Posts in category: 1

WHY WE’RE PROGRESSIVES

A friend recently shared an e-mail exchange he had with members of his extended family — about the appropriate role of government in our lives.  It began with his attempt to derail the spread of another one of those viral e-mails that disseminates misinformation.  We were impressed with the quality and thoughtfulness of the conversation, and wanted to share with our readers some key passages written by our friend.

E-MAIL 1:

“OK folks … to avoid another fiasco like the one that happened the last time I tried to stop the spread of misinformation, this time I’m sending this message out to you hopefully before you fall prey to the deception.  The original e-mail at the bottom of this thread is now spreading across the Internet despite the fact that it is patently false.

Please read … and if by some chance you’ve inadvertently already contributed to spreading these lies by forwarding this hoax e-mail, take the required steps to set things straight.

Thanks in advance for doing the right thing. No matter what your politics are … may the truth prevail!

Hoax!  Debunked here:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/HR3590.asp (see link for original hoax e-mail).”

Phone calls were then exchanged with one member of the extended family, and the conversation expanded to include disagreements about the role of government in our country.

We pick up the thread of the conversation as it returns to the e-mail exchange:

E-MAIL 2:

“… therefore, if all we can do is effect the future (since there clearly is no changing of the past), then shouldn’t we endeavor to build a system of government, flawed though it might be, that regulates against blatant corporate theft (e.g., shady bank derivatives, health insurance denials, oil companies taking short cuts that create enormous environment disasters)?  And one that supports growth, education, and the development of mankind as a whole (e.g., ensures sufficient taxpayer dollars are used to pay for basic social services like ensuring an accident or illness won’t bankrupt you, and that deserving kids could get a quality college education without having to mortgage their parents, and that scientists could get funded to advance technology, conquer illness, etc.)?  

That’s the reason we need governance.  We don’t live in caves anymore.  We’re a complex interdependent global body of cousins (we’re all ridiculously closely-related).  We must try to help each other.  Build the future.  Invest in ourselves.  And not throw away our riches on confrontation, but instead build treaties, plans, and regulations that benefit everyone.  This takes positive government — a government dedicated to moving forward with the best possible ideas and policies we’re able to come up with … even if such ideas are not perfect.

Hands-off isolationism is simply not a workable solution.  Left to their own devices, corporations, institutions, and even individual people, will and do take shortcuts:  cheat, not plan for emergencies, etc.  We need to  appy ourselves as a nation (and as a species) or we’ll suffer the consequences.

That’s why I’m not anti-government.”

And these passionately written sentiments, my friends, are why we’re Progressives.  Oh, hell — why not just say it:  WE’RE PROUD LIBERALS!

We first saw this fascinating graphic on The Rachael Maddow Show.  She held it up and said, “Democratic candidates no longer have to run on offering themselves as a choice between themselves and their opponent.  All they have to do now is hold up this graph and tell the voters that they have a choice between Democratic results and Republican results.”

The graph was prepared by Catherine Mulbrandon of Visualizing Economics.  She put the economic numbers, compiled by Princeton political scientist, Larry Bartels, into visual form for a Slate magazine article — United States of Inequality, by Timothy Noah.   And the result is compelling.

The numbers prove, and the graph demonstrates, that the country as a whole prospers more under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.  AND, it shows clearly that under Republican presidents the wealthy benefit way out of proportion to the rest of our citizens;  AND, it’s also very easy to see that under Democrats, while everyone benefits more than they do under Republicans, the middle and lower income Americans benefit more than the wealthiest among us.

AGAIN, everyone prospers more under Democratic presidents, it’s just that the wealthy don’t benefit out of proportion — as under Republicans— as the middle and lower income earners.  Everyone wins.

Our conclusion is that when more money is put into the hands of the middle-class and the poor, they spend it.  When the concentration of our nation’s wealth is in the hands of the uber-rich — they save it.  When money is taken out of the economy it suffers.

The really odd thing about this situation is that if these conclusions are true, then the super-rich are really not only screwing the country — they’re screwing themselves.  And, at the same time — as first mentioned in our post on September 4, WHERE’S THE MIDDLE-CLASS? — they’re creating a country that they won’t even want to live in.

It looks like the US grew more unequal under Republicans.  Income growth was much bigger under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.  And, that very FACT tells us that greater Income Equality coexists very nicely with higher levels of prosperity.  Some economists, like Les Leopold who blogs at Huffington Post, believe that greater equality even helps to create greater prosperity.

This could all be remedied if the American people would look at the FACTS (see below!) and stop listening to right-wing ideologues at Fox News.

***COLIN POWELL SAYS NEW YORK MOSQUE SHOULD GO FORWARD:  Former Secretary of State in the George W. administration, Gen. Colin Powell, says he strongly supports a community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City.  “If you believe in our system…then you can’t make a distinction between two, three, five, and ten blocks” away from the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  On ABC’s The View, he said “politicians” have used the issue for political reasons, and noted that the criticism of the mosque is indicative of a current wave of “Islamophobia across the country.”

***PALIN-BECK PROFITEERING ON 9/11:  Conservatives and groups of right-wingers are planning to use the anniversary of 9/11 this weekend to make some big bucks and score political points.  And, among them are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.  They’re teaming up in Anchorage, AK for a rally, and are charging attendees between $74 and $225 admission.  The Hill reports “There was no indication as to whom or what the proceeds will go.”  And, The Hill says that promoters for this rally are trying to downplay the perception of profiteering on the memory of 9/11.  Republicans are holding political rallys and fundraising events across the country on Saturday, and are not all shy about using 9/11 as a political and profitable issue.

 ***HALEY BARBOUR’S HAIR IS ON FIRE ABOUT PAYING FOR OBAMA’S TAX CUTS, BUT IGNORES THE COST OF GEORGE W.’S:  President Obama proposed new tax breaks for businesses this week to help jump start the economy.  You’d think that the Repubs would have jumped right on this idea — after all they’ve been beating the drums for business tax cuts for the past year.  But, naw, they’re not interested now that the President has proposed the same ideas.  Presidential hopeful, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, responded with, “very good,” but then added that the “problem” with the President’s plan is that “we do not know how he will pay for it.”  Huh?

If Barbour has had a ‘road to Damascus’ conversion about paying for tax cuts, what’s HIS plan to pay for the Bush tax cuts for the rich?  Republicans have done little else in the last few months but push for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, while insisting they do not need to be paid for. 

The Bush tax cuts for the super-rich 2% of Americans will rack up a cost of $830 billion to the deficit over the next decade, way more than the $180 billion price tag for the President’s plan.  Barbour has not had any concerns about the Bush tax cuts being paid for — just the President’s.  Hypocrites. 

***THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN TO DEFINE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY:  This week in Milwaukee and Cleveland President Obama labeled Repubs the party of “stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness and a shrinking middle class.” Earlier this summer the President was quoted as saying, “They forget that I’m pretty good at politicin’.”  We’re hoping that this week is just the beginning of improved Democratic messaging, leading up to the November mid-term elections.    

HERE’S ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE PIE-CHARTS WE JUST LOVE!  IT’S THE INCOME-INEQUALITY, STUPID.

PONDER THIS:  64% of all the growth in income in the last 30 years has gone to the top 10%.

WHEN IDEALOGY MEETS REALITY

The President began to draw the differences between himself and his critics yesterday in a speech in Ohio —  and, he defined the differences in terms of a value system.  Here’s a brief example:

“I ran for president because for much of the last decade, a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how America should work: Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn’t benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and in our future — in education and clean energy, in research and technology. The idea was that if we just had blind faith in the market, if we let corporations play by their own rules, if we left everyone else to fend for themselves that America would grow and America would prosper.”

While acknowledging that this philosophy gave a temporary boost he points out that over the long-term the result has been a decimated middle class and a floundering economy. 

He reminds us that “government action” with the G.I. Bill and the F.H.A. contributed to a thriving middle class (resulting in a robust economy), and that “government action” created our nation’s infrastructure that was the envy of the world.

The speech is about 45 minutes long.  Check out the transcript or watch the video.  It’s worth taking the time — it’s really THAT good!

CHECK-IT-OUT: Timothy Noah writes about The United States of Inequality in today’s Slate.  Great perspective and more FACTS to back up our previous post on Income Inequality,

We especially like the final paragraph which explains so clearly how the 1%-ers are getting away with it.

“Why don’t Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity? One reason may be our enduring belief in social mobility. Economic inequality is less troubling if you live in a country where any child, no matter how humble his or her origins, can grow up to be president. In a survey of 27 nations conducted from 1998 to 2001, the country where the highest proportion agreed with the statement “people are rewarded for intelligence and skill” was, of course, the United States. (69 percent). But when it comes to real as opposed to imagined social mobility, surveys find less in the United States than in much of (what we consider) the class-bound Old World. France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Spain—not to mention some newer nations like Canada and Australia—are all places where your chances of rising from the bottom are better than they are in the land of Horatio Alger’s Ragged Dick.”

Even though the American economy kept growing, hourly wages flattened. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted for inflation, than he did 30 years ago.

***AP REPORTS CONSUMER CONFIDENCE TICKED UP SLIGHTLY IN AUGUST:  The Consumer Confidence Index inched up from 51.0 in July, to 53.5 in August.  Economists had expected 50.5, following two months of straight declines.  A reading of 90 or above indicates confidence in a robust economy.  The survey indicates that American people are still in a sour mood, and with the current unemployment conditions it’s not likely to improve significantly any time soon.  Still, a rise in consumer confidence — however slight — is better than a decline.

***MISINFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY:  Righties’ scare tactics about Social Security ‘insolvency’ involve citing  s  c  a  r  y  statistics.  Well, here’s one that’s actually pretty reassuring:  Social Security currently has a $2.5 TRILLION surplus, AND will pay 100% of benefits through 2037.  Worse case scenario:  it will pay 78% of benefits through 2084.  So, when they tell you it’s broke, they are lying, lying, lying!

Apples and Oranges/Dollars and Percents.  A favorite scare-tactic is when the Right tell us that there will be a $5.4 trillion shortfall through 2084 in the Social Security program.  AND that is a scary number, but when looked at in percentages the picture becomes clearer.  $5.4 trillion, over the coming 75 years, in percentages is 1.92% of taxable payroll, or 0.7% of GDP.  A highly manageable number with several options among Social Security“easy fixes.” 

***AND, HERE’S ONE SOCIAL SECURITY “EASY FIX” OPTION:  Check out this graph, prepared by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  This visual shows us that extending the Bush tax cuts for those with incomes over $250,000 (or the top 2%) would be about the same as the entire Social Security shortfall during the same period!  According to Kathy Ruffing and Paul N. Van de Water at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.”  Hypocrites! 

I know, I know — “It’s a vast right-wing conspiracy” is NOT going to gain a lot of traction.  So, let’s ditch the word “conspiracy” because it’s a loaded one that’s easy to caricature.

And yet, there does appear to be a concerted effort to undermine and de-legitimize President Obama.  According to Senator Russ Feingold, these efforts seemed to get underway right after the inauguration.

The so-called “grass roots” Tea Party movement is anything but.  It is organized and bankrolled by right-wing billionaires and the oil industry.

And recently jumping on the “Obama is a failed President” bandwagon are the very Wall Street movers and shakers that the President agreed to bail out when Bush proposed it via the TARP at the end of his presidency.  Their main complaint is that they don’t want to be re-regulated AND they don’t want their personal income tax-rates to go up from 35% to the Clinton era rates at 39.6%.

These complaints seem petty, especially when we consider that the de-regulation that benefited their ability to roll the dice and pocket BIG profits backfired so badly on the world economy.  But, the devastated world economy apparently has not effected their profits and lifestyles and so they see no reason to pay their fair-share, much less “pay the piper.”

We can see little legitimate reason for them to turn against Obama, nor do we think they would do so if they didn’t smell blood in the water.

And the blood-letting began with the Koch brothers, of Koch Industries.  These billionaire brothers are among the worse polluters on the planet, don’t want any regulation (you see, regulations interfere with their ability to pocket profits!), and are fervently anti-government libertarians.

The uber wealthy will do all in their power to prevent change in this country —  and one of their most successful tactics has always been the old “divide and conquer” approach.   They put clowns like Beck and Limbaugh out front to carry their message and distract the country from the reality of the results of their policies — the ever widening gap between rich and poor.  

Check out this article in The New Yorker about the Koch brothers and consider, just for a moment — What if all the anti-Obama, anti-government sentiment is being motivated by profit driven (and anti-patriotic as far as we’re concerned) greedy bastards?