Category Archives: Government

Seven Common Sense Ways To Fix Our Economy.

Posted on by

1 – Re-institute the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act was initially signed into law in 1933 to prevent a repeat of the conditions that led to the Great Depression. The law created a firewall between banks of deposit and investment banks, recognizing that a bank of deposit is entrusted with maintaining the financial security of its deposits while an investment bank, such as a stock brokerage, engages in inherently risky activities. When the same financial institution is allowed to participate in both acitivities, the deposits are placed at risk. And since the government insures deposits through the FDIC, it’s also at risk.

Unfortunately, the law was repealed in 1999 and the lax regulation of the Bush administration allowed banks to collapse as the result of the very conditions the law was designed to prevent.

2 – Return Capital Gains Taxes to Reagan-era levels.

During the Reagan administration, the maximum rate on capital gains (money derived from investments) was raised to 28 percent. But, to reward their wealthy masters, Teapublicans have cut the rate to just 15 percent and they want to eliminate capital gains taxes altogether.

Since the wealthiest 1 percent of our population makes most, if not all, its money from capital gains on investments, that means millionaires and billionaires pay an income tax rate of 15 percent or less. On the other hand, many of us who make money from salaries or as sole proprietors pay an income tax of up to 33 or 35 percent, not including payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. See the problem?

3 – Return Income Taxes to Clinton-era levels.

Under Reagan, the maximum federal income tax rate averaged 65.70 percent. Under Clinton, the maximum income tax rate was 39.60 percent. Under Bush, the maximum income tax rate dropped to 35 percent leading to massive federal deficits.

Obviously, our current maximum tax rate has weakened our economy.  And unless we find ways to generate more revenue, we will be unable to decrease our debt or repair our infrastructure.

4 – Eliminate the cap on Social Security Withholding.

For the past several years Social Security taxes are withheld on only the first $106,800 of taxable income. By eliminating the cap, we would generate a great deal more money for Social Security, and by paying benefits to only those who actually need them, the Social Security trust fund would be solvent well into the forseeable future, perhaps permanently.

5 – Cut unnecessary duplication of city, county, state and federal offices.

If you want to build a commercial operation today, you may have to trek to as many as four offices to obtain the necessary permits. That’s because each level of government has its own unique regulations. Since environmental issues are necessarily different between Los Angeles, CA and Siren, WI, the need for different regulations is understandable. But why not streamline processes by combining similar functions in a single office? This would not only cut red tape, it would increase efficiency and cut costs.

6 – Buy local.

For the past 40 years, US manufacturers have shipped raw materials to other nations.  Then shipped the finished products back to the US.  This is not only destroying our economy, it is destroying our environment.  In fact, a case can be made that an enormous Hummer SUV is more environmentally friendly than a Prius.  That’s because the Hummer is made primarily in the US.  Eschewing foreign-made products would do wonders for American workers and everyone who breathes.

7 – Buy small.

Walmart, Target, Amazon, etc. are killing local retail stores which has led to the hollowing out of our central cities and the loss of jobs.  Yes, “big box” stores hire many employees, but they often pay less, provide fewer benefits and contribute less to the local economies.  Moreover, by emphasizing cheaper foreign-made products they continue to depress US manufacturing. 

Everyone likes lower prices and greater selection.  But who wouldn’t be willing to pay a bit more if it means our family members, friends and neighbors can keep or get a decent job? 

Justice (At Least Temporarily) For Arizona.

Posted on by

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Governor Jan Brewer and her political cronies’ removal of the independent chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It seems the Teapublican congressional representatives were unhappy with the commission’s proposed maps which placed two Teapublican congressmen in the same district. More important, the Teapublicans were angry that the maps would create a few more competitive districts, which meant that the winner of the Teapublican primary wouldn’t be able to waltz through the general election.

So the scorpion-eating governor did the only thing she could do. She phoned her office from New York where she was peddling her self-congratulatory and largely fictional autobiography, demanding that the chair be removed for “gross misconduct.”

Of course, her obedient Teapublican minions in the State Senate voted in lockstep to impeach the chair. Then they patted themselves on their backs and crawled back into their hidey holes to plot the next attack on Democrats, independents, immigrants and anyone else who dares challenge their gun-toting, Latino-bashing, Obama-hating authority.

There was only one problem with the Teapublican power grab. The Arizona State Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the impeachment.

For some reason, the Supreme Court justices did not accept the argument that Teapublican power in the state is absolute. They didn’t buy the argument that Brewer could dismiss the independent chair if she didn’t like the chair’s haircut or dress (yes, Brewer’s attorney actually made that case). Instead the justices quickly ruled that Brewer’s action was an unconstitutional over-reach.

But reasonable people in Arizona (they actually represent about two-thirds of the state’s population) shouldn’t relax yet. Brewer’s spokesmouth says the governor is reviewing the decision and contemplating the next step. Of course, the next step should be to allow the commission to do its job without interference. But that seems unlikely. This is, after all, Arizona.

The Planned Destruction Of Our Two-Party System.

Posted on by

If you wanted to destroy the opposing political party – not just defeat it – what would you do?

You’d 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.” You’d try to marginalize and delegitimize its leader by claiming he was not born in the US. You’d try to destroy its local organizers (ACORN). And knowing that most disputes will end up in court, you’d try to stack the courts with your own appointees while blocking the other party’s.

When the other party is in power, you’d try to block any attempts to improve the economy through filibusters. You’d try to destroy confidence in any media outlets that don’t support your point of view by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and defunding public broadcasting. You’d try to eliminate as many regulations as possible, so when you regained power you could do whatever you want. And you’d try to destroy public confidence in a government run by the other party.

When your party is in power, you’d try to change the rules to favor your candidates. You’d try to redraw the congressional and legislative districts so you could get more candidates elected. And you’d try to suppress voting blocs that tend to vote for the other party’s 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, you’d 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 haven’t been paying attention.

The NRA Effect.

Posted on by

Beginning in 1980, the National Rifle Association first inserted itself into politics by endorsing Ronald Reagan. Since then, the NRA has increasingly exerted its power and influence over both national and state politics. Nearly every year, the NRA writes proposed legislation then shops it around to state legislatures in hopes of finding sponsors.

Often the legislators who put their names on the bills never even read them!

An example is the Concealed Carry Law. In 1986, there were only 8 states that had legislation dictating that anyone who meets minimum requirements shall be issued a permit to carry concealed weapons. But thanks to the NRA, there are now 37 states that have “shall issue” permit laws and 4 states with no restrictions at all. Next month (November 2011), Illinois will be the only state left that does not allow concealed carry in any circumstances.

These laws were not demanded by the states’ citizens. Nor were they addressing real problems. They were written by the NRA merely to push its own narrow political agenda.

Of course, other special interest groups followed the NRA’s lead. For example, the Arizona anti-immigrant law was initially written by Kris Kobach, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. It was embraced by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which is headquartered in Washington, DC. FAIR (or, more precisely, UNFAIR) then shopped the bill around to the states until Arizona State Senator-In-Recall, Russell Pearce agreed to sponsor it as the infamous SB1070. It has since been brought before state legislatures in Alabama, Georgia, and South Dakota.

Now Kenneth Blackwell, an Ohio citizen and Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council in Washington, DC, is pushing an anti-abortion bill for the state of Mississippi. The bill, if the voters of Mississippi pass it, will ban all abortions in the state by extending First Amendment rights to fetuses. And this isn’t the first hayride for the bill. It was previously promoted, and defeated, in Colorado.

Now, I believe US citizens should be able to create and pass legislation to solve problems in their own states as long as they meet the standards of our US Constitution. But it is one thing for a state legislature to identify issues, and quite another for special interest groups to write and promote legislative solutions in search of a problem.

It’s time for this nonsense to stop.

Are We Now Officially Living In A Police State?

Posted on by

When the American public watched televised scenes of non-violent black marchers being attacked by baton-wielding police and their dogs in the 1950s south, the public’s disgust virtually assured the end of the Jim Crow era.

When students at Kent State University were shot by National Guard troops for demonstrating against the Vietnam War, public outrage made the end of the war inevitable.

So what are we to make of the general indifference our citizens have shown toward the police brutality at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

If you haven’t been paying attention, New York police have routinely emptied pepper spray containers in the faces of non-violent demonstrators before hauling them off to jail. During one example of police brutality, an Iraq veteran confronted officers by asking, “Why are you doing this? You are supposed to be serving our citizens.” He went on to explain that he was in the Military Police in Iraq, and the military never treated Iraqis this way.

On the other side of the country, witnesses say another Iraq veteran was critically injured by police as he was demonstrating against Wall Street and the 1%. The Oakland, California police claim they were merely breaking up the demonstration with the use of rubber bullets and tear gas canisters because of “unsafe sanitary conditions.”

In other words, we gassed and beat you to ensure your safety!

Despite these horrible incidents, most of our citizens (particularly Teapublicans) have reacted with a collective ho-hum. Why? Perhaps it’s because scenes of police abusing demonstrators have become common-place.

Our Constitution guarantees the right to assembly and free speech. Yet many in Congress, the media, and our increasingly militarized city police departments seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

Instead, they blame the protestors for police violence.

It’s time for all US citizens to look at the police violence and ask, “Is this the future of our country? Are we now willing to accept brutality from Kevlar helmeted police armed with tear gas, assault rifles and even tanks? Are we willing to concede that corporations have freedom of speech, but ordinary citizens do not? Is it okay for big corporate interests to bankrupt our economy, ask the government to bail them out then pay themselves millions in bonuses with taxpayer money? Are we okay with living in a police state?

And if the answers are yes, what can we expect in the future?  Scenes similar to the military crackdown in Syria? Threats by our own Gaddafis to kill protestors like rats? Or a US citizen blocking a column of US tanks in a futile attempt to stop a violent attack on peaceful protestors? Where does it stop?

Proof That Trickle-Down Economics Work.

Posted on by

In the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockman, revived an old economic theory as the basis for the Reagan administration’s 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.

How Did We Get Here?

Posted on by

Once upon a time, the most distinguishing characteristic between Republicans and Democrats was a difference in opinion on how to solve social problems and improve our nation.

For example, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Robert Dole all agreed to the need for universal healthcare. They simply offered different means of accomplishing it. Indeed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama was actually based upon ideas by Nixon, Dole and Mitt Romney – all Republicans.

Contrary to current party ideologies, it was a Republican senator who authored the first anti-trust act. It was a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who most aggressively enforced it to break up large corporate monopolies such as Standard Oil. And contrary to the Republican Party’s conservative heritage, it was Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who created most of our national debt.

Similarly, it was a “liberal” Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who most aggressively controlled revenue and spending resulting in annual budget surpluses.

Unfortunately, the subtle gap between the ideologies has turned into an ever-expanding gulf.

Even as the Democratic Party has moved to the center right, the Republican Party has lept to the way-off-the-map extreme right. Republicans no longer talk about merely limiting government. They now talk about “starving the beast” and declare the government as the enemy. Indeed, they have set their sights on eliminating entire departments and agencies.

They demand an end to the intrusion of government into their lives. At the same time, they want to tell women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

They protect the incomes of millionaires and billionaires while rewarding corporations for sending middle class jobs overseas. They rail against class warfare as they continue to redistribute wealth upward. They approve of billionaires paying a lower percentage of their incomes than working people.

They praise the Founding Fathers while denying the very principles they fought for. Though the Founding Fathers declared that “all men are created equal,” Republicans deny equality to gays, blacks, latinos and anyone else who is different. Thanks to Republican appointments to the Supreme Court, corporations now have the rights of people. And since the same Republican-appointed members of the Court ruled that money equals free speech, large corporations have more rights than people.

The differences between the parties are abundantly clear. The question is how on Earth did we ever get here?

Teapublican Lie #22.

Posted on by

“Welfare moms are worse for our economy than welfare CEOs.”

For years, you’ve 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, “They’re 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, you’ll…” line. But many are divorced and a few are widowed. Contrary to Gov. Scott’s expectations, very few are chemically dependent. And they’re 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, let’s 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, don’t 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?”

Origins Of The Right’s Misplaced Hate Of Obama.

Posted on by

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 administration’s lax oversight of the financial industry.

They focused, instead, on President Obama’s 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 President’s 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 don’t 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.”