The Election

It has not been so long since I said "Adieu." The response was gratifying as can be seen from my post "Adieu (Comments)" but it did not solve either the problem of the small size of my audience, nor its consumption of an amount of my time that forced neglect of many of my personal duties and interests.

Nevertheless, I am back because I can no longer endure the apathy that seems to be greeting this campaign, and I cringe when I hear of people saying, “Well, I will vote for Obama, but will make no further effort. He has disappointed me.” So allow me to say, nay shout from the rooftops, this election is not about Obama. This election is not about you; this election is not about me.

This election is about the heart and soul of America!!! It is about the survival of the USA as a great power. It is about the future of our children, and our children’s children. It is about the survival of our middle class, which has been the source of the nation’s success, and the envy of the world.

Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 there has been an inexorable decline of the Middle Class in America. There has been a steady redistribution of wealth upward. Slowly but steadily. First we found that families had to have two breadwinners to earn enough to stay in the middle class. We thought that this meant progress because we associated it with the Women’s Movement that allowed women their place in the workplace, and it was a good thing that women could now, for the first time make careers as lawyers, as doctors, and even to a limited extent as CEOs. What we didn’t see was that this had not become a freedom, a choice; it had become a necessity. Without two wage-earners it was no longer possible to stay in the middle class.

It used to be that every generation could look forward to the next generation doing better than the previous one. This is no longer true, except for people like Trump, like the Bushes, like Romney, who begin life with all the advantages of coming from the wealthy aristocracy. It used to be the landed aristocracy – now wealth is held differently, but it is no different.

Our tax code used to be graduated. During the last year of the Republican Administration of Dwight Eisenhower in 1960, there were 24 tax brackets ranging from 20% to 91% on all incomes over $400,000. To be sure $400,000 in today’s dollars is the equivalent of over three million dollars. But it used to be 65% on all incomes over $64,000, the equivalent of half a million in today’s dollars and as I have said 91% on incomes over three million dollars. No wonder the Federal government now cannot pay its bills without huge deficits or by decimating government services. But they tell us that high taxes on the rich (they have renamed them “job creators” - clever) keep the economy from thriving. Really? Was the Eisenhower economy bad? Was the Bush economy good? What about the Clinton economy? Even Reagan had high taxes and after lowering them too much, increased them by the largest amount in history according to the right-wing website The Free Market.

Our tax code now has Romney, with his hundreds of millions, paying a tax rate by his own account of 13%. I, like most middle class families, pay more than that, and if Romney wins we will pay more, he and those similarly situated, will pay substantially less. Where will the money to meet our needs come from?

Are we going to end up with a tax system similar to the one that existed under the French monarchy before the revolution, where nobility (read today - the wealthy) held the highest positions and were exempt from taxes?

This election is not about the deficit.  It is not about the size of government.  It isn’t even about jobs.

This election is not about the deficit.

These are phony issues cooked up by the Republican Tea Party, and promoted by our craven media echo chamber. According to the Tea Party's website the Ryan-proposed budget would balance the budget in 2040 or eighteen years from now. Does that sound like a plan that has real concern with balancing the budget, particularly when it is considered that at the beginning of the last Republican Administration the United States had a projected federal budget surpluses for the indefinite future and with Ryan’s support, put through policies that wiped out the surpluses and substituted deficits as far as the eye can see. Furthermore even the 2040 projection seems phony because to achieve them would require the elimination of tax expenditures, which have not been specified, and which appear to be nothing but pie in the sky, or worse, would further impact the middle class and the poor.

Is it about the size of government?

It is about the role of government The proposals are for increasing the military, doing away with Roe vs. Wade and increasing government intrusion into the bedroom of every married or unmarried couple, and even blocking access to contraception services. It is not likely to reduce abortion, since unwanted pregnancies would increase as contraceptive services decrease, but rather move abortion for desperate women from the offices of reputable physicians to the back alleys of yore.

It would increase surveillance of our citizenry while reducing their constitutional rights in the name of the war on terrorists and would continue the war on drugs, while taking us into what may well be perpetual war, in an effort to protect the profits of our defense industries and by creating a gun culture that feeds the profits of gun makers.

It is not about the size of government. It is about the role of government. It is whether government’s role is to protect us from the avarice and the dishonesty of the unscrupulous who inhabit too much of our banking and business sector, or whether government should become the protectors of these so called job creators, who have no interest in creating jobs, but whose object by definition is to maximize profits. It is whether government is to be the ally of the Gordon Gekkos of the world, or the protectors of their victims. The media has accepted without question that Staples was a job creator. But were they? For every job they created how many small stationery stores, the real small businesses of the USA, went bust. How many of the owners of these businesses were forced into bankruptcy and how many of their employees lost their jobs. How good are Staples' jobs? $8.92, $8.47, $9.35 an hour. See here.

  

It isn’t even about jobs.

It is about jobs in the minds of the public. But there is nothing in the Republican program that on the basis of experience is likely to improve the jobs picture. Just as The Democratic Clinton Administration handed the Republican party a positive economy and a good jobs picture which in eight years they decimated, so it is more than likely that a return to the policies that destroyed jobs and brought us to the edge of depression, would only exacerbate the jobs picture. High unemployment is not exactly something that makes employers unhappy. It puts downward pressure on wages, and cheap labor is something that our rich, re-named job creators, relish.

Their supply-side economics may sound good in textbooks of the Chicago school, but they have proven time and time again as fallacious in the real world. Jobs, as experience has proven, time and time again, are created when demand for goods and services exist. No employer will hire to create goods or services for which there is no demand. No matter how much money is on hand, no matter how low taxes, no employer hires, unless he/she needs those employees. All is circular. When demand falls because of unemployment, or low wages, or because consumers have over extended themselves, employers will reduce employees because they don’t need them. This loss of jobs decreases the ability to make purchases, further decreasing demand, which lead to further layoffs, etc. The reverse is equally true! When money is placed into the hands of consumers, by the only entity that can do so in a declining economy, the government, it increases demand, requiring the production of more goods, which requires the hiring of staff, which increases demand, etc. The only time this fails is when demand outstrips supply, which leads to inflation, not something that is a threat in the foreseeable future.

What is this election about?

This election is truly a class struggle. Republicans tell us by calling it that we are in some way preaching a communist doctrine. But calling something what it is, is never any doctrine. As I have indicated, we have had over thirty years of an inexorable decline of the middle class, which was exacerbated during 8 years of the last Republican Administration. The last time we had a chance to reverse this trend was at the end of the Clinton Administration. Clinton was hampered not only by Republican obstructionism, but by the deficit he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years, (and when we look at the record we find that despite the propaganda, the party of deficits is the Republican party) which made desperately needed expenditures undesirable. With our fiscal situation in order and improving further, the election of Al Gore could have ushered in a period of American constructive growth. At the same time with Republican Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retiring, Gore could have swung the Supreme Court in a more liberal direction. Maybe that is why for the first time in American history the Supreme Court stepped in and decreed George W. Bush the winner.

Bush cemented the Republican majority on the court, which now decreed in the “United case” that money is speech, and that the right to use money to buy elections; to intimidate opponents; and to dominate the political landscape has constitutional protection.

And we had the Bush tax cuts, the war in Iraq, which has removed a counter-weight to Iran and created a Shiite state with a natural affinity to Iran, which together turned the Clinton surpluses into huge deficits and further undermined the middle class.

If Republicans win this election they will secure a majority on the Court that will be unchallengeable for decades, and will embolden the court further.

They will push through further tax cuts that will further empower the rich, who will push through further cuts. The circle works here too. Money leads to power – power to money – money to more power, to more money, etc.

Before the next four years are over, they very likely will have succeeded in making their vision irreversible. Medicare gone, not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Social Security gone –not for us, but certainly for our children and grandchildren. Continuing rising Health care costs, but the burden moved from society to the individual, and with that good health care only for the rich. Ever greater impoverishment of the poor and near poor as the minimum wage is, at the least, allowed to be decimated over the years by inflation, and quite possibly abolished, and the ladder out of poverty, and upward mobility, already shredded, disappears.

The despoilment of our air and water as the EPA is at least undermined, and very likely abolished.

I could go on and on and some will say I exaggerate. I don’t !!!! Most of what I warn will happen is in the Republican platform. They have said they will do it. Why would one doubt it?

Can Democrats stop all this with the filibuster? Not likely. Once the Tea Party people have control of all branches of government, they will end the filibuster, which they will no longer need and reign supreme.

What will happen to our schools? What made the US great was that we were the first to institute a class free educational system with high school free. In the 21^st century we need state colleges to be tuition free. Instead we already see a trend where private college tuition is skyrocketing and public institutions are not far behind. We need to reverse this. But a Republican victory will exacerbate it. Less and less money for public schools, larger classes and increasingly obsolescent buildings and plants, a trend already under way.

And our public schools will teach Creationism instead of Evolution, the Denial of Global Warming, and all about Adam and Eve. Maybe not in all states, but in quite a few!

All this does not even cover the many other areas that are threatened. Our prisons turned over to private industry so that prisoners can be used as profit centers, something akin to slavery. Increasing attempts to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the aged.

What about federal lands that have been owned by the nation since they were acquired. Romney has already proposed they be turned over to the states. And what will many states do? Sell them off so they can cut taxes!

I don’t agree with much of what Ryan says, but I do agree with him on this quote: “We're not just picking the next president for a few years. We are picking the pathway for America for a generation.”

Some will say I am playing Cassandra. I am afraid that I am, because like Cassandra who warned the Trojans of “the destruction of Troy (… about the Trojan Horse the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), (but) she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since no one believed her.” 

What can we do to stop this tragedy? We can start by taking the threat seriously. We can stop talking about our disappointments with the President, and we can start taking the election as the most important thing in our lives.

That means contributing money till it hurts. It means joining phone banks. It means doing all that is within our power to forestall the tragedy that looms for our country and posterity. And it means distributing this warning to all your friends, acquaintances, and anyone else who will listen.

Yes, it is that serious.

Education

My last post "Supreme Court on the Health Care Reform Law & the Ryan (Republican) Budget" was posted and distributed on April 6^th. In that post I explained that my discussion entitled “It’s All About Race” would have to be postponed and now I feel I must do so again, but his time indefinitely. However, I will address this complex and difficult subject in due course.

Now to revert to my post as set forth above, Ernest Hauser of the Bronx, NY called my attention to an error. I stated that the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in the Senate by a vote of 74 to 26 with 55 Republicans voting for it. Hauser pointed out that this was impossible since there are only 47 Republicans in the Senate. I should have said “with 28 Republicans voting for it.” Sorry for the error.

I also made a misstatement when I said it has not been reviewed by the CBO. This assertion was made after a long and fruitless search for a CBO analysis caused me to conclude that it did not exist. However, in a NewYorker article by James Surowiecki there is a reference to a CBO analysis. Therefore I stand corrected. Mea culpa!

On the other hand Albert Nekimken PhD of Vienna, Virginia and the author of four books complimented me with this:

Well done, as usual. I haven't had time to follow up all of your links included here, but thanks for doing such meticulous work in documenting the ongoing, attempted Republican takeover of our governmental institutions. It's a sad read.

What prompted me to address the subject of education was an insightful article that was posted on the blog of one of my subscribers, Roger Berkley of Woodcliff Lake, NJ, President and CEO of Weave Corporation and past President of the National Textile association. His article is a must read and can be found here.

It was that article that prompted me to respond to it as follows:

You are right that Santorum as an individual is no longer relevant, but as a philosophy, and as one who undoubtedly speaks for millions, he is very relevant.

                       

It is interesting to note that Santorum knocks education for others, while he himself has a BA an MBA and a JD. How hypocritical for a man who has spent so much time, money and effort gaining an education. Talk about elitism. It’s good for him, but not for those adoring followers of his, who in his view, don't need, and shouldn't want the benefits that an education has bestowed on him. Why can't they see what contempt that shows?

                       

Whether it is Santorum or Romney or Ryan - none of them are interested in making education available to the broad population. They want it to be for an elite group like themselves, who will rule over us and tell us that it isn't about achieving equality, that it is about opportunity. But here they are up to their usual tricks. They resort to the old reliable straw man. As though anyone of any consequence wants to impose equality. Opportunity is precisely what it is all about. And that is precisely what they want to deny the bulk of our citizenry.

Many years ago I read Hitler's Mein Kamf. What struck me, and what I will always remember is that Hitler considered the USA a formidable and dangerous foe because he said the educational system of the US comprises all, regardless of class, while Europe was stuck in a class warp. 

                       

To quote from Wikipedia: 

                                   

"By 1900 educators argued that the post-literacy schooling of the masses at the secondary and higher levels, would improve citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial and professional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization. The commitment to expanded education past age 14 set the U.S. apart from Europe for much of the 20th century. From 1910 to 1940, high schools grew in number and size, reaching out to a broader clientele. In 1910, for example, 9% of Americans had a high school diploma; in 1935, the rate was 40%. By 1940, the number had increased to 50%. This phenomenon was uniquely American; no other nation attempted such widespread coverage. The fastest growth came in states with greater wealth, more homogeneity of wealth, and less manufacturing activity than others. The high schools provided necessary skill sets for youth planning to teach school, and essential skills for those planning careers in white collar work and some high-paying blue collar jobs. Economist Claudia Goldin argues this rapid growth was facilitated by public funding, openness, gender neutrality, local (and also state) control, separation of church and state, and an academic curriculum. The wealthiest European nations such as Germany and Britain had far more exclusivity to their education system and few youth attended past age 14. Apart from technical training schools, European secondary schooling was dominated by children of the wealthy and the social elites. The United States chose a type of post-elementary schooling consistent with its particular features — stressing flexible, general and widely applicable skills that were not tied to particular occupations and geographic places had great value in giving students options in their lives. Skills had to survive transport across firms, industries, occupations, and geography in the dynamic American economy."

                       

I am a refugee from Hitler's Holocaust in Vienna, Austria. Even in Vienna my father was a struggling haberdasher. When we came to the US, he took a job as a bottle washer. Eventually, with the help of relatives he advanced to being a technician in quality control, but he never made much money. My brother never overcame these handicaps, became a high-school dropout and eventually a post office mail handler. I was more ambitious. I wanted to go to college. I could not have done so, (and eventually go to law school) if there had not been a free college available close to home. CCNY of CUNY allowed me to live at home, commute by subway for a nickel, and attend college tuition free. This allowed me to save the money I earned working summers, which I could set aside for graduate school. That is over with. There are no free colleges.

                       

How far we have regressed! And they want us to regress still further!

                       

If we are to remain a great nation it will not be by the strength of our military, though we need that too, but by the strength of our educational system. It is time for every state and every city and county, to have a free college system and that will only happen if it is financed at the federal level. Just as between 1910 and 1040 we moved to make high school within the reach of everyone, so we now need to make college within the reach of all. Only in this way will we make this a land of opportunity again, close the income gap, and assure the greatness of our nation in the 21st century. Those who say we cannot afford this are giving up on the future of America, and dooming, not only an underclass to remain an underclass, but are pushing millions who had achieved middle class status in another age, out of the middle class.

                       

Not only will the middle and lower classes benefit from such an approach, but in the long run, so will those at the top. 

                       

It is true that what we want is a larger pie for all, but that will not be achieved, by lower and lower taxes, particularly on the rich, but by evaluating the needs of our nation and then raising the right amount of money to meet those needs.

                       

We must realize that we cannot go on deciding how little we will tax, and then focus on what we can afford. We need to decide on what this nation's needs are, what it will cost to meet those needs, and then focus on what level of taxation is required, to meet those needs. In 1986, during Reagan's second term, our marginal tax rate was 50%. By the time he left office the rate was 28%. At the end of the prosperous Clinton era it was 39.6%. The Ryan plan would reduce that to 20% and raise additional revenues by unspecified (the rabbit in the hat - now you see it now you don't) elimination of tax expenditures. This is a formula that makes nothing possible. It is a formula for an ever-greater divide between the super rich and the rest, and the decline of our nation.

On another note I must call the readers attention to the stepped up War on Women, at least in Wisconsin. See here.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Too Much Too Soon?

“Too much too soon” is increasingly the cry of those who like the status quo, and they have succeeded in raising doubts in the minds of some who don’t necessarily like the status quo, but who have been impressed with the argument that dealing with the economy should be first, foremost and the sole concern, and are frightened by the projected deficits.

Their concern is understandable but misplaced. First of all there is a basic principle here and it applies not only to government debt, but to private and business debt as well, and that is that borrowing to meet daily expenses over time, is a recipe for disaster. But borrowing for capital expenditure is not only wise but a necessary part of assuring the future. A business that does not borrow in order to be able to purchase more efficient equipment is doomed to fail in the the competition of the market place. The US is now in a position of such a business. It must modernize, and borrowing for that purpose is a legitimate and necessary exercise. Investing in an efficient health care system, in education and in stopping the inexorable advance of global warming by reducing noxious particles in the atmosphere, which incidentally also effect health, are investments that will pay dividends may times over. They are investments. they are not expenses.

Dealing with the economy requires action on many fronts, from dealing with the banking crisis, to regulatory reform. But a large part of it is to stimulate the economy by way of injecting government funds to grease its gears.

There are many ways to do this. We can give tax cuts to those who are fortunate enough to still have an income, in the hope that they will spend the money, thereby creating demand, which has fallen drastically in this recession. The enacted Stimulus Bill does this. However, this may or may not be effective, because past experience has shown that in a time of anxiety people spend as little as possible, and if they unexpectedly have an increase in their income, they tend to save it or pay of debts. Nevertheless, it is part of the package.

Spending, however, in ways that create or save jobs is far more effective because that puts money in pockets that might not have enough for the necessities of life, and when the means to meet basic needs becomes available, it will be spent. But this can be accomplished even without creating jobs, for we can pay extended unemployment insurance, and the bill provides for this, or we can create useless jobs which is better than simply distributing cash, if for no other reason than that people have far more self-respect when they are “gainfully” employed.

But as I set forth in my essay entitled The Stimulus Bill, we can get the greatest gain for the buck when we employ people to do useful work, because here we have a huge multiplier effect. I cited how even doing something as mundane as reseeding the Capitol lawn can have a very good multiplier effect.

But even better then seeding a lawn, are things that have a really long lasting benefit, such as repairing our infrastructure and improving it. The highway system built by the Eisenhower Administration has served the nation well for all these years, but it is now antiquated and in desperate need of repair. When bridges are falling down, it is obvious that something needs to be done, even if the stimulus were not needed.
But we can no longer depend entirely on highways and airplanes to meet our transportation needs. Most of our competitors in the industrialized world are well ahead of us in having high-speed rail. Our need for this is way overdue and the stimulus bill provides funds for getting a start on this. Unfortunately, like everything else that meets the needs of the Nation, the naysayer targeted this for denunciation, describing it as a boondoggle, for a train between Disney-Land and Las Vegas, and then going so far as to describe it as a train going to a brothel in Las Vegas. A look at the proposed train routes published by the Department of Transportation shows no such plans.

But this is not the only example of stimulating the economy and getting long-range benefits. We can get a start on Health Care Reform by immediately investing in computerizing our health records and in other aspects of Health Care Reform, which can be funded quickly. Other reforms, which may not be possible until later years, will make sense in one of two ways. If the economy has not yet recovered, the spending on such reforms will act as a needed continuing stimulus. If the economy has recovered, tax receipts will have increased and the money for such reforms will be available. But say its critics, even if the economy is on the mend, it is likely that the amount expended will not equal tax receipts, and the deficit may as a result endanger the soundness of the dollar. This is a legitimate concern, particularly if the deficit turns out to be as large as is projected by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) rather than by the OBM (Office of Budget and Management). But what are the alternatives, to leave the present system, which is bankrupting the country in place? I am reminded of the Harry and Louise ads, which warned of dire consequences if the Clinton Health Insurance plan were adopted. All the consequences of which these ads warned, in fact happened because no health plan was adopted. As a result of the status quo our choice of providers has drastically declined, as many Insurance Companies require that we go only to in-network providers. Not only have more and more Americans become uninsured (nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, according to the latest government data available, but even the insured often find that they are refused coverage when major expenses arise, with the insurance companies claiming pre-existing conditions. According to the journal Health Affairs, medical bankruptcies affected about 2 million Americans annually, -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, as of 2001, and things have gotten much worse since then. “Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.” The result is not only individual tragedies, but the cost borne by our whole economy, since far too many cases are handled in emergency rooms, which is far more expensive to society, as is the lack of preventive care. Corporations, who have until now borne the cost of health insurance for most working Americans, can no longer afford it. In other words doing nothing or even delaying is not an option. It is a recipe for disaster. Whatever the risks of moving forward may be, the failure to act is not a risk. It is a prescription for guaranteed disaster.

This applies to an even greater degree when it comes to global warming. Ice caps are melting at a faster rate than anyone predicted. If nothing is done much of Florida and other areas of the US will be under water and the total land mass wiped out will cause a refugee problem that would make today’s migration seem puny by comparison.

But even without the threat of global warming the way we generate energy today, with reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, is inefficient and a threat to our national security. If we are to be competitive in the world economy, we must be in the vanguard of this development. We will be the innovators, or others will be. We will be exporting this technology or we will be importing it. We will create jobs in developing, building, and using this technology, or we will ship jobs to other countries, which have overtaken us.

Ditto for education. We have been the successful economic powerhouse, which we have been, because we have had one of the most educated workforces in the world. If we fall behind, and we have already fallen behind, we will not be able to compete on the world stage, and in a globalized economy we must, more than ever, compete.

So the question is not, can we afford to do these things? The question is can we afford not to do them? The clock is ticking! We cannot fail to act. We dare not delay. There are risks in acting. There are certain disasters if we fail to!