Tuesday, March 8, 2011
AN ADULT STANDS UP IN THE GOP
It's official. Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee have been placed in the Conservatives "weirdness" box. The intellectual don of the right, George F. Will, acknowledged in the Washington Post that "the conservative party is indirectly injured" when popular conservatives like Gingrich and Huckabee don't "recoil" from outlandish comments made by the birthers and other groups who want to paint President Obama as an outsider.
Why is this important? Because it suggests that more responsible conservatives may finally be standing up to challenge "careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates" that "sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."
Pretty strong words.
Then again, George F. Will seems to understand the list of presidential candidates that Conservatives are staring at for 2012 ... and it's not pretty.
Read the piece here.
- Mark
Why is this important? Because it suggests that more responsible conservatives may finally be standing up to challenge "careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates" that "sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."
Pretty strong words.
Then again, George F. Will seems to understand the list of presidential candidates that Conservatives are staring at for 2012 ... and it's not pretty.
Read the piece here.
- Mark
Monday, March 7, 2011
THE CHARLIE SHEENIFICATION OF THE GOP
Remember Iraq's Saddam Hussein? In the lead up to the war in Iraq one of the best things he left us with is the catch phrase "The Mother of all Wars" - as if the war in Iraq was the Alpha and the Omega of all wars. Since then the term "The Mother of ..." has become synonymous with events that can (and should) be mocked because of the exaggerated claims and circumstances surrounding the event.
Today, the recent antics of Charlie Sheen suggest that we just might see the same mocking characterization applied to the term "winning" as we with the "Mother of all ..." Think about it. The exaggerated and misplaced sense of accomplishment assigned by Charlie Sheen to his recent successes doesn't strike most of us as the recipe for, well, winning.
To be sure, Charlie Sheen has a #1 program, has lots of money, and sleeps with two "goddesses." This is winning in the minds of many, right? Still, very few of us would consider his recent drug and alcohol fueled meltdowns, and having his hit program put on hiatus, as indicators of success, or winning (even if he does get the program back).
Simply put, if you're burning down the house and having meltdowns, winning the Charlie Sheen way doesn't necessarily imply that you're doing the right thing - even if you claim or think you're on the right path.
Well, so it is with the Republican Party and their morally tinged "winning" strategy. They might think they're winning but the facts suggest otherwise. Let's go back a few weeks to see what I mean.
As some of you might recall, House Republicans started off their tenure with some stellar political "strategery" during their first week in power. From, "did you read the fine print?" qualifiers on their budget cuts, to repealing health care when they knew the Senate would not support their efforts, to reading the Constitution on the House floor and failing to reveal which House members get government run health care, the GOP has been pursuing gimmicks that only Charlie Sheen's brain might consider part of a larger winning strategy.
Then they followed this up with efforts to redefine rape (because only GOP members of Congress know when it happens), cutting taxes on the rich, and then ignoring the plight of cash strapped cities and states. Sounds like the makings of a Charlie Sheen-like political hook up to me ...
But wait. We have more Charlie Sheen-like burning down the house political "strategery."
A few weeks back, led by Speaker Boehner, Republicans fought to keep building jet engines that Defense Secretary Gates says the Defense Department doesn't want, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we don't need. Boehner's reason for wanting to keep the jet fighter? Because the federally funded jobs that build those engines are located close to his district.
So ... what do you think? Is this a winning strategy for trimming budget deficits? Or is it akin to claiming Tiger blood and Adonis DNA when you're really just a schmuck?
Then, to make matters worse, when it comes to other federally funded jobs disappearing outside of his district we learned that John Boenher apparently doesn't give a damn. Specifically, when asked about job cuts if the GOP plan to trim $100 billion from the budget were put into effect, Boehner flippantly replied "so be it."
Somehow killing close to 1 million jobs and then pretending that you can ignore it's effects doesn't strike me as a winning strategy.
There's more. But you get the point. Over thirty years of ideologically rigid but failed policy prescriptions, combined with years of morally hypocritical approaches to politics and life, have turned the GOP into a party that might be able to "win" elections. They just can't govern, and it shows.
Sounds like winning to me ... the Charlie Sheen way.
- Mark
Addendum: If you like the cartoons, check out The New Yorker piece here.
Today, the recent antics of Charlie Sheen suggest that we just might see the same mocking characterization applied to the term "winning" as we with the "Mother of all ..." Think about it. The exaggerated and misplaced sense of accomplishment assigned by Charlie Sheen to his recent successes doesn't strike most of us as the recipe for, well, winning.
To be sure, Charlie Sheen has a #1 program, has lots of money, and sleeps with two "goddesses." This is winning in the minds of many, right? Still, very few of us would consider his recent drug and alcohol fueled meltdowns, and having his hit program put on hiatus, as indicators of success, or winning (even if he does get the program back).
Simply put, if you're burning down the house and having meltdowns, winning the Charlie Sheen way doesn't necessarily imply that you're doing the right thing - even if you claim or think you're on the right path.
Well, so it is with the Republican Party and their morally tinged "winning" strategy. They might think they're winning but the facts suggest otherwise. Let's go back a few weeks to see what I mean.
As some of you might recall, House Republicans started off their tenure with some stellar political "strategery" during their first week in power. From, "did you read the fine print?" qualifiers on their budget cuts, to repealing health care when they knew the Senate would not support their efforts, to reading the Constitution on the House floor and failing to reveal which House members get government run health care, the GOP has been pursuing gimmicks that only Charlie Sheen's brain might consider part of a larger winning strategy.
Then they followed this up with efforts to redefine rape (because only GOP members of Congress know when it happens), cutting taxes on the rich, and then ignoring the plight of cash strapped cities and states. Sounds like the makings of a Charlie Sheen-like political hook up to me ...
But wait. We have more Charlie Sheen-like burning down the house political "strategery."
A few weeks back, led by Speaker Boehner, Republicans fought to keep building jet engines that Defense Secretary Gates says the Defense Department doesn't want, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we don't need. Boehner's reason for wanting to keep the jet fighter? Because the federally funded jobs that build those engines are located close to his district.
So ... what do you think? Is this a winning strategy for trimming budget deficits? Or is it akin to claiming Tiger blood and Adonis DNA when you're really just a schmuck?
Then, to make matters worse, when it comes to other federally funded jobs disappearing outside of his district we learned that John Boenher apparently doesn't give a damn. Specifically, when asked about job cuts if the GOP plan to trim $100 billion from the budget were put into effect, Boehner flippantly replied "so be it."
Somehow killing close to 1 million jobs and then pretending that you can ignore it's effects doesn't strike me as a winning strategy.
Sounds like winning to me ... the Charlie Sheen way.
- Mark
Addendum: If you like the cartoons, check out The New Yorker piece here.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
JOHN STEWART EXPOSES FOX NEWS HYPOCRISY (again)
By way of Huffingtonpost.com we have John Stewart (one again) calling out Fox News' hyposcrisy when it comes to their observations on wages for teachers and Wall Street executives ...
- Mark
- Mark
Friday, March 4, 2011
SOME INCONVENIENT BUDGET CUTTING FACTS
This Paul Krugman article is spot on.
Krugman writes that the Republican Party is ready to shutdown the government because they want to cut programs and other funds that support jobs that Democrats want to maintain. At the same time Republicans also want to continue cutting taxes for the rich and their partner corporations.
In a few words, they're bent on imposing Third World-like fiscal austerity without actually doing anything about covering the budget holes that 30 years of tax cuts for the rich have created. Simply put, they're not serious about fixing the budget.
Focusing on budget cuts alone - or fiscal authority - is a big problem because:
At the end of the day, claiming that the budget cuts proposed by the Republicans would do wonders for America's current fiscal mess is not backed by the facts. Worse, their efforts are betrayed by the simple reality that the Republicans continue to support tax cuts that have helped bust a hole in our budget.
- Mark
Krugman writes that the Republican Party is ready to shutdown the government because they want to cut programs and other funds that support jobs that Democrats want to maintain. At the same time Republicans also want to continue cutting taxes for the rich and their partner corporations.
In a few words, they're bent on imposing Third World-like fiscal austerity without actually doing anything about covering the budget holes that 30 years of tax cuts for the rich have created. Simply put, they're not serious about fixing the budget.
Focusing on budget cuts alone - or fiscal authority - is a big problem because:
* A comprehensive study by the International Monetary Fund concluded that “the idea that fiscal austerity stimulates economic activity in the short term finds little support in the data.”
* Britain’s conservative government imposed harsh austerity measures after last May. Rather than create an economic surge business confidence collapsed. It still hasn't recovered. Today, as one report put it, the private sector is “unprepared to fill the hole left by public sector cuts.”
* It does nothing to make up for the budget holes created by thirty years of tax cuts for the rich.In spite of these realities, Krugman believes that House Republicans "will try to blackmail the Obama administration into accepting their proposed spending cuts, using the threat of a government shutdown."
At the end of the day, claiming that the budget cuts proposed by the Republicans would do wonders for America's current fiscal mess is not backed by the facts. Worse, their efforts are betrayed by the simple reality that the Republicans continue to support tax cuts that have helped bust a hole in our budget.
- Mark
FOX NEWS CAN LEAVE YOU STUPID, AND BROKE ... AND CANADA KNOWS
It looks like Canada doesn't want to allow Fox News-like programming on their airwaves. Their regulators have rejected an attempt to legally permit lying on the airwaves. Canada's regulators have a very good reason for not wanting Fox-like news programs there. They seem to understand that, in many ways, our toxic political environment is driven by paranoid, fact-free, media pundits.
If the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs of our world aren't enough to convince you of this I say we take a quick stroll down Fox News memory lane.
In the clip below we see Fox News pundits doing what is now a standard fear-mongering skit. It really is nothing special (now) since it happens almost every day. Here they do their level best to drum up fears about the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential candidates, and the high taxes and anti-business policies they'll bring to America ...
While this Fox News skit is standard for the network it had absolutely nothing to do with the facts.
If these guys had done their homework someone would have noted during the bile-spewing fest that Wall Street’s record under Democratic administrations has been stellar - especially when it's compared against Republican administrations. More specifically, despite supposedly market friendly Republican policies stock prices have risen more during Democratic administrations, while market volatility has dipped.
Want proof? Check this out.
If you had invested $10,000 in 1901 and kept it in the market only during republican presidencies you would have earned $78,699 by 2005. However, if you had taken the same $10,000 and put it in the market under Democratic presidents, by 2005 you would have made $279,705.
But wait. It gets better.
If you run the numbers between 1929 and 2009 your rate of return under Republican administrations gets even worse. Republican administrations would have helped you earn $11,733 ($51,211 if you exclude the Hoover years) on your $10,000 investment. Democratic administrations, on the other hand, would have brought you a whopping $300,671!
The run the market is on now doesn't make things better for Republicans.
But you wouldn't know any of this if you simply got your information from Fox News and their media hall of mirrors. No wonder people have asked whether watching Fox News makes you ill-informed, and even stupid. It pretty much does. All of this makes what happened in Canada last week so important.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tells us that Canada's regulators would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. Why is this important? Because apart from posting misleading head lines, and admitting to trying to manipulate the news cycle, Fox News has sued and won the right to lie in the United States. Put another way, they know what they're doing.
Fox News and the Rush Limbaughs of America have been on a highly successful, but politically toxic, run ever since.
Check out what Kennedy has to say about Canada's Radio Act and how it works against all the nonsense that now comes out of our airwaves after the "Fairness Doctrine" was abolished in 1987. It helps to explain the great divide in America.
All of this also helps us understand how watching Fox News just might leave you stupid, and broke.
- Mark
If the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs of our world aren't enough to convince you of this I say we take a quick stroll down Fox News memory lane.
In the clip below we see Fox News pundits doing what is now a standard fear-mongering skit. It really is nothing special (now) since it happens almost every day. Here they do their level best to drum up fears about the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential candidates, and the high taxes and anti-business policies they'll bring to America ...
While this Fox News skit is standard for the network it had absolutely nothing to do with the facts.
If these guys had done their homework someone would have noted during the bile-spewing fest that Wall Street’s record under Democratic administrations has been stellar - especially when it's compared against Republican administrations. More specifically, despite supposedly market friendly Republican policies stock prices have risen more during Democratic administrations, while market volatility has dipped.
Want proof? Check this out.
If you had invested $10,000 in 1901 and kept it in the market only during republican presidencies you would have earned $78,699 by 2005. However, if you had taken the same $10,000 and put it in the market under Democratic presidents, by 2005 you would have made $279,705.
But wait. It gets better.
If you run the numbers between 1929 and 2009 your rate of return under Republican administrations gets even worse. Republican administrations would have helped you earn $11,733 ($51,211 if you exclude the Hoover years) on your $10,000 investment. Democratic administrations, on the other hand, would have brought you a whopping $300,671!
The run the market is on now doesn't make things better for Republicans.
But you wouldn't know any of this if you simply got your information from Fox News and their media hall of mirrors. No wonder people have asked whether watching Fox News makes you ill-informed, and even stupid. It pretty much does. All of this makes what happened in Canada last week so important.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tells us that Canada's regulators would reject efforts by Canada's right wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news. Why is this important? Because apart from posting misleading head lines, and admitting to trying to manipulate the news cycle, Fox News has sued and won the right to lie in the United States. Put another way, they know what they're doing.
Fox News and the Rush Limbaughs of America have been on a highly successful, but politically toxic, run ever since.
Check out what Kennedy has to say about Canada's Radio Act and how it works against all the nonsense that now comes out of our airwaves after the "Fairness Doctrine" was abolished in 1987. It helps to explain the great divide in America.
All of this also helps us understand how watching Fox News just might leave you stupid, and broke.
- Mark
Thursday, March 3, 2011
REPUBLICAN CLASS WARFARE EXPLAINED
If you want to understand what the Republican attack on the middle class means watch this ...
For more information on what the Republican attack on the middle class and labor entails you can watch Rep. George Miller's five minute speech on the House floor here.
If you want to contribute a few bucks to the effort in Wisconsin, click here.
- Mark
For more information on what the Republican attack on the middle class and labor entails you can watch Rep. George Miller's five minute speech on the House floor here.
If you want to contribute a few bucks to the effort in Wisconsin, click here.
- Mark
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
THIS IS WHY WE'RE BROKE ...
If you want to understand the genesis of our current budget and debt mess let's start with this simple fact: The richest Americans have been paying far less in taxes than they did in the past. At the same time they're getting far more than they should in the form of bailouts, subsidies, and other favorable legislation from Washington.
Worse, America's richest class is getting support for their "Get-Out-of-Taxes-Free" card from a deluded middle class, who are egged on by an equally delusional group of Tea Baggers, who have bought into the bankrupt idea that if the rich pay less the country is better off.
While I've been saying this for a while now, the Guardian's Richard D. Wolff points out that the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, and really kicked it down when Ronald Reagan became president. In the process America's quality of life and it's ladders of upward mobility have been tightened and cut.
__________________________________________________
Wolff's article points out that when "the Cadillac Eldorado made its debut in the 1950s, wealthy Americans were paying a top rate of tax of 90%; today, the top rate of tax is 35%."
__________________________________________________
In fact, the marginal tax rate (what's on the books) on the highest wage earners dropped from a high of 90% in 1945 to about 70% under JFK, and fell dramatically to around 30% when Ronald Reagan was ready to leave office. Check it out ...
Because of this development the amount of taxes actually paid (the "effective" tax rate) by America's individual millionaires and corporate giants has dropped precipitously ...
... while the share of taxes paid by middle class America has soared. In sum, we have seen a scissors effect when it comes to burden sharing and tax payments.
The False Justification Behind Tax Cuts for the Rich
As I've been pointing out for some time now, the rich justify cutting their taxes by claiming that they will invest the money they save from not paying more taxes. This, in turn, will create more jobs. Their "the-wealth-will-trickle-down" argument has been debunked over and over again (Reagan was famously called out on it by the first President Bush, who referred to his policy proposals as "voodoo economics" during the 1980 primaries). Yet they persist in perpetuating the "cut taxes, more revenue, more jobs" myth.
What's actually happened after 30 years of trickle down economics is entirely different. Check it out.
Apart from getting much richer over the last half-century, we are now in the middle of an epic market meltdown that has seen Wall Street experience both record bailouts and record profits (there's an Orson Welles "Newspeak" quote in there somewhere). The average American, however, has seen their quality of life and standard of living take a hit in the form of greater uncertainty and less wealth.
The Political Impact ... A Nation of Morons?
At the end of the day, as we have reduced taxes on the rich in America we have seen economic incentives distorted, government services cut, and worsening inequality (of income and opportunity) in America over the the past 30 years.
Ironically, many Americans are missing the connections between 30 years of trickle down policies and these developments. As if tax cuts, tax write-offs, bailouts, subsidies, and other market distorting legislation that favors the rich has no impact on society. And it show in our politics. In many ways, we've become a nation of morons. And we have Fox News to prove it.
As Wolff points out, "a rather vicious cycle has been at work for years." But many Americans simply don't understand it. Because the rich have seen their taxes reduced they now have more money to influence politicians and politics. This influence "wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use." Because government has lost revenue from 30 years of cutting taxes for the rich public services have become increasingly strained, while public debt has climbed.
But instead of calling for a return to the past, when the rich paid a greater share of their income - as Adam Smith argued they should - the rich constantly press politicians to cut public services and government jobs (and their taxes). Tea Baggers and other clueless middle class Americans, like lemmings jumping off a cliff, simply follow ... all the while mumbling about greedy public servants.
My friends, we're broke, and we're broke for a reason. We're not going to solve our financial problems by going after the chump change that public servants make. There are other options. But first we have to reverse 30 years of trickle down economics, which means we have to stop giving away the tax farm to the rich.
It's really that simple.
- Mark
Worse, America's richest class is getting support for their "Get-Out-of-Taxes-Free" card from a deluded middle class, who are egged on by an equally delusional group of Tea Baggers, who have bought into the bankrupt idea that if the rich pay less the country is better off.
While I've been saying this for a while now, the Guardian's Richard D. Wolff points out that the richest Americans have dramatically lowered their income tax burden since 1945, and really kicked it down when Ronald Reagan became president. In the process America's quality of life and it's ladders of upward mobility have been tightened and cut.
Wolff's article points out that when "the Cadillac Eldorado made its debut in the 1950s, wealthy Americans were paying a top rate of tax of 90%; today, the top rate of tax is 35%."
__________________________________________________
In fact, the marginal tax rate (what's on the books) on the highest wage earners dropped from a high of 90% in 1945 to about 70% under JFK, and fell dramatically to around 30% when Ronald Reagan was ready to leave office. Check it out ...
Because of this development the amount of taxes actually paid (the "effective" tax rate) by America's individual millionaires and corporate giants has dropped precipitously ...
... while the share of taxes paid by middle class America has soared. In sum, we have seen a scissors effect when it comes to burden sharing and tax payments.
The False Justification Behind Tax Cuts for the Rich
As I've been pointing out for some time now, the rich justify cutting their taxes by claiming that they will invest the money they save from not paying more taxes. This, in turn, will create more jobs. Their "the-wealth-will-trickle-down" argument has been debunked over and over again (Reagan was famously called out on it by the first President Bush, who referred to his policy proposals as "voodoo economics" during the 1980 primaries). Yet they persist in perpetuating the "cut taxes, more revenue, more jobs" myth.
What's actually happened after 30 years of trickle down economics is entirely different. Check it out.
* NATIONAL DEBT EXPLODES / MORE BORROWING: Over the past 30 years the wealthiest Americans have seen their share of taxes drop dramatically while America's national debt has climbed from about $975 Billion in 1980 to $14 Trillion today. Yet, the Republican Party and many (clueless) middle class Americans want to continue cutting taxes on corporations and America's richest class - as if it's patriotic to continue borrowing from the Chinese so we can pay for tax cut refunds to gazillionaires who don't need it. Simply mind boggling.
* SOVEREIGNTY UNDERMINED: As Wolff points out, the richest Americans take the money they save from taxes and invest big parts of it in China, India, and elsewhere. This produces more jobs over seas, but fewer jobs here. Worse, since we don't build things here any more we have to import more goods from abroad. Our balance of trade suffers, which means we send more dollars out - which the Chinese and others conveniently lend back to us. Nice.
* INCENTIVES / MARKETS DISTORTED: According to Wolff the richest Americans take the money they don't pay in taxes andinvestgamble it in hedge funds and with stockbrokers who aren't necessarily concerned about the public good. Hedge funds and brokers use part of the money rich people save from taxes to speculate in the US stock markets, which benefits them in the immediate term because they own most of America's stock (look for the stock dump later). Worse, according to Wolff, in our current market environment brokers are often speculating in oil and food, which drives up their prices and undermines economic recovery.
Apart from getting much richer over the last half-century, we are now in the middle of an epic market meltdown that has seen Wall Street experience both record bailouts and record profits (there's an Orson Welles "Newspeak" quote in there somewhere). The average American, however, has seen their quality of life and standard of living take a hit in the form of greater uncertainty and less wealth.
The Political Impact ... A Nation of Morons?
At the end of the day, as we have reduced taxes on the rich in America we have seen economic incentives distorted, government services cut, and worsening inequality (of income and opportunity) in America over the the past 30 years.
Ironically, many Americans are missing the connections between 30 years of trickle down policies and these developments. As if tax cuts, tax write-offs, bailouts, subsidies, and other market distorting legislation that favors the rich has no impact on society. And it show in our politics. In many ways, we've become a nation of morons. And we have Fox News to prove it.
As Wolff points out, "a rather vicious cycle has been at work for years." But many Americans simply don't understand it. Because the rich have seen their taxes reduced they now have more money to influence politicians and politics. This influence "wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use." Because government has lost revenue from 30 years of cutting taxes for the rich public services have become increasingly strained, while public debt has climbed.
But instead of calling for a return to the past, when the rich paid a greater share of their income - as Adam Smith argued they should - the rich constantly press politicians to cut public services and government jobs (and their taxes). Tea Baggers and other clueless middle class Americans, like lemmings jumping off a cliff, simply follow ... all the while mumbling about greedy public servants.
My friends, we're broke, and we're broke for a reason. We're not going to solve our financial problems by going after the chump change that public servants make. There are other options. But first we have to reverse 30 years of trickle down economics, which means we have to stop giving away the tax farm to the rich.
It's really that simple.
- Mark
GLENN BECK HAS COMPANY ...
And you thought Glenn Beck was a lunatic. Check out this Phyllis Schlafly clip.
If you're not laughing I have to think that many of you are thinking this ...
On the positive side - as I never tire of telling my students - there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents anyone from making a fool of themselves. And that's a good thing.
Seriously. Who listens to people like this? Oh, yeah ... the people who follow Fox News.
- Mark
Addendum: Oh, this stuff just gets better and better (or is that "worse and worser"?). Here's David Corn outlining the Mother of all Obama Conspiracies. He's bringing 100 million Muslims to America, presumably on some kind of Super Secret Jihad Airplane (that doesn't crash into stuff).
No doubt this will happen after he confiscates all the guns in America and puts those who don't cooperate into FEMA concentration camps run by communist nazis. You've been warned. Keep an eye out for people who look like this ...
If you're not laughing I have to think that many of you are thinking this ...
On the positive side - as I never tire of telling my students - there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents anyone from making a fool of themselves. And that's a good thing.
Seriously. Who listens to people like this? Oh, yeah ... the people who follow Fox News.
- Mark
Addendum: Oh, this stuff just gets better and better (or is that "worse and worser"?). Here's David Corn outlining the Mother of all Obama Conspiracies. He's bringing 100 million Muslims to America, presumably on some kind of Super Secret Jihad Airplane (that doesn't crash into stuff).
No doubt this will happen after he confiscates all the guns in America and puts those who don't cooperate into FEMA concentration camps run by communist nazis. You've been warned. Keep an eye out for people who look like this ...
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
CUTTING DEFICITS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE
Some times Congress makes things more difficult than it should be. Check out this article from Christopher Hellman at Huffingtonpost.
Hellman's article details how our base defense budget of $558 billion is not even close to what we actually spend on national security related items. What we actually spend is well over $1.2 trillion ... and counting.
Included in Hellman's numbers are our costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, veteran benefits, homeland security, the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), military aid to foreign countries, and an entire group of categories that most Americans are too busy to think about or follow on a regular basis. Worse, billions of our national security expenditures - perhaps $200 billion - is simply overlap and waste.
Considering the $1.1 trillion in tax breaks (write-offs) we give to ordinary Americans, the $100 billion we give to corporations to locate off shore for tax (avoidance) purposes, the $88.7 billion in tax breaks that are dedicated for America's wealthiest class, the unnecessary hundreds of billions given away by the Bush tax cuts, and the trillions in profit subsidies we've handed over to Wall Street (with no tax claw backs), it appears that Congress simply isn't trying hard enough.
Put another way, when Congress says it's trying to cut the fat from the budget it needs to look beyond the chump change it will save by simply cutting public employee benefits and pay. We need to start rescinding tax cuts that don't work, eliminate write-offs that undermine the integrity of the market, abolish subsidies that distort incentives, and do away with other tax breaks that favor the wrong people in America.
Oh, and there's much to be saved by paring down the budget expenditures of our national security state too.
This isn't rocket science. Seriously.
- Mark
Hellman's article details how our base defense budget of $558 billion is not even close to what we actually spend on national security related items. What we actually spend is well over $1.2 trillion ... and counting.
Included in Hellman's numbers are our costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, veteran benefits, homeland security, the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), military aid to foreign countries, and an entire group of categories that most Americans are too busy to think about or follow on a regular basis. Worse, billions of our national security expenditures - perhaps $200 billion - is simply overlap and waste.
Considering the $1.1 trillion in tax breaks (write-offs) we give to ordinary Americans, the $100 billion we give to corporations to locate off shore for tax (avoidance) purposes, the $88.7 billion in tax breaks that are dedicated for America's wealthiest class, the unnecessary hundreds of billions given away by the Bush tax cuts, and the trillions in profit subsidies we've handed over to Wall Street (with no tax claw backs), it appears that Congress simply isn't trying hard enough.
Put another way, when Congress says it's trying to cut the fat from the budget it needs to look beyond the chump change it will save by simply cutting public employee benefits and pay. We need to start rescinding tax cuts that don't work, eliminate write-offs that undermine the integrity of the market, abolish subsidies that distort incentives, and do away with other tax breaks that favor the wrong people in America.
Oh, and there's much to be saved by paring down the budget expenditures of our national security state too.
This isn't rocket science. Seriously.
- Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)