primal emotions, rather than meaningful dialogue.
If Obama is a Muslim agent, Ronald Reagan was an admitted "terrorist" organizer/sympathizer. Neither of these are true, just politicians and monied operatives choosing sliming and appealing to low, primal emotions, rather than meaningful dialogue.
Praise The Public Sector
Some thoughts on governance and the public sector:
37 percent of public workers belong to a union, 7 percent of private sector workers belong to a union. Of approximately 20 million public workers 7.4 million workers are unionized. Of the roughly 123 million private sector employees 8.6 million workers are unionized. The total unionized workforce represents 11 percent of total employment. The decimation of union representation is a major reason for our declining wages, increasing inequality, and general insecurity. [The funny part is that this small percentage of workers are always blamed for any economic issue that arises. If they wielded that much power, much more of the workforce would be unionized.]
Keith Bender and John Haywood have found, "Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees." The overly-compensated, lavishly-rewarded public employee is a myth. Yet, despite these facts, somehow I feel this delusion will live on with anti-government know-nothings and FOX News talking-heads. [Sorry, that was redundant.]
Conceptual Guerrilla highlights numerous government provisions - legal infrastructure, physical infrastructure, and other services - without which our lives would be decidedly more barbaric. As a thought experiment, think of all the places you venture in a day. Think about water, roads, street lights, the police, the sewers, etc. Think about what life would be like without all these public provisions. Then actually express some appreciation for all these necessities most take for granted everyday. And, lastly, the next time some obnoxious know-nothing spouts the tired old anti-government lines, rattle off a list of all the things government has done and does for us daily.
"A large part of the political class is showing it's priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - they're choosing the latter," declares Paul Krugman. In a country that has allowed wealth inequality rivaling the Gilded Age, today's enriched barons would rather watch the institutions and infrastructure (that allowed such wealth) crumble; rather than pay a small percentage more in taxes to ensure the continued strength of their nation.
Decent pay and a dignified retirement no longer fit into our over-financialized economy. In this race-to-the-bottom, the uber wealthy will not be content until health care is demolished, retirement is purely a worry of the worker, and WalMart wages are the standard. How can this change? Organize!
For Further Reading:
Defeat The Right in Three Minutes
The War on Public-Sector Unions
37 percent of public workers belong to a union, 7 percent of private sector workers belong to a union. Of approximately 20 million public workers 7.4 million workers are unionized. Of the roughly 123 million private sector employees 8.6 million workers are unionized. The total unionized workforce represents 11 percent of total employment. The decimation of union representation is a major reason for our declining wages, increasing inequality, and general insecurity. [The funny part is that this small percentage of workers are always blamed for any economic issue that arises. If they wielded that much power, much more of the workforce would be unionized.]
Keith Bender and John Haywood have found, "Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and local employees have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees." The overly-compensated, lavishly-rewarded public employee is a myth. Yet, despite these facts, somehow I feel this delusion will live on with anti-government know-nothings and FOX News talking-heads. [Sorry, that was redundant.]
Conceptual Guerrilla highlights numerous government provisions - legal infrastructure, physical infrastructure, and other services - without which our lives would be decidedly more barbaric. As a thought experiment, think of all the places you venture in a day. Think about water, roads, street lights, the police, the sewers, etc. Think about what life would be like without all these public provisions. Then actually express some appreciation for all these necessities most take for granted everyday. And, lastly, the next time some obnoxious know-nothing spouts the tired old anti-government lines, rattle off a list of all the things government has done and does for us daily.
"A large part of the political class is showing it's priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble - they're choosing the latter," declares Paul Krugman. In a country that has allowed wealth inequality rivaling the Gilded Age, today's enriched barons would rather watch the institutions and infrastructure (that allowed such wealth) crumble; rather than pay a small percentage more in taxes to ensure the continued strength of their nation.
Decent pay and a dignified retirement no longer fit into our over-financialized economy. In this race-to-the-bottom, the uber wealthy will not be content until health care is demolished, retirement is purely a worry of the worker, and WalMart wages are the standard. How can this change? Organize!
For Further Reading:
Defeat The Right in Three Minutes
The War on Public-Sector Unions
Friday, August 27, 2010
Rumbling For Dollars
The economic war among the states is alive and well. Good to see this inefficient, zero-growth, overbidding continuing. [Recall Mercury Marine.] Just the kind of job "negotiations" we need to see during a recession. Nothing like blackmailing one community against another to see which one will cough-up millions of ill-gotten dollars. Way to go, Harley!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Perilous Posturing
Lately conservatives have come out with a barrage of attacks, false claims, and general chest-thumping in preparation for the midterm elections. They are attacking Obama's economic policies; fighting the allowance of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts; ignoring the hardships many Americans are facing; pushing lies about taxation and tax rates, in general; trying (again) to kill Social Security; dithering on unemployment insurance; and scapegoating public workers.
As Larry Bartels states, "The clearest and most significant implication of aggregate election analyses is that objective economic conditions are the single most important influence upon an incumbent president's prospects for reelection." Which is why Republicans are obstructing everything. They care only about their own power. Never mind the hungry, homeless, unemployed, and hurting...the right-wing just wants their political power back. They will avoid anything close to actual governance, in hopes the economy will continue to falter. It's a sick and diabolical plan. It shows their true aim. Unless you're in the top 1 percent, I can't understand why someone would want these people deciding the policies of our country.
Regarding the noise surrounding the expiration of Bush tax cuts, one fact the Republicans never seem to mention is that extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to our national debt. It has also been shown, "less than 3 percent of filers with small-business income pay at the top two income tax rates." So, the tax cuts add to the debt, and they do nothing to help "small" business.
A recent article, The Middle Class in America is Radically Shrinking, cataloged numerous statistics showing the dramatic predicament working-Americans face. Here are just a few excerpts:
As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Previous periods with much higher tax rates also coincided with much more growth and broadly shared prosperity. As Paul Krugman noted, "The problem with super-high rates isn't so much that they reduce incentives to work; it's that they create huge incentives to avoid or evade."
"Between 2002 and 2007 the bottom ninety-nine percent of income grew 1.3 percent a year in real terms - while the incomes of the top one percent grew ten percent per year. That one percent accounted for two-thirds of all income growth in those years," asserted James Surowiecki. If a privileged, minuscule segment of the population is making a majority of the income, and increasing such year after year (alongside shrinking wages for the rest of society), shouldn't we be raising tax rates on such persons? Obviously societal institutions are allowing them to garner such lopsided gains. Shouldn't they be made to pay back to the system that nourished them? Shouldn't they help fund the infrastructure, courts, public works, etc. that allow them such a fortunate life?
Another public program, which has been in the sights of right-wingers for years, is Social Security. A basically well-liked and solvent program. The average annual benefit is only $14,000. Even the bleakest forecasts show it can pay full benefits until after the 2030s (some until the 2050s). Yet as usual, Republicans have tweaked and twisted the facts to mean just the opposite. They've completely lied and told a story about Social Security going bankrupt in the 2020s. Raising the retirement age to 70, as some have suggested, is the same as a 15 percent cut in benefits. In predicting Social Security will only be able to pay 75-80 percent of benefits by 2037, the CBO uses an extremely low long-term growth rate. "Lower than anything we've seen in more than a century," wrote Doug Henwood. Even the forecasters are being grossly pessimistic. And yet, after the 2050s, the program will still be able to pay 80 percent of benefits even if we do nothing to change how it currently operates.
Henwood also reveals the average weekly payout for an unemployment (insurance) benefit recipient is is $307. All those chastising the unemployed and claiming they're lazy, coasting on easy-street, and purposefully choosing not to work, I encourage them to see how much of an easy-street they can live on for $307 a week. Another very sad and despicable quality many Americans seem to wallow in - bashing the most downtrodden, while seemingly revering those oppressing them.
Right-wingers also want to pretend this is all the fault of Barack Obama. Yet according to the latest analysis of BLS job numbers, by Rob Shaprio, "it's hard to credibly blame the White House for the vast, vast majority of job losses...Out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle (December 2007 to July 2009); 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republican's watch or under sway of their policies."
Then there is the always useful scapegoat, the public worker. You know, those lavishly rewarded school teachers driving Cadillacs. In the 1980s it was welfare Queens driving Cadillacs. So we squashed welfare as we knew it and basically threw people off the welfare rolls. As with all public initiatives (other than the transfer of public dollars to the privileged), the right-wing feels public endeavors must be stopped. The latest target in the 'bash-everything-public' theme is public employees.
Conservatives love to attack public pensions. How dare some people want a dignified retirement! 'Work 'til you drop' should be the Republicans campaign slogan. The fact that public workers accept lower wages in lieu of better health care and a pension is beside the point. For Republicans, public workers should have no pension, earn WalMart wages, and pay their own health care. Since right-wingers align themselves with businessmen, this anti-worker model is what they want the world working under. Low labor costs with all the rewards going to the owners and captains of industry.
As Jonathan Cohn asked, "To what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become to stingy?" If workers can never retire, many jobs are then unable to turnover to a younger generation looking for work.
Furthermore, the pension plan shortfall (revenue vs. payout) represents less than 2 percent of projected state and local government spending. "If we assume this shortfall must be filled over a 30-year period, then this would imply a gap that is less than 2 percent of projected spending over this period." Meaning - this is another red herring Republicans are falsely portraying as a failure of government and public work, in general.
Research shows that, when adjusted for experience and education, compensation for state and local workers is 6.8 to 7.4 percent lower than comparable private sector workers. Plus, unions represent only 7 percent of private sector workers. So, is 7 percent of the workforce destroying, bad, and/or responsible for all our problems? Also, many have mistakenly pushed the idea that public workers have been sheltered from the economic downturn. Although, 316,000 public-sector jobs have disappeared over the past two years. Many others have been furloughed and faced shortened hours. Public servants have felt the pain yet have maintained some employment through a quasi-work-sharing system.
Here we have a host of falsities, absurdities, and slanders the right-wing has rolled out in an effort to buttress their faltering and repeatedly debunked supply-side worldview. The programs and policies that have made the most significant contribution to retirement, wages, aggregate demand, and economic security are continually maligned by conservatives. They don't want shared prosperity. They want to preserve their oligarchy. We must ignore them. We follow them at our own (empirically-proven) peril.
As Larry Bartels states, "The clearest and most significant implication of aggregate election analyses is that objective economic conditions are the single most important influence upon an incumbent president's prospects for reelection." Which is why Republicans are obstructing everything. They care only about their own power. Never mind the hungry, homeless, unemployed, and hurting...the right-wing just wants their political power back. They will avoid anything close to actual governance, in hopes the economy will continue to falter. It's a sick and diabolical plan. It shows their true aim. Unless you're in the top 1 percent, I can't understand why someone would want these people deciding the policies of our country.
Regarding the noise surrounding the expiration of Bush tax cuts, one fact the Republicans never seem to mention is that extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to our national debt. It has also been shown, "less than 3 percent of filers with small-business income pay at the top two income tax rates." So, the tax cuts add to the debt, and they do nothing to help "small" business.
A recent article, The Middle Class in America is Radically Shrinking, cataloged numerous statistics showing the dramatic predicament working-Americans face. Here are just a few excerpts:
- 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the public
- 61 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck
- 66 percent of income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1%
- 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement
- Since 2000, the average executive earns 300 to 500 times more than the average worker
- As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held on 7% of the liquid financial assets
- The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the U.S. now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation's wealth
- The top 1% of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago
- 21 percent of all children in the U.S. are living below the poverty line in 2010
- The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income
As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Previous periods with much higher tax rates also coincided with much more growth and broadly shared prosperity. As Paul Krugman noted, "The problem with super-high rates isn't so much that they reduce incentives to work; it's that they create huge incentives to avoid or evade."
"Between 2002 and 2007 the bottom ninety-nine percent of income grew 1.3 percent a year in real terms - while the incomes of the top one percent grew ten percent per year. That one percent accounted for two-thirds of all income growth in those years," asserted James Surowiecki. If a privileged, minuscule segment of the population is making a majority of the income, and increasing such year after year (alongside shrinking wages for the rest of society), shouldn't we be raising tax rates on such persons? Obviously societal institutions are allowing them to garner such lopsided gains. Shouldn't they be made to pay back to the system that nourished them? Shouldn't they help fund the infrastructure, courts, public works, etc. that allow them such a fortunate life?
Another public program, which has been in the sights of right-wingers for years, is Social Security. A basically well-liked and solvent program. The average annual benefit is only $14,000. Even the bleakest forecasts show it can pay full benefits until after the 2030s (some until the 2050s). Yet as usual, Republicans have tweaked and twisted the facts to mean just the opposite. They've completely lied and told a story about Social Security going bankrupt in the 2020s. Raising the retirement age to 70, as some have suggested, is the same as a 15 percent cut in benefits. In predicting Social Security will only be able to pay 75-80 percent of benefits by 2037, the CBO uses an extremely low long-term growth rate. "Lower than anything we've seen in more than a century," wrote Doug Henwood. Even the forecasters are being grossly pessimistic. And yet, after the 2050s, the program will still be able to pay 80 percent of benefits even if we do nothing to change how it currently operates.
Henwood also reveals the average weekly payout for an unemployment (insurance) benefit recipient is is $307. All those chastising the unemployed and claiming they're lazy, coasting on easy-street, and purposefully choosing not to work, I encourage them to see how much of an easy-street they can live on for $307 a week. Another very sad and despicable quality many Americans seem to wallow in - bashing the most downtrodden, while seemingly revering those oppressing them.
Right-wingers also want to pretend this is all the fault of Barack Obama. Yet according to the latest analysis of BLS job numbers, by Rob Shaprio, "it's hard to credibly blame the White House for the vast, vast majority of job losses...Out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle (December 2007 to July 2009); 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republican's watch or under sway of their policies."
Then there is the always useful scapegoat, the public worker. You know, those lavishly rewarded school teachers driving Cadillacs. In the 1980s it was welfare Queens driving Cadillacs. So we squashed welfare as we knew it and basically threw people off the welfare rolls. As with all public initiatives (other than the transfer of public dollars to the privileged), the right-wing feels public endeavors must be stopped. The latest target in the 'bash-everything-public' theme is public employees.
Conservatives love to attack public pensions. How dare some people want a dignified retirement! 'Work 'til you drop' should be the Republicans campaign slogan. The fact that public workers accept lower wages in lieu of better health care and a pension is beside the point. For Republicans, public workers should have no pension, earn WalMart wages, and pay their own health care. Since right-wingers align themselves with businessmen, this anti-worker model is what they want the world working under. Low labor costs with all the rewards going to the owners and captains of industry.
As Jonathan Cohn asked, "To what extent is the problem that retirement benefits for everybody else have become to stingy?" If workers can never retire, many jobs are then unable to turnover to a younger generation looking for work.
Furthermore, the pension plan shortfall (revenue vs. payout) represents less than 2 percent of projected state and local government spending. "If we assume this shortfall must be filled over a 30-year period, then this would imply a gap that is less than 2 percent of projected spending over this period." Meaning - this is another red herring Republicans are falsely portraying as a failure of government and public work, in general.
Research shows that, when adjusted for experience and education, compensation for state and local workers is 6.8 to 7.4 percent lower than comparable private sector workers. Plus, unions represent only 7 percent of private sector workers. So, is 7 percent of the workforce destroying, bad, and/or responsible for all our problems? Also, many have mistakenly pushed the idea that public workers have been sheltered from the economic downturn. Although, 316,000 public-sector jobs have disappeared over the past two years. Many others have been furloughed and faced shortened hours. Public servants have felt the pain yet have maintained some employment through a quasi-work-sharing system.
Here we have a host of falsities, absurdities, and slanders the right-wing has rolled out in an effort to buttress their faltering and repeatedly debunked supply-side worldview. The programs and policies that have made the most significant contribution to retirement, wages, aggregate demand, and economic security are continually maligned by conservatives. They don't want shared prosperity. They want to preserve their oligarchy. We must ignore them. We follow them at our own (empirically-proven) peril.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Supply-Side Albatross
(As an appendage to the previous entry) the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel exclaims Job One: Focus on Growing the Economy and also highlights Report Calls for Overhaul of State Department of Commerce. Again they want the government to coordinate private market activity. To hold the hand of private speculators and guide them. They even encourage growing government with an expanded, more focused, and higher-paid Department of Commerce.
They want this expanded arm of the Commerce Department, a quasi-public agency, named Accelerate Wisconsin. Because just having that snappy name will surely go a long way.
This Journal editorial basically promotes a "provocative" study by Deloitte, spoon-feeding the conclusions, no questions asked, no counter opinions. The report includes such ground-breaking proposals as "prospecting harder," and "a vigorous marketing campaign." Oh, and they should try really, really hard.
The overall idea is to make the Commerce Department a massive economic development organization, "such as the Milwaukee 7." Yet, many observe that the Milwaukee 7 and similar agencies don't achieve enough for Milwaukee and often have misguided priorities. How this is the model for the state is a bit perplexing.
As evidence for the need for the new agency initiative, the Journal notes, Wisconsin, "once in the top twenty in per capita personal income...had fallen to 27th by 2008." (Wisconsin is the 20th most populous state.) They then talk of how such agencies help turn things around. They cite Indiana and Michigan as evidence of such positive experiences. Michigan is the 8th most populous state, it ranks 26th in per capita personal income. Indiana is the 16th most populous state, it ranks 37th in per capita income.
The unemployment rate in Wisconsin is 8.5%, it's 10.1% in Indiana and Michigan. If we look at median household income, Indiana ranks 32nd, Michigan 30th, and Wisconsin 21st. GDP change between 2006-2008 was -0.6 in Indiana (ranking 41st), -1.5 in Michigan (ranking 47th), and +0.7 in Wisconsin (ranking 27th). They are performing worse than we are, yet we should follow their lead?
Government should grow to aid private industry, but government is also bunglingly incompetent? Based on metrics, which don't even support the supposed conclusions, we should follow the same development strategies that are failing others? Government workers are overpaid and primarily useless, except for those aiding the private sector, which should be paid more?
Journal Sentinel, what an unsound, confused, and misinformed framework you provide to our community's policy debates. And your abhorrence to the public sector and government capabilities, except when taxpayer dollars are enabling speculative private ventures, is reprehensible. It would be nice if we could have an adult discussion in the community, beginning with the recognition that the public and private sectors both have important roles to play.
We have demonized the government for decades. We've cut taxes and deregulated. And, we've paid for it. Wages for the majority of workers have stagnated. Our society has pulled apart. Inequality is as large as it was during the Gilded Age. We are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
As we've taken a hands-off approach with government and put our full faith in the market, the volatility of our lives has increased. That wasn't part of the 'supply-side miracle' deal. HMOs were supposed to revolutionize health care, not nearly destroy it. 401Ks were supposed to increase retirement security, not obliterate it.
It's time to turn the car around.
The Persistent Deception
Recently the Journal Sentinel mused on Growing A Region. It contained typical platitudes recognizable to any even cursory Journal reader. Entrepreneurs are the answer, regional collaboration is good, and (as always when private entities have their hand out) government should provide the start-up funds for these inevitable private gains.
First, if the market and the private sector are so omnipotent, why does the government have to continually give subsidies, provide research, create special taxing districts and tax credits, among numerous other hand-outs and giveaways, for the private sector to function and locate opportunities?
There is not an industry or sector of the economy where the government isn't crucial. We - the government - have provided a majority of the R&D, seed money, tax breaks, and general initiative for major advancements in medicine, aviation, electronics, manufacturing, mining, utilities, energy, food and on and on.
If we didn't have or drastically downsized government, as many right-wing parrots cackle, the economy would collapse. A majority of the initial investments, the infrastructure, the risky 'getting off the ground' period of many initiatives would never happen.
But, let me get this straight, government is bad and doesn't do anything right, yet as the middleman, transferring tax dollars between citizens and private speculation, it's the go-to guy? And, for some reason, the all-knowing market and the ultra-savvy entrepreneur, in all their perfection, can't seem to achieve optimal outcomes without the inefficient and inept government leading the way?
Wow. I get such a kick out of the trickle-down, supply-side, market-humping privateers. You can just make up stuff as you go along to defend subsidizing the wealthy at the expense of the majority of taxpayers. Heck, some even claim it as a theory; as if there is actual evidence behind it. Simultaneously bad-mouthing the government, while using government as a tool to extract start-up money, for private speculation, from taxpayers.
And, even though trickle-down has been a total failure in application over the last three decades (as evidenced by decreasing retirement security and health care coverage, alongside increasing inequality of incomes and stagnating wages for most workers), by just claiming "it's in the best interest of the people" and simply repeating trickle-down is accomplishing everything as intended (which it clearly isn't), the lie persists.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Class Warfare
Uemployment insurance is a disincentive to work, yet subsidizing Wall Street profits, the outsourcing of American jobs, and tax cuts for the rich are solid economic policy. As a democracy, taking care of the majority of our citizens is a bad approach. Instead we should coddle the top 1 percent with the hope something will trickle down to the rest of us.
Public employees, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. are not the sources of America's problems. These are all scapegoats and red herrings in the Republicans' smoke-and-mirrors, blame-game intitative; whereby they are trying to shift attention from the colossal failure that has been supply-side economics commingled with the idea that the government can't do anything right, the market must be worshiped, and greed is good.
More on this soon.
For Further Reading:
Free Market Collapses Again
NAFTA & The Myth of Free Trade
Public employees, Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. are not the sources of America's problems. These are all scapegoats and red herrings in the Republicans' smoke-and-mirrors, blame-game intitative; whereby they are trying to shift attention from the colossal failure that has been supply-side economics commingled with the idea that the government can't do anything right, the market must be worshiped, and greed is good.
For Further Reading:
Free Market Collapses Again
NAFTA & The Myth of Free Trade
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Readings On The Economy
America, There Is A Better Way: It's Called Germany
Fight Back Against The Oligarchy
GOP Leaders Remind Voters Economy Does Better Under Democrats
Great Decoupling Of Corporate Profits From Jobs
How To Make An American Job Before It's Too Late
Job Seekers Still Face Intolerable Odds
Living Wage Laws Don't Hurt Employers
Meet The New Republican Alchemists
Middle Class In America Is Radically Shrinking
Political Genius Of Supply-Side Economics
Fight Back Against The Oligarchy
GOP Leaders Remind Voters Economy Does Better Under Democrats
Great Decoupling Of Corporate Profits From Jobs
How To Make An American Job Before It's Too Late
Job Seekers Still Face Intolerable Odds
Living Wage Laws Don't Hurt Employers
Meet The New Republican Alchemists
Middle Class In America Is Radically Shrinking
Political Genius Of Supply-Side Economics
Social Security
Mythology of Fear About Social Security (excerpt):
Now let's take a true measure of where we are. Social Security has been the most effective government program; it has been the most responsible government program. Social Security costs are funded out of its own dedicated revenue stream. It does not and cannot borrow money to finance its operations.
There is no deficit financing. Social Security is the epitome of Yankee frugality. It could not be better managed. Social Security returns more than 99 cents to beneficiaries on every dollar collected. I dare you to find a private investment plan that can claim that.
Brother Can You Spare A Dime
The Journal Sentinel, again, falsely frames an issue. They want us to Hold off on tax increases while the economy lags. But this isn't an all or nothing option. (And, the Journal recently published an editorial espousing spending over austerity. Talk about having it both ways.) Democrats would prefer to simply let the tax cuts expire for the richest two percent. Taxing those whom can afford it when our country needs it the most.
Luckily the Journal also published Andrew Fieldhouse and John Irons' response, Let the tax cuts for the rich expire, to this Journal slight-of-hand nonsense.
Maybe some of the characters could pitch in.
Luckily the Journal also published Andrew Fieldhouse and John Irons' response, Let the tax cuts for the rich expire, to this Journal slight-of-hand nonsense.
Maybe some of the characters could pitch in.
The Roadmap To Inequality
Paul Ryan's Roadmap is a sow's ear being sold as a silk purse. A typical Republican ploy, and Paul Ryan is the latest selling such snake-oil. He's become the poster boy for right-wing propaganda over the last year. Even though his Roadmap leads us off a cliff, which is also typical of Republican policies.
For Further Reading:
Prophets of Doom
Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities
For Further Reading:
Prophets of Doom
Ryan Budget's Radical Priorities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)