Romney and His Tax Returns

If Romney does not release his tax returns people will think that what's in the returns is much more damaging than the continued criticism he gets for not releasing them. My guess: It would show how hypocritical his tax plan is, which lowers taxes on rich people like him and raises them for most other Americans. What kind of rationale, other than sheer greed--can you offer in favor of lowering taxes for people who already--legally--skirt most of what they are supposed to pay?

Releasing the tax returns would only serve to expose the limitless greed of wealthy robber barons like Romney, and would lay bare the false rhetoric according to which lower taxes would spur job creation. In fact, empirically, we know the reverse to be true: higher taxes--with job credits for keeping and creating jobs in America--would create jobs. Nothing else will.

Left v. Right: The Worldviews

Hunter at the Daily Kos writes pithy, vivid posts that typically address the hypocrisy of the Right and the completely fantastic picture they paint of the world we live in, which has mighty little to do with the reality of the world we do live in. He writes sharp, scathing posts that connect the dots between seemingly unrelated but deeply interconnected actions and statements that arise on the Right day after day. But his latest post is different. It's not as scathing; it's profound and sad, and it captures better than many of his other excellent posts the nature of the debate that divides the Left from the Right.

Much has been written about how the liberals and conservatives are divided by a failure to communicate effectively using a common language. That is also the contention of Jonathan Haidt, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia who recently appeared on Moyers and Company to discuss his soon-to-be released book titled The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt's book tackles the problem of how different moral intuitions and compasses shape our world view and how the failure to empathize leads to a breakdown in communication between political factions. It all sounds very refined, scholarly, and even convincing.

I like Moyers, and I  usually like the points his guests make. I will probably buy Haidt's book and read it with curiosity, but I suspect that I will be disappointed by its premise, and by its conclusions as well. It seems to me that Hunter does a better job of capturing the essence of the divide that separates the Left from the Right: It's not one about failure to speak a common language, to understand the different but equally valid point of the opposition that causes politics to break down and fail its people. It's really about a battle about disappearing opportunities; about how the America of the present, with all its huffy and haughty pretenses at still being the land of opportunities and just rewards, is a nation that more and more picks winners and losers by birth right, by heritage, and by heirdom. It is a nation where the promise, let alone the achievement, of upward mobility has been on the decline for decades, and where birth places and conditions tend to determine the outcome in life more than anywhere else in the advanced world.

George Will, Thomas Sowell, and all the other conservative pundits that strike a pose of supremacy of knowledge and intellect, cannot explain--as Hunter points out--why there are such disparities in our society if the goal of the Left, with all its assumed power over the ignorant masses, is to create equal outcomes. Ineptitude? Or is it because the premise that the Left is constantly seeking to establish equal outcomes is an invention of those whose mission in life is to conserve and preserve the inequality that has played to their advantage? Hunter's post, in all its quiet desperation, can be summed up in this paragraph (Hunter's):

[...] three stories sit on my computer desktop, all of which were written in the span of a few January days. A story about the damn redistributionists; a story about how America measurably fails its poor; a concrete case around which to question ourselves on what, as a society, we believe equal opportunity to mean. [Emphasis added]

I added emphasis to the sentence "[A] concrete case around which to question ourselves on what, as a society, we believe equal opportunity to mean." because nations are not shaped by debates; they are shaped by how debates are translated (or not) into action. We have a concrete case to deal with. How we deal with it defines not only our idea of what future we want to build, but future itself.

Insignificant Markers

So the Dow Jones reached 13,000 for the first time since 2008. Hooray, yes? Could there be a better example that the index that measures the (supposed) health of public companies in this country is completely meaningless in terms of how the American middle class fares?

This is an important point, because all the measures and indexes that you hear quoted on a given day in all of the mainstream media are meaningless? Productivity? Gone up. Unemployment? Down. Wall Street? Up. They are all numbers that are designed to make us feel good and mean absolutely nothing to most of us. How is your purchasing power now, compared to 10 years ago? How did your salary fare in the last ten years? How much of your income goes toward non-discretionary expenses every month? If you look at those numbers, they all probably look worse now than they did last year, five years ago, ten years ago. That's why you never really hear them mentioned in polite Washington conversation. On the upside? Access to contraception would be much, much more difficult if Republicans have there way. That'll fix your life, won't it?

Sad, True, and Maddening

Hunter produced another quasi-perfect post at the Daily Kos. (The "quasi-" refers to a couple of typos.)

The post, titled The failure of Austerity, is a must-read for everyone, but in particular for those who subscribe to economic theories that far-right conservatives promote (far-right conservatives being 95% of conservatives around) and dim-witted supporters espouse and repeat mindlessly, regardless of any contrary evidence.

It is sad that about half of the U.S. population, give and take a few percentage points, has been manipulated into believing that the government can do no good when it comes to changing the course of the economy, and it is maddening that too many in government act as if that were a true statement.

In an excellent book titled Perfectly Legal, tax policy expert David Cay Johnston writes, and I paraphrase only slightly, that the organic pursuit of self-interest is what makes democracy work, and that for too long a vast number of Americans have subscribed to and supported economic policies that go in the opposite direction of their self-interest, which is a failure of democracy of the highest level.

That the ideologues and hacks should continue to promote economic theories that have as much connection to reality as alchemy does is understandable; after that's how they make a living and prosper. But the fact that a sufficient number of people believe their fantastic claims is sad and maddening, because they make life much worse than it needs to be for those who know that the idiots are buying from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of snake oil. And that is what Hunter articulates so well in his post.

The only thing that I have yet to resolve in my mind if most of the blame lies with the ideologues and the hacks, or if it should fall squarely on the shoulders of their dim-witted supporters. And the more I think about it, the more I believe the latter is the case.

Stop The Presses

Here's an interesting statement for my (10) Republican/Libertarian friends to ponder:

I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

The statement was made in Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators, a Bloomberg op-ed by entrepreneur Nick Hanauer, who "founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion [and] was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)."

Go read, and ponder.

If You Read Nothing Else For The Rest Of The Year, Read This

Go to The Daily Kos, and read A Voice From the 1%. It speaks about the perspective of the Occupy Wall Street movement as seen from a person who "made it" in life.

I was particularly moved by this passage, which is obvious to those with an ounce of perception and intellectual ability, but not to the typically brainwashed right-wing American:

I was not amazed but disgusted when John Boehner and his crew tried to justify the extremity of their position by rebranding the wealthy as "job creators." While true in a very basic sense, it obscures the fact that jobs are a cost that is voluntarily incurred only as a result of demand. Hiring has no correlation at all to profits or to income - none. Let me keep more of my money without increasing customer demand and I will do just that - keep it. Perhaps I will spend a little more of it, though probably not, but even if I do it won't help the economy very much. Here is another secret of the well-to-do: we don't really buy much more stuff than everyone else. It may be more expensive stuff, sure, but I don't buy cars, or appliances, or furniture, or anything else more frequently than the average consumer. The things I do spend more money on are services such as travel, entertainment, restaurants and landscaping, none of which generate well-paying middle class jobs. There, in a nutshell, is the sad explanation of what has happened to the American economy over the last 25 years of "trickle down" economics.

With this cherry on top, which answers the most irritating criticism that conservatives like to triumphantly level at the OWS movement, i.e. that no one really knows what the protesters stand for (as if it should stump anyone with a brain):

As George Orwell wrote in "Homage to Catalonia" about fighting fascists, I don't always need to know what I am fighting for when it is clear what I am fighting against.

The Greatest Scam Perpetrated by The Financial Sector on Unwitting Americans

Now that the title of the post got your interest, you do want to know what the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the unwitting American public is, right? 401Ks. There, I said it. And I have been saying that for a long time, to my friends and to my wife. And now, after a long time, they are starting to understand what I meant and still mean. And last night Rachel Maddow put things in perspective for you, with the help of Simon Johnson.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Beyond The Outcry for S&P's Downgrade Of The USA's Credit-Worthiness

(UPDATED with Robert Reich's perspective, below my original post.)

There are those who decry the decision of Standard & Poor's to dowgrade the credit-worthiness of the United States as laughable, indefensible, and wrong. I beg to differ. S&P did the right thing, and I hope that other rating agencies will follow suit. This does not mean that S&P and other credit rating agencies do not have credibility issues of their own, nor that we should take everything they say or write as the revealed word of god. But after the the pitiful spectactle offered by the two political parties in the standoff over the debt ceiling, which ended with the side of the hostage takers getting everything they wanted (98%, according to the Speaker of the House), and the other side, the Stockholm-syndrome plagued Democrats, acting as if we have to thank the kidnappers for releasing us after paying a 2.4 trillion ransom, how can anyone blame S&P for just taking reality into account?

The American government gave the world the worse possible performance it could have given, and we should expect everybody to applaud because it decided to honor its debts? How deluded are we if we think that the world regards the current political class as responsible and trustworthy, and that we are deserving of the best possible rating?

I believe that when all the dust has settled you will see that S&P's rationale for downgrading the United States' credit rating actually makes a lot of sense. Below are excerpts from their press release, in the order in which they appear. (Emphases added.)

• the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
  
  
• [we are] pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
  
  
• The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
  
  
• It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
  
  
• Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues...

The conclusion of the press release states:

On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

The full report can be found on Standard and Poor's website.

P.S. You will hear that the Obama administration has levied accusations that S&P's numbers are off by a couple of trillion dollars, making the downgrade decision flawed or outright wrong. But you should also notice that much of the rationale for the downgrade lies in the intransigence of (Republicans in) Congress against raising revenues, and on the lack of credibility of Washington's political class. So the downgrade is less about numbers than it is about prospects and credibility. And the decision therefore falls squarely on the shoulders of those who decided to take the American economy hostage in the service of their wealthy overlords.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------
And now, as promised, is Robert Reich's take on S&P's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. It is interesting, because Reich correctly points out that S&P has no business telling the United States how large a deficit it can run, unless its ability to repay its debts is in question.

While I respect Reich's point of view greatly, I still would not discount the weight that the credibility of American politics has in forecasting the nation's ability to repay its debts. In other words, I welcome S&P's downgrade IF, and that's a big if, it sends Washington the message that some things are off-limits to politicking. Which is why I also blame President Obama for not throwing the weight of the Fourteenth Amendment at the leaders of the Republican Party and at Tea Party members during the negotiations. The President is making many people regret their decision of supporting him instead of Hillary Clinton. It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton could have done worse than he has in negotiations with Republicans, who have run all over him from Day 1 of his arrival in office. And that, which is that Obama is making us long for a Clinton presidency, speaks volumes to the magnitude of his failure so far.

What The H Really Stands For

The President's middle initial is starting to look more like an H for Herbert than H for Hussein. That would be Herbert as in Herbert Hoover, the president that led the nation to its greatest economic depression yet.

And I am not the only one to fear so.

And, as Hoover, he is almost certain to be end up as a one-term president, which means that things are only going to get worse for the next six years, at least.

The ship is sinking, start looking for a lifeboat.

Here Are Your Job Creators

When Republicans say that we can't raise taxes on the rich because they are the job creators, they must be thinking of these two:
Borders
Cisco
And remember, the idea is that not raising taxes is the key to job creation. It makes you laugh when you look at this.

And I am listening to Grover Norquist, the insufferable servant to the powerful who is saying that government should not raise taxes under any circumstances, including the debt ceiling deal proposed by the President, which says raise taxes one dollar for every four in spending cuts. Go to hell, Grover.

The Only Serious Plan To Cut The Deficit

Paul Ryan and President Obama are both demagoguing on how to address the deficit. I don't say so, Paul Krugman does. I don't have a Nobel Prize, he does.

In Let's Take a Hike, Krugamn also says that the only serious plan to address the deficit and balance the national budget comes from... are you ready? The Congressional Progressive Caucus. Yes, progressives, a.k.a. liberals, the very people accused by Fox and by Republicans marionettes in Congress of wanting to destroy America. Imagine that.

Refute Ted Rall... If You Can

Someone had to say it, Ted Rall did it: "The family budget talking point is a fascinating meme that reflects a rarely considered national blind spot." Like their government, Americans live on debt.

Krugman: Patients Are Not Consumers

It's a distinction that nowhere else in the civilized world would need to be made, but in the United States it takes a Nobel Prize winner to remind us: Patients are not consumers, and to nonchalantly use the two words interchangeably shows the level of corruption that big finance has brought upon us.

Medicare Isn't The Problem: It's The Solution

Robert Reich reminds the President, and all of us in the process, that Medicare is part of the solution in fixing America's fiscal problems. The only problem is that the right-wing echo chamber is fine-tuned to make Americans believe just the opposite.

Framing the Budget Debate

Robert Reich, with a much needed reminder that Paul Ryan and the Republicans' idea of how to fix the deficit is radical and extreme, and that much, most of America--in fact, is in line with the Democrats' suggestions for righting the financial course.

The Great 401k Hoax

A while ago I read a book titled The Great 401(k) Hoax: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Family and Your Future, in which the authors fall barely short of calling 401k's a swindle. I am pretty sure that the title of the book was setteled in concert with the publisher, and that Wolman and Colamosca, the two authors, would have preferred to go with swindle or some other stronger connotation of how 401k's really work.

And now, years later, the Wall Street Journal has an article in which--surprise surprise!--we learn that baby boomers who are starting to retire are getting the short end of the 401k stick. Keep both in mind, the book and the article, when some Laffer Curve, trickle-down, supply-side Republican economist tells you that the way to fix the wholly imaginary "Social Security mess" is to let workers invest into private retirement funds. Think Enron, think Lehman Brothers, think mortage securitization and subprime mortgage crisis, then tell them to go *!@$ themselves.

Perception Problems: Sad

This is quite sad.



Yes, it is a non-scientific CNN poll. But CNN polls usually bend slightly left of center, so the fact that so many respondents have a negative view of unions may underestimate the actual sentiments of the general population.

What is so sad about this is the fact that it is quite likely that many of the respondents *profited* from the work of unions, via better working hours, safety measures in the work place, health benefits they did not have, higher wages for both union and non-union jobs, and so forth.

Certainly unions bear some of the responsibility for this perception problem that causes unions to be viewed negatively by such a large number of people; and the mainstream media rarely present a balanced view of the positive work that unions have done and continue to do.

But the perception is also a product of the assault that conservatives have waged against unions for the last forty years, which peaked in the Reagan years and has steadily continued ever since. The fact is that Republicans know that at least two things are true: unions are a barrier and a safeguard against a number of destructive business practices aimed at maximizing profits to the detriment of everything and everybody; and, unions are one of the best answers Democrats have to the crushing supremacy of Republican moneyed interests in election cycles, due to the organizing and mobilizing work that unions do to bring voters to polling places.

Demean and fight the ever dwindling power of unions at your peril.

Obama, Friend of the Poor?

President Obama, which by a fortunate coincidence, rhymes with "Oh, mama!", a friend of the poor? Yeah, right.

As Amy Goodman of Democracy Now points out, the President's budget priorities may--quite literally--cause poor people to freeze. More literally than figuratively.

Robert Reich on the Need for Strengthening Progressive Taxation

Looks like this is Robert Reich's week. Here is another post, from last Sunday, in which Reich advocates lower tax rates for all those making less than $250,000, and higher taxes for everybody else. Or, as he puts it, "It's called progressive taxation.".

Soon after his Sunday post, his proposal found a few critics. Here is Reich's response to them.

Robert Reich's Trick Question

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich asked a trick question in a recent post:

Which of the 2012 presidential aspirants delivered the following words at the Conservative Political Action Convention, now underway in Washington?

"We have seen tax-and-tax spend-and-spend reach a fantastic total greater than in all the previous 170 years of our Republic.

Behind this plush curtain of tax and spend, three sinister spooks or ghosts are mixing poison for the American people. They are the shades of Mussolini, with his bureaucratic fascism; of Karl Marx, and his socialism; and of Lord Keynes, with his perpetual government spending, deficits, and inflation. And we added a new ideology of our own. That is government give-away programs….

If you want to see pure socialism mixed with give-away programs, take a look at socialized medicine."

So, do you know? I bet you are wrong, and you can see I am right if you read Reich's entire post.