Showing posts with label Reaganomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reaganomics. Show all posts

Monday, April 1, 2013

How Conservative Economic Policies Are Destroying the US

We've been in the clutches of conservative economic orthodoxy since 1980, and this is the result.
April 1, 2013 | These were compiled by Dave Johnson at Campaign for America's Future:

In each of the charts below look for the year 1981, when Reagan took office.

Conservative policies transformed the United States from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years, and it has only gotten worse since then:

 



Working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
 


This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:
 

And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:
 


Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP )
 



None of which has helped  economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.)
 

There are, of course, many reasons for all this. But there is no doubt that we've been in the clutches of conservative economic orthodoxy since 1980 and this is the result. Whether it's the cause or whether it's because it has no capacity to react to external events properly doesn't matter. It has failed. And is still failing.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

The Selling of American Democracy: The Perfect Storm


by Robert Reich

Who’s buying our democracy? Wall Street financiers, the Koch brothers, and casino magnates Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn. 

And they’re doing much of it in secret.

It’s a perfect storm:

The greatest concentration of wealth in more than a century — courtesy “trickle-down” economics, Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and the demise of organized labor.

Combined with…

Unlimited political contributions — courtesy of Republican-appointed Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy, in one of the dumbest decisions in Supreme Court history, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, along with lower-court rulings that have expanded it.

Combined with…

Complete secrecy about who’s contributing how much to whom — courtesy of a loophole in the tax laws that allows so-called non-profit “social welfare” organizations to accept the unlimited contributions for hard-hitting political ads.

Put them all together and our democracy is being sold down the drain.

With a more equitable and traditional distribution of wealth, far more Americans would have a fair chance of influencing politics. As the great jurist Louis Brandeis once said, “we can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a comparative few, but we cannot have both.”

Alternatively, inequality wouldn’t be as much of a problem if we had strict laws limiting political spending or, at the very least, disclosing who was contributing what.

But we have an almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and unlimited political spending and secrecy. 

I’m not letting Democrats off the hook. Democratic candidates are still too dependent on Wall Street casino moguls and real casino magnates (Steve Wynn has been a major contributor to Harry Reid, for example). George Soros and a few others have poured big bucks into Democratic coffers. So have a handful of trade unions. 

But make no mistake. Compared to what the GOP is doing this year, Democrats are conducting a high-school bake sale. The mega-selling of American democracy is a Republican invention, and Romney and the GOP are its major beneficiaries.

And the losers aren’t just Democrats. They’re the American people. 

You need to make a ruckus. Don’t fall into the seductive trap of cynicism. That’s what the sellers of American democracy are counting on. If you give up on our system of government, they win everything.

This coming Monday, for example, the Senate has scheduled a cloture vote on the DISCLOSE ACT, which would at least require that outfits like the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “Crossroads GPS” disclose who’s contributing what. Contact your senators, and have your friends and relatives in other states — especially those with Republican senators (who have been united in their opposition to disclosure) — contact theirs. If the DISCLOSE ACT is voted down, hold accountable those senators (and, when and if it gets to the House, those House members) who are selling out our democracy for the sake of their own personal ambitions.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Governors Cut Taxes — and Medical Aid to the Poor

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 by The Los Angeles Times
In Maine and elsewhere, it's an early test for 'tea-party'-backed Republicans who say the strategy will create jobs and boost state economies. 
by Noam N. Levey

AUGUSTA, Maine— In their drive to cut medical assistance to the poor while pushing tax breaks benefiting the affluent, congressional Republicans are following the lead of a group of governors who have championed this approach to balance state budgets.

The strategy — reprising the supply-side economics of the Ronald Reagan era — has caught on with conservatives who say that lowering taxes for corporations and wealthy taxpayers will boost state economies.

But the moves are sparking a debate in capitols from Arizona to Wisconsin to Maine over who is being asked to sacrifice and whether the strategy will produce more jobs.

The issue is also emerging as an early test for "tea party"-backed governors and legislators who swept to power on pledges to remake government by cutting taxes and slashing government programs.

In Washington, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) took up that standard last week with a plan to cut $5.8 trillion in federal spending, in large measure by scaling back Medicaid, Medicare and other health programs while also slashing the top tax rate for wealthy households and corporations.

In Maine, where November victories gave Republicans control of both the governor's office and the Legislature for the first time since 1967, a debate over that approach is underway.

Gov. Paul LePage, a pugnacious newcomer to state politics who spent part of his childhood homeless, took the reins of a relatively poor state with serious budget pressures and one of the nation's most generous healthcare safety nets.

Maine provides subsidized health coverage to more than a quarter of its residents. Today about 90% of residents have health insurance, compared with 83% nationally.

Providing that support hasn't been cheap. Maine also has some of the highest taxes in the country. Families with incomes as low as $39,550 a year are subject to an 8.5% state income tax.

That reflects the state's values, said Christopher St. John, executive director of the left-leaning Maine Center for Economic Policy. "Maine has a high-cost system because the state made a decision to expand its public-sector coverage.… It was something that Maine residents decided was a priority."

But with the state struggling from the lingering effects of the recession and the decline of historic industries such as timber, fishing and shipbuilding, taxes have become an increasingly popular target.

"It is like a red flag for anyone looking to locate here," said Christopher Hall, vice president of the Portland Regional Chamber, one of the state's leading business groups. Hall is among many Maine residents who have concluded that without more jobs, the state has to make changes.

"We built an edifice we can't support," he said.

The new governor's budget proposal would begin cutting back taxes, lowering the top income tax from 8.5% to 7.95%.

Among other tax breaks, the governor wants to exempt estates worth less than $2 million from Maine's inheritance tax. Currently, only estates under $1 million are exempt.

Unveiling his budget, LePage called it a "jobs bill" that "makes tough choices and puts people first." But there is a price for the $200 million in tax relief that LePage has proposed.

The governor's budget takes aim at programs that support residents like Mary Nason, a 47-year-old working mother from Winslow, whose family receives subsidized health coverage through MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program.

Nason, who counsels people suffering from depression, and her husband, who works at Home Depot, cannot afford the health insurance that his employer offers.

Nor could they go without coverage. Nason was diagnosed 16 years ago with bipolar disorder. Her husband has heart disease, and their 5-year-old son suffers from asthma. The family's 10 prescriptions would cost more than $800 a month without insurance, she said.

With an income of about $36,000 a year, Nason and her husband, who lost their house last year, earn just under twice the federal poverty level, making them eligible in Maine for Medicaid.

LePage is proposing to cut off eligibility for parents who make between 133% and 200% of the poverty level. That would mean Nason could stay on the program for now, but if her family income rose above $37,000 a year, she and her husband wouldn't be able to get back onto MaineCare.

"If we face the choice, I'd have to stop working," Nason said, explaining that she and her husband would have to keep their incomes down to stay on the government program. "I want to work. … But we can't go without health insurance."

LePage's critics say people like Nason illustrate why slashing healthcare programs can stunt job growth, not stimulate it.

"No one seems to be asking about the potential unintended consequences here," said state Rep. Peggy Rotundo, a Democrat. "It's a penny-wise, pound-foolish approach."

LePage declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed. But Tarren Bragdon, a top LePage advisor who also heads the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center, said the cuts would ultimately help the state's neediest people.

"You have to make tough choices if you want to build a better future," he said. "If you cut welfare without cutting taxes, you're just being mean."

LePage, meanwhile, is barreling forward. He also wants to scale back a program that helps low-income seniors and disabled people pay Medicare premiums.

At least 48,000 poor residents could lose some healthcare aid under the governor's proposals, according to estimates from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services.

LePage is not the only governor pushing to reduce healthcare assistance and taxes.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett has already allowed a state-subsidized insurance program for 41,000 working poor to lapse, citing the state's "very, very tight budget."

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona is looking to cut more than 100,000 people from her state's Medicaid rolls.

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are developing their own plans to scale back Medicaid.

All four Republican governors have also championed corporate tax breaks. Christie also has proposed to cut inheritance taxes on wealthy estates.

In Maine, newly empowered Republicans in the Legislature say they have no choice.

"We have been providing services that other states are not. We are an outlier," state Senate President Kevin Raye said from his office off the Senate chamber. "Our highest priority is to make Maine more attractive for business."

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Reagan - The Documentary


(It's an Iframe embed code, so I can't resize to fit in my blog's 480 pixel width. You can toggle in full screen mode or here is the direct link so you can resize to whatever you'd like. I just noticed that the video doesn't even show on Google Buzz, so you Buzzers will have to click the link for sure. I thought Iframes, fixed the embed problem on Buzz. Guess not.)

I've never been a fan of Reagan, if that isn't obvious. And recently, several economists have made compelling arguments that our financial troubles today can be traced directly back to Reagan's initial tax cuts for the wealthy (he raised taxes on us poor folks 6 times). The redistribution of wealth in the US began again under Reagan which would culminate today into the greatest disparity between rich and poor this country has seen since the first decade of the 1900s. That is Reagan's most lasting legacy.

The fact he traded arms for hostages to fund covert operations in Central America seems par for the political course these days, and I wasn't surprised when old footage of the Mujahideen leadership meeting with Reagan in the White House, and there's Osama bin Laden, who was one of the Mujahideen leaders and a US ally while the Mujahideen fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And there's also that infamous photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein in 1983, shaking hands on the deal in which the US sold Iraq the weapons they used on the Kurds. So none of that covert, secret stuff surprises me. I just assume that all presidents have similar dirty little secrets, and yes, they all lie about them.

But Reagan being such an iconic figure for the Republicans--I know for a fact there are members of the GOP who hold Reagan in higher esteem than any of our founding fathers, AND Jesus Christ as well. And many of those Tea Baggers who love Reagan--working class people who are suffering through this *sssshhh* depression (with a small "d"), can't grasp that Reagan policies are what led to the loss of their jobs, their pensions, and their tax dollars being funneled to the rich.

Saint Ronnie Raygun is also responsible for amassing such a huge mountaion of debt which we've never been able to pay off, and which has increased with every president since, most notably our current and previous presidents. President Ronald Reagan is more myth and real. Ronald Reagan was a flawed executive--as they all are--ultimately no better or worse than the others who held his job. I believe he had only the best intentions behind his bad decisions to knowingly break the law in the Iran-Contra Operation, he even admits (kind of) his error in judgment--even says some of his advisors were adamant he not pursue an illegal course.

This documentary presents a nice historical perspective on Ronald Reagan's political journey from president of the Screen Actor's Guild; to his initial affiliation as a liberal Democrat and fan of Roosevelt's New Deal; to being questioned in McCarthy's Pink scare in the Communist witchhunt in Hollywood in the 1950s--which though publicly, he did not name names, privately, he had become an FBI informant, giving the FBI a whole bunch of names. Then through the communist controversy, he embraced conservatism, became governor of California, and lost 3 campaigns for GOP presidential nominee before finally getting his party's support in 1980.

This film presents many points of view toward Reagan, from the Saint Ronnie views held by Grover Norquist and his bunch, to the candid views of some of his staff who disagreed with him on policy decisions, reporters who broke the Iran-Contra scandal story, political commentators, and his two sons, Michael and Ron. And here's the kicker: Reagan's views back then were closer to Obama's and Clinton's than to either of the Bushes. Reagan would be a moderate Democrat if his career had begun more recently and he was active in politics with the same views he had then. Ronald Reagan, blue dog Democrat, and not Saint Ronnie of the GOP. Would he have been as memorable as a Democrat? Probably not. He was big government, and even though he blasted big govt with his rhetoric, the size of the federal govt increased under Reagan and both Bushes. Goldwater spun in his grave like a plane propeller.

Reagan is a very fair account of Ronald Reagan's life, it seems by all accounts. It's not a character assassination, and you could argue that some of Reagan's worst moments sort of get glossed over without much depth (like his FBI informant role, the Iran hostage release after his inauguration, etc). While no one says anything horrible about the man, damning evidence is presented that should have knocked Reagan off anyone's high pedestal. He broke the law, and it was an impeachable offense. But he made the rich in this country so much richer, and for that, he is America's favorite president, even by many poor people who are clueless how connected his policies are to their poverty.

I enjoyed the film, and enjoyed the new perspective shown on those days. I was in 6th grade when Reagan was elected and a sophomore in college when his term ended, and during his two terms, I had become politically aware, and opposed his administration quite demonstratively. My mom worked the Republican Convention in Dallas in 1984 as a volunteer, and I was outside in the "Rock Against Reagan" demonstration where punk bands set up their equipment as close to Reunion Arena as we could get. See, there were no Free Speech Zones back then.--jef

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Reagan Mythology

Reagan would be moderate Democrat today, compared to the views of most of today's Republicans. Reagan wanted to eliminate the entire US/USSR missile programs back in the 1980s. Today's GOP would shit their pants twice if that was seriously brought up as part of a debate. They freaked out over Obama's missile treaty, which was practically nothing.


vidlink