Absolutely the best article I’ve ever read on the origins of our economic problems. Once again, Rolling Stone is responsible for great investigative journalism!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
If you wanted to destroy the opposing political party – not just defeat it – what would you do?
Youd probably look to take away its source of funding while finding ways to dramatically increase yours, such as destroying labor unions while legalizing unlimited corporate contributions as free speech. Youd try to marginalize and delegitimize its leader by claiming he was not born in the US. Youd try to destroy its local organizers (ACORN). And knowing that most disputes will end up in court, youd try to stack the courts with your own appointees while blocking the other partys.
When the other party is in power, youd try to block any attempts to improve the economy through filibusters. Youd try to destroy confidence in any media outlets that dont support your point of view by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and defunding public broadcasting. Youd try to eliminate as many regulations as possible, so when you regained power you could do whatever you want. And youd try to destroy public confidence in a government run by the other party.
When your party is in power, youd try to change the rules to favor your candidates. Youd try to redraw the congressional and legislative districts so you could get more candidates elected. And youd try to suppress voting blocs that tend to vote for the other partys candidates through voter suppression efforts such as those being pushed through Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Finally, to ensure your party’s future dominance, youd try to control our schools so you could teach your own version of history and pseudoscience by rewriting textbooks such as those published in Texas.
If you think that I’m being paranoid, that these events are coincidental, or that both parties do the same things, you simply havent been paying attention.
In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagans Budget Director, David Stockman, revived an old economic theory as the basis for the Reagan administrations economic policy. Reaganomics, aka Trickle-Down economics, aka Supply-Side economics was based on the Horse and Sparrow theory of the 1890s, which some believe was responsible for the Panic of 1896.
The basis of the theory is the notion, If you feed a horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.
Of course, Reagan and Stockman stated the benefits of their plan somewhat differently. Their belief was that if you cut taxes for the wealthy, particularly those on capital gains from investments, the wealthy would spend the extra money on additional goods and services thereby creating more jobs for the middle and lower classes. Despite its many critics, the theory has been championed by Teapublicans ever since.
Has it worked? One might say that it has worked all too well for the rich.
According to a recent study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), from 1979 to 2007 after-tax income for the top 1 percent of US households has nearly tripled, rising by 279 percent. Over the same time period, after-tax income for the middle class grew by just 40 percent. And those at the bottom saw their incomes increase by just 18 percent.
So, by every measure, Trickle-Down economics have reduced income to a mere trickle for all but the very wealthy. Or, if you relate the results to the Horse and Sparrow theory, the supposed benefits are just plain horse dung.
“Welfare moms are worse for our economy than welfare CEOs.”
For years, youve heard Teapublicans rail against freeloading welfare moms. They portray them as lazy, drug-addled minority women who turn themselves into baby factories to scam the system and live in relative luxury. Right?
In fact, a Teapublican candidate for the Nebraska Unicameral recently compared them to racoons saying, Theyre going to do it the easy way if we make it easy for them. And Florida Governor Rick Scott recently signed into law a bill that requires Floridians to submit urine, blood and hair samples before they can receive cash aid from the state.
However, according to the statistics, the majority of those who receive Aid For Dependent Children are white and receive benefits for 2 years or less. Half of all welfare recipients leave the program in the first two years. Most have only one or 2 children. And the majority are over 20 years old.
Many succumbed to the if you really love me, youll line. But many are divorced and a few are widowed. Contrary to Gov. Scotts expectations, very few are chemically dependent. And theyre hardly living in luxury.
For example, those who qualify for W-2 Transition (W-2 T) funds reserved for participants who have limited ability to work receive payments of $628 per month with a lifetime eligibility limit of 60 months. Not exactly what Teapublicans want you to believe about so-called welfare queens is it?
Now, lets examine the welfare kings of corporate America.
We have given millions of acres to mining companies while requiring no royalties in return. We gave railroads millions of acres and millions of dollars in subsidies for construction. We built and maintain 340,000 miles of logging roads for the timber industry in addition to giving them subsidies of more than $111 million annually. Subsidies to oil and gas companies total more than $40 billion per year.
We provide billions to corporations for the research and development of new drugs and new weapons systems, even providing foreign aid to other nations to help them buy our weapons. We offer corporations insurance at below market rates to encourage overseas investments in high-risk nations. We provide farm subsidies to corporate farmers. State and city governments provide incentives to attract large corporations. They also provide millions to help billionaire owners of sports franchises to build new stadiums and sports arenas.
And, lest you think the Troubled Asset Relief Program was the first time we bailed out financial institutions, dont forget that we forked over $500 billion to the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.
In short, we allow large corporations to privatize their profits and socialize their risks. Is it any wonder that in previous generations their owners were called “Robber Barons?”
I confess that I’ve long been confused about the intense (and, I believe irrational) hatred of President Obama, when it appears to me that he has been guilty of nothing more than trying to correct the problems created by the previous administration.
Upon reflection, I believe it stems from the Right’s unfailing belief in the so-called “free” market.
When the economy, led by the housing market and a lack of common-sense regulations, careened off a cliff in late 2008, the Bush administration recommended a bill to Congress that called for the US to spend billions in order to prop up the failing banks. Lacking the support of Republican leaders in Congress, the measure initially failed. But when the stock markets crashed as a result, enough Congressmen were persuaded to change their votes and the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) went into effect.
The program ultimately stabilized the markets and the economy enough to prevent the Great Recession from turning into a second Great Depresssion. Yet many Republicans were furious. They believed TARP to be a government intrusion into the infallibility of free market principles. When President Obama subsequently offered government-backed loans to General Motors and Chrysler in order to stave off the collapse of the American automobile industry, the free market Republicans and Libertarians went ballistic.
Capitalizing on an idea by a Republican strategist, groups such as the Koch-funded American FreedomWorks spent millions to rally free market believers to protest. They labeled the movement a modern day Tea Party. It turned out to be the perfect way to inspire the Republican base which was dispirited following the 2008 elections.
Teapublicans deluded themselves into believing that the Great Recession was not the fault of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act or the Bush administrations lax oversight of the financial industry.
They focused, instead, on President Obamas attempts to fend off an economic Armegeddon. In addition, they convinced themselves that the national debt, which had doubled under President Bush, was now the fault of President Obama. They believed the auto bail-outs and economic stimulus were evidence that the administration was moving toward socialism. The Presidents eventual signing of a bill to reform the out-of-control healthcare system added even more fuel to the torches being carried by the Tea Party.
When viewed in context, the Teapublican fears seem irrational. But when viewed through a partisan lens and slavish devotion to free market principles, regardless of their consequences, the fears are understandable, if not logical.
Moreover, this helps to explain why so many lower and middle class Americans vote against their self-interest by supporting Republican candidates determined to transfer wealth upward through tax breaks for the wealthy.
Over many years of listening to Fox News pundits and Rush-to-the-table Limbaugh, these people have become convinced that all of their problems will be solved if only we rid ourselves of government intrusion and allow Teapublican leaders to work their free market magic. Indeed, these voters are likely convinced that the only thing standing between them and unimagined riches are evil Democrats, who in their Teapublican minds, are trying to replace capitalism with socialism, or worse yet, communism or fascism.
Never mind that many of these people dont have a clue of what any of these isms actually mean. Hence the Tea Party signs that read Keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
“Teabaggers are patriots. Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are misguided thugs and revolutionaries.”
The Tea Party claimed to be a grassroots movement, but in reality, it was created by Republican strategists, financed by Republican think tanks and billionaires, and promoted and publicized by Fox News Channel, Rush-To-Judgement Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican megaphones.
The Occupy Wall Street movement, on the other hand, receives no money from millionaires and billionaires. It has no think tanks to fund it. And it has no media organizations under its control. The movement was created by a diverse group of young people fed up with the wealthy who control Congress and dictate public policy. And its growing.
So why are the Teapublicans now dismissing them as out-of-control rabble? Why are Teapublicans portraying them as dangerous and disrespectful? And why are Teapublicans saying they ought to get a job? Actually, thats the question at the very heart of the movement. The Occupy Wall Streeters want to get a job, but feel that Teapublican policies dictated by the wealthy prevent them from any chance of success.
Instead of trying to initiate legislation that might create jobs to make the Occupy Wall Streeters go home, Teapublicans would rather spend their time denying tax hikes for millionaires and billionaires. And they are using their media megaphones to portray the movement as dangerous. On his daily radio diatribe, Glenn Beck even said, Theyre coming to kill you!
Hmmm think about it for a moment. Which group brought guns to their rallies and carried signs with overt threats against Congress and the President? Heres a hint: It wasnt the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.
Despite the fact that our $14 trillion debt was largely created by Teapublican presidents, now that we have a Democratic president, the Teapublican-controlled Congress is dead set on forcing enormous budget cuts at any cost.
Set aside for a moment that their primary agenda is to end regulations for their corporate masters and to starve only those departments that are contrary to their ideology (primarily the EPA and the Dept. of Education). The real concern is what such draconian cuts will do to our economy.
If you want to see a preview of the consequences, you need only to look to Greece.
As you likely know, the Greek government is in danger of default. To cure its ills, Germany along with the other nations that are part of the European Union, agreed to bail out Greece. But only if Greece would enact drastic spending cuts and large tax hikes.
The result? It would seem that the cure is in danger of killing the patient. Indeed, the cuts have put the entire European Union in recession. And the symptoms have spread to the US. Every time the European Union sneezes, our markets react.
The problem is that the new austerity measures have resulted in more Greeks losing their jobs. And without jobs, the Greeks are unable to pay the increased taxes. Many have been forced to pay taxes out of their savings (if they have savings). Many cant pay their taxes at all. That only results in more deficits, more spending cuts, more tax increases, and so on.
Although Greece is the most extreme example of an economy in trouble, its not alone.
Irelands economy is also particularly weak. You may remember that before the global recession, Ireland was called the “Celtic Tiger” having built its reputation by luring foreign corporations (many from the US) through some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. Indeed, Teapublicans have repeatedly cited Ireland as a model for reforming our own corporate tax structure.
One would hope that our nation could learn from these examples of what not to do. But, since Teapublicans mostly ignore anything beyond our borders (except for oil deposits), Im not hopeful.
Will Richard, The Dick, Cheney never take the hint and just fade into retirement?
Previous former presidents and vice presidents retired to their compounds surrounded by Secret Service (such as George W. Bush) or devoted themselves to humanitarian causes (such as Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Former vice-president and presidential election winner, Al Gore, has occupied his time by trying to convince Teapublicans that science exists.
On the other hand, The Dick keeps elbowing his way onto cable TV to push his particular brand of hate and meanness. His most recent such foray was on CNNs State of the Union, where he said that President Obama owes the Bush administration an apology.
An apology? For what? For cleaning up the two unfunded wars started by The Dick and his puppet Bush? For cleaning up the economic disaster left behind? For cleaning up the oil and financial industries run wild? For trying to restore our nations stature in the world after years of violating the Geneva Conventions? For finally tracking down the leaders of Al-Qaeda?
No, according to The Dick, President Obama should take back his criticism of the Bush administration’s tactics in the war on terrorism. More specifically, The Dick wants President Obama to take back statements from his 2009 speech in Cairo, in which he said the trauma of 9/11 caused America to act contrary to our ideals.
It appears The Dick had his feelings hurt (yeah, I know, its hard to imagine that he of the bionic heart has feelings) when President Obama denounced The Dicks “enhanced interrogation as torture. Of course, The Dicks waterboarding technique is specifically defined as torture by the Geneva Conventions. But, despite that inconvenient truth, The Dick claims, “We were never torturing anyone in the first place. He (Obama) said we walked away from our basic fundamental ideals. That simply wasn’t the case.”
Even The Dicks daughter piled on the current President. “He slandered the nation,” said Liz Cheney, “and I think he owes an apology to the American people.”
Proving that you dont have to be male to be a Dick.
Solyndra is an example of the Obama administrations runaway spending.
Yes, the Obama administration provided a federally-backed loan of $535 million to help Solyndra create thin film solar cells. Yes, the company went bankrupt. But before you join the Teapublican-led lynch mob to hold the administration accountable, ask yourself: How much more money has been wasted on government loans and subsidies for oil companies? Have you ever heard Teapublicans complain about wasting taxpayer money on a dry well? Have you ever seen a House panel investigate loans or subsidies to carbon-based fuel companies?
But thats different you say. Theres no certainty in finding oil.
Well, theres no certainty that a new product will succeed, either. Fact is, the Energy Department took a chance on a company that wanted to build state-of-the-art solar cells in the US, instead of China. The Energy Department took a chance that a government-backed loan would result in more US-based jobs, less dependence on foreign oil and lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, Solyndra failed as the result of increased competition from foreign manufacturers which are heavily subsidized by their governments. And because Congress failed to pass a comprehensive energy bill that includes alternative energy sources.
Oil production is heavily subsidized through tax breaks at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process. So, if the US is willing to risk hundreds of billions in exploration for gas and oil with great risk to our environment, why is it a problem for the federal government to risk taxpayer money to develop clean energy alternatives?
Could it be that the solar and wind industries dont have lobbyists which heavily contribute to Teapublican election campaigns?
The wealthiest Americans pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.
Seriously? Thats the crapola they want us to believe?
To counter President Obamas plan to pay for his Jobs Act by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, Teapublicans have gone on the offensive (Yeah, I know, they were already offensive enough) to protect the wealth of their political puppeteers. Through a series of appearances on Sunday morning talk shows, they point to data from the Tax Policy Center showing that the top 1 percent of Americans pays 38 percent of federal income taxes.
Assuming that data is correct, it actually disproves the Teapublicans point. After all, by most estimates, the top 1 percent controls more than 39 percent of the nations financial wealth (excluding their multi-million dollar homes, high-priced cars, etc.). Therefore, the top 1 percent is actually paying less than its share of federal taxes. And, thanks to Teapublicans, the share of income paid in taxes by the 400 richest Americans has fallen by nearly 40 percent, even as their incomes have approximately quadrupled!
Its good to be rich. Especially in Teapublican America.