Profiting off the sick

 

Feed the Rich, Starve the Poor

 

Cut support of the middle class at your peril

Ultra-rich man’s letter: “To My Fellow Filthy Rich Americans: The Pitchforks Are Coming”

Why Wisconsin matters

From Chris Hayes' article:

The other problem is that our system is responsive only to voices at the top of the social pyramid—the bankers and businessmen who are raking in record bonuses and the professional upper middle class, which is recovering much faster than the nation as a whole. In a 2007 paper titled “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness in the United States,” Princeton political scientist Martin Gilens analyzed 2,000 survey questions from 1981 to 2002, looking for the relationship between public opinion and policy outcomes. He found that “when Americans with different income levels differ in their policy preferences, actual policy outcomes strongly reflect the preferences of the most affluent but bear little relationship to the preferences of poor or middle income Americans.”

There is only so much social distance a society can take. The social science literature shows that as social distance increases, trust declines and aberrant and predatory behavior increases. The basic mechanisms of representation erode, and the social fabric tears. “An imbalance between rich and poor,” Plutarch warned, “is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”

It’s against this backdrop of creeping dissolution that the word “union” takes on a renewed power. That’s why the struggles of the protesters in Wisconsin have resonated so profoundly. In banding together to oppose Republican Governor Scott Walker’s power grab, the students, teachers, cops, firefighters and neighbors have willed themselves to shrink the social distance those in power are cynically using to pit constituencies against one another. Walker exempted cops and firefighters from his bill’s radical limits on collective bargaining, but they joined the protests anyway. “An assault on one is an assault on all,” proclaimed Wisconsin Professional Firefighters Association president Mahlon Mitchell.

It’s in Wisconsin and across the Midwest that union members like Mitchell and his allies are showing us the antidote to the social distance that threatens the core of American democracy.

Republicans on the loose...

South Dakota teeters on the edge of an actual theocracy.

Doubting Clarence Thomas.

How the Rich Soaked the Rest of Us

Scott Walker is a Kochhead.... And more from Jim Hightower:

The Birchite billionaire Koch brothers and Walker, their gubernatorial hatchet man in the Badger State, have unwittingly done a tremendous favor for our country's progressive movement. Thanks to them, America's workaday majority has been awakened. With eyes wide open, middle-class working folks everywhere now have their attention riveted on Wisconsin, where a plutocratic, autocratic conspiracy between uber-wealthy corporate elites and obsequious GOP politicos has raised its ugly head for all to see.

Boehner is against net neutrality. Is the man 'for' anything ... besides cutting taxes?

This answers that question...

Welcome to the Plutocracy

Bill Moyers.

World's largest gated community

Which holds only 14 percent of the world's population and creates 73 percent of the world's income. Neat graphic from this site.

Remember:

The world’s richest 1 billion people use 80% of the world’s resources. That means that the other five billion plus people use only 20% of the world’s resources.

Who will fight for these poor folks?

Save the Rich!

SavetheRich is documenting efforts by Fox News Network, their media personalities, and a handful of conservative millionaires to deceive the press and the American public with these so-called "Tax Day Tea Parties."

Mandate to tax the super rich?

David Sirota At Blog for Our Future:

I went on to make the point that I've often made in the past - the point that conservatives simply want everyone to forget: Namely, that President Clinton faced down a recession in 1993 by raising taxes on the wealthy in order to finance an economic stimulus package, and the economy subsequently boomed.

That simple, undeniable bit of history undermines the entire structure of conservatives claim that raising taxes on the super-rich will hurt the economy. And as you'll see from Norquist's response, they simply cannot deal with that truth. Indeed, Norquist actually goes all the way back to the 1920s as his example that raising taxes on the wealthy impedes economic growth - somehow ignoring the history from 15 years ago. He then goes on to claim with a straight face that Franklin Roosevelt created the Great Depression (this, along with the "center-right nation" propaganda, seems to be the right's new talking point).

The question now is whether the Obama administration buys into Norquist's fact-free nonsense, or whether it musters the same courage President Clinton mustered in prudently raising taxes on the super-rich to responsibly finance an economic stimulus package. Sure, temporary deficits are acceptable right now - there's no arguing that. But doing what's necessary to minimize those deficits is also important.

In terms of policy, if, as Congressional Quarterly reports, Obama wants to enforce budget discipline on a necessarily large economic stimulus package, it will require generating additional revenue from the wealthy. In terms of raw politics, if Clinton's 43 percent of the vote gave him enough political capital to come into office during an economic downturn and do that, I'd say Obama and his 53 percent gives him enough political capital to do the same today. And I would argue that if Obama backs off his promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, he will effectively validate the false conservative frame that claims tax increases on the wealthy endangers an economy.

While I certainly agree with the CNBC reporter that the 2008 is different than the 1990s, it isn't different when it comes to taxes - we have very recent history that proves raising taxes on the wealthy in order to raise revenues for economic stimulus, if done prudently, helps an economy recover. That is the argument that nobody during this debate was able to undermine - and it is the argument conservatives fear most, because they know it is accurate.

If George Bush claimed a mandate which he intended to 'spend', Obama clearly has one to implement his progressive agenda:

A mandate for progressive change exists. In a memo released today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund writes, “Obama ran on the most progressive platform of any presidential candidate in at least 15 years, including a promise of universal health care coverage, a dramatic transformation to a low-carbon economy, and a historic investment in education.”

And:

President Bush was re-elected in 2004 with 286 electoral votes, the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president's re-election since 1916. Nevertheless, many in the media were quick to echo Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that "the nation" gave Bush "a mandate." It remains to be seen whether the media will apply the same standard in assessing the results of the 2008 election.

It must be nice to have so many houses

That it's easy to forget to pay taxes on one of them:

Via Huffpost, Newsweek reports that John and Cindy McCain have failed to pay taxes on their beach-front home in La Jolla, California, for the last four years and are about to enter into default. The article reports that the McCains had been delinquent in paying taxes until Newsweek inquired about the matter. The McCains then paid off $6,744.42 in back taxes, but still owe more.

But homelessness can be fun!

You don't have to worry about mowing lawns and stuff!:

One in every 519 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing in April. Foreclosure filings increased from a year earlier in all but eight states.

You can take your family to live in discarded shipping containers!



Because of the Republican policies, 99% of us are the have-nots:

(CBS) There have always been "haves" and "have-nots" in the United States, but over the past three decades, the gap between them has gotten a lot wider, statistics from congressional numbers crunchers show.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, income for the bottom half of American households rose six percent since 1979 but, through 2005, the income of the top one percent skyrocketed - by 228 percent.

Hurtling towards the finish line

On October 11, 2007, Bush said:

"The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, which is lower than the average of the last 40 years. In other words, we have told the American people that by keeping taxes low we can grow the economy, and by working with Congress to set priorities we can be fiscally responsible and we can head toward balance," said President Bush in a statement to the press. "And that's exactly where we're headed."

Did you read that quote really carefully? Did you catch the 'non-action' words he always uses? He's 'telling the American people', 'can grow', 'set priorities, 'can be fiscally responsible', 'can head toward balance'. Nice, Georgie. You've covered your ass by telling us. So the incoming recession just can't be your fault, can it?

And if we're 'headed toward balance', doesn't that mean we are out of balance right now with your borrow and spend policies?

Well... The US economy can withstand much if we keep the consumer confidence high.....

WASHINGTON (AP) - Consumer confidence fell to an all-time low as worries about jobs, energy bills and home foreclosures darkened people's feelings about the country's economic health and their own financial well-being.

According to the RBC Cash Index, confidence tumbled to a mark of 56.3 in early January. That compares with a reading of 65.9 in December - and a benchmark of 100 - and was the worst since the index began in 2002.

"People are anxious because everything sounds pretty awful these days," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services Group.

Well, at least we had a good Christmas season?

Credit card usage and other data showed a disappointing shopping season for US retailers after consumer spending rose 3.6 percent over the holiday spending period, the slowest growth rate in four years, media reports said Wednesday.

The figure, calculated from Nov 23 to Dec 24, rose 6.6 percent in 2006 and 8.7 percent in 2005, according to MasterCard's SpendingPulse data.

The report was cited by The New York Times and Washington Post in their online editions.

The US economy has been sluggish all year, and consumer confidence has been eroded by the crisis in the mortgage industry. Tens of thousands of homes have been repossessed by banks after high-risk borrowers could not keep up with interest rates that were jacked up after initial low rates.

The SpendingPulse report cited high fuel and food costs as also working against holiday spending. It was based on credit card purchases made by more than 300 million MasterCard holders and cash and cheque use, the reports said.

About 20 percent of annual revenues for the US retail industry depend on Christmas holiday shopping.

Ah. I'm sure Bernanke is right on this, and Bush is doing a heckovajob:

The White House is exploring a rescue plan, possibly including a tax cut, to aid the ailing economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, criticized for not doing enough, pledged on Thursday to keep lowering interest rates. They are expected to drop by as much as one-half of a percentage point when central bank policymakers meet later this month.

The public is giving President Bush low marks for his economic stewardship. His approval rating on the economy dipped slightly to 33 percent in January, from 36 percent in December, according to a separate Associated Press-Ipsos poll. His overall job-approval rating was 34 percent, compared with 36 percent last month.

Um, just an aside, but if you keep lowering interest rates, aren't you in danger of a liquidity trap?:

In monetary economics, a liquidity trap occurs when the economy is stagnant, the nominal interest rate is close or equal to zero, and the monetary authority is unable to stimulate the economy with traditional monetary policy tools. In this kind of situation, people do not expect high returns on physical or financial investments, so they keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts or hoards rather than making long-term investments. This makes the recession even more severe.

But I'm sure Bush is listening to his advisors:

The White House is more sanguine than several of the nation's most prominent economists, who have been urging the federal government in recent days to adopt a much more vigorous fiscal policy to head off the possibility of a damaging long-term recession.

Martin S. Feldstein, a Harvard economist who was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has said that he thinks there is a 50 percent chance of a recession next year and that Congress should pass a tax cut that would depend on how much the economy slows. Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury secretary in President Bill Clinton's administration, called this week for a temporary tax cut, longer-lasting unemployment insurance benefits and additional money for food stamps. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has said that he thinks the considerable risk of a recession warrants making emergency aid available to homeowners at risk.

But in an interview this week, Bush's outgoing economic policy adviser, Allan Hubbard, said the White House does not see the need for such measures at the moment. "We just don't see any reason why the economy won't continue to expand," he said.

Well... at least everybody will share in whatever is coming at us:

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office show.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the 3 million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President George W. Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005, the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.

Apparently Bush thinks another Gilded Age is a good thing, but 1929? Didn't something interesting happen around that time?

Don't think Bush will be too happy about having a really painful recession tagged onto his legacy... But if the recession truly kicks in after January 20, 2009, it can't be Bush's fault, can it?
(crossposted at SteveAudio)

The rich get richer

And the poor get poorer.

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

But that's obviously the way it is supposed to be, right?

Membership of the world's billionaire club has swelled to almost 1,000, while members' net worth has risen by 35% on last year, according to Forbes.

A record 946 billionaires - worth a total of $3.5 trillion (£1.82 trillion) - now exist, up from 793 last year.

[snip]

"In the last five years... despite all the turmoil in the world, all the conflict in the world, the global economy in real terms expanded over 25%," said Steve Forbes, the magazine's editor-in-chief.

"Never in history has there been such an advance."

Or as Georgie calls them, his base.

Update: Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors has the pictures.

Update: Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat points out an article from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 11 — A new federal rule intended to keep illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid has instead shut out tens of thousands of United States citizens who have had difficulty complying with requirements to show birth certificates and other documents proving their citizenship, state officials say.

Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have all reported declines in enrollment and traced them to the new federal requirement, which comes just as state officials around the country are striving to expand coverage through Medicaid and other means.

Under a 2006 federal law, the Deficit Reduction Act, most people who say they are United States citizens and want Medicaid must provide “satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship,” which could include a passport or the combination of a birth certificate and a driver’s license.

Some state officials say the Bush administration went beyond the law in some ways, for example, by requiring people to submit original documents or copies certified by the issuing agency.

“The largest adverse effect of this policy has been on people who are American citizens,” said Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Department of Human Services in Iowa, where the number of Medicaid recipients dropped by 5,700 in the second half of 2006, to 92,880, after rising for five years. “We have not turned up many undocumented immigrants receiving Medicaid in Waterloo, Dubuque or anywhere else in Iowa,” Mr. Concannon said.

Steve then says:

Is this an instance of the strangely named Law of Unintended Consequences at work? No. I say this rule is working precisely as the Bush administration intends. If you think this denial of legitimate benefits to American citizens is only a side-effect of the GOP's use of immigration as a wedge issue, you are not attributing enough deep-seated meanness of spirit to George W. Bush and his handlers.

In forty years, our government's moral position on poverty has declined from "poverty in America must be eradicated" to "the American poor must be eradicated." I'd use some liberal potty-mouthed words to describe the perpetrators of this transition, but I cannot find any words strong enough. Suggestions are welcome, but remember, I know just about all the obscenities and profanities in the English language, and have already considered and dismissed them as insufficient.

It really is black-hearted and unbelievable. The ugliness of the neocons is truly stunning.

Update: Vanity Press sees the same article and reminds us how much we are wasting of our treasury in Iraq.

The gap between the rich and poor grows wider

Which is obviously a good thing. Who wants those poor people looking in your windows?

Washington, DC (AHN) - A new report released on Saturday says the gap between rich and poor is growing even wider and the number of poor is at a 30-year high. An analysis of census data from 2005 found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in "deep to severe poverty."

The study found that although worker productivity has increased, job and wage growth has not.

"Severe poverty" was defined as a family of four with two children earning less than $9,903, and "deep poverty" was a family of four living with an income under $5,080.

McClatchy newspapers analyzed the Census data and found the number of poor Americans rose 26 percent from 2000 to 2005.