I noticed a segment on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS in which Naomi Klein, Eliot Spitzer, David Frum, and Stephen Dubner discuss financial regulation in the aftermath of the worst recession in over 70 years.  After Klein and Spitzer had a chance to give their views on the need for financial regulation to prevent another disaster like we experienced in 2008-09, Dubner steps in, saying

“…government right now in Washington is at this bizarre place where, if it’s not paralyzed or broken, it’s pretty darn close.  It’s really hard to…it’s really hard for me, as someone who doesn’t really traffic in the political realm willingly or all that often to see where’s a good outcome here from a political perspective because I don’t see it.”

Zakaria then goes on to agree with him:  “…on any issue if you look at…immigration, energy, it’s just paralyzed in general.”  Then Frum adds “The US government doesn’t govern well, we’ll concede that, but the American private sector does deliver unbelievable things and we are sitting here at the end of an extraordinary innovation…”

I’m pretty much done with trying to figure out if conservatives and neoconservatives actually believe that an unhinged, unfettered marketplace would yield beneficial results or are just saying so because their jobs depend on them not understanding the adverse effects of such deregulation.  The fact is that on a range of issues, from energy to healthcare to financial regulation, Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts at reform, choosing to side with their corporate paymasters who benefit financially from the status quo.  When Republicans control the executive branch, they appoint hacks to head government agencies about which they are ideologically opposed, while de-funding and under staffing those same agencies.  And then when Democrats have control, conservatives say, gee, look at how bad the government works while they block reform.

Thomas Frank was on PBS’ Bill Moyers Journal recently and discussed this stupefying phenomenon.

The analogy that works for me is that Republicans are the lead elephant on the back of our collective airplane and we are trying to take off before we reach the end of the runway, but it is a very heavy elephant.  And on issues such as climate change, the whole world is on board.

I’m trying to not be apoplectic about today’s Supreme Court decision, but, absent some Congressional intervention, I don’t see how this is one of the worst things that could’ve possibly happened to progressive causes in the US.  The Republican Party, already overtly the radical wing of the business party (the other wing being the Democratic Party), will now have an unlimited flow of funds to finance its candidates in any and all US elections (judicial, congressional, gubernatorial, presidential, etc.).  If Exxon was to spend just over 2% of its 2008 profits on financing a Republican presidential candidate, it would outspend all the money spent by both McCain and Obama in the 2008 presidential election, the most expensive in history.

PBS’ Newshour has an interesting segment online.

By an accident of history (and some argue, a distortion), corporations are considered legal persons in the US.  This has allowed shills for big business to argue that the First Amendment, which grants US citizens with free speech, extends to corporations freedom to donate money to political candidates.

Fortunately, the campaign donation disclosure laws are still pertinent as upheld by the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas dissented).

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a  report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

It is difficult to imagine the consequences if these disclosure laws were not upheld.

Hopefully, the Democratically-controlled Congress will pass some new laws that place some limits on corporate campaign contributions or at least allow for politicians to opt into public funding for their campaigns.

Ultimately, this is about more than the ability of corporations to bribe politicians with campaign contributions and receive favors.  I would argue that the worst problems facing the US today have not been solved as a result of corporate domination of government policy formation because corporate interests are often diametrically opposite US’ interests.  Furthermore, most of the major problems the US faces are a result of this same domination in the first place.  What happened today is the US went from being between the teeth of the corporate monster into its belly.

Update:

Kevin Drum has a distressing post on the subject.

Update II:

So, I’m probably completely wrong.

Update III:

And Kevin Drum has a another thoughtful post regarding the ruling, referencing the above Greenwald post.

I’m really ambivalent about this.  I appreciate the significance of limiting the First Amendment but I also acknowledge that this ruling unleashes corporations, which would have no qualms about selling each and every American a fistful of cyanide if it promised a good quarter for the shareholders.

I suppose a key question is where to go from here.  How can our current system limit the slant toward corporate power?

So, the Haitian earthquake has become the first big story of 2010.  The US media with all its powers and abilities is covering the story non-stop. Yet, in a truly breathtaking way that is unique, perhaps, to the US media, the story unfolding will be presented almost completely free from context.

I got a chance to watch Meet the Press this past Sunday, 01/17, and saw a brief segment (occurs at 28:20-29:00) purporting to show the history of US involvement in Haiti.  The high-tech graphic timeline begins with “1934, that’s when the US ends a nearly two decade occupation of Haiti”.  What the US was doing in Haiti in the first place is of course not mentioned.  The US sponsored 2004 coup and removal of Aristide is depicted as “US Marines land in Haiti to help restore order”.

Crooks and Liars, a liberal blog, is happy to point out a mainstream television news program, Fareed Zakaria’s GPS from 01/17/10, which depicts something slightly resembling historical context.  Zakaria presents the reason for Woodrow Wilson’s sending in the Marines as “some say that America simply wanted to protect its investments there.”  (It’s always funny when a TV journalist uses the lead-in “some say”.  It’s usually used to introduce a partisan point of view, but in this case it’s actually used to soften an already duplicitously benign viewpoint.)  Zakaria goes on to completely omit the 2004 US-sponsored coup.

The fact that this kind of historical amnesia can happen in a society that pretends it has a free press is stupefying.  But I won’t pretend it’s surprising; I’ve lived here for a while.  The corporations which own the networks which use the public airwaves have the same narrow interests as the ones they protect by omitting the history of Haiti from broadcasts.

I recently read The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans by William Greider (revised ed., 1986).  It was originally published as an interview in The Atlantic in December 1981 and received a lot of attention because of the outrageous glimpse of chaos and deceit David Stockman, in his own words, portrayed as having taken place during the creation of the Reagan administration’s first budget.

To briefly put things historically in context, Keynesian economics dominated the US economic system after WWII.  The economy grew at a steady rate, there was widely shared prosperity, and instability was held at an acceptable level.  But because of the trouble Keynesian economists had dealing with unemployment, inflation, and oil prices in the 1970’s, there was a political opening for new economic ideas.  And, more generally for most Americans, the experiences of the 1970’s (Watergate, Vietnam, Church hearings, Iran hostage crisis, stagflation, and oil crises, to name a few), were cause for a view toward something new.  With Reagan’s election, the hitherto fringe Law and Economics movement of supply-side economists and thinkers took advantage of the opportunity.   Stockman, a former congressman, was appointed the Office of Management and Budget Director under Reagan and was one of a handful of such thinkers who were swept into power with Reagan’s election.  With drastically lowered taxes and massive cuts to the budget, the economy would rebound, they maintained.  This is essentially the beginning of small government conservatism in the US on a large scale, which maintains that government is bad and needs to be limited, while also focusing on regressive tax policy.

Of course, the reality is that government spending under such conservatives, beginning under Reagan, and continuing through Bush I and II, ballooned unlike the spending of any previous administration in US history.  (Reagan literally ran up the deficit more than all the previous presidents in American history combined, tripling the deficit.)  Also, modern conservatism has hacked away at social welfare programs but left mostly untouched the business subsidies and corporate welfare, and thrown all the money it plausibly could politically at the Defense Department.  During the budgetary deliberations which Stockman discusses with Greider, we learn that Reagan planned to add 7% a year or $1.6 trillion over 5 years to defense, doubling the Pentagon’s budget.  And, despite the inflationary deficits that were apparent by early 1982, Reagan got most of what he wanted for Defense.

Stockman’s honesty in this interview is rare for someone at the higher reaches of American politics, and he repeatedly says things that are harmful to his own party’s, indeed his own administration’s, interests.  He was tasked initially with the daunting responsibility of cutting $40 billion from a US budget of $700 billion (without touching Defense or Social Security), making it work in tandem with the massive Kemp-Roth tax cut, and still working toward bringing the deficit down.  Not an economist by training, he admits that when his team was initially planning the budget and plugging the numbers into a computer to see how his budget would result, he had to artificially lower prices and interest rates to get the results he was wanting.  Secondly, Greider writes, Stockman used creative accounting to come up with numbers that “fundamentally did not add up” (savings he could fudge but that would not really be there and, hence, be added to the budget deficit).  “None of us really knows what’s going on with all these numbers”, Stockman famously explained.  To an extent, because the budget has so many interlocking, sliding parts that may or may not work out depending on the budget committees’ work, it is understandable that there was some ambiguity regarding the numbers.  Having said that, the reality that the deficits produced by Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and budget were a direct consequence of such obfuscatory tactics is damning.  Stockman goes on to relate a story Senator Howard Baker of the Senate Budget Committee labeling the strategy of quelling congressmen’s fears of future deficits by pointing to not yet negotiated cuts in the budget as “the magic asterisk”.    “The ‘magic asterisk’ would blithely denote all of the future deficit problems that were to be taken care of with additional budget reductions, to be announced by the President at a later date.”

But worst of all is what Stockman says about “supply-side economics” and the motivations behind Reaganomics.  Before most of the budgetary battles had been fought, in August 1981 Reagan was able to pass the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which cut the top tax bracket down from 70% to 50%, amongst other things.  Stockman called Kemp-Roth and the arguments used by the Reagan administration to pass it a “Trojan horse” used to “bring down the top rate”.  In other words, “supply-side economics” was just a new type of packaging Republicans were using to sell their trickle-down style economics, which mainly helped the wealthy.  Stockman went on to explain, “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down’, so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a  tax policy that was really ‘trickle down’.  Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory”.

Surprisingly, Stockman also comes across as a sympathetic figure who apparently wanted to pare down government for the powerful and the weak alike, but was troubled by the ingrained ability of special interests and the congressmen, Republican and Democratic alike, who represent them to fend off his attempts to cut beneficial programs.  “We are going to attack weak claims, not weak clients”, Stockman asserts.  Indeed, Stockman details his efforts, however unsuccessful, to eliminate the oil depletion allowance, ceilings on home mortgage deductions, and $752 million from the Export-Import Bank, which are all about as business/wealth-friendly programs as could be imagined.  But despite his apparent naivete and innocence, Stockman should have seen that all the numbers he was looking at did not add up.  The Reagan administration simply could not have left Medicare and Social Security untouched, had a massive defense buildup while passing Kemp-Roth and not having massive deficits.

Further reading:

The Triumph of Politics:  Why the Reagan Revolution Failed by David Stockman

The Politics of Rich and Poor:  Wealth and the American Electorate in the Reagan Aftermath by Kevin Phillips

The Culture of Contentment by John Kenneth Galbraith

The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman

The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank

So, I was going to do a post on the Republican budget plan as presented in the WSJ by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) until I read a Crooks and Liars post, a Steve Benin post, and a blog entry by Krugman.  I think that linking these entries will mostly suffice. 

I will add that the Republicans (aside from being disconnected from reality and/or betraying Beavis and Butthead-like understandings of that economic reality) seem once again to be banking on the massive ignorance of the American populace.  While I understand that the Republicans do well amongst the “I don’t understand that chart but abortion’s bad” crowd, the level of dangerous stupidity contained in the Republican budget alternative (i.e., spending freeze in the middle of the worst recession in a quarter century) is staggering. 

The Republican budget is basically a rehash of the exact same policies contained in the DeMint amendment–permanently cutting the capital gains tax to 15%, eliminating the estate tax, lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and lowering the top bracket income tax from 35% to 25%.  Again, cutting the capital gains tax was disastrous for 99% of Americans, as the chart below shows.  (Click link if chart size too small)

tax_chart2

It was interesting coming across this story today on Raw Story about Sy Hersh’s mention of an “executive assassination ring” at a forum on Constitutional issues.  It is pretty well known that most of the covert operations carried out by the CIA during the Cold War are now being handled by SOCOM.  Hersh has maintained sources amongst the top brass at the Pentagon, and he has had some exclusive stories during the global war on terror.

I’m currently reading Dana Priest’s The Mission:  Waging War and Keeping Peace with America’s Military, which is to an extent a reflection on the issue of SOCOM’s increasing role in foreign affairs.  It’s an OK read, profiling some of the service chiefs and it has an interesting section on Obama’s new DNI, Adm. Dennis Blair, and his involvement in Indonesia in the 1990’s.

It will be interesting to see what will be leaked about Bush’s use of SOCOM during the global war on terror.  There have been plenty of reports of Operation Mongoose-like sabotage operations in Iran.

UPDATE:

I read a great post by Emptywheel today regarding JSOC’s activities under the former Vice President.  It places the latest covert activities in Iran within the context of Cheney’s experiences during Iran-Contra, and shows that the neocons are essentially trying to elude oversight by moving covert action to JSOC.

As usual, Scott Horton at Harper’s Magazine has written a great post detailing where the US stands on the torture issue.

He was also recently on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.

I’ve been following the torture debate pretty closely the last few months years, and Glenn Greenwald’s blog has  consistently been a good place to go for information and insight.  His latest post asks the question everyone has been waiting for Obama to answer:  Does the US stand by its treaty obligations?

He points out a recent story by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek which details an internal DOJ inquiry during the Bush years whose findings were consistent with what the left has been charging since the Bybee memo was declassified:  that political appointees in the Justice Dept. were put in place to give legal clearance for actions that were transparently illegal.

From what I’ve seen in the mainstream media, there is virtually no attention being paid to the brobdingnagian tax cut (DeMint amendment) being supported by all but five Senate Republicans.  Here is what it includes, briefly:

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
o Permanently kill the Estate Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
o Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.
o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

Reducing the top income tax bracket from 35% to 25% would be a massive blow to tax receipts, which have the same impact as massive spending, which makes Republican attempts to brand the stimulus as “generational theft” completely disingenuous.  Add to that the fact that modern Republicans have a stated goal of “reduc[ing] [government] to the size where [they] can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” and you can see, once again, their ideology at work.

Republicans since Reagan have argued that taxing at a lower rate actually brings in more revenue–that businesses and individuals, less constrained by taxation, are able to make so much more money that the government actually brings in more money with the lower rate than the higher rate.  See:  the Laffer curve.  The problem is that there has NEVER been any evidence to support this, even with near 30 years of practice by Republican administrations.

Most Americans don’t have any idea the history of the income tax brackets’ percentages or their economic effects.  During the post-war boom years, which lasted until 1973, there were high taxes and widely shared prosperity.  Since Reagan, the income tax rate has fallen off a cliff.  As our tax code has become more regressive, the classes become more polarized economically.  Below is a chart I filched from that socialist conspiracy, Wikipedia.

 

Partial History of
U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Since 1913

Applicable
Year

Income
brackets

First
bracket

Top
bracket

Source

1913-1915

-

1%

7%

Census

1916

-

2%

15%

Census

1917

-

2%

67%

Census

1918

-

6%

73%

Census

1919-1920

-

4%

73%

Census

1921

-

4%

73%

Census

1922

-

4%

56%

Census

1923

-

3%

56%

Census

1924

-

1.5%

46%

Census

1925-1928

-

1.5%

25%

Census

1929

-

0.375%

24%

Census

1930-1931

-

1.125%

25%

Census

1932-1933

-

4%

63%

Census

1934-1935

-

4%

63%

Census

1936-1939

-

4%

79%

Census

1940

-

4.4%

81.1%

Census

1941

-

10%

81%

Census

1942-1943

-

19%

88%

Census

1944-1945

-

23%

94%

Census

1946-1947

-

19%

86.45%

Census

1948-1949

-

16.6%

82.13%

Census

1950

-

17.4%

84.36%

Census

1951

-

20.4%

91%

Census

1952-1953

-

22.2%

92%

Census

1954-1963

-

20%

91%

Census

1964

-

16%

77%

Census

1965-1967

-

14%

70%

Census

1968

-

14%

75.25%

Census

1969

-

14%

77%

Census

1970

-

14%

71.75%

Census

1971-1981

15 brackets

14%

70%

IRS

1982-1986

12 brackets

12%

50%

IRS

1987

5 brackets

11%

33%

IRS

1988-1990

3 brackets

15%

28%

IRS

1991-1992

3 brackets

15%

31%

IRS

1993-2000

5 brackets

15%

39.6%

IRS

2001

5 brackets

15%

39.1%

IRS

2002

6 brackets

10%

38.6%

IRS

2003-2008

6 brackets

10%

35%

IRS

Not to mention permanently reducing the capital gains tax to 15%.  Most middle class conservative Americans ask themselves why should the government tax their capital gains, which are mostly in 401(k) plans used for retirement.  What is not realized is that most of the income of the super-rich is through capital gains.  What does this mean?  It means that, in effect, someone who realizes $500 million in capital gains in 2010, under the DeMint Amendment would pay a lower tax rate than the couple who makes $100K.  If anything, the capital gains tax needs to be progressively stratified, not flat and lowered.

And what are the costs of these tax cuts?  In Paul Krugman’s latest opinion piece, he writes:

“In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.”

So, with a 2009 deficit of $1 trillion, the Republicans are castigating Obama for wanting to spend $800B to stimulate the bleakest economy in 70 years, while simultaneously trying to burden the government by $3T over the next decade.  And the CBO is predicting a paltry surplus of 0.3T over the next decade.  Those tax cuts would put us well into the red.  All of which begs the question:  Who won the elections?

at how poorly formed are neoconservative arguments.   I feel bad for them.  It must be difficult to transparently lobby for arms companies and the Likud party and make no sense.  It’s like being a Kirby salesman, except on a larger scale.

Fortunately, we have the blogosphere to dispel easily disprovable errors of fact and judgment.

National Debt Clock



On May 3, 2009, the National debt was $11,236,997,227,054. Click here to see the most current figure.

Blog Stats

  • 587 hits

 

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Top Clicks

  • None