YEAH, WE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH (Big Time)

Of all the misunderstood and ill considered political positions in American politics today is how many Americans view the redistribution of wealth. They oppose it. But the reality is America redistributes wealth by the boatload. And its been happening on a regular basis for some time now.

Consider this. If California were to get back all the money that it pays in taxes to the federal government California would not be staring down the barrel of an $11 billion state budget deficit this year. California would be running budget surpluses if the state got all the money back it has sent to the federal government. In fact, for every dollar the state of California sent to the federal government through 2005 the state of California only got .78 cents in return.

Redistributing the Wealth
What happened to the rest of California's money, you ask? The easiest way to put it is that California's wealth is redistributed to other states in the union. States that send one dollar to the federal government and got more back through 2005 include states like Alaska ($1.84), Louisiana ($1.76), Kentucky ($1.51), Alabama ($1.66) and Mississippi ($2.02), with the vast majority or recipients being politically conservative Red States.

None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. When it comes to the 47% of the population who GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney derisively said don't pay income taxes (an ill-informed comment, on many levels) the ten states with the highest percentage of non-filers (and with no federal tax responsibility) reside in the same states that are recipients of California's redistributed wealth.

Apart from typically voting Republican, these are the regions of the country that we usually see and hear noise about getting the federal government off of their back and out of their life.

But the redistribution of wealth does not stop at the federal level. Consider what happens in the state of Alaska.

Mama Grizzlies' Children Sucking Off the Tit of Government
After watching Sarah Palin emerge from Alaska's wilderness to become John McCain's vice presidential pick in 2008 many fell in love with her because of how she represented a state of rugged individualists. Shooting caribou and all her talk of "mama grizzlies" was exciting. And it would have presented a powerful story line, except for one thing. It wasn't true. Not even close.

It's not well known outside of the state, but since 1976 oil companies in Alaska have been sending the state a check for every barrel they pull out of the ground. The state then turns around and redistributes the wealth to Alaska's rugged individualists.

In 2008, for example, Sarah Palin and the state government watched over a system that distributed $3,269 to every eligible Alaskan citizen ($1,200 of this came from a resource rebate program). This added up to just under $20,000 for the Palin family in 2008. While the wealth redistribution for each Alaskan dropped to $1,281 in 2010 and $858 for 2012 there's no avoiding that this money falls into each Alaskans lap for no other reason than the state embraces a wealth redistribution policy that many of the states rugged individualists claim to despise.

With that much money from the Feds ($1.84 for every dollar sent to the Feds) and Big Oil (thousands for each family) you would think someone might inform Alaska of their socialistic redistribution of wealth policies. It sure wasn't going to be Sarah Palin.

Instead of calling their spread the oil wealth program something like the “Redistributing the Wealth Because We’re Really Socialists Fund” – as Sarah Palin might have called it if President Obama suggested the same program nationally in 2008 – the state of Alaska calls it the “Permanent Fund Dividend.”

In a few words, Alaska’s hardened sense of “rugged individualism” is really built on a foundation of communal welfarism, direct from the American taxpayers in the lower 48.

Update On Our Fiscal Union
What is clear here is that when it comes to California's "surplus" dollars, many of the go-it-alone rugged individualist living in some of our most conservative states have demonstrated a remarkable tendency to see the work of others as a form of community property. And it continues today.

In 2011 The Economist reported that from 1990 through 2009 state transfers to New Mexico, Mississippi, and West Virginia exceeded 200% of annual GDP. As an example, it reported that during this period "the federal government spent $1.44 trillion in Virginia but collected less than $850 billion in taxes, a gap of over $590 billion." During the same period California transferred more than $336 billion out of the state, with New York leading the pack with over $956 billion transferred out of state.

The Economist has an updated report on the state of America's fiscal union - and wealth redistribution - from 1990 through 2009 here.

There's more on how our nation redistributes wealth (like subsidies to industry and retroactive insurance programs that the state often picks up when things go wrong in the private sector, which you can read about here). In fact, we've been transferring money for so long that Paul Krugman once noted we don't even think about it anymore.

Yet, we have a group of people who think asking the top 1% of this nation - who actually improved their financial position over the past twenty years - to pitch in a little more to help is akin to "socialism." It's not. Just ask the people who live in states like Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Montana, and Kentucky

- Mark

P.S. It appears that getting the figures on our fiscal union from the federal government won't be as easy as it used to be. The Federal Financial Statistics program has been terminated due to funding cuts, which The Economist reports on here.

UPDATE, II: Here's a 2014 update from Wall Street Cheat Sheet on the redistribution figures. The methods change (different source) but the outcome is the same: Republican-led Red States are a financial drain on the Democratic-led Blue States. 

YEAH, WE STILL REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH ... BIG TIME

Almost two years ago I wrote a post explaining how we redistribute wealth in America. I wrote it in response to claims by the GOP and numerous other conservative groups that the poor and the unemployed don't need help. Their rationale? America is not a nation that redistributes wealth. People should work and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

This was an easy topic to write about because, well, the United States has been redistributing wealth for a long time. In fact, we've been redistributing wealth for such a long time that we've been able to track the process over time. We can actually see who pays and who takes from Uncle Sam. An updated study helps make it very clear that those yelling the loudest about people mooching off the system are living in states that receive the most government funds.

Let me restate that. There's another study out that shows, once again, that the most conservative Red States are still mooching off those of us living in the Blue States.

According to the survey, for example, for every dollar that California sends to the federal government we only get about 94 cents back. This is an improvement from the end of 2009, when the we learned that over a 20 year period the federal government kept over $330 billion in federal taxes that Californians sent in (which was used to prop up those living in the Red States).

This story is so glaring that even the conservative Wall Street Journal couldn't ignore the federal redistribution of wealth to the Red States story.

Below are the numbers from the new survey, which you can read about here ...

Rank	State Name	Return on Taxpayer Investment(Category Rank)	Funding as % of Revenue(Category Rank)	Federal Employees Per Capita(Category Rank)
1	Delaware	$0.50 (1)	25.37% (7)	6.17 (10)
2	Illinois	$0.56 (3)	26.23% (8)	6.45 (11)
3	Minnesota	$0.56 (2)	28.47% (12)	5.91 (8)
4	New Jersey	$0.88 (10)	27.53% (11)	5.75 (6)
5	Connecticut	$1.28 (25)	23.68% (4)	4.91 (1)
6	Kansas	$0.71 (6)	27.21% (9)	9.19 (31)
7	California	$0.94 (14)	28.82% (13)	6.65 (13)
8	Nevada	$1.15 (23)	27.48% (10)	6.60 (12)
9	Massachusetts	$0.94 (13)	29.56% (17)	7.09 (19)
10	Colorado	$0.84 (8)	29.24% (15)	10.67 (35)
11	New Hampshire	$1.07 (18)	32.06% (21)	5.61 (4)
12	Michigan	$1.08 (19)	34.12% (25)	5.33 (3)
13	Ohio	$0.66 (5)	35.87% (36)	6.78 (15)
T-14	Utah	$0.86 (9)	31.65% (20)	12.58 (40)
T-14	Nebraska	$0.57 (4)	34.92% (31)	9.06 (28)
16	Washington	$1.05 (17)	29.38% (16)	10.73 (36)
T-17	District of Columbia	$1.15 (22)	23.90% (5)	336.63 (51)
T-17	New York	$0.79 (7)	37.74% (41)	6.06 (9)
T-17	Iowa	$1.12 (21)	34.85% (29)	5.75 (5)
20	Wisconsin	$1.68 (38)	28.93% (14)	5.08 (2)
21	Alaska	$1.42 (31)	20.01% (1)	22.68 (48)
22	Arkansas	$1.1 (20)	34.52% (28)	7.01 (17)
23	Pennsylvania	$1.31 (27)	30.91% (18)	7.87 (24)
24	North Carolina	$1.34 (28)	33.91% (24)	7.22 (20)
25	Indiana	$2.01 (41)	33.20% (23)	5.76 (7)
26	Virginia	$1.75 (39)	24.81% (6)	21.52 (47)
27	Oklahoma	$0.9 (11)	36.21% (38)	12.78 (41)
28	Oregon	$1.28 (26)	36.16% (37)	7.26 (21)
29	North Dakota	$5.31 (50)	21.04% (2)	13.70 (44
29	Hawaii	$3.19 (46)	23.60% (3)	25.32 (50)
31	Idaho	$1.4 (29)	35.16% (33)	7.96 (25)
32	Texas	$1.43 (32)	35.13% (32)	7.77 (22)
T-33	Rhode Island	$1.55 (34)	34.48% (26)	9.80 (32)
T-33	Georgia	$1.05 (15)	38.86% (44)	10.44 (34)
35	Vermont	$1.41 (30)	34.86% (30)	10.38 (33)
36	Missouri	$1.05 (16)	40.83% (47)	9.19 (30)
37	Maryland	$1.61 (35)	31.29% (19)	25.06 (49)
T-38	Wyoming	$0.91 (12)	39.73% (46)	13.17 (42)
T-38	Florida	$4.57 (49)	32.65% (22)	6.96 (16)
40	South Carolina	$7.87 (51)	34.49% (27)	7.03 (18)
41	Kentucky	$2.39 (43)	35.83% (35)	9.10 (29)
42	Arizona	$1.62 (36)	39.35% (45)	8.71 (27)
T-43	South Dakota	$1.16 (24)	41.53% (49)	13.95 (45)
T-43	West Virginia	$2.22 (42)	35.46% (34)	12.56 (39)
45	Tennessee	$1.64 (37)	41.27% (48)	7.82 (23)
T-46	Montana	$1.55 (33)	38.54% (43)	13.53 (43)
T-46	Maine	$1.79 (40)	36.63% (39)	10.92 (37)
48	Louisiana	$3.35 (48)	44.26% (50)	6.76 (14)
49	Alabama	$3.28 (47)	37.02% (40)	11.66 (38)
T-50	New Mexico	$2.83 (44)	37.90% (42)	15.22 (46)
T-50	Mississippi	$3.07 (45)	45.84% (51)	8.67 (26)

- Mark

UPDATE (10-22-14): Here's another list of the 10 states that are most dependent on the federal government for financial transfers.

I want to make it clear that the Red State-Blue State tax redistribution process also happens within states, at the county level. The revenue redistribution maps of Washington and California below make this abundantly clear ...

SOCIALISM, AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE? PERHAPS, BUT IT'S NOT WHAT CONCERNS ME ... NOT BY A LONG SHOT

A few years ago I wrote about how the U.S. transfers wealth on a regular basis. Through our federal system of government we tax and redistribute wealth on a massive scale, and have done so since the founding of our nation. The big beneficiaries in this tax game today are the poorer, southern Red States in America.

I updated that post last year, and showed how the same redistribution of wealth patterns occur within states, and used California and Washington as examples. The wealthier more politically liberal counties help subsidize the poorer more conservative counties in both states.

Understanding these realities is important because it helps us see that our nation - contrary to popular folklore and myths - redistributes wealth and resources within our nation on a regular basis. And we've done it for at least two hundred years.

Initially it was the confiscation of land from the indigenous populations. This allowed the nation to hand land over to early pioneer settlers. We also have the more recent parade of market bailouts that culminated with the trillion dollar Mother of All Bailouts for Wall Street after 2008.

Whatever period we look at, one thing is clear: the United States was not built around the rugged individualist free market mythology that many like to believe surrounds America's history.

In America the state creates the conditions under which wealth is created, and this has been achieved through a regular redistribution of wealth. In fact, it happens so much that no one really notices any longer.

This is unfortunate because while the emergence of America's corporate welfare state is real, it's not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

I'm bringing all of this up because the YouTube clip below - "5 ways America is a socialist country" - helps hammer home the point that if America is heading towards socialism, it's not because of President Obama or our much maligned social programs for the poor ...



If we're heading for socialism it's because we've already embraced many of the ideas pushed by socialists, or we wink and nod at many corporate sponsored policies that most people would identify with socialism - were it not for the corporate strings attached. Soviet style trickle down economics for Wall Street is not what market capitalism is supposed to be about.

Creeping socialism, however, is not America's biggest challenge. It's a convenient Red Herring that distracts from the real challenge of our time: the on-going merger of corporate and government power.

The worst part is this is not the first time we've had to confront the issue of creeping fascism either. The story of Major General Smedley Butler makes this crystal clear.

- Mark

YEAH, WE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH, BIG TIME ... STILL

In the past I've explained (here, here and here) how the United States redistributes wealth on a regular basis. Specifically, I provided data showing that for every $1.00 California - or Californians - pay into the federal tax system that the state gets far less than $1.00 back from the feds. Other "Blue States" - like Illinois and New York - also get less than $1.00 for every dollar they pay in to the system.

Poorer states, like Alabama, Mississippi, and New Mexico, however, will get anywhere from $1.25 and well over $2.00 back for every dollar they pay in taxes.

This wealth redistribution game is a pretty sweet deal. That is, if you're one of the poorer states - who, strangely enough, are politically conservative and like to complain about needing to get the federal government out of our lives.

Anyways, the 2016 Tax Foundation report is out and it has some interesting numbers when it comes to understanding which states depend most on "big gubmint" for their - let's be frank - survival. When it comes to Federal Aid as a Percentage of State General Revenue we find:

* For every $100 Alabama spends, $36.15 of that comes from the federal government.

* For every $100 Montana spends, $37.42 of that comes from the federal government.

* For every $100 Louisiana spends, $41.94 of that comes from the federal government.

* For every $100 Mississippi spends, $42.89 of that comes from the federal government. 

__________________________________

Red-State, Blue-State summary election results for 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. 

_________________________

Things are much different when it comes to the dreaded "liberal" Blue States, like California and New York.

For every $100 California spends, $24.96 of that comes from the federal government.

For every $100 New York spends, $28.01 of that comes from the federal government.

For every $100 Washington spends, $27.30 of that comes from the federal government. 

There's more, but you get the point.

The real takers in our national redistribution of wealth scheme are not the the liberal Blue States. It's the conservative Red States who talk a good game about rugged individualism, but can't seem to stand on their own two feet without being subsidized with Blue State federal tax dollars.

So, yeah, some of the biggest federal tax takers are the nation's conservative southern states. In one estimate, South Carolina got almost $8.00 from the federal government for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. This suggests that, contrary to the political rhetoric, conservative southern states really have no problem with "big gubmint" - as long as it's taken from the liberal Blue States and redistributed into their state coffers.

What does this all mean for you and me?

For starters, we need to acknowledge that we live in a country that redistributes wealth, big time.

We also need to acknowledge that the states who depend the most on our wealth redistribution policies are mostly conservative and southern states.

Then we have this little nugget to think about: If the state of California had simply received $1.00 for every dollar it paid into the federal tax system between 1990 and 2009 it would have an additional $336.2 billion sitting around. This is more than enough to pay off the state's $250 billion retirement and health care obligations that's now being tossed around politically as evidence of California's immediate debt problem.*

Even after paying California's long-term obligations off - which no sensible economist or financial adviser would advocate - we could use what's left from our $336.2 billion (about $83 billion) and fund the entire California State University budget ($5.1 billion, 2016) for the next 15 years.

Or we could simply eliminate student tuition in the CSU system for the next 40 years.

What all of this really means is that the Red State takers need to rethink what they're talking about when they complain about the role the federal government plays in their lives. They are wards of the state, and need to be a little bit more grateful (and realistic) when it comes to acknowledging how our federal system of government actually works.

- Mark

* These are incremental long-term obligations, rather than what critics like to suggest are immediate debt obligations.

WEALTH INEQUALITY IN AMERICA ... THIS ISN'T WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MIND

Apart from revolution, what do George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and many other Founding Fathers have in common? They were all opposed to great concentrations of wealth. This is why they championed policies that would build America's middle-class while moderating excessive wealth accumulation that threatened the democratic spirit. The goal - in the words of James Madison - was to "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise indigents towards a state of comfort."

To build America's middle-class they had to make sure that if people worked hard the fruits of their labor would not be gobbled up by some new kind of aristocratic or feudal lord. A strong middle-class was viewed as essential for a strong democracy, which meant that public schools, public libraries, public roads, and public land would be made available to those who were simply looking for a chance.

The stagnant but noble airs of aristocracy in Europe would be replaced with the dynamic and aggressive environment inspired by opportunity for all in America (to be sure, slaves and women would have to wait, but that's another story).

How would the Founding Fathers go about creating opportunity for all in their new society? They and their successors would make land available, create a progressive tax systems (especially taxing unproductive and stagnant wealth), and set the framework for public policies that would build a strong middle class.

PUBLIC POLICIES GUIDE THE INVISIBLE HAND: The specter of European feudalism haunted the Founding Fathers so much they enacted Land Ordinance laws that made land available in smaller tracts and on favorable terms. The idea was that if the people who worked the land could own it that American democracy would be strengthened by those who had a stake in the system. As Hernan de Soto wrote in The Mystery of Capital, instead of using land to preserve an old economic order the Founding Fathers would use land policies "as a tool for creating a new one." 

PROGRESSIVE TAXES: The Founding Fathers understood that the great inequalities that existed in Europe were the result of inherited wealth, hereditary political power, aristocratic land transfers, and the unequal treatment of market players who were forced to operate in an abusive mercantile economic system. Feudal land rights and the lives of protected leisure were viewed as corrosive to the larger goals of America. Because concentrated power was seen as incompatible with the new ideals of the American experience the Founding Fathers pushed for a progressive tax system that would discourage stagnant and unproductive wealth. 

HOW TO TAX THE RICH: Adam Smith, the intellectual godfather of modern capitalism, believed that extra tolls should be charged on luxury carriages using roads or crossing bridges. Why? Smith believed "the indolence and vanity" of the rich should be made to pay larger societal goals. As well, as I pointed out in my book, James Madison saw a problem with moneyed interests dividing society and advocated the "regulation of these various and interfering interests." Regulating divisive commercial interests, rather than a free hand to do as they pleased, was viewed as the key to maintaining balance and opportunities in America.

Put another way, invisible hands and market players alone did not build America.

Indeed, an interventionist state is what helped give America its first vibrant middle-class, the yeoman farmer. The blue-collar working class built around state supported industrialization, and a service class built around social wage earners in the post-war era, were the next two great middle-classes of America.

And none of this was an accident.

As David Cay Johnston tells us the Founding Fathers were adamant about making sure that the moral justification of capitalism (if you work hard you will have the chance to get ahead) would be built around removing obstacles and creating opportunities for those on the lower rungs of society. Perhaps more importantly, the Founding Fathers were clear that if the state was going to make great wealth creation possible (and it has) that the state had a right to tax and redistribute that wealth so others could also have a shot at the American Dream.

Specifically, David Cay Johnston reminds us that George Washington wrote that those who were frugal and industrious would find opportunities in America. But he was equally convinced that America would:

"not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams feared both monopoly and a business class born out of inequality. He believed this would create a system of subordination where "the rich and the proud" would wield political and economic power that would:

"destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution saw inequality as an evil too, and believed that government should work to prevent:

"an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." 

Madison would later write that the goal of government was not to help the rich and powerful (a sentiment embraced by Adam Smith, who loathed the idea of the state helping those with resources). Writing later in life, when he was pessimistic about America's ability to survive, Madison wrote that government should work "for the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

The Founding Fathers understood that democracy would become lifeless if economic inequality grew to the point that strong moneyed interests could strangle the life out of political equality. They believed that the job of the state was to remove the obstacles that had stifled opportunity in the old world. This is what inspired U.S. presidents from Abraham Lincoln through FDR.

Put another way, what we're seeing today in America - especially with growing inequality and excessive favorable legislation for Wall Street - is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

- Mark 

WELFARE MYTHS & REALITY

Here are six welfare myths that your drunk, stupid, or race-baiting friends might like to use. Short responses are in italics ...

1. We spend over a trillion dollars a year on welfare ... Yeah, sure, if you want to categorize virtually form of government spending as welfare (I debunked this one here back in March). 

2. We are living in a welfare state created by President Obama and his socialist policies ... The percentage of Americans on welfare has actually gone down since the mid-1990s (while Wall Street and the S&P are breaking records). 

3. Illegal immigrants come to this country to qualify for welfare ... No undocumented immigrant can qualify for welfare benefits. Ever. 

4. Welfare recipients don't look for work (or don't want to work) ... The vast majority of those receiving Medicaid, SNAP, and other kinds of financial assistance already have a job. 

5. People receiving benefits become dependent on them, reducing their incentive to work ... Survey after survey debunk this myth, as does #4 above. 

6. Women receiving benefits have more and more children to receive more money ... The reality is the average family receiving assistance has 2.8 kids, with the real number being 2 kids (only 1 in 10 families has more than 3 kids).

If you want more information for those who use these six welfare myths click here, here, here, here, and here. For the record, here's a couple of points on the $17.6 billion we spend on food stamps.

Then we have the reality behind welfare in America ...

Specifically, if you want to turn the tables on the topic you can start with these three points that help us understand the dynamics behind crony capitalism and corporate welfare in America ...

1. TAX GIFTS: Over one trillion dollars in tax expenditures are granted by Congress to corporate America and the rich (who still like to think they're "go it alone" rugged individualists).
2. FAVORABLE LEGISLATION: America's biggest banks would likely go bust without taxpayer bailouts and other legislative gifts.
3. MARKET INTERVENTIONS: Bailouts, the Greenspan Put, favorable legislation, and other market interventions have effectively made America's market players wards of the state, on so many levels. 

And, for the heck of it, you might want to remind your friends how we redistribute wealth in America, from the richer Blue states to the poorer Red states. Here's a partial explanation of how the wealth transfer happened.

- Mark

SARAH PALIN ... QUEEN OF THE WELFARE STATE

Here's Sarah Palin complaining about Barack Obama's economic policies because of how they "redistribute" the wealth ...



If anyone knows about communist tendencies and the redistribution of wealth it's Sarah Palin. Let's review ...

Alaska ranks #3 when it comes to what it's citizens pays out in federal taxes, and what it receives from the federal government. For every dollar Alaskans pay into the system, they take $1.84 out. Put another way, Alaska's hardened sense of "rugged individualism" is really built on a foundation of communal welfarism.

This probably explains why Alaskans have come to see oil within their borders as a form of community property. By making this claim, and turning it into policy, Sarah Palin and the federal government watch over a system that has written a $3,269 check to every eligible man, woman, and child in Alaska.

Interestingly, instead of calling it the "Redistributing the Wealth Because We're Communists Fund" - as Sarah Palin might suggest it is today - the state of Alaska calls it the "Permanent Fund Dividend."

And in case you're wondering that comes out to well over $23,000 for Sarah Palin's family of rugged individualists.

Finally, if we want to take the Conservative's assertion that welfare Mom's have children simply to pad their welfare checks, I have to think it won't be long before republicans start questioning the real motive for Sarah and Todd to have their last child, right? I mean, their oldest children appear ready to leave the nest, taking their welfare check nesteggs with them. I hope the Conservatives don't go this route, though, because the Palin's are already under the gun for using clothes that don't belong to them.

I wonder if the Palin's can see a trailer park from their backyard ... Just asking.

- Mark

UPDATE: I knew it was out there ... Here's Sarah Palin acknowledging her socialist state tendencies a few weeks before being nominated for the VP slot: "[W]e’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

READING FOR THE WEEKEND (12-06-13)

The incredible life story of Lyndon B. Johnson (The Claremount Institute).

Yeah, Dick Cheney's still an asshole (Huffington Post).


THE DISCONNECT OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL
How disconnected, entitled, irrational and sociopathic are Wall Street's market players today? The CEO of A.I.G. is comparing Main Street's anger over Wall Street bonuses to the lynching of blacks in the south (Liberty Blitzkrieg).

London Mayor says we should thank the "super rich" ... calls them "tax heroes" (Liberty Blitzkrieg).

Why the super rich really hate Obamacare ... Their so-called "passive income" (capital gains) used to be exempt from the 3.8% Medicare tax. This is no longer the case (Daily Kos).

Twilight Zone moment of the day ... Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan is baffled by the Bitcoin 'bubble', commenting that "To be worth something it must be backed by something." Incredible (Zero Hedge).


THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS ...
It's called Provide for the Common Defense Act, but it's really the How We Screw the Middle Class Act ... GOP lawmakers are set to introduce a bill that reinstates money cut from military spending (imposed by sequestration), and will pay for it by forcing current employees to pay more into their pensions while cutting social security and Medicare benefits (Government Executive).

How the right talks about race, even when they're not talking about it (The National Memo).

Paid commenters with fake profiles are hired by Fox to troll and spread their false talking points across the internet (Addicting Info).

Delusion Squared ... Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) says Nelson Mandela fought "great injustice," just like Republicans are battling Obamacare (Huffington Post).


WORKERS & MINIMUM WAGE
Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour (Ron Unz / NY Times).

Want to prevent those on the bottom of our economic ladder from demanding trade and job destroying protections? Then find a way to redistribute the 95% of the wealth that has gone predominantly to the top 1% (Robert Reich / NY Times).

Higher wages help businesses (Catherine Ruetschlin / NY Times).

Canada shows the power of unions (Jim Stanford / NY Times).

In the FYI category ... Here are the characteristics of minimum wage workers for 2012 (Bureau of Labor Statistics).


WELFARE AND WEALTH IN AMERICA
Still one of the best sources for information on wealth, income, and power in America (G. William Domhoff / Who Rules America).

The number of families receiving cash assistance, or welfare, has dropped from a high of 5.1 million in 1994 to a little under 1.8 million in 2013 (Federation of American Scientists / Congressional Research Services).

- Mark