US Indexes

The United States does not have the most democratic government, nor is it the least corrupt, nor does it have the freest media:

Index                                                                    World Rank
Corruptions Perceptions Index 2010                           22
Press Freedom Index 2010                                           20
Democracy Index 2010                                                17

Demand democracy in the United States.  Demand democracy worldwide.  The US democracy index doesn't even include the countries that were corrupted the the US.

Sources:
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

P.S.  Canada is 6th, 21st and 9th!

Tentacles of the Koch Bros.

'Citizens United' Back in the News

The single greatest threat to democracy in the United States is not fighting Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which gave corporations unlimited spending influencing elections with limited disclosure.  Citizens United is back in the news thanks mostly to Bob Edgar and Common Cause:

Bob Edgar on Rachel Maddow

Common Cause suddenly uncommonly forceful in fighting Koch Industries

Support: Common Cause and Flight Washington Corruption.

An Interesting Take on Obama's Speech

Rachel Maddow had an interesting take on Obama's speech (which received unbelievably high ratings by all viewers in several polls).

She said that when Clinton 'moved to the center' (i.e. right) after the midterm 1994 shellacking, the conservatives kept moving further and further to the right and so 'the center' kept moving further and further to the right. She pointed out that by today's conservative standards, Eisenhower would be a radical lefty and even Reagan might be too far left.

What Obama's speech allegedly did was to move the center sharply back toward the center; somehow Tucson may indeed have produced a seismic shift in politics. The Repug negative, attacking, fear-mongering messaging (vs. Obama's great 'hope') may no longer resonate... Jimmy Carter went negative on America during his re-election campaign and got clobbered. Obama may be shrewder and/or luckier than we thought. He still won't take on the corps:((

The corps are doing the same thing that the Conservatives do: they keep tilting the field more and more in their direction. First their attack on regulations, then bailouts, then huge bonuses for losing trillions of dollars, then firing millions of US workers and then going for "needed, earned and deserved lower tax rates".

They won't stop until they are overthrown, which will only happen as a result of overwhelming economic and social upheaval forces.

The solution: tax tax tax and regulate regulate regulate. Fine the crap out of the wealthy and corps. If they don't like it, let them move to the middle East or China or Europe after imposing a huge 'exit tax'. All the debate about tax rates, govt regulations, free markets is propaganda. There are no free markets and markets do not police themselves. The markets are completely rigged for the big players and corps; sometimes a few of them go under if they endanger their "govt bailout net" or are too overtly corrupt. CEO's and executives keep getting big bonuses regardless.

President Obama's Two Year Anniversary in Office

Tunisia - Ally of the United States

A strategic area of the world that is secular, Muslim, African, Arabic speaking, almost Middle-Eastern and has produces 100,000 barrels of oil a day.

Tunisia, formerly a French colony, strengthened ties with the US during WWII to help gain its independence which it did get in 1957.

France remained Tunisia's most important Western economic trading partner as well as military and financial aid.  After independence, The US was quick to support Tunisia with economic aid.  The US was caught several times in the middle of disputes between Tunisia and France but was able to maintain a consistent and stable relationship with Tunisia.

An Economic Hit Man Success Story

The US has always supported Tunisia with economic aid and military assistance when necessary.  When Zine El Abidine Ben Ali took power via a coup in 1987, the US announced its support for the dictator.  Tunisia continued to accept aid from the US as well as loans from the World Bank.  When Tunisia couldn't repay their loans, they agreed to restructuring terms such as opening up their markets to US companies.  This is the desired outcome to the US's preferred method of world influence.  The US government has continued to support Ben Ali even through serious human rights issues and brutal state police.

Tunisia and Democracy

Tunisia has long had a secular pro-democracy movement which has been repeatedly repressed by Ben Ali.  Even as the protesters demonstrated in the streets, the US government took a 'wait and see' approach as per Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

we are worried, in general, about the unrest and the instability...So we are not taking sides in it...we have got a lot of very positive aspects of our relationship with Tunisia...I think we will wait and see.  (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154295.htm)

  US Embassy Cables from Wikileaks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/217138) reported:

The problem is clear: Tunisia has been ruled by the same president for 22 years. He has no successor. And, while President Ben Ali deserves credit for continuing many of the progressive policies of President Bourguiba, he and his regime have lost touch with the Tunisian people. They tolerate no advice or criticism, whether domestic or international. Increasingly, they rely on the police for control and focus on preserving power. And, corruption in the inner circle is growing. Even average Tunisians are now keenly aware of it, and the chorus of complaints is rising. Tunisians intensely dislike, even hate, First Lady Leila Trabelsi and her family. In private, regime opponents mock her; even those close to the government express dismay at her reported behavior. Meanwhile, anger is growing at Tunisia's high unemployment and regional inequities. As a consequence, the risks to the regime's long-term stability are increasing.

I guess we'll all take a 'wait and see' approach to see if the US government supports democracy in Tunisia.  To be sure, the US government has a strong influence on what will actually happen in Tunisia.

OUR NATIONAL DISGRACE

FAIR recently put out a ‘Media Advisory’ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4233
regarding “Violent Media Rhetoric”. The following are excerpts from their first
two citations:

--Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer (12/3/10) on WikiLeaks' Julian Assange:

"Think creatively. The WikiLeaks document dump is sabotage, however quaint that term may seem.... Franklin Roosevelt had German saboteurs tried by military tribunal and shot. Assange has done more damage to the United States than all six of those Germans combined."

"Want to prevent this from happening again? Let the world see a man who can't sleep in the same bed on consecutive nights, who fears the long arm of American justice. I'm not advocating that we bring out of retirement the KGB proxy who, on a London street, killed a Bulgarian dissident with a poisoned umbrella tip. But….”


--The Washington Post's David Broder (10/31/10) recommended threatening war with Iran as an economic and domestic political strategy:


"With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But… ”

It is a national disgrace, not that promulgating murder is part of free speech, but that media proponents of murder are revered and respected. These quotes serve to illustrate the sickness which has infected not only many prominent 'thinkers' on the right, but our society as a whole. That these murderous, criminal ideas and actions are considered patriotic by tens of millions of Americans, and are given serious consideration in domestic and foreign policy circles is nauseating! That the thinkers, politicians and citizens of the left and center do not repudiate and villify this murderous paranoia AND its proponents with every word and breath is proof of their complicity.

Maintaining that the US has the right, indeed the duty, to murder and bomb abroad at will while other nations or individuals who do so are 'evil' or 'terrorists' is pathetically and transparently hypocritical and completely antithetical to all professed ideals of democracy. The US schoolyard bully gang has run rampant over their world playground for many decades, overthrowing democratically-elected govts and leaders through CIA-staged coups and assassinations when corruption attempts by corporate economic hit men ("EHM's") failed. When our bully nose was horrifically bloodied on 9/11, we cried and whimpered, "How unfair, why do 'they' hate us? 'They' envy us, we must kill and destroy every last one of them!" After all, bullies have feelings too. And so was born the never-ending "War On Terror", coming to an Obama theater near you under a different title.

As for those on the right, I much prefer the unabashedly and proudly murderous Dick Cheney bully to the murderously-creative Charles Krauthammer bully and the murderously- politically and economically calculating David Broder bully. Still, bullies are always cowards at heart. Eventually, their noses are bloodied enough that they slink away or a bigger bully comes along and throws them out of the playground completely. Counsel Joseph N. Welch’s 1954 words to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy could be just as appropriately addressed to any and all of our contemporary American bullies: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Bad Government

Big government isn't the problem - bad government is the problem.  It doesn't matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.  After a change in government, the same policies are continued with very small differences.  These 'very small differences' are what makes up the puppet show that is the Republican-Democrat duopoly.   The party that was against it is now for it and the party that was for it is now against it.  Two examples are the stimulus packages and the assault on our civil liberties which continues in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

Of course, the problem is that our government is corrupt is because it is under the influence of big corporations.  It's a recurrent cycle of government feeding corporations feeding government.  And it has to stop.

The greatest threat to this corrupt system is the American people.  It's time for Americans to stand up and demand that the US become a democracy again,  starting with fair elections, unbiased media, justice in the legal system and accountability in government and industry.

Fair Elections

We need to take take corporate money out of elections.  Corporations don't get a vote and thus should be excluded from influencing elections.  Candidates and political parties should be financed by public funds.  Spending caps should be instituted.

Unbiased Media

We need an unbiased and independent media.  US media companies should not be subsidiaries of larger corporate interests.  Americans need to become educated about what our government has been doing to developing nations worldwide.International news should be reported every day including US involvement therein.  US media companies should have access to public funds if need be.  Along with unbiased media, include unbiased education.  University research should be funded with public money.  Our education system should produce knowledgeable and independent thinking students with a well-rounded education and a worldwide view. 

Justice in the Legal System

Our court system needs to be overhauled.  Politics needs to be taken out of the court system.  Again, the entire legal system favors the wealthiest individuals and corporations.  Long delays in trials favor those with deep pockets which can hold out the longest.  The legal system needs to be fair, affordable, efficient and expedient.

Accountability

We need to make our politicians accountable to the American people.  Corrupt politicians whose policy is grossly out of whack with their constituents should be able to be recalled easily.  We need accountability in our national budgets.  Every last dollar should be accounted for with no funds going to illegal activities.  We need accountability from our corporations.  Once, executives committing illegal activities went to jail.  Now, corporations pay a token fine and it's business as usual.  We need better regulatory policy and enforcement.  We need stronger fines and penalties to inhibit illegal actions.  We need the best environmental protection in the world as we have the most money and the best technology.  We need to stop the revolving door policy where people go from industry to government and then back to industry.  Regulations that favor big corporations need to cease.  Big regulations for big corporations and small regulations for small business.

Conclusion

Americans need to act now.  Our civil liberties are disappearing, our infrastructure is falling apart, our debt is out of control and our middle class is falling into poverty.  The US and really the world is quickly falling into a plutonomy - the elite and everyone else.  US corporations, which are now multi-nationals, no longer have to cater to US interests.  America is just another market.

We ask our corporations to maximize profits within the laws and regulations they are given.  That's the game.  But when they are making and influencing the laws they are supposed to be following, it's a huge conflict of interest.  Corporations should stick to making money instead of influencing voters, politicians, regulators and researchers.

An Open Letter to George F. Will

Dear Mr. Will,

I was very disappointed in your latest op-ed piece. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions It seems that you are (or have become) oblivious to the bizarro world in which semi-automatic weapons are currently being engraved with "you lie" (courtesy of Republican Joe Wilson and the NRA), rifle crosshairs and "reload" are the focus of Republican ads, websites and campaign speeches 'targeting' Democratic candidates (courtesy of Republican/Tea Party's Sarah Palin) and Tea Party speakers
at rallies admonish listeners with "if ballots don't work, bullets will" (courtesy of conservative radio host Joyce Kaufman).

Rather than even considering whether such rhetoric is indeed being widely propagated by right-wing candidates and media outlets, if such rhetoric is appropriate or could conceivably
provoke some lunatics, you proceed to pontificate on "a characteristic of many contemporary minds." Condescendingly, you describe liberal/progressive "susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior...is a product of promptings from the social environment." With 'compelling logic' no doubt derived from your impeccable sociological and psychological credentials(or lack thereof), you maintain this naive 'superstition' produces a reflex whereby progressives blames conservatives for any randomness they don't like.

You conclude that Howard Dean, NY Times columnist Charles Blow and a recent NY Times piece on Tucson are clear examples of an entire "generation of liberals whose default position... is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left-devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data-is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas."

And where is the intellectual content in your piece? Is it in the contention that liberals/progressives are susceptible to naive superstition which compels them to blame conservatives for everything? Is it in the contention that a whole generation of liberals practiced "McCarthyism" calling all who dared oppose them racists? Mr. Will, where is the "data" to support your allegedly 'intellectual content’, which the left has been so "devoid" of for decades? You obviously prefer an ideological rant against liberals to serious intellectual consideration of the several specific points raised in "Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?_r=1 which WERE supported by data:
"Last spring, Capitol security officials said threats against members of Congress had tripled over the previous year, almost all from opponents of health care reform. An effigy of representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Maryland Democrat, was hung from a gallows outside his district office. Ms. Giffords’s district office door was smashed after the health vote, possibly by a bullet. The federal judge who was killed, John Roll, had received hundreds of menacing phone calls and death threats, especially after he allowed a case to proceed against a rancher accused of assaulting 16 Mexicans as they tried to cross his land. This rage, stirred by talk-radio hosts, required marshals to give the judge and his family 24-hour protection for a month. Around the nation, threats to federal judges have soared for a decade....
That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.” Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.
Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit..."

You refuse to even consider that " it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people." Those, sir, ARE ideas, repugnant though you may find them! Your espousement of “sh_t happens, execute the ____ and get over it!” couched in an ideological diatribe is nothing but a hackneyed avoidance of engagement, a sorry excuse for intellectual content!

Bush Tax Cuts - Part VIII

Well the deed is done.  Here are the highlights:

Highlights of the $858 billion tax-cut package

Income taxes: Extends Bush-era tax rates at all income levels. Cost: $186.8 billion
Alternative Minimum Tax: 20 million middle-income households spared AMT. $136.7 billion
Itemized deductions: More generous for high-income households. $20.7 billion
Standard deduction: Higher for married couples. $18 billion
Extension of sales-tax deductions: Washington residents take note. $5.5 billion
Payroll tax: Lowers Social Security tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent in 2011. $112 billion
Estate tax: 35 percent tax, over $5 million/individuals, $10 million/couples. $68.1 billion
Child tax credit: Expands who can claim $1,000 credit. $71.7 billion
Jobless benefits: Up to 99 weeks, through 2011. $56.5 billion
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation

(from The Seattle Times)


Rob Natelson wrote at Freedom's Front Line:

So Congress is now about to give us a deal that raises spending and adds to the deficit.  How can this happen?  It can happen because the Supreme Court has so expanded Congress’s spending power as to change the U.S. Constitution from a good constitution to a bad one.

Constitutions are rules for the political game.  Good rules translate the normal political process into generally good results.  Bad rules translate them into bad results.

If the courts were still enforcing the original Constitution’s limits on federal spending, this deal would have come out differently: Instead of Republicans winning tax cuts and Democrats getting spending increases (resulting in a higher deficit), the principal dealing would have been over whether to cut more or less spending, resulting in a lower deficit.

Maybe we need a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget?  From my understanding, the constitution requires a balanced budget over the long term.  Lately, all the government's deficit spending are emergency spending (as in the case of war.)  At any rate the next session of congress will be looking for cutting government spending.  Hmm, I wonder whether it will be military cutbacks or social programs on the chopping block...

Bush Tax Cuts - Part VII

The only issue the Republican party cares about right now is extending the Bush Tax Cuts.  Oh what a failure Republicans would be if the Bush Tax Cuts don't get extended!  Oh how their masters will whip them!

Mr. President Obama - please raise my taxes!  I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes.  I value our social safety net.  I value our police force, firefighters, teachers, librarians and everyone else who gets paid by the government to provide the infrastructure for our society.

Raise my taxes!

The Corporatocracy Strikes Again!

Quote of the day:

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, said in a floor speech that the compromise was an essential first step toward addressing the nation’s deficit, by “cutting off the spigot’’ of tax income to the federal government to force Congress to make spending cuts.

The Republicans have an agenda which is to cater to the corporatocracy and the affluent.  However, in order to do this they have to "sell" their agenda to the average American.  And this they do very well.  Traditionally, they have done this with deceit and subterfuge.

 

Lately, they are not even trying to conceil their true intentions but are outright announcing that they want lower taxes for the top 2% and that they want the government to make spending cuts.  If you read between the lines, it means cuts to social programs like public schooling, unemployment insurance, social security and medicare.  They're not that keen on infrastructure either so even our civil servants aren't safe.

It doesn't matter if the government increases the deficit by spending or by tax cuts.  Either way the corporatocracy wins when the government doesn't have money for social programs.

The corporatocracy consists of the biggest corporations that have the most influence on government like banks, defense contractors, energy companies, big pharma, etc.  The corporatrocracy has another name - the "military-industrial complex" and Dwight D. Eisenhower dropped the bomb on it in his farewell speech:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Two points come to mind.  One, why wasn't anything done about it after it had been exposed by Ike?  And two, we must fight for democracy as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A little to the right...

A little to the right...

• I believe in democracy.
• I believe in free enterprise.
• I am not a big fan of unemployment insurance or social security - social programs should be based on need.
• I am not a big fan of unions in that it interferes with the equilibrium of the supply and demand of labor.  I believe that professionals should not be able to limit their numbers.  Secret societies should be highly illegal.
• I believe the role of the government isn't to own or operate its companies.
• I believe in free-trade in principle if it's fair trade.
• I believe in transparency.  Governments agencies should not be acting in secret other than intelligence gathering.
• I believe that governments should not wage war on foreign countries.  Foreign countries should not be exploited.
• I believe that rules and regulations should be simple and fair to small business and large corporations alike.
• I believe that estate taxes should be eliminated.
• I believe in a fair, just, timely, predictable and non-political legal system.
• I believe that the government should balance their budget over a complete business cycle.  That means running surpluses in good times and deficits in bad times.

A little to the left... 

• I believe in universal heath care paid through general revenue.
• I believe good free education right on through university.
• I believe if you cause harm to someone or society in general then you should have to compensate the injured party.  That means taxes on gasoline, pollution, alcohol, tobacco, sodas, candy and anything with excessive fat or sugar in it, etc.
• I believe that government must build and maintain infrastructure in the public good. 
• I believe that industries in the public good or with extraordinary market share should be regulated.
• I believe that fines should be high enough to deter unwanted unlawful/illegal activities.
• I believe that companies that abuse their market share should be broken up.
• I believe that individuals within companies should held accountable for their actions and crimes.
• I believe that minimum wage should be a livable wage.
• I believe in capital gains tax - triggered when sold or otherwise changed ownership (gift/death).
• I believe that a society should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.  I believe that the government should provide job training and jobs to those that want to work (excluding handicapped or retired).
• I believe than tenants whether individuals or businesses should be protected from excessive rate increases.

Bush Tax Cuts - Part VI

The estimates we see from the press are 3 trillion over 10 years for couples who have earned $250k or less and $700b over 10 years for the top 2%.  That's $3.7t in total.

The United States population is about 311m.   See the US Population Clock.

So the tax cost per person is approx $12k.  So why not send out rebate checks instead?  We'll all share the stimulus money equally and the low income earners will get a larger percentage relative to their income.  Now the government needs to save some money.  So lets save half and distribute the remaining 6k to every person in the us over the next 10 years.  That's approximately $600 per person per year.   Oh wait, that's the same amount of the Bush Stimulus Rebates.  Except Bush had caps $75k for individuals, $150k for couples and parents only got $300 per child.  Now why is this socialist agenda coming from the Republicans and not the Democrats?  I know I got some kind of a tax credit from the Democrats for 2009 and 2010 but I'm going to have to check my tax returns to make sure I got it.  I think checks are more memorable.

Let's let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and send out Obama Stimulus Rebate Checks instead!

An open letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President Obama,

You've been pulling the wool over our eyes for almost 2 years now but we've wised up.  You may claim to be the great centrist and work with Democrats and Republicans alike to get the job done.  But we've seen the way you work.  You start by talking tough and holding your ground.  Before even negotiations get tough it's leaked that your willing to compromise.  Then it's leaked that your willing to compromise a little more, and then a little more.  It looks like that your in the pocket of the Corporatocracy.  Where shall we start?

• Your biggest campaign contributors were banks and investment banks. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_Barack_Obama%27s_biggest_campaign_donors)
• Department of the Treasury: Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.  Straight from Federal Reserve Bank of New York where he was president and chief executive officer.
• On Finance Reform Bill - gave them everything they wanted.
• Department of Defense:  Secretary Robert M. Gates.  Nothing quite says no change here by appointing the guy from the previous administration.  No sign of either the War in Afghanistan nor the war in Iraq ending.  Defense budget up and increase of troops.
• Guantanamo Bays shows no sign of closing.
• Fair trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.  Keeping Guantanamo Bay detainees without trial indefinitely.
• Reappointing Ben Bernake.
• Michael Taylor was the FDA official who approved the use of Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in dairy cows (even though it's banned in most countries and linked to cancer). After approving it, he left the FDA—to work for Monsanto. Until last year, when he moved back to the government—as President Obama's "Food Safety Czar." No joke. (No. 4 from from http://www.fightwashingtoncorruption.com/top10.html)
• Health Care:  No public option.  Gave the HMO everything they could possibly want.  Didn't have public support.  Will force people to purchase health care or pay a penalty: probably unconstitutional.
• Cap and Trade: gone.
• Bush Tax Cuts:  Willing to compromise with the Republican-house-elect on extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2%.  Why should the Republicans compromise when you've indicated that you're will to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 2% in exchange for a few bones.
• Protected the Bush administration from indictment domestically and abroad.
•  The 'Making Homes Affordable' program was a joke.  It was completely at the bank's discretion.

Obama supporters may want to check the entertaining site:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

While more realists may want to check out:

The Obameter Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

I think what I'm really upset about is what you've done to the Democrat party.  William Lyon Mackenzie King said something like, " The first thing a politician does after getting into office is get to work on his reelection campaign."  Instead of being true to Democrat ideals or following public opinion, you've chosen your own 'please no one' strategy.  You've taken the 'moral high ground' as the Republican have made mincemeat out of you.

Finally Mr. President, if you really wanted to change the way Washington works then you should have started with bills such as:

• Removing the filibuster rules.
• Restricting corporate influence over elections.  (Corporations aren't people and cannot vote thus restrictions on their influence should have been legislated.)
• Tackled earmarks, transparency and lobbyists.
• Fund all candidates and put caps on spending.

The good news, Mr. Obama, is that you've been a good Corporatocracy soldier and I'm sure they will get you re-elected.

Bush Tax Cuts - Part V

by Mindsweeper

                                                         ‘Welfare for the Wealthy’

                      As % of GDP     DowJones Industrials   Unemployment      Defense Spending  

          Revenues         Outlays      (year-end close)         Rate (%)             (FY2009 constant$)

1980     19.0                   21.7                      964                      7.1                           $385 bln

1981     19.6                   22.2                      875                      7.6                           $428 bln

1982     19.2                   23.1                    1047                      9.7                           $470 bln 

1983     17.5                   23.5                    1259                      9.6                           $502 bln

1984     17.3                   22.2                    1212                      7.5                           $522 bln

1985     17.7                   22.8                     1547                     7.2                           $557 bln

1986     17.5                   22.5                     1896                     7.0                           $536 bln 

1987     18.4                   21.6                     1939                     6.2                           $519 bln

1988     18.2                   21.3                    2169                      5.5                           $508 bln

1989     18.4                   21.2                    2753                      5.3                           $502 bln 

1990     18.0                   21.9                    2634                     5.6                           $492 bln

1991     17.8                   22.3                    3169                      6.8                           $447 bln

1992     17.5                   22.1                    3301                      7.5                           $443 bln 

       

2000     20.6                   18.2                  10788                      4.0                           $387 bln

2001     19.5                   18.2                  10022                      4.7                           $426 bln

2002     17.6                   19.1                    8342                      5.8                           $448 bln

2003     16.2                   19.7                  10454                      6.0                           $547 bln

2004     16.1                   19.6                  10783                      5.5                           $570 bln

2005     17.3                   19.9                  10717                      5.1                           $565 bln

2006     18.2                   20.1                  12463                      4.6                           $605 bln

2007     18.5                   19.6                  13265                      4.6                           $660 bln

2008     17.5                   20.7                    8776                      5.8                           $709 bln

2009     14.8                   24.7                  10428                      9.3                           $687 bln

Sources:

 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z3.xls  

 http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/022609_fy10_topline_growth_since48/

 The Reagan and GWBush tax cuts took effect in years 1-3 after their respective elections, leading to a sharp drop in revenue during years 2-5.  Most of the benefit went to the richest Americans, who put their windfall into the stock market and NOT, as Republicans and conservatives allege, into creating jobs and opportunities for the rest of Americans.  After the cuts of 1981 and 2001-3, stocks entered a bull market phase and tax revenues began to gradually increase, although never returning to pre-tax cut levels.   While unemployment spiked up in 1982-3 and then back down from 1984-1991, by the end of of both Republican tax cut eras, it was actually higher than it was at the start.

To summarize what actually occurred:

1. the wealthiest Americans received huge tax cuts early in the terms of Reagan and GWBush

2. the Dow rallied from Dow 875 at the end of Reagan’s 1^st year(1981) to over 2740 in Aug 1987 before crashing and then resuming the rally to new highs in 1992

3. the Dow rallied from 10,022 at the end of GWBush’s 1^st year(2001) to over 13,850 in Dec2007 before crashing and then rallying back to 10,400 at the end of 2009

4. those most able to invest in and benefit from a bull market in stocks received a “tax windfall” and then paid a lower tax rate “post-windfall” than “pre-windfall”

5. the nation’s unemployment rate at the time of the stock market peaks in late- 1987(6.2%) and 2007(4.6%) was little-changed from what it was when Reagan (7.1% in 1980) and GWBush(4.0% 2000) took office

Now let’s look a Measure of Income Dispersion

Source:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/taba2.pdf

                Mean Household Income by Quintiles (in 2009 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars)

                                Lowest 20%            Second 20%          Third 20%              Fourth 20%            Top 20%

                1980        10,682                     26,586                     43,870                     64,631                     115,236

                1981        10,414                     25,942                     42,975                     64,061                     114,432

                1982        10,223                     25,868                     42,820                     63,683                     116,800

                1983        10,342                     25,980                     42,954                     64,457                     118,343  

                1984        10,689                     26,624                     44,120                     66,429                     122,148

                1985        10,672                     27,046                     44,893                     67,528                     126,139                                  

                1986        10,781                     27,734                     46,410                     69,914                     132,332

                1987        11,076                     28,148                     47,060                     71,133                     135,278

                1988        11,264                     28,428                     47,548                     71,875                     137,218

                1989        11,681                     29,063                     48,311                     73,076                     142,851  

                1990        11,400                     28,684                     47,379                     71,433                     138,627

                1991        11,098                     27,875                     46,302                     70,582                     135,349

                1992        10,868                     27,233                     45,711                     71,038                     136,470                  

% Increase            

1980-1992               1.74%                      2.43%                      4.20%                      9.91%                      18.42%

% Increase

1992-2000               16,41%                    15.99%                    15.08%                    15.11%                    29.85%

                2000        12,651                     31,588                     52,603                     81,774                     177,203                  

                2001        12,280                     30,855                     51,647                     80,978                     176,848

                2002        11,911                     30,284                     51,032                     80,271                     171,382

                2003        11,658                     29,947                     50,834                     80,463                     171,527

                2004        11,633                     29,765                     50,431                     79,518                     171,965

                2005        11,707                     30,057                     50,871                     80,014                     175,335

                2006        12,077                     30,614                     51,301                     81,201                     178,904

                2007        11,949                     30,457                     51,691                     81,839                     173,763  

                2008        11,612                     29,405                     49,942                     79,457                     170,408  

                2009        11,552                     29,257                     49,534                     78,694                     170,844  

% Decrease

2000-2009               -8.69%                    -7.38%                    -5.83%                    -3.77%                    -3.59%

% Increase

1980-2009               8.14%                      10.05%                    12.91%                    21.76%                    48.26%

Overall, for the 30 year period since 1980, income for the top 20% increased at nearly 6X

the rate at which it grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 5X the rate of the second 20%.

During the Reagan years, income for the top 20% increased  at more than 10X the rate at which It grew for the lowest 20% and at nearly 8X the rate of the second 20%.  Under GWBush, all incomes dropped, but for the bottom 40% it dropped at a rate more than 2X greater than it did for the top 20%.   

During the Clinton years (1993-2000), tax rates were raised slightly for the wealthiest Americans.  The economy and stock markets boomed and incomes for the bottom 80% rose equally on a percentage basis.  The top 20% still did nearly 2X better than everyone else, but American prosperity was shared, however briefly, for the only time period of the last 30 years.

None of this is to say that higher tax rates were the driving force behind the economic boom of the Clinton years.  However, the data presented here clearly shows that the Reagan and GWBush tax cuts CLEARLY are regressive in their effect upon income growth.   During the income growth period from 1980-1992, the top 20% saw their incomes grow at 8-10X the rate of the bottom 40%.  During the income decline period from 2000-09, the bottom 40% saw their incomes decline at more than 2X the rate of the top 20%.  Those who “needed it most” got the least in upturns and lost the most in downturns.  

A truly progressive tax system is one in which those who can least afford it share on a proportionate percentage basis of income  during both times of economic growth and contraction.  A system of tax cuts for the wealthy which enables the rich to earn disproportionally greater income increases in good times and to experience disproportionally smaller income declines in bad times is nothing but WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY and is truly SHAMEFUL!!

At least Warren Buffett and Bill Gates agree!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/warren-buffett-paying-more-taxes_n_786516.html