What If FDR, Truman Or Eisenhower Faced This Congress?

Posted on 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?

World’s Greatest Nation? Really?

Posted on 7. August 2011 by admin

Although many Americans are fond of calling the US the greatest nation on Earth, that hasnt been true for many years. Certainly we have the worlds most powerful military, but thats no criteria for greatness. Neither is the fact that we are still the worlds 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 didnt 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.

A Primer On The National Debt From Reagan’s Economic Advisers.

Posted on 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 dont 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 MSNBCs Hardball with Chris Matthews, The dirty secret is that Obamas a moderate conservative. Further, he noted that $7 trillion of the national debt is due to George W. Bushs 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 Obamas 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.

Economic Terrorism

Posted on 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 wont 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.

Republicans In Denial (As In Denial Of Any Democrat Proposal)

Posted on 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.

Republican Agenda Has Never Been More Clear.

Posted on 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.

Social Security Is Not An Entitlement. It’s A Safety Net.

Posted on 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 individuals 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 didnt. 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 retirees earnings with pension plans. In the U.S., the number is roughly 40 percent.

Maybe the best way to fix the deficit is to do nothing.

Posted on 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.

The Deficit Scam.

Posted on 29. March 2011 by admin

In a Tea Party-based stupor, Republicans are locked in a battle with President Obama and Senate Democrats over cuts to the sizeable deficit. Of course, rather than look at the real causes of the deficit, they continue to attack Democratic-supported institutions such as labor unions, Public Broadcasting, the Department of Education, Planned Parenthood, the health care reform bill and the so-called “entitlements” of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, of course, they place most of the blame for the deficit on President Obama.Once again, the Republicans are dead wrong.

According to a report by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “…the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”

Even the costs of the stimulus bill and financial rescues have had relatively little impact on the deficit. Again, according to the CBPP, “those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the defict.” The CBPP report continues, “Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration – tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits … through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.”

The truth is that the current Republican initiatives to cut the deficit are a ruse. They are merely driven by ideology in an attempt to strengthen their hold on public office. There are only three ways to cut the deficit without harming the middle class and the most vulnerable people in our society: Cut our bloated defense budget designed, not just to protect us, but to force our will on the rest of the world. End corporate welfare such as the obscene subsidies for Big Oil. And raise taxes on those who can most afford it, such as the 400 Americans who control 50 percent of the nation’s wealth.

If you’d like to read the entire CBPP report for yourself, follow this link: http://www.cbpp.org/files/12-16-09bud.pdf