by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
A couple of weeks ago, my brother Gordon sent me an email that asked a specific question. The headline read “How high should we tax the rich?” In the message he implied that I saw all wealthy as “evil” and sought to punish them for their prosperity. That is an unfair characterization of me and of the large plurality of Americans who poll in favor of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share.
Gordon’s premise was that no matter how high we set the tax rate for the rich, the increased revenue would fall short of addressing the deficit and national debt. His claim was that it would only meet 10 percent of the federal deficit. Well, his math is a bit skewed because it uses IRS “earnings” figures, which fail to allow for all the sources of wealth the wealthy enjoy. It also wasn’t the first time that I had come across this particular mathematical argument. It has been making the talk radio rounds for the past few weeks as conservatives are attacking President Obama and calling speeches defending his budgetary strategy a “Soak the Rich” tour. Rush Limbaugh laid out the scenario that even if you “confiscated” 100% of the wealthy’s income (a one-time deal, in his mind, because then it’s gone), it would fall short of resolving the deficit of the current year. Well, nobody is proposing a 100% tax rate for the wealthy, but all of this detracts from the real forces at play here.
At the core of our nation’s economic problems (at least for the 99 percent of Americans profoundly impacted by the recession), is a class war that has been going on for decades, nearly unchecked by those in power (regardless of their political party affiliation). There is a systemic agenda to distribute wealth from the bottom to the top, which is intended to maintain and grow an enormous gap between the wealthiest among us and the poor. Through legislative policy, tax codes and funding for services like education and job creation the middle class has been shrunk to near extinction and the poor have been devastated.
Corporate influence in Washington (and even at the state and local levels) has gotten so out of control that every politician from the freshman congressman, to the senior senator, to the President of the United States is beholden to corporate interests. During the debate, which resulted in the current crippled health care plan, conservatives adamantly opposed the proposal out of selfish motivation (“I’m not paying for your coverage”). However, an enemy just as big was the fact that health care represents a third of the U.S. economy. Private insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other health industry powers exerted enormous influence over the process and the imperfect product that emerged. Of course, conservatives and Tea Partiers are intent on repealing the law and stripping from it any benefits that still exist.
I am not interested in punishing the wealthy with taxation. I don’t even demonize CEOs and executives who receive obscene bonuses and salaries at a time when the rest of us are struggling to put food on our tables and gas in our cars. But I absolutely don’t subscribe to the theory that tax cuts at the top stimulate the economy in a way that benefits everyone. The trickle-down lie upon which Reaganomics was based is still doing its damages to our economy (except to the economic growth of the top earners who have had positive growth even in the midst of deep recession). If we could somehow tie tax breaks as an incentive to create jobs, I would lend my support. But no one from either major party is “seriously” pursuing this.
What I believe is ridiculous is the conservative claim that the deficit is chief among the nation’s problems. If Paul Ryan and the Republicans in Congress were really serious about addressing deficit spending, why are they still fighting for the tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent? And why is Congressman Ryan seeking even greater tax giveaways to the wealthy while asking the middle class and the poor to make sacrifices? The answer is clearer than it appears. Corporate corruption of the democratic process in the United States feeds itself.
Budgets are increasingly being used to feed the rich and starve the poor. Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare (among other dastardly provisions of his “Path to Prosperity” – for the prosperous) will benefit private insurance on the backs of seniors and others who will end up paying out-of-pocket money they can’t afford for substandard coverage. State budgets across the country are being used to wage war on public workers and other working class individuals, while refusing to even ask corporations to share sacrifice.
Voucher programs like the Ryan Medicare proposal have been used for years to dress cuts in programs in seemingly innocuous terms. Vouchers for education have been used to drain money from public school systems and funnel it into the private sector. As education is increasingly under fire, vouchers, charter schools and funding cuts will be commonly used as tools to bankrupt public education and further disadvantage the poor. All of this is part of the systemic shift currently building the abysmal U.S. wealth gap.
There is no attack on the nation’s rich, but there is undeniably an attack on the working poor. One only need listen to conservative punditry to get a sense of the disdain the conservative movement holds for the poor. Limbaugh, last week, expressed his extreme dismay that 47% of Americans pay no taxes. The premise of that show’s bloviation was that the nanny state had created half a nation of lazy citizens, happy to rest on their laurels and have the wealthy pay their way. The sneering tone was nauseating, but not nearly as sickening as his disregard for the corporate bias and systemic corruption that has created the ranks of poor who don’t earn enough to pay taxes.
I am not interested in punishing the “evil” rich, but I will stand proudly in defense of the middle class and poor against an unfair vilification and despicable attack.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
We’re all in this together
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
It is a curious thing to behold when one follows the current debate being waged in Washington over the 2012 budget and the need to address the ballooning U.S. debt and our ever-increasing deficit spending. It is no surprise that we have differing views about how we should meet this challenge. After all, our system of two-party representative government assures that we will have disparate views on economic policies and almost every other topic. It is also no surprise that neither side will admit or disclose weaknesses or fallacies within their respective position.
The most curious aspect about the debate centers around certain words and ideologies that have been co-opted and/or misappropriated.
For example, if you listen carefully or read carefully, you will notice certain words are almost always grouped together. Take the words “fair share” and “wealthy” – it seems the common misconception being presented here is that the wealthy take a disproportionate amount of government services and return a less than equitable amount back into the treasury. This is the policy being promoted in the current presidential campaign by Barack Obama. He suggests that if we confiscated just a bit more from the top earners in our nation, we could bring down the debt and lower the deficit.
The idea of increasing taxes will not fulfill the purpose of lowering the deficit – even if we could take 100% of all earnings from the top 1% of earners, we would only garner the cost of last year’s health care legislation cost ($968 Billion). Despite what Keith says to the contrary in his article, the figures used represented the net worth of the top 1% and are legitimate. Therefore we must look elsewhere if we really want to stimulate the economy and lower our deficit – and the debt and deficit is a serious inhibitory influence upon our economy, as well as a threat to the future security of our nation’s sovereignty.
At the risk of losing some readers who find statistics and studies to be too much like going to class, I feel I must spend some time explaining why tax cuts will do more to enhance our economic growth and lower our dependence on foreign investors (China) for our operating capital.
There is valid proof that lowering tax rates for all taxpayers does more to stimulate the economy than raising taxes.
First of all, all we have to do is look at the recent news story about how GE (you know, that tiny, multi-national corporation that is run by Obama’s Jobs Czar and buddy, Jeffrey Immelt) paid no corporate taxes this year on its profits of over $14 billion – $5.1 billion from U.S. operations – because they were able to, with the help of over 975 tax experts (cheats) in their tax evasion department, find enough loopholes to squeeze all their profits through the tax code and into the pockets of executives and shareholders. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1)
We see here that increasing tax rates serve to stimulate the economy of the lobbyists and tax lawyers while doing very little to stimulate the general economy,
Conversely, there is much evidence that lowering tax rates across the board – while also sewing up those leaky loopholes (hmmm…sounds like that Paul Ryan “Path to Prosperity”, doesn’t it?) does indeed stimulate the national economy and raise the standard of living for the general populace.
For example, an article written by Alan Reynolds on The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, cites a book, Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press) which demonstrates how decreasing the marginal tax rates has stimulated the economies of several nations including Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)
Now, we have two clear choices before us as this debate goes forward and the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest. We can either choose the status quo, represented by President Obama’s rehashing of failed policies (raise taxes and maintain or increase spending levels) or we can “man up”, face the adult facts of life – like the fact that we cannot sustain an economy in which over 41 cents of every government dollar spent goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security – and make serious reforms in the system.
In conclusion, listen carefully and skeptically to those who try to separate us into camps according to the Adjusted Gross Income on our 1040’s. In other words, a person’s private property is still private property whether it is measured in hundreds or hundreds of millions. We should realize that we are all Americans and we all benefit from a healthy economy and likewise, we all suffer from a poor economy. History proves that a higher tax rate stifles and inhibits an economy while a lower tax rate puts more capital into the system.
From Broader View Weekly, April 28, 2011
It is a curious thing to behold when one follows the current debate being waged in Washington over the 2012 budget and the need to address the ballooning U.S. debt and our ever-increasing deficit spending. It is no surprise that we have differing views about how we should meet this challenge. After all, our system of two-party representative government assures that we will have disparate views on economic policies and almost every other topic. It is also no surprise that neither side will admit or disclose weaknesses or fallacies within their respective position.
The most curious aspect about the debate centers around certain words and ideologies that have been co-opted and/or misappropriated.
For example, if you listen carefully or read carefully, you will notice certain words are almost always grouped together. Take the words “fair share” and “wealthy” – it seems the common misconception being presented here is that the wealthy take a disproportionate amount of government services and return a less than equitable amount back into the treasury. This is the policy being promoted in the current presidential campaign by Barack Obama. He suggests that if we confiscated just a bit more from the top earners in our nation, we could bring down the debt and lower the deficit.
The idea of increasing taxes will not fulfill the purpose of lowering the deficit – even if we could take 100% of all earnings from the top 1% of earners, we would only garner the cost of last year’s health care legislation cost ($968 Billion). Despite what Keith says to the contrary in his article, the figures used represented the net worth of the top 1% and are legitimate. Therefore we must look elsewhere if we really want to stimulate the economy and lower our deficit – and the debt and deficit is a serious inhibitory influence upon our economy, as well as a threat to the future security of our nation’s sovereignty.
At the risk of losing some readers who find statistics and studies to be too much like going to class, I feel I must spend some time explaining why tax cuts will do more to enhance our economic growth and lower our dependence on foreign investors (China) for our operating capital.
There is valid proof that lowering tax rates for all taxpayers does more to stimulate the economy than raising taxes.
First of all, all we have to do is look at the recent news story about how GE (you know, that tiny, multi-national corporation that is run by Obama’s Jobs Czar and buddy, Jeffrey Immelt) paid no corporate taxes this year on its profits of over $14 billion – $5.1 billion from U.S. operations – because they were able to, with the help of over 975 tax experts (cheats) in their tax evasion department, find enough loopholes to squeeze all their profits through the tax code and into the pockets of executives and shareholders. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1)
We see here that increasing tax rates serve to stimulate the economy of the lobbyists and tax lawyers while doing very little to stimulate the general economy,
Conversely, there is much evidence that lowering tax rates across the board – while also sewing up those leaky loopholes (hmmm…sounds like that Paul Ryan “Path to Prosperity”, doesn’t it?) does indeed stimulate the national economy and raise the standard of living for the general populace.
For example, an article written by Alan Reynolds on The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, cites a book, Economic Growth by Robert J. Barro and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (MIT Press) which demonstrates how decreasing the marginal tax rates has stimulated the economies of several nations including Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html)
Now, we have two clear choices before us as this debate goes forward and the 2012 presidential campaign begins in earnest. We can either choose the status quo, represented by President Obama’s rehashing of failed policies (raise taxes and maintain or increase spending levels) or we can “man up”, face the adult facts of life – like the fact that we cannot sustain an economy in which over 41 cents of every government dollar spent goes to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security – and make serious reforms in the system.
In conclusion, listen carefully and skeptically to those who try to separate us into camps according to the Adjusted Gross Income on our 1040’s. In other words, a person’s private property is still private property whether it is measured in hundreds or hundreds of millions. We should realize that we are all Americans and we all benefit from a healthy economy and likewise, we all suffer from a poor economy. History proves that a higher tax rate stifles and inhibits an economy while a lower tax rate puts more capital into the system.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Notes from the Battlefield
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
In spite of my opposition to the overuse of militaristic terms to describe things that have no real comparison to the bloody, noisy, messy, pain-filled, stink-of-death reality of genuine warfare, I hope you will indulge me this time as I try to put a perspective on the current debate centered around our federal budget.
It was 150 years ago this week (April 12, 1861) that shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. As we all know (or should know) those shots were followed by many fierce battles that left thousands of bodies of fellow citizens strewn across farm fields and family lawns for four long, brutal years.
As we look back upon that terrible and divisive time we can gain some lessons about what took place recently in our nation’s capital. As with the Civil War, first shots do not determine the final outcome and advances and retreats must be made by each side before victory or defeat is finally registered.
I believe the deal struck between Messrs. Reid, Obama and Boehner late Friday night represents the first shots fired in what will definitely be a long, brutal conflict between two ideological encampments.
On the one side we see those who seem reluctant to acknowledge the danger faced by stifling debts and deficit spending. On the other side we see those who feel compelled to limit the reach of government and to bring spending under control.
The agreement reached late Friday evening represents a historical shift in fiscal direction. For once we are talking about cutting spending rather than increasing spending. The final agreement set the budget of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, at $1.049 trillion. That is $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010 and $79 billion less than President Obama had requested. These figures are less than what I would want in an ideal world, but I recognize the advantage of gaining objectives by incremental steps and I can see larger and more significant battlefields ahead.
It should go without saying that our national debt is a serious threat to our national security and the continued deficit spending cannot be sustained, but if one were to listen to many of the critics of Boehner and his proposal, one would think the lesson needs to be taught over and over again. Any serious attempt to cut back on spending is met with howls of protest from those who somehow believe the problem can be shoved down the road to future generations.
That is why I believe the real budget battles lie ahead as Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is introduced as the model for the 2012 fiscal year. The serious spending cuts and revolutionary reforms contained in that document may not all make it to the light of day, but at the very least it will spur open debate and any progress it makes toward lowering our deficit will be worthwhile.
While time and space do not allow me to go into detail about his plan, some of the highlights are the following:
_ The plan would cut spending over the next decade by $6.2 trillion from Obama’s budget. This would return Washington’s slice of the economy to its historical average, below 20 percent, rather than Obama’s 23 percent spending floor.
_ Ryan would also eliminate $2.3 trillion in tax hikes, including $800 billion avoided by repealing the unpopular healthcare bill.
_ The “Path to Prosperity” would also combine hundreds of overlapping programs, scrap others, and reform some, such as Medicare. While leaving beneficiaries over age 55 untouched, Ryan’s plan would give future retirees funds to help them purchase their choice of health coverage, rather than one Washington-dictated plan. Similarly, instead of a single federal Medicaid model, governors and state legislators would use federal block grants to serve the diverse needs of poor people in, say, Arizona and Vermont.
“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little. The government is running deficits because it spends too much,” Ryan’s plan continues. It adds, “Over the past 40 years, government revenue has averaged between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. This level has generally been compatible with prosperity, even though there is broad agreement that the structure of the tax code should be simplified and made more conducive to economic growth, high wages, and entrepreneurship.”
Hence, the Path closes deductions and loopholes and lowers top individual and corporate taxes to 25 percent. This outright tax relief would end America’s 35 percent business levy, the industrial world’s highest. (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf)
In conclusion, do not be quick to claim victory or defeat for either side at this point. The consequences of last November’s “shellacking” of President Obama and his policies will be forthcoming in several minor skirmishes and we can only hope our nation will come out the better for it just like she came out the better for going through that long, bitter conflict 150 years ago this week.
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
In spite of my opposition to the overuse of militaristic terms to describe things that have no real comparison to the bloody, noisy, messy, pain-filled, stink-of-death reality of genuine warfare, I hope you will indulge me this time as I try to put a perspective on the current debate centered around our federal budget.
It was 150 years ago this week (April 12, 1861) that shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. As we all know (or should know) those shots were followed by many fierce battles that left thousands of bodies of fellow citizens strewn across farm fields and family lawns for four long, brutal years.
As we look back upon that terrible and divisive time we can gain some lessons about what took place recently in our nation’s capital. As with the Civil War, first shots do not determine the final outcome and advances and retreats must be made by each side before victory or defeat is finally registered.
I believe the deal struck between Messrs. Reid, Obama and Boehner late Friday night represents the first shots fired in what will definitely be a long, brutal conflict between two ideological encampments.
On the one side we see those who seem reluctant to acknowledge the danger faced by stifling debts and deficit spending. On the other side we see those who feel compelled to limit the reach of government and to bring spending under control.
The agreement reached late Friday evening represents a historical shift in fiscal direction. For once we are talking about cutting spending rather than increasing spending. The final agreement set the budget of the 2011 fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, at $1.049 trillion. That is $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010 and $79 billion less than President Obama had requested. These figures are less than what I would want in an ideal world, but I recognize the advantage of gaining objectives by incremental steps and I can see larger and more significant battlefields ahead.
It should go without saying that our national debt is a serious threat to our national security and the continued deficit spending cannot be sustained, but if one were to listen to many of the critics of Boehner and his proposal, one would think the lesson needs to be taught over and over again. Any serious attempt to cut back on spending is met with howls of protest from those who somehow believe the problem can be shoved down the road to future generations.
That is why I believe the real budget battles lie ahead as Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is introduced as the model for the 2012 fiscal year. The serious spending cuts and revolutionary reforms contained in that document may not all make it to the light of day, but at the very least it will spur open debate and any progress it makes toward lowering our deficit will be worthwhile.
While time and space do not allow me to go into detail about his plan, some of the highlights are the following:
_ The plan would cut spending over the next decade by $6.2 trillion from Obama’s budget. This would return Washington’s slice of the economy to its historical average, below 20 percent, rather than Obama’s 23 percent spending floor.
_ Ryan would also eliminate $2.3 trillion in tax hikes, including $800 billion avoided by repealing the unpopular healthcare bill.
_ The “Path to Prosperity” would also combine hundreds of overlapping programs, scrap others, and reform some, such as Medicare. While leaving beneficiaries over age 55 untouched, Ryan’s plan would give future retirees funds to help them purchase their choice of health coverage, rather than one Washington-dictated plan. Similarly, instead of a single federal Medicaid model, governors and state legislators would use federal block grants to serve the diverse needs of poor people in, say, Arizona and Vermont.
“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little. The government is running deficits because it spends too much,” Ryan’s plan continues. It adds, “Over the past 40 years, government revenue has averaged between 18 percent and 19 percent of GDP. This level has generally been compatible with prosperity, even though there is broad agreement that the structure of the tax code should be simplified and made more conducive to economic growth, high wages, and entrepreneurship.”
Hence, the Path closes deductions and loopholes and lowers top individual and corporate taxes to 25 percent. This outright tax relief would end America’s 35 percent business levy, the industrial world’s highest. (http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf)
In conclusion, do not be quick to claim victory or defeat for either side at this point. The consequences of last November’s “shellacking” of President Obama and his policies will be forthcoming in several minor skirmishes and we can only hope our nation will come out the better for it just like she came out the better for going through that long, bitter conflict 150 years ago this week.
The Casualties of the Budget Battle
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
I agree with my brother Gordon that the fight that ended with a last minute agreement on the April 8th deadline is just the beginning of a long struggle that will only get nastier and more politically charged as the process goes forward.
Even as time and the funding of the government was running out last week; even as the threat of a shutdown that would be most painful for those least able to withstand its effect loomed ominously, negotiations were hijacked by politicians pushing ideological issues like abortion, and climate change. And after the shutdown was averted, Republicans in Congress beholden to conservative Tea Partiers still vowed to withdraw their support for the budget (even though the amount of cuts won through negotiation exceeded the amount originally sought by the GOP).
As the wrangling dragged on and the Republicans held the nation hostage (acting as if they had won both Houses of Congress and the White House in November), it became clearer that the debate over the budget was not about the national debt or reducing the deficit. It was all about posturing for 2012. Not the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget that Paul Ryan’s joke of a plan would make a pretense to address, but the 2012 Presidential election that began last week with Obama’s official campaign kickoff.
The Republican line-up of serious candidates is a bleak showing indeed. One need only note that Donald Trump, whose outrageous “birther” platform is decried by his own party, is second on the 2012 GOP leader board to judge the lackluster pack of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side. The party’s only hope against Obama (who is still scoring high on polls, despite a drop in approval rating) is to rally the existing base without alienating the swing-voters who often decide elections.
More problematic is the fact that Republicans are facing the inevitability of raising the debt ceiling. The Tea Party has already expressed its extreme displeasure at this likelihood. The reality of economics and processes of governing are not likely to appease the disgruntled masses.
Another complication facing Paul Ryan, and those conservatives currently worshiping him with puppydog drooling and heaping praise on him, is the fact that he must now defend the details of his plan.
I have completely lost count of the scores of times that I have heard the Ryan proposal characterized as “serious”. But how can anyone take a deficit reduction plan seriously when it refuses to rein in the tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans? Not only does Ryan’s plan fail to do that, it heaps even more tax cuts on those who least need them, while forcing painful cuts on the poorest among us. It’s little wonder that Republicans are seen as lacking compassion.
There are some serious aspects of the proposed Path to Prosperity (for those already prospering). There are serious flaws in the numbers that Ryan presents in his proposal. Apparently, he turned to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation for some fuzzy math, that turned out to be funny math. Part of Ryan’s figures rely on an unprecedented and unsubstantiated 2.8 percent unemployment rate. After Ryan had already presented his plan, the Foundation adjusted its figures on unemployment. Among other math errors currently being disputed are tax revenues and housing numbers.
The plan also poses serious impacts to the livelihoods of many Americans. The voucher system that is part of the plan to privatize Medicare would limit the benefits available to seniors as well as threaten them with dramatic reductions in coverage over time that would put strain especially on those with limited fixed incomes. Fixed maximum dollar amounts for coverage of procedures for Medicaid members will prevent many patients from receiving much-needed treatments.
As I look at current and future budget debates in Washington and around the country I am alarmed. I see the casualties that will fall as a result of the brutal battling of politicians seeking public favor above favorable public policy. I see the stark adjectives of human toil reduced to cold numbers as real consequences are discounted. And I see the tangled discourse dwarf all other important news and issues.
In a time when the nation is continuing its long struggle toward economic recovery, the focus is misplaced on the deficit. Of course, we should strive to be fiscally responsible and limit the generational impact of our national debt. But the dearth of jobs nationwide and the trends that continue to exchange good jobs for Walmart jobs is a dire prospect worthy of our attention.
The attack on the middle class is lost in the nightly news graphics of all-caps “SHUTDOWN” and “SHOWDOWN”. One of the most appalling stories last week that registered merely a blip on the media radar was the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice election. This race, between union-busting Governor Scott Walker’s man David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, smacks of election fraud. The late-Thursday night announcement that enough votes to reverse Kloppenburg’s declared Tuesday win smelled like corruption. While the tomfoolery evident in this case is a threat to the democratic process, it was overshadowed by the coverage of Boehner, Reid and Obama negotiations.
Debate and discourse is vital to democracy, but it should not overpower real issues.
From Broader View Weekly, April 14, 2011
I agree with my brother Gordon that the fight that ended with a last minute agreement on the April 8th deadline is just the beginning of a long struggle that will only get nastier and more politically charged as the process goes forward.
Even as time and the funding of the government was running out last week; even as the threat of a shutdown that would be most painful for those least able to withstand its effect loomed ominously, negotiations were hijacked by politicians pushing ideological issues like abortion, and climate change. And after the shutdown was averted, Republicans in Congress beholden to conservative Tea Partiers still vowed to withdraw their support for the budget (even though the amount of cuts won through negotiation exceeded the amount originally sought by the GOP).
As the wrangling dragged on and the Republicans held the nation hostage (acting as if they had won both Houses of Congress and the White House in November), it became clearer that the debate over the budget was not about the national debt or reducing the deficit. It was all about posturing for 2012. Not the 2012 Fiscal Year Budget that Paul Ryan’s joke of a plan would make a pretense to address, but the 2012 Presidential election that began last week with Obama’s official campaign kickoff.
The Republican line-up of serious candidates is a bleak showing indeed. One need only note that Donald Trump, whose outrageous “birther” platform is decried by his own party, is second on the 2012 GOP leader board to judge the lackluster pack of presidential hopefuls on the Republican side. The party’s only hope against Obama (who is still scoring high on polls, despite a drop in approval rating) is to rally the existing base without alienating the swing-voters who often decide elections.
More problematic is the fact that Republicans are facing the inevitability of raising the debt ceiling. The Tea Party has already expressed its extreme displeasure at this likelihood. The reality of economics and processes of governing are not likely to appease the disgruntled masses.
Another complication facing Paul Ryan, and those conservatives currently worshiping him with puppydog drooling and heaping praise on him, is the fact that he must now defend the details of his plan.
I have completely lost count of the scores of times that I have heard the Ryan proposal characterized as “serious”. But how can anyone take a deficit reduction plan seriously when it refuses to rein in the tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans? Not only does Ryan’s plan fail to do that, it heaps even more tax cuts on those who least need them, while forcing painful cuts on the poorest among us. It’s little wonder that Republicans are seen as lacking compassion.
There are some serious aspects of the proposed Path to Prosperity (for those already prospering). There are serious flaws in the numbers that Ryan presents in his proposal. Apparently, he turned to the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation for some fuzzy math, that turned out to be funny math. Part of Ryan’s figures rely on an unprecedented and unsubstantiated 2.8 percent unemployment rate. After Ryan had already presented his plan, the Foundation adjusted its figures on unemployment. Among other math errors currently being disputed are tax revenues and housing numbers.
The plan also poses serious impacts to the livelihoods of many Americans. The voucher system that is part of the plan to privatize Medicare would limit the benefits available to seniors as well as threaten them with dramatic reductions in coverage over time that would put strain especially on those with limited fixed incomes. Fixed maximum dollar amounts for coverage of procedures for Medicaid members will prevent many patients from receiving much-needed treatments.
As I look at current and future budget debates in Washington and around the country I am alarmed. I see the casualties that will fall as a result of the brutal battling of politicians seeking public favor above favorable public policy. I see the stark adjectives of human toil reduced to cold numbers as real consequences are discounted. And I see the tangled discourse dwarf all other important news and issues.
In a time when the nation is continuing its long struggle toward economic recovery, the focus is misplaced on the deficit. Of course, we should strive to be fiscally responsible and limit the generational impact of our national debt. But the dearth of jobs nationwide and the trends that continue to exchange good jobs for Walmart jobs is a dire prospect worthy of our attention.
The attack on the middle class is lost in the nightly news graphics of all-caps “SHUTDOWN” and “SHOWDOWN”. One of the most appalling stories last week that registered merely a blip on the media radar was the Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice election. This race, between union-busting Governor Scott Walker’s man David Prosser and Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg, smacks of election fraud. The late-Thursday night announcement that enough votes to reverse Kloppenburg’s declared Tuesday win smelled like corruption. While the tomfoolery evident in this case is a threat to the democratic process, it was overshadowed by the coverage of Boehner, Reid and Obama negotiations.
Debate and discourse is vital to democracy, but it should not overpower real issues.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
A Reasoned Discussion
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011
The Middle East region has been difficult to navigate in terms of foreign policy. U.S. oil interests are rich there and a sense of animosity that America has played the aggressor there for its own gain has infected many Arab nations. The United States’ dysfunctional relationship with Israel has added to the difficulty, and mistrust of western agendas is rampant. The recent unrest in Libya has added to the complexity of the dynamic.
Emboldened by the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, citizens and grassroots rebel forces stood for the first time against power-mad dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Retaliation was swift and brutal. Claiming at times that the protestors were drugged by al Qaeda, Gaddafi ordered his troops to fire on the opposition, killing hundreds. As the international community warned Gaddafi of sanctions, he sent air forces to gun down his own people.
During this process, the United States and the United Nations declared an imposed no-fly zone over Libya to protect its citizens. Gaddafi seemed to comply by declaring a cease fire, and then escalated attacks against protesting Libyans.
On March 17, in answer to Gaddafi’s defiance of an earlier resolution, the U.N. authorized use of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone. The United States, in compliance with our obligations as a member and security council power, led a coalition of international forces, including those of Arab nations, to support this resolution. This enforcement was executed with the use of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles and collaborative air support.
Now, there is a great deal of criticism over the way the Obama administration handled the crisis, and the process in which the commitment of military force was enacted.
There is definitely a legitimate discussion to be made about any such action. Especially in the sensitive Middle East. I, for one, am as leery of committing military personnel and dollars now as I was during the previous administration. I heard a recent analogy that each missile launched at a building in Gaddafi’s compound or other strategic target represented the cost of our nation’s head start program, which will be cut, under conservative budget proposals. A couple weeks ago, I ranted in this column about the reluctance to cut military spending, while harping about growing national deficits. I stand by that position on military action and I think any time we commit men and women to service we must carefully weigh these and other consequences.
That said, in order for the discussion to move forward responsibly, we must apply standards that transcend political affiliation.
A frustration for me over the past few weeks is the outcry on the right against the way the current administration is handling the situation. The hypocrisy is sometimes surprising in its stark contrast to previous statements and opinions leveled.
Conservatives who were military hawks when George W. Bush was proposing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are suddenly appalled that we are involved in enforcing the U.N.’s resolution. Those same voices are now dovish and isolationist in their criticism of Obama. While I’m glad to see some restraint militarily, I would have preferred it when Bush II was racing to invade Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
My brother Gordon is in this camp, as is Republican House Speaker John Boehner. He was so up in arms over the way Obama handled the situation, that he issued a public statement and then penned a strongly-worded criticism asking for clarity and a defined goal. It seems that the White House briefing given to Boehner and other congressional leaders would have been the perfect opportunity to ask those questions. Of course, a published letter proclaiming that the sitting president mishandled the affair is much more beneficial politically. It is disturbing that the letter implied that Congress had not been involved at all in the process (and disturbing that the media failed to stress this fact in any way that would dispel the myth).
Boehner’s mention of the cost of the operation was interesting given the Republicans’ stance during the last decade. When Bush was frittering away the national treasury on his war of choice in Iraq, they seemed to believe that there was an endless supply of funds. Now, interestingly, we can’t afford military action in the Middle East. I say it’s about time the GOP saw the light.
Another oft-repeated claim is that the administration refuses to call the action a “war”. This has been used by both sides to protest Obama’s strategy. Democratic Senator Dennis Kucinich went as far as calling it an impeachable offense to commit forces without congressional approval. Well, as much as I agree that proper authorization should be required before putting our sons and daughters in harm’s way, the current operation does not qualify as a declaration of war.
The president has committed U.S. forces to join a coalition of forces to this mission. However, the mission has a finite goal of providing protection to Libyan citizens and is authorized under the auspices the U.N.
The declaration of war has been problematic in light of the Constitution. And, by some standards, every U.S. military operation since World War II has been unconstitutional.
In September of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush effectively declared a metaphorical “war on terror”. This broad and open-ended war had no clear objective or metric for success. Yet the president was afforded a great deal of authority (under the approval of Congress) to execute a broad range of military aggression against real and perceived threats. Many of the conservatives who supported this unfettered power, hypocritically question Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. Obama is not acting under any such authority (either conditional or unconditional).
I think it is important to have a dialog about Libya, just as it will be important to openly discuss other emerging hot spots in the Middle East. However, we must be consistent in our standards and reasonable in our approach. The United States is in danger of forfeiting democratic compromise to political contest.
From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011
The Middle East region has been difficult to navigate in terms of foreign policy. U.S. oil interests are rich there and a sense of animosity that America has played the aggressor there for its own gain has infected many Arab nations. The United States’ dysfunctional relationship with Israel has added to the difficulty, and mistrust of western agendas is rampant. The recent unrest in Libya has added to the complexity of the dynamic.
Emboldened by the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, citizens and grassroots rebel forces stood for the first time against power-mad dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Retaliation was swift and brutal. Claiming at times that the protestors were drugged by al Qaeda, Gaddafi ordered his troops to fire on the opposition, killing hundreds. As the international community warned Gaddafi of sanctions, he sent air forces to gun down his own people.
During this process, the United States and the United Nations declared an imposed no-fly zone over Libya to protect its citizens. Gaddafi seemed to comply by declaring a cease fire, and then escalated attacks against protesting Libyans.
On March 17, in answer to Gaddafi’s defiance of an earlier resolution, the U.N. authorized use of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone. The United States, in compliance with our obligations as a member and security council power, led a coalition of international forces, including those of Arab nations, to support this resolution. This enforcement was executed with the use of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles and collaborative air support.
Now, there is a great deal of criticism over the way the Obama administration handled the crisis, and the process in which the commitment of military force was enacted.
There is definitely a legitimate discussion to be made about any such action. Especially in the sensitive Middle East. I, for one, am as leery of committing military personnel and dollars now as I was during the previous administration. I heard a recent analogy that each missile launched at a building in Gaddafi’s compound or other strategic target represented the cost of our nation’s head start program, which will be cut, under conservative budget proposals. A couple weeks ago, I ranted in this column about the reluctance to cut military spending, while harping about growing national deficits. I stand by that position on military action and I think any time we commit men and women to service we must carefully weigh these and other consequences.
That said, in order for the discussion to move forward responsibly, we must apply standards that transcend political affiliation.
A frustration for me over the past few weeks is the outcry on the right against the way the current administration is handling the situation. The hypocrisy is sometimes surprising in its stark contrast to previous statements and opinions leveled.
Conservatives who were military hawks when George W. Bush was proposing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are suddenly appalled that we are involved in enforcing the U.N.’s resolution. Those same voices are now dovish and isolationist in their criticism of Obama. While I’m glad to see some restraint militarily, I would have preferred it when Bush II was racing to invade Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
My brother Gordon is in this camp, as is Republican House Speaker John Boehner. He was so up in arms over the way Obama handled the situation, that he issued a public statement and then penned a strongly-worded criticism asking for clarity and a defined goal. It seems that the White House briefing given to Boehner and other congressional leaders would have been the perfect opportunity to ask those questions. Of course, a published letter proclaiming that the sitting president mishandled the affair is much more beneficial politically. It is disturbing that the letter implied that Congress had not been involved at all in the process (and disturbing that the media failed to stress this fact in any way that would dispel the myth).
Boehner’s mention of the cost of the operation was interesting given the Republicans’ stance during the last decade. When Bush was frittering away the national treasury on his war of choice in Iraq, they seemed to believe that there was an endless supply of funds. Now, interestingly, we can’t afford military action in the Middle East. I say it’s about time the GOP saw the light.
Another oft-repeated claim is that the administration refuses to call the action a “war”. This has been used by both sides to protest Obama’s strategy. Democratic Senator Dennis Kucinich went as far as calling it an impeachable offense to commit forces without congressional approval. Well, as much as I agree that proper authorization should be required before putting our sons and daughters in harm’s way, the current operation does not qualify as a declaration of war.
The president has committed U.S. forces to join a coalition of forces to this mission. However, the mission has a finite goal of providing protection to Libyan citizens and is authorized under the auspices the U.N.
The declaration of war has been problematic in light of the Constitution. And, by some standards, every U.S. military operation since World War II has been unconstitutional.
In September of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush effectively declared a metaphorical “war on terror”. This broad and open-ended war had no clear objective or metric for success. Yet the president was afforded a great deal of authority (under the approval of Congress) to execute a broad range of military aggression against real and perceived threats. Many of the conservatives who supported this unfettered power, hypocritically question Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. Obama is not acting under any such authority (either conditional or unconditional).
I think it is important to have a dialog about Libya, just as it will be important to openly discuss other emerging hot spots in the Middle East. However, we must be consistent in our standards and reasonable in our approach. The United States is in danger of forfeiting democratic compromise to political contest.
Obama’s War of Choice
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011
If the issue at hand was not so serious and its outcome so important to our nation’s position as the world’s sole superpower, it would be hilarious the way our Commander-in-Chief has been forced to reveal the fluidity and vacuity of his words.
I am speaking, of course, of the current war in Libya (despite my brother’s claim that this current “kinetic military operation” does not rise to that definition, my Encarta Dictionary provides the following definition: “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles.”). So, when we send Tomahawk missiles toward military targets and fly sorties over Libyan airspace with hostile intentions, we are at war and when those missions were ordered without congressional approval, it is unconstitutional, but then, why should words or protocol matter when one determines policy and principle based solely upon the ethics of the moment and the popularity of the polls.
The “hypocrisy” Keith mentions in his essay referred to the apparent change of heart taken place by those who favored military action in Iraq, but who now seem reluctant to use force in Libya. I would point out to Keith that these two operations bear little resemblance to each other. True, they are both Eastern nations controlled by despots and both leaders have defied UN sanctions, however, there are several areas in which they are very dissimilar.
In Iraq we had a history of Saddam’s willingness to invade and conquer his neighboring states (Kuwait), we had evidence of weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam against his own people and the Turks, we had over 39 nations join us in a coalition of forces (Obama could muster less than 25 and several of those in the Arab League have since declined to continue their support) and we had debate and approval (including over 118 Democrats such as Hilary Clinton and John F. Kerry – before he opposed it!) in Congress before operations began – not 45 hours after the missiles were fired and troops deployed.
The words of a senator who opposed that effort, despite all of the above reasons, are here offered for your consideration:
That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors...and that, in concert with the international community, he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
-http://obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm
The words above came from a speech given by then Illinois State Senator, Barack H. Obama in October of 2002 while debate was being conducted in Congress and in the public sphere over the need to hold Saddam accountable to the conditions of his surrender and to prevent his continued support of international terrorism. We see none of these situations at play in Libya today.
What we see in Libya can best be described as a tribal conflict with no clear distinction between the ideals of the two combatants. It is true that the rebels suffer a disadvantage in firepower as long as Khaddafi has a functioning air force. In the present war strategy, we should limit our involvement to eliminating that advantage. We should not align ourselves (i.e. provide arms or training) with any rebel group unless and until we determine the true intent and content of that group.
Regarding Obama’s above warning concerning “an invasion without a clear rationale” we see in this current war no clear rationale or distinct goal. We heard Obama say “Khaddafi must go” but we also hear Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tell us that it is not our intention to attack Khaddafi directly (even though the main targets of our missiles has been his compound) and we hear another side from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, who said on March 20: it “isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go.” Mullen, asked whether it was possible that the mission’s goals could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power, said, “That’s certainly potentially one outcome”. Again we hear this from one of our allies, British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, “It is not about regime change”.
In conclusion, it is clear that Obama has entered into this war without fully counting the cost or determining the desired outcome. It is justly named “Operation Odyssey Dawn” because the definition of “odyssey” is “a wandering trip or a long series of travels and adventures”, unlike the aptly named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which could be seen as a success when we saw purple fingers waved in the air after Iraqi citizens were blessed with the freedom of voting. We have no idea what we shall see when this odyssey is over.
From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011
If the issue at hand was not so serious and its outcome so important to our nation’s position as the world’s sole superpower, it would be hilarious the way our Commander-in-Chief has been forced to reveal the fluidity and vacuity of his words.
I am speaking, of course, of the current war in Libya (despite my brother’s claim that this current “kinetic military operation” does not rise to that definition, my Encarta Dictionary provides the following definition: “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles.”). So, when we send Tomahawk missiles toward military targets and fly sorties over Libyan airspace with hostile intentions, we are at war and when those missions were ordered without congressional approval, it is unconstitutional, but then, why should words or protocol matter when one determines policy and principle based solely upon the ethics of the moment and the popularity of the polls.
The “hypocrisy” Keith mentions in his essay referred to the apparent change of heart taken place by those who favored military action in Iraq, but who now seem reluctant to use force in Libya. I would point out to Keith that these two operations bear little resemblance to each other. True, they are both Eastern nations controlled by despots and both leaders have defied UN sanctions, however, there are several areas in which they are very dissimilar.
In Iraq we had a history of Saddam’s willingness to invade and conquer his neighboring states (Kuwait), we had evidence of weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam against his own people and the Turks, we had over 39 nations join us in a coalition of forces (Obama could muster less than 25 and several of those in the Arab League have since declined to continue their support) and we had debate and approval (including over 118 Democrats such as Hilary Clinton and John F. Kerry – before he opposed it!) in Congress before operations began – not 45 hours after the missiles were fired and troops deployed.
The words of a senator who opposed that effort, despite all of the above reasons, are here offered for your consideration:
That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors...and that, in concert with the international community, he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
-http://obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm
The words above came from a speech given by then Illinois State Senator, Barack H. Obama in October of 2002 while debate was being conducted in Congress and in the public sphere over the need to hold Saddam accountable to the conditions of his surrender and to prevent his continued support of international terrorism. We see none of these situations at play in Libya today.
What we see in Libya can best be described as a tribal conflict with no clear distinction between the ideals of the two combatants. It is true that the rebels suffer a disadvantage in firepower as long as Khaddafi has a functioning air force. In the present war strategy, we should limit our involvement to eliminating that advantage. We should not align ourselves (i.e. provide arms or training) with any rebel group unless and until we determine the true intent and content of that group.
Regarding Obama’s above warning concerning “an invasion without a clear rationale” we see in this current war no clear rationale or distinct goal. We heard Obama say “Khaddafi must go” but we also hear Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tell us that it is not our intention to attack Khaddafi directly (even though the main targets of our missiles has been his compound) and we hear another side from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, who said on March 20: it “isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go.” Mullen, asked whether it was possible that the mission’s goals could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power, said, “That’s certainly potentially one outcome”. Again we hear this from one of our allies, British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, “It is not about regime change”.
In conclusion, it is clear that Obama has entered into this war without fully counting the cost or determining the desired outcome. It is justly named “Operation Odyssey Dawn” because the definition of “odyssey” is “a wandering trip or a long series of travels and adventures”, unlike the aptly named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which could be seen as a success when we saw purple fingers waved in the air after Iraqi citizens were blessed with the freedom of voting. We have no idea what we shall see when this odyssey is over.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Federal Budget Battle 2011
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011
I find it amazing when I see how quickly we seem to forget certain unpleasant realities and go forth as if our perceptions or wishes alone could somehow change what has been proven to be true. For example, it seems that some members of our government are shielding themselves from certain fiscal realities and going forward with failed practices as if by wishing and hoping they could make a “new reality” in which debt and deficits have no effect and spending by credit is somehow harmless and maybe even beneficial.
Another example of this type of wishful thinking is seen in those who are trying to forget what happened in November of 2010 when a historical shellacking took place and a new political reality was established. Perhaps they are trying to delude themselves into thinking the voters of 2010 were only throwing a temporary temper tantrum and they didn’t really mean it when they voted for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.
Both examples cited above can be seen in the current budget battle taking place in our capital. President Obama exhibited this delusion when he presented a budget that deliberately ignores the fact of credit costs – i.e. Interest Must Be Paid! This was exposed by the Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_misleading_language_on.html) where he quoted Obama’s words:
What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade, our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. To use a sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore. That’s important, and that’s hard to do, but it’s necessary to do. –President Obama, Feb. 15, 2011
Kessler then goes on to show how Obama used misleading (some may simply call a misleading statement a lie or untruth, but I, in an attempt to keep the peace, will just say he was less than truthful) language to say his budget “will not be adding more to the national debt”. When Obama was challenged by a clever reporter (Chip Reid of CBS – not FOX) who asked him how he could make such a statement when the submitted budget openly claimed the estimated deficits would rise throughout the next decade. Again using Obama’s own numbers from his own tables:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
The deficit in 2015 is $607 billion. In 2016, $649 billion. It keeps going up and up until 2021, the last year of the budget blueprint, when it shows a deficit of $774 billion.
Endless deficits mean more debt. And indeed, the debt climbs and climbs. In 2012, the total national debt would be $16.6 trillion. In several years – 2015 – it would be $19.8 trillion. By 2021, it would be $26.3 trillion.
Now, to be fair, Obama did respond to the reporter with an explanation – well, sort of.
We still have all this accumulated debt, as a consequence of the recession and as a consequence of a series of decisions that were made over the last decade. We’ve racked up a whole bunch of debt, and there’s a lot of interest on that debt. So in the same way that if you’ve got a credit card and you’ve got a big balance, you may not be adding to principal, you’ve still got all that interest that you’ve got to pay; well, we’ve got a big problem in terms of accumulated interest that we’re paying. And that’s why we’re going to have to whittle down further the debt. – Obama, February 15, 2011
So, according to wishful thinking and selective memory, we can keep on borrowing and spending and pretending that, by not adding to the principal, we are not continually enriching our creditors (i.e. China) and decreasing our financial security.
Now, to the other example of forgetting the Election of 2010, Obama and the Democrats seem to go forward on the assumption that the voters didn’t really mean it when they pulled the levers for a new direction. The new majority in the House has been given a mandate from the people and that mandate is to change the direction of the past two years.
The hard facts of life demand certain responses from each of us. Laws of economics are as real and as immutable as laws of nature. We cannot ignore the cost of interest and the weakness of being a “debtor nation” any more than we can ignore the pull of gravity.
To restore our credit standing, there is no alternative to limiting our spending – and that means in every category from defense to Social Security – and we must look seriously at eliminating redundant agencies. Even Obama mentioned this in his State of the Union address when he outlined the number of agencies supported by our tax dollars:
“There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address)
In conclusion, budgets are never easy, nor are they fun, but they are necessary and we need to face them with a solid grasp on reality.
From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011
I find it amazing when I see how quickly we seem to forget certain unpleasant realities and go forth as if our perceptions or wishes alone could somehow change what has been proven to be true. For example, it seems that some members of our government are shielding themselves from certain fiscal realities and going forward with failed practices as if by wishing and hoping they could make a “new reality” in which debt and deficits have no effect and spending by credit is somehow harmless and maybe even beneficial.
Another example of this type of wishful thinking is seen in those who are trying to forget what happened in November of 2010 when a historical shellacking took place and a new political reality was established. Perhaps they are trying to delude themselves into thinking the voters of 2010 were only throwing a temporary temper tantrum and they didn’t really mean it when they voted for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.
Both examples cited above can be seen in the current budget battle taking place in our capital. President Obama exhibited this delusion when he presented a budget that deliberately ignores the fact of credit costs – i.e. Interest Must Be Paid! This was exposed by the Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_misleading_language_on.html) where he quoted Obama’s words:
What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade, our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. To use a sort of an analogy that families are familiar with, we’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore. That’s important, and that’s hard to do, but it’s necessary to do. –President Obama, Feb. 15, 2011
Kessler then goes on to show how Obama used misleading (some may simply call a misleading statement a lie or untruth, but I, in an attempt to keep the peace, will just say he was less than truthful) language to say his budget “will not be adding more to the national debt”. When Obama was challenged by a clever reporter (Chip Reid of CBS – not FOX) who asked him how he could make such a statement when the submitted budget openly claimed the estimated deficits would rise throughout the next decade. Again using Obama’s own numbers from his own tables:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
The deficit in 2015 is $607 billion. In 2016, $649 billion. It keeps going up and up until 2021, the last year of the budget blueprint, when it shows a deficit of $774 billion.
Endless deficits mean more debt. And indeed, the debt climbs and climbs. In 2012, the total national debt would be $16.6 trillion. In several years – 2015 – it would be $19.8 trillion. By 2021, it would be $26.3 trillion.
Now, to be fair, Obama did respond to the reporter with an explanation – well, sort of.
We still have all this accumulated debt, as a consequence of the recession and as a consequence of a series of decisions that were made over the last decade. We’ve racked up a whole bunch of debt, and there’s a lot of interest on that debt. So in the same way that if you’ve got a credit card and you’ve got a big balance, you may not be adding to principal, you’ve still got all that interest that you’ve got to pay; well, we’ve got a big problem in terms of accumulated interest that we’re paying. And that’s why we’re going to have to whittle down further the debt. – Obama, February 15, 2011
So, according to wishful thinking and selective memory, we can keep on borrowing and spending and pretending that, by not adding to the principal, we are not continually enriching our creditors (i.e. China) and decreasing our financial security.
Now, to the other example of forgetting the Election of 2010, Obama and the Democrats seem to go forward on the assumption that the voters didn’t really mean it when they pulled the levers for a new direction. The new majority in the House has been given a mandate from the people and that mandate is to change the direction of the past two years.
The hard facts of life demand certain responses from each of us. Laws of economics are as real and as immutable as laws of nature. We cannot ignore the cost of interest and the weakness of being a “debtor nation” any more than we can ignore the pull of gravity.
To restore our credit standing, there is no alternative to limiting our spending – and that means in every category from defense to Social Security – and we must look seriously at eliminating redundant agencies. Even Obama mentioned this in his State of the Union address when he outlined the number of agencies supported by our tax dollars:
“There are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different agencies that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address)
In conclusion, budgets are never easy, nor are they fun, but they are necessary and we need to face them with a solid grasp on reality.
Reality Check
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011
It seems my brother Gordon and I find ourselves agreeing on at least one point. It is important to face reality with clear recognition. However, President Obama isn’t the only one facing harsh truths.
Last week, several thousand public employees in Wisconsin were blindsided with stark reality when the state’s legislature circumvented procedural rules in order to deny the workers’ rights. A second blow came when Wisconsin State Senate Leader Scott Fitzgerald admitted in a Fox News interview that the union-busting bill (all budget-related provisions were stripped to allow Republicans to pass it) was merely political. Senator Fitzgerald told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that the underhanded deal (which impacts the lives and livelihoods of not only current public employees and teachers but permanently revokes union rights) was about protecting Republican power. “If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.” Eight of Fitzgerald’s GOP colleagues facing recall elections this summer may feel the sharp sting of the fact that political football is unpopular when it harms the working class. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is already facing the stark reality of plunging approval ratings (he’ll have to serve a year before a recall threatens his temp job). So much for a mandate.
House Speaker John Boehner may or may not be bothered by the potential job losses the Republicans’ proposed spending cuts would cause. He publicly dismissed the losses out of hand, saying, “so be it”. It seems he is more likely to cry over his tavern-owner’s-son roots or his own personal American dream that lifted him to the third highest office in the land. Of course the hundreds of thousands who would be out of work will face the harsh reality of economic uncertainty.
Indeed, this proposal smacks of political agenda, as well. Why would the Republicans endanger the livelihoods of thousands in the guise of cutting spending? From reading his column, it’s plain to see that my brother’s answer would be “to honor the wishes of the Tea Party Movement. Remember the shellacking?” Well, there’s another theory to consider.
Republicans see the country beginning to rebound from a severe recession and the unemployment rate beginning to dip to acceptable levels. This “spending” bill is an opportunity to keep unemployment high. In 2012, you will see every GOP candidate run on a platform promising jobs, budget be damned. The ploy is not rocket science. If this victory comes on the back of displaced workers, “so be it”.
The harsh reality that the Republican cuts won’t address the deficit in a meaningful way is beside the point.
Public education is facing the harsh reality that district budgets are slashed before almost any other spending consideration. Correctional and penal costs are a large chunk of every state’s budget: 20 to 25 percent in some cases. Restructuring prison systems to make them more efficient, cutting waste, while taking advantage of revenue sources would help reduce the costs. Approaching drug abuse from a treatment angle as opposed to a law-enforcement angle would be another way to curb the growing cost of corrections and facilitate the prison closings already planned in some states.
Instead politicians from both parties are turning their daggers on education, which can ill afford the cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans have begun to vilify school district superintendents and their salaries. It has been amazing for me to watch those who were critical of a designation of $250,000 as a wealth cut-off point be politically reborn into a faith in salary caps as they demonize superintendents earning $150,000 a year.
Then there are those who have avoided the constraints of reality. Wall Street has been untouched by the nation’s financial collapse, as 2010 was a banner year for earners. They’ve had record incomes, even if the healthy bonuses of the past had to be offset by shifting into higher salaries. Good to see that some are escaping the perils of a floundering economy. Pity that those same people caused much of the financial woe.
The Tea Party’s outcry for lower taxes and lower deficit is self-contradictory. Simple economics tells you that spending cuts have to be steep and painful in order to reduce revenue and still pay down debt. Again, the wealthiest among us have averted this reality. The Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans remain intact despite all the deficit hawkishness in Washington. I guess shared sacrifice applies only to those already sacrificing in limited jobs and incomes.
Military contractors have been spared the unfortunate truth of budgetary restraint. War profiteers remain unscathed as legislators and even the president refuse to make meaningful cuts to military spending, though it looms large as a portion of the federal budget.
Gordon and I could go on all day about the realities of federal and state budgets, had we the column inches. However, when we discuss the deficit, taxes, and spending, we need to consider the impact of reality upon real lives. Cold numbers fall short of telling the whole story.
From Broader View Weekly, March 17, 2011
It seems my brother Gordon and I find ourselves agreeing on at least one point. It is important to face reality with clear recognition. However, President Obama isn’t the only one facing harsh truths.
Last week, several thousand public employees in Wisconsin were blindsided with stark reality when the state’s legislature circumvented procedural rules in order to deny the workers’ rights. A second blow came when Wisconsin State Senate Leader Scott Fitzgerald admitted in a Fox News interview that the union-busting bill (all budget-related provisions were stripped to allow Republicans to pass it) was merely political. Senator Fitzgerald told Fox’s Megyn Kelly that the underhanded deal (which impacts the lives and livelihoods of not only current public employees and teachers but permanently revokes union rights) was about protecting Republican power. “If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.” Eight of Fitzgerald’s GOP colleagues facing recall elections this summer may feel the sharp sting of the fact that political football is unpopular when it harms the working class. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is already facing the stark reality of plunging approval ratings (he’ll have to serve a year before a recall threatens his temp job). So much for a mandate.
House Speaker John Boehner may or may not be bothered by the potential job losses the Republicans’ proposed spending cuts would cause. He publicly dismissed the losses out of hand, saying, “so be it”. It seems he is more likely to cry over his tavern-owner’s-son roots or his own personal American dream that lifted him to the third highest office in the land. Of course the hundreds of thousands who would be out of work will face the harsh reality of economic uncertainty.
Indeed, this proposal smacks of political agenda, as well. Why would the Republicans endanger the livelihoods of thousands in the guise of cutting spending? From reading his column, it’s plain to see that my brother’s answer would be “to honor the wishes of the Tea Party Movement. Remember the shellacking?” Well, there’s another theory to consider.
Republicans see the country beginning to rebound from a severe recession and the unemployment rate beginning to dip to acceptable levels. This “spending” bill is an opportunity to keep unemployment high. In 2012, you will see every GOP candidate run on a platform promising jobs, budget be damned. The ploy is not rocket science. If this victory comes on the back of displaced workers, “so be it”.
The harsh reality that the Republican cuts won’t address the deficit in a meaningful way is beside the point.
Public education is facing the harsh reality that district budgets are slashed before almost any other spending consideration. Correctional and penal costs are a large chunk of every state’s budget: 20 to 25 percent in some cases. Restructuring prison systems to make them more efficient, cutting waste, while taking advantage of revenue sources would help reduce the costs. Approaching drug abuse from a treatment angle as opposed to a law-enforcement angle would be another way to curb the growing cost of corrections and facilitate the prison closings already planned in some states.
Instead politicians from both parties are turning their daggers on education, which can ill afford the cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans have begun to vilify school district superintendents and their salaries. It has been amazing for me to watch those who were critical of a designation of $250,000 as a wealth cut-off point be politically reborn into a faith in salary caps as they demonize superintendents earning $150,000 a year.
Then there are those who have avoided the constraints of reality. Wall Street has been untouched by the nation’s financial collapse, as 2010 was a banner year for earners. They’ve had record incomes, even if the healthy bonuses of the past had to be offset by shifting into higher salaries. Good to see that some are escaping the perils of a floundering economy. Pity that those same people caused much of the financial woe.
The Tea Party’s outcry for lower taxes and lower deficit is self-contradictory. Simple economics tells you that spending cuts have to be steep and painful in order to reduce revenue and still pay down debt. Again, the wealthiest among us have averted this reality. The Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans remain intact despite all the deficit hawkishness in Washington. I guess shared sacrifice applies only to those already sacrificing in limited jobs and incomes.
Military contractors have been spared the unfortunate truth of budgetary restraint. War profiteers remain unscathed as legislators and even the president refuse to make meaningful cuts to military spending, though it looms large as a portion of the federal budget.
Gordon and I could go on all day about the realities of federal and state budgets, had we the column inches. However, when we discuss the deficit, taxes, and spending, we need to consider the impact of reality upon real lives. Cold numbers fall short of telling the whole story.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Haves vs. Have-Nots
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011
There is a clear danger to unity in the United States. Strategies designed to drive a wedge of division between American citizens are increasingly evidenced throughout the political landscape. The current use of state budget constraints as a weapon against targets like unions and public education is only the latest in the mechanism designed to maintain the “us versus them” climate that contributes to our dysfunctional two-party system. Partisan politics has pitted us against one another and turned complex issues that impact real lives into black and white oversimplifications that are manipulated to inspire fear and rage.
With the U.S. economy still recovering from the massive recession ushered in under the Bush administration, one particularly effective conflict is designating a chosen group as “haves” and another as “have-nots”. In America’s post-industrial era, when corporations are outsourcing decent jobs and the shrinking middle class is feeling the sting of downsizing and unemployment, an interesting division has developed. Public workers and schoolteachers with average salaries of $50,000 per year are now being called the “haves” and they are being criticized for their greed, and personally attacked by conservatives (including politicians and pundits as well as misguided common folk).
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has described the people of his state as two distinct classes; those “who receive rich benefits, and those who pay for them”. One might think he was talking about corporate fat cats, who enjoy huge bonuses and ballooning salaries, and the working class who see their wages stagnate as their jobs are shipped overseas. Nope. He was referring to the public employees of New Jersey.
And New Jersey isn’t an isolated case. Wisconsin’s highly-publicized standoff with protesting public employees and their unions is all about painting those workers as the haves, and the poor taxpayers of Wisconsin as the have-nots. But wait. Isn’t the issue that the state is experiencing dramatic budget shortfalls and simply can’t afford to provide benefits like health care and pensions for public employees?
Well, I’m certain that Wisconsin (like most states) is facing budget deficits. But that oft-repeated mantra doesn’t come close to telling the whole story.
Seldom reported is the fact that two-thirds of the corporations operating in Wisconsin enjoy the public services provided by state and local governments but pay absolutely no corporate taxes. Recapturing this lost revenue would go a long way toward bridging the budget gaps. “Aha!,” I can hear my brother Gordon say. “Asking corporations to pay their fair share will only worsen the plight of the working class by drying up jobs.” The fact of the matter is that regardless of taxation or lack thereof, businesses are outsourcing jobs. And not just across state borders. Continuing to cater to these corporations isn’t retaining jobs and is impacting the Wisconsin budget.
Furthermore, public sector unions and employees agreed to make financial concessions to help meet budgetary demands. Unfortunately, Governor Scott Walker refused to negotiate the terms of the bill he proposed, which has far-reaching and permanent impact on the workers’ rights to organize and on the power of the governor (who would be free according to the terms of the law to declare a state of emergency and fire any union or non-union state employee). No. It appears that the only thing that will fly in Wisconsin is a union-busting measure that denies collective bargaining.
The picture would also not be complete without looking at David and Charles Koch. These powerful billionaires not only contributed thousands of dollars to help Walker get elected in Wisconsin, they’re currently spending millions to put anti-union ads on the air and are exercising enormous influence over the governor and the Republican Legislators in the state to push through this damaging bill. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why corporate power brokers would want to crush any union.
And what about these greedy public employees who are overpaid at the expense of the taxpayer? Public schoolteachers are professionals who leave college with the requisite degrees for employment and with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that they must repay on starting salaries of $25,000 or less. They are required to pay for their own certifications and much of their own teaching supplies (because public school budgets are constantly being squeezed). In exchange for accepting meager salaries schoolteachers and other public employees count on benefits like health care and pensions.
Of course conservatives point to some studies that show public employees surpassing the private sector in compensation. They have used these numbers to demonize public sector unions and because the private sector is feeling the misery of a failing economy, they are claiming success. But that isn’t the whole story either. I saw one report of 75 percent of Wisconsinites supporting retaining collective bargaining rights if employees agreed to absorb part of the health care and pension cost (a conservative source pegged the poll closer to two-thirds). Other reports dispute that public employees earn more. In fact, Wisconsin University Professor Keith Bender tells the opposite tale. According to an ABC news story he “and professor John Heywood found that wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than for private sector workers of equal education, and further, that for the past 20 years those earnings have been in relative decline.”
I think it is important to consider the impact on the public school system, because that is the second front in this two-pronged attack. The clear intent is to use the current economy and tight budgets to weaken both the unions and public education. States and local governments everywhere are choosing cuts in education above other spending areas. The City of Detroit just announced this week plans to close half its schools and double class sizes to 60 students. This will have a devastating effect, especially on schools that are currenty struggling. If public education continues to be assaulted in this way, it will be crippled and the wealth imbalance will grow, with only those who have access to private education afforded the promise of the American dream. Scott Walker, Chris Christie and those who demonize unions and public employees must not win out or the middle class and working class will lose big.
The good news is that many are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with public employees. Organizers have planned demonstrations in all 50 states as a show of solidarity and support. People are paying attention. And as much as some politicians are behaving as if the Tea Party represents the majority, those who call for smaller government at any human cost remain in the extreme minority. Be vigilant and protect our public schools. They are the only hope of a democratic future in the United States.
From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011
There is a clear danger to unity in the United States. Strategies designed to drive a wedge of division between American citizens are increasingly evidenced throughout the political landscape. The current use of state budget constraints as a weapon against targets like unions and public education is only the latest in the mechanism designed to maintain the “us versus them” climate that contributes to our dysfunctional two-party system. Partisan politics has pitted us against one another and turned complex issues that impact real lives into black and white oversimplifications that are manipulated to inspire fear and rage.
With the U.S. economy still recovering from the massive recession ushered in under the Bush administration, one particularly effective conflict is designating a chosen group as “haves” and another as “have-nots”. In America’s post-industrial era, when corporations are outsourcing decent jobs and the shrinking middle class is feeling the sting of downsizing and unemployment, an interesting division has developed. Public workers and schoolteachers with average salaries of $50,000 per year are now being called the “haves” and they are being criticized for their greed, and personally attacked by conservatives (including politicians and pundits as well as misguided common folk).
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has described the people of his state as two distinct classes; those “who receive rich benefits, and those who pay for them”. One might think he was talking about corporate fat cats, who enjoy huge bonuses and ballooning salaries, and the working class who see their wages stagnate as their jobs are shipped overseas. Nope. He was referring to the public employees of New Jersey.
And New Jersey isn’t an isolated case. Wisconsin’s highly-publicized standoff with protesting public employees and their unions is all about painting those workers as the haves, and the poor taxpayers of Wisconsin as the have-nots. But wait. Isn’t the issue that the state is experiencing dramatic budget shortfalls and simply can’t afford to provide benefits like health care and pensions for public employees?
Well, I’m certain that Wisconsin (like most states) is facing budget deficits. But that oft-repeated mantra doesn’t come close to telling the whole story.
Seldom reported is the fact that two-thirds of the corporations operating in Wisconsin enjoy the public services provided by state and local governments but pay absolutely no corporate taxes. Recapturing this lost revenue would go a long way toward bridging the budget gaps. “Aha!,” I can hear my brother Gordon say. “Asking corporations to pay their fair share will only worsen the plight of the working class by drying up jobs.” The fact of the matter is that regardless of taxation or lack thereof, businesses are outsourcing jobs. And not just across state borders. Continuing to cater to these corporations isn’t retaining jobs and is impacting the Wisconsin budget.
Furthermore, public sector unions and employees agreed to make financial concessions to help meet budgetary demands. Unfortunately, Governor Scott Walker refused to negotiate the terms of the bill he proposed, which has far-reaching and permanent impact on the workers’ rights to organize and on the power of the governor (who would be free according to the terms of the law to declare a state of emergency and fire any union or non-union state employee). No. It appears that the only thing that will fly in Wisconsin is a union-busting measure that denies collective bargaining.
The picture would also not be complete without looking at David and Charles Koch. These powerful billionaires not only contributed thousands of dollars to help Walker get elected in Wisconsin, they’re currently spending millions to put anti-union ads on the air and are exercising enormous influence over the governor and the Republican Legislators in the state to push through this damaging bill. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why corporate power brokers would want to crush any union.
And what about these greedy public employees who are overpaid at the expense of the taxpayer? Public schoolteachers are professionals who leave college with the requisite degrees for employment and with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that they must repay on starting salaries of $25,000 or less. They are required to pay for their own certifications and much of their own teaching supplies (because public school budgets are constantly being squeezed). In exchange for accepting meager salaries schoolteachers and other public employees count on benefits like health care and pensions.
Of course conservatives point to some studies that show public employees surpassing the private sector in compensation. They have used these numbers to demonize public sector unions and because the private sector is feeling the misery of a failing economy, they are claiming success. But that isn’t the whole story either. I saw one report of 75 percent of Wisconsinites supporting retaining collective bargaining rights if employees agreed to absorb part of the health care and pension cost (a conservative source pegged the poll closer to two-thirds). Other reports dispute that public employees earn more. In fact, Wisconsin University Professor Keith Bender tells the opposite tale. According to an ABC news story he “and professor John Heywood found that wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than for private sector workers of equal education, and further, that for the past 20 years those earnings have been in relative decline.”
I think it is important to consider the impact on the public school system, because that is the second front in this two-pronged attack. The clear intent is to use the current economy and tight budgets to weaken both the unions and public education. States and local governments everywhere are choosing cuts in education above other spending areas. The City of Detroit just announced this week plans to close half its schools and double class sizes to 60 students. This will have a devastating effect, especially on schools that are currenty struggling. If public education continues to be assaulted in this way, it will be crippled and the wealth imbalance will grow, with only those who have access to private education afforded the promise of the American dream. Scott Walker, Chris Christie and those who demonize unions and public employees must not win out or the middle class and working class will lose big.
The good news is that many are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with public employees. Organizers have planned demonstrations in all 50 states as a show of solidarity and support. People are paying attention. And as much as some politicians are behaving as if the Tea Party represents the majority, those who call for smaller government at any human cost remain in the extreme minority. Be vigilant and protect our public schools. They are the only hope of a democratic future in the United States.
The Inconvenient Truth about Public Sector Unions
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011
In order to fully understand the protests unfolding in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio and even in good old Albany, New York, we need to take a short trip into the history of the labor movement in our nation, and then to take a close look at the issue of unions in general and the public sector unions in particular.
As we all know, things were not always as they are now. There was a time when avaricious employers took heady profits by manipulating desperate workers into back-breaking labor for poverty level wages in unsafe environments. Children and the unskilled were especially taken advantage of and a tremendous disparity existed between the lifestyles of the affluent and the working class.
Unions were organized, and through a painful process of strikes and negotiations, conditions improved to such a state that the demands went from mere safety and fair wages to security issues like seniority, health care and pensions. As each contract season neared, the collective bargaining process would pit the union representatives against the management. Each side would bring conflicting demands – the union would seek a fair compensation for the labor of their constituents and the management would seek the most profitable and productive return for their labor dollar. The pendulum swung to both extremes at various times in our nation’s history, as first labor and then management would benefit from favorable legislation.
The conception and growth of public sector unions was understandably a different story as the task of working for the government was not the same as working for a “for profit” corporation. In fact, one former president was adamant in his refusal to allow collective bargaining for public employees. Consider the following quote:
Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service… [a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.
Who made such a quote? Was it Reagan at the occasion of the Air Controllers strike? No, it was that labor-friendly liberal, FDR, in 1937, who recognized the incestuous relationship that would exist if government employees bargained with other government employees that they elected, with public funds extorted from taxpayers to extract more public funds from the taxpayers who would never have a seat at the bargaining table.
However, things changed in the late 50s, when through an executive order, which prevented that messy thing called the legislative process, Mayor Wagner of NYC declared city public unions could represent all city employees in collective bargaining, regardless of whether those employees were in the union. President Kennedy expanded the right to all federal unions in another executive order in 1962 and this led us to the point where we are today, with public sector unions growing in numbers and power while private sector unions decline in both categories.
In fact, a New York Times Online article (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23/labor.html) reported that Labor Statistics now show public sector union members outnumber their private sector counterparts 7.9 million to 7.4 million. Other reports, such as a lengthy article by Daniel DiSalvo on National Affairs website, cites in detail the differences in wages and compensation between the public sector employee and the private sector employee.
Some of the decline in private sector unions’ members and power can be attributed to the loss of American manufacturing jobs due to over-reaching union demands and the need for corporations to produce a profit coupled with the realization that the security of union protection comes at a cost and sometimes that cost may lead to the bankruptcy or relocation of the corporation. However, in the case of the governmental agency, relocation and bankruptcy is not an option, therefore the costs just get pushed onto the overburdened taxpayer.
Governor Walker’s bill does not take away collective bargaining for police or firefighters nor does it stop the unions from negotiating for pay raises, it merely limits pay raises to the level of inflation. I could go on and on about the indefensible actions of the teachers who took fraudulent sick days to protest, and the doctors who sign their excuses illegally, and the truant Democratic Legislators who are neglecting their assigned (and paid for) duties to hide in Illinois. But I am already above my allotted column space.
However, if you would indulge me for a few more lines, I must correct Keith on a few items. First of all, according to figures from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newsar.html), the average compensation for public school teachers in Wisconsin was $75,587 and according to MacIver Institute’s report, Milwaukee, Wisconsin teachers earn a total of $100,005!
Another item that deserves correction is Keith’s claim that two-thirds of all corporations in Wisconsin pay “no corporate taxes and recapturing these lost revenues would bridge the budget gap”. Well, again the facts may be inconvenient, but according to www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/67.html, the corporate tax rate in Wisconsin is 7.9% on all corporations which ranks the state 17th highest in the nation. The report goes on to say that Wisconsin was ranked 40th in The Tax Foundation’s Business Tax Climate Index, which compares all corporate, income and property taxes as well as individual taxes.
To balance the budget by increasing taxes has never worked because individuals and businesses can always relocate.
From Broader View Weekly, March 3, 2011
In order to fully understand the protests unfolding in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio and even in good old Albany, New York, we need to take a short trip into the history of the labor movement in our nation, and then to take a close look at the issue of unions in general and the public sector unions in particular.
As we all know, things were not always as they are now. There was a time when avaricious employers took heady profits by manipulating desperate workers into back-breaking labor for poverty level wages in unsafe environments. Children and the unskilled were especially taken advantage of and a tremendous disparity existed between the lifestyles of the affluent and the working class.
Unions were organized, and through a painful process of strikes and negotiations, conditions improved to such a state that the demands went from mere safety and fair wages to security issues like seniority, health care and pensions. As each contract season neared, the collective bargaining process would pit the union representatives against the management. Each side would bring conflicting demands – the union would seek a fair compensation for the labor of their constituents and the management would seek the most profitable and productive return for their labor dollar. The pendulum swung to both extremes at various times in our nation’s history, as first labor and then management would benefit from favorable legislation.
The conception and growth of public sector unions was understandably a different story as the task of working for the government was not the same as working for a “for profit” corporation. In fact, one former president was adamant in his refusal to allow collective bargaining for public employees. Consider the following quote:
Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service… [a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.
Who made such a quote? Was it Reagan at the occasion of the Air Controllers strike? No, it was that labor-friendly liberal, FDR, in 1937, who recognized the incestuous relationship that would exist if government employees bargained with other government employees that they elected, with public funds extorted from taxpayers to extract more public funds from the taxpayers who would never have a seat at the bargaining table.
However, things changed in the late 50s, when through an executive order, which prevented that messy thing called the legislative process, Mayor Wagner of NYC declared city public unions could represent all city employees in collective bargaining, regardless of whether those employees were in the union. President Kennedy expanded the right to all federal unions in another executive order in 1962 and this led us to the point where we are today, with public sector unions growing in numbers and power while private sector unions decline in both categories.
In fact, a New York Times Online article (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23/labor.html) reported that Labor Statistics now show public sector union members outnumber their private sector counterparts 7.9 million to 7.4 million. Other reports, such as a lengthy article by Daniel DiSalvo on National Affairs website, cites in detail the differences in wages and compensation between the public sector employee and the private sector employee.
Some of the decline in private sector unions’ members and power can be attributed to the loss of American manufacturing jobs due to over-reaching union demands and the need for corporations to produce a profit coupled with the realization that the security of union protection comes at a cost and sometimes that cost may lead to the bankruptcy or relocation of the corporation. However, in the case of the governmental agency, relocation and bankruptcy is not an option, therefore the costs just get pushed onto the overburdened taxpayer.
Governor Walker’s bill does not take away collective bargaining for police or firefighters nor does it stop the unions from negotiating for pay raises, it merely limits pay raises to the level of inflation. I could go on and on about the indefensible actions of the teachers who took fraudulent sick days to protest, and the doctors who sign their excuses illegally, and the truant Democratic Legislators who are neglecting their assigned (and paid for) duties to hide in Illinois. But I am already above my allotted column space.
However, if you would indulge me for a few more lines, I must correct Keith on a few items. First of all, according to figures from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (dpi.state.wi.us/lbstat/newsar.html), the average compensation for public school teachers in Wisconsin was $75,587 and according to MacIver Institute’s report, Milwaukee, Wisconsin teachers earn a total of $100,005!
Another item that deserves correction is Keith’s claim that two-thirds of all corporations in Wisconsin pay “no corporate taxes and recapturing these lost revenues would bridge the budget gap”. Well, again the facts may be inconvenient, but according to www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/67.html, the corporate tax rate in Wisconsin is 7.9% on all corporations which ranks the state 17th highest in the nation. The report goes on to say that Wisconsin was ranked 40th in The Tax Foundation’s Business Tax Climate Index, which compares all corporate, income and property taxes as well as individual taxes.
To balance the budget by increasing taxes has never worked because individuals and businesses can always relocate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
