Saturday, September 1, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Why You’re a Lot Poorer Than You Thought You Were
You’re a lot poorer than you thought you were.
According to a report by Sentier Research “real median annual household income… has fallen by 4.8 percent since the ‘economic recovery’ began in June 2009.”
That’s worse than the 2.6 percent decline that took place during the recession itself. (between July 2007 to June 2009) All told–from the beginning of the slump in 2007 until today–median household income has dropped an eyewatering 7.2 percent. (“Changes in Household Income During the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2012″, Sentier Research)
Like I said, you’re a lot poorer than you thought you were.
The Sentier Research report comes on the heels of a similar report from the Fed which was released in June showing that middle class families saw a nearly 40 percent decline in their net worth between the years 2007 to 2010. The Fed’s 80-page tri-annual Survey of Consumer Finances, points to the Great Recession as the putative cause of the overall decline in wealth, but the Fed’s lopsided policies could be as easily blamed. Low interest rates, lax lending standards and outright fraud generated asset-price bubbles that wiped out 2 decades of economic gains for working people in the US.
The Fed’s survey found that the median net worth of families in the US fell by 38.9 percent between 2007 and 2010, from $126,400 to $77,300. Also, the median value of a US home dropped by 42 percent, from $95,300 to $55,000 in the same period. Plunging housing prices have increased the burden of mortgage debt leaving more than 20 percent of all homeowners with negative equity which greatly increases the probability of default.
Is it any wonder why consumer confidence is at its lowest point since November 2011? Or why mom and pop investors are still fleeing the stock market in record numbers 4 years after Lehman Brothers failed? Or why the yields on 10-year Treasuries are still hovering below 2 percent? Or why bank deposits now vastly exceed loans?
All of these are signs of extreme distress, which is why working people have grown so gloomy about the future. Did you know that (According to the Pew Research Center) 61 percent of all Americans were “middle income” back in 1971, while, today, the number has been shaved to 51 percent? That explains why 85 percent of the people surveyed said “that it is harder to maintain a middle class standard of living today compared with 10 years ago.” The majority of the people also admitted that they’ve had to reduce their spending in the past year.
What all of these reports indicate is that the US middle class is being drawn-and-quartered by economic policies which serve to enrich the few at the cost of the many.
Of course, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is going to “put things right” by launching another round of quantitative easing (QE) which is supposed to boost growth and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, QE doesn’t really work like that, in fact, the Bank of England just released a report that proves that central bank asset purchases disproportionately benefit the rich. Here’s a clip from an article in the Washington Post:
And here’s something else that’s worth mulling over; working people are getting totally screwed in the deal. Not only are savers and fixed-income retirees being robbed of the puny gains they would have seen if rates were in their normal range instead of zero, but also the prospect of more QE has sent gas futures spiking, while food prices are sure to follow. This is from Bloomberg in an article titled “Bernanke Boosts Oil Bulls to Highest Since May: Energy Markets”:
Still, Bernanke and his fellow doves at the Fed aren’t going to be deterred by something as inconsequential as the travails of working people. Oh no. After all, he has his real constituents to consider, the parasitic Wall Street robber barons. Their needs come first, and what they want is another round of funny-money so they refill the larder at the Hamptons with Beluga and bubbly. That’s why members of the Fed have already started chirping for more “more accommodation”. Here’s what Chicago Fed President Charles Evans had to say last week in his ominous-sounding bulletin titled “Some Thoughts on Global Risks and Monetary Policy”:
And where’s the proof that QE lowers unemployment, increases wages or benefits the economy as a whole? Nowhere. Evans idea of “accommodation” is just another way of shoveling money to his rich friends.
Now get a load of this in the Wall Street Journal:
No worries. Obama and his deficit-slashing buddies in the congress have that all figured out. As soon as the election’s over, President Socialist is going to start kicking people off extended unemployment benefits as fast as humanly possible leaving millions of working people without enough money to house or feed their families. Here’s how it’s all going to go down:
And, don’t kid yourself, unemployment is just one of the many programs that Obama plans to eviscerate following the vote-count. He’s also going to zero-in on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They’re all on the chopping block, every last one of them. That’s what the so called Fiscal Cliff is all about; it’s a public relations hoax to conceal Obama’s plan to dismantle the vital programs that provide medicine, shelter and a meager retirement for the sick, the needy and the elderly, you know, the folks the Republicans refer to as “useless eaters”.
All of these reports (Sentier, Pew, the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances) underline the same point, that the middle class is embroiled in a war-to-the-death with carpetbagging vermin who plan to deprive them of work, strip their assets, foreclose their homes, and leave them penniless to face old age. It’s just good old class warfare–and as Warren Buffett opined–his class is winning.
According to a report by Sentier Research “real median annual household income… has fallen by 4.8 percent since the ‘economic recovery’ began in June 2009.”
That’s worse than the 2.6 percent decline that took place during the recession itself. (between July 2007 to June 2009) All told–from the beginning of the slump in 2007 until today–median household income has dropped an eyewatering 7.2 percent. (“Changes in Household Income During the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2012″, Sentier Research)
Like I said, you’re a lot poorer than you thought you were.
The Sentier Research report comes on the heels of a similar report from the Fed which was released in June showing that middle class families saw a nearly 40 percent decline in their net worth between the years 2007 to 2010. The Fed’s 80-page tri-annual Survey of Consumer Finances, points to the Great Recession as the putative cause of the overall decline in wealth, but the Fed’s lopsided policies could be as easily blamed. Low interest rates, lax lending standards and outright fraud generated asset-price bubbles that wiped out 2 decades of economic gains for working people in the US.
The Fed’s survey found that the median net worth of families in the US fell by 38.9 percent between 2007 and 2010, from $126,400 to $77,300. Also, the median value of a US home dropped by 42 percent, from $95,300 to $55,000 in the same period. Plunging housing prices have increased the burden of mortgage debt leaving more than 20 percent of all homeowners with negative equity which greatly increases the probability of default.
Is it any wonder why consumer confidence is at its lowest point since November 2011? Or why mom and pop investors are still fleeing the stock market in record numbers 4 years after Lehman Brothers failed? Or why the yields on 10-year Treasuries are still hovering below 2 percent? Or why bank deposits now vastly exceed loans?
All of these are signs of extreme distress, which is why working people have grown so gloomy about the future. Did you know that (According to the Pew Research Center) 61 percent of all Americans were “middle income” back in 1971, while, today, the number has been shaved to 51 percent? That explains why 85 percent of the people surveyed said “that it is harder to maintain a middle class standard of living today compared with 10 years ago.” The majority of the people also admitted that they’ve had to reduce their spending in the past year.
What all of these reports indicate is that the US middle class is being drawn-and-quartered by economic policies which serve to enrich the few at the cost of the many.
Of course, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is going to “put things right” by launching another round of quantitative easing (QE) which is supposed to boost growth and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, QE doesn’t really work like that, in fact, the Bank of England just released a report that proves that central bank asset purchases disproportionately benefit the rich. Here’s a clip from an article in the Washington Post:
“The richest 10% of households in Britain have seen the value of their assets increase by up to £322,000 [$510,000] as a result of the Bank of England‘s attempts to use electronic money creation to lift the economy out of its deepest post-war slump. …
The Bank of England calculated that the value of shares and bonds had risen by 26% – or £600bn – as a result of the policy, equivalent to £10,000 for each household in the UK. It added, however, that 40% of the gains went to the richest 5% of households.”
It’s not hard to see why this happens. One way the bank’s quantitative easing program works, in theory, by pushing up asset prices in order to support the broader economy. And, according to the Bank of England, the median British household only holds about $2,370 in financial assets. So the direct benefits largely accrue to wealthier households.
What about the United States? Much like in Britain, the distribution of financial assets are also heavily skewed. …. So any move by the Fed to push up asset prices is likely to increase wealth inequality in the short term.” (“Will the Fed’s efforts to boost the economy only benefit the wealthiest?”, Washington Post)So QE is just a scam to line the pockets of the investor class. Imagine that! It took 4 years and a research team of financial geniuses from the BOE to figure that out.
And here’s something else that’s worth mulling over; working people are getting totally screwed in the deal. Not only are savers and fixed-income retirees being robbed of the puny gains they would have seen if rates were in their normal range instead of zero, but also the prospect of more QE has sent gas futures spiking, while food prices are sure to follow. This is from Bloomberg in an article titled “Bernanke Boosts Oil Bulls to Highest Since May: Energy Markets”:
“Hedge funds raised bullish bets on oil to a three-month high on signs that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will take measures to bolster U.S. economic growth and spur a rally in commodities.
Money managers increased net-long positions, or wagers on rising prices, by 18 percent in the seven days ended Aug. 21, according to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Commitments of Traders report on Aug. 24. They were at the highest level since the week ended May 1.” (Bloomberg)Higher prices at the pump. That ought to rev-up consumer spending, don’t you think?
Still, Bernanke and his fellow doves at the Fed aren’t going to be deterred by something as inconsequential as the travails of working people. Oh no. After all, he has his real constituents to consider, the parasitic Wall Street robber barons. Their needs come first, and what they want is another round of funny-money so they refill the larder at the Hamptons with Beluga and bubbly. That’s why members of the Fed have already started chirping for more “more accommodation”. Here’s what Chicago Fed President Charles Evans had to say last week in his ominous-sounding bulletin titled “Some Thoughts on Global Risks and Monetary Policy”:
“Finding a way to deliver more accommodation… is particularly important now because delays in reducing unemployment are costly. An unusually large percentage of the unemployed have been without work for quite an extended period of time; their skills can become less current or even deteriorate, leaving affected workers with permanent scars on their lifetime earnings. And any resulting lower aggregate productivity also weighs on potential output, wages and profits for the economy as a whole. The damage intensifies the longer that unemployment remains high. Failure to act aggressively now could lower the capacity of the economy for many years to come….
Given the risks we face, I think it is vital that we make such moves today. I don’t think we should be in a mode where we are waiting to see what the next few data releases bring. We are well past the threshold for additional action; we should take that action now.”What gall! Does anyone really believe that a Fed president gives a rat’s ass about lower unemployment? It’s a joke.
And where’s the proof that QE lowers unemployment, increases wages or benefits the economy as a whole? Nowhere. Evans idea of “accommodation” is just another way of shoveling money to his rich friends.
Now get a load of this in the Wall Street Journal:
“During the recession, people who lost long-held jobs struggled to find new employment and often took substantial pay cuts if they did find new work. Little appears to have changed after the recession ended, a new Labor Department report shows.
From 2009 to 2011, 6.1 million workers lost jobs they had held for at least three years. Just over half — 56% — of them were reemployed by this January, the department found in its latest survey of displaced workers. Two years ago, the survey found that 49% of people who lost such jobs from 2007 to 2009 were reemployed.
People lucky enough to find new work are often taking steep wage cuts. Of the displaced workers who lost full-time wage and salary jobs from 2009-2011 and were reemployed by January, just 46% were earning as much or more than they did in their lost job. A third of them reported earnings losses of 20% or more.” (“New Jobs Come With Lower Wages”, Wall Street Journal)So even the people who were “lucky enough to find work” are worse off than they were before. Hey, but at least they found a job, right? What about the people who weren’t able to find work at all? What will happen to them?
No worries. Obama and his deficit-slashing buddies in the congress have that all figured out. As soon as the election’s over, President Socialist is going to start kicking people off extended unemployment benefits as fast as humanly possible leaving millions of working people without enough money to house or feed their families. Here’s how it’s all going to go down:
“Over 500,000 people have lost extended unemployment benefits since the start of the year, and two million more are scheduled to lose their benefits on January 1, 2013…. Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), is scheduled to end completely on January 1, ending unemployment payments for 2 million more people overnight.
With the start of the new year, there will be no part of the country that offers more than 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. This is far less than the average duration of unemployment, which has hovered near 40 weeks for over a year…..
Despite the disastrous impact of the cuts, it has been largely ignored both by the major media and in the US elections. Moreover, the Obama administration has already let it be known that it will not seek a renewal of extended jobless benefits.” (“Extended jobless benefits end for 500,000 US workers”, World Socialist web Site)Can you see how nicely this segues with Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign? The administration plans to increase worker “flexibility”, by putting millions of jobless people on a crash diet.
And, don’t kid yourself, unemployment is just one of the many programs that Obama plans to eviscerate following the vote-count. He’s also going to zero-in on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They’re all on the chopping block, every last one of them. That’s what the so called Fiscal Cliff is all about; it’s a public relations hoax to conceal Obama’s plan to dismantle the vital programs that provide medicine, shelter and a meager retirement for the sick, the needy and the elderly, you know, the folks the Republicans refer to as “useless eaters”.
All of these reports (Sentier, Pew, the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances) underline the same point, that the middle class is embroiled in a war-to-the-death with carpetbagging vermin who plan to deprive them of work, strip their assets, foreclose their homes, and leave them penniless to face old age. It’s just good old class warfare–and as Warren Buffett opined–his class is winning.
Federal court rejects Texas' voter ID law
by MATT GOODMAN & BRAD WATSON
wfaa.com
Posted on August 30, 2012
DALLAS – A federal court has swatted down Texas’ voter ID law, saying it would likely disenfranchise poor and minority voters.
wfaa.com
Posted on August 30, 2012
DALLAS – A federal court has swatted down Texas’ voter ID law, saying it would likely disenfranchise poor and minority voters.
Although the state hoped the law –– passed by the
Republican controlled legislature last year and signed by Governor Perry
–– would be in effect for the November election, the likelihood is now
remote since Texas said it needed a ruling by Aug. 31 to proceed.
The 56 page opinion, issued Thursday morning by a
three-judge panel in Washington D.C., said the ID law would be “the most
stringent in the country” and “would almost certainly have
retrogressive effect.”
Quoting from the opinion:
“It imposes strict,
unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are
disproportionately likely to live in poverty.”
Presented during the last legislative session by state
Sen. Troy Fraser (R –– Horseshoe Bay), Texas Senate Bill 14 would
require voters to present a driver’s license or state ID, a passport or a
Texas concealed weapon license before voting at a polling booth.
The law triggered a bitter divide along party lines,
sparking controversy among state and federal politicians. Supporters
maintain it's needed to stop voter fraud.
Critics, which include the Obama Administration, have said
the law would keep poor and elderly voters from the polls because 81 of
the state’s 254 Texas counties lack DMV offices, making it difficult
for them to obtain necessary identification.
In July, Attorney General Eric Holder veered from his
prepared comments at an NAACP conference in Houston, equating the bill
to a modern-day poll tax.
“Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would
be acceptable forms of photo ID but student IDs would not,” Holder
said, in a video of the speech posted by the Talking Points Memo.
“Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get
them and many of them would struggle to pay for the documents they might
need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes.”
The Department of Justice cited the difficulty in
acquiring identification when it initially blocked the legislation. In
the most recent opinion, the three-judge panel elaborated further by
comparing Senate Bill 14 to Georgia’s voter ID law.
In order to gain preclearance from the attorney general,
as required by the federal Voting Rights Act, the state must prove that
“all prospective voters can easily obtain free photo ID” and “that any
underlying documents required to obtain that ID are truly free of
charge.
Quoting again from the opinion:
“Unlike SB 14, the Georgia law
requires each county to provide free election IDs and further allows
voters to present a wide range of documents to obtain those IDs. The
contrast with Senate Bill 14 could hardly be more stark.”
In a statement, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott promised an appeal to the Supreme Court, saying:
“Today's
decision is wrong on the law and improperly prevents Texas from
implementing the same type of ballot integrity safeguards that are
employed by Georgia and Indiana - and were upheld by the Supreme Court.
The State will appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we
are confident we will prevail."
But the Mexican American Legislative Caucus hailed the ruling as victory for all Texans.
“It would have muffled the voice
of those that need government’s ear the most - Latinos, African
Americans, the poor, and the elderly," said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer
(D-San Antonio), Chairman of MALC.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
On RNC Opening Night, Republicans Dare to Build a Lie
By Charles P. Pierce - Esquire Magazine
TAMPA, Fla. — It was about halfway through
the speech given by Mary Fallin, by the grace of a pitiless god the
governor of Oklahoma, where I finally came close to losing it. She
rolled herself into this remarkable passage:
And the land wasn't exactly "empty," Governor. It got emptied by a big-government program called the United States Army. You know what your state would be without the federal government, Governor, without the votes for the legislation from congressmen from the east and north, without the soldiers from New England and the Great Lakes? You know what Oklahoma would be?
Sand, with a whole lot of pissed-off Native Americans.
I'm not sure if it will be played this way. Ann Romney was sweet and lovely — and very defensive about people "attacking" hubby's success, but only as a "mom," of course — and Chris Christie brought down the house. But the Republican Party did something remarkable at its convention on Tuesday. It set out on an experiment to see exactly how much unmitigated hogwash the American political system can contain on a single evening. The Republican Party has set out at its 2012 convention in search of the Event Horizon of utter bullshit. It has sought to see precisely how many lies, evasions, elisions, and undigestible chunks of utter gobbledegook the political media can swallow before it finally gags twice and falls over dead, leaving the rest of America suckers all the same. What you didn't see in primetime, from Arthur Davis to Ted Cruz, and from one 2016 contender to another, was the GOP embarking upon the task of seeing exactly how much nonsense it could produce at top volume before democracy screams and gives up, like Noriega in Panama when they played the metal music at him.
It was something to see, I'll tell you. An entire evening based on a demonstrable lie.
The theme was We Did Build It — which, as every sentient being knows, is a mendacious barbering of something the president said a while back. (On the video screens in the hall, television commercials based on a severely edited version of the president's remarks were interspersed between the speeches, just in case somebody sought relief from the lies for a couple of seconds.) And there also was a lot of talk about how the various speakers Did Build It.
There was Jack Gilchrist from New Hampshire, the metal-shop owner, who was briefly an important Romney surrogate until it was revealed that his company took a few cool millions in small-business loans. There was Sher Valenzuela, running for lieutenant governor of Delaware, who talked about how she and her husband Did Build their business. She also talked about her husband, who was a soldier, and her father, the former drill sergeant and "a blue-collar union guy." She did not talk about her sideline, which is giving PowerPoint presentations to people — probably, I am sure, not in convention centers built with tax dollars — on how to suck up government contracts. There was a similar thing going on with Bob McDonnell, the slippery, up-and-coming transvaginalist of Virginia, who proved that his family Did Build It, by having his father join the army, his children doing the same, and himself, finding the "same job" in government once held by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. After listening to this laughable bafflegab for a spell, you begin to wonder whether or not the U.S. military is a rather large venture-capital concern with anti-tank weapons.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie. It was an entire evening based on demonstrable lies told in service to the overriding demonstrable lie. And there was only one real story for actual journalists to tell at the end of it.
The Republicans simply don't care.
They don't care that they lie. They don't care that their lies are obvious. They don't care that their lies wouldn't fool an underpaid substitute Social Studies teacher in a public middle school, who would then probably go out one night and get yelled at by Chris Christie. ("They believe in teacher's unions. We believe in teachers," he said in his speech. Yeah, you just don't believe in paying them.) They don't care that their history is a lie and that, by spreading it, they devalue the actual history of the country, which is something that belongs to us.
Did Ted Cruz really quote Martin King in this hall? Did Artur Davis, the newly minted Republican turncoat from Alabama, just cite Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Fking Johnson as examples of "leaders" who "reached across the aisle"? Lyndon reached across the aisle? Yeah, he did, and he grabbed their peckers and put them in his pocket, and he didn't give them back until the skinflint bastards coughed up Medicare. Jesus, this was pathetic. They don't care that they lie so obviously that they always get caught, like they did with the evening's entire theme, like they have in and around the Tampa Bay Times Forum, or with the story of poor Jack Gilchrist. The Republicans will just tell the lie again. And again. And once more, until people get tired of telling the truth in response.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie because it was an entire evening based on rejecting — publicly and dishonestly, and without caring that the facts of your own biographies give the lie to the words you're saying — the idea of a general political commonwealth as expressed through the national government, which has been the great engine behind the expansion of the country's size, the country's wealth, and, yes, the country's freedom. It was a purchase in that political commonwealth, and not in a loose confederation of states, that King sought, and that Lyndon sought to give the country's poorest citizens, including the vote, which the government of John Kasich in Ohio is presently working assiduously to roll back.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie, and it was topped off by a demonstrable liar named Chris Christie, who talked about how the president can't lead, and that nobody wants to tell the Americans the truth of the sacrifices we have to share, and talked about "politicians who pander" at a convention that is preparing to nominate Willard Romney, which was the final hilarious lie of the night, since Romney hasn't stopped pandering since he walked down the steps of the Massachusetts State House in 2006.
Earlier, though, Christie rang the theme of the evening's overriding demonstrable lie, too. He talked about how his family Built It, his Irish father and his Sicilian mother.
And, Chris, and Bob, and Sher, and Jack, and all of you, you're welcome.
Liars.
The
history of my great state of Oklahoma offers a great example of
pursuing the American Dream. It was built and settled by pioneers movibe
west to seek better lives. During the Great Land Run of 1889, thousands
of families rushed to put a stake down on empty plots of land. They
built tent cities overnight. They farmed the land and they worked hard.
And, in 1897, eight years after the land run, a handful of adventurous
pioneers risked their own money — not the federal government's money —
to drill Oklahoma's first oil well, the Nellie Johnstone. By doing so,
these early-day pioneers changed the future and Oklahoma forever and
today Oklahoma is one of the nation's key energy producers and job
creators. President Obama wants us to believe that Oklahomans owe that
success to the federal government — to the Department Of Energy,to the
EPA, to the IRS, or maybe even to him. Mr. President, we know better. As
we say in Oklahoma, that dog won't hunt.
Handed in as a seventh-grade history essay, this would get no better
than a D. Delivered to the convention of one of our only two political
parties, it was perhaps the most singularly dishonest speech I have ever
seen a politician give, and I grew up in Massachusetts, and Willard
Romney was once my governor. My god, Oklahomans wouldn't even have Oklahoma without
the federal government, without the Homestead Act of 1889 or the
Railroad Act — both, by the way, achievements of a Republican presidents
named Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison.And the land wasn't exactly "empty," Governor. It got emptied by a big-government program called the United States Army. You know what your state would be without the federal government, Governor, without the votes for the legislation from congressmen from the east and north, without the soldiers from New England and the Great Lakes? You know what Oklahoma would be?
Sand, with a whole lot of pissed-off Native Americans.
I'm not sure if it will be played this way. Ann Romney was sweet and lovely — and very defensive about people "attacking" hubby's success, but only as a "mom," of course — and Chris Christie brought down the house. But the Republican Party did something remarkable at its convention on Tuesday. It set out on an experiment to see exactly how much unmitigated hogwash the American political system can contain on a single evening. The Republican Party has set out at its 2012 convention in search of the Event Horizon of utter bullshit. It has sought to see precisely how many lies, evasions, elisions, and undigestible chunks of utter gobbledegook the political media can swallow before it finally gags twice and falls over dead, leaving the rest of America suckers all the same. What you didn't see in primetime, from Arthur Davis to Ted Cruz, and from one 2016 contender to another, was the GOP embarking upon the task of seeing exactly how much nonsense it could produce at top volume before democracy screams and gives up, like Noriega in Panama when they played the metal music at him.
It was something to see, I'll tell you. An entire evening based on a demonstrable lie.
The theme was We Did Build It — which, as every sentient being knows, is a mendacious barbering of something the president said a while back. (On the video screens in the hall, television commercials based on a severely edited version of the president's remarks were interspersed between the speeches, just in case somebody sought relief from the lies for a couple of seconds.) And there also was a lot of talk about how the various speakers Did Build It.
There was Jack Gilchrist from New Hampshire, the metal-shop owner, who was briefly an important Romney surrogate until it was revealed that his company took a few cool millions in small-business loans. There was Sher Valenzuela, running for lieutenant governor of Delaware, who talked about how she and her husband Did Build their business. She also talked about her husband, who was a soldier, and her father, the former drill sergeant and "a blue-collar union guy." She did not talk about her sideline, which is giving PowerPoint presentations to people — probably, I am sure, not in convention centers built with tax dollars — on how to suck up government contracts. There was a similar thing going on with Bob McDonnell, the slippery, up-and-coming transvaginalist of Virginia, who proved that his family Did Build It, by having his father join the army, his children doing the same, and himself, finding the "same job" in government once held by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. After listening to this laughable bafflegab for a spell, you begin to wonder whether or not the U.S. military is a rather large venture-capital concern with anti-tank weapons.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie. It was an entire evening based on demonstrable lies told in service to the overriding demonstrable lie. And there was only one real story for actual journalists to tell at the end of it.
The Republicans simply don't care.
They don't care that they lie. They don't care that their lies are obvious. They don't care that their lies wouldn't fool an underpaid substitute Social Studies teacher in a public middle school, who would then probably go out one night and get yelled at by Chris Christie. ("They believe in teacher's unions. We believe in teachers," he said in his speech. Yeah, you just don't believe in paying them.) They don't care that their history is a lie and that, by spreading it, they devalue the actual history of the country, which is something that belongs to us.
Did Ted Cruz really quote Martin King in this hall? Did Artur Davis, the newly minted Republican turncoat from Alabama, just cite Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Fking Johnson as examples of "leaders" who "reached across the aisle"? Lyndon reached across the aisle? Yeah, he did, and he grabbed their peckers and put them in his pocket, and he didn't give them back until the skinflint bastards coughed up Medicare. Jesus, this was pathetic. They don't care that they lie so obviously that they always get caught, like they did with the evening's entire theme, like they have in and around the Tampa Bay Times Forum, or with the story of poor Jack Gilchrist. The Republicans will just tell the lie again. And again. And once more, until people get tired of telling the truth in response.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie because it was an entire evening based on rejecting — publicly and dishonestly, and without caring that the facts of your own biographies give the lie to the words you're saying — the idea of a general political commonwealth as expressed through the national government, which has been the great engine behind the expansion of the country's size, the country's wealth, and, yes, the country's freedom. It was a purchase in that political commonwealth, and not in a loose confederation of states, that King sought, and that Lyndon sought to give the country's poorest citizens, including the vote, which the government of John Kasich in Ohio is presently working assiduously to roll back.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie, and it was topped off by a demonstrable liar named Chris Christie, who talked about how the president can't lead, and that nobody wants to tell the Americans the truth of the sacrifices we have to share, and talked about "politicians who pander" at a convention that is preparing to nominate Willard Romney, which was the final hilarious lie of the night, since Romney hasn't stopped pandering since he walked down the steps of the Massachusetts State House in 2006.
Earlier, though, Christie rang the theme of the evening's overriding demonstrable lie, too. He talked about how his family Built It, his Irish father and his Sicilian mother.
They
both lived hard lives. Dad grew up in poverty. After returning from
Army service, he worked at the Breyer's ice-cream plant in the 1950's.
With that job, and the GI Bill, he put himself through Rutgers
University at night to become the first in his family to earn a college
degree.
Chris, old man, you didn't even build yourself yourself. The tax dollars — the federal
tax dollars — of, among other people, my parents paid your father's
Army salary, and they paid for the G.I. Bill. The tax dollars of
thousands of other people paid for his education at Rutgers, which is,
as it proclaims, The State University Of New Jersey. All of them were
proud to do it, because they knew that they were part of a political
commonwealth that has as its proudest expression a national government
in which all citizens have purchase.And, Chris, and Bob, and Sher, and Jack, and all of you, you're welcome.
Liars.
Corporations: Yes, We're Moving Abroad to Get Lower Tax Rates
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 by Common Dreams
U.S. corporations are continuing tax dodging practices to boost
their profits by the millions by reincorporating abroad, an article The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday shows.
John D. McKinnon and Scott Thurm describe how 10 companies have moved or have announced plans to move their incorporation address oversees since 2009 in an effort to lower their effective tax rate.
Alexander Cutler, chief executive of Eaton, a Cleveland-based company that has reincorporated in Ireland, said, "We have too high a domestic rate and we have a thoroughly uncompetitive international tax regime." The move is saving the company $160 million a year.
Another company that moved is Ensco, now saving more than $100 million a year in tax dodging.
Yet while companies complain of a burdensome corporate tax rate of 35% and say that was a motivating factor behind their reincorporation oversees, very few companies actually pay that rate.
A Reuters report from May describing the Eaton reincorporation lays this out as well:
While there has been talk of the deficit at the Republican National Convention going on now in Tampa, there has been no talk of the impact closing corporate tax loopholes would have on the deficit.
“These big, profitable corporations are continuing to shift their tax burden onto average Americans,” said Citizens for Tax Justice director Bob McIntyre. “This isn’t fair to the rest of us, it makes no economic sense, and it’s part of the reason our government is running huge budget deficits.”
“Getting rid of corporate tax subsidies that cause such widespread tax avoidance ought to be a key part of any deficit-reduction program,” said McIntyre. “As a bonus, revenue-raising corporate tax reform would make it much easier to fund the investments we need to improve education and repair our crumbling roads and bridges — things that would actually help businesses and our economy grow.”
John D. McKinnon and Scott Thurm describe how 10 companies have moved or have announced plans to move their incorporation address oversees since 2009 in an effort to lower their effective tax rate.
Alexander Cutler, chief executive of Eaton, a Cleveland-based company that has reincorporated in Ireland, said, "We have too high a domestic rate and we have a thoroughly uncompetitive international tax regime." The move is saving the company $160 million a year.
Another company that moved is Ensco, now saving more than $100 million a year in tax dodging.
Yet while companies complain of a burdensome corporate tax rate of 35% and say that was a motivating factor behind their reincorporation oversees, very few companies actually pay that rate.
A Reuters report from May describing the Eaton reincorporation lays this out as well:
The top U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, the highest in the world, though few companies actually pay that much due to abundant loopholes that lower their effective rates.
The Eaton-Cooper deal comes as the U.S. Congress inches toward a broad corporate tax code overhaul. The deal could add momentum to that effort, with Republicans arguing that high U.S. tax rates can drive companies to drastic measures.
In what could be a painful drain on the Treasury over time, at least seven U.S. companies in recent months have chosen through acquisition or merger to renounce their U.S. corporate citizenship by relocating to Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland or other lower-tax countries.
"There have been more of these in the last two months than in the five years before," said Bob Willens, an independent tax analyst and publisher of The Willens Report.In fact, many companies are paying a negative tax rate, as data from Citizens for Tax Justice show.
The Eaton-Cooper deal will lead to $160 million in annual tax savings for the combined company, even though Eaton in practice already pays far less than 35 percent. That is thanks to its foreign subsidiaries, many of which are already in low-tax countries such as Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands.
While there has been talk of the deficit at the Republican National Convention going on now in Tampa, there has been no talk of the impact closing corporate tax loopholes would have on the deficit.
“These big, profitable corporations are continuing to shift their tax burden onto average Americans,” said Citizens for Tax Justice director Bob McIntyre. “This isn’t fair to the rest of us, it makes no economic sense, and it’s part of the reason our government is running huge budget deficits.”
“Getting rid of corporate tax subsidies that cause such widespread tax avoidance ought to be a key part of any deficit-reduction program,” said McIntyre. “As a bonus, revenue-raising corporate tax reform would make it much easier to fund the investments we need to improve education and repair our crumbling roads and bridges — things that would actually help businesses and our economy grow.”
Payoff in the Pit of the Plutocracy
Jeff Connaughton was a lobbyist, a Senate aide and a White House
lawyer. He says he came to Washington, D.C. as a Democrat and left as a
Plutocrat.
Now he’s written a book – The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins (Prospecta Press, August 20, 2012.)
This book is about corporate crime – although that phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in its 288 pages.
It is in fact one of the best books on how corporate criminals manipulate the system to get away with their crimes.
One way is to enforce silence among the elites who know how the system works.
“Party cohesion and the desire to make a munificent living in DC go a long way to enforce silence,” Connaughton writes.
But Connaughton is silent no more.
“I’m willing to burn every bridge,” he writes. “Now that I’ve mutinied and fled to a remote place, I want to set flame to the ship that would take me back there.”
Connaughton says there have been no Wall Street prosecutions because the Obama Justice Department failed “to take a timely, targeted, all-in approach to the problem.”
“The truth is, the Justice Department never made investigating these actions a high priority,” he writes. “It never formed strike forces of investigators and lawyers that had sufficient resources and backing to doggedly pursue the obvious potential wrongdoers as long as it took to bring a fraud case.”
Prosecutors never used provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which put in place tough criminal sanctions in the wake of Enron and other cases of massive corporate frauds, to indict those executives responsible for misleading financial reports.
“If Obama had appointed aggressive trial lawyers – and (Vice President Joe) Biden knew plenty of them – to these Justice Department positions and backed their efforts, there’s a good chance they would’ve hunted the worst Wall Street fraudsters relentlessly.”
“If the explanation for the inadequate effort is corruption (the administration could not afford to anger Wall Street contributors), the revolving door, or a belief that the health of the financial industry is more important than legal accountability, then we have an actual double standard. I don’t know the explanation, but in terms of faith in our institutions, it may not matter whether the double standard is real or apparent. That double standard has torn the social and moral fabric of our country in a way I find to be unforgivable.”
Connaughton says that two sources were telling him that Christine Varney, the assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division, “was complaining to friends that Rahm Emanuel, then White House chief of staff, had sent her a message – in effect, throttle back on antitrust enforcement, because the top priority is economic recovery.”
“I was concerned that Attorney General Holder had gotten the same message about investigating Wall Street crime,” he writes.
Connaughton quotes Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner as saying – “The stuff that seemed appealing in terms of…Old Testament justice…penalize the venal, would have been dramatically damaging to the basic strategy of putting out the panic, getting growth back, making people feel more confident in the future.”
“Geithner’s statement would seem to indicate that he believes utilitarian outcomes justify overlooking potentially criminal behavior by banks,” Connaughton writes.
Connaughton worked as chief of staff for Senator Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware.) Kaufman was appointed as Biden’s replacement and dedicated his two years in office to demanding accountability for Wall Street’s crimes.
During one meeting with Justice Department Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer, Breuer said the department was dependent on the “pipeline” to bring forward cases against Wall Street banks and their executives.
“That’s when I lost my temper,” Connaughton writes. “‘Lanny, you need to go down into your pipeline and make sure the FBI and U.S. attorney’s offices are making this a top priority.
Organize and shake your pipeline hard and get it to bring you cases. Don’t just sit back and wait.’”
“I also couldn’t resist invoking our mutual history in the White House Counsel’s office and even exhorting him to emulate the tactics of our former antagonist,” he writes. “‘You need to be like Ken Starr. You need to target some of these guys like they were drug kingpins, just like Starr targeted Clinton, and squeeze every junior person around them until you can get one to flip and give evidence against the senior people.”
The scene at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was not much better.
SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami, when asked about federal judges rebuking the SEC for paltry fines, said to Kaufman: “I’m not losing any sleep over them.”
And SEC chair Mary Schapiro wasn’t much more responsive.
“Near the end of the [October 2009] meeting [Kaufman] told [SEC Chairman Mary] Schapiro, ‘I don’t believe you’re going to do anything about high-frequency trading.’ Looking him straight in the eye, she replied, ‘You just watch.’”
“We watched for nearly three years,” Connaughton writes. “It wasn’t until July 2011 and June 2012 that the SEC approved minimalist rules that would force market participates to collect the data that would enable the SEC to begin – begin – the process of understanding HFT’s impact on markets. In effect, Ted and I and America are still watching and waiting for the SEC to take meaningful action.”
“If my tenure as Ted’s chief of staff taught me anything, it’s that the C in SEC doesn’t stand for the speed of light.”
Kaufman introduced legislation with Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to break up the big banks.
But Brown-Kaufman could muster only 33 votes in the Senate.
“Senator Diane Feinstein – one of the most liberal members of the Senate – asked [Senator Dick] Durbin, the majority whip, ‘What’s this amendment?’ [referring to the Brown-Kaufman amendment to break up the mega-banks]. According to Durbin, he replied: ‘To break up the banks.’ Giving the thumbs-down sign, Feinstein said bemusedly: ‘This is still America, isn’t it?’
Connaughton and Senator Kaufman tried to get enforcement authorities to move aggressively against Wall Street criminality. They tried to break up the big banks. To no avail.
They were up against The Blob.
And The Blob won.
“The Blob – its really called that – refers to the government entities that regulate the finance industry – like the Banking Committee, Treasury Department, and SEC – and the army of Wall Street representatives and lobbyists that continuously surrounds and permeates them,” Connaughton writes. “The Blob moves together. Its members are in constant contact by e-mail and phone. They dine, drink, and take vacations together. Not surprisingly, they frequently intermarry. No lobbying restrictions yet promulgated can prevent pillow talk between Blob spouses.”
Connaughton holds out hope for reform – but not until there is another Wall Street crisis.
In the meantime, he says it’s time to “stop voting for the lesser of two evils” – and stand on principle.
He has burned his bridges.
And he wants you to burn yours, too.
Now he’s written a book – The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins (Prospecta Press, August 20, 2012.)
This book is about corporate crime – although that phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in its 288 pages.
It is in fact one of the best books on how corporate criminals manipulate the system to get away with their crimes.
One way is to enforce silence among the elites who know how the system works.
“Party cohesion and the desire to make a munificent living in DC go a long way to enforce silence,” Connaughton writes.
But Connaughton is silent no more.
“I’m willing to burn every bridge,” he writes. “Now that I’ve mutinied and fled to a remote place, I want to set flame to the ship that would take me back there.”
Connaughton says there have been no Wall Street prosecutions because the Obama Justice Department failed “to take a timely, targeted, all-in approach to the problem.”“The truth is, the Justice Department never made investigating these actions a high priority,” he writes. “It never formed strike forces of investigators and lawyers that had sufficient resources and backing to doggedly pursue the obvious potential wrongdoers as long as it took to bring a fraud case.”
Prosecutors never used provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which put in place tough criminal sanctions in the wake of Enron and other cases of massive corporate frauds, to indict those executives responsible for misleading financial reports.
“If Obama had appointed aggressive trial lawyers – and (Vice President Joe) Biden knew plenty of them – to these Justice Department positions and backed their efforts, there’s a good chance they would’ve hunted the worst Wall Street fraudsters relentlessly.”
“If the explanation for the inadequate effort is corruption (the administration could not afford to anger Wall Street contributors), the revolving door, or a belief that the health of the financial industry is more important than legal accountability, then we have an actual double standard. I don’t know the explanation, but in terms of faith in our institutions, it may not matter whether the double standard is real or apparent. That double standard has torn the social and moral fabric of our country in a way I find to be unforgivable.”
Connaughton says that two sources were telling him that Christine Varney, the assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division, “was complaining to friends that Rahm Emanuel, then White House chief of staff, had sent her a message – in effect, throttle back on antitrust enforcement, because the top priority is economic recovery.”
“I was concerned that Attorney General Holder had gotten the same message about investigating Wall Street crime,” he writes.
Connaughton quotes Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner as saying – “The stuff that seemed appealing in terms of…Old Testament justice…penalize the venal, would have been dramatically damaging to the basic strategy of putting out the panic, getting growth back, making people feel more confident in the future.”
“Geithner’s statement would seem to indicate that he believes utilitarian outcomes justify overlooking potentially criminal behavior by banks,” Connaughton writes.
Connaughton worked as chief of staff for Senator Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware.) Kaufman was appointed as Biden’s replacement and dedicated his two years in office to demanding accountability for Wall Street’s crimes.
During one meeting with Justice Department Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer, Breuer said the department was dependent on the “pipeline” to bring forward cases against Wall Street banks and their executives.
“That’s when I lost my temper,” Connaughton writes. “‘Lanny, you need to go down into your pipeline and make sure the FBI and U.S. attorney’s offices are making this a top priority.
Organize and shake your pipeline hard and get it to bring you cases. Don’t just sit back and wait.’”
“I also couldn’t resist invoking our mutual history in the White House Counsel’s office and even exhorting him to emulate the tactics of our former antagonist,” he writes. “‘You need to be like Ken Starr. You need to target some of these guys like they were drug kingpins, just like Starr targeted Clinton, and squeeze every junior person around them until you can get one to flip and give evidence against the senior people.”
The scene at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was not much better.
SEC Enforcement Division Director Robert Khuzami, when asked about federal judges rebuking the SEC for paltry fines, said to Kaufman: “I’m not losing any sleep over them.”
And SEC chair Mary Schapiro wasn’t much more responsive.
“Near the end of the [October 2009] meeting [Kaufman] told [SEC Chairman Mary] Schapiro, ‘I don’t believe you’re going to do anything about high-frequency trading.’ Looking him straight in the eye, she replied, ‘You just watch.’”
“We watched for nearly three years,” Connaughton writes. “It wasn’t until July 2011 and June 2012 that the SEC approved minimalist rules that would force market participates to collect the data that would enable the SEC to begin – begin – the process of understanding HFT’s impact on markets. In effect, Ted and I and America are still watching and waiting for the SEC to take meaningful action.”
“If my tenure as Ted’s chief of staff taught me anything, it’s that the C in SEC doesn’t stand for the speed of light.”
Kaufman introduced legislation with Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to break up the big banks.
But Brown-Kaufman could muster only 33 votes in the Senate.
“Senator Diane Feinstein – one of the most liberal members of the Senate – asked [Senator Dick] Durbin, the majority whip, ‘What’s this amendment?’ [referring to the Brown-Kaufman amendment to break up the mega-banks]. According to Durbin, he replied: ‘To break up the banks.’ Giving the thumbs-down sign, Feinstein said bemusedly: ‘This is still America, isn’t it?’
Connaughton and Senator Kaufman tried to get enforcement authorities to move aggressively against Wall Street criminality. They tried to break up the big banks. To no avail.
They were up against The Blob.
And The Blob won.
“The Blob – its really called that – refers to the government entities that regulate the finance industry – like the Banking Committee, Treasury Department, and SEC – and the army of Wall Street representatives and lobbyists that continuously surrounds and permeates them,” Connaughton writes. “The Blob moves together. Its members are in constant contact by e-mail and phone. They dine, drink, and take vacations together. Not surprisingly, they frequently intermarry. No lobbying restrictions yet promulgated can prevent pillow talk between Blob spouses.”
Connaughton holds out hope for reform – but not until there is another Wall Street crisis.
In the meantime, he says it’s time to “stop voting for the lesser of two evils” – and stand on principle.
He has burned his bridges.
And he wants you to burn yours, too.
America’s Descent Into Poverty
The United States has collapsed economically, socially,
politically, legally, constitutionally, environmentally, and morally.
The country that exists today is not even a shell of the country into
which I was born. In this article I will deal with America’s economic
collapse. In subsequent articles, i will deal with other aspects of
American collapse.
Economically, America has descended into poverty. As Peter Edelman says, “Low-wage work is pandemic.” Today in “freedom and democracy” America, “the world’s only superpower,” one fourth of the work force is employed in jobs that pay less than $22,000, the poverty line for a family of four. Some of these lowly-paid persons are young college graduates, burdened by education loans, who share housing with three or four others in the same desperate situation. Other of these persons are single parents only one medical problem or lost job away from homelessness.
Others might be Ph.D.s teaching at universities as adjunct professors for $10,000 per year or less. Education is still touted as the way out of poverty, but increasingly is a path into poverty or into enlistments into the military services.
Edelman, who studies these issues, reports that 20.5 million Americans have incomes less than $9,500 per year, which is half of the poverty definition for a family of three.
There are six million Americans whose only income is food stamps. That means that there are six million Americans who live on the streets or under bridges or in the homes of relatives or friends. Hard-hearted Republicans continue to rail at welfare, but Edelman says, “basically welfare is gone.”
In my opinion as an economist, the official poverty line is long out of date. The prospect of three people living on $19,000 per year is farfetched. Considering the prices of rent, electricity, water, bread and fast food, one person cannot live in the US on $6,333.33 per year. In Thailand, perhaps, until the dollar collapses, it might be done, but not in the US.
As Dan Ariely (Duke University) and Mike Norton (Harvard University) have shown empirically, 40% of the US population, the 40% less well off, own 0.3%, that is, three-tenths of one percent, of America’s personal wealth. Who owns the other 99.7%?
The top 20% have 84% of the country’s wealth. Those Americans in the third and fourth quintiles–essentially America’s middle class–have only 15.7% of the nation’s wealth. Such an unequal distribution of income is unprecedented in the economically developed world.
In my day, confronted with such disparity in the distribution of income and wealth, a disparity that obviously poses a dramatic problem for economic policy, political stability, and the macro management of the economy, Democrats would have demanded corrections, and Republicans would have reluctantly agreed.
But not today. Both political parties whore for money.
The Republicans believe that the suffering of poor Americans is not helping the rich enough. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are committed to abolishing every program that addresses needs of what Republicans deride as “useless eaters.”
The “useless eaters” are the working poor and the former middle class whose jobs were offshored so that corporate executives could receive multi-millions of dollars in performance pay compensation and their shareholders could make millions of dollars on capital gains. While a handful of executives enjoy yachts and Playboy playmates, tens of millions of Americans barely get by.
In political propaganda, the “useless eaters” are not merely a burden on society and the rich. They are leeches who force honest taxpayers to pay for their many hours of comfortable leisure enjoying life, watching sports events, and fishing in trout streams, while they push around their belongings in grocery baskets or sell their bodies for the next MacDonald burger.
The concentration of wealth and power in the US today is far beyond anything my graduate economic professors could image in the 1960s. At four of the world’s best universities that I attended, the opinion was that competition in the free market would prevent great disparities in the distribution of income and wealth. As I was to learn, this belief was based on an ideology, not on reality.
Congress, acting on this erroneous belief in free market perfection, deregulated the US economy in order to create a free market. The immediate consequence was resort to every previous illegal action to monopolize, to commit financial and other fraud, to destroy the productive basis of American consumer incomes, and to redirect income and wealth to the one percent.
The “democratic” Clinton administration, like the Bush and Obama administrations, was suborned by free market ideology. The Clinton sell-outs to Big Money essentially abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But this sell-out of struggling Americans was not enough to satisfy the Republican Party. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut or abolish every program that cushions poverty-stricken Americans from starvation and homelessness.
Republicans claim that the only reason Americans are in need is because the government uses taxpayers’ money to subsidize Americans who are unwilling to work. As Republicans see it, while we hard-workers sacrifice our leisure and time with our families, the welfare rabble enjoy the leisure that our tax dollars provide them.
This cock-eyed belief, on top of corporate CEOs maximizing their incomes by offshoring the middle class jobs of millions of Americans, has left Americans in poverty and cities, counties, states, and the federal government without a tax base, resulting in bankruptcies at the state and local level and massive budget deficits at the federal level that threaten the value of the dollar and its role as reserve currency.
The economic destruction of America benefitted the mega-rich with multi-billions of dollars with which to enjoy life and its high-priced accompaniments wherever the mega-rich wish.
Meanwhile, away from the French Rivera, Homeland Security is collecting sufficient ammunition to keep dispossessed Americans under control.
Economically, America has descended into poverty. As Peter Edelman says, “Low-wage work is pandemic.” Today in “freedom and democracy” America, “the world’s only superpower,” one fourth of the work force is employed in jobs that pay less than $22,000, the poverty line for a family of four. Some of these lowly-paid persons are young college graduates, burdened by education loans, who share housing with three or four others in the same desperate situation. Other of these persons are single parents only one medical problem or lost job away from homelessness.
Others might be Ph.D.s teaching at universities as adjunct professors for $10,000 per year or less. Education is still touted as the way out of poverty, but increasingly is a path into poverty or into enlistments into the military services.
Edelman, who studies these issues, reports that 20.5 million Americans have incomes less than $9,500 per year, which is half of the poverty definition for a family of three.
There are six million Americans whose only income is food stamps. That means that there are six million Americans who live on the streets or under bridges or in the homes of relatives or friends. Hard-hearted Republicans continue to rail at welfare, but Edelman says, “basically welfare is gone.”
In my opinion as an economist, the official poverty line is long out of date. The prospect of three people living on $19,000 per year is farfetched. Considering the prices of rent, electricity, water, bread and fast food, one person cannot live in the US on $6,333.33 per year. In Thailand, perhaps, until the dollar collapses, it might be done, but not in the US.
As Dan Ariely (Duke University) and Mike Norton (Harvard University) have shown empirically, 40% of the US population, the 40% less well off, own 0.3%, that is, three-tenths of one percent, of America’s personal wealth. Who owns the other 99.7%?
The top 20% have 84% of the country’s wealth. Those Americans in the third and fourth quintiles–essentially America’s middle class–have only 15.7% of the nation’s wealth. Such an unequal distribution of income is unprecedented in the economically developed world.
In my day, confronted with such disparity in the distribution of income and wealth, a disparity that obviously poses a dramatic problem for economic policy, political stability, and the macro management of the economy, Democrats would have demanded corrections, and Republicans would have reluctantly agreed.
But not today. Both political parties whore for money.
The Republicans believe that the suffering of poor Americans is not helping the rich enough. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are committed to abolishing every program that addresses needs of what Republicans deride as “useless eaters.”
The “useless eaters” are the working poor and the former middle class whose jobs were offshored so that corporate executives could receive multi-millions of dollars in performance pay compensation and their shareholders could make millions of dollars on capital gains. While a handful of executives enjoy yachts and Playboy playmates, tens of millions of Americans barely get by.
In political propaganda, the “useless eaters” are not merely a burden on society and the rich. They are leeches who force honest taxpayers to pay for their many hours of comfortable leisure enjoying life, watching sports events, and fishing in trout streams, while they push around their belongings in grocery baskets or sell their bodies for the next MacDonald burger.
The concentration of wealth and power in the US today is far beyond anything my graduate economic professors could image in the 1960s. At four of the world’s best universities that I attended, the opinion was that competition in the free market would prevent great disparities in the distribution of income and wealth. As I was to learn, this belief was based on an ideology, not on reality.
Congress, acting on this erroneous belief in free market perfection, deregulated the US economy in order to create a free market. The immediate consequence was resort to every previous illegal action to monopolize, to commit financial and other fraud, to destroy the productive basis of American consumer incomes, and to redirect income and wealth to the one percent.
The “democratic” Clinton administration, like the Bush and Obama administrations, was suborned by free market ideology. The Clinton sell-outs to Big Money essentially abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children. But this sell-out of struggling Americans was not enough to satisfy the Republican Party. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut or abolish every program that cushions poverty-stricken Americans from starvation and homelessness.
Republicans claim that the only reason Americans are in need is because the government uses taxpayers’ money to subsidize Americans who are unwilling to work. As Republicans see it, while we hard-workers sacrifice our leisure and time with our families, the welfare rabble enjoy the leisure that our tax dollars provide them.
This cock-eyed belief, on top of corporate CEOs maximizing their incomes by offshoring the middle class jobs of millions of Americans, has left Americans in poverty and cities, counties, states, and the federal government without a tax base, resulting in bankruptcies at the state and local level and massive budget deficits at the federal level that threaten the value of the dollar and its role as reserve currency.
The economic destruction of America benefitted the mega-rich with multi-billions of dollars with which to enjoy life and its high-priced accompaniments wherever the mega-rich wish.
Meanwhile, away from the French Rivera, Homeland Security is collecting sufficient ammunition to keep dispossessed Americans under control.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Ron Paul Delegates Cause Mayhem At Republican Convention
Posted: 08/28/2012- Huffington Post
TAMPA, Fla. -- A divided Republican Party was on full display Tuesday when Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) supporters and other grassroots activists loudly booed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on the first full day of the Republican National Convention.
The fight was over the unglamorous rules process that dictates how delegates are apportioned in each state. Paul didn't sweep the ballot boxes in state caucuses and primaries, but his supporters quietly worked behind the scenes in an effort to take control of state parties and delegate assignments.
The RNC's rules committee adopted provisions that would bar this sort of insurgent takeover from happening in the future: Convention delegates would be bound to vote for the candidate who won statewide at the ballot box.
In other words, when there is a statewide popular vote, if the result is not winner-take-all, each candidate must get delegates in proportion to their percentage of the popular vote. The rule was proposed and pushed through the committee by lieutenants loyal to Romney. Some Republicans, including ones loyal to Romney, opposed the rule change, arguing it hurt grassroots activism.
Twenty Paul backers from Maine were also stripped of their spots as official delegates after the RNC concluded that their election was invalid.
On Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called for a full delegation vote on the rules, including the ones the Paul backers opposed. The voice vote of ayes and nays were equal in volume, but Boehner immediately gave it to the ayes, leading to loud boos and shouts from Paul supporters.
The dismissed Maine delegation was easy to spot on Tuesday. They were all wearing white baseball caps that read "Maine 2012" and had a picture of Paul. Before the vote on the rules, Paul supporters would frequently interrupt the proceedings with shouts of "Seat them now" (referring to the Maine delegation), "We were robbed," "President Paul" and "Point of order."
After the vote, Paul supporters took to the hallways outside the main convention area and continued shouting and talking to reporters about how they believed they were robbed. Several of them said they may not support Romney -- and it could cause problems for Republicans in the fall.
"After the way they treated us, treated the state of Maine, treated us Republicans, they should be worried about how this is going to affect the election," said Erin Gail, a stripped Maine delegate.
"This is a sign this man [Romney] will take our country down a much worse path than the guy who is currently in office. And I can't stand the guy who is currently in office," said John Jones, another rejected Maine delegate.
Paul is with his backers, all the way. He is not speaking at the convention this year, because he denied the RNC's two conditions: that he allow his remarks to be vetted by RNC officials and that he fully endorse Romney.
“It wouldn't be my speech,” Paul told The New York Times. "That would undo everything I've done in the last 30 years. I don't fully endorse him for president."
On Tuesday, Paul told Fox News host Neil Cavuto that he was "undecided" on whether he would vote for Romney.
Gladys Lemley, an alternate delegate from West Virginia who is backing Romney -- although she originally supported Newt Gingrich -- agreed with the Paul delegates that the divide in the GOP could hurt the party in November. She said she wished the Paul backers would join with other Republicans and focus on defeating Obama.
"By now, we need to unify the Republican Party and go after Obama. He is our enemy, not members of the Republican Party," she said.
When asked whether it could help Democrats win in November, she added, "It could. I remember back when Ross Perot ran. It hurt the Republican Party."
TAMPA, Fla. -- A divided Republican Party was on full display Tuesday when Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) supporters and other grassroots activists loudly booed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on the first full day of the Republican National Convention.
The fight was over the unglamorous rules process that dictates how delegates are apportioned in each state. Paul didn't sweep the ballot boxes in state caucuses and primaries, but his supporters quietly worked behind the scenes in an effort to take control of state parties and delegate assignments.
The RNC's rules committee adopted provisions that would bar this sort of insurgent takeover from happening in the future: Convention delegates would be bound to vote for the candidate who won statewide at the ballot box.
In other words, when there is a statewide popular vote, if the result is not winner-take-all, each candidate must get delegates in proportion to their percentage of the popular vote. The rule was proposed and pushed through the committee by lieutenants loyal to Romney. Some Republicans, including ones loyal to Romney, opposed the rule change, arguing it hurt grassroots activism.
Twenty Paul backers from Maine were also stripped of their spots as official delegates after the RNC concluded that their election was invalid.
On Tuesday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called for a full delegation vote on the rules, including the ones the Paul backers opposed. The voice vote of ayes and nays were equal in volume, but Boehner immediately gave it to the ayes, leading to loud boos and shouts from Paul supporters.
The dismissed Maine delegation was easy to spot on Tuesday. They were all wearing white baseball caps that read "Maine 2012" and had a picture of Paul. Before the vote on the rules, Paul supporters would frequently interrupt the proceedings with shouts of "Seat them now" (referring to the Maine delegation), "We were robbed," "President Paul" and "Point of order."
After the vote, Paul supporters took to the hallways outside the main convention area and continued shouting and talking to reporters about how they believed they were robbed. Several of them said they may not support Romney -- and it could cause problems for Republicans in the fall.
"After the way they treated us, treated the state of Maine, treated us Republicans, they should be worried about how this is going to affect the election," said Erin Gail, a stripped Maine delegate.
"This is a sign this man [Romney] will take our country down a much worse path than the guy who is currently in office. And I can't stand the guy who is currently in office," said John Jones, another rejected Maine delegate.
Paul is with his backers, all the way. He is not speaking at the convention this year, because he denied the RNC's two conditions: that he allow his remarks to be vetted by RNC officials and that he fully endorse Romney.
“It wouldn't be my speech,” Paul told The New York Times. "That would undo everything I've done in the last 30 years. I don't fully endorse him for president."
On Tuesday, Paul told Fox News host Neil Cavuto that he was "undecided" on whether he would vote for Romney.
Gladys Lemley, an alternate delegate from West Virginia who is backing Romney -- although she originally supported Newt Gingrich -- agreed with the Paul delegates that the divide in the GOP could hurt the party in November. She said she wished the Paul backers would join with other Republicans and focus on defeating Obama.
"By now, we need to unify the Republican Party and go after Obama. He is our enemy, not members of the Republican Party," she said.
When asked whether it could help Democrats win in November, she added, "It could. I remember back when Ross Perot ran. It hurt the Republican Party."
Tax the Rich or Privatize the State?
The Great Recession and its possible continuance has brought the
issue of privatization to the forefront of American politics. But most
Americans aren’t even aware that this debate is happening, because the
media and politicians aren’t using the word “privatization;” instead
less threatening substitutes are used to ram through a corporate agenda
that aims to massively transform public resources into corporate profit.
The mass privatization frenzy is the corporate solution to the budget crises occurring on the city, state, and national level — crises caused by the recession that the banks and corporations created themselves, and are now positioning themselves to benefit from again, beyond the infamous bailouts.
The effects of the recession will continue for years, and the already slowing economy is exacerbating these effects, most notably the bankrupting of government budgets. Politicians from the Democratic and Republican parties both holler that “there is no money,” and therefore massive cuts have to be made to public services, while public employees must either be laid off or have their wages destroyed.
But another corporate solution to this corporate-caused problem is now proceeding full speed ahead: Urban Infrastructure Banks. Under this scheme, the funding of publicly-run infrastructure — roads, bridges, public buildings, etc. — will be taken out of the public realm and transferred to the corporations, who will fund these projects as long as they profit from them.
The right-wing Economist Magazine explains:
This nefarious right-wing plot is being pushed hardest and fastest by the Democratic Party. The Mayor of Chicago, Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is the poster boy for city privatization. Again from the Economist:
This privatization debate has already entered the realm of other cherished social programs — Medicare, Social Security, and public education — under the catchword of “choice.”
Obama’s misnamed Race to the Top education plan consciously aims to privatize public education in a more blunt manner than Bush dared, as it awards states money if they create privately run charter schools.
And while the Democrats shed fake tears about the Republicans’ plan to privatize Medicare, the giant Medicare cuts that the Democrats have already proposed imply a total re-structuring of the program, i.e., its privatization. Any publicly run program that is underfunded — and thus requires individuals to pay extra for the baseline service — can be considered half privatized.
The alternative to this bi-partisan privatization madness is to drastically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pre-Reagan levels. It is a deliberate lie to say that “there is no money” to fund public programs. Taxes have shrunk for the wealthy and corporations for decades, thus causing these budget deficits that working people are made to pay for.
President Obama has made “taxing the rich” one of the pillars of his election campaign, but all he promises to do is to remove the Bush tax cuts for the rich — the same promise he broke after the last election. But Obama combines his “tax the rich” slogan with promises to balance the national budget by making massive cuts to social programs: Obama’s proposed budget included $3 trillion in cuts, including hundreds of millions of cuts in Medicare and other social programs.
Therefore, labor and community groups need to put forward a completely independent demand to tax the rich and corporations, including the demand of NO CUTS to social services. There is enough money in the United States to fully fund a national jobs program, Social Security, Medicare, public education and all vital social programs. But this money has accumulated in the hands of the top 1%, who must be taxed at 70 percent or higher for the benefit of all working people. All forms of income and wealth of the 1% must be “on the table” for taxation.
The mass privatization frenzy is the corporate solution to the budget crises occurring on the city, state, and national level — crises caused by the recession that the banks and corporations created themselves, and are now positioning themselves to benefit from again, beyond the infamous bailouts.
The effects of the recession will continue for years, and the already slowing economy is exacerbating these effects, most notably the bankrupting of government budgets. Politicians from the Democratic and Republican parties both holler that “there is no money,” and therefore massive cuts have to be made to public services, while public employees must either be laid off or have their wages destroyed.
But another corporate solution to this corporate-caused problem is now proceeding full speed ahead: Urban Infrastructure Banks. Under this scheme, the funding of publicly-run infrastructure — roads, bridges, public buildings, etc. — will be taken out of the public realm and transferred to the corporations, who will fund these projects as long as they profit from them.
The right-wing Economist Magazine explains:
“The private sector will invest money in projects and get it back in the shape of tolls, user fees, premium pricing or even tax breaks.”So essentially, a big bank will front a city the money — presumably at a giant discount — to buy a road or bridge; the tolls charged will go to the bank with interest (profit), while the bank is also likely to get tax-exempt status for its profit. The bank will also have a profit motive to do the cheapest possible maintenance work, if any at all. Working people will thus pay more to use these services so that the banks can make a profit.
This nefarious right-wing plot is being pushed hardest and fastest by the Democratic Party. The Mayor of Chicago, Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is the poster boy for city privatization. Again from the Economist:
“…Mr Emanuel wants to spend about $7 billion to rebuild the city of Chicago — on everything from streets, to parks, to the water system, schools, commuter rail and the main airport… The city will finance the running costs of the [Urban infrastructure] trust itself to the tune of $2.5m. Several financial institutions are already lined up to make investments totalling $1.7 billion, among them Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, Ullico, Citibank and JPMorgan.”Democrats everywhere were inspired by Rahm’s corporate crusade to privatize Chicago, so much so that Bill Clinton organized a national conference of Democratic Party mayors to promote the idea. This from the official press release of the Clinton Global Initiative:
“I was thrilled when Rahm Emanuel set up America’s first urban infrastructure bank in Chicago, and I see this ongoing conversation among America’s mayors as an important step towards finding a workable model that can be replicated in every other city around the country,” said [former] President Clinton. “My hope is that coming out of this meeting, mayors will realize that attracting private investment in their cities’ roads, bridges, water and sanitation systems, waste to energy projects, and new electrical grids is an idea that will put people to work, stimulate the local economy, and increase the value and quality of life of their cities in the long term.”Obama, too, has caught the fire of public infrastructure privatization, and has proposed a plan for the federal level.
This privatization debate has already entered the realm of other cherished social programs — Medicare, Social Security, and public education — under the catchword of “choice.”
Obama’s misnamed Race to the Top education plan consciously aims to privatize public education in a more blunt manner than Bush dared, as it awards states money if they create privately run charter schools.
And while the Democrats shed fake tears about the Republicans’ plan to privatize Medicare, the giant Medicare cuts that the Democrats have already proposed imply a total re-structuring of the program, i.e., its privatization. Any publicly run program that is underfunded — and thus requires individuals to pay extra for the baseline service — can be considered half privatized.
The alternative to this bi-partisan privatization madness is to drastically raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pre-Reagan levels. It is a deliberate lie to say that “there is no money” to fund public programs. Taxes have shrunk for the wealthy and corporations for decades, thus causing these budget deficits that working people are made to pay for.
President Obama has made “taxing the rich” one of the pillars of his election campaign, but all he promises to do is to remove the Bush tax cuts for the rich — the same promise he broke after the last election. But Obama combines his “tax the rich” slogan with promises to balance the national budget by making massive cuts to social programs: Obama’s proposed budget included $3 trillion in cuts, including hundreds of millions of cuts in Medicare and other social programs.
Therefore, labor and community groups need to put forward a completely independent demand to tax the rich and corporations, including the demand of NO CUTS to social services. There is enough money in the United States to fully fund a national jobs program, Social Security, Medicare, public education and all vital social programs. But this money has accumulated in the hands of the top 1%, who must be taxed at 70 percent or higher for the benefit of all working people. All forms of income and wealth of the 1% must be “on the table” for taxation.
Why Cheaters Prosper
Now there’s something you don’t see every day.
If I told you that the Wall Street Journal ran no less than 3 articles in the last week promoting more regulations, you’d think I was crazy. But it’s true. And, for once, the WSJ is right.
Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted down a proposal for rule changes that would have helped to avoid another financial meltdown like 2008. The vote was 3 to 2 and– as the editors of the WSJ opined– it illustrates the degree to which government regulators are captured by the industry.
“Captured”? Industry “slaves” is more like it.
Here’s the story: When Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008, there was a run on Reserve Primary Fund, a money market mutual fund that had a paltry 1.2% of its $63 billion in Lehman financial assets. Even so, when Primary “broke the buck” (and could no longer pay back its investors 100 cents on the dollar) panic spread through the market triggering a bank run. Prime money-market funds lost $310 billion or 15% in less than a week. The panic put stocks into a nosedive which didn’t stop until the Fed extended a blanket taxpayer-funded guarantee on all money market funds.
Four years have passed since the money markets blew up and still nothing has been done to fix the problem, which means that it’s only a matter of time until the next meltdown.
Now, there are a couple of very easy ways to make the system safe again. Either the SEC can require the funds to have enough ready cash on hand to pay investors off “in full” if they want their money back on short notice or financial institutions can explain to investors that there are risks involved when they put their money into money market mutual fund accounts. (and that the value of their investment can go up or down) These aren’t FDIC-guaranteed depository accounts, even though everyone seems to think they are.
Both of these are straightforward solutions that would remedy the situation and assure that the financial system would not suffer another massive heart attack if one of these funds were to dip below 100 cents per dollar.
So why did 3 of the 5 SEC board members vote the measures down?
Well, because the banks don’t want to hold any additional capital to pay off investors in the event of a run. And, because the banks don’t want investors to know that they are actually taking a risk by putting their money in money market mutual funds. (They want to preserve the illusion that these are standard-issue checking-savings accounts) And, finally, because the banks know that if the system goes haywire again, the Fed and US Treasury will ride to rescue with more taxpayer-backed bailouts. So, why would they want to pay when Uncle Sam will cover their losses anyway? That’s how the banks see it.
Here’s a little more background from the Wall Street Journal:
This whole money market fracas is just like the regulatory issues surrounding securitization, which is the bundling of loans into securities. Dodd-Frank is supposed to require originators of these garbage products to retain a portion of them for their own accounts. It’s called “risk retention” and it’s no different than an insurance company being required to keep some money on hand in case your bloody house burns down.
Fair enough? Well, of course, the banks don’t want to have skin in the game, not unless it’s your skin or my skin. So, they are fighting risk retention tooth and nail.
And they’re probably going to win that fight, too, because in the good old USA, cheaters always prosper. Just ask a banker.
If I told you that the Wall Street Journal ran no less than 3 articles in the last week promoting more regulations, you’d think I was crazy. But it’s true. And, for once, the WSJ is right.
Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted down a proposal for rule changes that would have helped to avoid another financial meltdown like 2008. The vote was 3 to 2 and– as the editors of the WSJ opined– it illustrates the degree to which government regulators are captured by the industry.
“Captured”? Industry “slaves” is more like it.
Here’s the story: When Lehman Brothers failed in September 2008, there was a run on Reserve Primary Fund, a money market mutual fund that had a paltry 1.2% of its $63 billion in Lehman financial assets. Even so, when Primary “broke the buck” (and could no longer pay back its investors 100 cents on the dollar) panic spread through the market triggering a bank run. Prime money-market funds lost $310 billion or 15% in less than a week. The panic put stocks into a nosedive which didn’t stop until the Fed extended a blanket taxpayer-funded guarantee on all money market funds.
Four years have passed since the money markets blew up and still nothing has been done to fix the problem, which means that it’s only a matter of time until the next meltdown.
Now, there are a couple of very easy ways to make the system safe again. Either the SEC can require the funds to have enough ready cash on hand to pay investors off “in full” if they want their money back on short notice or financial institutions can explain to investors that there are risks involved when they put their money into money market mutual fund accounts. (and that the value of their investment can go up or down) These aren’t FDIC-guaranteed depository accounts, even though everyone seems to think they are.
Both of these are straightforward solutions that would remedy the situation and assure that the financial system would not suffer another massive heart attack if one of these funds were to dip below 100 cents per dollar.
So why did 3 of the 5 SEC board members vote the measures down?
Well, because the banks don’t want to hold any additional capital to pay off investors in the event of a run. And, because the banks don’t want investors to know that they are actually taking a risk by putting their money in money market mutual funds. (They want to preserve the illusion that these are standard-issue checking-savings accounts) And, finally, because the banks know that if the system goes haywire again, the Fed and US Treasury will ride to rescue with more taxpayer-backed bailouts. So, why would they want to pay when Uncle Sam will cover their losses anyway? That’s how the banks see it.
Here’s a little more background from the Wall Street Journal:
“The industry notes that only two funds have ever broken the buck—and argues this is much ado about nothing. Yet that doesn’t mean other funds didn’t come close. A Boston Fed study—unchallenged by the industry—found “frequent and significant” cases in which companies that sponsor money funds had to bail them out. At least $4.4 billion was provided between 2007 and 2011 to at least 78 funds.”….
…the Treasury’s Office of Financial Research found that in April 2012—after those SEC changes had been implemented—there were 105 money-market funds with combined assets of more than $1 trillion that were at risk of breaking the buck if any of the top 20 outfits in which they invested defaulted. Of those, 14 were at risk of breaking the buck if any of the top 30 outfits in which they invested did so.
In ordinary times, that may be OK. In a crisis, it spells trouble, particularly since the funds tend to invest in the same securities.” (“SEC Can’t Agree on a Fix For Money-Market Funds”, David Wessel, Wall Street Journal)So the idea that “only two funds have ever broken the buck” is pure baloney. These funds get into trouble all the time, which is why they need to be fixed, so the banks that run them provide the resources necessary to make them safe. At present, the financial institutions are getting a free ride, which is to say, they are recipients of an implicit government subsidy by virtue of the fact that the Fed will be forced to backstop their crappy mutual fund if the there’s another panic. That’s free insurance and, in 2008, it cost taxpayers a bundle.
This whole money market fracas is just like the regulatory issues surrounding securitization, which is the bundling of loans into securities. Dodd-Frank is supposed to require originators of these garbage products to retain a portion of them for their own accounts. It’s called “risk retention” and it’s no different than an insurance company being required to keep some money on hand in case your bloody house burns down.
Fair enough? Well, of course, the banks don’t want to have skin in the game, not unless it’s your skin or my skin. So, they are fighting risk retention tooth and nail.
And they’re probably going to win that fight, too, because in the good old USA, cheaters always prosper. Just ask a banker.
HBO Show, 'Newsroom,' nailed the Tea Party last night
The American Taliban...watch for yourself. It's kind of beautiful...
Another arrow in the dead center of the target was when he said, "tea partiers love America but hate Americans." SO true!
Another arrow in the dead center of the target was when he said, "tea partiers love America but hate Americans." SO true!
- Ideological purity
- Compromise as weakness
- A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism
- Denying science
- Unmoved by facts
- Undeterred by new information
- A hostile fear of progress
- A demonization of education
- A need to control women’s bodies
- Severe xenophobia
- Tribal mentality
- Intolerance of dissent
- A pathological hatred of the U.S. government
“They can call themselves the Tea Party. They can call themselves conservatives and they can even call themselves Republicans, though Republicans certainly shouldn’t. But we should call them what they are. The American Taliban.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)