Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

They Socialize Costs, Privatize Profits

The Great One, Two Punch
by DAVID ROSEN


There’s a truism about the U.S. political-economy, one being shared by an increasing number of people from all walks of life and political persuasions: the game is rigged!

There are two aspects to the rigged game. One involves the privatization of public services, the outsourcing of public needs to private contractors. Parallel to privatization has been a second con, one more hidden and far more insidious, the rigged roulette – the privatization of profit — that ensures that corporations win and the public get’s stuck with the consequences, the long-term bill.

Privatization is brilliantly simple and has been working efficiently for generations. The ordinary U.S. taxpayer gives up a portion of his/her take-home pay in the form of taxes, whether at the job or at the pump. Like a great vacuum cleaner, “government” at every level of the state apparatus sucks up these dollars. In turn, it doles out the dollars to private contractors who, like pigs at the trough, never stop sucking-up the dollars.

Parallel to the privatization scam is a con that has long been hidden yet is far more insidious. Under this version of Russian roulette, corporations have easily gotten away with the consequences of their deeds. Land was cheep, air and water unlimited, minerals abundant, workers expendable, a sucker was born everyday and you always had friends in government to bail you out when the house of cards collapsed. Who cared about industrial waste, polluted groundwater, ill workers or failed banks, everything was replaceable. Someone else will foot the bill.

In Washington, DC, political insiders – along with their media consorts — are acting out assigned roles in a grand Noh theatre performance, dancing the sequester minuet. They take their positions, move in well-orchestrated patterns, give their well-rehearsed speeches and scheme how to cut the budget to best serve their corporate backers. And in the mean time, the ordinary American gets screwed.

* * *

In the 19th century, as Howard Zinn reminds us, government subsidized the building of canals, the establishment of a merchant marine and the laying of the nation’s first continental railroad system, giving away 100 million free acres — often land once belonging to the native inhabitants — to the railroad tycoons to sweeten the deal.

A generation earlier, the noted historian Charles Beard found a not dissimilar alliance of business interests and government entities in collusion to appropriate taxpayer dollars for private gain. The construction of roadways, public buildings, navy yards and army posts was outsourced to private contractors. When asked who was behind all the public-funded infrastructure construction, he replied: “Business men and farmers who want lower freight rates.” “There is not a chamber of commerce on any Buck Creek in America that will not cheer until tonsils are cracked for any proposal to make the said creek navigable.” These companies not only had infrastructure built to improve their businesses, but had the taxpayer, their customers, pay for it. The game remains rigged.

The privatization scam involves real money. PolitiFact estimates that in 2009 the combined federal and state/local governments sucked up $3.4 trillion. The fed took in the largest portion, some three-fifths ($2.1 trillion) in revenues, compared to the states/localities that collected an estimated $1.3 trillion in taxes. In 2009, the U.S. GNP was $14.1 trillion. Do the math; follow the money.

The classic example of the privatization scam involves the corporate military-industrial complex. In his legendary farewell address, President Eisenhower warned, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” In the half-century since his telling observation, it’s only gotten worse.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that, in 2010, the U.S. spent $235 billion on arms. It identifies the top 5 contractors as:

#1 — Lockheed Martin = arms sales: $35.7 billion, profit: $2.9 billion;

#2 — Boeing = arms sales: $31.4 billion, profit: $2.9 billion;

#3 — Northrop Grumann = arms sales: $28 billion, profit: $2 billion;

#4 — General Dynamics = arms sales: $24 billion, profit: $2.6 billion;

#5 — Raytheon = arms sales: $23 billion, profit: $1.9 billion.

“Privatization” has become the new holy grail of corporate greed, promoted from prisons to schools to sports stadiums. Looking at the sports industry, Judith Grant Long, a Harvard professor of urban planning, argues “the costs of land, infrastructure, operations and lost property taxes add 25 percent to the taxpayer bill for the 121 sports facilities in use during 2010.” She estimates this to be about $10 billion more then the original forecast. Guess who picked up the tab?

The second form of privatization involves companies pursuing private gain without regard to the social consequences, often involving significant health and environmental costs. Those days are ending.

People now recognize, if only intuitively, that things have consequences. A factory or mine that pollutes or genetically-modified food products farmed will likely leave a footprint far longer then the company is in business. The management will walk away fat and happy, the workers, neighbors and consumers bearing the scars. Like Appalachian coalminers, the day-to-day tragedy of digging in a dark hole was nothing compared to the suffering they and their families faced above ground with pneumoconiosis cancer. Coal dust still hovers in Appalachia.

The classic example of the rigged roulette game of socializing costs and privatizing profits is the cigarette business. Evidence that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer was first raised in the mid-1920s and, over the next quarter century, the issue gained traction.

At a now famous meeting at New York’s Plaza Hotel on December 14, 1953, CEOs of six of the seven largest tobacco manufacturers met to orchestrate – “collude” in — a counterattacked. They crafted a well-financed, sophisticated astroturf campaign including smart advertisements, corporate-funded scientific “white papers” and influence peddling with the media and in the halls of Congress. This campaign effectively dragged out legal scrutiny for another quarter century. Profits mounted as more and more smokers got sick and died.

On April 14, 1994, seven tobacco company executives (known as the Seven Dwarves) swore before a Congressional hearing that nicotine was not addictive. In 1998, the attorney generals of 46 states finally signed the Master Settlement Agreement with four of the largest tobacco firms. The deal required the tobacco companies to pay annually a minimum of $206 billion over the first 25 years of the agreement. However, according to one estimate, between 2000 and 2004, smoking continued to cause more than $193 billion in annual health-related costs, including smoking-attributable medical costs and productivity losses.

The most recent version of the rigged-roulette privatized profit scam is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bank bailout. Many have raised serious questions about the program, none more so then Neil Barofsky (the former TARP Inspector General and author of Bailout) and Elizabeth Warren (former chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel and now Senator, MA). One estimate places the total amount of the U.S. government bailout at $16.9 trillion, including expenditures by the Treasury, Federal Reserve and other agencies.

The most egregious expression of maximizing social costs for private gain is the extraction of coal, oil and gas sectors. The associated costs of doing business in the energy industry are nearly impossible to calculate. These companies get subsidies, tax breaks and historically walked away from the messes they left behind. However, as President Obama weighs his decision regarding the Keystone pipeline and Governor Cuomo decides about fracking in New York State, one would only hope that they consider the human, environmental and economic consequences of their decisions.

A 2009 NIH report, “Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life (VSL) Lost” (you have to love bureaucrat speak), found that “annual age-adjusted deaths in coal mining areas ranged from 3,975 to 10,923 … . Corresponding VSL estimates ranged from $18.563 billion to $84.544 billion … .” To this day, the human costs of coal mining, including mountaintop removal, are not included in the real cost of coal.

Another indicator of the real cost of coal is suggested in a 2011 report by the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal.” It places the environmental costs caused by what it terms “all the aspects of coal’s life cycle” at roughly $500 billion annually. In addition, it notes that environment damage adds up to $0.17/kWh to a user’s bill.

Shedding more light on the complexity involved in calculating the social costs of the extraction industries, findings from a 2008 National Academy of Sciences report, “Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline,” are alarming. “For each billion ethanol-equivalent gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the US, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline, $472–952 million for corn ethanol depending on biorefinery heat source (natural gas, corn stover, or coal) and technology, but only $123–208 million for cellulosic ethanol depending on feedstock (prairie biomass, Miscanthus, corn stover, or switchgrass).” Guess who pays the costs?

In the wake of the Newtown, CT, shootings and the one-year anniversary of the killing of Trevon Martin, attention is being directed to the social costs of firearms. IBIS World, a research firm, projects that in 2012 the guns and ammunition industry will hit $11.7 billion in sales and have $993 million in profits.

The social costs resulting from gun violence are difficult to calculate. The University of Chicago Crime Lab estimates it annually at $100 billion. The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) estimated the cost of gun violence in 2010 at $174 billion in terms of work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and the victim’s pain and suffering.

Still other business sectors take advantage of socialized costs to fatten their bottom line. The food industry consists of the inter-linked network of agriculture, packing, retail and fast-food companies that feed the nation. Last year Reuters ran a damning exposé on the social costs associated with obesity. It reported that 34 percent of the public was obese and 6 percent were extremely or “morbidly” obese. Further findings included: the U.S. spent $190 billion annual on medical costs associated with obesity; the Mayo Clinic spent more than four times more for health care on an obese worker ($5,530) — i.e., with a body mass index or BMI of 40 – then a smoker ($1,274); the airline industry spends $5 billion annually for additional jet fuel needed to fly heavier Americans; and drivers spend $4 billion annually more for gasoline so cars can carry heavier passengers.

Similar calculations can be developed for still other industry sectors. Product packers know little of the requirements of the waste disposal industry, yet landfills are clogged, municipalities overwhelmed by garbage and consumers swamped in a sea of non-recyclable plastics. The nuclear industry could find backing from neither private capital nor insurance companies; no wonder, it is a federal insured and subsidized private industry. Guess whose paying for it?

A final example is the telephone companies. It illustrates how social costs can hard the nation’s communications infrastructure and very economic future. They’ve pocketed an estimated $360 billion through questionable rate increases, subsidies, tax breaks and overcharges. Instead of building out the “information superhighway” promised by Al Gore two decades ago, they directed the money to building-out 2nd-rate wireless businesses, overpaying their executives and rewarding stockholders – and all at the customer’s expense. As a result, the U.S. has become a 2nd tier communications nation, ranked 15th in broadband.

* * *

The great con of modern capitalism, one dimension of what the Situationists called the spectacle, is the ability by the ruling class to expropriate social wealth for their private gain. One of the ways it artfully does this is by fleecing the state’s coffers.

The twin cons of privatization and the privatization of profit reveal the inherent crisis of capitalism. Without public subsidies through a zillion well-orchestrated scams, what would be the real costs of true free-market, predatory capitalism? Could private capitalism survive without Americans paying twice, as consumers and taxpayers, to subsidize it?

Monday, September 5, 2011

Small Co. Owners Say Regulations & Taxes NOT Killing Business


by Kevin G. Hall 
WASHINGTON — Politicians and business groups often blame excessive regulation and fear of higher taxes for tepid hiring in the economy. However, little evidence of that emerged when McClatchy canvassed a random sample of small business owners across the nation.

"Government regulations are not 'choking' our business, the hospitality business," Bernard Wolfson, the president of Hospitality Operations in Miami, told The Miami Herald. "In order to do business in today's environment, government regulations are necessary and we must deal with them. The health and safety of our guests depend on regulations. It is the government regulations that help keep things in order."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration, blaming excessive regulation and the administration's overhaul of health care laws for creating an environment of uncertainty that's hampering job creation.

When it's asked what specific regulations harm small businesses _which account for about 65 percent of U.S. jobs — the Chamber of Commerce points to health care, banking and national labor. Yet all these issues weigh much more heavily on big corporations than on small business.

"When you look at regulations in many respects, what a lot of people don't take into account is their secondary impacts," said Giovanni Coratolo, the vice president of small business policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "They pay the price, regardless of whether they are primarily the recipient of the regulation or they are secondarily getting the impact of it. They pay the price in higher costs, whether it is fuel or health care or whether it's being able to find access to capital."

McClatchy reached out to owners of small businesses, many of them mom-and-pop operations, to find out whether they indeed were being choked by regulation, whether uncertainty over taxes affected their hiring plans and whether the health care overhaul was helping or hurting their business.

Their response was surprising.

None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it. Some pointed to the lack of regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 2007-09 and its grim aftermath.

Wolfson's firm is readying to open a Hampton Inn this year in Miami on land purchased from a condo developer during the housing downturn. His business could be in line for higher taxes if President Barack Obama allows the current, lower rates on the richest Americans to expire in 2012 and return to previous levels.

That didn't seem to bother Wolfson, who through his partnership declares profit and loss as a pass-through on his personal income taxes, as many small businesses do.

"Higher taxes are not good for business, but some of the loopholes and deductions should be looked at," he said.

The answer from Rick Douglas — the owner of Minit Maids, a cleaning service with 17 employees in Charlotte, N.C. — was more blunt.

"I think the rich have to be taxed, sorry," Douglas said. He added that he isn't facing a sea of new regulations but that he does struggle with an old issue, workers' compensation claims.
Douglas told The Charlotte Observer that he's hired more workers this year, citing pent-up demand from customers.

"My theory is that the people that do have jobs are working harder and they have less time to clean. People were holding back for such a long time, and then they started spending a little more," he said.

Then there's Rip Daniels. He owns four businesses in Gulfport, Miss.: real estate ventures, a radio station and a boutique hotel/bistro. He said his problem wasn't regulation.

"Absolutely, positively not. What is choking my business is insurance. What's choking all business is insurance. You cannot go into business, any business — small business or large business — unless you can afford insurance," he told Biloxi's Sun Herald.

Since 2008, Daniels has opened one business and expanded another, hiring as many as 15 people thanks to lower labor costs and an abundance of overqualified job candidates. He credits the federal stimulus effort with helping to keep some smaller firms afloat.

"It allowed those folks to spend and have money and pay for the essentials," said Daniels, whose business pays corporate taxes. He grudgingly supports closing some business tax deductions to reduce the federal budget deficit.

"Who wants to pay more? I certainly don't. I want to pay my fair share, and I do," Daniels said, adding that he wouldn't resist loophole closures to cut deficits.

For Zajic Appliance in south Sacramento, California's capital city, business also has picked up. The company hired two workers this year, bringing the total to 18, said Christopher Zajic, who manages the family business.

One odd reason for his improving business: sales of bank-owned properties in a city that's among those hardest hit by the housing crash. When these houses sell, he said, their new owners generally replace appliances.

California used some of its federal stimulus money to pay for a "Cash for Appliances" program last year, a rebate program for purchases of energy-efficient washing machines and refrigerators.

"It spiked sales," Zajic told The Sacramento Bee, adding that he thinks the effort simply compressed sales into a shorter time period rather than created new demand.

For many small businesses, their chief problem is an old one: navigating the bureaucracy of the Small Business Administration to secure government-backed loans.

"My biggest problem is the current status of the banking system and how it's being over-regulated," Dennis Sweeney, a co-owner of Summit Sportswear Inc., told The Kansas City Star. "I want to grow this business, and I'm using the same credit line that I've been using for five years."

Kansas City-based Summit, 20 years old, supplies college-licensed clothing to university bookstores in four Midwestern states. Sweeney hired his fourth employee in August. He's adding licenses to sell apparel to colleges in the Southeast and Atlantic region, but his company doesn't have inventory or other collateral that bankers usually want to secure loans.

And the small local banks Summit deals with frown on the red tape required for SBA loans, after a loan he got in 2008 took three months of nightmarish documentation.

"It was only $35,000," Sweeney said. "Our bank basically said it would never do that again."
Other small firms say their problem is simply a lack of customers.

"I think the business climate is so shaky that I would not want to undergo any expansion or outlay capital," said Andy Weingarten, who owns Almar Auto Repair in Charlotte. He's thinking about hiring one more mechanic.

Added Barry Grant, the regional president of Meritage Homes Corp., in California, "It starts with jobs. ... There's an awful lot of people sitting on the fence; they're waiting for a sign."

One reason hiring remains dampened is the prolonged slump in the housing sector, a driver of the pre-crisis economy. Meritage builds homes in California and six other states. It'll build fewer than 1,000 homes in the Golden State this year, well below the 2,500 annually it built during boom times.

Another cause of sagging demand for new houses, Grant told The Sacramento Bee, is the planned October change to loan limits in order for a homeowner to qualify for a federal government-insured home loan. It was boosted to as high as $769,000 in parts of the country during the financial crisis, but Republicans in Congress have pushed for a return to lower limits and less government involvement in the housing market.

In Sacramento County, the change would mean a new loan limit of $474,000 to qualify, well below the current $580,000. Around the nation, the loan-limit change has created uncertainty.

"Any uncertainty in the market makes people hold off," said Grant. "It builds a certain level of uncertainty."

Sometimes a small business's struggle has nothing to do with government at all.
Lynn Swager, a co-owner of Brass on Ivory in Edgewater, Md., sells, rents and repairs musical instruments. She faces a completely different sort of challenge.

"The thing that chokes us, believe or not, is the Internet. There are so many things that are accessible on the Internet that they can purchase for less than I can purchase from my distributor," Swager told McClatchy. "Everybody thinks the Internet is this great thing that is happening to the world, but it is really, I think, killing a lot of small business. People that we talk to that are no longer in business say the same thing exactly."

Saturday, May 14, 2011

"The Rich" Don't "Create Jobs" -- We Do!

By Dave Johnson | Sourced from Campaign for America's Future
 
 You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"
Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.
Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.
Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged.
Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,
I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”
"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation: you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation. In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

 The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy -- with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy &The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this because those who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Tax Day in America: A People Without a Vision Will Perish

Friday, April 1, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
by Joseph Gerson

How does it feel to know that nearly 60% of your tax dollars this year will pay for our present and future wars, not for your family’s or communities’ needs?

Our nation is in trouble, and the diagnosis is as old as the Bible, which warns that “A people without a vision will perish”. Our nation has lost its way, and its people are in trouble. People continue to lose their jobs, services, and economic security, while we spend ever greater sums in the disastrous pursuit of global military supremacy.

Consider: the combined debt of our fifty states is $140 billion. That’s a lot of money, about what we spend annually for the self-defeating “wars of choice” in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. They will likely have cost $3 trillion by the time our grandchildren finish paying for them.

Our nation spends roughly as much for war and war preparations as the rest of the world combined. Does that buy real security? Our people suffer the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized developed nation, and infant morality is a key indicator of a nation’s societal and future economic health. We’ve suffered a tsunami of housing foreclosures, and we have yet to find our way out of the “jobless recovery” from the country’s greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

What about the cost health care and human services? That’s just 7% of the Federal government’s discretionary spending. Education: what our children need to find jobs and a critical foundation of any democracy? That’s just 6%, and unlike other “developed” nations, most of our graduates begin adulthood with staggering debt from their college loans.

Between tax cuts for the rich and continuing increases in military spending, our communities have been set on the path of de-development, with catastrophic consequences. With the national cuts in block cuts and other spending reductions mean that in the world’s richest nation, we must suffer cuts in health care and programs for the elderly and disabled. Education is increasingly essential, but head start is being reduced, teachers are being laid off by the thousands, class sizes growing, and Pell Grant loans that working and middle class students need for college are withering. Police and fire fighters are losing their jobs, while job training programs are cut.

The budget surplus that President Bush the Lesser inherited from President Clinton didn’t evaporate magically. It was mugged in the back alleys and dark corners of the White House, Congress the Pentagon and K Street. Bush’s tax write off for the super rich, extended by the last lame duck Congressional session, took $2.5 trillion from our communities. $2.5 trillion! That’s quite enough to ensure decent housing and health care for all, to educate our children, to build the infrastructure fueled by sustainable energy that our nation needs to be competitive in the 21st century, and to be paying down the national debt.

The Pentagon’s budget, far and away the world’s largest a decade ago, has doubled since 9-11. Meanwhile our people enjoy less real security. Despite President Obama’s pledge to work for a nuclear weapons free world, $185 billion has been committed to modernize the country’s preparations for nuclear war. Plans are afoot to replace our fleets of Trident nuclear submarines and nuclear bombers. Two decades after the Cold War, we still spend more than $100 billion a year to deploy hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops around the world on an estimated 1,000 foreign military bases, including more than 100 across Japan and more than twice that number in Europe.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Instead of seeking diplomatic or nonviolent solutions to the Libyan crisis, for example urging our Turkish allies to mediate the crisis or urging the Pope, the heads of the Councils of Churches and other renowned religious leaders to serve as human shields, we launched hundreds of cruise missiles and B-2 bomber attacks in yet another unnecessary and very uncertain “war of choice.”

Fifty years ago, outgoing Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the “subversive tentacles” of the “military industrial complex” created to fight two world wars were undermining U.S. democracy. A half century later they are undermining our real security as well.

As anyone who has traveled or lived in Western Europe knows, by cutting our military spending we can enjoy a higher and more secure standard of living. It’s time to refocus our vision and to reorder our priorities.

Monday, January 17, 2011

The New Feudalism

Friday, January 14, 2011 – by Daily Bell Staff Report

TSA Pays Off In Breast Exposure Suit ... Texas woman, 24, receives "nominal" settlement ... The woman who sued the Transportation Security Administration after her breasts were exposed during a frisking at a Texas airport will receive a "nominal" payment from the government as part of a legal settlement ... The settlement was disclosed in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in Amarillo, where Lynsie Murley last year filed a lawsuit accusing the TSA of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with the May 2008 incident at the Corpus Christi airport. – Smoking Gun

Dominant Social Theme: Fairness is the least that can be expected.

Free-Market Analysis: A new feudalism is being born. It is a quite deliberate effort of the power elite in our view, but people don't notice it – or haven't verbalized it – because it is difficult to analyze something when one is in the middle of it. But the feudal evolution is surely occurring. We can see its signature in the article above but there are many other signs.

Feudalism's "flourishing" or time-span was between ninth and 15th century, apparently. It was not a formal system but a sociopolitical evolution of relationships between various power nexuses. Wikipedia describes feudalism as "a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a ‘feudal society.'"

The evolution of the new feudalism can be seen in various ways, including the erosion of property rights for the middle class and the increasing molding of employment around the vast portfolios of the powers-that-be. (Lawyers and accountants are in high-demand.) The Western middle classes – especially in America where they have been the most vital – are under sustained attack. Taxes, inflation and unemployment are signatures of such a society, along with expansive regulations.

Of course the economic issues mentioned above have been features of Western regulatory democracies for some time. What is changing is the regulatory environment and people's attitudes towards its enforcement. Partially as a result of a bad economy, people are more willing to put up with a level of authoritarianism that would have disturbed them years ago. Ms. Murley is something of an exception, yet even here it is not her reaction that is so noteworthy as the attitude of those who harassed her. Here's some more from the article:

The 24-year-old Murley alleged that after being "singled out for extended search procedures," a TSA agent frisked her and "pulled Plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing Plaintiff's breasts to everyone in the area." Her complaint noted that, "as would be expected," Murley was "extremely embarrassed and humiliated." Murley charged that TSA employees "joked and laughed about the incident for an extended period of time." After leaving the security line to be "consoled by an acquaintance who had brought her to the airport," Murley returned to the line, where a male TSA worker said that he had wished he was there when she first passed through. The employee, Murley recalled, added that "he would just have to watch the video."

There is a sense of entitlement, even arrogance, among TSA employees, or so it seems; and this is evidently and obviously shared by other government workers in the US, including law enforcement officials. There are endless reports in mainstream media of inappropriate use of tazers, and of outright shootings; the drug-war has been especially corrosive to American civil rights, encouraging government "takings" of private property without due process. Government service is increasingly glorified, if not rhetorically than through compensation. The average government worker apparently makes up to 50 percent more than the average individual in the private sector.

The inequities are increasingly obvious. Senior government officials contravene tax laws without penalty; central banks hand out trillions to favored financial firms and corporations; government secrecy is increasingly enshrined by judicial fiat along with the ever-expanding power of the US executive bench via authoritarian executive orders. As the inequities increase, so does the arrogance. Gradually a two-tier society is created.

At the center of the new feudalism, apparently, are the Anglosphere's great banking families and assorted appendages: major multinationals and even elements of church institutions. Beyond the core are lesser families and wealthy entrepreneurs, along with the corporate and government lieges that carry out the will of the central core. Still further down are government workers, soldiers, intelligence agents and others working within formal government institutions. In the private sector, lawyers, accountants and academic professors provide resources for the emergence of the new feudalism. Then, finally, there are the vassals ... everyone else.

The new feudalism is evidently to be worldwide; and the drive toward increased global governance is to be accompanied by eroding economic conditions, food insecurity and heightened authoritarianism. There is evidently and obviously a pattern in what is occurring; a level of planning seems evident and the implementation is ongoing. On the other hand, as we have pointed out, there has been a shock to the system: the Internet, the advent of which was unexpected. It has resulted in close scrutiny of the emergent new feudalism and may yet help ameliorate it.

Conclusion: The new feudalism is not being built openly but in secret; society is to be reorganized gradually and without any fanfare. But it is difficult to conduct a pan-social reconfiguration under the bright lights of electronic scrutiny. The Tea Party in America and the austerity riots in Europe are but two examples of the Internet's impact in our view. And just yesterday, protests flared in Tunisia, with much of the organizing apparently taking place on Facebook as occurred previously in Iran. Signs of the new feudalism are widespread; but because of the ‘Net, its imposition remains somewhat problematic.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Revenge of the Deficit-Haters

Death and Taxes
By SAUL LANDAU

That cliché in modern America should get re-worded: “Taxes Equal Death.” In 2010, unique in the world, the US military budget absorbs the lion’s share of the federal budget, under the aegis of security but actually to wage seemingly permanent war. The amount spent on the military equals approximately what all other nations together allocate for “defense.”

Each year, led by deficit-haters, Congress hands the Pentagon its annual spending money (about $1 trillion counting intelligence and nuclear weapons). For the last nine years the mention of “9/11” provides the only phrase necessary to get this outrageous sum passed by both Houses.

But the destruction of the twin towers and the damage to the Pentagon came from 19 fiends with box cutters and a death wish. So why combat this “threat” by funding the army, navy and air force and their high tech battlefield equipment? Well, they are fighting “militants” and insurgents” in Afghanistan and Iraq -- places where the 9/11 sky-jackers were not.

Ironically, the loudest complainers about paying taxes become the most eloquent advocates of spending more on the military – the leading Republicans and their certifiably moronic Palinesque supporters.

One could argue that these deficit and war hawks belong to a secret society of ghouls who intimidate the rest of Congress and the public into funding devastation. After nine years in Afghanistan and 7 plus in Iraq the most obvious results of this trillion dollar plus effort are lots of dead and maimed people, many of them civilians; tens of thousands of houses turned into rubble and assorted damage to infrastructure and other public property. US tax-payers can rightfully claim a role in not only the killing, but for some of their burials (coffins and flags) as well.

Those dead people over there, of course, have relatives, some of whom will plot revenge on us -- in very low-tech ways. (Recall the jerks who were fortunately foiled on airplanes before detonating their shoes and underwear!). Military spending has arguably increased not only the number of US foes around the world, but the federal deficit as well. And for tens of millions – not the rich-- life has become worse. Remember Bin Laden the Evil swore he would bankrupt this country!

Well, we pay federal, state, local, sales, property, luxury, estate and you name it taxes. But we see less benefit from them. The country has dramatically declined in its levels of public education, health and transportation. Rights once won by unions like paid sick and parental leaves, decent vacations, and secure pensions have shriveled. Costs for old age and child-care have rocketed upwards. Government-backed affordable housing? Forget it! Some wusses still think of these services as fulfilling basic needs.

Most Europeans of course get these benefits by paying taxes. But European and most people in other developed countries have small (realistic) defense budgets – they must feel so insecure – which allows them to fund citizens’ basic needs.

The Glen Becks, Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins charge anyone backing such “European” models as traitorous -- abandoning the hallowed “free market” and selling precious “individual liberty” for a few comforts. (Anyone ever see photos of any of the above advocates in anything less than sartorial comfort?) Should Americans receive such services from their government? Why, we would lose our “special” qualities and becomes socialistically inclined!

The Republican congressional mountebanks and some rightist Democrats-- among the few who receive European class benefits thanks to their jobs --believe the rest of the country should pay through their noses for HMOs and high priced assisted living facilities. The rich have stock in both.

High mortgage payments and fears of foreclosures (300,000 in July), worries about getting sick, not having money for the kids’ tuitions? All those anxieties build character.

The almost 50 million Americans who still lack health coverage and those denied coverage by HMOs may die earlier than they should but they show their grit, like the millionaire John Wayne – in the movies.

Americans spend three times more per capita on old-age care than Europeans. Sixty million American workers don’t get sick leave, parental leave is minimal following a birth. Europeans receive these benefits – and more --by paying taxes. “Americans,” concludes Steven Hill in the Guardian, “pay out just as much as Europeans – but we receive a lot less for our money.” (“What do we get for our US tax dollars?” (April 15, 2010)

The rich don’t want to pay taxes. They don’t use public schools, health facilities or transportation – so why should they pay for them? Cops and fire departments of course keep thieves away and protect expensive things – worth paying for.

Democrats traditionally represented the poor and middle classes who didn’t complain about paying for good public education, basic heath services and smooth-flowing public transportation. The good old days -- before taxes translated primarily into death.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Debate on death and taxes heats up as billionaires fall

The question of death and taxes has risen to the fore in Washington as the demise of prominent billionaires has underscored a fluke which allows big estates to escape taxes, but only for this year.

Highlighting the conundrum has been the death of wealthy Americans including oil tycoon Dan Duncan and New York Yankees baseball owner George Steinbrenner, who can pass on their fortunes to heirs with no taxes. Duncan's fortune was estimated at nine billion dollars and Steinbrenner's at 1.1 billion by Forbes magazine.

If they had died in 2009 or 2011, their estates would have paid huge amounts of taxes to the US Treasury. The heirs avoided the tax man because a law enacted in 2001 under president George W. Bush phased out the estate tax entirely in 2010.

But the law expires in 2011, putting the tax back into effect at 2001 levels, with rates up to 55 percent.

Lawmakers and others claim it is folly for the government to allow such dramatic changes in the inheritance tax depending on the year of death, and are pressing for quick reform.

Some activists say the estate tax is progressive because it distributes wealth from the richest; but critics deride it as a "death tax" and claim it hurts farms and family businesses when an owner dies.

Senator Bernie Sanders called on fellow lawmakers to restore the tax quickly, while offering a compromise with an exemption at 2009 levels of 3.5 million dollars and with extra protections for family farms.

"For the first time since 1916, the heirs to multimillion and billion-dollar fortunes are able to receive their entire inheritance free of federal taxes, costing at least 14.8 billion dollars in lost revenue in 2010 alone," Sanders said in a letter to fellow senators.

"At a time when we have a record-breaking 13 trillion dollar national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit, people who inherit multimillion and billion dollar estates must pay their share in estate taxes."

Some wealthy Americans have been supporting a new estate tax, even if it may cost them a hefty sum.

A group of millionaires and heirs to major fortunes joined a call in July by United for a Fair Economy, a group fighting economic inequality, for a new estate tax.

Among those joining the call were hedge fund manager Julian Robertson and Abigail Disney, grandniece of Walt Disney.

Disney said her family amassed its fortune "not in spite of, but because of the American system of taxation" and said the country needs "reliable and safe roads" and "functioning legal systems" funded by tax dollars.

But others want to bury the estate tax permanently, saying it often destroys businesses and farms.

"The death tax is an unfair, immoral double tax on property and assets that folks have already paid taxes on throughout their lives," said Senator Jim DeMint, who is proposing a permanent repeal.

DeMint said that by doing nothing, President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party allies are effectively putting the old estate tax back into effect, which has rates of 55 percent for amounts above one million dollars.

Some argue that ending the estate tax would put a dent in charitable contributions and bequests by reducing the tax incentive for giving.

Bob Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute said that in 2009, when estates faced a 45 percent tax rate, "giving away a dollar cost only 55 cents after taxes" but that "this year, with no estate tax and thus no tax savings, that cost nearly doubled to a full dollar."

Because of the circumstances, both sides in the debate have an incentive to reach a compromise. But one key question is whether Congress would seek to impose any tax retroactively that would affect the estates of Duncan, Steinbrenner and others who died in 2010.

Garrett Spangler, a lawyer specializing in estate planning in Philadelphia, said the uncertainty has made it hard for some to decide on bequests and other issues.

"It has put people in a holding pattern," he said. "A lot of planners are unsure what the future holds, so we are not drafting documents that are too specific because we don't know what the law will be next year."

Spangler said that more than halfway through 2010, Congress is unlikely pass a retroactive measure that could create considerable practical problems and legal challenges.

"It's going to cause more problems the later they do it," Spangler said.

"As each day goes by it becomes increasingly less likely there would be a retroactive tax."

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/249796/debate_on_death__and_taxes_heats_up_as_billionaires_fall/

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Administration Now Defends Health Insurance Mandate as a Tax

Changing its Stance
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Record U.S. Income Gap Growing Again

By Jon Perr Monday Jul 12, 2010





In June, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirmed that gap between rich and poor in the United States reached levels not seen since 1929. Between 1979 and 2007, the yawning chasm separating the after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of Americans from the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled. But while the Bush recession which began in December 2007 temporarily halted the stratospheric advance of the wealthy, the rich - and the rich alone - have largely recovered their losses. Which means that the record level of income inequality in America is growing once again.

The CBPP report found a financial Grand Canyon separating the very rich from everyone else. Over the three decades ending in 2007, the top 1 percent's share of the nation's total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent. During that time, the share of the middle 60% of Americans dropped from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent; the bottom four-fifths declined from 58 percent to 48 percent. As for the poor, they fell further and further behind, with the lowest quintile's income share sliding to just 4.9%. Expressed in dollar terms, the income gap is staggering:
Between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent rose by 281 percent after adjusting for inflation -- an increase in income of $973,100 per household -- compared to increases of 25 percent ($11,200 per household) for the middle fifth of households and 16 percent ($2,400 per household) for the bottom fifth.
To be sure, the deficit-exploding Bush tax cuts played an essential role in fueling the gap. (This is evidenced by the fact that between 2001 and 2007, the income share of the 400 richest American taxpayers doubled even as their tax rates were halved.) As the New York Times revealed in October, by 2007 the top 1% - the 1.5 million families earning more than $400,000 - reaped 24% of the nation's income. The bottom 90% - the 136 million families below $110,000 - accounted for just 50%.

But with the devastating Bush recession, the upper class joy ride hit a speed bump. As the media last fall lamented the downturn's impact on the tragically rich, David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant of the New York Times concluded concluded, "After a 30-year run, [the] rise of the super-rich hits a sobering wall."
They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality.
But economists say -- and data is beginning to show -- that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon.
As it turned out, that time wasn't just soon. It's already here.


The Los Angeles Times announced the return of record-setting income inequality last month in an article titled, "Millionaires Make a Comeback." After getting pummeled as Wall Street plummeted in 2008, the rich have begun to recoup their losses. The short period of Gilded Interrupted is over:
In 2008, as the financial crisis raged, the stock market hit bottom and the Great Recession ate into the economy, the number of millionaires in the United States plunged.
But last year the number of millionaires bounced up sharply, new data show.
And after that decline and rebound, the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007.
"It's been a recession where everyone took a hit -- with the bottom taking a bigger hit," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin professor who studies economic inequality. But "the wealthy alone have bounced back."
Bounced back, it turns out, with a vengeance. The Boston Consulting Group found that "the number of U.S. households with at least $1 million in "bankable" assets climbed 15% last year to 4.7 million after tumbling 21% in 2008." Despite there being 10% fewer millionaires than in 2007, the percentage of Americans' total wealth held by those households was slightly higher, growing to 55%.


Writing in the Washington PostEzra Klein neatly summed up the dynamic which has restored income inequality to record highs:
The basic story here is that assets have recovered so much more quickly than the broader economy that in 2009, "the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country's wealth than it did in 2007." In other words, inequality has actually gotten worse. If you want to see why that's unexpected, check out the chart I cadged from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: After the Great Depression, inequality fell and didn't recover until 2007. That's about 80 years. After the Great Recession, inequality fell and didn't recover until ... 2009? That's one year.

For his part, Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute argued, "The recession is going to end up accentuating the inequalities of income and wealth we've seen for 30 years," adding, "This requires attention if we're going to see robust wealth growth going forward."

Which is exactly right. Sadly, Republican obstructionists in Washington are only paying attention to those who need it least. Before they united to block the extension of unemployment benefits to the long-term jobless, Republicans delivered a one-year suspension of the estate tax. And even as that gambit drains billions from the U.S. Treasury to produce a one-year windfall for the heirs of the richest Americans, the GOP and its Tea Party shock troops insist on making the expiring Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent.


As the numbers on income inequality clearly show, only one side is fighting the class war in America. It should come as no surprise that they are winning it.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

More Cities on Brink of Bankruptcy

Posted By: Kate Kelly | CNBC Reporter
26 May 2010 | 11:01 AM ET

The possibility of a bankruptcy filing by the city of Harrisburg, Pa., the state capital, looms large these days—and it could be the first in a series, say some Wall Street traders.

Harrisburg, population 55,000, owes nearly $70 million in debt payments this year, and it's unclear where that money will come from.

Harrisburg now has one of the lowest credit ratings of any municipality in the United States.

Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson told CNBC Wednesday that she had assembled a group of bond stakeholders, the city council and other interested parties to work out the crisis "so that we don't become the poster child of the world in terms of bankruptcy."

Municipal bond underwriters are monitoring Harrisburg, which has struggled to contain the costs of financing a troubled incinerator project.

In 2003, the city borrowed $125 million to expand and retrofit its incinerator, which officials thought would make money for Harrisburg. The incinerator re-opened five years later, but it's turned out to be nothing but a money drain.

On May 1, the city missed a $452,282 loan payment related to the incinerator.

Raising taxes or selling assets, like real estate or parking lots, are options for Harrisburg. So is a restructuring plan—either inside or outside of bankruptcy.

If Harrisburg does file for bankruptcy, it would do so under Chapter 9—which is employed by cities, but rarely. In one closely watched case, the city of Vallejo, Calif., has been in Chapter 9 since 2008.

About the Harrisburg situation, Jim Lebenthal, head of public affairs for the longtime municipal-bond underwriter, Lebenthal & Co., said that while filing for Chapter 9 would be a small matter in the scheme of things, it's "emblematic" of the larger economic struggles that cities face right now. "If it can happen in a state capital, my God, it can happen anywhere," said Lebenthal.

The overall problem is that the $2.8 trillion muni bond market, long considered one of the safest havens for investors, now faces a daunting level of debt, as cities from Los Angeles to New York struggle with an array of headaches, including less tax revenue and high labor costs.

According to remarks made by Harrisburg mayor Thompson in April, the city spends rought 70 percent of its annual budget on labor.

Cities can always raise taxes to fight a budget shortfall. But costly projects, fewer people in the workforce and more demand for city services can make budgets tough to square these days.

Financial firms underwrite bond offerings for cities and public-works projects, and the default rate on muni bonds has historically been quite low—less than 1 percent—compared to nearly 13 percent for corporate bonds, according to ratings agency figures.

In that sense, the Street encourages investors to go long municipalities.

But investors and the Street can also short munis through credit default swaps, or CDS policies that pay out if an entity defaults.

The Markit MCDX, an index that tracks the cost of insuring against default of a basket of 50 municipalities, is on a recent high of $173,000 for $10 million of protection on a five-year bond—a point last reached near the beginning of this year. A swap that would pay out if the state of Pennsylvania defaults cost $112,000 for the same $10 million amount.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Will Congress Finally Tax The Billionaires?

Wall Street tycoons get taxed at lower rates the the people who clean their buildings. Congress might be about to change that.
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on May 27, 2010

Who could be opposed to closing a tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private equity managers to treat their earnings as capital gains – and pay a rate of only 15 percent rather than the 35 percent applied to ordinary income?

Answer: Some of the nation’s most prominent and wealthiest private asset managers, such as Paul Allen and Henry Kravis, who, along with hordes of lobbyists, are determined to keep the loophole wide open.

The House has already tried three times to close it only to have the Senate cave in because of campaign donations from these and other financiers who benefit from it.

But the measure will be brought up again in the next few weeks, and this time the result could be different. Few senators want to be overtly seen as favoring Wall Street. And tax revenues are needed to help pay for extensions of popular tax cuts, such as the college tax credit that reduces college costs for tens of thousands of poor and middle class families. Closing this particular loophole would net some $20 billion.

It’s not as if these investment fund managers are worth a $20 billion subsidy. Nonetheless they argue that if they have to pay at the normal rate they’ll be discouraged from investing in innovative companies and startups. But if such investments are worthwhile they shouldn’t need to be subsidized. Besides, in the years leading up to the crash of 2008, hedge-fund and private equity fund managers weren’t exactly models of public service. Many speculated in ways that destabilized the whole financial system.

Nor are these fund managers especially deserving, as compared to poor and middle-class families that need a tax break to send their kids to college. Nor are they particularly needy. Last year, the 25 most successful hedge-fund managers earned a billion dollars each. One of them earned 4 billion dollars. (Paul Allen’s personal yacht holds two luxury submarines and a helicopter. Henry Kravis is one of the wealthiest people in the world.)

Several of these private investment fund managers, by the way, have taken a lead in the national drive to cut the federal budget deficit. The senior chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, one of the largest private equity funds, is Peter G. Peterson, who never tires of telling the nation it faces economic ruin if deficits aren’t brought under control. Curiously, I have not heard Peterson advocate closing this tax loophole as one way to further the cause of fiscal responsibility.

Closing tax loopholes for billionaires may seem like a no-brainer, especially at a time when the nation is cutting back spending on the middle class — slashing budgets that fund child care, public schools, and public universities. Tens of thousands of teachers are getting pink slips.

But you can expect a huge fight.

There is also a moral issue here. Call me old fashioned but I just think it’s wrong that a single hedge fund manager earns a billion dollars, when a billion dollars would pay the salaries of about 20,000 teachers.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Where Your Taxes Go

The Pentagon's Escalating Share
By DAVE LINDORFF

If you’re like me, now that we’re in the week that federal income taxes are due, you are finally starting to collect your records and prepare for the ordeal. Either way, whether you are a procrastinator like me, or have already finished and know how much you have paid to the government, it is a good time to stop and consider how much of your money goes to pay for our bloated and largely useless and pointless military.

The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which has to be voted by Congress by this Oct. 1, looks to be about $3 trillion, not counting the funds collected for Social Security (since the Vietnam War, the government has included the Social Security Trust Fund in the budget as a way to make the cost of America’s imperial military adventures seem smaller in comparison to the total cost of government). Meanwhile, the military share of the budget works out to about $1.6 trillion.

That figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $708 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding, called “overseas contingency funding” in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some $40 billion or more in “black box” intelligence agency funding, $94 billion in non-DOD military spending (that’s for stuff like the military share of NASA funding, the miilitary operations of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the military activities of the State Dept., etc.), $100 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and $400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military.

The 2011 military budget, by the way, is the largest in history, not just in actual dollars, but in inflation-adjusted dollars, exceeding even the spending in World War II, when the nation was on an all-out war footing.

This military spending in all its myriad forms represents 53.3% of total US federal spending.

It’s also a budget that is rising at a faster pace than any other part of the budget (with the possible exception of bailing out crooked Wall Street financial firms and their managers). For the past decade, and continuing under the present administration, military budgets have been rising at a 9% annual clip, making health care inflation look tame by comparison.

US military spending isn’t just half of the US budget. It is also half of the entire global spending on war and weaponry. In 2009, according to the venerable War Resisters League, US military spending accounted for 47% of all money spent globally on war, weapons and military preparedness, and that share has certainly risen in the subsequent two years. What makes that staggering figure particularly ridiculous is that America’s allies--countries like France, Britain, Germany, Italy, and Japan--account for another 21% of the world’s military spending. Fully 12 of the top-spenders among big military-spending nations are either allies of the US, or are friendly countries like Brazil and India. That is to say, America and its friends and allies account for more than two-thirds of all military spending worldwide.

Who is the real threat to peace here?

China, in contrast, probably the closest thing to a real “threat” to American interests because of America’s treaty commitments to the island nation of Taiwan, and China’s claim that the island is an integral part of the PRC, spends only some $130 billion on its military, much of which is actually devoted to maintaining military control over the country’s own 1.3 billion people, some of whom might prefer to be independent, or to be freer, if they weren’t under a military jackboot.

The next biggest military spender, Russia, spends less than $80 billion a year on its decrepit military--one-twentieth of the US, and isn’t even technically an enemy of the America anymore. Its military is largely busy keeping restive regions from spinning off from the mother country, anyhow.

Meanwhile Iran, which the White House and Congress are portraying as America’s arch enemy despite its not having invaded another country in hundreds of years, isn’t even on the list of the top 17 military big-spenders. Iran’s current military budget is a teensy $4.8 billion, about the same as the estimated $5 billion spent on the military by North Korea--America’s other “major enemy.” Each of those country’s military budgets is about one-quarter of the military budget of Australia, or a third of the military budget of the Netherlands.

Just to give one an idea of how small $4.8 billion is in comparison to the $1.6 trillion that the US is spending each year on war and planning for war, that number is roughly what the Pentagon plans to spend over the next year on childcare and youth programs, morale and recreation programs and commissaries on its bases! It’s about what the Pentagon will spend acquiring replacement Seahawk, Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters this year.

For the average American, what all this means is that of every dollar you send to the IRS, 53 cents will be going to pay for blowing stuff up, fattening the wallets of colonels, admirals and generals, bloating the portfolios of investors in military industries, and of course funding the bonuses paid to executives of those companies, and the campaign chests and expense accounts of the members of Congress who vote for these outlandish budgets. Your money will also be going to pay for the salaries and the bullets of those brave heroes over in Afghanistan who are executing kids, killing pregnant women (and then digging out the bullets and claiming they were stabbed by their families), and for the anti-personnel weapons that are creating legions of legless Afghan kids.

Next time you hear that the government needs to cut funds for providing medical care to the children of laid-off workers, or that supplemental unemployment funds are running out, next time you hear that federal funds that are needed to fund extra teachers at your school are being cut, or that Social Security benefits need to be cut back, or the retirement age needs to be increased to 70, next time you hear that your local post office has to be shut down for lack of funds, next time you hear that Medicare benefits need to be reduced, think about that 53% of your tax payment that is going to finance the most enormous war machine the world has ever known.

And ask yourself: Is this really necessary? Is this really where I want my money going? Is this really making us safer, or our nation more secure?

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Exxon pays zero income taxes...

...While Americans count pennies

“Only the little people pay taxes” -Leona Helmsley

Recently, I wrote about the newest scam to screw hardworking people. It involves several Fortune 500 firms that have hired a company called Talx to wrestle workers’ unemployment benefits away from them.

This is how corporations “handle” the messy human contact aspects of running a business. They hire a third party to come in and do the dirty work of dealing with unsanitary stuff: emotions, workers’ livelihoods, mental breakdowns, etc.

For example, Wal-Mart hired Talx to steal the unemployment benefits of Gerald Grenier, a mentally handicapped night janitor because he allegedly stole some coins from a vending machine (Grenier says he forgot to turn in the change).

Corporations also import other jackals to “restructure” and “downsize” their beloved cogs to avoid any unnecessary unpleasantness like a workplace shooting. Everything — anything — can and should be outsourced, downsized, and restructured if it eventually results in expanding profits.

But it appears the corporation’s loyalty extends only to its own bottom line. According to the GAO, the vast majority (66%) of 1.3 million corporations, pay no federal income taxes. A quarter of the 1000 largest U.S. corporations (those with over $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales) fail to pay any taxes.

At a time when Americans are suffering the most, many corporations refuse to give back to the country.

On Monday, unemployment benefits expired for tens of thousands of unemployed Americans. Approximately 212,000 will lose their coverage this week alone. Fifteen million people are unemployed. The unemployment rate in Detroit is over 20 percent (some estimates put unemployment much higher at around 50 percent), while other estimates place the unemployment of black males in Detroit at 70 percent.

Comparatively, check out the behavior of ExxonMobil, a frequent target of vituperative screeds, but deservedly so. In 2009, Exxon paid zero dollars in US income taxes. Zilch. Nada.

They can do this via a process of sheltering their revenues in foreign tax havens (as I briefly mentioned in my last post). Forbes explains the whole dastardly process, including the wondrous Exxon update.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Here’s the really funny part: Exxon is still crying about unfair taxation on its “issues page” (h/t Mojo).

This is a corporation that has hoarded some of the most obscene profits the world has ever seen. Exxon once paid a single idiot $400 million to stop working. The company poisons the environment (while simultaneously advancing global warming denialist myths,) and engages in human rights abuses and illegal trading. At the same time, Exxon successfully bought off both political parties to maintain the level of federal regulatory incompetence to which it’s become accustomed.

When corporations squirrel away profits in foreign havens, it deprives the United States Treasury of anywhere from $10 billion to $20 billion in lost tax revenue each year, according to a Tax Notes study. If Gerald got busted for stealing vending machine coins, surely Exxon should get busted for stealing $10 billion from the US Treasury.

Americans are constantly force fed the narrative of “tightening their belts” and “sharing the sacrifice”, but this is always a one-way road designed for the poor. The really sad part is watching poor people breathlessly defend the helpless Exxon corporation against the bad ol’ Socialists who want to tax them at a fair rate, while screeching — in all seriousness — global warming isn’t real because an “Exxon scientist” says so.

These kinds of corporate pawns will be helping Exxon execs load the money bags into the vans even as the flood waters emerge on the horizon.

After all, we can all be Leona if we just wish hard enough.

—–

Update: Exxon is disputing the claims made in Forbes’s original article. A representative contacted the original author, Chris Helman, Mother Jones, myself, and I’m sure several others, with the following:

It is incorrect to say that ExxonMobil did not pay any U.S. income tax in 2009, In fact, we expect a significant U.S. federal income tax liability for 2009, although our tax return will not be filed until later this year.

Our tax installments overpaid our 2008 U.S. federal income taxes and we used that excess in part to pay our 2009 estimated taxes. The amount stated in our 10-K filing with the SEC, which Chris told me he based his story on, includes expenses or credits recorded during 2009, and can represent items from previous years or expectations for subsequent years. It is not our actual tax bill.

The bottom line is that it is not correct to say we did not pay any U.S. federal income tax in 2009. We have already paid against our estimated 2009 U.S. federal income taxes and will be filing our return later this year.

Thanks

Alan Jeffers, Exxon Media Relations Manager

Here is Mojo with more:

Jeffers, however, declined to discuss what ExxonMobil’s actual US income tax liabilities might be—in 2009, or in any year—except to say that it wasn’t zero. “We don’t disclose our tax bill; we’re not required to,” he said. “Just like most corporations and individuals, we disclose what we’re required to.”

Which leaves the figures in ExxonMobil’s 10-K largely unexplained: Even if the firm overpaid taxes and earned a refund, it still wouldn’t show up as a zero or a positive revenue in cashflow—unless the paid tax liabilities are concealed elsewhere in the report. And it doesn’t explain why ExxonMobil’s figures are so out of wack with its peer corporations, like Wal-Mart, cited in the original story above, or Chevron, which listed $200 million in US income tax on the same line in its 10-K, Forbes reported.

In any case, the original story is wrong in this respect: According to the 10-K, a screenshot of which is provided below, ExxonMobil didn’t have a zero-tax liability in 2009; it was actually owed $46 million by the IRS, against $15.1 billion in foreign taxes owed. As Jeffers says, that may not be the case; but it’s what ExxonMobil told the SEC, its shareholders, and the world. And since the firm refuses to share its actual tax numbers with the public, it’s all we have to go by.]