Blog

What the Republican budget proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan doesn’t say is in many respects more ominous than what it says—and on taxes, perhaps more indicative of the truth. For while the Ryan slash-and-burn budget proposal doesn’t come right out and say it, it could have some low-income and middle-class people paying higher taxes than they would under a more progressive proposal that is not tilted toward the wealthy.

There is practically no other way to make the numbers add up in a budget that would create or continue a total of $10 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations over 10 years while making cuts in government spending so deep that the economy would be slowed, resulting in 4.1 million fewer jobs created over 10 years.

The nice-sounding tax-cut sizzle in the Ryan Republican plan is a simplified tax structure on earned income, with 10 percent and 25 percent tax brackets, plus the lower capital gains rate of 15 percent. Ryan also promises the elimination of deductions and credits that he, in his “Road to Prosperity” budget manifesto, denounces because they direct “resources to politically favored uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation” and even “take taxes paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all”

But where one might expect to find the steak lurks a poisonous tax snake instead. A bulletin issued last week by the Coalition for Human Needs raised the relevant questions:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) asserts that the new tax cuts will be paid for by cuts to other tax expenditures—that is, the deductions and credits that make up so much of the tax code. But while the budget is fairly specific in recommending cuts to services, it is utterly silent on which tax expenditures it would end. Deductions for mortgage interest? state and local taxes? 401(k) contributions? charitable giving? employer contributions to health insurance? Mum’s the word. These and more tax breaks would have to be eliminated altogether to pay for the tax cuts proposed in the budget. (more…)

Let’s face it. The subject of taxes intimidates a lot of people, and it can be an understandably touchy subject. So we won’t inundate you with charts, graphs, and tables to tell you why the rich are getting away with murder on tax day. We’ve got something better for you on this Tax Day, just 24 hours after Republicans rejected the Buffett rule (a proposal which was sensible, if far too easy on the rich).

Instead of bogging you down with data, we offer you: The Elvis Index.

As we’ve noted before, Elvis had a manager named Col. Tom Parker – who, in the true huckster/promoter spirit, was neither a “Colonel” nor “Tom Parker.” (He was a Dutch immigrant.) Col. Parker famously said back in the 1950s that “”I consider it my patriotic duty to keep Elvis up in the 90 percent tax bracket.”

That’s right. Back in the 1950s – when we were that country that Rick Perry and other conservatives wax nostalgic about – Dwight Eisenhower was President, the nation was enjoying its postwar economic boom, and the top tax rate for ultra-high-earners was 90 percent. (It was either 91 percent or 92 percent throughout the Eisenhower Presidency.)

Today the official top tax rate for ultra-high earners is 35 percent – and between capital gains tax cuts and other accounting tricks, very few of them pay even that much. Here’s a snapshot (shrunk to fit the blog format; click to enlarge:

(Eskow, Campaign for America’s Future; from Federal data)

What has this succession of tax breaks for the wealthy done for – or to – the rest of us? Let’s consult the Elvis Index:

Elvis Presley’s rise to stardom took place during the Eisenhower Presidency. These were the years when he went from the kid who cut an acetate of “That’s Where Your Heartaches Begin” at a county fair for his Mom, to the nineteen-year-old truck driver who changed pop music in Sam Phillips’ Sun Records studio in Memphis, and on to the RCA Records superstar who stunned the world as he sang the songs of Otis Blackwell and Lieber & Stoller.

With a top tax rate of 92 and 91 percent, President Eisenhower was able to build the national highway system – which, like other parts of our infrastructure, is now crumbling into decay. (more…)

For such a buttoned-down candidate, Mitt Romney is not very good at keeping secrets.

First, he tells the conservative Weekly Standard that after losing his 1994 Senate race in part because of opposition to his plan for abolishing the Education Department, he’s concluded it’s better not to “give you a list” of what government agencies he believes should be cut.

Then this past Sunday, he let reporters overhear similar comments to a private gathering of donors, telling them, “I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go.” But he did share with the private group that the Department of Housing and Urban Development “might not be around later,” and regarding the Education Department, “I’m not going to get rid of it entirely.”

After letting these secrets leak out, Romney was forced to answer for those comments on ABC News, where millions of average voters would actually hear him.

So did Romney explain what his plans are? Not exactly:

I’m not proposing any eliminations at this point. But I want to streamline and combine agencies. We’ll do– a great deal of analysis to see which agencies could be combined.

Because you know what? There’s– there’s too much overhead in Washington. There are too many bureaucrats, there are too many government workers.

We’ve got to cut back on the size of government. And if we do that we’ll save a lot of money and make life a heck of a lot easier.

Let’s get this straight.

Apparently, the philosophy of Mr. Economy/Mr. Turnaround/Mr. Fix-it is: make up your mind first, then do a “great deal of analysis” later. (more…)

Some companies are learning that supporting hyper-partisan groups can backfire when their customers find out about it. In recent weeks a number of companies are trying to distance themselves from the partisan, right-wing group ALEC before their brands become as damaged as Susan G. Komen for the Cure®.

ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council, is a shady, hyper-partisan, state-based lobbying group that was able to wield power by staying under the radar. Recently the Trayvon Martin shooting case exposed how ALEC helped push through a dangerous “shoot first” law in Florida. Now people are learning that ALEC is also getting state laws passed that limit the voting rights of minorities, limit the power of working people to negotiate for better wages and limit the power of citizens to fight for cleaner environment. So now the big corporations supporting ALEC risk being seen as fighting people’s efforts to have a better life, and their brands are at risk.

(Please visit Alex Exposed for more information. See alsoAtlantic: Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected)

Komen Foundation’s Serious Brand Damage

A few months ago, in a move to please the conservative right, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure® foundation pulled funding from Planned Parenthood. How’d that work out for them? Komen’s “brand equity” dropped 21 percent, one of the most dramatic plummets in brand-equity ever.

How far a drop was this? Komen was ranked among the top two. This year it ranked No. 56. That’s a drop of 54 spots. The value of the Komen brand is ruined. The Komen executives behind the Planned Parenthood decision were forced out.

Harris Interactive: Scandal Rocks America’s Support for Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, According to 23rd Annual Harris Poll EquiTrend® Study,

Based on findings reported in the 2012 Harris Poll® EquiTrend® study, Susan G. Komen’s current brand equity score of 55.1 represents a 21% drop in brand equity over the prior year ─ a historic drop in the study’s 23-year history, surpassed only by Fannie Mae in 2009.

From “Gold Standard” to “Trailing the Pack”

Since its inclusion in the EquiTrend survey in 2008, Susan G. Komen has consistently rated as either the first or second most equitable non-profit organization in its category. This year, SGK fell 54 spots to 56th place out of 79 non-profit brands surveyed.

If you are a corporate executive, numbers like that are terrifying. This is a completely ruined brand, and it only took a few weeks to get there after people heard about their association with the partisan right. This is what happens to a brand when it is caught associating with the likes of ALEC. (more…)

The sweetheart deals just keep coming. Lawbreakers at one bank after another are let off the hook as their shareholders write a check. And then they go out and repeat the illegal behavior they promised not to do in the last settlement.

It shouldn’t be surprising that this keeps happening over at the SEC – especially as long as Robert Khuzami continues to serve as Director of the Commission’s Division of Enforcement.

But while each of these deals has been shameful, destructive, and outrageous, the $22 million agreement with Goldman Sachs which the SEC announced last week - another one in which the guilty party “neither confirms nor denies wrongdoing” – looks like the worst one yet.

The SEC has the power to shut Goldman Sachs down for what it did, and the offenses it describes are felonies. But they just gave out another slap on the wrist – no, make that a pat on the wrist – with today’s announcement.

The Worst Thing

It’s not just the fact that the SEC continues to ignore the public’s outrage by letting bankers off scott-free. And it’s not just that this kind of irresponsible behavior ensures that the lawbreaking will continue. Its not just that crooked bank executives are allowed to “neither admit nor deny wrongdoing.”

It’s not even the fact that this time around the SEC has worded its announcement in a clumsy attempt to obscure the criminal behavior of Goldman’s employees – although that’s one of this agreement’s worst features.

No, what makes this deal the worst we’ve seen in a long while is the timing. Most of the other recent sweetheart deals dealt with crimes that led up to – and created – the 2008 financial crisis. But this time Goldman Sachs is walking away from crimes its bankers committed as recently as last year.

That’s been the SEC’s pattern under both the last President and the current one. The number of repeat offenses compiled by the New York Times for these SEC deals is mind-blowing.

No wonder the SEC didn’t appear before reporters to announce this latest settlement, choosing instead to announce in an email. Cowardly – but then, would you want to show your face in public after signing a deal like this? (more…)

President Obama has been pushing policies to boost American manufacturing. Democrats in Congress are pushing a package of bills under the label “Make It In America.” The Obama administration’s Gene Sperling gave a big speech recently describing the vital importance of a healthy manufacturing sector to our economy. But others say promoting manufacturing is “the wrong target” and reviving manufacturing won’t help revive our economy. So what’s the story?

Gene Sperling, Director of the Obama administration’s National Economic Council gave a big speech at the recent Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing. Sperling talked about how a manufacturing “commons” works, and why it is a good thing if government promotes this commons.

A manufacturing commons is an ecosystem, in which manufacturers, suppliers, designers, innovators and all the other manufacturers, suppliers, designers and innovators all complement each other, creating a “cluster” effect. When all of these components are working together it creates a “virtuous cycle” but when they don’t it creates a “vicious cycle.” So because the sum of these parts is greater than the whole, each component’s interests do not align with the interests of the whole — and “our” (We, the People’s) manufacturing capacity is degraded, which degrades our standard of living. So government (We, the People) must play a role in promoting the whole effort. From Spreling’s speech:

The ecosystems that grow up around these intersections of innovation and production tend to be complex. They are the result of evolutions that occur over periods of years and decades. Once the virtuous, reinforcing cycles are broken they are difficult to recreate, and they can turn to a vicious cycle. That’s why losing pieces of our manufacturing base should be such a serious concern.

… For any single firm, the decision to move production elsewhere may make economic sense. But that decision impacts suppliers and the local talent pool. This makes the decision even easier for the next firm to leave and even harder for the next firm considering coming there to say yes.

Job Loss Not Just Competition And Productivity

Sperling traces the history of our manufacturing and shows that we didn’t lose jobs when competing with Japan, and didn’t lose jobs during periods of high productivity growth. He shows that what happened between 2000 and 2009 (the Bush years, and China in the WTO) with the loss of 50,000 factories and millions of manufacturing jobs was different, saying “the dramatic loss of manufacturing employment in the past decade was a break from the past and cannot be explained by the conventional view of productivity and technology gains.” (more…)

This week there was another big attack on Social Security by another elite. This time the attack comes from an elite columnist, other times it comes from Wall Street types, wealthy CEOs or the kind of politicians that have been in DC way too long. These attacks never come from people who depend on these programs (i.e. almost all of us.) Why do the privileged elites hate Social Security so much?

Robert Samuelson wrote this week in the Washington Post, Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security? Samuelson writes that Social Security, “has become what was then called “the dole” and is now known as “welfare.” ” He discusses a book that, he writes, “shows how today’s “entitlement” psychology dates to Social Security’s muddled beginnings.”

Entitlements

Elites hate “entitlements” — those things we all are entitled to as are citizens in a We-the-People democracy. Democracies are based on “we are in this together” and “watch out for each other.” Plutocracies are based on rule by the elites. These elites especially hate what Samuelson calls “entitlement psychology” — a state of mind in which 99% of us forget our place and get all uppity about being citizens in a democracy and the things that entitles us to.

Samuelson’s core attack on Social Security is that there is no trust fund, that the money has been spent, and it is just a program where working people pay for the retirement of older people,

Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they “earned” these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs.

And, he restates, while people think they are entitled to their Social Security benefits it really is just “welfare,” writing,

What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement.

The “rhetoric” and “psychology” of “entitlement.” Public pride in We-the-People democracy. Gotta stamp that out!

(Samuelson, for some reason, does not talk about how the military budget trust fund is depleted and we need to cut back on the trillion-or-so we will spend this year, how it is bankrupting us, etc. Oh, wait, there isn’t a trust fund at all for military spending… we just spend it.) (more…)

Conservatives like House Speaker John Boehner say the government can’t raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires because they are “job creators.” Instead, House Republicans are once more calling for trillions in more tax cuts for the richest Americans.

That’s a big mistake. The “job creators” that Boehner doesn’t want to tax aren’t creating many jobs. Big corporations already are reaping record profits, sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, and shipping jobs abroad. Small businesses lack customers, not confidence.

But with 24 million people still in need of full-time work and the wealthiest 1 percent capturing a staggering 93 percent of the growth in income in 2010, most customers aren’t willing or able to spend more. In these circumstances, we’d be far better off investing in rebuilding the country and paying for it with higher taxes on the rich and the corporations. They aren’t putting their money to work, so we should do it for them.

This basic conservative belief in tax cuts is a theology based on faith, not evidence. When taxes were raised during Bill Clinton’s presidency, conservatives predicted a deep recession. Instead, the economy boomed and private investment took off. When taxes were cut under President George W. Bush, private investment and job growth were disappointing. But conservatives won’t let the facts get in the way of their gospel.

Conservative Republicans also claim that cutting government spending creates jobs, even in the midst of a recession. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said, “All of our efforts are centered around jobs — starting with cutting spending and federal regulations — to grow the economy so that people can get back to work.”

But this is just more nonsense. Cuts in government spending at the state level have killed hundreds of thousands of jobs as teachers, cops, and firefighters are laid off and contractors lose their contracts. Those layoffs not only hurt the economy, they slash services we rely on.

Conservatives argue that if we make wrenching cuts in spending, fire civil servants, force seniors to pay more for their health care and students to spend more on tuition, and promise never, never, never to raise taxes, businesses will gain the confidence to invest, despite the resulting government layoffs. But with high unemployment and stagnant incomes, businesses look to increase profits not by adding workers but by cutting costs. Instead of creating jobs, they’re firing workers and investing in cheaper labor abroad. (more…)

The Mitt Romney campaign is shaping up to be a constant stream of projection, accusing President Obama of whatever weakness are in his own record.

Hug the House Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, then claim President Obama wants to “end Medicare as we know it.”

Mock President Obama’s Harvard law degree, despite having a Harvard law degree and business degree yourself, sending three of your kids there and being a donor.

But particularly hilarious was Romney’s charge that Obama “does not want to share his real plans before the election.”

Really Mitt? You’re launching that attack just days after you told the conservative Weekly Standard:

One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education … will there be [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.

Yes, Mitt Romney literally told a conservative publication — not read widely among the broad electorate — that he fully intends to hide from the voters what programs and government agencies he wants to eliminate. And then he accused President Obama of doing just that.

The Romney campaign’s suggestion of secret radical Obama agenda is a bizarre attack to make. He’s been President for over three years! He has a record, quite an ambitious one in fact. It’s not like he spent the last three years playing small ball in a timid defensive attempt to deprive Republicans of avenues of attack. (more…)

Ann Romney, apparently a “rock star” in the Romney campaign, recently riffed on her husband’s difficulty relating to regular folks, and threatened to unleash the “real Mitt Romney” upon us. During a radio interview in Baltimore, Ann Romney responded to suggestions that her husband came off a bit stiff on the campaign trail. “Well, you know what,” she said, ” guess we’d better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out because he is not!”

Fortunately, that won’t be necessary. We’ve seen and heard plenty of the “real Mitt Romney” in the course of the GOP primary. And not just from his Republican opponents. Mitt Romney has more than revealed himself to American voters.

The Gaffe Man Cometh

Of course, there are the gaffes. So many, in fact, that they’re hard to keep up with.

• We know that Mitt Romney thinks corporations are people.
• We know Mitt Romney can make a $10,000 bet as easily as most of us make a $10 bet.
• We know Mitt Romney likes being able to fire people.
• We know that even when Mitt Romney was unemployed he earned $374,000 in speaker’s fees, and that it was “not very much.”
• We know that Mitt Romney’s wife drives two Cadillacs, and doesn’t think of herself as rich.
• We know that, while he doesn’t follow NASCAR, Mitt Romney has some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.
• We know Mitt Romney has a really funny story about the time his father closed a Michgan-based factory and move operations to Wisconsin.
• We know Mitt Romney is not concerned about the very poor.

There are more gaffes, and there will be even more between now and November. And they are telling. But when it comes to the real Mitt Romney, the wealth-related gaffes are really a kind of shorthand.

Mitt’s Moral Document

Budgets, Jim Wallis says, are moral documents. They reveal our priorities, and show the world what — or whom — we’re willing to sacrifice. Mitt Romney has shown us both.

In February, when Mitt Romney released his new economic agenda, Ezra Klein summed it up in less than 150 words.

Mitt Romney is promising that taxes will go down, defense spending will go up, and old-people programs won’t change for this generation of retirees. So three of his four options for deficit reduction “taxes, old-people programs, and defense” are now either contributing to the deficit or are off-limits for the next decade.

Romney is also promising that he will pay for his tax cuts, pay for his defense spending, and reduce total federal spending by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years. But the only big pot of money left to him is poor-people programs. So, by simple process of elimination, poor-people programs will have to be cut dramatically. There’s no other way to make those numbers work. (more…)