Tax cuts

Why Conservatives Punish Their Victims: A Lesson From Arizona

Richard Eskow — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:40:53 -0400

So far from God, so close to the Republican National Committee

When some Simpsons characters took refuge in the local church after a hurricane, the church marquee read "God welcomes his victims." With that invitation, Reverend Lovejoy (an underrated Simpsons character second only to Apu on my favorites list) was alluding to that thorniest of theological questions: If the Almighty loves us, why does He subject us to so many disasters?

Modern conservatives don't need to wrestle with that kind of moral dilemma. Today's Right hates its victims, and its leaders do everything in their power to make their suffering even worse. Arizona's Republican legislators, most of them self-professed Christians, aren't singing from God's hymnal. Instead they're channeling Lyle Lovett's memorably bitter and resentful song, "God Will," as they survey the people who have been trapped in the economic wreckage of their ideology:

"God may love you but I don't/God will but I won't/and that's the difference between God and me."

Kicking 'em while they’re down

Arizona's conservatives have committed an extraordinarily mean and petty act, even by the low standards of today's Right. They've refused to change one word in a state law - a change that would have let at least 15,000 people keep receiving unemployment benefits. And they've done it even though it wouldn't have cost their state a penny.

Even Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, the guiding force behind last year's draconian anti-immigrant law (and at times so cartoonishly mean that she could be a Simpsons character herself), tried to get them to change their minds. Their response was, in effect, "You didn't ask us nicely enough." As Business Week reports, they were really holding this money hostage to push their usual corporate and rich-person menu of tax cuts and deregulation.

These Republicans used the usual right-wing euphemisms for their fealty to the rich and powerful, of course, by deploying the tired and discredited argument which Business Week summarized as "taking action on long-term measures such as business tax cuts and regulatory changes to spur the economy." Translation: They wanted more giveaways for their wealthy campaign donors.

A double dose of poison

What's happened to unemployment in Arizona?

A recession caused by deregulation nearly doubled Arizona's unemployment rate, and that's not even counting discouraged workers or the underemployed. Once their jobs were destroyed by deregulation, tax cuts failed to create any new ones. What are these Republicans pushing now? More deregulation and more tax cuts, of course. And the they're willing to sacrifice the people they've hurt to make it happen.

That's like forcing poisoning victims to drink a second helping.

Of course, these Arizona Republicans aren't just pushing financial deregulation. They're also pushing other kinds of deregulation, the kinds that will pollute the air and water, poison our kids, and endanger the safety of the fortunate few who actually have jobs.

But it's this act of gratuitous cruelty toward the unemployed that demands our attention. How can anybody live with themselves when they do something like this? Maybe every one of these Cruel Conservatives has his or her own motivation. Perhaps, like snowflakes, no two are alike.

One of them was from Snowflake, as a matter of fact – Snowflake, Arizona. State Sen. Sylvia Allen claims that she wouldn’t vote for the one-word change because it would just be a “Band Aid” for a much deeper problem, one that can only be solved by – you guessed it – deregulation and tax cuts.

Blaming the Victims

But that doesn't answer the basic question: Why? Why attack people whose lives have been shattered by conservative policies? One answer is: Because their lives have been shattered by conservative policies. Once you accept the fact that the misfortune of the unemployed isn't of their own making, then you have to ask what caused it. And since that leads to an indictment of the right-wing agenda, these conservatives can't let that happen.

Which isn't to say that there aren't people who do believe the unemployed created their own problems, despite all evidence and logic to the contrary. Undoubtedly some conservatives are sincere in their loathing for jobless people, although that calls for a nearly sociopathic lack of empathy. But then, it's easier to develop that lack of empathy when entire cable networks and news organizations are dedicated to promoting it.

Other right-wingers may be acting from a more nakedly cynical calculus. But whatever their motivation, they're all arguing that unemployment benefits encourage people not to look for work. They're saying the unemployed don't want to work. But look at the graph again: They wanted to work in 2006, but they don't want to work now?

Of course, they'll say. The Democrats have created a welfare mentality. Sure. Everybody knows you can live like a king or queen on $240 a week, which is Arizona's maximum unemployment benefit. (It has the second-lowest unemployment benefit rates in the nation.)

Conservative Freeloaders

From Business Week:

"Eventually we have to quit paying unemployment benefits," said Republican Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City. "And when does it stop being unemployment benefits and begin just being cash assistance?"

The last time a study was conducted, Arizona was a "freeloader state" state that took in $1.30 in Federal money for every $1.00 it contributed in Federal taxes. Which raises the question: At what point does that 30-cent giveaway to bolster the prosperity of Sen. Gould's constituents stop being a case of one group of Americans helping another, and start "just being cash assistance?"

At last, after attending all those ribbon-cuttings for stimulus programs they opposed, these hypocritical conservatives have finally turned down some Federal money. They won't turn down money that boosts Arizona businesses, of course, but they'll happily refuse money that gives the unemployed the support most Americans know they deserve.

God may welcome his victims, but the Right doesn't.

Pardon my language

Somewhere there's a different United States, a nation that existed in the past - or perhaps just in the imagination. In that United States, conservatives are sincere and well-meaning individuals who merely have a different view of the world. That United States is invigorated and strengthened by an honest exchange of ideas between these conservatives and people of the moderate Left. Through high-mind debate they eventually agree on wise and judicious policies.

That's not the country we live in today. People like these Arizona legislators aren't high minded or well-meaning. That's why I'm not a big fan of bipartisanship - or what's called "moderation" nowadays, but is really just appeasement of a radical fringe.

Hey, I try to be thoughtful, considerate, well-spoken. I try to respect all points of view. It would feel good to adopt that lofty, "above the left and right" posture that makes a person look judicious and even-tempered in Washington nowadays. I've even been trying to clean up my language. But you know what? To me, Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City just seems like a dick.

I'm sure the Senators from Snowflake and Lake Havasu City are nice and decent enough as individuals. But politically they're neither. The pain they're inflicting is too brutal, too senseless, too pointless, to warrant "civil discourse." The kindest thing to be said right now about these Arizona conservatives and all those who support them is this: God may love Sen. Sylvia Allen, but I don't. God may forgive Sen. Gould, but I don't.

I guess that's the difference between God and me.

Tim Pawlenty's Dippy Dive into 'Deep Doo-Doo'

Sam Pizzigati — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:41:13 -0400

One of the three 'serious' candidates for the 2012 Republican White House bid says the tax cuts for the rich he's proposing will expand America's 'entrepreneurial' class. What does history say?

Last week, in a “major policy address,” GOP Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty called for a massive tax cut that would save Americans who make $1 million or more a year, Washington tax experts estimate, an average $288,800.

One listener in Pawlenty’s audience, a University of Chicago student, had a question for the former Minnesota governor. How could Pawlenty, the student asked, justify still another round of tax cuts for the wealthy?

Pawlenty, a savvy pol, never missed a beat.

“Set aside whether the wealthy benefit or not,” Pawlenty urged the student. “The real measure of this proposal is: Is it going to generate, in a transformative, significant way, more jobs for more people across this country?”

Pawlenty, naturally, believes his tax cutting will do just that — by widening the ranks of what he calls the “entrepreneurial class.”

“There’s about 5 percent of the country that is our entrepreneurial class, the people who start businesses, form capital, deploy capital, add employees, build buildings, invent things, conduct research, commercialize it, and the like,” Pawlenty explained.

“If that 5 percent becomes 6, 7, 8, or 9 percent, we’ve got a very bright future,” he continued. “And if that 5 percent becomes 4, 3, 2, or 1 percent, we are in deep doo-doo.”

Clear enough. Giving the wealthy tax breaks, Tim Pawlenty believes, extends “entrepreneurial” wherewithal beyond our richest 5 percent. And we all benefit, he maintains, when that next “6, 7, 8, or 9 percent” do better.

Can we test this notion, this claim that tax cuts for taxpayers at the top pay off big in expanded entrepreneurial energy? Turns out we can.

If cutting taxes on America's richest really helps extend “entrepreneurial” wherewithal beyond our richest 5 percent, then folks in that “6, 7, 8, or 9 percent” should have done just splendidly over the past 30 years, a span of time that has seen taxes on America’s rich drop to their lowest level in generations.

Did these folks do just splendidly? The numbers, please.

In 1980, the year before President Ronald Reagan began lavishing tax cuts on America’s rich, those taxpayers just outside the top 5 percent — the folks statisticians describe as sitting in the 90th to 95th percentiles of our income distribution — averaged $97,687 in income, after we adjust for inflation.

In 2008, the most recent year with IRS figures available, this same group averaged $127,184, a 30.2 percent increase. In other words, after three decades of Reagan and Bush tax cuts for our wealthiest, taxpayers just outside the top 5 percent saw their entrepreneurial wherewithal increase all of 1 percent a year.

Not a particularly impressive increase. And this exceedingly modest increase becomes even less impressive when we compare the three decades since 1980, a time when tax rates on rich people fell, to the three decades before 1980, a time when taxes on rich people ran consistently high.

Between 1950 and 1980, average incomes in the 90th to 95th percentiles jumped from $49,646 to $97,687, a 96.8 percent increase, after taking inflation into account — over triple the income boost this income cohort has seen since 1980.

So who has benefited significantly from all the tax cuts for the rich since 1980? Let’s phrase that question a little differently: Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb? The rich — surprise, surprise — have benefited the most significantly from the past 30 years of exceedingly generous tax giveaways to the rich.

Since 1980, University of California economist Emmanuel Saez has detailed, the inflation-adjusted incomes of America’s top 1 percent have increased 166.5 percent, from $426,906 to $1.14 million.

But incomes in the upper reaches of that top 1 percent have soared even faster. Taxpayers in the top 0.1 percent have seen their incomes jump 288.9 percent since 1980. And taxpayers in the top 0.01 percent have seen their incomes skyrocket 402.8 percent, from $5.4 million in 1980 to $27.3 million in 2008.

This top 0.01 percent, over these same years, has quadrupled its share of America’s national income. In other words, that “entrepreneurial” wherewithal that Tim Pawlenty so prizes isn’t spreading out beyond the top 5 percent. It’s concentrating within the tippy top of the top 1 percent.

We have moved into what Tim Pawlenty might call “deep doo-doo” territory. And Pawlenty, incredibly, wants us to step even deeper in it.

Pawlenty's tax plan, if ever enacted, would erase all federal taxes on the capital gains, dividends, and interest that pour into rich people’s pockets — and, just for good measure, drop the top tax rate on rich people’s ordinary cash income down to 25 percent, a 10-point drop from the current 35 percent and a 66-point drop from the 91 percent top rate in effect 50 years ago.

Center for American Progress tax expert Michael Linden is dismissing Pawlenty's new tax plan as “sheer fantasy.” But this fantasy plan could well become reality. Not one of Pawlenty's GOP rivals, after all, has yet disavowed it.

Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the online weekly on excess and inequality published by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies. Read the current issue or sign up at Inequality.Org to receive Too Much in your email inbox.

10 Years Since Bush Tax Cuts: Do We Even Remember Peace And Prosperity?

Dave Johnson — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:55:52 -0400

It is 10 years since the Bush tax cuts passed. When Bush took office (and never forget the Supreme Court's 5-4 role in that) The Onion famously declared, “Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.” They had no way to know how prescient they were. Now we are living the real nightmare.

10 years of Bush tax cuts is enough! Click here to demand your representative supports the Fairness in Taxation Act so the rich contribute their fair share.

The Onion satire had Bush declaring,

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

Everything the Onion declared in jest became true right down to the Bush administration proposing to sell national parks. Pushed through using "reconciliation," the Bush tax cuts -- along with the Bush wars and military increases -- have nearly bankrupted the country. As Roger Hickey writes in, 10 Years Of Bush Tax Cuts Is Enough,

Cutting taxes on the wealthy did not create jobs as conservatives promised. ... the Bush Administration [had] the "worst track record on record" for jobs, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bush declared that "the surplus is the people's money," and proceeded to give the surplus away to very few people. Now that we face chronic deficits, it's long past time for millionaires and billionaires to starting giving back.

10 years of Bush tax cuts is enough! Click here to demand your representative supports the Fairness in Taxation Act so the rich contribute their fair share.

Deficits: "Incredibly Positive News"

Ten years ago we had a huge budget surplus. Then came the Bush tax cuts, immediately pushing us into terrible budget deficits. What did Bush say about that? Bush said that turning from surplus to deficit was "Incredibly Positive News,''

President Bush said today that there was a benefit to the government's fast-dwindling surplus, declaring that it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress." He said that was "incredibly positive news" because it would halt the growth of the federal government.

"Incredibly positive news" -- never for a minute think that these deficits and the resulting debt were anything but intentional, a scheme to gut government and force us toward the current rigged and one-sided discussion of cutting Medicare, etc.

Bring Back Peace And Prosperity

It would be so simple to bring back peace and prosperity. First and foremost: undo the Bush tax cuts.

But the Supreme Court helped lock in the Bush nightmare, with the "Citizens United" ruling, allowing unlimited corporate money to interfere in our elections. In the 2010 Congressional midterms more than $300 million was pumped into those nasty smear-ads by corporations, half of it from secret donors, according to Common Cause. How much of that came from, say, China? We don't get to know.

P.S. A Simple Plan To Fix The Jobs Emergency -- And The Economy, Too

Take Action

10 years of Bush tax cuts is enough! Click here to demand your representative supports the Fairness in Taxation Act so the rich contribute their fair share.

Did American Workers "Get What They Deserved?"

Dave Johnson — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:31:51 -0400

What did people expect would happen when they voted for Reagan, Bush and other conservatives, or supported their policies? In the Holland (Michigan) Sentinel community columnist Ray Buursma writes, American workers got what they deserved. Some of the things he says might resonate with many of us,

Remember the Reagan standard? Are you better off today than you were a decade ago? Two decades? Three? Unless you make more than $380,000 a year, the answer is no. In fact, your standard of living over the last quarter century has actually decreased while millionaires have added 30 percent to their net wealth. Why? Two reasons.

First, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs went overseas while the politicians you elected did nothing to stop them. Yet you continue to elect leaders who offer nothing but tax cuts, as if that would stem the flow of disappearing jobs.

Did you demand your leaders address America’s trade imbalance or continuous outsourcing of jobs? Did you demand your leaders require foreign countries to buy a dollar’s worth of American goods for every dollar of goods they sell here?

No and no. You didn’t bother.

Buursma writes that instead of resenting people who make more because they are in a union, people should join a union and fight for your job, wages and benefits. He continues,

Maybe you’re thinking, “I’m not a union worker, so this doesn’t affect me.”

Stop being stupid. Union benefits provide a standard other companies have to match, or at least come close to. When those benefits are cut, yours are, too. Or do you think you operate in your own little employment vacuum?

Agree or disagree, please click through and read his entire piece.

Whose Fault?

There is no question that things are not going the way they should be going. We see decline all around us -- all pointing back to the changes made after the election of Ronald Reagan. Tax cuts led to massive debt. Deregulation led to mine, oil and financial disasters that cost us more than deregulation ever saved. The infrastructure is crumbling. It seems like we are entering third-world status.

So is it the fault of American workers that their wages and benefits have declined as jobs are shipped overseas?

I don't blame working people. After all, they're working! So they're busy, and stressed, and focused on work. They can't be expected to keep up with the little details and facts and nuances -- especially when they are attacked daily with a barrage of well-funded and professionally crafted corporate/conservative propaganda!

This assault on information and truth has been going on for decades. Under Reagan there was a dramatic shift toward "market" -- one-dollar-one-vote -- sources of information and away from objective, citizen-oriented democratic -- one-person-one-vote -- sources. This market-sourced information necessarily reflects a conservative/corporate view because it is driven by money and profit instead of humanity and humanity's needs.

Information for Democracy!

How do we counter the corporate/conservative assault on truth? One answer to the problem of getting accurate, objective information is to use (and support) alternative sources that are not offered by the conservative/corporate machine. Here is a list of a few links to alternative news sources. Please send these to relatives, friends, and even post them to conservative forums.

Campaign for America's Future -- and especially sign up for Progressive Breakfast as well as the afternoon emails.
AlterNet
TruthOut
Talking Points Memo
Daily Kos
Daily Agenda
Womens eNews
Reader Supported News
Common Dreams
Smirking Chimp
Mother Jones
The Nation
Op-Ed News
The Progressive
Think Progress
In These Times
American Prospect
Huffington Post

PLEASE suggest more progressive information and news sources in the comments! And forward this to others.

Added suggestions, not necessarily just news:
AFL-CIO Now Blog
Manufacture This
Scholars & Rogues
Crooks And Liars
Firedoglake
Black Agenda Report
Washington Monthly
Eschaton
AMERICAblog
The Raw Story
Agonist
Today's Workplace
Republic of T
Democrats.com
Hullabaloo
Jack and Jill Politics
Liberal Oasis

Update from the comments: neweconomicperspectives.org newdeal20.org moslereconomics.com correntewire.com nakedcapitalism.com bilbo.economicoutlook.net mikenormaneconomics.com

Tax Cuts For The Rich, Painful Cuts For The Rest

Dave Johnson — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:53:51 -0500

Already passed by the Senate, the House probably votes today (late addition -- maybe not) on extending the tax cuts for the rich and permanently cutting the estate tax to a very, very low level.

It is hard to convey just how dispiriting this is to progressives who worked so hard to reach and persuade people and get them to the polls in 2008 to vote for "change." The "change" was not supposed to be about giving even more breaks to the wealthy and big corporations while doing less for the rest of us. This came at us out of the blue. Let's start now getting ready for the next fight so we're not totally on the defensive.

The Congress is ready to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, and the President not only will sign it; it was his deal! (?) But just two weeks ago we were not talking about tax cuts for the wealthy; we were all engaged in the fight to stop the gutting of Social Security, the middle class and the poor in the name of doing something about budget deficits.

Two Weeks From Deficit Panic To Deficit Increase

Think about the contrast. Just two weeks passed between an urgent national panic about deficits and the Congress passing huge tax cuts for the wealthy, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. Well, maybe not a complete contrast, because Social Security was on the line in the deficit battle and also in this tax cut deal, through a back door.

And a few weeks before all of this, we all suffered through that mass attack of ads in an election funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from "anonymous." How many nasty smear-ads did you see, talking about how socialist Democrats want government health care and "cut $500 million from Medicare?" Guess who the "anonymous" money was from. If you think it was really from people who want to prevent cuts to Medicare, well ...

The Congress elected by that "anonymous" money and those ads isn't even in office yet, yet we already watch as huge tax cuts for the rich are passed into law.

The Netroots Fought

The Netroots organized a fight on this. The blogs rallied opposition. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee was able to get ads on the air. The House Progressive Caucus rallied on the side of We, the People. But it wasn't enough, and it was a defensive fight after tax cuts for the rich were suddenly thrown at us from our own side, of all things.

There are worse fights coming. Let's get ahead of this. Let's start now to reach a wider audience than just our online community. That online community is millions of people, but it is not enough.

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Oligarchy

Leo Gerard — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:06:57 -0500

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev’rywhere you go;
Take a look in Tiffany’s store, glistening once again
With Wall Street bonus trinkets all aglow.
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Art flies from Christie’s.
But the amazing sight to see is the tax cut guarantee
For the most wealthy.

Hedge funders content, still paying 15 percent
Is the wish of Boehner and Mitch.
Help these hurt least by financial crises
Is the Chamber of Commerce pitch.
And the GOP and Tea Party can’t wait for Congress’ new session.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev’rywhere you go.
There’s treats in the tax break deal for all the very well-heeled:
Estate tax gifts for billionaires, you know?
It’s beginning to look like oligarchy
Secret campaign gifts
Give scions power in Congress halls to force jumps to all their calls,
Always good and swift.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
If you’re doing drugs.
Look at unemployed stats; foreclosures still roaring fast,
‘merican dreams and life savings both mugged.
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas:
Food bank grocery lists.
The only break the unemployed see is 13-month’s reprieve
jobless benefits.

Aid and career counselors for jobless 99ers
Was the wish of Bernie and friends;
Help through COLAs for veterans and grandmas;
Was the hope of liberal House Dems;
Both crushed, progressives now all dread Congress’ new session.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev’rywhere you go.
There is a poisonous pill slipped into the tax cut deal:
Robbing Social Security, oh no!
It’s beginning to look like oligarchy.
Soon budget cuts will start
And the thing that will make them sting is the knowledge that you bring
Of the pain they’ll impart.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Everywhere you go.
Take a look in Congress Hall, middle class badly mauled,
By demands from Republicans, you know?
It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas;
Debts are racking up;
To help jobless 15 million, the bill’s $900 billion
-- With the wealthy’s cut.

A steady job with good pay, health benefits to stay
Is the wish of the middle class.
A good economy; hope, security
Are the goals of the working class.
But they know Congress handles their concerns very last.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev’rywhere you go;
No money for construction or local government bond funds.
The stimulus will be much too low, so
It’s beginning to look like oligarchy;
Shake hard workers down
And give to the wealthy few, untrue to the red, white and blue,
Their greed has no bounds.

***

It’s Beginning to Look a lot Like Christmas

1951 -- Meredith Wilson

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev'rywhere you go
Take a look in the five-and-ten, glistening once again
With candy canes and silver lanes aglow.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Toys in ev'ry store
But the prettiest sight to see is the holly that will be
On your own front door.

A pair of hopalong boots and a pistol that shoots
Is the wish of Barney and Ben
Dolls that will talk and will go for a walk
Is the hope of Janice and Jen
And mom and dad can hardly wait for school to start again.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Ev'rywhere you go
There's a tree in the Grand Hotel, one in the park as well
The sturdy kind that doesn't mind the snow.

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas
Soon the bells will start
And the thing that will make them ring is the carol that you sing
Right within your heart.

Can't Get By On $250K? Try Leaving Your Bubble!

Dave Johnson — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:17:12 -0500

The Washington Post ran a story how hard it is for a family making only $250K a year. Just who could a story like this be written by and for? How many ways does this story mislead its readers? If you want to write about hardship write some stories about and for the rest of us!

Over the weekend the Washington Post carried a story labeled as a "Fiscal Times" piece, Where does $250,000 a year go? Summary:

It's the annual income that President Obama and others have repeatedly used to define what it means to be "rich" in America today. ... Just how flush is a family of four with a $250,000 income?

... The bottom line: Living in high-tax areas on either coast can leave our $250,000-a-year family with little margin.

Richard Eskow hit the nail on the head in his post, A Quarter Of A Million Little Pieces: Pete Peterson & The Washington Post Have A New Fiscal James Frey, writing,

This "analysis" was written by someone named Karen Hube, and it's based on two phony premises: First, that "President Obama and others have repeatedly used (that level of income) to define what it means to be 'rich' in America today," and second, that it's a hardship to get by on $250,000 a year.

(Please read Richard's post, because he gets into what the Fiscal Times is, and why it carries stories like this one.)

The story claims that President Obama and others label them as "rich" because $250K would be the lower borderline if the Bush “tax cuts for the rich” expire. But this misleads readers because the family making $250,000 will NOT see any tax increase at all. If you understand how tax brackets work you know that only amounts above $250K get taxed the additional 4.6%, so someone making $250,001 will pay an additional tax of $0.046. Yes, that’s right, four point six cents. The amounts become large only with very (very) high incomes, but those incomes are so high that the additional tax is still almost nothing. A person making $1,000,000 would pay an additional tax of $2,875 a month on their $83,333 a month of income. (Sorry, it's hard to write a number like that without shouting.)

So Who Is The Story For?

Just who is going to feel the pain of the people who "only" make $250K? The Joneses in the story actually have retirement savings and life and disability and health insurance! They have student loans to pay off because they went to expensive universities and they will have the high expenses to send their kids because their kids will, too. 98% of us understand that when we read this story. Since anyone who makes less than $250K is going to know better from their own experience than to believe what they read in this story, who is this story written for? Hint: the Washington Post is in ... wait for it ... Washington!

What about the rest of us? If $250K a year -- the borderline for entering the top 2% -- leaves the Joneses "with little margin" then shouldn't there be 49 articles for every article like this, explaining how people who make less than $250K are doing -- since that is almost all of us? Shouldn't there be 49 articles about how 98% of us are not getting by, and have no margin at all?

Anti-Government

The story tries to make an anti-government point by claiming that taxes are squeezing the Joneses, complaining that the Joneses "only" take home $173K after all taxes (incl cell phone tax). (That is "only" $14.4K a month take-home.) But a careful reading shows that the opposite might be the case. It might really be limited government that is squeezing them:

College Costs: One of the factors in the cost analysis is college costs. They are paying off high student loans, and are getting ready to send kids to expensive colleges. But college costs are so high because we have less government, because of tax cuts. This is clearly true in California, for example.

Child Care: Child care costs are high because government is "limited" in our conservative on-your-own society.

Health Care: The Joneses health insurance bill is another product of our on-you-own limited government here. Health care is covered anywhere else.

Retirement: The Joneses are saving a lot for their retirement. This drain on their income is high because in conservative America you are on your own. Corporations got rid of most pensions through the 401k scam, while the Social Security system is inadequate.

There are many other areas where limited government puts a squeeze on people: insufficient transportation options and high energy costs due to fossil-fuel reliance among them.

They Did One For The Rest Of Us

To their credit the Post also has a story this weekend, In the U.S., Christmas remains a great divide, but the story misses the point by blaming the recession for the difficulties regular people face,

A new division is emerging in America between those who have moved on from the recession and those still caught in its grip.

This holiday season, those two worlds have been thrown into stark relief: At Tiffany's, executives report that sales of their most expensive merchandise have grown by double digits. At Wal-Mart, executives point to shoppers flooding the stores at midnight every two weeks to buy baby formula the minute their unemployment checks hit their accounts. Neiman Marcus brought back $1.5 million fantasy gifts in its annual Christmas Wish Book. Family Dollar is making more room on its shelves for staples like groceries, the one category its customers reliably shop.

But many, many people with jobs are having a hard time buying baby formula, too, these days. It was like this for more and more people before the recession. In fact, many say that is why there is this bad economy. Where I live people go through my recycle bin looking for cans - and were doing so before the recession. People living on Social Security are having a very, very hard time while the people making $250K "with little margin" can talk casually about cutting the program in order to avoid having the cap lifted causing them to pay a bit more into the system.

The Post story attributes the divide to the “grip” of the recession and not to the problems caused by policies that have led to our intense concentration of wealth. The problem is that our economic system for thirty years has been increasingly rewarding a few at the very top, and not the rest of us. Tax cuts, bailouts and bonuses for them, government cutbacks and stagnant wages for us.

But flawed as it is, that is one down, only 48 more stories about the other 98% to go to catch up with the one about getting by on only $250K.

Tax Cuts Now Force Terrible Budget Cuts Later

Dave Johnson — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:07:51 -0500

Deal or No Deal? OurFuture.org's Bill Scher and Dave Johnson make their cases for and against the preliminary tax cut deal between the President and Republican leaders. Dave Johnson's case against the deal is below. Click here for Bill Scher's case for the deal.

The White House has announced a deal on extending tax cuts for the rich, in exchange for restoring unemployment benefit extensions for those out of work more than 26 weeks. They are also going to cut the Social Security tax and give more tax breaks to businesses. I think this is a mistake.

President Obama's "deficit commission" failed, but it did make some terrible suggestions that would gut the middle class if implemented. Saying that the country is on an unsustainable budget path, the co-chairs suggested cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age, getting rid of home mortgage deductions, higher Medicare premiums, getting rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit and other things. Cuts: $4 trillion. Claim: absolutely necessary to save the country from bankruptcy.

After subjecting the country to a months-long fight over a "deficit crisis" the White House is brokering this deal on cutting taxes --cutting taxes -- which only makes the claimed problems worse!

Either we have a deficit crisis or we don't. If the country really is on an unsustainable budget path won't cutting taxes now mean that raising the retirement age, raising Medicare premiums, cutting home mortgage deductions and all the rest that the deficit commission proposed will, after these tax cuts, only get us back to the unsustainable budget path we are already on, thereby requiring even more cuts to gut the middle class?

If you think the currently-suggested cuts are bad, just wait until you hear what they want cut following even more deficit-creating tax cuts. The conservative plan all along has been to force a debt crisis that they can use to force "smaller government" -- meaning less for the people: less retirement security, less health security, less education, less transportation investment, less infrastructure investment, fewer health and safety inspectors, fewer mine and oil rig inspectors, less consumer protection, etc.

How is cutting taxes going to make this situation any better? Won't it just help the conservative argument for further gutting democracy's security and protections?

As Paul Krugman points out today, this tax cut deal will have the effect of validating and rewarding the kind of hostage-taking conservatives are engaged in, ensuring its continued use. And it sets them up to do exactly this with taxes all over again when this extension expires.

As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?

If it works, let's do it again, they'll say. Of course they will! Using conservative "market" arguments, isn't giving in because so many are unemployed and need help just an incentive for conservatives to put even more people out of work, therefore needing even more help, so they can get the administration to cave even more? This is why our government takes the official position that it is wrong to negotiate with terrorists: it just encourages more terrorism.

Don't give in on this, it will just make the situation worse. The debt situation, the terrible budget cut situation, the conservatives-killing-jobs-on-purpose situation and the conservatives-destroying-democratic-government situation.

Extend Unemployment Benefits Not Tax Cuts For Wealthy

Dave Johnson — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:18:56 -0500

In a stunning public display of just who our government works for and who it does not work for, unemployment checks for people out of work longer than 26 weeks run out tomorrow night. Congress, meanwhile, is caught up in a debate over extending a special tax break for the few people making more than $250,000 a year.

This is the situation. Here is a chart of the number of people unemployed for 26 weeks or longer: (click to enlarge)

Here is a chart of the economic divide, showing members of Congress receiving employment benefits from Wall Street: (don't click the pig is big enough already)

Yes, the extended unemployment benefits that go people who have been unemployed more than 26 weeks will run out at the end of November – tomorrow night. Congress did not extend this program because Republicans blocked it, saying the cost is too high, since we spent so much money making sure that the banksters continue to receive their bonuses. Instead of acting on extending these unemployment benefits Congress is currently debating extending a special tax break that goes only to wealthy people making more than $250,000 a year.

The Human Cost

The terrible human cost doesn’t even get considered. According to the Ayn Rand terminology that conservatives favor, considering the human cost would be wrong and would enable the parasites (us) to feed off of the producers (the wealthy few).

Pennsylvania: Food pantry organizers hope stockpiles hold up in case unemployment benefits run out,

Unless Congress extends unemployment benefits, an estimated 83,000 people will see their benefits run out in December and another 200,000 in the first four months of 2011, according to the state Department of Labor and Industry.

Kentucky and Indiana: Thousands in Kentucky and Indiana face lapse of unemployment benefits,

Amid an anti-spending atmosphere in Washington, funds to extend unemployment compensation for more than 33,000 Kentuckians and nearly 67,000 Hoosiers are likely to run out next month.

Maryland: Benefits due to end for thousands in Md.

Thousands of Marylanders face being cut off from unemployment benefits next month — just in time for the holiday season — as Congress remains undecided on whether to extend the payments in one of the worst job markets in decades.

An estimated 2 million people nationwide are slated to lose benefits, including 14,000 in Maryland. And more than 30,000 laid-off Maryland residents will exhaust their benefits early next year. The phase-out is happening because a federally funded program that gave residents payments beyond the normal 26 weeks lapses on Tuesday.

Iowa: Interactive map shows unemployment by county,

Extended federal benefits lapse on Nov. 30, giving Congress only two days to pass an extension. If they fail, hundreds of thousands could lose benefits. Failure to pass an extension would mean nearly 44,000 Iowans will see an immediate reduction in benefits and 8,700 Iowans will be prematurely cut off completely. Every week beginning Dec. 1, another 1,500 Iowans will lose their benefits.

Michigan:
Flint: Many Genesee County families could lose unemployment benefits without vote from Congress

Grand Rapids: With unemployment benefits to end this month, Gov. Jennifer Granholm makes plea for extension,

Michigan, with the nation’s second-highest unemployment rate at 12.8 percent, would see 168,520 unemployed workers lose their benefits between December and April 30, according to new figures from the Michigan League for Human Services. But even if an extension is granted, 13,011 will lose their benefits because they will have received the maximum 99 weeks of assistance.

Ohio: 2,332 Muskingum County residents face losing jobless benefits,

Statewide, 301,404 people will lose jobless benefits in the same window.

Arizona: Many Arizonans on verge of losing jobless benefits,

PHOENIX -- About 90,000 Arizonans will lose their unemployment benefits soon unless Congress passes an extension, according to the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Alabama: Unemployment expiration could leave thousands without benefits,

Unless Congress extends unemployment benefits by Nov. 30, Alabamians could begin losing unemployment compensation and nearly 58,000 residents could be off the rolls by April.

Mississippi: Editorial: House failing the jobless,

An effort to extend unemployment benefits past Nov. 30 for an estimated 53,000 Tennesseans, 8,000 Arkansans and 6,600 residents of Mississippi fell short of the necessary votes in the House of Representatives last week.

Colorado: 150k unemployed Coloradoans at risk of joining more than 26k with no UI benefits,

North Carolina: Unemployment Extension Standoff Makes NC Woman 'Feel Like A Pawn In A Chess Game',

"My last check will be the week ending Nov. 30 unless they come back on Nov. 29 and miraculously vote an extension," said Millen, who lives in Charlotte, N.C.

Will Congress act before tomorrow night and extend unemployment benefits to people who are suffering because of the greed of a few?

Action Items

Click here to call your members of Congress and demand they act!

Sign this petition to Congress: Continue the Federal Unemployment Insurance Programs

Sign the petition: Tell Congress: Don't extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

Visit unemployedworkers.org

Does It Matter What The Public Wants Or Needs?

Dave Johnson — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:01:49 -0500

Does it even matter what the public wants anymore?

I guess that's a rhetorical question these days because more and more obviously the answer is no. It matters what the plutocrats want, and they know how to get what they want. Public opinion is "engineered" or at least "managed." When it can't be managed it is ignored and the effort shifts to our elected officials, who are led to believe the public wants what the plutocrats want using elite opinion leaders, astroturf, front groups or flat out cash.

According to polls (and most of these by overwhelming margins):

Things the public doesn’t want:

Tax cuts for the rich. For example, this morning’s Progressive Breakfast hilited:

Another poll shows support for ending Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. McClatchy:"...51 percent want to extend the tax cuts only for households making less than $250,000 a year, and 45 percent want to extend the tax cuts for all ... Those who want to extend all of the tax cuts, including for the wealthy, include Republicans, tea party supporters, conservatives, Southerners and Westerners, Independents were closely divided, with 49 percent for extending only the 'middle class' tax cuts, and 48 percent for extending all of them."

P.S. Campaign for America's Future and CREDO Action have a petition, Tell Congress: Don't extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Click the link, and add your voice.

Cuts in social security. Isaiah Poole wrote last week, Nobody's Buying The Cut-Social-Security Line,

A whopping 82% of respondents in the poll oppose Social Security cuts for the purpose of deficit reduction, while only 15% support cuts. What's particularly telling is the striking uniformity of opinion across the political spectrum: 83% of Democrats, 82% of Republicans, 78% of independents and 74% of Tea Party supporters.

P.S. Campaign for America's Future has a petition, Tell President Obama to Reject Social Security Cuts. Click the link and add your voice.

P.S. Strengthen Social Security is holding a National Call Congress Day on November 30. Click for details.

Cuts in Medicare. Republicans figured this out, and ran ad after ad after ad (after ad after ad) telling voters that Democrats should be thrown out of office because they cut $500 billion from Medicare. You saw the ads. (and saw them and saw them and saw them.)

Cuts in anything. (Actually, polls show that the public wants cuts in foreign aid.)

Corporate-written "free trade" schemes. As Leo Gerard points out in Corporate Rewards: Controlling U.S. Trade Policy,

In a September poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 53 percent of Americans said so-called free trade agreements have injured the country. Only 17 percent said those trade schemes benefited the United States. Disgust with these deals spans party lines, including Tea Partiers, 61 percent of whom said they’re bad for America.

Things the public wants:

Jobs. The official unemployment rate is 9.6%. The total including "underemployed" is 15.9%.

Unemployment benefits extended. Poll: Majority of voters support another extension of unemployment benefits,

In a poll released Monday, 73 percent of voters say it's too early to cut back benefits for those who are struggling to find work as unemployment rate hovers at 9.6 percent....

A plan to revive American manufacturing. Election Day Poll: Voters Weren't Backing Extreme Right Agenda,

Eighty-nine percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement that "America is falling behind" in the global economy and that "we need a clear strategy to make things in America, make our economy competitive, and revive America's middle class."

Rebuild America's Infrastructure. From the poll cited above,

Significant majorities in the poll also supported new investments in infrastructure through a national infrastructure bank, and a five-year strategy for reviving manufacturing in America

So there are things the public clearly wants and doesn't want. These things are significantly at odds with the things the plutocrats want. If we are still a democracy we will get the things the public wants. If we have completed the transformation to a plutocracy we will get the things the plutocrats want. That's the definition of the terms.