Friday, May 24, 2013
Corporate Profits Up, Taxes Down - No Jobs
As the chart above shows, corporate profits (as a percentage of GDP) are higher than they have ever been. The chart shows those profits since 1947, and they have never been higher. That same chart shows the corporate taxes paid (also as a percentage of GDP), and if you'll note, those taxes are as low as they've ever been since 1947. This brings up the question -- where are all the great new good-paying jobs that high corporate profits and low corporate taxes were supposed to bring?
The fact is that the corporations are not re-investing all that new money the trickle-down policy has funneled into their coffers, and not creating any new jobs to end the recession that's still affecting Main Street (although Wall Street left the recession behind long ago). In fact, the corporations are just sitting on that money -- a record amount of money totaling more than $1.73 trillion.
Why aren't the corporations creating jobs with that new money? Because jobs are not created by lowering taxes. The only thing that creates new jobs is increased demand for goods/services. When demand increases, businesses (both corporations and small businesses) will hire the workers necessary to meet that increased demand. But without any increased demand, it simply doesn't make sense to hire new workers -- because businesses already have enough workers to meet current demand.
Obviously, we need to increase demand if we want significant job creation. Corporations will happily spend some of the trillions they are sitting on to create new jobs to meet new demand, because that will increase their profits. But the Republican austerity (such as the sequester cuts) does not help create demand. It decreases demand (hurting job creation) because it takes money out of the economy, and means that the mass of Americans has less money to spend.
In short, the Republicans have been lying to us -- and too many Americans fell for their lies. Taxes have nothing at all to do with job creation (whether high or low taxes), and it never has. The only things "trickle-down" has accomplished is to fatten corporate banks accounts (and those of rich investors), stagnate worker wages, vastly increase the wealth and income gap between the rich and the rest of America (1% versus 99%), outsource millions of good jobs, and kick off a recession that cost millions of additional jobs. It has been a disaster.
But the Republicans don't care about the disastrous results their policies have had on most Americans. They only care about Wall Street, the giant corporations, and other rich Americans -- and those are the only people their policies have helped. It's time to get rid of enough congressional Republicans to allow the country to return to a sane economic policy -- a policy that takes into account what is good for the 99%.
House Wants To Ream Student Borrowers
This time it's concerning college students -- those students who do not have the money to pay out-of-hand for college, so must borrow the money to get an education. It is already a travesty that a college education has been priced out of the range of even middle class students (and way out of the range of poor students, for whom it could be their path out of poverty). These students must borrow the money to get that education, because our government is too cheap to provide it for them (as is done in many other developed countries).
Those other countries know that providing for a student to get a good education is just good economic sense -- because those students, after graduation, will make far more money and pay far more in taxes than they would have done without that education (and that extra tax money would be far more than the amount spent on their education). Sadly, our elected officials cannot look past their political ideology to see this truth.
On July 1, student loan rates were set to rise from 3.4% (a rate already too high) to a staggering 6.8%. This doubling of the interest rate would do nothing but make it harder for graduates to repay those loans, and stunt their efforts to get ahead and create a good life for themselves and their families. But that ridiculous rise in student interest rates was not good enough for the congressional Republicans. They want them to pay even more.
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has now passed a bill that would raise interest rates for loans to undergraduates to 8.5%, and loans to graduate students to 10.5%. Speaker Boehner praised the Republican bill saying it "will make paying for college easier and fairer for students". The man is either a liar or a complete and utter idiot (or both). How does raising the interest rates that students will have to pay upon graduation make anything "easier and fairer"?
The only good thing in this whole mess is that President Obama has threatened to veto the unfair student loan bill if it makes it to his desk. I hope he has the political courage to follow through on that promise. Students are having a hard enough time paying for their education. They certainly don't need the government to make it any harder.
IRS Is The Least Respected Federal Agency
The poll (conducted on May 20th and 21st of a nationwide sample of 1,016 adults -- with a 4 point margin of error) shows that the popularity of the agency is very low right now. Only 27% of the public thinks the agency is doing an excellent/good job, while a whopping 71% think the IRS is doing only a fair/poor job (29% say only fair and 42% say poor). This is a significant drop from prior surveys. In 2003, 44% of the public thought the agency was doing an excellent/good job -- and in 2009, about 40% thought they were doing an excellent/good job. That's a drop of 13% since 2009.
But, as the chart above shows, this is not necessarily the result of the recent tea bagger "scandal". Note that the popularity of the agency began to drop sharply in 2009 -- and is much more likely the result of anti-IRS propaganda put out by the teabaggers and other right-wingers since the election of President Obama (many of whom had no problem with the agency as long as this country had a white Republican president). In fact, as the chart below shows, the IRS is actually gained a bit in respectability among Democrats and Independents from 1997 to 2013 -- it is only among Republicans that the belief the agency is doing right has dropped.
The survey also showed the IRS is the least popular of the big federal agencies. Here is what the public thinks about the nine large federal agencies that get a lot of news coverage. The first number is the percentage that thinks the agency does an excellent/good job, and the number in parentheses is the percentage that thinks the agency does only a fair/poor job:
Center for Disease Control (CDC)...............60% (35%)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...............55% (39%)
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)...............42% (42%)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)...............40% (48%)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...............45% (53%)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)...............46% (51%)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)...............41% (54%)
Federal Reserve Board...............33% (55%)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)...............27% (71%)
Gerrymandering
Thursday, May 23, 2013
GOP Is Not Winning Any New Friends
Unfortunately for them, most of the party's base (now controlled by teabaggers and fundamentalists) don't want to do that. They want the party to move even further to the right, and many in Congress are following the wishes of the base -- not their party leaders. These congressional Republicans think they can appeal to more voters by sticking with their radical positions -- and instead, trying to smear the Democrats. And that is why they've been screaming loudly about White House "scandals" the last few weeks.
The question now is whether this attempt to smear Democrats (and the president) is working or not. A new CNN/ORC Poll would tend to indicate that it is not working. If anything, the Republicans are losing support -- not gaining support. The poll was done on May 17th and 18th of 923 adult Americans, and has a margin of error of 3 points. Here are the poll numbers:
DO YOU HAVE A FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE OPINION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
favorable...............35%
unfavorable...............59%
Here is the demographic breakdown (with the percentage shown being those with a favorable opinion):
Men...............36%
Women...............35%
Whites...............43%
Non-whites...............18%
18 to 34...............27%
35 to 49...............41%
50 to 64...............33%
65 & over...............45%
Under $50k...............31%
Over $50k...............38%
No college...............33%
Attended college...............37%
Liberal...............16%
Moderate...............26%
Conservative...............56%
Northeast...............31%
Midwest...............28%
South...............45%
West...............34%
Urban...............27%
Suburban...............40%
Rural...............45%
DO YOU HAVE A FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE OPINION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
favorable...............52%
unfavorable...............43%
Demographic breakdown of those with a favorable opinion:
Men...............45%
Women...............59%
Whites...............43%
Non-whites...............75%
18 to 34...............57%
35 to 49...............50%
50 to 64...............54%
65 & over...............46%
Under $50k...............62%
Over $50k...............46%
No college...............56%
Attended college...............50%
Liberal...............73%
Moderate...............63%
Conservative...............30%
Northeast...............63%
Midwest...............56%
South...............47%
West...............45%
Urban...............61%
Suburban...............42%
Rural...............54%
These are some pretty terrible numbers for the Republicans. The only group that has a more favorable opinion of Republicans than Democrats are conservatives, which is no surprise. A few groups were either tied or within the margin of error -- whites, over 65, and suburban voters. ALL other groups showed a significant preference for the Democrats over the Republicans. The GOP still has a little more than a year to turn these numbers around. If they don't, they could receive a real spanking from the voters in 2014.
Race Is Still A Serious Issue For U.S. & GOP
The Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center at Hamilton College (in Clinton, New York) did a very interesting survey, which showed that racial attitudes (i.e., racial resentment) played a big part in the 2012 election (even bigger than in the 2008 election). The post-election part of the survey was done between November 7th and December 9th of 2012, and the results were released on May 21, 2013. They questioned 837 voters, and the poll had a margin of error of 3.4 points.
After studying the results of their survey, they have concluded that racial resentment played a big part in the last election. Before questioning the voters on how they voted, the respondents were first asked several questions -- questions which gauged their level of racial resentment (racism). The chart on top shows the results. Voters in the approximately one/third that had the least racial resentment voted overwhelmingly (nearly 100%), while voters with moderate racial resentment voted for Obama at a much lower level (slightly over 40%), and voters with the most racial resentment voted for the president at a very low level (slightly above 10%).
Now this doesn't mean that everyone who voted for Mitt Romney is a racist, but it does show that a large number of them are racist. Republicans are quick to deny that they are a racist party, and undoubtably there are many who are not racist in that party. But I submit that the racists have taken over the party in many states, and now compose the bulk of the party's base. That is why the party's policies are anti-minority and anti-immigrant -- and why immigration reform is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. When President Johnson passed the civil rights laws in the 1960's, it angered the racists in this country. They fled to the Republican Party in droves, and Republican leaders (especially in the South where the GOP was very weak) accepted these racist voters with open arms. I don't think the Republican leaders at that time meant for the party to become one that trumpeted racist values. I believe they thought they could use those millions of racist voters to seize power, and then put them in the background between elections.
But it didn't work out that way. The millions of new racist voters were numerous enough to take over the party in the South, and through the teabagger movement have also taken over the party in many other states. Now the party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they disavow their anti-minority and anti-immigrant positions, they could lose a huge chunk of their base voters, probably to a third party. That third party wouldn't be big enough to gain much power, but it would be plenty big enough to devastate the Republican Party.
Frankly, I can't bring myself to feel sorry for the Republicans. As the old saying goes -- If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. They happily lay down with the racist dogs, and now they have been infested with the racist policies that come with that. And there is no easy cure for that infestation.
----------------------------------------
The same survey also examined "birtherism" -- the idea that President Obama was not born in the United States (even though all evidence shows clearly that he was born in Hawaii). Sadly the survey showed that the belief in "birtherism" has not subsided. It is just as strong as it was before the president released the "long form" of his birth certificate years ago. The poll also showed (not surprisingly) that the same racial resentment that reared its ugly head in the 2012 election, is also a primary factor in whether a person is a birther. This is clearly shown in the chart below. Note that the more racial resentment a person has, the more likely it is that they will be a birther.
Why Are Federal Execs Getting Bonuses ?
As you must know by now, the "sequester" budget cuts are kicking in. These forced federal budget cuts affect every government agency -- and it will result in not only a cut in services for the Americans who depend on those agencies, but also will result in furloughs for many federal workers (which equals a pay cut). Well, nearly all federal workers.
There is a class of federal employee that is immune to these cuts, and actually will be getting huge bonuses for their job performance. They are the Senior Executive Service. These employees, comprising about 1% of federal workers, are the top executives (except those appointed agency heads) of government agencies. Last year, these government executives received 6300 cash bonuses that totaled about $78 million dollars (for an average bonus of about $12,381 each).
These are not low-paid workers either. Their salaries are far more than most government workers get -- ranging from $119,000 to $179,000 a year (more than two to three times the median wage of workers in the United States). There are those who say the bonuses are necessary, to keep these "best and brightest" from leaving to find better jobs in the private sector (the same argument used to overpay corporate CEOs). I disagree. These people are being paid far more than most Americans, and if they want to leave those jobs we should let them. There are many competent people who would be happy to do those jobs in their place.
I don't have any problem with those bonuses in good economic times, but these are not good economic times. If other government agency workers are getting furloughed (pay cuts), the least these executives could do is to forgo those bonuses. The sequester cuts should be felt across the board, and no one working for the government should be immune -- and it should be understood that no one gets a bonus. It's bad enough that those in Congress didn't get pay cuts due to the sequester (or at least voluntarily give a portion of their salaries back), but at least they aren't getting bonuses.
And Republicans can't blame these scheduled bonuses on President Obama. These bonuses are given because Congress, back in 1978, dictated they should be given. But in the face of the new Republican-imposed austerity, the bonuses should be discontinued (at least for now).
Fortunately, there are some in Congress who agree. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), along with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), is introducing a bill to stop the bonuses from being given for as long as the sequester is in effect. McCaskill said, "The idea that some of the highest paid federal government employees could be getting bonuses while others are being furloughed is outrageous."
I agree with McCaskill. It is outrageous, and it should not happen.
Today's GOP Makes Reagan Look Liberal
And it wasn't just on guns that the current party differs with Reagan. Reagan thought the rich should pay a larger percentage of their income than the middle class in taxes (calling it "fair"). And he did not hesitate to raise taxes when it was needed by the government -- or run a deficit when government spending was needed.
I'm not saying that Reagan was a liberal. He most certainly was not. But he was not so hung up on ideology that he refused to do what the country needed economically, and he did not hate those who disagreed with him so much that he could not compromise. Today's GOP may still say they idolize Reagan, but the truth is that they have left him (and other true conservatives) far behind in their race to far-right-wing fringe extremism.
Today's GOP no longer cares about what is good for this country (and its citizens) -- only about what they think Wall Street and the giant corporations want (so those entities will continue to fund their re-election campaigns). They are now the party of greed and self-interest.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Is It Moral Or Not ?
A recent Gallup Poll asked people to rate a list of activities as to whether they were moral or not. The survey was conducted between May 2nd and 7th of a nationwide random sample of 1,535 adults -- with a 3 point margin of error. Here is what they found:
Abortion is much the same. While 42% consider it moral and 49% consider it immoral, poll after poll has shown that a significant majority of Americans agree it should be legal (with limitations such as are contained in Roe vs. Wade).
Too often in the past, our leaders have thought they could legislate morality by making behavior they considered immoral to be also illegal. Prohibition of alcohol was one excellent example, and it turned out to be a massive failure (just like our current drug prohibition). I am hopeful that the above chart shows many Americans are starting to realize that morality can't be legislated -- even if many of our elected officials are still blind to that reality.
GOP Doesn't Care What The Public Wants
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Suburban Poverty Has Sharply Increased
And the problem is a nationwide one. The chart above shows the five cities from across the country where poverty in the suburbs has grown the most -- but they are far from the only cities with a growing poverty problem in the suburbs. Here in Texas, the Dallas-Ft. Worth suburbs have seen poverty grow by 111%, and poverty in Houston suburbs has grown by 103%.
Americans are going to have to revise their attitudes about poverty. It is no longer just a problem of those "others" in the inner city (although too much poverty still exists there). The fact is that your neighbor could be among the poverty-stricken, and if you live in the suburbs, it's a pretty sure bet that one or more of the families living on your street are in that number.
Right-wingers would like for working Americans to think that poverty is mostly among the minority population -- but that has never been true. Most poor people are white, and that has always been true. And now, it is more true than ever (since the loss of millions of jobs in the Bush recession). And the austerity measures being forced on this country by congressional Republicans will only increase those living in poverty (and most of that new poverty will be in the suburbs).
How long are we going to ignore the growing poverty problem in this country -- just so we can give rich people more tax cuts, and corporations more subsidies so they don't have to pay taxes? The failed GOP trickle-down economic policy, which this government still clings to, has been a ridiculous failure -- throwing the country into recession, costing the nation many millions of jobs, and increasing poverty to a record level. It has benefitted no one but the richest Americans.
Isn't it time to return this country to a sane economic policy -- a policy that looks out for ordinary Americans? Of course it is. But that can only happen when Republicans (who have been bought and paid for by Wall Street) are voted out of power. Let's make that happen in 2014, because this country can't take much more of the silly GOP austerity for everyone but the rich.
More Money For Education In Texas ?
During the 2011 biennial session of the Texas legislature, the Republican slashed education funding in the state by a whopping $5.4 billion (in spite of the fact that Texas already ranked nearly last in per student funding for education). The result was as predicted -- with thousands of teachers (and other school employees) being fired and class sizes growing substantially. And even after cutting teachers and increasing class sizes, some school districts had to raise local taxes to keep their schools going.
It was hoped that since the state is in better financial shape now (with sales taxes and oil& gas taxes being higher than expected -- and the state's Rainy Day Fund ballooning) that funding could be restored in this session of the legislature. But the initial budget proposed by the Republican-controlled legislature only put a disappointing $1.9 billion in additional funding for education -- far below the amount that had been cut in 2011.
The Democrats in the legislature didn't think that was adequate. They didn't have the numbers to amend the budget and add more funding for education, but they did have enough power to block something (if they stuck together). They chose to block funding for water projects in the state (a critical need for the water-scarce state with a growing population). They refused to allow the water bill to come to the floor unless education funds were increased -- and they were partially successful. The Republicans added more funds, and the additional money for education now totals $3.9 billion -- $2 billion more than the original budget called for.
These Democrats are celebrating their accomplishment, and they probably deserve to do a little celebrating. The new money for education is significantly higher than what the Republicans initially wanted to do -- and more than I expected they would be able to get. But that celebration should be tempered because:
* Only $3.4 billion is earmarked for school (with the other $0.5 billion going to teacher retirement), and that still leaves funding $2 billion less than was cut in 2011. With a growing enrollment, it is doubtful that class sizes will decrease (or many new teachers hired). They have just stopped the situation from growing any worse than it currently is.
* The bill still must be voted on in both houses of the legislature, and even though Republicans have agreed to it, they could still change their minds.
* The governor is not yet on board with the additional funding for education -- and even if the bill passes the legislature, he could veto it.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud what the Democrats have done in restoring $3.4 billion for schools to the budget, and I hope it gets approved and signed into law. But we must not get fooled into thinking that this solves the problem of education funding in this state. Even if the new funding is approved, Texas will still be near (or at) the bottom of all states in education funding. Much more needs to be done.
Fundies Aren't As Absolutist As They Claim
If one wishes to use the biblical injunction against homosexuality, then we have to wonder why they are willing to ignore other parts of that same book -- such as its support for slavery. How can they toss out the biblical acceptance of slavery, while declaring as absolute the biblical view on homosexuality? Since these are the same people who declare that every word in the Bible is absolutely true and the word of god, how can they pick the parts of that book they consider to no longer be relevant (the teaching on slavery) while demanding that other parts of that book remain relevant?
Some will probably argue that the biblical acceptance of slavery was just a recognition that slavery was widely accepted at that time, and the religious book was just trying to make slave owners realize they had a duty to treat slaves decently -- and that society has advanced now and no longer recognizes the validity of slavery. That is a specious argument, since the very institution of slavery is as wrong as anything humans have ever done -- no matter how well a slave master treated his/her slaves, and the Bible clearly supported the institution of slavery as not violating god's commandments (as long as slaves were treated correctly).
In addition, if it is recognized that society changes and therefore institutions like slavery (supported in the Bible) can now be considered unchristian, then can't it also be recognized that society can also change it's attitude on other things (like homosexuality and same-sex marriage) and that they could now be considered acceptable by christians? The very act of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible they support renders the fundamentalist argument against legalizing same-sex marriage to be meaningless.
Sharing The Pain ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)