23. September 2011 by admin.

“The US government is going broke.”

In May 25, 2001, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform told National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson, “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Teapublicans have been trying to bankrupt the government ever since.

Yet, despite their efforts, the United States still has the world’s largest economy with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimated at nearly $14.7 trillion in 2010. That represents approximately one quarter of the global GDP.

Our current problem, as economist Paul Krugman has stated, is “insufficent aggregate demand.” As a result, we do not have enough revenue to cover our spending.  Moreover, much of the money spent is misallocated. To fix our economy, we need to increase tax revenue from those who can most afford it. And we need to create jobs by spending on necessary projects while interest rates are at all-time lows.

But, instead of dealing with the real issues, Teapublicans are using the debt crisis they created to destroy labor unions, to eliminate employee benefits, to depress salaries and eliminate our safety nets (the so-called entitlements).

Contrary to Teapublican accusations, these programs are not responsible for our growing national debt. Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes while our defense spending is not. 

According to estimates, our annual military/security budget is $1.1-$1.2 trillion, or 70-75 percent of the federal budget deficit. It has doubled since 9/11. And much of the defense budget is squandered through poor oversight, lack of planning and corruption. In fact, the Commission on Wartime Contracting stated that as much as $60 billion was lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade!

The US is not broke.  But if we keep electing Teapublicans, we soon may be.

Posted in Current Events, Taxes, War, Military, Teapublicans, Tea Party, Labor, Deficit, Medicare, Economy, Social Security, Government, Politics, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

21. September 2011 by admin.

“President Obama’s Jobs Plan is Class Warfare.”

Teapublicans haul this one out every time a Democrat talks about raising taxes on the wealthy. It sounds terrible, doesn’t it? How could anyone be for dividing America into classes based on privilege and wealth?

Oh, wait! Teapublicans have been pursuing policies of class warfare for decades!

Thanks to Teapublican policies, 400 people now control 50 percent of the nation’s wealth, a combined $1.5 trillion. Their average net worth is $3.8 billion - a 12 percent increase from last year! Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent have an average annual income of just $31,244 per household.

While the wealthy pay a federal tax rate of 15 percent on profits from their investments, middle class families pay a federal income tax rate of 25-33 percent on their salaries. While the corporations’ share of federal tax revenues has dropped from more than 30 percent in the 1950s to less than 10 percent now, individuals’ share has remained at more than 40 percent. At the same time, payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare) have gone from 10 percent to more than 40 percent!

But there has been even more bad news for the poor and middle class. In the past 10 years, incomes for the top 20 percent of Americans have increased dramatically while incomes for the bottom 80 percent of Americans have dropped! And while the Great Recession forced millions of American workers into unemployment lines, corporate CEOs and bankers have paid themselves multi-million dollar bonuses.

No, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, making those who have benefited the most from our country pay their fair share is not class warfare. Continuing the Teapublican policies from the past 30 years is.

Posted in President Obama, Corporations, Current Events, Tea Party, Teapublicans, Culture, Taxes, Medicare, Social Security, Government, Politics, Economy | Print | No Comments »

23. August 2011 by admin.

Despite the fact that our economy was in freefall when President Obama entered office, people are fond of blaming him for our current misery.  Instead of supporting Obama’s attempts to right our sinking ship, Teapublicans have chosen to fight him every step of the way. 

No matter that the record number of Senate filibusters paralyzed our government.  No matter that the cries of “Socialist” have further divided our nation.  Teapublicans seem only to care about ensuring that Obama is a one-term president.

And just when it appeared that the economy was growing again, Teapublicans chose to turn the debt ceiling into a “crisis” resulting in a downgrade of US Treasury Securities and further despair.

All this got me wondering: What if today’s Teapublicans had been around following the Great Depression? Would they have been willing to fund Social Security? Would they have opened the US Treasury to build our infrastructure? Would our nation’s most iconic structures have ever been funded? Would there be a Hoover Dam? Would the Tennessee Valley Authority exist?

What if Teapublicans had been around following WWII? Would they have approved the post WWII-era top tax rate of 91 perecent? Would they have approved of the billions spent to expand our Universities? Would they have supported the GI Bill? Would they have approved of Eisenhower’s interstate highway system?

Looking at more recent history, would they have approved of raising the debt ceiling as Reagan was tripling the national debt? Would they have approved of his tax increases?

I think you know the answers. 

Now ask yourself this: What would have become of the US if today’s Teapublicans had been around during the founding of our nation? Would they even have been willing to spend their money to fund the Revolution?

Posted in President Obama, Tea Party, Teapublicans, Culture, Taxes, Social Security, Government, Deficit, Economy | Print | No Comments »

7. August 2011 by admin.

Although many Americans are fond of calling the US the greatest nation on Earth, that hasn’t been true for many years. Certainly we have the world’s most powerful military, but that’s no criteria for greatness. Neither is the fact that we are still the world’s richest nation, despite the downgrade in our credit rating by Standard & Poors.

But greatest?

Does a great nation tolerate an ever-widening gap between billionaires and the working poor? Does a great nation leave tens of millions of its citizens without access to health care? Does a great nation allow millions of its children to be homeless? Does a great nation allow its education system to become third-rate? Does a great nation allow its infrastructure to decay and collapse merely to give another tax cut to large corporations and the wealthy?

Does a great nation use its financial and military power to prop up brutal dictatorships around the world? Does a great nation bankrupt the small farmers of neighboring countries by subsidizing corporate farms then demonize those farmers when they cross the border looking for jobs? Does a great nation demean those who labor to build things with their hands, to put out fires, or to teach its youth? Does a great nation begrudge a comfortable retirement to its elderly? Does a great nation allow large corporations and the wealthy to elect its politicians?

How can a nation be called great when it rewards greed and corruption? When its judicial system rules that corporations have rights superior to those of its citizens? When its financial institutions are allowed to grow so large they are immune to failure from their own mistakes? When its corporate lawyers are tasked with seeking out financial and legal loopholes that allow their clients to game the system? When its politicians are more concerned with scoring political points than the welfare of its voters? When its citizens are more interested in the antics of its celebrities than those of its government? When it allows its previous leader to run up a huge debt, and then blames the leader who inherited it?

We didn’t need Standard & Poors to tell us that our nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. When it comes to fairness, ideas and ethics, the US has been on the verge of bankruptcy for many years.

Posted in Education, Culture, Immigration, Corporations, Military, Current Events, Taxes, Labor, Social Security, Health care, Government, Politics, Homelessness, Deficit, Economy | Print | No Comments »

30. July 2011 by admin.

Teapublicans have elevated Ronald Reagan to God-like status. They have named a Washington D.C. airport after him. They worship at his presidential library. They even want to add his image to Mount Rushmore National Monument.

So why don’t they follow his economic example?

This has never been more puzzling than during the current debt ceiling debate. Under Reagan, Congress was forced to raise the debt ceiling 17 times. But under Obama, Teapublicans refuse to raise the debt limit even once. To save Social Security, Reagan raised the income cap on FICA deductions. But under Obama, Teapublicans want to destroy Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Reagan raised capital gains taxes to 28 percent. But under Obama, Teapublicans consider the current rate of 15 percent too high. Under Reagan, the highest income tax rate was 50 percent or more. But under Obama, the highest rate is 35 percent. And under Reagan, tax revenues averaged 18.2 percent of GDP. But under Obama, tax revenues are just 14.9 percent of GDP as reported by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Indeed, former Reagan Policy Adviser, Bruce Bartlett, recently stated on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, “The dirty secret is that Obama’s a moderate conservative.“ Further, he noted that $7 trillion of the national debt is due to George W. Bush’s policies and tax cuts. $2 trillion is due to the Great Recession that President Obama inherited. And only $1.4 trillion of the debt is due to Obama’s policies, including the measures taken to keep our economy from sliding into the abyss.

And speaking about the Teapublican refusal to increase revenues as part of their plan to cut the deficit, the father of “Reaganomics” and former Reagan Budget Director, David Stockman, said, “When I look at the Republican plan, I have to say I think it’s half right on some things, and it’s half-baked on a lot of others… you’re telling the people of America that we can solve this issue - which is very dangerous, the deficit that we’re facing and the debt we’re building up - by not raising taxes on anyone. That, in my judgment, is a big lie.”

Bartlett was even stronger in response to a question about the Teapublican-dominated Congress. “A good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant, or craven cowards who are desperately afraid of the Tea Party people. And rightly so,” he said.

Posted in President Obama, Current Events, Tea Party, Taxes, Deficit, Social Security, Government, Politics, Economy | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2011 by admin.

Remember when the Teapublicans were running for office last November? They hammered Democrats for not creating jobs fast enough and promised to have a laser-like focus on the economy. Well, I guess you could say they were telling the truth. But who knew they were actually referring to a laser site on an assault weapon aimed at killing the economy entirely?

Since the debt ceiling first became an issue in January, Teapublican antics have already had a disastrous effect. The lingering debate over the debt ceiling has caused many employers to question the outcome. As a result, they have delayed hiring and any new expenditures. In recent days, the stock markets are down dramatically. And new data has shown that the economy grew at a pitiful rate in the first quarter of this year. All of this is the result of uncertainty.

Now imagine what will happen if Teapublicans actually fail to raise the debt ceiling. Or if they succeed in making the draconian cuts they want.

How much will the stock markets crash if the US defaults on its debts? What will be the long term effects if US Treasury bonds are downgraded? What will happen when consumer interest rates skyrocket? What will be the economic effect of failing to make Social Security payments? How many people will die if doctors know they won’t be reimbursed by Medicare?

Truth is, the Teapublicans now controlling our debt ceiling debate may well have a greater negative impact on our nation than Timothy McVeigh, Al Qaeda and the Taliban combined.

Posted in Deficit, Current Events, Tea Party, Politics, Government, Economy, Medicare, Social Security, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

24. June 2011 by admin.

Today, Congressional Republicans pulled out of negotiations to resolve the deficit.  And (here’s a shocker) they blamed Democrats.  Their reasoning is that Democrats insist on tax increases rather than merely relying on more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicare and other programs. 

“Let me be clear.  Tax hikes are off the table,” said House Speaker John Boehner. 

So, according to Republicans, even though the major cause of the deficit is the Bush era tax cuts (primarily for the wealthy), the only way to cut the deficit is by cutting spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, Public Broadcasting, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Protection Agency, the Department of Education, etc.  At the same time, Republicans refuse to consider cuts to subsidies for Big Oil and corporate agriculture which they say would be tax hikes.  Of course, they also want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and repeal regulations on the financial industry.

So according to Republicans, when it comes to deficit negotiations, everything is on the table.  Except anything that Democrats want.

I guess that’s what passes for “bipartisan negotiations” these days.

Posted in Taxes, Deficit, Education, Corporations, Current Events, Politics, Government, Economy, Medicare, Health care, Social Security, Environment | Print | 1 Comment »

26. May 2011 by admin.

Following the vote by House Republicans to cut Medicaid and turn Medicare into a certain-to-fail voucher system, Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that would end oil subsidies to the most profitable companies on Earth.  They followed that by doing the same to a bill that would end subsidies for Ethanol.

In doing so, Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they don’t care about cutting the deficit.  Not really.  If they did, they would gladly trim these subsidies from our budget resulting in savings of billions of dollars.

As evidenced by their assault on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, education, women’s health providers, the environment, labor unions, first responders and teachers, they certainly don’t care about ordinary citizens.

What Republicans do seem to care about is protecting the profits of their corporate masters. You know, the large corporations that were given all the rights of citizens by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court so they could anonymously spend millions to elect Republican candidates.

The connection couldn’t be more obvious.

Posted in Deficit, Labor, Education, Energy, Politics, Social Security, Economy, Medicare, Health care, Environment | Print | 1 Comment »

7. May 2011 by admin.

Shamed by scenes of the elderly living in abject poverty following the Great Depression, Congress passed the Social Security Act which was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt on August 14, 1935.  At the time, poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.

Since that time, millions of Americans confronted by old age, poverty, disability and unemployment have benefited from the act. 

Although Republicans, and more recently, the media have labeled Social Security with the perjorative term “entitlement” it is simply a form of insurance defined by actuaries as a government-sponsored insurance program funded by premiums paid by or on behalf of participants.  Indeed, the FICA withholding you see on your paycheck stands for “Federal Insurance Contributions Act”.  These contributions represent less than six percent of an individual’s annual income up to $106,000 per year.  Any income above $106,000 is exempt from withdrawals. 

Fact is, Republicans have been opposed to Social Security from the beginning, claiming that it would cause a loss of jobs.  Obviously it didn’t.  And the new deficit “crisis” has provided Republicans with arguments to dramatically change or end the program now.  Many want to replace it with individual investment accounts, feeling that they could better ensure their retirement by investing their FICA withdrawals themselves.  First, the benefit payments from an insurance program like Social Security should never be compared to the returns on investment accounts.  Moreover, replacing Social Security with individual investment accounts could be disastrous for many seniors in the event of another economic depression or a repeat of the Great Recession of 2008.  If the stock markets plummeted, the retirement incomes of most seniors would crash with them. 

So how about the solvency of Social Security?  Currently, the program has a $2.5 trillion surplus.  Remarkably, administrative costs of the program account for less than one percent of its total.  However, due to the impending retirement of Baby Boomers, it is estimated that the program will not be able to make full benefit payments in 25 or 30 years.   But the program is not “broke.”  Indeed, it can be fixed with relatively minor tweaking.  One option is to raise the cap on income as the Reagan Administration did in the 1980s.  Removing the cap altogether would definitely solve the problem as would limiting benefits to only those who actually need them – those retirees with annual household incomes of less than $50,000, for example.

Contrary to those who want to “end the entitlements”, the facts show that dramatically changing Social Security or ending the program entirely could be devastating for our nation.  The majority of beneficiaries have little significant income from other sources since options such as employer-provided pension plans are virtually non-existant today.  Additionally, the benefits from our Social Security program already lag behind most other advanced countries.  The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 26^th out of 30 OECD nations.  On average, OECD nations replace 61 percent of a retiree’s earnings with pension plans.  In the U.S., the number is roughly 40 percent.

Posted in Deficit, Politics, Social Security, Economy | Print | No Comments »

16. April 2011 by admin.

While the government and the media debate the pros and cons of President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s competing deficit reduction plans, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post suggests another possibility.  Do nothing.

That’s right.  Do nothing to address the deficit and growing national debt!

Using a graph based on the Congressional Budget Office’s September numbers, Klein shows what will happen if Congress fails to act.  Our national budget would begin to balance itself in two years.  And despite the so-called “crises” of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, the budget would remain balanced into the forseeable future.

Given the doom and gloom scenarios of the teabaggers and their Republican allies, how is this possible?

It’s the result of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of their 2-year extension, implementing the program that changes the way doctor payments are handled in Medicare, and allowing the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare) to be fully implemented.

That’s it!  No privatizing Social Security, no ending Medicaid and no changing Medicare to a voucher system that will likely drive up the cost of health care while dramatically adding to the insurance industry’s bottom line.  All we have to do is keep the politicians from further messing things up!  (Of course, it wouldn’t hurt if we could stop bleeding money and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s estimated that those wars have already cost us as much as $3 trillion.  A number that’s increasing by the day.)

Remember this as the debate over the deficit escalates between now and the 2012 election.  The choice is likely to be between a Republican plan of pulling the safety nets out from under our most vulnerable citizens while lining the pockets of the wealthy.  Or enacting President Obama’s plan which will reduce the deficit while continuing to care for the poor, the sick and the elderly.  Or doing nothing and returning to Clinton-era tax rates.Personally, I vote for one of the last two options.  After all, unless my memory fails me, the decade of the 90s was prosperous for most everyone.  Not just the super-wealthy.

Posted in Government, Deficit, Social Security, Health care, Medicare, Economy | Print | No Comments »