Think Republicans Won't Raise Your Taxes?

by muon

We've all had the experience of walking into a grocery store and finding that some favorite food is now in a smaller container.  Pounds of coffee are now 13 ounces. Half gallons of ice cream are now 1.5 quarts. Did they lower the price? No. Or, even if they do temporarily, the savings doesn't cover the reduction in size. Per ounce, you're paying more.

Grover Norquist is a lobbyist. In a kind of protection racket designed to keep certain kinds of Republicans in office and weed out anyone who doesn't toe the line, Grover has made elected officials sign a pledge never to raise taxes. It's the main reason nothing has gotten done in the US House the last two years. Republican congresspeople won't fund anything, because, they say, they'd be voting to raise taxes.

The Paul Ryan Budget, in essence, pulls the same kind of a switch certain brands in grocery stores have pulled. He and his GOP cohorts want to reduce the amount of product you get for your money. They say this isn't increasing your taxes. Technically, no, but I guarantee you're going to feel as gypped as you do when you pick up that new tube of Colgate, only to find that it's gone from 6 oz. down to 4.

Grover Norquist has said he wants to shrink government down to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub. Even if Congress lowers your taxes a bit, you'll still be paying more than the shrunken services will be worth. Like the groceries, you'll be paying more for less. Get used to rutted highways and dangerous bridges, at the same price.

For corporations, sometimes the money they save by giving you less of a product goes to cover the rising costs of doing business. More often though, it gets diverted to increasing profits and executive compensation. According to the Ryan Budget, the extra money from cutting government services, used by the poor and middle classes, will go to the wealthiest people in America, by extending the Bush tax cuts.

Bottom line: you'll be getting less for your tax money. And that, pledge or no, is a tax increase.

LOOKING FOR PC

One might think from the title that this piece is about buying a home computer or expecting people to be politically correct.  Neither is the theme for this blog.  I want to discuss “Political Courage.” 

As our president and congress are working their way toward some kind of deal for raising the ceiling on our ability to borrow money, and on cutting the deficit, I have heard a lot of talk about political courage. 

It began with Paul Ryan’s proposed budget proposal which was called “courageous”, particularly in the media.  When examined more carefully, it showed little courage.  How much courage does it take to cut critical programs and funding for the most vulnerable people?  It seems only the “bleeding heart liberals” will fight to stop that (and we all know how effective they are).

Republicans, especially the Tea Party variety, are so tax-averse that they can’t conceive of even the wealthiest 2% paying a bit more to help get the country on an even keel.  Where is the courage?  Since no one is exactly thrilled with having to pay taxes, it does not require courage to stand unmoving against any kind of tax increase.  There is no problem with cutting the poor, elderly, and disabled off because even inept representatives and senators will never be in that position.  Once one is in Congress, health care and pensions are taken care of for life (through taxes, of course).

The Democrats are desperately watching the programs to improve the well-being in the country evaporate.  They've always supported these programs and, thus,  cling stubbornly to every aspect of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  These programs do need reworking and reshaping to reflect the needs of 21st Century America.  One can  understand their fear and reluctance to touch those programs because reworking them could devastate these supports, so desperately needed by so many.  Political courage requires respected Democrats to stand up and make realistic, practical suggestions for changes that would benefit everyone (e.g., have Social Security taxes paid on all income, raise the age to 70 years for collecting, discontinue Social Security for people earning more than $100,000.00 a year, but still allow Medicare when needed). 

And then there’s the military industrial complex!  Who has the guts to stand up to that monster?  No courage here!

There seems to be little courage on the state and local levels either.  Some governors and mayors are getting media attention by cutting programs, laying off state workers, blaming them for the state’s/city’s  woes.  It plays well, but isn’t true.  Now there are more folks unemployed.  Again, they hit programs that serve the disadvantaged who won’t make much of a fuss.  The politicians look like heroes because budgets are “balanced.” 

Political courage is standing up for what will be most helpful to the largest number of people.  It means holding personal standards of excellence and integrity that are reflected in one’s words and actions.  It requires one to explain positions to constituents in clear, honest language.  It also means acknowledging one’s weaknesses and mistakes and being able to grow in wisdom and understanding.

  

Courageous leaders might not be reelected, but they would certainly set a good example for the rest of America.  Maybe it could start a trend. 

Peace,

Ruth

The New Republican Landscape

If you have to read one article today, read this one in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opinion/18mon1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

Then decide if this is the kind of America you want your kids living in.  Or maybe barely surviving in.

muon

TAXES (scared yet?)

by muon

Republicans love the word "TAXES."  They can scare people with it.

The other day, President Obama gave a speech putting forth his proposal for budget cuts.  He broke down the current government spending this way:

66.6% -- spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, national security.
20% -- unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, tax credits for working families
12% -- education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, food safety, keeping our air and water clean.
rest -- interest on the debt

The Republican plan for budget cuts includes a 70% cut to clean energy, a 25% cut in education, a 30% cut in transportation, and cuts in college Pell Grants.  These cuts sound big, but as you can see from above, they'll effect less than 12% of the entire budget.

The Republican plan would also do away with Medicare and Medicaid as we know them, so that only the rich would be able to afford to grow old or become disabled.  I took care of elderly parents.  Without Medicare, they would have lost their house and most, if not all, of their savings.  In trying to punish the very people responsible for America surviving every crisis from WWII on, the GOP comes across as bullies picking on the old and infirm.  I'm guessing their own parents and grandparents might like to disown them about now.

The Obama plan calls for cuts in redundant and bloated defense spending.  The Republicans say defense can't be cut.  They puff their chests out and claim they'll protect America with a strong national security.  Yet on April 3rd, the New York Times reported that an audit of Pentagon spending found $70 billion in waste.   The Chiefs of Staff themselves are saying Pentagon spending cuts are necessary.  If President Eisenhower (a Republican) were alive today, he'd be the first to point out that putting money into transportation is more important to the country's security than all the wasteful defense spending in Washington.  National security is the reason we have interstate highways.

However, the biggest Republicans objection to Obama's plan was, as they put it, raising taxes on the American people.  They called this a "non-starter."  What you won't hear any of them mention is what Obama actually said.  Here it is:

"...[itemized deductions in the tax code] provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.  My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years.  But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further.  That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

The president's plan wouldn't effect 98% of American taxpayers, or in making the tax code simpler, would BENEFIT 98% of American taxpayers.  That's not just Democrats or just Republicans.  It's not even just poor people.  It's 30% more than the number of Americans who voted in the 2008.  98%.   That's almost everyone.

If the GOP balks at that, it can simply mean that they're representing only 2% of Americans.  Perhaps the number of seats they hold in Congress ought to reflect this.  I'm guessing that's what they're afraid of when they loudly imply that all taxes will go up under the Obama plan, and leave out the real details.

muon

BORN ON THIRD BASE

OK, now Congress has passed the minuscule part of budget needed to manage the debt. I have not yet heard just how much the poor and lower middle class will suffer from the spending cuts in place due to the deal made by Congress. I suspect that bits and pieces will trickle down to us in the next few weeks. The only certainty we have is that the distressed wealthy few will have to wait just a little longer to have their terrible burdens relieved. Ah!!
 
When the Tea Baggers helped their Republican sponsors get their desperately needed tax cut extensions for the wealthiest 2%, they moved on to breaking every kind of opposition to their self-deceiving, socially-dividing proposals for spending cuts. These “Baggers” and their sponsors believe that they are entitled to everything they have and since they “did it all by themselves,” they make the assumption that anyone who is not a “Have” is that way because of laziness, lack of intelligence, or some other factor that could be controlled if one tried hard enough. So, why should society “pander” to those pathetic fools?!

At the “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington in October, my favorite sign was “Americans, born on third base, but think they hit a triple.” That certainly applies to our top 2% who are so unaware, they truly believe that family, luck, right-place-right-time, and various other factors out of their control played no major role in their achievement. Many of the wealthy are hard-working, but can one honestly say that they work harder than the people who clean their offices and homes, or the teachers and public workers whom they disparage?

One gets the feeling these days that the “Baggers” and their wealthy supporters think they can channel the Founders, the “Christian” Founders. It is hard to imagine, though, that our founders would have sacrificed so much to benefit so few.

Peace,
Ruth

SHARED SACRIFICE?

The budget fight is the lead story on every newscast and has been for quite some time.  No one doubts that we need to cut spending significantly to lower our debt.  This is our current crisis.  When a people face a crisis, their best and worst qualities come to the front.  The morality of the people and their cause, it seems to me, is marked by whether the best or worst traits dominate the discourse.

The potential spending cuts on the table now involve defunding education, family planning, Head Start, heating assistance, public broadcasting, Medicaid, and a wide range of other service programs.  Most of these programs serve the most vulnerable among us, people who are so used to being hidden, with no power that the politicians who vote to remove these services will reap no negative effects.  Once it’s done, we all can say, “What could I do?  Some other, local groups will step up to bridge the gap.” Honestly, though, we know that’s not true and that we allowed our worst traits to rule.

I brought this issue up with my students yesterday.  We discussed the idea that the “haves” may be actively working to maintain a permanent underclass of people who can fill the jobs that immigrants currently fill, you know, the jobs supposedly nobody wants.  My students were distressed, not knowing how to respond to the idea that one group would do such a thing to fellow citizens. 

Where are the cuts in subsidies to the wealthy companies?  Where is the regulation to protect the environment?  Where are the closed loopholes that will require the wealthiest few to pay their fair share of the taxes to support our nation?  Where is the end to the wars that enrich the wealthy contractors who just happen to be supplying the weapons, the mercenaries, the supplies that keep the wars going?

There is no shared sacrifice, only one group suffers, the one that always feels the pain, but ends up buying the line that one day they too could be among the privileged few.  Such deception and abandonment make us  as a nation, in this crisis, morally bankrupt.

Peace (not likely),

Ruth

The Parable of the Corporation

My guest blogger today goes by the pen name of Muon.  The explanation is that a muon is a tiny, seemingly insignificant part of an atom, yet is unstable enough to shake things up now and then.  Muon manages to live very happily on an income below the "poverty line."  
The Parable of the Corporation
by Muon

Let's pretend that you and I and all our neighbors are
shareholders of a mega-corporation.  Instead of money, they pay us in free products and services.  Since they give us these dividends even when they don't make a profit, we agree to the deal.

Like most shareholder/company relationship, we don't get all that involved in the details of how the business is run.  We assume the employees, from the CEO down to the peons,  know what they're doing.  Once in a while, we insist on replacing the CEO and top management, but for the most part, the system works.

Lately, however, the corporation has stopped being  profitable. For one thing, the Purchasing Department has been making sweetheart deals with vendors, giving contracts not to a low bidder, but to the same expensive companies over and over.  Management hasn't done anything about it because most of them have personal monetary interests in these companies.  The Receivables Department is lackadaisical about their work because they think the shareholders' investments are enough to keep the company going.  The Sales Department figures, if everyone else is slacking off, why should they look for new business?  The Manufacturing Department figures, if no one's selling the product, why make it?  But everyone wants to keep their jobs, so no one rocks the boat by changing things.

The reason everyone wants to keep their jobs?  The  employees set their own salaries, which is currently at least three times the income of your average shareholder.

The corporation is nearly bankrupt, but management has sworn to the shareholders that they'll balance this year's budget.  They decide to do this not by decreasing waste, finding new revenue sources, putting a halt to bad business practices, downsizing, or even by taking a paycut themselves.  No, they intend to balance the budget by cutting the products and services given to the very people who are footing the bill, the shareholders.  A small but loud percentage of the shareholders are even cheering top management on.

Is this parable far-fetched?  Not at all.  This is the way our government is run.  We let Congress have all the power over our tax money, including the power to funnel more of it to themselves by setting their salaries and setting policy which benefits the big businesses who contribute to their campaign funds.  All they care about is keeping that power by getting reelected.  Their idea of balancing the budget is to cut all the programs that directly benefit the people paying their  salaries--taxpayers.  They refuse to cut waste.  They refuse to look for new sources of revenue.  They refuse to encourage the startup of new American businesses which would then provide more tax income.  In fact, they want to cut business taxes and put more of the financial burden on the taxpayers, whose median household income this year is only about $50,000.

And Congress certainly never intends to give themselves a paycut.  If the minimum congressional salary were lowered to twice the national average household income, we could save 40 million a year.  Congressmen, like Senator Duffy, for instance, say they can't live on less than what they're making.

Frankly, if a Congressperson can't figure out how to live on $100,000 a year, he/she shouldn't be in charge of managing  the nation's money.

muon