The President's Story and the Progressive Response

 I had told people at the White House that this package needed to focus on three words: big, urgent, and now. 

The President's Story and the Progressive Response

By Mike Lux

President Obama's speech Thursday night was one of his best ever delivered, and thank goodness he is making a huge political push on the all-important jobs issue. It was a good night for him, and he needed this badly for his political standing. But progressive activists should neither fall into a posture of uncritical support, or just focus on the negative sides of the speech, policy, and political strategy, as sometimes is done by our more hardcore brethren. We should take a critical eye to what is good and bad about the policy, and enthusiastically support the good side while strongly opposing what is bad; we should applaud that he has gone bigger and bolder than conventional wisdom in DC said he would or should, while calling for even more boldness because this package isn't enough to get this economy out of the deep, deep hole it is in. The President needs to have a left flank, not just because of political positioning but because progressives have a moral imperative to stand strongly for what the right thing to do is.
We should not let the fact that we are conflicted on the President's proposal slow down our willingness to take action to fight for what we believe in, either. We need to be strong and clear in what we are calling for, and fight for everything we believe in with every muscle we have.
Let's start with the negatives:

• The President using right-wing talking points on how Medicare and Medicaid have to be cut is unconscionable. The fact that he wants to focus on jobs is wonderful, but claiming that we need to make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits to pay for it is a terrible Sophie's Choice: who do you want to sacrifice, workers or seniors? It's terrible politics and terrible policy, and should be completely rejected. The problem with Medicare and Medicaid costs has to do with the health care industry -- many providers, drug companies, insurers -- driving up both public and private health care costs. We don't need to cut benefits, we don't need to squeeze already hurting states on Medicaid costs, and we don't need to raise the retirement age.
• This Georgia "jobs" plan the President has adopted as his own is right-wing economics at its worst: make unemployed folks work for free, and rob unemployment benefits to pay for it.
• No analysis I have seen of the trade deals the President is supporting as part of his jobs package suggest that these trade deals will produce a net increase in exports. More exports, sure- but it's the net number that matters in actually producing more jobs. The way these trade deals are structured, they are not likely to be a net plus in producing new jobs.
• Way too much of this package in general is more tax cuts for business, which economists generally agree has far less of a direct impact in creating jobs than direct spending to create jobs. As Rep. Jan Schakowsky said in introducing her terrific short-terms jobs bill, the best way to create jobs is to simply create jobs: in other words, to directly hire more teachers and cops and firefighters and road construction workers.
• One of the biggest disappointments about this package is a missed opportunity: the President shouldn't just be focused on jobs, but on good jobs with good pay and good benefits. He should have announced that he was creating a White House office on good jobs, and executive orders to make sure that in all federal government contracting and procurement, the priority would be to work with companies that paid decent wages and had decent benefits. He could still do this, but the fact that in spite of some great rhetoric at the beginning of the speech about the importance of good jobs, none of the policy proposals in the speech seem directly related to insuring that new jobs that are created as a result of these measures will have decent pay or benefits.
• Another big missed opportunity: we should be helping pay for all these jobs programs with more taxes on the financial speculation that destroyed the economy in the first place.

On the other hand there is a lot to feel good about in the President's policy proposals, including:

• The fact that he is targeting help to small business rather than the big business behemoths that usually get most of the benefits out of government because of their lobbyists, the same companies that do most of the outsourcing of jobs overseas, is a great thing. Democrats and progressives need to be firmly and passionately on the side of helping small businesses, who have been so hard hit by this long and deep recession, survive and grow.
• Similarly, while as I said above I am leery of business tax cuts in general, targeting them specifically to companies that are actually creating new jobs is far preferable to the Republican approach of just throwing wads of money at any business or individual who is rich, and hoping that as a result they will trickle the money down the masses in the form of some new job somewhere someday.
• While I remain nervous about the long term politics of cutting the payroll tax, Obama's focus on cutting taxes for working class people and raising them for the wealthy is exactly where we need to go.
• These road and school construction jobs are crucially important to rebuilding our economy, both in the short and long term.
• With all the teacher layoffs over the last couple of years, class sizes are ridiculously big. The new teacher hires are incredibly important, again both in the short and long term.
• The size of this package pleasantly surprised me. Given that early discussions in the White House had people advocating something far smaller, and given the conventional wisdom from the D.C. establishment about how modest he should be, the fact that Obama is pushing for $450 billion is better than I expected. I had told people at the White House that this package needed to focus on three words: big, urgent, and now. It seems like this meets that test. Now, just to be clear: I do not think it is enough. We need to be spending far more than this to really jolt the economy the way it needs to be jolted. Progressives need to be crystal clear that this is not enough. But given what it might have been, I am pleasantly surprised.

On the speech itself, I have one thing beyond the policy I am really happy about, and one thing I'm really troubled by. Let me start with the latter: I didn't agree with everything my friend Drew Westen said in his now famous NYT op-ed about the President, but I do wish the President listened to him more when it comes to the need to tell a story. I really think it was important for the President in the beginning of his speech to explain to people how we got to this terrible economic place. He just launched right into the policy, but without an understanding of how we landed in this awful place, I fear voters won't understand how what Obama is proposing solves the problem. He needed to talk about how the irresponsibility of the last ten years -- no oversight of Wall Street speculators, not paying for wars and big tax cuts to the wealthy -- created an entire decade without job or income growth, and created the housing bubble -- the combination of which wrecked the economy and put us in the deepest hole we have been in since the Great Depression. He needed to explain that times are not business as usual, that times like these create the need for bold and urgent action. By not doing that, I fear voters will not get why what he is proposing is different and needed, and will make it far easier for Republicans to just attack this as the same old stimulus policies that didn't work before.
On the other hand, the speech's summary was great at context setting. When the President lays out the broad philosophical basis for why government action is needed, and why we need to all be in this together, he strengthens his case immeasurably. It was a wonderful closing, and really important to make those points. The language he used sounded like it came out of the speeches progressives have been giving for a while, and it is very politically powerful stuff.
It is great that the President is out there with a big, bold jobs package. He took the advice of the progressive movement on that, and today he looks like a far stronger leader as a result. We still need to fight him on the things he is wrong about, and we still need to push him to do more, both in legislative proposals and in thethings he can do through executive action. But he is in far better shape politically today, and as someone who strongly prefers a President Obama to a President Perry in the next term, I am happy.

Tags: Barack Obama, Big banks, Jobs, obama jobs speech, progressives

Graph of the Day: Did Stimulus Money Hire the Unemployed?

 http://botc.tcf.org/2011/09/graph-of-the-day-did-stimulus-money-hire-the-unemployed-1.html

Graph of the Day: Did Stimulus Money Hire the Unemployed?

by Benjamin Landy

According to a new research paper by economists Garett Jones and Daniel Rothschild, “Did Stimulus Dollars Hire the Unemployed?” published by the conservative Mercatus Center, less than half of all employees hired with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds actually came from the ranks of the unemployed. “Hiring isn’t the same as net job creation,” the report argues. “In our survey, just 42.1 percent of the workers hired at ARRA-receiving organizations … were unemployed at the time they were hired. More were hired directly from other organizations (47.3 percent of post-ARRA workers), while a handful came from school (6.5%) or from outside the labor force (4.1%) … This suggests just how hard it is for Keynesian job creation to work in a modern, expertise-based economy: even in a weak economy, organizations hired the employed about as often as the unemployed.”

Unsurprisingly, conservative economists like Tyler Cowen see Jones and Rothschild’s research as proof that the stimulus failed. “This paper goes a long way toward explaining why fiscal stimulus usually doesn’t have such a great ‘bang for the buck,’” writes Cowen on his blog Marginal Revolution. “It raises the question of whether as ‘twice as big’ [sic] stimulus really would have been enough.”



However, if you look more closely at the numbers, an alternative, more optimistic story about the ARRA emerges. First of all, for each of the 47.3 percent of workers who left their jobs for new, ARRA-subsidized positions, it is likely that another worker, potentially one who was previously unemployed, took their place. That means that job-shifters weren’t taking away opportunities from the unemployed; on the contrary, their stimulus-sponsored job mobility created a trickle-down effect, leading to new hiring at the businesses they left. Even if only half of these ‘second-order’ hires came from the ranks of the unemployed, that means that the true percentage of ARRA-subsidized jobs going to the unemployed is closer to 66 percent, not 42 percent.

Moreover, the report does not specifically detail how many people were able to keep their jobs thanks to ARRA funds. Even if no new jobs were created, a large amount of the stimulus money that went to the states enabled local governments to employ workers that would otherwise have been laid off. And in fact, Jones and Rothschild’s research indicates that the average organization receiving stimulus funds equal to 10 percent of its annual revenue reported retaining or hiring workers equal to 6 percent of its workforce. Which helps explain why, according to Recovery.gov, over 550,000 have been created or maintained by ARRA funds just between April and July of this year.

Of course, no one is claiming that the ARRA funds have been apportioned or managed perfectly —$787 billion is a lot of money. But considering the time constraints that the Obama administration was working under, it would be unreasonable to expect that such a massive economic stimulus could be implemented without some waste. That being said, the CBO estimates that, relative to what would have happened without the law, the ARRA raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 4.2 percent in 2010, and boosted employment by as much as 3.3 million. That may be the kind of recovery that Cowen dismisses as not much "bang for the buck," but I'd wager that the majority of the 14 million Americans who are currently unemployed would like to see more such stimulus, not less.

View more from the Graph of the Day Series.

Wealth and Income Inequality: America’s Moral Crisis

Sunday, 21 August, 2011 10:19 Written by Dr. Art Kamm

 

Less than one tenth of one percent of our population is holding a sum of wealth approaching three times the size of the US economy that is anticipated to more than double within the next decade, the earnings on which does not contribute to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  And the wealthiest in America quintupled their income during the heart of the Great Recession.  To propose cuts to food stamps and unemployment benefits for the victims of the Great Recession during a time of increasing poverty and poverty-related deaths, without shared sacrifice at the top, represents nothing less than a moral crisis for our country.

Since 2009 there has been no attempt to raise taxes on 98-99% of America; in fact, tax breaks have been issued to Middle America (ref).  The battle regarding increasing revenue has been about closing tax loopholes and reinstating progressive tax rates on the wealthiest of Americans, generally the top 1% of income earners, the only class that has done well, and quite well, during this economic downturn.  That is where the debate lies.  That is where the GOP is digging in its heals.

Warren Buffet, the second wealthiest individual in America behind Bill Gates (ref), has advocated over the past several years to raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans.  Using himself as an example, he paid 17.4% on his taxable income last year (around $40 million), a lower level than any of the other 20 individuals in his office (range 33% to 41%, average 36%).  The reason for this is that the “mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of the earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes.  It’s a different story for the middle class; typically they fall into the 15% and 25% income brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot” (ref).

It didn’t used to be like that.  In 1976-77 capital gains rates were 39.9%; today they are just 15%.  The tax rate on the highest levels of income following WWII during Eisenhower (90%), then Kennedy (70%) until Reagan where it was reduced to 28%, now stands at 35% following the G.W. Bush tax cuts.  And these unfunded tax cuts, heavily weighted to the wealthy, have contributed to a growing income and wealth inequality (ref) as well as consistently increasing our national debt at a rate faster than the growth of our economy.

As more income has been pushed to the top over the past 30 years, the income growth of the middle class, and thus its purchasing power, has not kept pace with the growth of the economy.  Quintile by quintile, the lower 80 percent of America is down almost $10,000/yr in income distribution since 1979 while the upper 1% is up over $740,000 in average income during that same timeframe.  And with an economy that is 70% personal consumption, this has resulted in weaker demand for goods and services and thus slow recovery and higher unemployment (ref).

But graphs and charts do a disservice in showing what is really happening with wealth and income inequality in America. The actual dollar increases in income and wealth in recent years within the top 0.1% of income earners, as well as the rapidly growing sums of money held within that group, are mind-staggering; perhaps obscene is a better word during these economically troubled times.  And that will be thrust of this article.  It will compare and contrast increases in wealth and income at the top versus the extent and effects of growing poverty (including death) and unemployment in the rest of America.  The failure to share sacrifice at the top while pursuing cuts in programs benefitting the victims of the recession, represents nothing less than a moral crisis for our country.

Millionaire households, that represent less than a tenth of a percent (0.076%) of the US population, hold $38.6 Trillion in wealth that is anticipated to increase 225% within the next decade to $87.1 Trillion (ref)

And those figures may actually be underestimated due to holdings in off-shore tax havens (ref).  How much money is $38.6 Trillion?  Less than one tenth of one percent of our population is holding wealth that is approaching three times the size of the entire US economy (GDP).  It is almost three times as great as our Gross National Debt.  And it is income producing and builds upon itself.  Consider that almost half (49.7%) of investment assets (financial securities, stocks, mutual funds, etc) are held within the top 1% of income earners (ref).  The capital gains and dividends produced by these investment assets are taxed at only 15% and are not subject to payroll taxes that contribute to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  With ‘money making money’ at historically low tax rates, the wealth of millionaire households is anticipated to reach $87.1 Trillion within the next decade.

While refusing to let the unfunded Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest expire or close tax loopholes, a Republican House proposal would cut funding for the food stamp program as part of its austerity measures.  The total cost of this program last year was $65 billion (just 0.17% of the wealth held by millionaire households) and helped feed 45 million needy Americans (ref).

Since the Great Recession there has been a marked increase in Food Stamp participation.  Currently 45.8 million people rely on them and that is anticipated to increase by an additional 22.5 million individuals bringing the total to over 68 million needy citizens.

 

This reliance on food stamps parallels the escalation in poverty (ref).  The most current census estimates have 43.6 million Americans, 14.3% of our population, living in poverty in 2009.  However, a recent study by the National Academy of Science places the figure at almost 53 million.  Using the census figures, 15.5 million of these individuals were children (1 child out of every 5).  The poverty rate amongst children increased 28% since 2000, and jumped 10% from 2008-2009 during the heart of the Great Recession.  Every day in America 2,573 babies are born into poverty (ref).

 

Columbia University’s School of Public Health conducted an examination of mortality and medical data and estimated that in 2000 875,000 deaths could be attributed to a cluster of social factors bound up with poverty and income inequality (ref).  Applying that rate to the current number of Americans living in poverty an estimated 1,228,169 Americans died in 2009 from the effects of poverty and income inequality (ref).

Who uses the food stamp program?  About half the recipients are children, 8% are the elderly, 41% have incomes half the poverty level or less, and 18% have no income at all.  The average family using food stamps has only $101 in savings or valuables (ref).  The growing number of these individuals represent the victims of the recession.  I submit that cutting benefits to the impoverished, the hungry, during economically difficult times while retaining historically low tax rates for the wealthiest, is morally corrupt and a statement of values that we as Americans should not tolerate.

The highest earners in America (74 of them with $50+ million in income) quintupled their pay in 2009, averaging $518.8 million in income ($10 million/week), and made as much income as the lowest paid 19 million workers in America combined (ref) (ref) (ref)

While 68 million Americans are relying on food stamps to feed themselves, and with wages declining for 90% of America, those earning the highest incomes in our country increased their income 5-fold during the heart of the Great Recession.  These 74 individuals alone made more money than the lowest paid 19 million American workers combined.

Both Eric Cantor (ref) and Michelle Bachmann (ref) have stated that they do not support extending unemployment benefits for those who find themselves out of work as a result of the economic downturn.  Ms. Bachmann’s position is that “We don’t have the money”.

There has been a marked increase in unemployment following the Great Recession as noted in the following graph (ref). The U3 is the official monthly headline number.  The U6 is the Bureau of Labor Statistics broadest unemployment measure including short-term discouraged, other marginally-attached workers, and those forced to work part time because of lack of full-time employment.  The SGS Alternative (ref) is an aggregate of U3 and U6 and additonally includes long-term discouraged workers ‘who are unemployed and want to work, but have not looked for work within the past year’.  These individuals were excluded from the official count in the 1990′s.  The SGS gives an unemployment rate of 22.5%, an all time record of 34 million people currently in need of work.

Without unemployment benefits, more individuals, including children, would be driven into poverty and its consequences including an increase in poverty-related deaths.  For Ms. Bachmann to state that “We don’t have the money” to extend unemployment benefits while supporting historically low tax rates benefitting the wealthiest is unconscionable.  To let unemployment benefits expire for the victims of this recession would be placing a higher value on tax benefits for the wealthiest over the lives of US citizens, both adults and children.  And regrettably this is not the first time I have made this argument regarding policy decisions on the Right (ref).

Retaining Tax Benefits for the Wealthiest While Cutting Safety Nets: A Few Other Statistics (ref)

• The richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than 154 million Americans, half the US population.  They paid 30% of their income in taxes in 1995, but only 18% now.
• The average millionaire saves $136,000/year due to reduced taxes, a sum greater than the highest income level in the lower 80% of America (and, by definition, there are no taxes paid on those savings).
• One percent of America holds 40% of this country’s wealth, more than the lower 90% of America combined, and holds almost half of all investment assets that produce income at lower tax rates without payroll taxes that contribute to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
• Between 1975-2010, income of the top 0.1% of income earners quadrupled and for the top 0.01% quintupled.  During this same time period worker productivity increased 80%, and yet the income shift has resulted in a shortfall of $400/week for the typical American family.
• From 2009 – Q4 2010, 88% of income growth went to corporate profits (i.e. CEOs) while just 1% went to workers.

Discussion

For those who choose to construe the above as an ‘attack on the rich’, I write from the perspective of having been there.  As I explained in an open letter to Senator McConnell and Congressman Boehner when they threatened to let benefits to the vulnerable expire unless tax cuts for the wealthiest were extended (ref), my views are shaped from having lived during my adult life at income levels that define poverty, the middle class and the wealthy.  I’ve never forgotten that surprise EITC check in the mail during a particularly lean year living on one income ($4500/yr and a student loan with child having medical needs and no insurance).  It meant alot and I never forgot that helping hand our government extended to me as I later went on to provide employment to others. I had no problem what-so-ever during the Clinton surtax years in paying that additional 3.6% on upper income (wow, that was a real back breaker) into the system to keep it well; the same system that lent a helping hand to me when I needed it and the same system that later allowed me to do well. It is a sense of obligation.  And it is worth noting that the redistribution  during the Clinton years contributed to 7 million fewer Americans living in poverty (ref).

The unfunded tax cuts did not stimulate economic growth, employment, or capital investment in America as was promised (ref) (ref).  And the current tax system is, frankly, grossly unfair to the middle class and damaging to our economy. When the wealthiest in our nation proportionately pay a smaller share of their total income in taxes than the middle class (this includes 1470 individuals who earned $1 million or more in 2009 and yet paid no taxes, ref) and when the tax system helps income and wealth accumulate at the top at the expense of our economic engine, the middle class (ref) Mr. Buffett is right when he said in 2006: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning” (ref).

But the real consequences of what is going on in America today is being sanitized; we’re not seeing the face of poverty on TV with well dressed and well fed commentators and guests debating the issue.  This is not dissimilar to the coverage of the Iraq War by mainstream media.  As was detailed in the documentary, Independent Intervention, what we saw in our living rooms were the bomb explosions of Shock and Awe, not the consequences of those explosions on women and children as was graphically shown in the documentary; something the filmmakers claim would have affected public opinion on that war.  And rarely do we hear about the racial component of the inequality where the March unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted) was 7.9%, 15.5%, and 11.3% for American whites, blacks and hispanics, respectively (ref).

There are real life consequences to poverty and there is no denying that one of the consequences is that it claims lives. And when cuts to safety nets are being threatened for the victims of this Great Recession while historically low tax rates are being maintained for the wealthiest, a higher value is being placed on those tax benefits than human life itself.

I submit that this represents a moral crisis for our country.  Representative Bachmann and others may claim that we do not have the money to pay for those unemployment benefits, but they should first increase revenue by reducing the gap between what the wealthy and middle class proportionately pay into the system.  Yes, Ms. Bachmann, it is good that people get to keep their money, but the rich are proportionately getting to keep more of theirs than the middle class.

Why is this happening?  It is difficult to deny that part of it is that our politicians now are beholden to a different ‘person’ than the general public to retain their job.  It is a person in the form of corporations and special interests that can contribute unlimited sums to political campaigns and sway public opinion through expensive media blitzes (ref).

In 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry described the expansion of unemployment benefits under the stimulus plan to thousands of low-wage workers as burdening tax payers with “higher taxes and expanded obligations” (ref), and his Texas tax laws actually “redistribute income away from ordinary families and towards the richest Texans” (ref).  Regarding his recent Christian Prayer event in Houston that was billed as an attempt to reverse America’s national decline (ref), I wonder if Proverbs 22:16 was included in the prayer list: “He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich – both come to poverty”.

Tags:  Clinton, Deficits, Economic Crisis, G.W. Bush, GDP, National Debt, Progressive Tax, Reagan, Recession, special interests, Tax Cut Legislation, Wealth Distribution

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

Published on Sunday, June 12, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Shamus Cooke

Ever since the Great Recession shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, President Obama has been promising recovery. Evidence of this recovery, we were told, was manifested in the massive post-bailout profits corporations made. Soon enough, the President assured us, these corporations would tire of hoarding mountains of cash and start a hiring bonanza, followed by raising wages and benefits. It was either wishful thinking or conscious deception. The recent stock market meltdown has squashed any hope of a corporate-led recovery.

The Democrats fought the recession by the same methods the Republicans used to create it: allowing the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts. This strategy, commonly referred to as Reaganomics or Trickle Down Economics, is now religion to both Democrats and Republicans; never mind the staged in-fighting for the gullible or complicit media.

When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered. Why, for example, did nobody in either political party foresee the disastrous consequences of the bailouts? Not only did the U.S. deficit drastically increase but the same U.S. corporations that caused the recession were given reinforcement for their destructive actions, ensuring that it would continue unabated.

In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats. Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of "moral hazard" was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember? Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the "too big" banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.

Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession. Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:

“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).

This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery.

Another mainstream economist, Paul Krugman, also admits that the rich's death-grip on the U.S. political and economic system is causing pain for everybody else:

"Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending - destroying jobs in the process - with the only difference being one of degree...policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers [rich investors] - those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else's expense." (June 10, 2011)

Krugman explains that this process continues because the rich dominate the political system through campaign contributions, "access to policy makers,” promises of high paying corporate jobs after their congressional term is over, and good o'l fashion corruption. Because he's a true blue Democrat at heart, Krugman nevertheless focuses most of his rage on Republicans.

Krugman's repeated calls to Democrats and Republicans to create jobs have fallen on deaf ears. Both parties agree that the "private sector" [corporations] should create jobs; until they decide to hire, nothing will happen. This is not merely "bad policy,” as liberals like Krugman like to fret about, but the conscious agenda of the rich. Corporations and rich investors love high unemployment. The Kansas City Star explains why:

"Last year [2010], for the second year in a row, U.S. companies got more work out of their employees while spending less on overall labor costs." (February 3, 2011)

It really is that simple. High unemployment creates a downward pressure on wages, allowing employers to work the remaining employees harder and thus to increase profits. This dynamic, combined with the above commodity speculation, has been the entire basis for the corporate recovery, while working people have literally seen nothing beneficial.

This process is an extension of the bailouts, in the sense that more wealth is being transferred from working people to the corporations. Since consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, policies like these ensure that another crisis is inevitable.

Further complicating matters is the ending of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program (printing money), which amounted to the Fed buying $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds since last fall, essentially funding the U.S. debt and driving down interest rates.

Since the Fed was buying 60 percent of the bonds, a new creditor will need to be found; and this lender will likely require higher interest rates before loaning to the U.S. government, to make sure the loan is profitable. And although different nations buy U.S. debt for different reasons, much of this debt is bought by rich U.S. citizens, who will put the squeeze on the rest of us that have to pay back this debt. The Washington Times explains:

"...Bill Gross, the head of America's own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco's holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren't yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending." (June 7, 2011)

When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to satisfy these rich investors, the economy will likely take a further nosedive. It appears, then, that the rich have a win-win situation: they got free bailout money, which increased the deficit; and because the deficit is too high, the rich want higher interest rates for investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. In both instances working people pay the bills.

This insanity cannot be stopped by conventional measures, since politicians are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash. The jobs crisis continues as a result of the policy agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. The labor movement has a special role to play in reversing the above policies.

The corporate-led discussion around cutting social programs to fix the deficits -- on a state and national level -- can be challenged by a nationally coordinated campaign of unions and community allies demanding: Tax the Rich! This demand is significant because it can address both the deficits and the jobs crisis: a massive public works program can be funded by taxing the corporations and the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top. The rich have plenty of money to spare.Organized labor needs to bring masses of people in the street all over the country in order to get attention and pressure the government to respond to these demands. And it can succeed, especially if it organizes a serious, protracted campaign and especially if this campaign does not get funneled into supporting Democratic candidates, the surest way to kill campaign momentum.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently spoke in favor of a strong, independent labor movement. This is the direction it must take, rather than relying on the Democrats. The labor movement must get its act together, unite to put up a fight and demand specific policies that can concretely address the crisis faced by millions of working people.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscook@gmail.com

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?; NYT

May 31, 2011, 6:00 am

Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?

By BRUCE BARTLETT

Bruce Bartlett has served as an economic adviser in the White House, the Treasury Department and Congress. 

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.

In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.

Yet if one listens to Republicans, one would think that taxes have never been higher, that an excessive tax burden is the most important constraint holding back economic growth and that a big tax cut is exactly what the economy needs to get growing again.

Just last week, House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent. No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.

One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.

The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate. But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

 
Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010

If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high? They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.

For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.

Ryan Chittum, in Columbia Journalism Review, responded with a commentary that called the Moore analysis “deeply disingenuous.”

Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant.

The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low. And they almost never note that the statutory tax rate applies only to the last dollar earned or that the effective tax rate is substantially lower even for the richest taxpayers and largest corporations because of tax exclusions, deductions, credits and the 15 percent top rate on dividends and capital gains.

The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.

The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.

Bust the Myth: Actually, "the Rich" Don't "Create Jobs," We Do | Truthout

Saturday 14 May 2011
by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” ...

Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation:

you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation.

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy -- with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it.

This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this because those who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs

Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.

Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

Saturday 14 May 2011

by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

(Photo: tom.arthur)

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” ...

Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation:

you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation.

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy --

with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it.

This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this becausethose who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs

4digg

Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.
Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

Saturday 14 May 2011

by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

(Photo: tom.arthur)

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” ...

Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation:

you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation.

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy --

with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it.

This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this becausethose who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs

4digg

Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.
Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

Saturday 14 May 2011

by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

(Photo: tom.arthur)

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” ...

Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation:

you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation.

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy --

with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it.

This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this becausethose who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs

4digg

Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.
Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

Saturday 14 May 2011

by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future

(Photo: tom.arthur)

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about "job-killing tax hikes," or that "taxing the rich hurts jobs," "taxes kill jobs," "taxes take money out of the economy, "if you tax the rich they won't be able to provide jobs." ... on and on it goes. So do we really depend on "the rich" to "create" jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need?

Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan, written by a "senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,"

Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers.

Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government.

Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” ...

Producers and Parasites

The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people "produce" and are rich because they "produce." The rest of us are "parasites" who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just "the help" who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our "entitlements." We "take money" from the producers through taxes, which are "redistributed" to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, "Taxes are theft," and take the "money we earned" by "force" (i.e. government.)

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of "producers" and "parasites," saying yesterday,

I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.”

"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites -- "the help" -- meaning you and me...

So is it true? Do "they" create jobs? Do we "depend on" the wealthy to "create jobs?"

Demand Creates Jobs

I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people. What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go.

If I had extra money I wouldn't just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that -- the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers -- is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation:

you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has.

If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand. Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need, not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year's Businesses Do Not Create Jobs.)

Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation.

In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don't even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to "cover" your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to "cover' taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes... except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, ... and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all!

People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs.

The Rich Do Not Create Jobs

Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people, regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning.

When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

Democracy Creates Jobs

This idea that a few wealthy people -- the "producers" -- hand everything down to the rest of us -- "the parasites" -- is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not "depend" on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to -- "entitlements" -- that we get just because we were born here. But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy --

with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it.

This is why we have "progressive taxes" where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does.

Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces

In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn't just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that.

A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay. We do this becausethose who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability. Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.)

The conservative "producer and parasite" anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge - see more here, and here) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not "take money out of the economy" they enable the economy. The rich do not "create jobs, We, the People create jobs

4digg

Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson (Redwood City, CA) is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, writing about American manufacturing, trade and economic/industrial policy. He is also a Senior Fellow with Renew California.
Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience including positions as CEO and VP of marketing. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. And he was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers. More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.